Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists. — Christoffer

Use of biological weapons is really stupid. As if they could be contained. At least with chemical weapons you can observe where the wind is blowing. Usually you end up killing your own troops, just like the Japanese did during WW2:

At least 12 large-scale bioweapon field trials were carried out, and at least 11 Chinese cities attacked with biological agents. An attack on Changde in 1941 reportedly led to approximately 10,000 biological casualties and 1,700 deaths among ill-prepared Japanese troops, in most cases due to cholera.

Oops.

But perhaps Putin will try to wreck the Ukrainian harvest and blame it on the US.

Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started. — Isaac

Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. Or then simply haven't read what I say (or perhaps it's been in the exchanges with others I guess).

In order to keep that countries do not want to join NATO, perhaps the issue would be then not to annex territories from them and make speeches how "artificial" their country is. (Oh I think I know what you will say: but we aren't talking about Russia, I don't care a fuck about Russia or something like that...)

I've said that there would have been a multitude ways for Russia leave NATO in the "new NATO" figuration thinking about out-of-theatre operations like Afghanistan and Libya and have had Western Europe make it's armed forces even smaller. It made that absolutely worse possible decision annexing territory of neighboring countries, which only reinforced the Eastern members that they were totally justified in their fears of an imperialist Russia. And that's now clear to even the Western NATO members, which as like the US didn't understand this when the Russo-Georgian war happened and desperately tried to "reset" the relations with Russia.

A good source to start with is I found this Candian artillery youtuber — boethius

The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material.

Negative self reference.

Just ask yourself, how many paradoxes involve this. Starting from Russell's paradox.

Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. — Isaac

You keep dodging the answer. Or failing to understand it.

Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. Yet how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. Only annexing territory is even more threatening as you then the country doesn't even respect the borders. The US just cannot walz into Mexico and occupy the country, even if we say Mexico is in the "sphere of influence" of the US. If a country disintegrates totally and cannot perform the tasks of a sovereign country, only then it's usual that the neighbors get nervous and at least look after their citizens in the country. Before that, it's usually the UN that gets involved.

Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons? — Isaac

It's called deterrence. Look, nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. But they perform a crucial role. And so does everything in an armed forces, when that armed forces is for deterrence. And that's what armies ought to do: have training exercises, keep their equipment ready, and have the generals retire to their golfclubs after a career made in peace-time exercises. That's what the Swiss army has done successfully since Napoleon.

And you simply need the conventional forces, because the use of nuclear weapons is so limited. If a aircraft breaches the aerospace, you wouldn't use a nuclear weapon for that. Hence the need for conventional forces.

I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east. — FreeEmotion

He has lost this. Even if he can declare a military victory.

Just ask yourself: what does he win, if he conquers all of Ukraine? He would have to occupy a huge country. Ok, that's not going to happen (or it will, who knows). So let's then think of what he gains from this war if Zelenskyi's government would accept tomorrow his demands. So he gets Crimea and the puppet states of Donbas that he can then have join the Russian federation.

And what then? He basically had them already. Now he has a bit more territory and 1) an army that needs a lot to refitting and money to cover the losses, 2) new territory that is devastated by war and would need billions in investment, 3) a ruined Russian economy, 4) an unified Europe and NATO, who are now going to spend on the military as during the Cold War and treat him as an imminent threat, nearly.

So what's the victory with all that above? Can you see it?

You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin.

However, we really don't know much about what the average Russian is thinking about things (obviously sanctions are hitting, no one like wars--except those neo-nazis--, people are dying, and so on), but once the war is over there are many bases on which it could be considered "worth it" to ordinary Russians. — boethius

I think many understand what is happening, but then there are of course those who believe what is said. I think here the issue is that Putin is still holding to the idea of "special military operation" and the Russian media is showing Russian troops handing out food and blaming the Ukrainians (neo-nazis) to be shelling the civilians. That can sink in for a while. But too big casualty figures you cannot hide, it simply goes by word of mouth. If Americans don't trust their media, Russians don't trust it on a larger scale. At least those that can use their brains.

Maybe Putin wants to use this war to cement his dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a quick war.

As the Frontline documentary said, Putin has the same succession problem Yeltsin had. He can't step down without fear of prosecution. So he'll just stay there for life? — frank

Not like he was seriously challenged by anyone or anything before.

But those protests at him in 2012 likely made him wary. Likely he has seen that "being liberal" won't help him. He hasn't been able to produce similar economic growth as China, so the war has been his response in order to get higher popularity. That documentary tells why it hasn't been so: basically put up to sustain the kleptocracy, I think Putin massed his wealth just because of taking power. But what he failed to do is to do anything about the kleptocracy, which would have been important. I remember him only declaring that Russia has to be a dictatorship of laws, meaning that laws should be followed as the word of a dictator (Stalin?)

This shows the utter lack of understanding how a country governed by laws operates and that it is usually the dictatorships that are the most corrupt.

Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor? — baker

The US made it's grand entrance a long time ago.

Hence, focus on sending Ukraine anti-tank guided missiles and manpads. These are extremely dangerous weapons for sure, but you can't really assault and take a dug-in position with these weapons; certainly harass supply lines and lay ambushes but they don't really help defend against a concentrated offensive. So, if Russia digs in on the sides of a pincer and has a concentrated offensive to move forward, there's not much Ukraine can do about it with ATGM's and manpads. — boethius

The basic problem is that for Ukrainians being on the defensive works. But wars are not won just by being on the defensive. Ukraine should make counterattacks and here might be their weak point: to counterattack they should concentrate their forces and firepower and destroy the Russian units. If those Russian units are in a long column in the middle of an urban area, that's easy. If they are in defensive positions, that's hard. And with the concentration the Russian artillery has targets. Likely Ukraine will try to avoid a battle of attrition. Yet the material support coming from NATO countries is substantial. But they would need more than just those ATGMs, but also artillery and medium range Surface-to-Air missile systems. Stingers cannot defend attack from high altitude. And if you are Putin, you don't care about if you hit something else also when destroying the Ukrainian army.

When Russians declare cease-fires or humanitarian corridors, I assume they take the time to get their defences up. Already you can see that they are throwing their reserves and second tier forces into the battle as there starts to be a lot of civilian trucks in the columns. This means that the army trucks are already in use. Likely the war is going to the next phase.


But still, it's not going well for the Russians.

This part of the argument started because you claimed Russia had no strategic interests as they were too big to have to ever be concerned about attack. — Isaac

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. Or let's say the US response to the war in Ukraine makes this obvious.

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. There's multitude ways to try to influence things, but annexing parts of another countries simply isn't one.

Just think of the US and Mexico. The US has naturally strategic interests at it's southern neighbor. But does it have the option to invade & occupy the country? Actually not. Same thing with Brazil, Argentina and the Southern American countries. Basically it can use military force freely in the Caribbean, invading islands like Grenada or then make incursions to Haiti.

Putin seems to be a realist, an immensely practical man and a very forthright in this speech: typically European in outlook. Did he start a war and get people killed? No leader of any country can avoid that taking on that responsibility, to use military force, they cannot be and should not be put in that position. There are no pacifist presidents or prime ministers. Not among the powerful nations which rely on force.

I can't help feel that both Ukraine and Putin have been provoked, manipulated by the 'cunning' and perhaps unprincipled other parties. — FreeEmotion

I would put that all in past tense.

There simply is no way around this: Putin made huge gambles, made huge victories (2014 annexation of Crimea), or at least he could think so if getting territory with poor economy is that, and basically had punched way over his weight class. And now he lost it in the gamble. Made a catastrophic error on starting this war. It puts the Soviet leadership that went to Afghanistan to seem far more intelligent, far more cautious. Perhaps nobody dared to say it to him or whatever. Before Putin heard different opinions, but after 2012, the people around him have come smaller and smaller.

There are too many reports on how this came as a surprise to the whole Russian system. And just think about one thing: how could the US intel be in the end so accurate? Usually US Intel blunders at nearly everything. I think the issue is that they actually got informants inside the Kremlin because people there were worried what was happening. That the US intel assumed that Kyiv would fall in 90 hours tells how Putin wasn't the only one overestimating the Russian army and underestimating the Ukrainians.

Putin has now thrown such bad dice that there are dramatic long term consequences.

Here's a good primer on Putin, made by PBS Frontline. Tells well how we are where we are now and just how and why Putin got to power. Worth seeing.

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? — ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians. — Isaac

A choice. But not the only choice. Defend to get a better peace treaty is a possibility also.

.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. — Isaac

Is it so crazy to understand that defending against the US was successful for the Emirate of Afghanistan after two decades, yet attacking the US and trying to occupy California won't succeed?

Yes, countries when attacking other countries are weaker and while defending themselves are stronger.

You start loosing it, Isaac...

News of many Russian reserves being called up too. Makes sense, they clearly have a manpower problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plus this has been verified by Putin declaring that reservists (and conscripts) are not and will not be used in the "special military operation". :wink:

Russia contemplating countering the sanctions by nationalizing Western assets in Russia. Likely will happen, I guess. Because why not?

(WSJ) Russia’s government legislative commission approved measures Wednesday that pave the way for the nationalization of property of Western companies that are exiting the country.

The commission’s role includes reading and assessing laws that the government intends to propose to the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

Russia’s dominant political party, United Russia, said on Wednesday that the latest measures seek to prevent bankruptcies and preserve jobs at organizations that are more than 25% owned by foreign entities of “unfriendly governments.” United Russia has been pushing for the nationalization of operations of Western companies leaving Russia in response to the war in Ukraine.

That will end up any investment into Russia for longer time than just this crisis. And as I've said, once war and serious conflict breaks out, the economy of globalization is dumped overboard immediately.

Was this verified? I had trouble finding good sources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think think this could easily verified, if false. As easily as the false news that Zelensky had left Kyiv. Just look if the name Viktor Gulevich pops up anymore in any news about the Belarus armed forces. If it does, obviously fake then. Of course the easiest thing would have been a direct rebuttal from Gulevich himself, which would benefit Russia and Belarus in the information war. Now you have only the Russian media referring that the Belarussian defense ministry has said that this hasn't happened.

But that's true that I didn't find many of the top news media saying this, just a few that could swallow propaganda:

Russia-Ukraine War | Belarus' Chief Of General Staff Of Armed Forces Resigns Over War On Ukraine

Belarus deputy defence minister QUITS over Ukraine war: Sanctioned general who 'agreed to Russian troops deploying on the border' signs resignation letter saying he cannot support invasion

Top Belarusian general quits over ally Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Report

'Defections and resignations in Belarusian military prevented country from joining Ukraine invasion'

If one just only waits a few months, usually 95% of fake news have been proven fake. The propaganda war and social media has long forgotten what happened two months ago, when they are interested in what is new since two minutes ago.

But anyway, Thanks for the good links, @Count Timothy von Icarus!

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow. — ssu

It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending? — Isaac

So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983??? Because it's the same military. :chin:

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? Ask Kremlin to rule Ukraine on behalf of them through a puppet regime?

It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do.

You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded.

I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now.

But on a serious note, there's some serious Nazi-like fascist iconography being pushed in Russia that just feels like Nazi cosplay with a new logo, especially when it's being pushed from official propaganda sources. — Christoffer

Oh, @Christoffer... in the first photo it was terminally ill children showing their support for the troops performing the Special Military Operation to free the Ukrainians from the neo-nazis!

Pictures show how terminally ill children in Russia were encouraged to stand outside in the snow in the shape of a letter "Z" to show support for the country's invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Vavilov, chairman of a cancer charity that runs a hospice in the city of Kazan, organised the children and their mothers to line up to produce the letter.Mr Vavilov posted the photo and a caption on the hospice website, according to The Daily Telegraph. "Our patients and entire team took part in it, about 60 people in total," he's quoted as saying. "People lined up in the form of the letter 'Z'.

"In our left hand we held leaflets with the flags of the LPR, DPR, Russia and Tatarstan and we clenched our right hand into a fist."

Ah, back to the spontaneity of the Soviet times! Next surely will come the lithurgy of Soviet times.

Putin's social contract was to deliver stability, relative prosperity, and a sense of national pride (at the expense of freedom and much else). He has tried to compensate for the gradual loss of the former by doubling down on the latter. Crimea was a major coup for him, but that has since evaporated, partly due to the sanctions. And now, in the space of just a couple of weeks, he has ruined it all. Lies about the NATO threat and the dastardly Neo-Nazis can only go so far, and the economy will soon be in ruins. So what does he have left? He will have to reformat the arrangement. His only chance to stay in power and secure a lasting legacy is to fashion himself into a new Stalin, if he can. Which is to say, terrorize the population into awe and submission. And that will go double for the occupied Ukraine. Soviet-era persecutions of "Ukrainian nationalists" come to mind... — SophistiCat

I think this is the likely thing that will happen. The denials of there being no marshal law have now been said so many times from the Russian regime, that something like it will likely happen. The little, but steady stream of Russians fleeing Russia shows that they are anticipating the next phase of the Sovietizing of Russia: that the borders will close. Putin now has a large conflict, he now has the hostility of the West and he now can argue that all the ways he will try to crush any opposition against him will be done in the cause to defend Russia from foreign threats.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain — Gnomon

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, but is the way Putin's regime hopes to instill patriotic fervour to the war. And of course, many Russians will support their troops.

However if Trump divided Americans, I think that Putin has divided Russians even more. Yet when the country is falling into more authoritarianism, there isn't public discourse or honest polling. The sanctions are working and Russia could even face hyperinflation. Yet it's not so direct that hardships of the Russians will damage Putin's rule so much, when Putin simply says this is the way the West is attacking Russia (and not relate it to be the response to the invasion of Ukraine).

But more generally, the present situation where sanctions and likely counter-sanctions are already wrecking the global market, security of supply will become the new focus. The Corona pandemic already shaked the roots of the globalized supply chain, but now the idea of "Just on Time" logistics and things being produced in complicated global supply chains will be an idea of the past. However this crisis is going to end, the likelyhood of countries looking at having strategic reserves and maintaining domestic production. Also, China can look at Russia now and think carefully how they would cope when similar actions possibly are taken against them.

In a way, now the era of globalization is collapsing. It already suffered from a structural weakness which was made more obvious during the corona pandemic. The idea that an rich elite rules the world and the nation states obey their demands is just a fallacious dream when it comes to war and crises. It was a fallacy held before World War 1 and is proving a fallacy even today. The rich have influence in peacetime, but once a crisis happens, they will quickly fall in line.

The opponents of globalization might cheer about this at first, yet they ought to then first look at what the new not-so-globalized economy might be like.

Interesting development. Reasons why Belarus hasn't participated in the fucked up invasion of Ukraine. And worrying signs it might...if generals have to resign:

Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus Viktor Gulevich had abruptly resigned from his position, lodging protest against his country’s support to the Russian invasion. In the letter, Belarus’ General Staff of the Armed Forces stated that the personnel of military units in Minsk were “massively refusing to take part in hostilities and the Armed Forces are unable to complete a single battalion group. “

Such low morale is obvious. Many Belarussians have feared that Russia might take over their country and basically many are now anticipating that Belarus has become an extension of the Russian state when their local dictator Lukashenko is so highly unpopular among the people.

I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging. — boethius

Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential.

It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways — boethius

Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war.

There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important.

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it. — Isaac

I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow.

My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country. — boethius

Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. It's crucial in that Ukraines neighbors are opening their border to refugees and for instance basically Poland doing a total 180 degree turn on it's refugee policy when we compare it's actions toward the Belarus hybrid operation using refugees at the border just short time ago. You can see from the pictures that it isn't young males that are fleeing Ukraine.

And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. How much weapons have been given out and how much people actually have joined in the territorial defense forces is another matter. And from a population of 44 million there are simply millions of Ukrainian men that Ukraine simply cannot take into the army.

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription.

A telling tweet from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service roughly translated to English:

It is important that we do not harass or hate the Russians living in Finland. They are not guilty of the war. Internal division of the society and inappropriate treatment of Russian people weakens Finland internally and provides weapons for the Russian propaganda machine to use.

Anticipating perhaps reactions of some people and of Russia in the near future.

Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. — Isaac

Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.

That's enough, really.

Ukraine has perfectly legitimate strategic interest not to be attacked by any country.

So shut up with the legitimate strategic interests and move on...

The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics. — Isaac

No.

Russia has the choice.

It started this, it can surely end it.

The way I want it is analysis based on the maths of hierarchy theory, not Great Men of history fables. — apokrisis

And I predicted you would, exactly.

Oh yes, fables. Lol.

So what does the math of hierarchy theory say about the impact of Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden? Or is it something inconsequential? Or rubbish? Unimportant?!

There are the larger, the more important issues that can be opened up and understood with hierarchy theory and mathematical models, I guess. :snicker:

Why did neoliberalism deem monetarism an essential part of its "naked market" architecture? — apokrisis

Does neoliberalism deem monetarism as an essential part? Liberalism surely didn't want something as micromanaging as monetarism to be around. But monetary policy is actually the perfect example of things heading for a collapse, not something "balanced".

Why are central banks using the global constraint of money supply to bound the local competitive behaviour of market actors? — apokrisis

Define what the global constraint of money supply is, because I don't know what you mean. I do understand what money supply is and the role of debt, but what is the global constraint of it is something new.

Oh yes... do notice Putins intelligence chief stumbled in his words. Or that when they celebrated Putins admission, the stage fireworks show showed people celebrating with the Russian flag, not their own flag. What truly independence yearning country would do that? And many are there already have the Russian passport. Again the same question.



This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care.

And oh...don't forget Crimea. That's Russia isn't it, Isaac?

But what caused the collapse and led to the unsustainability? Clearly I would look to the balancing act that any sociologist or anthropologist understands - the necessary tension between the individual and the group.

And that tension is hierarchy theory in a nutshell. The need to balance local degrees of freedom and global habits of constraint. — apokrisis

Well, especially in history you do find the tension of the individual and the group certainly. But not perhaps in the way you would want it. It is the problem that all sociologists and those who promote the Longe durée. It's the problem that they will immediately say is a non-issue. It's the Cleopatra's nose. And that's why the focus for example of the Annales school, but others is somewhere that we don't see the ordinary history of rapid transformations where certain small individuals and their actions have huge consequences. Perhaps there are too many Butterfly effects in history that in the end the historian choses to model it by using the old narrative of story telling.

Where would I have said that? — apokrisis

Well, for example by saying that "the "best" society manages to balance its global cooperation with its local competition by maximizing its social cohesion and its individual independence."

If that isn't what I'm referring to, nothing is. From an economic history point of view, that's just hogwash before you somehow link global cooperation and local competition to social cohesion and individual independence.

Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine — boethius

Yes, It just has clearly stated that it wants large chunks of Ukraine to itself. :smirk:

Like Peskov has said in their peace offering, which you quoted.

Notably, the only city the Russian's have so far actually done urban combat and occupied is the only city required to carry out the above plan: Kherson. Every other city the Russian's are simply laying siege at minimal risk to themselves. — boethius

Destroyed columns say something else. And if the vast majority of the Russian forces are engaged, then combat is obviously happening elsewhere where the media isn't present.

Besides, every day the Ukrainian Capital holds out it improves the moral and the confidence of the Ukrainian side. If they want to pressure Ukraine to peace terms, I think losing the Capital would be significant blow to the Ukrainian moral.

When Russia intervened in Syria, the "resistance" had an amazing social media campaign, took out many Russian tanks and vehicles (some of it real, some of it fake) with Western supplied anti-tank missiles, high praises from the Western media, and denigrating the Russian equipment and personnel, and predictions of the Russian's losing etc. — boethius

Not actually. The videos typically show Syrian forces and Syrian tanks. Russia has basically had in Syria a rather small contingent of aircraft, air defense to protect their base and some field units and mercenaries. I haven't seen one video of a tank of the Russian armed forces destroyed in Syria. They are Syrian tanks, even if Soviet/Russian manufactured ones.

Something think about, if one knows anything about military

According to the New York Times:

In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities. So far, Russian forces have been so preoccupied in other parts of the country that they have not targeted the arms supply lines, but few think that can last.

Now 17 000 anti-tank weapons is huge amount. That it has been sent in less than a week is noteworthy: basically it means that this has been pre-planned in anticipation of a war erupting in Ukraine. Seems that NATO is really hurling everything and the kitchen sink against the Russia forces. And you can notice this, in a rare news clip showing the evacuation of civilians near Kyiv (of course) two Ukrainian soldiers briefly were in the picture. The other had and NLAW while the other one two older and lighter LAW anti-tank weapons. This can obviously change the tactics of Russia to use more indirect fire and cautiously try to advance rather than try to make dashes toward the objectives.



Also, more days go without Kyiv being surrounded and Zelensky alive means that also the Ukrainian position on the negotiations improves.

At least the first sign of Pro-Putin patriotism can be seen in Russia with the application of the "Z" sign. Likely to be basically for the population a "support the troops"-sign as the saying goes.





Perhaps when your propaganda start from "we have no intention to attack" you have to wait few days to start rallying your people for the "special military operation". Because the absence of any shown support for the mission seemed strange.

There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine. — boethius

It's genuine, Peskov is Putin's man. Of course Peskov has thrown earlier wild pitches at opponents: for example he purposed to Trump "as a show of friendship" that the US would withdraw all of it's troops from the Baltics and Poland. Trump didn't even respond to the gesture.

But at least it's a start, at least.

Russia already had those areas and seems to understand that occupying larger parts of Ukraine isn't a good plan. Is this a long term salami-tactic chipping away parts of Ukraine every some years or so?
Ukraine sees what it is bargaining here for. And Ukraine can later always come to this proposal.

That's weird that you put it that way — Harry Hindu

Oh I put that way for people to understand how it feels for Chinese communists that rule mainland China. Just to portray the hostility.

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius

This is a worthy comment. Russia has gained ground, even if slowly. It's all too early to say that Russia has failed. What only can be said that they've had some troubles at the start. When Ukrainians are dominating the discourse in the West (a job well done), it doesn't give a clear view on what is happening. There still is a fog of war, which should be obvious to everyone.

It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war. — boethius

True, but we aren't discussing the portrayed genocide that Ukrainian government according to Putin was doing in the Donbas. No evidence of that has been even given (or fabricated) from the Russian side I think. We did have the OSCE monitoring the line dividing the two sides. There's a long logbook at the shellings that have happened. When you look at earlier footage from Donetsk and Luhansk, life was going on fairly normally.

The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed! — boethius

If you insist.

Those who are so worried about the Neo-nazis in Ukraine, it should be worth wile to mention how Israeli papers reported the election win of Zelensky and how the extreme-right performed in the 2019 elections:

(Haaretz, July 22nd 2019) The Azov movement’s National Corps (which was called a “nationalist hate group” in a U.S. Department of State report published in March), Freedom (Svoboda), Right Sector and others had formed a “united nationalist bloc” the month before the election, running with a combined slate of candidates in an attempt to push past the 5 percent electoral threshold to get into parliament.

Yet even combined, with half of the vote counted Monday morning, the far-right bloc had won only 2.3 percent of the vote. And prominent members running in majoritarian single-member districts — Ukraine has a mixed electoral system — didn’t even come close. It is clear that Ukraine’s far right can’t count on any significant level of public support.

The 2 percent that Ukraine’s far-right bloc polled on Sunday pales in comparison to the results other far-right parties have scored across Europe recently. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 12.6 percent of the vote in Germany’s September 2017 election; in France’s 2017 legislative election, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly the National Front) scored 12 percent; and Italy’s Matteo Salvini and his far-right Lega Nord (Northern League) was the third-largest party in Italy’s parliamentary elections last year with 17 percent. Results like these leave some Ukrainians arguing that too much is made of the country’s far right.

I think (I'm not sure) they got one seat in the Parliament.

Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. It is obvious that the military actions of Russia will understandably increase anti-Russian feelings, but everything should be put into the correct context. The exteme right always tries to act as it would represent the "true" patriots of any country, but this is as a whimsical ploy like the some radical group in the extreme left saying that they represent the workers.

Those that worry about the extreme right should note that Russia has been an active supporter of extreme right movements in Europe. Here it has been Russia that has supported the extreme right and hate groups. Which is a bit amusing given our history.

I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling. — Isaac

First I think you should define just what Putin losing would mean.

Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need? — Isaac

Why do leaders need this? Simply to portray to their own people that they are doing the right thing. Or in this case, all the other options have been used and they cannot do anything else than a "special military operation" against neo-nazis.

Why was the US invasion of Iraq called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation? Why did George Bush link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11?

His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion

Russia wasn't broken up. The Soviet Union, the successor to the Russian Empire collapsed. Ukrainians aren't Russians, Lithuanians are not Russians, Estonians are not Russians, Kazakhs are not Russian, Uzbeks are not Russian and so on...

The Cold War wasn't won by anybody by the normal definition of winning and losing. There were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down and the new Russian flag took it's place at the Kremlin. The Soviet union collapsed because the Soviet experiment utterly failed.

If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. — FreeEmotion

Would he? If he is surrounded by generals promising that Ukraine will fall in days, that Kiev will be conquered in hours, and that the armed forces that he has been uprgrading and improving since 2008 is totally ready, he might think the gamble is worth it. He might think that Ukraine will just improve it's defenses as time goes on, that the US is in dissarray with a weak President who just unceremoniously withdrew from Afghanistan when the Pro-US government had already collapsed.

Just think of the gambles he has done and been victorious. He annexed Crimea without a similar war like now starting. It was a brilliant campaign which gained strategic surprise. Then he went to Syria. It wasn't a quagmire. He could train his air force pilots there. Then he actively and openly influenced the American elections. Many could have said that this would be dangerous, that the American gorilla would become angry as hell and respond with severe sanctions. That didn't happen. The gamble paid off! He had agent Trumpov in the White House.

If you are a gambler, then you gamble. So why not start a massive invasion against a huge nation?

Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis. — FreeEmotion

I don't think so.