I haven't heard about such things in Russia proper though. — SophistiCat

Russia may dip into the vast reserves of those that have served their military service. But that would take a month to bring them up to speed. And popularity of the war might dramatically change with that. Not publicly, but through hearsay and kitchen talk, as usually it is in a totalitarian system.

It's hard to imagine that the atrocities that the Russians are already committing could be made worse, but I fear that chemical weapons could take them to a new level. — SophistiCat

If the bombings of civilians and the killings have forced people to became refugees, then the strategy has worked for Putin.

The escalate to de-escalate can be used when Putin either has gotten the objectives he desires and wants for the Ukrainians to get the message that now is the time to end the war. Or if it going to be a similar mess as with the attempt to encircle Kyiv.

As we have seen in Syria, these heavier than air gases are terrifyingly efficient at killing large numbers of civilians sheltering underground in cities. — SophistiCat

And if the Syrian example tells us something, it is that many will believe the arguments that it's the Ukrainians using the chemical weapons on their citizens. :vomit:

Might want to rethink that. They couldn't support their advances more than 40 miles from their border. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. Russian logistical support is confined to railways. This actually had been known earlier.

Also, it'd still be a good deal less than what Russia did in Vietnam to counter the US, or what China did in Korea. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Somehow we have forgotten how extensively during the Cold War both sides supported their allies. In fact the Soviet Union had a long histrory of deploying Soviet manned crews to help their allies. Peculiarly they did always wear civilian clothes.

The marching style is obvious. But how strange a military parade looks in civilian clothes, even the band. Soviet troops in Cuba, maskirovka-style:


What didn't launch WW3 back then wouldn't likely launch WW3 now.

Their inability to get across the Southern Bug back when they had fresh forces, the heavy casualties and counter attacks they faced there, and the fact that the Neptunes in Odessa make using an amphibious assault likely a suicide mission that will result in an unambiguous mass fatality event. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The primary assault was done on the assumption that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, that it would be somehow a repeat of 2014. Now that's out of the question. And the total withdrawal from the Kyiv area shows that Putin understands that it didn't work.

They weren't in a costly war for 8 years. — Benkei

That low intensity war with Ukraine since 2014 wasn't cheap. And the about 13 000 casualties before this invasion tells that there obviously was a war.

Naturally without the present intensity.

In any case, at some point the costs don't outweigh the (potential) benefits any more. I would suspect that if Mariopol falls and control over the Donbass region would be obtained, that that too would count as a victory to him and would have him move to the negotiation table. — Benkei

I don't think Putin views this war from a cost / benefit stance were costs and benefits would be economic or monetary. Because then it really doesn't make any sense. No, I think he views this conflict like how he talks about it. This is his legacy, this is what is what the position of Russia. And in he can go after any opposition because it is undeclared wartime.

So yes, perhaps he'll be happy if he has that firm land bridge to Crimea. But then why not push Ukraine out of the Black Sea and have Odessa too?

Nope. There is the similar logic going now on as went on during the first years of WW1. Then you couldn't stop the war for small changes in the border (or no changes) after masses had been already been killed.

Putin will have to come to the table at some point, he can't occupy Ukraine and large areas are vehemently opposed to the Russians. — Benkei

At least he has had no troubles of doing that partly for 8 years. So why take some more?

There's no reason why he now would have to stop. Do notice the logic behind terrorizing people to move away from their homes. Will he stop because of sanctions??? Lol.

The only way Putin is going to come to the negotiation table is if a) Ukraine gives in to his demand or b) he has similar success in the Donbas as he had encircling Kyiv.

Other than calling Putin names, the US hasn't helped Ukraine either except making money off the militarization of Ukrainian society. We do know that when negotiations need to happen, France (and Germany and Italy) are the only countries that haven't disqualified themselves as negotiation partners. — Benkei

So what's the difference with France?

French President Emmanuel Macron has moved to extend €300 million ($337 million) of aid and military equipment to Ukraine, according to French daily Le Monde.

According to the report, which came on the second day of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, France will also freeze Russian officials' assets within the country.

President Emmanuel Macron on Friday announced at the country’s national assembly the delivery of additional €300 million in aid, along with military equipment, to Ukraine and pledged to undertake steps in the NATO framework "to protect the soil of our Baltic and Romanian allies."

In a message sent to lawmakers explaining France’s response to the Ukrainian invasion, Macron said "nothing will be neglected in matters of aid" to Kyiv.

Oh yes, they don't publicly tell just what weapons they are given to Ukraine. So perhaps that's the diplomatic touch worth of praise.

After the catastrophic "3 day war" or whatever, the next round Russia is seeming to do the way at least the Russian manuals say.

- Aleksandr Dvornikov is said to get the overall command of the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine. Dvornikov lead earlier the Russian forces in Syria 2015-2016.

- The area is more confined, to the Donbas, which means Russia can concentrate it's forces. It basically doesn't have to have forces in Belarus or even in Russian border facing Ukraine north of Kyiv.

- more emphasis on logistics and supply. Obviously it's not going to be a lightning quick war, so have those supplies and railways working (as Russian logistical system depends on the railway system).

I think much too emphasis is given to the May parade. In my view Putin doesn't actually need the war to end then and shouldn't especially now have distractions from preparing accordingly for the next push. But as this takes time, so does the Ukrainians have time too. In days you cannot use totally new weapon systems, but in months you can do it. And Boris Johnson walking around Kyiv with Zelensky promised for example anti-ship missiles systems for Ukraine, which they have been lacking. In a month they could be fielded and hastily trained to use.

I keep wishing he'd post more about Tbilisi cos I'm thinking of going. — jamalrob

Many are going. It's only to get worse.

One of the interesting things about the exodus to Tbilisi is that the country had a war with Russia. But luckily they do understand that not all Russians are rooting for Putin.

And that the obvious reason just why it is important to discuss what is happening in Russia. But I cannot do anything else but agree with this Russian guy. What Putin has done to Russia is truly unfortunate.

Because in Russia and for the Russians this is a tragedy. For Ukrainians it's a nightmare.

And what makes it so tragic is that when the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians avoided a bloody Civil War after the breakup of the Soviet Union (except in the Caucasus).

Yet now we do have that bloody civil war of the former Soviet Union.

The US, Europe and NATO are instrumental parts of what's happening in Ukraine. Not only that, but they're the parts toward which we bear some responsibility. That makes them not only part of what's happening, but the most important part. — Isaac

Most important part?

Most important part surely is with the Ukrainians and Putin's armed forces.

Well, my government is assisting Ukraine, sending them weapons. And with the words of our Prime minister, believing that Ukraine will win. And soon joining NATO.

The exact opposite is happening. We are here to talk about Ukraine and you guys try to make it about your anti-american obsession. — Olivier5

:up: :100:

Is that not enough? They've been instrumental in causing the war, perpetuating the war, and lying about the war...and you're seriously attempting some faux surprise about what they're doing in a thread about the war? — Isaac

I think that in a thread about the war in Ukraine you should dare to talk about what is happening in Ukraine. Why are you so defensive about talking about Russia and what is has done in Ukraine?

As I said, it's futile virtue signalling which draws attention away from the malpractice of those powers which we both can and ought hold to account. — Isaac

A thread about the war in Ukraine is about the war in Ukraine.

If that is somehow futile virtue signalling for you, I guess it's you who needs therapy here.

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..."

As if we didn't know. As if our commenting on the US was because of a lack of data on who else does that too, or who was worse... — Isaac

Other than NATO enlargement being this reason for Russia to attack Ukraine (and for many, the absolutely only important reason) or that the US gave support to Ukrainian protesters in 2014, what is the issue why a thread about Ukraine and the war in Ukraine has to be about the US?

If Russia does terrible things in Ukraine and this is a thread about Ukraine, what is wrong with then discussing this?

Yes, sorry if we bring up the actions of Russia, because Russia is the country that invaded Ukraine. And saying that Russia does bad things doesn't mean that others like the US cannot do them on other occasions.

I've read you both being broadly supportive of it, particularly the moves in the direction of NATO. So all the more odd then that you seem so opposed to us criticising our governments without you having to constantly undermine the power of that complaint by pointing out how some other government has done the same, or worse. — Isaac

I'm not sure if you understand you here.

So your critical about your governments. Fine. But just what has it have to do with Ukraine? Focus should be on what is going to happen in Ukraine. What the effects of this will be in Europe. That the US has also invaded countries (like Iraq), isn't actually what this thread is about.

Yes. Charitably speaking, people are also tired of a unipolar world, something I can understand, and it's a new thing, not a feature in the 30's. It's not healthy that the US army be as large as what? the next 5 to 10 national armies put together? They are just too dominant. And hypocritical to high degree. That much I can concede. — Olivier5

But are Europeans here "the lapdogs" of the Empire? Some enthusiastically promote this view even in this thread, but it hasn't gone so easily with the US and it's allies. France is a good example of this. It has joined several of the wars that the US has fought, but not all. In not going along with the invasion of Iraq I remember the push from some angry Americans to change the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and all the talk of "Old Europe".

We have no say whatsoever over Russian policy so whinging about it is nothing but empty virtue signalling. — Isaac

Yet to know and understand Russian policy is absolutely necessary. Ignorance about it is a weakness. Understanding what Russia has now become under Putin and where Putin has lead the country is important.

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary. — Isaac

Yes. And notice that both me and @Christoffer have talked about what our governments are doing about the situation. I've personally met some members of parliament, not actually of the parties that I have voted, but talking even to them has given me confidence that they do understand what is at stake. It's comfortable to know that the bickering crowd of different parties and their politicians can get together and act as a team if the situation calls for it.

And since we don't have a history of colonization and foreign wars (except participation in the Afghan incursion), there's not so much to be critical about in this field. With other policies might be different...

We discover what our governments, our allies, are doing wrong and hold them to account for it. — Isaac

True.

Of course when it comes to the West, they are willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers their agenda of creating more instability in the Rest. — StreetlightX

At least not openly, but otherwise can be very much so. And of course, especially in the US these groups are infiltrated with typically the most ardent members trying to get others to do violence are FBI / Police agents. Seems then that these extremists are the cannon fodder for both sides in these turbulent times.

A mere glance at the first months of the conflict in Donbas makes it clear that Rogozin also enlisted other far-right groups and individuals, with these having no problem with killing Ukrainians. Both the Ukrainian supporters of ‘Russian World’ ideology whom Moscow had been cultivating since 2006, and many of the Russian militants in prominent positions or involved in the fighting in Donbas had neo-Nazi or far-right views. Those involved in fighting Ukrainians in Donbas included Alexander Barkashov, head of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity party and other members of his party; of Alexander Dugin’s ultra-nationalist Eurasia Party; Edward Limonov’s Other Russia party and Black Hundred.

The Kremlin has long cultivated close ties with far-right parties in Europe, with these providing many of the politicians whom Russia invited to ‘observe’ the farcical ‘referendums’ staged in occupied Crimea and then Donbas in the Spring of 2014, as well as the comical ‘elections’ in Donbas in November 2014.

This dichotomy is still with us. After two generations tried to remember the horrors of Nazism, now people are eager to forget and to come back to simple solutions. So you see folks here conceding that Putin he might be a bit authoritarian, like Hitler was deemed "a bit intolerant" back in the 30's. But in the grand scheme of things, they wet their panties for the big guy who sticks it to the Jews err West. — Olivier5

Exactly.

Why he is just standing against Western imperialism. Anyone opposing the US gets their understanding.

If the Nazis didn't exist the West would have to invent them in order to exculpate themselves for all the horror they have ever committed. There's nothing someone in the West loves more than a Nazi - they serve the perfect internal excuse against which the West can maintain its pristine innocence, once expelled as some kind of abberant otherness. — StreetlightX

Do notice the universality of this, which obviously can be seen from Putin's rhetoric. Of course when it comes to Putin, he is willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers his agenda of creating more instability in the West.

Which creates ironic twists as right-wing extremists organizations that are banned for example in my country then get help from Russia. At least earlier they weren't so in bed with Russians, but times change.

Donald Trump Finally Admits Defeat: 'I Didn't Win the Election' (Newsweek; Apr 5, 2022)

Took a while. Some of the Trumpists stick to the conspiracy theory, though. — jorndoe

Newsweek has to be fake news.

Or then Trump is losing it.

Or then finally, finally this thread will come to it's end (I guess after reaching 600 pages). :pray:

(of commenting on it is a bit illogical then and counterproductive, I admit)

:up:

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things. — baker

It's no wonder that in totalitarian systems corruption is rampant. Because in the end it is about rule with fear and that doesn't bring legitimacy for the state. So nobody will first look after that collective wealth that is called the government, and if it's wealth is stolen. When corruption is tolerated you get the type of system that is in Russia where your position defines how much you can steal and from whom you can steal.

And contempt wins the day once more. — baker

Sweden, even official Sweden, would be extremely happy if Third World countries would develop and take care of their environments and people. That country didn't have much colonies you know.

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others. — baker

Actually prosperity and wellbeing emerges from trade. Not from closing the borders and confining to oneself.

But don't let the real world hinder your argumentation. And I think even official Sweden would be all but glad if all it's trading partners would be on the path to sustainable and ecofriendly economy that would make the countries prosperous. More prosperous people mean more IKEA stores around.

Often they would have the good sense to qualify their support: "I find him a bit intolerant, though." — Olivier5

In the 1930's the division was more between moderates being for democracy and radicals being for totalitarianism, be it right-wing or left-wing.

Far too easily people become apologists to someone who is against what the people really hate.

High gas prices make Biden unpopular. So a rush to use the strategic oil reserves:

The Biden administration on Thursday said the U.S. will release 1 million barrels of oil per day from reserves. “The scale of this release is unprecedented: the world has never had a release of oil reserves at this 1 million per day rate for this length of time,” the White House said. Biden also used the announcement to criticize the domestic energy industry for “sitting on” 9,000 unused but already approved permits for production.

But the inflation problem has been something far longer in the making than just Biden's administration.

So the question is, what steps are we willing to take to win those hearts and minds, especially in a situation where a dictator like Vladimir Putin is playing by his own rules, deploying a kind of censorship and propaganda that we thought had been banned. — Olivier5

This reality has been something that Russians do know well. There is things they say and have to say publicly, and then there is the totally different realm they can say in their kitchen when with people they trust. Hence there are several words for truth in Russian, just as there are for falsehood.

So for us who don't speak Russian and aren't in Russia, perhaps it our side that ought to be our focus.

Perhaps to show, just like you did in your comment and the example of Guernica, just how frail the truth is until history is written and the events have past. That people believed that the bombing of Guernica were "fake news" or Republican propaganda is telling. Before the war, ideas that Hitler was just correcting the injustices of the peace terms dictated after WW1 were quite popular. Only a small fraction of people in other countries enthusiastically supported Nazism.

And of course there was the dismissal of what actually Hitler was saying and what he had written in "Mein Kampf" as simply rhetoric intended for the German population. Or ignorance about it. You can notice it some rhetoric from the 1930's. That mr Hitler has done wonders with fighting unemployment. That there was this feeling of a new Germany. So some people were "understanding" Hitler, not totally adhering to the ideology. Surely leaders are reasonable when it comes to realpolitik, surely?

From the article:

The lure of using brute force to achieve quick economic and geopolitical gains has created a rolling tide of military mobilization that has carried countries into battle.

History often repeats itself in that those battles trigger the downfall of the stronger party who unnecessarily drew the first blood.

Now if with using that brute force one has indeed achieved gains in the past (second Chechen war, Russo-Georgian war, the annexation of Crimea), it's understandable one can make then disastrous choices and think everything will go as smoothly as before. Naysayers are alarmist idiots. You don't stop once you've got going.

Perfect example is one dictator who after incredible success with earlier military operations like Fall Weiss, Operation Weserübung and Fall Gelb, went on to more grand plans. So why not conquer the Soviet Union in 100 days with Operation Barbarossa? It sounds so reasonable and achievable.

It's not dismissed but also not relevant as to when Putin annexed Crimea. Those elections were afterwards and the damage of fraternising with nationalist and neo-Nazis was already done; there was genuine worry in Crimea as Russians weren't Ukrainians in the eyes of the nationalist. — Benkei

Also there were the language laws, which actually were raised by other neighboring countries as Ukraine has a vast amount of different ethnic minorities, not only Russians. As mentioned earlier, the role of the right-wing parties in the later stages of the Maidan revolution is obvious as a) they were organized and were a parliamentary party (the Right sector) and b) obviously militant extremists are at home in riots. Yet to dismiss or to forget that the neo-nazis lost later in elections is wrong. Claiming that the present administration has ties to neo-nazis cannot be done just by referring to articles from 2014.

And this just underlines how spectacular success the first invasion of Ukraine was for Putin.

And in a sense, there's still a Nazi problem; it doesn't seem like a good idea to arm them even if they like to position themselves as a "Christian taliban" to fight against the Russian invaders. — Benkei

The extreme right exists just as the extreme left. If Ukraine has a nazi problem, then a many countries have a similar problem and we should put the issue in it's true context. I think that there is a genuine need for this discussion in general, but it shouldn't be used as the way to attack the present Ukrainian adminstration as Putin's talk of neonazis and drug addicts running Ukraine and the need for "denazification" is simply delusional propaganda only intended to keep his own people from realizing the reality of the conflict.

The US is run by oligarchs as well — Benkei

Yeah, but it isn't so bad as in Russia ...or Ukraine. At least in Ukraine they openly admit and understand the problem. Zelensky's election victory just shows how desperately Ukrainians want a change to the system.

In the US... well, Amazon just got it's first trade union! Quite important when the corporation has more or less 1 million workers (that cannot be replaced by robots in China) and a loss for one important American oligarch.

A team of Amazon workers has forced the technology giant to recognise a trade union in the US for the first time. Workers at a New York warehouse voted 55% in favour of joining the Amazon Labor Union. The group is led by former Amazon worker Chris Smalls, who made his name protesting against safety conditions at the retail giant during the pandemic. Mr Smalls' victory marks a major defeat for Amazon, which had fiercely fought against unionisation.

which is why it's so important Europe becomes a real alternative with multi-party representation instead of an effective lapdog for US foreign policy. — Benkei

Well, likely we will make our application to join that club, who some see as a lapdog for US foreign policy and others as a real Trans-Atlantic security organization. The application process is rumored to start at the 14th day of this month. Likely we will be in NATO along with you in the end of this year. If things go as the Finnish leadership has planned.

These events btw resulted in an denial-of-service attack towards the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry. Their servers were down...for one hour. Didn't make much headlines news other than comments "this was expected".

History is a tricky thing. The Serbs weren't the devils the West has ended up making them out to be. — Benkei

And do notice that 1987 Milosevic changed from the Titoist Communist line to the nationalist.

Also do note that he was deposed by an opposition openly supported by the US and specifically it's State Department ...and still the Serbs aren't with the West. The Serbian opposition gladly took the support of the US, but the country didn't go along with the US afterwards. Just shows when you bomb a country, it won't be your friend even if there is regime change. This shows agency of the individual people, and that they aren't just mindless pawns of the Great Powers. Agency which many don't give to the Ukrainians themselves here.

I suppose that if the US could've managed this without involving the Nazis and nationalists, things might have been different as the local support in Crimea might have been significantly lower. — Benkei

In this thread I've earlier discussed the emergence of the extreme-right in Ukraine earlier, which happened actually prior to the 2014 revolution. And what is again dismissed is that after elections the far right lost. But that doesn't seem to matter. Some people go with the line of Putin that nazis have a say in present Zelensky lead administration. It's similar to accusing the Biden administration supporting neonazis because the previous president said good things about them (or declined to condemn them).

If Putin had been waxing lyrical about the Russian empire since he came into power, I'd assess it differently. Now I just don't put much weight on it. — Benkei

Even with Chechnya, Putin did start with differently: the focus was on stability and economic prosperity. That economic growth happened when oil prices went up. But what Putin failed in was to reorganize the economy and create genuine new growth. Coming from the class of robbers and putting his own people into positions of wealth and power didn't help when something new ought to have been done.

Hence I think his "imperial ambitions" started to gain track when the economy wasn't so fine anymore. When he couldn't provide more prosperity, then he started to provide more glory. And starting wars has always worked for him.

When you look at Putin's comments from when he rose to power and now, the rhetoric is amazingly different.

...but that's not the point. The point is, I haven't just claimed you did denounce NATO as a motive. — Isaac

NATO enlargement is simply a side issue here — ssu

Side issue is still an issue.

You left out the consideration that a successful resolution by a people of whom 50% of their relatives are Russian might cause problems in Russia for Putin as well, which is why it was also important for him to intervene. — Benkei

Actually this is one issue worth wile to point out: the role Putin's Russia has taken to itself as the protector of ethnic Russians everywhere. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria etc. and not only Crimea and the Donbass. All these enclaves used for intervention in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

And the frozen conflict in Moldova/Transnistria is actually a good example the Russia intervening in it's near abroad isn't just about NATO enlargement.

Just like Slobodan Milosevic was the protector of all Serbs in all of the former Yugoslav Republics. Now this actually would be totally natural, likely any country would hold some importance to people of it's own ethnicity. However with Russia, this is actively done by the intelligence services and used very aggressively. In a similar fashion as Milosevic protected the Serbs.

All the demands on the table from Russia before this war started were about: NATO expansion.

This war would not have happened but for: NATO expansion.

Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best. — Benkei

How conveniently you totally forget the hostility of Putin to Ukrainian government, the whole denazification issue and the accusations of genocide. The latter, I agree, is purely rhetoric. Yet the way Russia is going after the previous government is noteworthy. Comes to my mind the US de-baathification in Iraq.

And how conveniently you totally forget, likely on purpose, that the whole 2014 crisis happened because of a trade deal between EU and Ukraine and the part that EU played in this. Even the student demonstrations were called EuroMaidan with enthusiastic waving of EU flags (which I guess I've rarely if never seen in the EU itself). Hence it wasn't just about the alignment towards NATO, it was also the alignment towards the EU.

And of course there's a long history of Russian intervention in Ukrainian politics and Putin's fear of "Color Revolutions". Which few if any have noted.

All I can say that it's at least progress with you that my arguments have gone from "That's a load of crap" to "Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best". So I guess it's worth wile to debate these issues with you.

Where have I denounced those other reasons? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient. — Isaac

And where have I denounced or denied NATO enlargement being one reason for Putin's actions? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient.

I think it's time to move on.

I've heard estimates of upwards of about 15 000 Ukrainian troops and 15 000 Azov battalion troops in Mariupol, — boethius

Heard where?

30 000 troops? That's far larger than a division. That is an Army Corps.

If you want to be taken seriously, decide if the stated goals and objectives of leaders is relevant or not and stick to it. — Isaac

If you want to give a serious counterargument, how about actually engaging in what I say and not a strawman?

In short: My point is that Putin invaded Ukraine because of a) wanting to make Russia great again, b) because of NATO enlargement and c) the danger of an Ukrainian "Color Revolution" being so successful that it would give a bad example to the Russian people.

What the hell is wrong with things having multiple causes?

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war?

What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now. — Baden

I agree with you on that. The most probable outcome is a lengthened war. (Which I guess some people will argue has been the objective of the US right from the start)

It's going to be a lot worse.

It will take at least a month to rearm, resupply those battered Russian forces that now have been withdrawn from the Kyiv front. And even then it's doubtful they can rapidly crush Ukrainian resistance. For Zelensky the atrocities just have hardened the determination of Ukrainians to fight (as usually happens) as does the Russian withdrawal from Kyiv. Likely they aren't in the mood of compromise. Yet the Ukrainians cannot go on the offensive and try to destroy the Russian army. They simply don't have the material and huge offensives are extremely risky. Likely the military situation for Ukraine isn't on the verge of collapse that the Ukrainian military would urge Zelensky to make peace. Putin on the other hand cannot eat his words, so without at least conquering the Donbas region in full the Russians won't stop. And let's remember that Putin has basically won all of his wars until no, so likely he's not going throw in the towel quickly.

And as time goes, then the West can train Ukrainians to use new Western weapon systems and get that SAM cover to reinforce the already disputed Air War, the much elaborated "no fly -zone".

Crimea was annexed because it contains Russian naval bases giving it access to the Mediterranean — Benkei

No. That's patently false. You don't annex a whole peninsula just for a naval base and incorporate it to Russia.

You are simply ignorant about the history and the political situation in Crimea. But seems that doesn't matter to you at all.

Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula from the Russian Soviet Republic. The cession of Crimea was a “noble act on the part of the Russian people” to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the “reunification of Ukraine with Russia”. Since gaining the territory from the Ottomans in 1783, it had been part of Russia and hence the ethnic Russian population in the Peninsula (which increased thanks to the large naval base of Sevastopol). And right from the start during the Yeltsin years there has been a political agenda to get back Crimea from the now independent Ukraine. And also a vocal Russian movement to get Crimea back to mother Russia. Just to simply disregard all of this makes your conclusion false. Things aren't monocausal.

And then there's Putin himself:

Putin said he had no regrets.

“It’s not because Crimea has a strategic importance in the Black Sea region. It’s because this has elements of historical justice. I believe we did the right thing and I don’t regret anything,” the RIA news agency quoted Putin as saying in the documentary “The President”.

And how did Vladimir Putin then feel about Crimea being part of an Independent Ukraine. From his Crimea speech in 2014:

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city.

So Benkei, the idea that it's only a defensive move against NATO, only the importance of a naval base is patently false. You are just lying to yourself if you believe that this war wouldn't happen if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself.

I don't think Putin's musings on the artificiality of Ukraine inform actual policy. Just as his waxing lyrical about the USSR doesn't. I see nothing in circumstances and facts that reinforce this as important. — Benkei

So what leaders say doesn't matter.

What they say what their policies and objectives are doesn't matter.

Yeah, right.

Crimea never would've become a part of Russia if the US hadn't been meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine for decades already. — Benkei

Hypotheticals are difficult as you yourself implied, but simply use your head here, Benkei. I know you have one.

If all of this would because of NATO enlargement and the US, why the annexation of Crimea?

Why is according to Putin Ukraine an artificial state?

Why all the talk of Novorossiya?

Have you ever read what Putin has written about Ukraine?

That doesn't mean I can't criticize NATO too. — Baden

That's my whole point! It doesn't mean that I wouldn't criticize (or haven't criticized) NATO when it has done stupid things. But dare to say something about Russia's actions or intentions, and obviously you're a NATO jihadist in need of therapy.

Yet to hold the view that this war is solely a result of NATO enlargement and that Russia has been forced to respond with war because of this is biased narrow reasoning. It's simply an apologism. To dismiss totally the actual rhetoric and the actions that Putin's regime, what it has been telling and implementing for years is dishonest.

That's a load of crap and you know it. — Benkei

Bullshit Benkei!

Crimea is part of Russia now, Russia, not a proxy state but part of it. Part of holy Russian motherland. And a lot more would have been part of it (or as satellite states) in 2014 if Putin would had his way. Now we have the second try taking place.

To be incapable of seeing that Russia has far more interests in Ukraine and it's near abroad than just keeping NATO out is simply a sign of denial in your behalf. And shows bit of this intellectual hubris where everything revolves around the West and the US and it's bad intentions. Nothing else seems to matter.

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible. — Benkei

Now. After 8 years of extensive NATO training and aid to a country that has already been fighting a limited war for 8 years. In 2014 the Russians waltzed into Crimea without nearly a shot fired. Then the Ukrainian armed forces was capable to deploy only 6 000 men to the field in it's entirety. So weak they were then.

the promises made in the 90s to Russia — Benkei

The promises made to the Soviet Union, actually, which Ukraine was a part of. But don't let the little details bother your case against the US and in the defense of victim Russia, which was "forced" to act this way. There was no other way, of course.

I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another. — Benkei

Oh you don't get it? The political prisoners that number now more than during the end of Soviet Union doesn't tell anything to you? The imperialist right-wing demagoguery coming from Russia doesn't mean anything to you? Seems like it's totally similar choices for you either to be under "Bidenland" or "Putinland".

How has it been for you to live "under one empire"? Because me and @Christopher haven't been living under it, but our countries seem to be willing to join now on side. For me the happiness of Finlandization is all too clear as I've grown up during the Cold War so I remember it.

Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire. — Benkei

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling.

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take. — Benkei

The Mearsheimer line that Chomsky is echoing is the typical US focused view, which totally disregards the other totally obvious agenda that Russia has for Ukraine. This should be obvious from what Putin and Russian leaders say. It's should be obvious from the fact that the Russian regime has echoed the line of the artificiality of the Ukrainian state, which has nothing to do with NATO enlargement.

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics. So keep on insisting that the only issue here is NATO enlargement and the actions of the West. Yes, that's one point. But the world isn't monocausal.

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again.

I guess a good 4 million has fled, and some are now returning, including children. — jorndoe

Yet notice that even the Ukrainian government has urged people to leave eastern Ukraine now, and with the reality of what denazification looks like on the ground emerging, people likely will move. This works fine to Putin's objectives as the last thing he would want in the Novorossiya he is looking for to have a large hostile population of Ukrainians.

What is positive is that Belarus seems to have escaped (for now) the war as Putin hasn't demanded that they would join the special military operation. With Russians withdrawing from the Northern front around Kyiv this looks likely to continue.

And the famous Finland schools with no homework.

Maybe there is something there: being forced to do homework in authoritarian school system have somehow closed the minds of President Putin and President Zelenskyy to look at authoritarian measures, to use force for what should be accomplished through natural devotion to duty? Maybe that is what the powers that be want. — FreeEmotion

In continuing to be annoying on this thread, I have to disagree and make a correction:

Finnish schools do have homework.

(What they lack is nationwide standardized testing as only in the Gymnasium there is one standardized test for graduation.)

The Finnish story is not just "fighting the Russians".

It is fighting the Russians, then mutually agreeing war is not a good thing, and burying the hatchet, and learning to live as neighbour's with mutual respect (at least for a time) and mutual benefit wherever possible. Finland even paid war reparations to the Soviet Union. That price for independence was also paid, yet I never see mentioned. — boethius

Ah yes...and don't forget Finlandization. The wonderful term that the Germans invented to describe our relationship with our beloved Eastern neighbor. Just look how nicely the Presidents of Russia and Finland (the one that looked like Conan O'Brien) hold hands with a glass of champange. Just twelve years ago:

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect. — Isaac

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link. Of course you can go with the line that Putin was forced to start a war with Ukraine... which I would disagree with.

If MBS was urged to intervene in Yemen by the US, you should inform me of that. The way it looks like is that the US itself was actually OK with the Houthis fighting Al Qaeda in Yemen, hence MBS didn't inform the US about it's warplans. But once the Saudis attacked, Obama did give him a lot of logistical support and then sold weapons the Saudis.

How are you measuring that? — Isaac

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc.

Seems a true statement about Western nations and a majority of people in them to me. — boethius

Add in that religion too, obviously. I would assume that people here wouldn't be racists.

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans — boethius

But the threat of war, even if still low, has increased.

Sure, but the comment was about Western nations generally, not individuals personally affected. — boethius

No, the question that Benkei assumed was that people would have more interest on the plight of Ukrainians because they are white than with the plight of black Africans.

When you are individually affected, even if it's nothing dramatic, you do notice that the events are quite real. Not just an article on page 5.