Note that the suffering is mutual. Over the past few months, the evidence is that the Russians suffered the most. I wonder why you keep forgeting their sufferings… — Olivier5

As has been pointed out time and time again, what matters in the question of who will win this war and how is the capacity to absorb suffering, not the raw numbers.

If the Russian military losses indicate a likely win for Ukraine you shouldn't have the slightest trouble finding a military or strategic expert stating as much.

As it is you have to resort to citing your co-Zelenskyites on here because virtually every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain.

The matter at hand is, and always has been, should Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate. Most of the sane world are saying 'yes' at this point. In a few weeks, the media-train will catch up, and upon recieving your new instructions, you'll pretend like that was your position all along.

when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker. — frank

Just restating it doesn't make it true. If I dropped a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood because I was justifiably concerned you were going to kill me, people would definitely condemn my actions. The collateral damage my actions resulted in would be out out of proportion to the harm I was trying to avoid.

Just ignoring the counterargument doesn't render it met.

I think you're just procrastinating instead of studying how to trade on the currency market. — frank

Time for your meds, I think. Is one of the nurses nearby? Do you need us to call someone?

Uh huh. — frank

Good. Glad we got that one sorted. Perhaps put a little thought into your posts next time before reeling off meaningless knee-jerk platitudes.

Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. — frank

Of course it can. If I feel that you're threatening my life, I'm not thereby justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on your house. The collateral damage would be out of proportion to the harm mitigated.

It's absurd to suggest that self-defense somehow morally justifies any response no matter what.

Seems to me that Russia is far more isolated than Ukraine at the moment. Its one and only ally is Belarus, and it is not helping much. — Olivier5

Read first, reply second. It always works best that way round.

Russia has a Veto — boethius

A veto does not require allies.

What a fascinating collection of self-immunised arguments we're getting. First we have @ssu's absurd "when my theory is disproven by the past 'times have changed', when it's supported 'twas ever thus'"

Now we have your classic example...

When did Russia news stop being a propaganda tool of the regime?

Apparently, the moment it starts saying something you think is true.

Where's your graph of how frequently Russian media talked about Russia's 'right' to Ukrainian territory?

When Russian media says stuff that doesn't support your theory - "It's all lies, Russian media is such a propaganda tool - they're not going to tell us Putin's true intentions are they?"

When Russian media says stuff that does support your theory - "See, the Russian media are saying it, so it simply must be true representation of Putin's intentions"

This isn't 1914 or 1939. — ssu

No. Apparently it's...

2010. — ssu

The sophistic art of the historicist...

When events from the past don't match your preferred theory say "ah, but things are different now".

When events in the past do match your pet theory say "see, the way things happened in the past shows us how they will happen today, nothing is different"

Voilà. One completely self-immunised theory.

Harm is a reason not to harm. If you have empathy that is. — Benj96

Yes, although 'harm' doesn't fully encompass all morality. There's a whole set of characteristics which fall into the definition of 'moral' behaviour. Like the word 'game', there's no one criteria for what constitutes a game, but its still pretty easy to be clear that a tomato isn't a 'game'.

Most moral sentiment has some biological origin, like empathy, but it's the cultural definition of the word that determines correct use, not biology. That which is 'moral' is that which your language community understands as being included in that term.

What you propose to actually do, of course is another matter.

The point is, again, that the authority has to justify it. — NOS4A2

I can't make any sense of that. Say I'm the government/parent and I offer you a series of justifications as to why I have authority over you. Is that it now, do I have legitimate authority now I've justified it?

have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist

I do. It'll bloody hurt.

To say that torture is bad is to say that moral claims can be true. — Leftist

No. To say "torture is bad" is to say that the word 'bad' correctly applies to torture. They'd be right. It does.

Like "the bus is red" just means that the word 'red' applies to the colour of the bus.

It’s the authority that has to justify it. — NOS4A2

You said...

it can be justly reasoned that... — NOS4A2

How would you know it can be justly reasoned if you can't supply me with what those just reasons would be?

it can be justly reasoned that a father is the legitimate authority of his child. — NOS4A2

Go on then.

it's the demonstration that NATO is perfectly capable of avoiding escalation into WW3 — Olivier5

... resulting from a single stray missile fired by one of their allies.

Yes, I'm glad the alliance has met the bare minimum threshold of not starting world war three on the basis of a single incident which their own intelligence shows to be a missile form their own ally. Yesterday they also didn't start the apocalypse because Putin looked at them funny. Well done them.

The response to this single incident included an appeal to "bomb Russia" from the highly influential Atlantic Council, plus mentions of Article 5, and "defending every inch of NATO territory" from the warmongers in the US and other NATO states.

That you find this reassuring is seriously worrying.

maybe AP even got the same info but left out "produced" for click bait effect. — boethius

That could well explain why they're now refusing to reveal their source.

Their own editorial guidelines state that an anonymous source can only be used if the information is sound and a clear byline to that effect is in place. They adhered to neither in this case, so the theory that AP played this up themselves seems plausible.

I wouldn't say that my trust in Zelensky has been shattered. Would you? — Olivier5

An unnamed diplomat from a NATO country has just told the Financial Times...

This is getting ridiculous. The Ukrainians are destroying [our] confidence in them. Nobody is blaming Ukraine and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile

Also important is that the notion it was a Russian missile came from an unnamed "senior U.S. intelligence official" who AP are still refusing to name despite the fact they they were obviously fed false information.

The question is why the US would deliberately feed false intelligence to the press, then later deny the veracity of that information.

A split over strategy, perhaps?

raises the spectre of the Baltic States and Poland being subject to Russian terror — Benkei

@Olivier5@Christoffer

He went further on Twitter, saying...

Ukraine, Poland, all of Europe and the world must be fully protected from terrorist Russia, — Zelensky

That's one hell of a no-fly zone!

We don't know what he knows, though. — Olivier5

I don’t know 100 percent — I think the world also doesn’t 100 percent know what happened,... We can’t say specifically that this was the air defense of Ukraine. — Zelensky speaking to the New Economy Forum in Singapore

We don't know what he knows, though. — Olivier5

Hasn't seemed a barrier previously to you waxing lyrical about Putin's intentions, Biden's intentions, Macron, Draghi... Since when have you once considered the need to not surmise what a political or scientific figure might know a barrier to commenting on their likely intent? Is there a reason Zelensky gets special treatment here?

I think one could be forgiving of a certain rashness in judgment, under the circumstances. — Olivier5

What circumstances? He's not on the front line. He's jetting around the world meeting leaders in plush hotels. As I said before, if he's not prepared to have his decisions held to account he's in the wrong job. We don't excuse global sabre-rattling because he had a bad day. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can handle a few internet posts criticising his behaviour.

What furores? Haven't seen that. Last time I checked, we don't know who did it. Isn't it irresponsible to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than some kind of 'gut feeling'? — Olivier5

That's the point. This is exactly the line trotted out against, for example, Jeffry Sachs when he declared it was clear that the US did it. The standards are not being applied consistently, which is an indicator of bias. Bias in favour of what is already the world's most powerful nation is very dangerous. Power need to be held to account.

I'm entitled to my opinions and to not seeing them branded as some sinister backslash. — Olivier5

I'm pointing out that your opinions are naive, boot-licking, ill-informed and dangerous. I never said you weren't entitled to them. The point is that you're applying double standards - a clear sign of bias. When Zelensky expresses an 'honest feeling' that Russia conspired to cause this event, you say it's OK to hold serious discussions on that level. When people talk about their feeling that the US orchestrated the Euromaidan coup, you imply they ought not because it's not something that's been proven beyond doubt.

I am just pointing out how such an explanation for the Russians' flight from Kherson is not based on facts, and likely biased. Call me intolerant. — Olivier5

Neither is Zelensky's claim that it was not a Ukrainian missile and that it's a Russian conspiracy. If it's OK for him to make such claims publicly. and we ought not criticise, then why is it not OK for us to make claims about back door negotiations, with as little evidence? One rule fro pro-mainstream opinions, another for those opposed.

You realise the mainstream opinion has quite enough support already, right? It's backed by the most powerful nation the world has ever known and the largest, richest and most powerful corporations that have ever been. You can afford to ease up a bit, put your feet up, I don't think the US corporate hegemony are on the ropes just yet.

the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation — Olivier5

Funny. You seem to have quite a complex grasp of the concept here...

A few pointers and indicators about people arguing in bad faith:

1. No data is good enough for them, except theirs. They are likely to disregard entire sciences and throw away vast amount of data just because they can (or must).

2. On the other hand, they choose to trust and accept uncritically any data that seems to buttress their view, without ever wondering if it's genuine or manipulative. They are eager to believe alternative views and that makes them easy to manipulate.

3. They misinterpret even their own data, like when you pretended to confuse an in vitro finding with an in vivo conclusion. This is done on purpose and is part of the lying.

4. They tend to essentialize their opponents, at least in their rhetoric. Whether it's the Jews, climate scientists, politicians, the CIA or the medical establishment, they pretend to believe that their (invented) enemies -- all of them or nearly all of them -- are essentially, fundamentally evil and will always remain so.

5. From 4, it follows that they see no solution. They will criticize any proposal or policy around, but can't propose anything cogent themselves. It's about denial and negativity, about lying and poisoning the well of knowledge for others, not about proposing new knowledge or constructively moving forward. — Olivier5

...

Even by your new measure, it is wildly irresponsible for a leader to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than that he has some kind of 'gut feeling' it was them.

Shall we have a look at the furores kicked up when people suggested America blew up the gas pipeline? What about the backlash you yourself take part in at the mere mention of US involvement in Maidan? The slightest suggestion of a back door negotiation recently brought a scathing rebuke.

Apparently now you've had a sudden change of heart, and any old reckon counts as suitable for high stakes international discussion.

Choosing between downing incoming bombs and letting them fall isn't much of a choice. (NASAMS can help, too. :up:) Could always try to calculate (expected) numerical differences I guess; there is a fair amount of data to go by: — jorndoe

Of course it's a choice. It's exactly the choice military commanders make almost continuously during military operations - military objectives vs the risk of collateral damage.

Even the legal frameworks acknowledge the notion, let alone the ethical ones. Being attacked isn't an excuse to just do whatever you want by way of defense.

Clearly in this case, the decision to launch the defensive missile was sound, but if continued misses run a risk of extension or escalation then yes, those are exactly the sorts of collateral damage command are ethically, and in many cases legally, obliged to take into consideration when determining a course of defensive action.

It's not just 'throw everything at them and hang the consequences'...despite the ever more shrill cries from social media for world war three to get started already.

It's insane what people demand of him in the situation he's in from behind the safety of our own nations. — Christoffer

He's the leader of a nation and the commander in chief of an army. He's not a five year old having a go at 'My First Country'. We can, and should, expect exactly the level of diplomacy and restraint being suggested. Not taking an ambiguous and dangerous option which could potentially put thousands more lives at risk is basic.

If he doesn't want to have his decisions held to account by those who might be affected by them then he's in the wrong job.

Maybe they are a bit smarter than you are? — Olivier5

Who?

Paul Massaro, a prominent American supporter of Ukraine and member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, said around the same time that “Russian terrorism” had reached Poland, adding shortly after that it was “[h]ard to believe this was an accident.”

“Very concerned by Russian missiles dropping in Poland,” tweeted Slovakian Defense Minister Jaroslav Nad at 2:46 pm. “Will be in close contact with [NATO allies] to coordinate [a] response.”

A “senior European diplomat” echoed Nad in a Politico piece, saying that it was “appalling to see a desperate regime attacking critical infrastructure of Ukraine and hitting allied territory with victims.”

Anders Aslund of the Atlantic Council argued at around 3:30 pm. In a message aimed directly at President Joe Biden, Aslund said, “You have promised to defend ‘every inch of NATO territory.’ Are you going to bomb Russia now?”

Sergej Sumlenny, a prominent European policy expert, implied in a viral tweet that the attack was an intentional extension of Russia’s assault on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Mykhailo Podolyak, one of the top advisors to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, declared that the strikes were “not an accident, but a deliberately planned ‘hello’ from [Russia], disguised as a ‘mistake.’”

Zelensky tweeted that the “Russian attack on collective security in the Euro-Atlantic is a significant escalation” of the conflict.

Podolyak maintained that NATO should enact a no-fly zone in Ukraine,

It is simply utter bollocks to say they knew it was an accident but didn't know where it came from. The facts are that they learned where it most likely came from first, and prior to that considered several theories involving hostile intent.

...but I think we've established how little the actual facts of the case have any influence on your propaganda.

NATO will NOT respond even if it they conclude the missile was fired by Russia. It's evidently a mistake, a stray missile. Calm down already. — Olivier5

What evidence? I thought the origin of the missile was shrouded in mystery.

Weird. They don't know who fired it, but they know why.

NATO does not take its orders from Zelensky. — Olivier5

NATO are required to respond by treaty to any threat made to a member country. If there is doubt as to the origin of the missile, NATO will be some degree more inclined than otherwise to respond as if it were Russia. He negligently increased the risk of NATO concluding it was more likely Russia and responding accordingly. It's nothing to do with 'giving orders', it's to do with brazenly lying about some facts which are really important to get correct.

But of course, all your bleating about the importance of 'facts' goes out the window the moment it goes against your mainstream narrative.

The fact is that the US and Poland have both said conflicting things within their own nations so there's nothing conclusive at all about this. — Christoffer

Bollocks. Poland have done zero investigation beyond simply looking at the parts (which, since both Russia and Ukraine overlap in armaments, tells you nothing), and the US have investigated (albeit unfinished) with the single most well-informed intelligence network the world has ever known. to suggest that somehow the facts are still 'up in the air' is ridiculous fawning.

Oh, and...

Andrzej Duda, the Polish president, said that from the information Warsaw had, the missile was “an S-300 rocket made in the Soviet Union, an old rocket, and there is no evidence it was launched by the Russian side”.

He added that it was “highly probable that it was fired by Ukrainian anti-aircraft defence” and “unfortunately fell on Polish territory”. — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/poland-president-missile-strike-probably-ukrainian-stray

But of course you have to immediately spin it to some pro-Ukrainian stance.

if it was Russia's, then Zelensky knows that it won't lead to an Article 5 consequence — Christoffer

Anders Aslund immediately took to Twitter and Urged the President to "Bomb Russia" on the basis of exactly that article.

Russia's "demands" in such peace talks have been "a total surrender of Ukraine". — Christoffer

I've not read this. What source are you getting that from?

Either Zelensky is optimistic about escalation not really escalating to something I'd rather not think about or that was a hell of a cynical political move. — Benkei

Yes. There's simply no good way for Zelensky to come out of this (though I'm interested in how the media will spin it).

Or he just genuinely believes that the missile that crashed in Poland was not fired by Ukraine. It's not like the evidence is out there for everyone to see. — Olivier5

Don't be absurd. World leaders ought not simply announce any matters they happen to believe like fucking children with no filter. His words could have brought NATO into a war with Russia on false premises. That's negligence on a criminal level.

And hence as you cannot comprehend them, your views aren't much worth of discussion. — ssu

Who said anything about comprehending them? I said I don't care what matters to them, not that I don't comprehend them.

And in either case, explain why that makes my views not worth discussing? Why are only views relating to what matters to Ukrainians worthy of discussion?

I have nothing to correct, and your representation of my view is fair. — Tzeentch

Good, glad I wasn't misrepresenting you too badly. Then @Olivier5's position becomes all the more bizarre. Your view is apparently rendered implausible merely by the existence of an alternative theory. Weird.

The theories don't interest me. Your attitude toward them does.

You're trying to deny a theory by presenting evidence to support an alternate one. It's obviously incoherent (unless the two theories are mutually exclusive), but this tactic has become more and more popular on social media lately.

I'll wait for @Tzeentch to correct me.

against all evidence — Olivier5

Are we starting again?

What evidence do you have which proves the reasons for the Russian retreat are solely the strength of the Ukrainian advance, and could not be influenced by back door negotiations?

there's no evidence of any peace deal — Olivier5

You said "all evidence" pointed toward some theory the opposite of which would require one to be pro-Russian to believe it. Lack of evidence either way is not "all evidence".

Russian general admitted on TV that they couldn't supply the troops on the right bank of the Dniepr and thus had to withdraw. — Olivier5

Yes. You missed the bit where the theory included Russian collusion.

Anders Åslund's suggestion came up earlier, others have been aired — jorndoe

He's literally just called for a start to world war three on a whim

Fucking twat.

He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson so he must imagine that there is some mysterious secret peace deal behind it all. — Olivier5

Yep. So how is...

The Russian retreat from Kherson. — Olivier5

...evidence that Russia was forced to retreat from Kherson, as opposed to @Tzeentch's theory that they left in preparation for a peace deal?

You're citing the mere fact that they retreated, you've provided no evidence at all of why.

What position, exactly? — Olivier5

The one you're arguing against, of course. The one you're suggesting 'all evidence' is against. The one which support of, against all this evidence, makes one pro-Russia.

The Russian retreat from Kherson. — Olivier5

And how's that evidence opposing @boethius's position?

against all evidence — Olivier5

What evidence?

You've resorted to citing yourselves now. Barely a shred of 'evidence' has been presented over the last dozen pages at least, just uninformed opinion.

Cite some of this 'evidence'.

that's when they blame the US for all, the invasion bombing annexations re-culturation whatever (the constellations?), a diversion often enough playing right into Putin's hands (and their propaganda) by the way. :down: The US ain't the center of the world. — jorndoe

Cite a single commentator either here or in media who blames the US for all

Better stop shooting down missiles and kamikaze drones then — jorndoe

Yes. Since Poland are already talking of invoking Article 4, it's obvious to anyone not caught up in their naive Hollywood version of how wars go that a few missiles getting trough to Ukraine causes less death and destruction than shooting them down would if doing so triggers a NATO-Russia conflict.

So yes, Ukraine ought to be very very careful indeed with these weapons and may have to make some very difficult strategic decisions about the safety of their use.

One such very important strategic decision, for example, would be to not immediately claim it's a Russian conspiracy to even talk about the possibility that the missile came from Ukraine.

Russia:

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov accused some countries of making "baseless claims" about the missile incident and said the US response has been more measured in comparison.

"In this instance, attention should be paid to the measured and more professional response from the American side," he said

Rest of the world:
(generally along the lines of...) "We'll see after the investigation, our condolences to Poland"

Ukraine:

Meanwhile, Ukraine's said allegations that one of its own missiles had landed in Poland were a "conspiracy theory."

"Russia now promotes a conspiracy theory that it was allegedly a missile of Ukrainian air defense that fell on the territory of Poland. This is not true. No one should buy Russian propaganda or amplify its messages," Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Twitter.

It's not a good look for a country desperately trying to convince the world that it doesn't engage in the same level of knee-jerk instant-denial propaganda that Russia does.