But they're still able to bomb a children's hospital. — frank

The cannon fodder doesn't bomb the hospitals or maternity facilities. The cannon fodder are young conscripts at the front not knowing what they're doing, the real military competence in the Russian force stays behind and use missiles and other long range attacks. Or, they are fundamentally incompetent because they can't aim. Either way, the Russian army looks pretty stupid. At the start of the invasion I said that Russia has power, but not much else. They have the most powerful bombs, the most tanks, the most everything, but they have the least strategic ability or intelligence. All the reports of troops getting blind drunk on vodka close to the date of invasion speaks for itself on what type of soldiers these are. The reports of looting and the calls they've made while doing so also shows that these soldiers are far from being battle ready, well trained operatives capable of logical and strategical thinking. Russia can only win by brute force, just push regardless of losses until they've conquered by numbers, but that would lead to extreme losses on the Russian side that will be very hard for Putin to cover up.

That's why democracies don't ever seem to be able to proceed with real change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Real change or fast change? Fast change does not equal positive change and fast change rarely equals long lasting change. In a democracy, the change requires examination and execution by the people. When a majority, close to all people agree (I mean a majority of people that does not exclude minorities or one group over another), that's when change solidifies itself into cultural and political change. Some people just want change for the sake of it or for their individual or small group collective to gain something over others. Which is why we see war, conflict, terror and pain. Little of that leads to long lasting positive change, instead risk triggering a cycle of violence that is even hard to get rid of, even within a peaceful democracy. Look at systemic racism for example, so ingrained in the system that even when whole communities agree that it's a problem, it is still hard to get rid of.

Change for a whole system or people takes time and often need to take time. When people enter their 30s they start to lock themselves into ideologies and values. It becomes harder to change the older they get. So even if change happens in a democracy, they will hold on to older values like an anchor holding society back. This is why cultural change happens quicker when booming generations start to disappear or younger people in a booming generation get into power.

The clash in Russia right now is primarily between the young generation who grew up in the post-Soviet era and the older generation stuck in those old values while the people in power, mainly Putin, tries desperately to hold onto the old empire ideals. The collapse of Russia won't just be economical, the collapse is cultural. The rift between the old and new is so vast that revolution might be a real scenario. When the fear of being shot in the street by a fascist police becomes less than the fear of a dark future for the nation, that's when people will overthrow the government. A small group of people demonstrating will not do that, but a million young Russians, even turning some of the police to their side, will.

In that regard a fast change can happen even with a positive outcome. But it's rare that a violent act create a positive outcome. Maybe blocking democracy's ability to change through peaceful processes leads to the only time democracy creates change fast, i.e revolution. Since by definition, it becomes a democratic act when it requires a majority of people to be able to overthrow the power of a nation.

they're conscripts. Lost, wretched souls brought up in an environment of extreme bullying and violence. — Changeling

To add to that...

Be aware that this is of course used as propaganda by Ukraine, but if verified, well... speaks for itself.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1501635351965798402

they're conscripts. Lost, wretched souls brought up in an environment of bullying and violence. — Changeling

Yeah, and they're not gonna be better after killing old disabled people. Fucking hate Russia's treatment of kids like this, it produces a large generation of broken people who might never do anything good in this world. Just violence against themselves, against others, until they die. It's sickening.

Yeah, the nihilistic Russian spirit shows itself wonderfully in that clip. All while Ukraine is urgently calling for a ceasefire in the Chernobyl region in order to repair the power plant, but so far they get nothing. Either the Russian troops are extremely uneducated, extremely stupid, or are so nihilistic that they act out like angry little children with severely lacking upbringing. Or a combination of all.

We should probably ban oil and gas from everyone. Go green. — frank

Yeah, but it will take a few years even if the push for this is at a maximum level now. But I do think plenty start to back up and look at the whole picture now. When we already have a movement towards green, I think there are plenty who earlier was a little apathetic against fast change, who are now changing their minds to push for a change faster. I think that government spending and private sectors will now be much more committed to green solutions for everything, and that is a good thing. This is why I've said earlier in this thread that even if we go back to how Russia exported oil before, there will come a time when Russia has no export because there are no nations willing to spend money on oil anymore. Germany has just changed gears 180 into spending on green solution infrastructure in order to try and get rid of the dependency on Russian gas. Nordstream will be gone in a few years, even if Russias export starts up again.

Everything about this invasion has shaken up the global resource- and energy economy to the point where people are trying to move away from dependency on authoritarian nations for natural resources and other trade. No one wants to find their economy and infrastructure being under the power of another nation anymore.

What's a bit worrisome about this is that most of the world's peace relies on trade and if nations start to block trade towards authoritarian nations, they want to have power in some other way, maybe even military solutions.

But all of this will push money into green solution science and that is unquestionably a good thing.

FAUX News is a lie machine, a dumbing-down machine. Watching them will make you stupid. — Olivier5

Yeah, if people don't even know what Fox news is or how biased it is, then no wonder so many have a hard time understanding how to decypher both propaganda and what sources to use for rational and logical arguments. Everything starts with media knowledge, fact-checking, research methods that produce logical conclusions and an ability to form all that into a coherent structure as an argument. The blatant cherry-picking to fit the narrative, the Putin is right or wrong depending on the argument, or news outlets that support the narrative or research papers with no connection to the actual premises being presented just form a maelstrom of BS. It all starts with an inability to understand how media works and what to trust and what not to trust. Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media deciphering" or whatever the correct translation would be.

The Jewish-led (i.e., evil for them) Ukrainian Neo-Nazi (a good thing for them) government is leading Ukrainians, who are actually just the same ethnicity as Russians, to ethically cleanse their fellow Russians for being Russians. The Jewish led Neo-Nazis are doing this with the help of their now pro-Nazi radical Woke BLM trans rights activist funders in the West. They are also backed by pro-Jewish radical Islamist jihadis (this las line comes from a handful of unconfirmed reports of small numbers of Central Asian mujahideen coming to fight for Ukraine, but makes sense in the context of "ISIS being funded by the Clintons," etc.)

Putin, often referred to only half ironically as "based Putin, savior of the White race," is saving and liberating the Ukrainians, who are actually Russians, but who have been killing Russians for not being Ukrainian.

He is doing so with the help of Chechen shock troops known for war crimes, and now, apparently Syrian irregulars. Thus, he is saving Europe from the ongoing Muslim migrant murder mayhem invasion of the West by sending the first Muslim army to invade Europe north of the Balkans in centuries.

Europe needs to learn to be strong and resist invasions (migration). Ukraine needs to stop resisting this invasion, it's going to get people hurt.

Putin's righteous denazificafation (denazificafation is bad) efforts to defeat "Globalhomo" (yes, this is really the new popular term for the evil elite kabal that runs the world...) won't be hurt by Western sanctions because he has the support of the Chinese Communist Party, who are helping him save the world. Plus, the whole time the invasion was actually about Fauci's bioweapons labs in Ukraine and evidence of Biden's pedophilia, which are in Kyiv. The God Emperor (based Trump himself) was impeached over his efforts to get Zelensky to turn these over.

At a certain point, the contradictions, liberal backed Jewish Neo-Nazis, an ethnicity ethnically cleansing itself, etc. collapse under their own weight. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is one of the most hilarious mental meltdowns I've ever seen :lol:

----------

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. And calling Putin a new kind of Hitler was considered "extreme"? Will he put a gun to his temple and denazify Russia now?

Then you will have to define 'defeated'. — FreeEmotion

It's in your own quote

The sixty remaining French divisions and the two British divisions in France made a determined stand on the Somme and Aisne but were defeated by the German combination of air superiority and armoured mobility. — Wikipedia

I am curious as to how you view the Battle of France. — FreeEmotion

How do you continue to fight when you are defeated? Ukraine isn't defeated yet.

You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO. — Isaac

There was no evidence for a full-scale invasion either. But I guess you trust the Russians more.

If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst. — Isaac

Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight.

No, they won't. They'll get better.

See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously. — Isaac

Speculation or analysis based on current events? How many quotations refer to the current events and the possible repercussions of it going forward? Or are the current events irrelevant to a statistic that is made before the current events? Yeah, where did you pull that logic out of?

Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure. — Isaac

Based on previous data. Are you unable to change a conclusion when new data gets added? I sure am. All it takes is an ability to actually use information up to date for up-to-date conclusions.

It's like you pull out a paper on a theory disputing the Higgs boson particle AFTER it was discovered in CERN and then scream about how many quotations it has and therefore you are right. That's not how things work. This war is new data, the situation for both the Russian and Belarus people has changed.

There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK. — Isaac

You just pulled a statistical analysis of people's lives in Belarus and you are now saying that it's impossible to conclude anything from the sample sizes of what we've so far heard from the people of Ukraine? What's it gonna be?

And it's not just specific voices for the defensive actions by the Ukrainian people, it's also the LACK of voices speaking against Zelenskyy and the authority of Ukraine. Right now there are over two million refugees and so far I've yet to hear reports of demonstrations against Zelenskyy or any such acts that inform of a great dislike of Zelenskyy campaign to defend Ukraine from Russia.

Can you find any single sign of anything other than the overwhelming support and unity among the Ukrainian population? Where are the witnesses, the outcries, the demonstrations, the refugees crying over Zelenskyy's bad decisions? Where the fuck is it?

Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it. — Isaac

You literally make an argument against the people of Ukraine supporting the cause to defend against Russia. In an attempt to prove a point that the people of Ukraine and Zelenskyy should lay down weapons and stop the defense in order to save lives, when they actually don't want to do that. Do you want me to quote pages after page of your writing arriving at those conclusion? Stop try to spin your words. :shade:

Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war. — Isaac

Social media is one part of the information flow. There's more data to draw conclusions from the hundreds of global media outlets and social media accounts from within Ukraine than any of the support you claim to have for your conclusion.

Stop trying to speak for the Ukrainian people with your delusional ideas! They don't care about you or what you think is best. Your arrogant dismissal of all the people reporting out of Ukraine, all the people speaking from within Ukraine is fucking sickening.

No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts. — Isaac

And Russia won't stop shelling civilians while they try to do that. You know, you have to keep defending yourself while peace talks are happening. And Zelenskyy has asked for talks with Putin over and over and he just returns with silence.

So your method is not working, it is not realistic by evidence of how things have gone so far. Fucking get that already.

Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative. — Isaac

So civilians ASKING for weapons to defend themselves is a war crime. Are you seriously speaking of war crimes while Russia is actually conducting war crimes? Why don't you report it to The Hague court then? Oh, yes, they're busy actually investigating Russia right now. You know, because if the aggressor doesn't conduct war in a way that is considered by international standards, then you as the defense, as the people defending yourself can't follow those rules either.

Stop blaming the Ukrainians for how this war is going.

At every fucking turn you spin things towards the west, towards the Ukrainians, and away from the Russians. It's actually sickening to read. The blatant arrogance of you speaking for what Ukraine "should" do while they defend themselves against a low-IQ force of Russians firing at nuclear power plants and shelling civilians in evacuation corridors.

Can anyone become more disgusting than you in this thread? I'm done answering your bullshit now, you are delusional.

But yes, let's spend 30 more pages discussing whether Putin's war propaganda has a grain of truth in it. That is obviously the most important question now. — SophistiCat

No, please don't, I'm tired of fighting that fight against people unable to rationally understand simple authoritarian politics.

No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent. — Isaac

And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine?

No — Isaac

Should be enough as an answer.

measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed — Isaac

How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? It happens in Russia, why not in Crimea? And why does that matter anyway? You take a bite into Ukraine, install puppets and people are "happy". And Belarus is also not trustworthy, it has a dictator that's a puppet to Russia, you don't think that Belarus has the same kind of information flow? Ukraine is the only true democracy out of these nations. You can jump back in time all you want but that's where Ukraine is now and was improving. You seem to not include progression into your calculation. Where is Russia heading? Where is Belarus heading? You think things will be better for their own people going forward? People are fleeing Russia as we speak because Russia is becoming a totalitarian state. You don't think Belarus will be affected by that, as well as Crimea and the new "bites" Russia took?

No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state. — Isaac

That has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with corruption. And as mentioned numerous times, Ukraine has been fighting against corruption for a long time, they were actively moving away from that kind of post-Soviet "lifestyle". Democracy is part of being able to fight corruption and as corruption gets lowered, so does democracy's ability to improve life. I'm of course speaking of well-working democracy, that enforces laws of freedom of speech, which is needed to be able to fight corruption. You can't use indexes of how things are in nations that have JUST enforced the results of their corruptions. Do you think those indexes will show the same after 2022 is over? If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. Your comparisons are so flawed and your blatant strawman of the concept of democracy is extremely naive. To what point? What point are you trying to make here? That you "can be authoritarian and also have a happy population"? Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes?

No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate. — Isaac

The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? Also, look at the actions of the Ukrainian people, what do they do? Do they conduct demonstrations against Zelenskyy and the people in power? There are NO reports on this, nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy and the authorities' actions to defend against Russia. Everything points to Ukrainians being overwhelmingly united against Russia. So what in the world are you basing your conclusion on?

You're grasping at straws just to support your conclusion that Ukrainians should accept the boot, give Russia their land, give up freedom and just give in to Putin's demands because people are dying. You are unable to understand the Ukrainians because you don't actually listen to them, you just want to win an argument, whatever apologistic idea it would demand. Listen to them instead of your own words.

From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying? — Isaac

Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. There's basically an overwhelming 24/7 global coverage about the war, interviews being done over and over from a vast amount of sources globally. If you are unable to assess the actual situation through the collective result of that coverage, then you are unable to actually make rational conclusions in this matter. Give me any kind of source that points to anything other than overwhelming support for Zelenskyy and this fight, in and outside of Ukraine.

The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method. — Isaac

Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. You have zero solutions that the Ukrainians would agree with, based on everything we've seen from the people of Ukraine, outside and inside, so why are you suggesting some method that have no documented support?

Is the method of defense against invading killers a bad method? What should we do instead? Thoughts and prayers? :shade:

One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'. — Isaac

You are unable to understand Putin's propaganda machine, that's for sure. The west supports Ukraine because the people ask for our help against a violent killing invader. There's little evidence to show that Putin would back down through peace talks or the west putting pressure on him to do so, therefore, defense measures for Ukraine are needed in order for them to survive against a powerful invader. That is the support from the west and beyond. That was the answer to your remarks of "support" for Ukraine. What Putin says is irrelevant, he's the aggressor, he conducts propaganda, silences his own people, do whatever it takes to control the narrative. Anyone taking him seriously have no idea how to rationally deduct valid conclusions in this.

f they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely... — Isaac

And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves?

What the hell are you smoking? The Ukrainians would tell you to shut up if you expressed this directly to them. But this isn't about actual Ukrainians, this is about you trying to win the argument, what is true about their wants and needs is irrelevant to the point that you portray them as unable to make their own decisions or understand the decisions they've made after being encouraged.

To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly.

And...

Parties to an armed conflict must "at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives". — Isaac

It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. You have so little knowledge of what's actually going on in Ukraine that it becomes impossible to discuss these things.

And Putin's forces are the ones who actively shoot at civilians so how can Ukrainians defend themselves against an enemy who doesn't care if they're shooting civilians or not? Then it doesn't matter for the civilians who want to fight that they don't have the necessary gear. You don't seem to understand what a fight for survival is. You're just grasping whatever your think fits your argument without actually doing the rational work to make sense of it.

Listen to the Ukrainian people instead of speaking for them like you are an expert on what they need to do. They choose to fight for their freedom and their nation, they choose it with such overwhelming majority and collective spirit and morale that your argument that they should put down their guns just sounds like Putin apologist bullshit.

What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed? — Isaac

Because this is what they've done since 2014. Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? At what point would you fight back?

I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism. — Isaac

Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? The latest acts of the Russian regime against its own people just show exactly how authoritarian it actually is. And democracy, as it is normally being used as a term, is about more than just elections, it's about freedom of speech, independent media, freedom of movement etc. Neither exist in Russia and especially now, there's nothing of that. You also ignore all the work Ukraine has been doing to fight back against national corruption, compared to Russia not doing much at all to fight theirs.

What exactly is your argument here? That "because democracy doesn't mean everything is good, there's really not that different from living in an authoritarian regime without freedom of speech?" How is this in any shape or form a rational argument?

We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance? — Isaac

You argue for giving into a dictator's demands to stop the current bloodshed. What about the blood under the boot of a regime? Would you have argued the same in the rise of Nazy Germany? "Give in to Hitler's demand, just stop the bloodshed for now, it's not worth your freedom. Give them your freedom so you can live". That turned out great.

Can you name any authoritarian regime that treated people well after they forced them to surrender or be killed?

You still don't understand what the Ukrainians themselves fight for, you seem to be unable to understand what fighting for freedom actually means.

It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice. — Isaac

You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? So if the people want to fight for their freedom, defend their nation against an aggressor killing their people and threatening their independence, the authorities shouldn't represent their people's will and fight?

Maybe you want to be under the boot but they don't. That's what they're fighting for. And blaming Ukrainian authorities or the people of Ukraine for any of the civilians getting killed is fucking moronic. Russia is the aggressor, Russia holds the blame here. You cannot blame Ukraine for not stopping the war by giving in to the demands of their invaders. That's as backwards as thinking about this can possibly get.

Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first. — Isaac

You still ignore what the Ukrainians want themselves. Stop thinking for them for a moment, stop speaking for them in your internet armchair and listen to what they are actually saying, what they want with their life and nation. No one is cheering for bloodshed, no one is supporting it, what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation.

It's kinda disgusting that you speak "for them" in the way you do. That you know what's best for them and how they should act. You continue to criticize how the west influences the world, how the US is bad, how NATO is bad, but when the east (Russia) demands and wants to control you're like "LET THEM!" and when I say you should listen to what Ukrainians want with their own life and nation and what they feel about the situation, you ignore that and point out "what they should do", just like any other figure from the west that you complain shouldn't interfere in others business.

So what's it gonna be? Should the west tell Ukrainians what they should do? Should Russia tell them what they should do? Should they be able to decide for themselves? And if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? Isn't that exactly how it should be done?

No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians — Isaac

So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault?

Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine — Isaac

No it's not, Israel killing civilians, especially using phosphorus bombs, is a war crime. Anyone thinking that's a complex issue doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Where's the call for sanctions against Israel? — Isaac

You don't think there are sanctions? Or that people don't care? I live in one of the only countries in the world that actually acknowledges Palestine as its own state. So whatever the fuck others do I don't care. It doesn't however have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine and if you think you can use that as a sort of rhetorical trap in an idea to show some hypocritical perspective in which people support Isreal in one case and Ukraine in another, that's not gonna fly with me since I criticize Isreal in the same way I do Russia when it comes to aggressions. Isreal is long overdue for a Hague court trial.

So don't use other conflicts to back up your ill-conceived arguments about what Ukraine should do. They want freedom, independence and not what Russia and Putin stand for. They fight to protect that freedom. A fight that for some can be worth more than the lives lost since it will inform the rest of that nation's existence and the lives of everyone living in that nation for decades or centuries to come. But you seem unable to understand such things or to actually listen to Ukrainians and what they want. If Ukrainians want the war to end, they're not pleading to the authorities to give into Putin's demands, they're pleading to Russia to stop the aggression, to stop the invasion.

Stop being confused as to who's the bad apple here. Stop blaming the Ukrainians for being invaded and killed, it's a preposterous perspective.

but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. — Isaac

By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the people living in those places not being able to be the Ukrainians they want to be, but that doesn't matter to you I guess? Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? I mean, this is literally the second invasion, even though it's bigger.

What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently — Isaac

How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this?

so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me. — Isaac

No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. Maybe it's easy to take freedom and independence for granted if you live in a nation where everyone takes it for granted, but for people who's just begun to feel free of the previous Soviet regime, looking to a brighter future for themselves, they might just rather die than give up that freedom to another dictator.

And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia, which means you argue for giving in to demands by someone killing civilians. Why do you think police forces like SWAT don't give in to demands by a perpetrator holding people hostage? Because it tells perpetrators that it works for getting them what they want. If killing civilians gets Russia what they want, they'll will keep doing it. The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia for doing so. That killing civilians leads to worse outcomes for Russia. It also informs Russia that any future conflict where they do the same would lead to the same bad outcomes for themselves. Imagine if they invaded another nation in the future and since they got what they wanted with Ukraine they use the same strategy of bombing civilians until they get what they want.

Avoiding bloodshed has more dimensions than just doing anything to avoid it. It's not that simple and it also doesn't mean people cheer for it.

Yes. If need be.

Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index — Isaac

Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about.

How on earth are you reading...

they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states.

...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"? — Isaac

Independent... like Belarus you mean?

Better late than never I guess?
Did sanctions have an effect of sorts? Ukrainians cause difficulties?
Anyway, seems the Nazi story fell out of favor. — jorndoe

But it's still not "we're leaving", it's "we're leaving, so long you put down your weapons first, and then we'll do it", except we'll keep some parts of Ukraine. It's arrogant to say the least, like a child who's crying over losing and wants to have a little cookie at least.

It's interesting that the "War Lord" Vladimir Zhoga, who was recently killed, was a neo-nazi criminal and that this is was supposed to be the elite who Putin sent in to "denazify" Ukraine. Now, Ukraine denazified part of the Russian army by killing him. Oh the irony :ok: :clap:

What makes you think that? — Isaac

Because it nurtures the lie that muddies the waters of what is propaganda and what is not. Maybe not among people in here, but media and lots of people who never talk philosophy or politics etc. keep mentioning the grain of truth as if it validates anything of what Putin is doing.

I doubt the assault on Odessa goes well, that's when the Ukrainians will pull out the Neptunes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Probably why Russia wants to end the conflict by telling them to give parts of Ukraine to Russia and lay down arms. Problem is that what's gonna happen to the people who don't want to live in Russia, are they gonna relocate to other places in Ukraine? The demands are a sham, a way to win something out of this. Russia has no rights to anything, they should just leave and go back home. Especially since Russia will have a hard time coming back from any of this, they need to rebuild things back home and just leave Ukraine alone. We're also now waiting for some word from the Hague court and there's not much telling any other narrative there than that Russia is conducting serious war crimes, which might lead to repercussions even if the war ends.

Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere — Isaac

A grain of sand does not make a beach, so a grain in itself is irrelevant when defining a whole beach.

A grain of truth is also one of the most important parts of making the propaganda machine work. Build the lie on a small truth and you will make those who seek the truth have to work harder to prove that truth. And it's with small sentences like "...has a grain of truth somewhere" that propaganda thrives on.

There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. — FreeEmotion

They're more or less like in most other nations of Europe that have a large problem with Neo-nazi groups. But nothing of that has any real relevance to Putin's reasons of denazification. As I've described, the most effective propaganda uses a small truth and bloats it up to a big problem so that any criticism of the propaganda can be met with "but... there are groups in Ukraine that are...". Any validation like that, even if recognizing the propaganda as propaganda, will just help that propaganda to get more validation.

It's pretty clear what the Russians believed going into Ukraine. It wasn't some neo-nazi groups, there weren't some "small groups of nazis somewhere", it was blatant propaganda of painting the entire nation as a Nazi regime, with the top leaders and Zelinskyy as being Nazis and them conducting genocide on the civilian population.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal? — boethius

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet.

I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. There is no point in meeting Putin's demand when the demand is only for Putin to control Russians' perspective on the war. Putin doesn't give a shit about international relations and any idea that peace talks about this nazi narrative would yield peaceful results is downright stupidity. All while the extreme focus in this thread to talk about the actual neo-nazis in Ukraine as something important just enforce the propaganda narrative without people understanding that this is what's happening. Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. To meet Putin on this point, to even consider it as a foundation for peace talks just validates the propaganda and enforces Putin's reasoning. If the west starts talking this narrative as something real, we've just made Putin's propaganda real and that is a trap. The denazification narrative that Putin pushes should be shot down, period. Don't even engage with that bullshit, don't validate the propaganda by linking this war to that narrative in any way. So once again, this is how the propaganda works and why engaging in this narrative just helps Putin.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? — Isaac

Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? If he pushes this propaganda everywhere, then people will keep talking about it, even outside Russia and it validates the narrative to anyone who seeks further information from independent sources.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

And you are repeating your posts like a parrot not even understanding the answers you get. It's pointless trying to discuss something like this with someone who ignores anything said that challenges your point of view while just answering every minor point with the same argument over and over.

You simply don't understand how Putin's propaganda narrative works. It doesn't matter how any of us try to explain it, you keep ignoring and keep repeating.

It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me. — Isaac

And you are a Putin apologist as far as I can see it. Or just so naive that you don't understand how you're a part of the propaganda machine. It's brilliant really, you are living proof of how Putin's propaganda can work even when someone acknowledges that it's propaganda.

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac

Exactly this. Get it already.

Let's focus on the nazis of Ukraine. Putin will retreat their troops, they will put down the guns and hug the Ukrainians in a big warm celebration that the war is over, as long as the peace talks give up the nazis. :shade:

Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else? — Isaac

So what are you comparing it to? There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups.

What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine? — Isaac

There isn't a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine that is greater than in other nations. So why do you even talk about this in the way you do? Nothing of this has to do with the war other than you buying into Putin's propaganda. It becomes even less of an issue when you weigh in the fact that Putin's connection to such groups makes him more dangerous in terms of neo-nazi movements than anything in Ukraine.

Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics. — Isaac

"All politicians lie" is not the same as how Putin uses propaganda, which goes beyond lies. It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. So you can't use a part of the false narrative and try to navigate it when the entire construct is formed to control it. That's what gullible diplomats do and then gets puppet strings pulled by Putin himself.

It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever. — Isaac

I'm just gonna quote my own breakdown of how this works, since you clearly are naive when it comes to how this propaganda works.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff. — Isaac

What intelligence? You have already bought into the narrative that Putin provided, but you have nothing to give them, you have no leverage in the peace talks because of the fact that it is an impossible demand to be met, especially at a time when the entire nation is war-torn.

Relates to my questions above... — Isaac

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac

Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons while making it a "never-ending battle" to denazify so that even if he levels the entire nation of Ukraine he can still spin it as "the only option we had to destroy the nazis".

I cannot believe how naive you are on this subject. You buy into it in the exact way I described:

since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem. — Isaac

Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. Since everyone knows he's a strategist, it's kind of logical that he helps push far-right movements in other nations in order to then say there's a neo-nazi problem he's fighting.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk. — Isaac

There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. "The problem" that Putin help you bloat up does not exist right now since it's a problem to fix in a country that does not have war. When there's civilians lying in the streets after a bombing leveled several blocks, it doesn't really matter that one of those houses had a gathering of neo-nazis before the war.

It's like sitting in a house after it burned down saying: "Just because it is like it is doesn't mean we can ignore the plumbing problem we had before the fire."

What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down. — Isaac

There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue.

It's like your mouth speaks of his reasons not being true, but your mind seems to have bought the propaganda anyway. How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? It's not the general public that's in those meetings, they all know it's bullshit. Putin uses these reasons as a way to never answer to his real reasons, it's a mantra whenever he gets criticized.

But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. How do you establish that the "neo-nazis" are gone? Do you show him the dismantled bodies of children in a block bombed to rubble and say: "your neo-nazi problem is gone now, you bombed them to bits"?

Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win. — Isaac

Putin doesn't give a shit. While you're writing here, there's been agreed upon humanitarian corridors that were supposed to help civilians flee cities currently being under siege. But Russian troops keep firing at the civilians. They agree on a ceasefire until the civilians are gone, then instantly starts shooting at them.

It's like you don't see what's going on here, like you are blind to the brutality of Putin and the unreliability of dealing with him diplomatically. He doesn't fucking care, and it's proven by what is directly happening between the diplomacy and events in Ukraine.

He's conducting war in the same way as dictators did before the age of internet. Making sham diplomacy meetings and peace talk while bombing civilians to pieces. This worked in the past since it kept the international public in the dark while trying to achieve the real objectives in the war. Only after a war had ended did human rights violations and war crimes become known and then the objective of the war was either failed or gained while proving the aggressor guilty became harder since most evidence was gone. Right now, when it's so easy for information to get out of Ukraine, it becomes much harder to conduct these sham diplomacy strategies and I think this is the failure for Putin.

He didn't calculate how information spreads today and this is why he's now so dedicated to shutting down everything in Russia in order to control the flow of information at least in a place he has control over. Otherwise, we would have seen him shutting down Facebook and information outlets in Russia right at the start of the invasion in order to control the flow. He didn't do that and only did it after protests and criticism appeared, something he might have thought would be something to deal with later.

In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means. — Isaac

Putin doesn't care about any of that. If you think you can sit down in a peace talk with his delegation and use his propaganda reasons as "leverage" he would just laugh behind your back. It's gullible and naive to think you can meet his bullshit as foundations for a ceasefire like that. Just look at how he fell back to his "standard" propaganda whenever people like Macron called him and tried to talk sense into him. He doesn't care, he just states the reasons and never discusses it as any valid point.

Because he knows he could keep using that reason as it's an extremely vague point that can never be proven "solved". He could keep using the neo-nazi angle at every corner of this war because there will never be a point when anyone can say "now that the house of nazis has been leveled, the neo-nazis are gone and the denazification is complete".

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda.

You can see this everywhere. People who are unable to see past the propaganda, who are unable to see how that propaganda works, are used and who even think they understand that Putin uses propaganda, but still fall for it, just as it seems in your case.

You can't use bullshit reasons as a foundation for peace talks, and you can't meet unquantifiable demands as leverage for a ceasefire, and you can't enter a ceasefire if the aggressor keeps breaking it killing civilians.

Forget it. It's like talking to children. Can you seriously not get your heads round the idea of diplomatically taking account of the stated grievances of one party without agreeing with them?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between working out what we could do (or could have done) to fix this and deciding who's to blame? — Isaac

How did that in any shape or form relate to what I wrote? Putin pushes a propaganda narrative to justify his actions, there's no reality to that narrative. Why can't people understand this?

Yep. So is it not a problem that there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or is there no problem because there's no Neo-Nazis? It's not clear which is your claim. — Isaac

Who cares at this moment? There are neo-nazis everywhere, especially in nations that have free speech, there will always exist a number of outliers and yes, all of these bad groups should be dealt with. But nothing of this has anything to do with the war. The neo-nazi liberation narrative is Putin propaganda, nothing else. To even consider that perspective as valid is falling for that propaganda as valid reasoning when discussing the war. People should be more rational than doing so. Putin lies all the time but people seem to use that as valid perspectives or counterpoints. :shade:

How do we stop wars? — Isaac

Not by debating whether the west is to blame through ill-conceived arguments about Nato, that's for sure. Stopping a war requires action on the part of people in power. As far as I can see I think the west is actually doing good in this regard. Sanctions are hard, help gets to Ukraine, pressure on Putin is everywhere. We see hints in Russia of support for the war dropping.

How else do you stop a war without starting a bigger one? There are only two options really. Either fight or help without fighting.

Yet one never should underestimate just how much perseverance Russians have. If their economy will falter, then they stand in line for bread. The sanctions won't stop Putin, that's for sure. If the people survived the collapse of the Soviet economy, they surely can survive sanctions too. — ssu

Questionable though, since the fall of Soviet and the following recession still had open doors towards the west with trade and business, which were a part in restoring the economy. The sanctions right now have basically blocked Russia from being part of the technology- and business practices that are essential to modern economic vitality.

Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. — ssu

But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage.

If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces — ssu

But they have performed attacks on it. The biggest reason they haven't mounted a full attack is A) their airforce have been seriously taken out and a flyby would risk the few planes they have left, while B) their anti-tank/anti-vehicle capability has been draining dry. It's only just now that the Swedish anti-tank weapons have arrived in Ukraine so we might see a mounted attack soon.

The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery. — ssu

Problem is that Putin has little left to spin the truth. The only way for him to win is to kill Zelenskyy, kill everyone who opposes Putin, and by force take over Ukraine and install more Russian citizens so the general public is fewer Ukrainians and more Russians. That's the only way he can "win" this and that scenario is so far-fetched that I don't think even he thinks it's a possibility.

I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, use that footage to spin the narrative that "the "neo-nazi drug addicts" destroyed beautiful Ukraine and such barbarism couldn't save the nation, it is a wasteland that I and proud Russians tried to save from the west, now lost to the brutal enemies. As we mourn the fallen, we will build a better Russia for those that survived" etc. blah blah blah new world order blah.

I think his strategy right now is to attack in a way so that he could build a propaganda narrative on it and then turn focus somewhere else, probably building relations with China who really don't want this mess on their hands. They want Russia to stop and be a partner in a way that doesn't taint their own nation, so they can only start doing that when Russia ends the war. And the west will probably be gullible and stupid once again after this war: opening trade, removing sanctions and believing Putin and Russia will be peaceful now.

I think sanctions should be kept even after the war ends. Otherwise, what's with all the talk of Putin not getting away from the crimes he's done? Sanctions should be kept until the people of Russia goes into revolution mode. We're already seeing a lot of such movements now and it might just be a matter of time before the police switch sides. When that happens there's no real stopping them flushing Putin out of power without a civil war happening, which will not help Putin further.

Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different. — ssu

https://www.consultancy.eu/news/7433/research-ukraine-war-costs-russian-military-20-billion-per-day

€20 billion a day means that it has so far has cost Russia €220 billion.

Add to that all sanctions and the worthless Rubel and it's just a matter of time before Putin starts to take money from the oligarchs to try and finish this mess. There's no way Putin can win any of this. Imagine if this war goes on for another month, that's €840 billion, then imagine if it goes on far longer than that, like 6 months, that's €3940 billion.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it. — ssu

No, but Russian troops shooting at a power plant risking a 5x Chernobyl as they did last night could be a reason to break everything said about not helping Ukraine with military forces and go in and help Ukraine get rid of the stupid ones firing at fucking power plants.

That action is so stupid that it could warrant a force to stop things like that from happening. I mean, if they blow a power plant and the winds go east, then Putin would totally fuck up Russia in a way I don't think he thought about.

Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. — ssu

Yeah, makes sense. But we're not in an actual cold war again, even if it looks like that's gonna be our future now.

And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions. — ssu

Well, the Cuban crisis was one of the worst during the Cold War. It could very well end up being something similar happening in the future.

The big problem though, is that information about such events could be hidden easier back then. Current stream of information makes it harder to keep things under wraps.

It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden. — ssu

Yeah, and our third-largest party (the extreme right-wing fuckheads Sverige Demokraterna) might swing around in this matter from against to positive for NATO and that would mean a majority in our parliament. UK also announced through NATO that they would assist Sweden if we were ever to be attacked by Russia. Of course, that doesn't mean much, could only be empty promises, but sure is a bit of a relief. I wouldn't mind having some SAS forces on Gotland. With the "quality" of Russian troops in Ukraine, they wouldn't stand a chance against SAS forces.

I am curious what people think of the extent all the economic sanctions by the West were an acceptable consequence to the Kremlin? As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"? — boethius

He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. Remember, Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China. — boethius

But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them.

There's also intel showing that a lot of the higher-ups in China are critical of Xi Jinping's anti-corporation attitudes, that most others want more open relations to western companies, not closing those doors. And Xi Jinping is up for his vote for lifetime mandate this fall, where many believe that he might be voted out because of his unpopularity among the others in power. If that happens, then the deal with Russia could be broken in an instance. This is a huge risk for Putin that I'm not sure he's really aware of, since he has miscalculated so many other things during this invasion.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished with via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective. Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism. — boethius

But the oligarchs have close ties to Putin. Most likely it's how he can influence in the west without direct connections. It's part of his power. Many also speculate that most of Putin's wealth is hidden within the oligarch's wealth. Hidden from the Russian people. From the outside, it looks like Putin has as much income as our prime minister in Sweden, which isn't at all a luxury sum compared to many leaders in the world. But underneath he most likely has a large wealth hidden from the public and many speculate the oligarchs to be the holders of that.

Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience). — boethius

Yeah, this is a problem, we really don't know Russia's operation is going. There are many many sources that point to it going bad, but Putin is a brutal strategist. He might just have thrown young conscripts into Ukraine as cannon fodder to make believe that Ukraine is winning while mounting a whole other attack as the main one. We really don't know until the backlash in Russia becomes real.

In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals. — boethius

To a point. If the war chest is locked down or the entire economy collapses it matters little if they have savings they could use towards China when the end result would be military material without any money left for the citizens of Russia.

My take is that much of the Rubel's floating around in Russia have been converted to crypto, since we've seen a surge in crypto right when the sanctions kicked in hard. But that's unverified.

Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed. — boethius

This is probably what's gonna happen with Russia long-term. Even if sanctions ease up, no one wants to deal with Russia anymore. But the problem is that modern nations can barely make it without good global trade. This is why China is one of the largest trade nations in the world, they realized that is where modern superpower is. Russia has oil, gas, and wheat. With climate change pushing the world further from these natural resources, the less Russia will be able to export it, even to China. Wheat will be the only thing they could export while they don't have any high industry of tech or other functions that low natural resource nations have as trade. Look at North Korea. All reports from within point to massive poverty and only surface level imagery of wealth among the top people. Compare that to China who's the largest trading nation in the world.

If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west.

So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.? — boethius

I think it's a door opening for the west to get rid of Russia. They weren't a big trading partner compared to others to begin with, and there are too many risks dealing with them for anyone smart enough to see through Putin's big leader attitudes. Germany was the only one really opening their arms to them and look how they got fucked by the instability he created. No one will dare making deals with them anymore. Even oil that is still being exported from Russia is being turned down because people don't want to deal with Russia anymore.

I think it's an acceptable risk because Russia doesn't really influence the west as much as people think. There will be hits to the global economy, yes, but no way near what would happen if a nation like the US or China got disrupted. Russia, as a global economic partner, is not really that important compared to other superpowers.

So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had.

For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that. — boethius

China relies too much on international trade, so it will grow out of its hardcore authoritarian system just through political evolutionary movements. For them, growing their economy through trade and through having deep investments in other nations will demand them to loosen themselves more and become more like the US. Because they do business just like the US, buying themselves into other nations in the world, making heavy trade deals, and increasing global power through all of it. Russia might be something they view as rational in the short term, but if Russian economy is in the gutter and there's not much viable trade with them, they will just shrug it off and move on.

Russia has much more to lose than China if their agreement breaks... and I think China knows it. I think they are much better at world chess than Putin and the rest of Russia.

I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise? — boethius

That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today.

Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken.

Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations... — ssu

Yes, but that was before a full-scale war. I mean at the moment, while Russia has shown actual aggressive warfare, the act of breaking borders into NATO airspace would be much more severe than the normal tensions earlier. We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different.

Russian troops must be the most stupid people in the world after shelling the biggest power plant in Europe so that it’s now burning and fire fighters can’t get to it because they’re fired upon when they try.

If the winds go east, then Putin might fuck Russia up in more ways than he had imagined.

Seriously, this is the most stupid thing I’ve seen. :shade:

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries. — baker

Then they need to focus on other aspects, like forming a tech industry with engineering educations and similar. Maybe even semiconductor facilities etc.

It is possible to build first-world standards even without a geographical area high in natural resources. But you need more time than 30 years of instability. It's like, they've just gone into a form of stability, or working to stabilize the nation, and then Putin bombs the shit out of them.

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia. — baker

Why is Ukraine being neutral important to them if they don't want to control Ukraine? Russia can say whatever they want about what they want with Ukraine, but in the end, they want control over them. Either by them being part of Russia or as a puppet state.

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

Yes, agreed. But that point also counters your point about Ukraine not having anything to warrant higher living standards. Why would Russia force itself into a nation that doesn't really have anything of value? Other than an obsession with redrawing borders?

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

But this point hasn't really come to pass yet. There are enough resources still in this world to sustain it a while longer, for many nations.

But it WILL be the conflict of the future. When climate change has created unsustainable living conditions in some places of the world, we will have a refugee crisis that is unprecedented in history. At that time, we will have a shortage of resources... and that will be the source of an extreme world conflict, possibly the true world war 3.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker

Maybe they just don't want to be ruled by an authoritarian leader? Maybe they've been fighting their own corruption for a while now and don't want to flip that on its head? Maybe they felt like they wanted something else? I mean, maybe they wanted to form a society based on western standards more? Maybe the principles of staying independent and forming their own future were so strong that it's worth it to defend against Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency. — baker

But is this the case though? A nation that is finding its own path and hasn't been doing it for more than 30 years might need more time to solidify its modern core culture and values?

It's like if Norway, after the breakup with Sweden, were invaded by us 30 years later with the argument: "look at them, they can't make it, they're barely a functioning nation, we shall fix them with stability". But Norway grew to surpass us in their economy, mainly through their oil, but still, we don't view them as "us", we view them as brothers, just like many do between Russia and Ukraine. And this might be why I have such a hard time seeing the need for Putin's actions here. Sweden and Norway have an extremely good relationship, with a trade that's almost better than within the EU, even though they're not part of the EU. Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".