Apart from justifications, what I meant was that the undemocratic political processes and what amounts to Ukraine's sovereignty caused ethnic conflict and instability. Sounds rather familiar, sounds like some sort of a plan, or Chernobyl - like accident. There is no doubt those involved know what actually happened. Neither side is at fault, but a third, outside force and 'actor' to use the term somewhat in irony, seems to be to blame. — FreeEmotion

Totally agreed there's outside parties as well, making the legalistic debateoids even less conclusive.

However, I would still say faults are all around, they are easy to distribute and it's difficult to run out of that supply.

Sounds like a dirty, disingenuous circus act-like media manipulation, not 'journalism' by any stretch of the imagination. More like a soft Mafia. — FreeEmotion

Soft power, soft mafia. I can definitely get behind that presentation of things.

Although, be that as it may, some of these mafias we can influence, if not choose who the boss happens to be. Sometimes Kodos is just objectively a better choice.

The UK and US are heavily invested in this war and its continuance, so don't imagine their official representatives will do anything other than stoke the flames — Leto

I agree that's how things seem now.

However, policy can change abruptly.

Other EU nations may push behind the scenes for a peace deal and use their leverage. The Ukrainian commitment to the war may also change regardless of US and UK desires.

Or, if promoting the war is suddenly a political liability than an asset, then being the "peace maker" may all of a sudden be politically expedient.

There are certainly factions in the US and UK political establishment that rather peace, deescalate with Russia, reduce inflation, stop pouring money into Ukraine when there's problem at home, and so on.

Didn't the war start because of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and if Russia had somehow prevented the coup from taking place, then it would have avoided war? — FreeEmotion

Exactly, you can keep making these sort of "debateoids" forever.

The legal arguments will never end because there's no judge and state to decide how it's going to be, which rights are more important, what facts are true, and who's "wrong" or then "more wrong".

Both sides will say the other "started it" and if are pro-one-side and lose that debate, you'll just switch to having started it for just cause reasons anyways, and if you lose that debate you'll then say the other side is evil anyways and the war is right to fight that evil even if it wasn't started for legally recognised just-cause reasons.

The problem with legal reasoning is that it's overdetermined. Everyone has too many rights and too many claims to all be simultaneously satisfied.

It's simply not a good framework to approach international relations.

Let's say the allies "fired the first shot" in WWII ... would that change our opinion of the Nazi's or our satisfaction of their defeat (mostly paid with Russian lives)?

There's simply far more going on in moral and political and factual understanding of the world than can be reduced into a few rights based arguments.

Obsession with rights is an obsession with privilege (only the privileged, such as board members, lawyers, professors, have any effective rights) and a denial of responsibility: "I have a right!" as opposed to "I'm trying to make a good decision, morally sound and best for society, and I'm responsible for my actions."

CNN: Weapons for Ukraine
Russian soldiers discussed atrocities
Video appears to show execution of Russian prisoner by Ukrainian forces (does this help Russia?) — FreeEmotion

It helps Russia a bit, sort of "signals" that Russia does have a perspective, and maybe some points and maybe Ukraine isn't perfect.

However, notice that we apply critical scrutiny to Russia. The video only "appears" to show something, and is not categorical proof of an atrocity such as the Bucha video (which as you pointed out, is still just a video also just appears to show something).

This sort of signal can be for 1 of 2 purposes (likely both).

First, it adds a little false-balance to protect against the claim that CNN is only doing information war for Ukraine: a la "see, we also reported a potential Ukrainian crime against a Russian." And the scale is so vastly different that it gives the impression that at most Ukrainians have done individuals murders and so zero comparison with atrocities and genocide.

Second, it prepares people for a diplomatic resolution, which CNN maybe instructed to prepare people for (a little mention from the white house or Langley to balance things a bit out a bit to help a peace deal), or then maybe is just hedging it's bets because it doesn't know if there will be peace or more war so it has two editorial directions it can go in.

There's almost always a diplomatic solution to problems, no matter how acrimonious things get.

As I mention in previous posts the West has fully bought into the narrative around Bucha, so they can't easily pull back from that; if everyone now wants a peace deal, one solution is to tell the Russians that no one's changing their rhetoric (just as Russia's not changing their rhetoric), and what's true or false doesn't really matter, but for the sake of peace what the West can do is at least balance things out a bit by bringing up a bunch of Ukrainian crimes, and then everything, overtime, can be blamed on individual soldiers and units, there will be long legal processes where everything gets super messy and drawn out and the rhetoric is gradually deescalated, and the news cycle moves on to the next "most important thing in the world to be angry about".

So, if there is no peace deal, then this single video "appearing" to show the "extrajudicial execution" of a Russian soldier (aka. murder), well it's only an appearance, only one soldier being murdered, and only one Ukrainian doing it on their own initiative anyways. So, hardly an "atrocity" or throwing any shade on Ukrainian institutions or Zelenskyy. It doesn't undermine much at all Ukrainian just cause. So if there's no peace process, focus can switch back to hating the Russians and just reporting anything Ukraine says on face value.

However, if there is a peace process, then CNN and other Western news agencies can build on this little seed of doubt and Russia legitimate grievances, and add a few more stories (there's plenty to choose from, especially the Azov guys who will literally post war crimes to Twitter) to balance things out enough for the peace deal to make sense: i.e. suddenly expose people to just how chaotic, messy and violent war is and soldiers do crazy things and crime on both sides, and facts are super difficult to know, but it's best the war stops and things will be investigated and it's time to heal and rebuild and all that.

Keep in mind that Russia does't care all that much what Western media says, it's got its own media. However, Western media will need to sell a peace deal to Western audience and therefore will need to pullback the rhetoric of Putin literally being Hitler and a single video proves a "genocide" in someway comparable to the organised extermination of 6 million jews, gypsies, mentally ill and other "untermensch".

Self-determination means nothing to you then? You have no criteria for it, no way to ascertain it? — Olivier5

That's the whole points, what right to I have to determine how you determine self-determination for yourself?

How would you figure out what they want without asking them? — Olivier5

That's the whole idea of self-determination: none of my business to figure out anything. I have no "right" about it.

I am not part of their "self" and therefore have no right to determine anything in contradiction to their right to self determination.

And if Ukrainian state has a right that's more important than Crimea or Dombas right to self determination because they were part of the Ukrainian state before ... then it follows Russia can assert the same "more important right" over the whole of Ukraine because Ukraine was part of Russia before.

The legal arguments don't go anywhere as rights are too vague and too many people have them to determine anything, without a judge and a state to decide who's rights, of all the competing claims and rights in contradiction, will prevail in a given circumstance.

If you create some doctrine that a state has a right to recover a breakaway region, obviously that doctrine will be tailored to your predetermined objectives of what breakaway regions you think a given state should recover and which breakaway regions ... we don't talk about that here: a la Ukrainians can fight for their land, by American natives have no right to fight for their land, or any other native population, or the British to recover the breakaway region of the United States and so on. "Rights" of these kinds don't matter in determining international relations: but, rather, who's won what wars and who can win what war.

Okay so you dot exactly know when he was told but it was after or soon before the start of the war. — Olivier5

The way he expresses that he asked NATO if they could join in 2 years of 5 years, or then just say no, makes no sense in the context of an ongoing war, which, a few sentences before he makes clear his desire to join NATO tomorrow. It makes zero sense the idea that just a week before he asked NATO if Ukraine could join in 2 years or 5 years while the war was ongoing.

We know he was offered a peace deal, that both Russia, US and the EU would back.

A peace deal he rejected. You agree his hands weren't tied. It's clear Ukraine isn't joining NATO ... so the result after the war will be exactly the peace deal offered before the war (but with more concessions and death) which is Ukraine not in NATO.

It's also clear that his only strategy was to get NATO involved in the war, he spends considerable effort on joining NATO, even after the war starts, using every social media stunt possible including handing out small arms to civilians, and then spends considerable amount of time on requesting a no-fly zone.

He is responsible for his decisions and the outcome.

So my case is strengthened: it was not a priority for him to change the constitution before the war. He had no good reason to do so. — Olivier5

Case strengthened how?

It's also just common sense that Ukraine won't be joining NATO, so he'd be responsible to understand that anyways (even if NATO was leading him on, which we now know wasn't the case, if he wants to be president of a country he should know anyways these common sense things).

Likewise, if the constitution wasn't his priority because peace wasn't his priority and he prefers a war with Russia and that was his priority. Mission accomplished.

But you personal bias against the democratically elected leader of a nation invaded by a militaristic autocracy is noted. — Olivier5

Correction: democratically elected and self determined militaristic autocracy.

In theory, that's precisely what it implies and requires: a vote. — Olivier5

So ... in theory, if I call for better more transparent voting the US, Ukraine or anywhere, that removes the right to self determination?

Why can't Crimea decide how it will vote and "self determine" what a vote? If you say it's not valid due to Russian influence, why can't Crimea decide to be influenced by Russia?

There is no world government that decides what is and is not a legitimate democratic vote ... and the right to self determination can include swearing an oath to a king.

It's a pretty vague concept without any clear meaning to begin with. It sounds good "self determination" but there is no agreed global governing framework to implement it ... and indeed "self determination" is intrinsically in conflict with the very idea of a global government to give it legally precise meaning of exactly who get's to self determine themselves anything and how.

Ukraine invoked it in it's argument to join NATO ... Crimea and Dombas can invoke it in their argument to join Russia.

It's another legal concept that sounds good to say, everyone likes to say it so usually is fine with other people saying it ... until the moment your right to self determination conflicts with mine then your right isn't a "real right" for some random reason, is how this "right" plays out in the real world. Pretty much every nation invokes it's right to self determination while denying the very same right to any of its components.

On the contrary, he is the one asking for a transparent popular vote in Crimea. — Olivier5

If you have a right to self determination, don't you have a right to carry out votes as you please?

Why would it matter what Zelenskyy thinks of how Crimea votes.

Point in all that is that legalistic reasoning to justify war cuts both ways, and will never resolve the war.

If Ukraine can use it's right to self determination to justify attacking the Dombas region, the Dombas region can use it's right to self determination to reject Ukraine's right to self determination and to ask Russia to intervene on it's behalf, just as Ukraine has the right to ask NATO to intervene on its behalf.

I am not arguing that "Russia is right". I'm arguing that these kinds of arguments will never resolve.

Legal arguments get resolved because a judge makes it so and a state enforces the judges opinion. Left to themselves, lawyers would never reach some sort of consensus about pretty much any acrimonious dispute but would keep arguing about it until the end of time.

If there is no judge and no state that will "provide justice" then the only alternative is trial by combat (aka. war) or then to talk it out. That is the purpose of such arguments.

The other purpose is to point out that diplomacy and statecraft is required to avoid unnecessary suffering even if immense suffering is unavoidable with our current nation state system.

I do not like the state and I do not view it as a natural organ of human organisation and is so dangerous, but insofar as states exist, precisely because it is so dangerous, I much the state be in competent hands who at least understand statecraft, just as I don't like nuclear weapons but, insofar as they are around, I much prefer them to be in the hands of competent officers who understand their craft of command and control and practice it honorably and care for them, precisely because they are so horrifyingly dangerous.

In short, in my view we are as much morally obliged to be repulsed and horrified by the state as we are morally obliged to care for it.

But that quote is dated a week after the start of the war. Before the war, he was never told that. — Olivier5

My interpretation was that he was told before the war, and apart of his reasons for becoming more cold on NATO for a while.

Considering Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Zelenskyy before the war to try to convince him to give up NATO aspirations and take a deal backed by Putin and Biden, it seems to me exceedingly likely that he was informed then and also before that he would not be joining NATO.

Which if NATO told him, it's not so duplicitous (not leading him on as it appeared originally), and just basic diplomacy. NATO coming out and publicly shutting the door would be humiliating, so they're saying the big boy words in private, that Zelenskyy needs to deal with.

Total agreement once again.

If you think about it hard enough Russia is the real victim here! — RogueAI

Dombas isn't Russia and currently not even Russian.

You can say you started a war for legal, even moral, reasons, such as to crush a breakaway region for the glory of Ukraine.

It's still starting a war.

What evidence is there that Zelenskyy was told about that before the war? At what occasion did NATO tell him? — Olivier5

He literally said this on live television in a CNN interview, after making final desperate arguments to join NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that if his country had been admitted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance earlier, then Russia would not have invaded the country.

“If we were a NATO member, a war wouldn't have started. I'd like to receive security guarantees for my country, for my people,” Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on “GPS,” adding that he was grateful for the aid NATO has provided since the invasion began. “If NATO members are ready to see us in the alliance, then do it immediately because people are dying on a daily basis.”

He continued, “But if you are not ready to preserve the lives of our people, if you just want to see us straddle two worlds, if you want to see us in this dubious position where we don't understand whether you can accept us or not — you cannot place us in this situation, you cannot force us to be in this limbo.”
"I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no," Zelensky said. "And the response was very clear, you're not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open," he said. — CNN

Yet on February 14's, Zelenskyy made a speech still arguing and requesting to join NATO.

Refresh my memory and present evidence of that, oh noble liar for the great One. — Olivier5

I do not believe in the just cause justifying lying about the reasons for the just cause in the first place.

I suppose some lying is required to do covert actions, and undercover police work, and I suppose there's other morally arguable situations for lying, but I do not support lying about the reasons for war in the first place or the reasons to reject peace in order to manipulate one's citizens and other politicians into supporting more war.

That's a lie again. Mr Zelenskyy started no war. — Olivier5

I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. Sure, you can say Ukraine attacked the Dombas because they have no right to self determination, and it was "legal", but that's still starting a war about the issue, a war that would simmer and lead to this larger war and increased risk of WWIII, not just due to escalation of this war but permanent higher risk due to the new cold war.



Is an interesting documentary about the war in the Dombas region made in 2016.

I watched it yesterday ... but it seems I'm not allowed to watch it today. (At least for me it has a button "I understand and wish to proceed" but then nothing happens if I click said button. https://youtu.be/RUP6B_GYMmA link plays.)

To you, certainly it is. But not to me. — Olivier5

Yeah... key word maybe. As in "Maybe it's perfectly clear".

What lie are you talking about, oh confused one? — Olivier5

Zelenskyy pretending to not have been told NATO would never let Ukraine in, but advocating to join NATO and making social media stunts for the purposes of joining NATO etc. is one of those "the big lie" as a rational to fight the Russians.

That's a lie. Ukraine is fighting to defend herself, not for the right to enter NATO. — Olivier5

One of the big reasons for the first week, and evening continuing after, was "the right to join NATO". Repeated by Zelenskyy and the whole reason to make Ukrainian civilians legitimate military targets was that it would be further reason to join NATO. You may have a short memory, but "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" was not only a reason to fight, but also a reason to refuse Russia's peace terms ... but if it turns out Zelenskyy already was told by NATO that Ukraine would never join NATO than it's simply lying to motivate Ukrainians to fight and also motivate Ukrainians and other politicians (which do exist in Ukraine) to accept refusing Russia's peace terms, and it was echoed all over Western and social media, so was a big meme of the time.

Mr Putin decided to start a pretty atrocious war and threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon, if you remember. — Olivier5

So did Zelenskyy. And, keep in mind, the war that could start WWIII has been simmering since 2014 after Ukraine refused to give Crimea and Dombas regions the right to self determination and right to not join NATO, in the name of their right to self determination to join NATO. A war continued by Zelenskyy.

Likewise, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Russians, then understanding the Ukrainian perspective is required to find a peaceful resolution. Tell that to your masters. — Olivier5

I'm pretty they can get the Ukrainian perspective anytime of the day or night by turning on CNN.

Your post is very unclear. Try and write less but clearer. — Olivier5

Maybe it's perfectly clear but cause for pause for thought as I mention, and thus cognitive dissonance if one does not wish to pause to think about anything.

Pre-war, Zelenskyy might legitimely have had other priorities than changing the constitution. — Olivier5

The key point is not what plans Zelenskyy may have had.

The key point is telling the Ukrainian people to fight for the right to join NATO, make belief that NATO is coming if they fight hard enough and distribute small arms to civilians making them military targets, and so on.

Had Zelenskyy simply not mentioned joining NATO as a reason to fight, and came out with now that NATO told him that Ukraine would never join, ok, maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt that Zelenskyy worked with that information in some plausibly competent way, and, more importantly, he wouldn't have been lying about joining NATO, and fighting to join NATO, and constantly making speeches and demanding to join NATO and NATO direct intervention etc. for cause to fight rather than sue for peace in the first low-intensity week of the war.

More generally, why the agressive stance towards Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Critical scrutiny is not "aggressive". Why the "aggressive" attitude towards Putin?

He's doing well, the best he can. — Olivier5

Lying about the reasons to fight and die are not "doing the best you can".

You are, in this claim, engaged in precisely the framework of assuming Zelenskyy has just cause, that fighting to the last Ukrainian is just cause, and whatever Zelenskyy needs to say to get arms and keep Ukrainians fighting and dying is just and beyond criticism because what needs to happen is Ukrainians fighting and dying, regardless of the outcome for Ukraine.

If one has to be a political realist and accept Putin as a player, as you have argued, what's the point of bitching endlessly about the other guy, Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Accept Putin as a player?

One must accept the war is happening.

As I've said, if there's a military solution for Ukraine, then they need not sue for peace and you need not try to understand different perspectives for the purposes of a diplomatic resolution. And I've said many times that surprises happen in warfare all the time and maybe Ukraine will have some great victory and march on Moscow and write the history of it at their leisure.

However, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Ukrainians, then understanding the opposing perspectives is required to find a peaceful resolution.

We get the Ukrainian perspective, and not simply the perspective but the repetition of all their claims as factual in the Western media, if it was the reverse and the Western media just agreed with everything Putin said, then I'd try my best to present the Ukrainian perspective for the purposes of diplomacy and peace making.

And why was Scott Ritter banned from Twitter?

Just asking common sense questions and pointing out evidence is needed to actually answer common sense questions, which you may actually want answered before using the jump to conclusions mat.

Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war? — Olivier5

It's obviously relevant that one of the main reasons for fighting and not making peace with Russia, and one major galvanization of Ukrainian and Western public opinion behind Ukraine was the "right to join NATO" which Zelenskyy was already told by NATO would never happen.

It's relevant to know things are setup by parties within Ukraine to frustrate peace making.

It's a pretty big lie, and so it's reasonable to suspect other big claims by Ukraine to also be lies; certainly not take them at face value if Zelenskyy is able to lie for weeks about a reason for fighting is to join NATO. For example, reasonable to suspect the claim, without even an investigation being conducted of any kind, of atrocities in Bucha being Russian war crimes, is maybe a lie too.

It also is pause for thought of whether Zelenskyy is even in control or then parties that change the constitution to frustrate peace making and therefore want to promote war. There's no statecraft reason to put in the constitution the aspiration to join NATO, it makes no sense except to hold one's population hostage in the hopes of forcing a NATO-Russia direct conflict.

Finally, seeing these sorts of lies and simply political incompetence (admitted to by Zelenskyy) ... and incompetence due to not taking this answer from NATO into account to begin with but then incompetence of just saying he knew all along in a CNN interview, may call into question the whole project of taking everything Zelenskyy says at face value and continuing the "scrutiny protection shield" that the Western media has created for him.

For, if he isn't "pure" and is capable of lying, either for his own purposes or then due to pressure from behind the scenes parties, and if his decisions aren't ordained by god to be good ones, then making scrutiny of Zelenskyy's claims "taboo" (for example kicking off twitter Scott Ritter, a ex-Marine and ex-UN weapons inspector, because he pointed out there's zero credible investigation and so basis to make any criminal accusations whatsoever, and evidence exists that even points to the executions, of white arm band wearing nominal Russian friendlies, being carried out by Ukrainians in a purge, they seem to have stated they would carry out, of collaborators), regardless of the "real truth" of any claim, it creates a moral hazard.

If Zelenskyy knows the Western media and social media corporations will simply buy whatever he says, then he has very little motivation to even look into or reflect on whether what he's saying is true, but a very high motivation to simply say whatever would be convenient to be true.

Western nations, media and social media corporations, simply taking everything he says on face value and placing automatically their seals of approval on it, creates the moral hazard of then not wanting an investigation to happen as it only risks exonerating, to a small or large extent, the Russians and demonstrating facts presented as 100% are in fact not 100%.

Western governments, in particular, buying into claims that may turn out later to be false, creates all sorts of incentives to prefer the war continuing so there is never a resolution and no investigations can ever credibly happen, and the news cycle simply refreshes the material of outrage with equally ambiguous claims so that no claims ever get credibly investigated, eventually everyone accepting that accusing the other side is just part of winning the "information war" and the truth doesn't matter in the slightest.

The truth not mattering in the slightest does not give justice to victims, whoever the perpetrators of the particular crime, and also makes a peace deal nearly impossible.

To make it very concrete, things seemed moving towards a peace deal before the Bucha images.

Now, had the West said that there needs to be an investigation, real substantive evidence before jumping to conclusions and a trial is actually needed to convict anyone of anything, had that signal been quick and strong that actual proof is needed to make a criminal conviction, then likely Zelenskyy would have backed off the claims himself, and the West not automatically believing whatever Ukraine says in their "information war" (the director of the CIA assures us Ukraine is winning) would place immense pressure on Zelenskyy to first bother to see what the truth may actually be, and motivate a peace deal (perhaps significant pressure to arrive at a peace deal if he gets the signal Western backing is not unconditional and there is risk an investigation will reveal the executions were Ukrainian Nazi's purging collaborators as they said they would do), and, in any event, sticking to the principle that criminal convictions need trials which need evidence and impartial investigators doesn't frustrate a peace deal.

However, simply repeating without any critical scrutiny whatsoever Ukrainian claims about Bucha certainly destroyed any chance of a peace deal following Russia withdrawal from North Ukraine, but may even, in itself, lead to a permanent state of war if Ukraine and Western backers now fear peace could lead to actual investigations (independent journalists, neutral countries, UN process etc.) not only casting doubt on accusations already 100% committed to but may even reveal evidence it was Ukrainian propaganda, whether staged or executing "collaborators".

So, lies matter a great deal.

What about Putin's lies? I don't see anyone in the West taking anything Putin says at face value.

We have not setup some moral hazard at the highest institutional level of Western governments of just believing whatever Putin says because he says it. Indeed, the opposite moral hazard has been creating of being able to just assume, with equally zero scrutiny, whatever Putin says that is inconvenient if true, to be a lie.

The ground work for these moral hazards laid by calling Putin literally Hitler for weeks if not years, and so at some point that claim starts to ring hollow without the "atrocities" to go with it.

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

I was surprised too, but I think I heard mention by Defense Politics Asia channel, and the number is impossible to verify (which the channel mentions and discusses a bit credible ranges of numbers).

However, there was a large retreat into the city from different directions, and the previous defence line was heavily built up and linked up with the current Dombas line.

Additionally, then they are held up in a large city so can recruit civilians and grow their numbers.

So maybe it is credible as the home of Azov and also 1/4th of the 60 000 Ukrainian soldiers said to be manning the Dombas line before the war started wind up in Mariupol, in addition to recruiting. For Azov I generally hear numbers between 30 and 60 thousand members, so 15 thousand doesn't seem unreasonable to be in and around their base at the start of the war.

However, whatever the true number, they put off stiff and well armed resistance so I think their strength was significant and would therefore significantly aid any approaching manoeuvre to break them out.

In any event, it's certainly not a coincidence that the Kiev retreat happened right after successful infiltration of Mariupol and pocketing the remaining Ukrainian and Azov troops, and also signs the battle is over such as acts of desperation like helicopter rescue.

Not only is the force certainly degraded in man power and ammunition due to the month of fighting without resupply, but pocketing the remaining troops severely limits their ability to coordinate any breakout manoeuvre, in addition to lines being fortified this whole month North of Mariupol.

Mariupol falling completely will also free up the Russian troops tied up there.

Azov breaking out would not just be a strategic military embarrassment for Russia, but a significant symbolic defeat and embarrassment and "Azov victory", so I do understand a strategy that minimised the chance of that happening.

The other strictly military purpose of the Kiev salients, I would say is shelling Kiev military industry, which, at least the Ukrainian defence minister, reported as essentially completely destroyed.

There's also significant symbolic and propaganda value of taking Mariupol (capturing Nazi houses, like the right sector leader, and capturing actual Nazi's and also interviews with surviving locals that blame the Ukrainians for shelling them or fighting near their homes and not providing them any assistance). So this symbolic and propaganda victory in Mariupol also compensates a great deal retreating from Kiev (which, even if it served a purpose, is still a retreat).

Though I don't see Russia "losing" the war militarily, public support is the critical thing for them just as it is for Ukraine.

Hard to say. The separatist war has been going on for 8 years now as well. So maybe this will simmer down to a long-lasting low intensity conflict. The West will lose interest when Will Smith slaps another comedian. Or the Russians are regrouping and will push again and circumstances will change again. And as defunct your view might look this week, maybe it's totally relevant again in another two weeks. — Benkei

This is my feeling too.

I think the Russian military strategy after the failure to seize Kiev unopposed, which certainly they would have done if there was no resistance, I think was driven by a fear of the potential for Ukraine to break the siege of Mariupol.

I've heard estimates of upwards of about 15 000 Ukrainian troops and 15 000 Azov battalion troops in Mariupol, so if the Ukrainians weren't stretched thin, I think it's definitely in the cards that the siege of Mariupol could have been broken; troops under siege, in particular Azov troops, would I think take pretty much any number of casualties in a chance to break out of Mariupol, and there were several attempts at least rumoured. Failing to break those troops out of Mariupol, Ukraine seems to have sent over 5 helicopters (five seem to have got shot down but seems at least some got through) to evacuate key people.

It was essentially same day as Mariupol effectively fell (centre taken and remaining Ukraine an Azov troops separated into different pockets) that Russia pulled out from around Kiev.

Which, sure, isn't a "good look" for Russia and definitely they would have just stayed there if they weren't taking losses, but if the siege of Mariupol was broken that would be a far greater strategic disaster and embarrassment.

I think it was an opportunity for a diplomatic resolution as well, Russia pulling out, but that chance I think is gone with the new narrative that Russia has committed war crimes in Bucha without any sort of investigation at all, and seems the UK is denying Russia's request to have an investigation.

We're moving now towards another state of permanent warfare like the last 8 years, just I wouldn't call it low intensity in the same sense as the previous Dombas line, I don't think it will be comparable, but certainly lower intensity than the last few weeks.

The war could turn nuclear, which is a very serious threat to the Western nations (and the world). Everyone on the planet has a stake in what's going on in Ukraine. — RogueAI

By spillover I mean the current war literally spilling over borders.

I then address the nuclear threat in the next sentence:

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them. — boethius

Nuclear war in this context is meant to address the increased risk to everyone, but I should have specified that the spillover risk to neighbours is both conventional and nuclear.

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge. — Olivier5

Ah yes, just water under the bridge ... but not really.

Just because there is some law and some objective and some duty to implement the law, does not mean a politician must keep pretending the law can be implemented when he realises it is no longer possible.

His hands were not tied, he could have talked with other politicians, explained the situation and that NATO is not coming and they will need to deal with Russia largely alone, that it's a difficult situation and cool heads are required.

Even if his hands were "really tied" as president he could have resigned, told the truth, and thus forced a new election around this issue so Ukrainian's could decide on a new policy given that, even if they want to join NATO and have "a right to join NATO" that the reality is that they will never be joining NATO.

And the fact he's saying so now and saying a referendum would be needed to change the constitution ... clearly demonstrates his hands weren't tied and he could have called for such a referendum any time between being told by NATO that Ukraine won't be joining NATO and the start of the war.

Notice the diplomatic nuance, the statecraft, even in this fun loving speech—cognisant that every word matters—in phrases like "The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor."

Contrast that to geopolitical diplomacy of today ... which is basically reduced to an online flamewar.

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think. — Olivier5

That's his line now, but if he was told Ukraine could never join NATO, why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions.

Not only should be seriously question why it wasn't his line before the war after he was told by NATO that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO ... we should also seriously question why the "right to join NATO" was his line in the first tepid days of the war.

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied. — Olivier5

Obviously not, no matter what is said in the constitution or what Ukraine "wants", nothing prevented Zelenskyy from telling the truth that, despite what they want, NATO has told him they will never be allowed to join NATO ... or, if that would be too shocking for Ukrainians to here, then work out some diplomatic process that saves face for Ukraine and NATO .. and why not, I'm being generous, even Russia.

Someone who knows anything about anything about statecraft would interpret NATO literally stating that Ukraine would never be allowed to join but the door would be open publicly (i.e. NATO would not publicly humiliate Ukraine by saying closing the door) would know that's a pretty large and clear "big boy signal" from NATO that he's going to have to go make peace with Putin, if he wanted peace.

Sure, you can say he shouldn't need to make peace with Putin ... but then the expectation should be no peace with Putin.

These sorts of truth bombs at this stage in the game is honestly bewildering. Almost as bewildering as the biolabs fiasco (almost).

Diplomatic tightrope is what it means to be the neighbour of a great power that can reck your country on a whim. If Finland's so praiseworthy in their Russian relations, a famous deal with the Russians to keep Finland independent post-WWII and not be absorbed like other baltic nations (a time in which no one would come to Finland's aid and the Russian army was even bigger and more powerful than before and certainly more experienced after defeating the Nazi's) was worked out over a lot of vodka and sauna.

Indeed, the sauna (which always includes alcohol) statecraft tool, was described at length by Secretary of State Torstila famous 2010 speech to the XV International Sauna Congress.

Describing important high stakes diplomatic techniques such as:

President Kekkonen used to invite world leaders and other officials to his private sauna at the height of the Cold War. Formal discussions started around a normal negotiating table and were followed by a sauna sitting. New ideas emerged and many of them helped the Finns move towards notable political and economic successes and ultimately Finland becoming “the Nokia Land.”

During the days of the Cold War, the Finnish neutrality between East and West was constantly challenged by the Soviet Union. President Kekkonen used his sauna diplomacy to defend Finland’s integrity and membership in the Western community of nations countering the Soviet efforts. The Financial Times once claimed that Kekkonen sweated his Soviet guests into cooperation in his sauna. The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor. — Sauna Diplomacy, the Finnish Recipe

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

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

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it. — Olivier5

He could have put it to a referendum, after telling people that NATO already told him they would never be allowed to join NATO, so even if it's an aspiration in the constitution ... it's not happening so it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum.

And why was it put in the constitution? To make peace making (aka. statecraft) more difficult and so promote violence.

It's just denying political reality.

There's a faction in Ukraine that wanted this war, they call themselves Arians and they are on video literally saying they want war with Russia and that without them the 2014 protests would have been just a gay parade.

Maybe violent people simply got their violent wish.

Has it really brought "glory" to the average Ukrainians?

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

They're set to run Russia into the ground. — frank

Sure, if you're goal is to use Ukraine as a proxi war to bleed the Russians, then fighting to the last Ukrainian for the "right to join NATO" and the sanctions are a good way to harm the Russians.

Does it help Ukrainians?

I think it would be fruitful to ask why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. — frank

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO.

The problem for Zelenskyy and Ukrainians is that NATO would not and has not let them join, what NATO could do overnight if it wanted ... but it doesn't want to.

Fighting for a right get something from people who have made it clear they won't give it to you anyways, is dumb.

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

You were responding to @Benkei observation about Western countries, not people on this forum.

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

Again, no threat to USA, Australia, Germany or France of Italy and most Western nations, of the war spilling over.

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them.

This sudden emotional upheaval—rather than page 5 "realist" news saying the war wherever it is, doesn't really matter, is unfortunate, lot's of people suffering but nothing we can do—by the entire West and NATO as a collective political body of some sort, is nearly 100% related to Ukrainians being white.

And, it's only this emotional upheaval that allows states to act impulsively and recklessly in their quest to assuage these emotions.

Which, if you step outside the emotional praxis of legalistic outrage that simply justifies any action that "feels like" it may help Ukrainians and "feels like" it may harm Russia, there are real questions about the wisdom of waging a proxi war and supporting Ukrainians "right to join NATO ... even if it can never actually join NATO".

If you remember back a month and a week, the outrage about Russia's invasion was "how dare they say Ukraine can't join NATO" ... and now we find out that Zelenskyy already asked when they'd be able to join NATO and NATO told him never!?!?

Likewise, now we discover the German Chancellor Scholz went to Ukraine before the war and brought Zelenskyy an offer of security guarantees by Russia and the US if they abandoned NATO aspirations and committed to neutrality?!?!

The only possible resolution of the conflict now agreed by all parties, including Zelenskyy; just far harder to negotiate now after acrimonious bloodshed, and, if reached, the exact same outcome but after insane levels of harms to Ukrainians.

Which, if Zelenskyy actually feared not getting at least billions in arms shipments and intelligence (I'm sure his emotional state would have changed if the US removed their intelligence briefings and the impending war felt less "controlled") and maybe even bait NATO into a no fly zone by handing out small arms to civilians and refusing to evacuate civilians from war zones and other stunts, or (god forbid) actually feared any weakening of anti-Russia policy and "information war", he'd of course maybe considered the offer of peace more seriously.

But who needs peace when you have NATO by your side.

We have been taken for a ride.

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

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war and even if impulsive emotional driven policy is counter productive to helping the Ukrainians ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans, nor much outrage and concern, and much less any significant actions.

Another way to put it is why are these other issue on page 5?

We spend 20 years "rebuilding Afghanistan" and brining democracy, and then leave our "allies" to fall to their deaths from our planes as we GTFO, and then let them starve to death.

Why page 5 news?

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

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

If a war effects for example your work, I think it's obviously more important for you than something that just notice every once in a while in the papers. — ssu

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

What I'm saying is that one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy lies. Because the fact is, which I remember quite vividly, was that the journalist covering the Crimean invasion didn't dare to say for days just who the forces were...because they didn't have the Russian flag and Putin said that they weren't Russian soldiers, but Crimean volunteers. — ssu

Again, can't say its clumsy lies without proof; and journalists not reporting what they can't prove is pretty usual.

You seem to believe there's some constituency denying the "little green men" ... it's more just doesn't seem to matter at all.

If stone cold proof dropped tomorrow that the picture is indeed of Russian soldiers on salary under the Russian chain of command ... what does that change? This just isn't the lie of the century and no one doubts Russian involvement and backing of the separation of Crimea.

Journalists didn't report things without proof (like they do now reporting war crimes and who's guilty before any investigation at all) ... which isn't some great crime journalists sticking to what's proven, isn't unusual, and isn't Russian appeasement of some sort, nor does anyone much care who these soldiers were "really working for" as it changes nothing, just frustrates anti-Russian parties wanting any accusation against Russia to be taken at face value.

Certainly Russia has done "bad things" and have "lied" ... well, like the US and like Ukraine, but it still matters what the actual facts, or to what extent they can be inferred, in understanding the world.

For example, it actually matters which war crimes exactly US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, as it does Russia as does Ukraine.

However, that the US first denied torture and starting a war on fabricated evidence, and then got caught in that lie, doesn't mean absolutely every accusation against the US should be taken at face value, likewise for Russia and likewise for Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the great powers (in particular US, China and Russia) lie all the time, but for the purposes of analysis the facts still matter and also actual proof still matters.

And, in the case of the takeover / invasion of Crimea I don't think anyone reported that Russia was not backing it. However, Crimean's also have agency and many and I've seen no credible doubt cast on the legitimacy of the vote of Crimean's to leave Ukraine after the 2014 coup.

So, although I, and I don't think really anyone concerned about this topic, would doubt Russia involvement (they literally have a military base there and certainly have intelligence agents in and around it since decades), the idea absolutely everyone walking around must be Russian soldiers and to say otherwise is a lie, plays into the idea that Crimean agency and self determination can be just ignored.

Now, the counter argument is that it wasn't "legal" for Crimea to exit Ukraine ... but shouldn't Crimean's be able to have self-determination? Why does a law outside Crimea matter? Why doesn't what Crimean's want matter?

For, as far as I can tell, there's no credible claim that Crimea and the Dombas regions aren't genuinely pro Russian, but a narrative of "what they want" not mattering in the contest between the far larger powers they are between ... hmmm, starting to sound a bit familiar.

That being said, I have zero problem with the idea Russia backed Crimea separation and annexation and Dombas regions declaring independence. It's a sovereign country so, presumably, can do what it wants, and, presumably, can also have clandestine operations to protect it's interests just like the USA and Ukraine.

All of which underscores @Benkei's really good breakdowns of why legalism doesn't apply to international relations.

If Ukraine has a right to self determination and so Russia is wrong in invading, then Crimea and Dombas regions have a right to self determination and Ukraine is wrong in refusing to recognise that and then attacking those regions, which makes Russia right in intervening to protect the rights of self determination of those people if they request it, just as, if you disagree and Ukraine has original just cause because only their right to self determination matters, then NATO is justified in sending arms and sending advisors to help Ukraine if Ukraine requests it.

Legal reasoning simply breaks down because there is no state to enforce the law when the perpetrator is a state with hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, or just a few, or indeed just a credible conventional deterrent, or then just no one cares to attack that particular country to enforce any rules anyways.

What does the delusion of legal reasoning applied to great power politics produce? Challenging the UN security council to fix the situation or "disband", kick Russia out because it's ... exactly like ISIS.

It's simply delusional and not how the world works. Normal people empathise because legal reasoning is relevant in normal life when one is effectively chaperoned by the state, and moral outrage can immediately translate to sympathy from friends if not cancelling the objects of dissatisfaction on social media or even the state doing something about it. More importantly, legalistic gripes are the only gripes anyone pays any real attention to for ordinary citizens, as maybe it is an issue of social concern according to society's own rules.

However, who's not listening to legalistic gripes are the great powers in complaining about each other.

I agree that the EU system is preferable to that of China, but I think "peaceful and democratic" is relative.
Certainly, in demographic, cultural, and other respects, the EU is far from all positive. — Apollodorus

Why I say "the most" peaceful and democratic, of the great powers. A choice between limited options.

Plus, the EU and its agenda are becoming more and more identical with NATO, a military organization (the world's largest, actually) that is known to have engaged in aggressive behavior. — Apollodorus

I agree that the EU did not take advantage of a world leadership vacuum (in the sense of great power competition) created by Trump, but just lazed about waiting for neo-con and neo-liberal policy to "return".

I mean only to argue the EU has potential to play a more peaceful and democratic global roll than China, Russia and United States.

However, it so far seems to express no interest in that and seems completely content to be subservient to US foreign policy, with rare exceptions, even suffering great harms to itself in promotion of the harms US imposes on others (join and cheer on disastrous US lead wars that lead to terrorism, economic and refugee problems in Europe and not the US ... indeed, seem the only purpose is to keep Europe unstable, weaker, and focused on internal problems that wouldn't otherwise exist without neighbour's being bombed to shit).

So, I wouldn't say I'm happy about EU and the European small powers policy, and I agree the moment seems to be passing anyways, but what I don't see is another great power politics player that's a better bet.

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency. — Olivier5

Thanks.

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia? — Olivier5

This forum is one of many avenues of action available, and my time is limited in any event.

And again, the claims about racism aren't claims of internal state of mind or individuals time use, but rather about institutions that do have time and resources and simply objectively implement a skin colour based double standard.

There are many victims of many unjust things. Individually, people, if they care at all, can only do so much and are quickly path dependent on the causes they are already engaged in and know something about. So, sure, call someone bad faith for not having infinite time for every just cause that exists.

However, media and political institutions are far more powerful and have far more resources (including rational resources to decide on resource allocation) and ability to manipulate people's perspective of the world. More importantly, such institutions are political accountable, one way or another, for what they do whereas individuals are not really accountable for failing to address every single problem in the world with time that doesn't exist.

Sure, why use force of arms when it's much easier to use economic, financial, and legislative means? — Apollodorus

This was a miss formatting of your quote of the person saying "We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms," and not my repeating on behalf of myself (I've corrected the formatting in the original comment).

However, I totally agree that such a plan is possible, and the US Empire is largely based on economic, financial and legal means of domination and far less on direct military conquest.

And indeed, direct military intervention nowadays is not even used to conquer and extract resources and tribute as in Empires past, but simply to topple anyone who steps out of line into a disastrous civil war and, if things go well, a failed state.

And I would agree that some people involved in the European project have a similar ambition for Europe, but I would not say the European project reduces to that and has no (at least for the moment) democratic recourse to shape policy.

Additionally, at the moment anyways, the EU is still a voluntary based organisation (which Brexit does prove), and consensus driven on at least some critical issues. So, it is far closer to a diplomatic project than an Empire, at least for now and even if some people involved have Imperial ambitions.

Getting back to geopolitics, my general view is that the world can, for the time being, only hope to share great power politics and competition to be less, rather than more, harmful. For example avoiding nuclear war in the cold war wold be a geopolitical "success" from this realist point (it can always be worse, even if the great power system is pretty "bad" in itself).

So, if that's the case, shaping better rather than worse great power policies is a fruitful task in parallel to trying to undermine Imperialism as such and to also build alternative economic and political systems that could one day displace great power competition.

For example, however much I criticise the Americans and point out the damages they cause around the world (that includes pursuing omnicidal climate chaos ambitions, so pretty bad and heinous) that USA and the Soviet Union beat Germany and Japan, I nevertheless view as a geopolitical "good outcome". That being said, doesn't mean USA being better than the Nazi's 70 years ago makes them "better" in some sense today, but the example is to highlight the outcomes of great power competition does matter.

Today, of the great powers, EU is the most peaceful and democratic, and I rather see the expansion of such a system than the Chinese total totalitarian system. Of course, I'd rather see neither but true participatory direct democracy everywhere, but, until the "ground up" approach manages to compete with the great state powers, it does still matter what the great states do and some are more and less oppressive.

I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white. — Olivier5

You seem to think these observations are levied at individuals and just opinion of internal belief.

That's not the claim.

The claim about Ukrainians being white is to do with the establishment media and response of Western Governments, concrete evidence and actions and not just presumed state of mind.

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death. Obviously that warrants attention and public discussion, and there is some, but a small and tiny fraction of the effort spent on Ukraine ... and basically no government action at all. It is obvious there is a double standard and it is obvious that skin colour has something to do with it. You can live in denial or then assume "everyone is racist" and mentioning obviously racist policies just has some ulterior motive if you want.

When (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the precursor to the EU, he said: — Apollodorus

Well, put this way, definitely sounds a lot like the Fourth Reich to me too.

Obviously, they aren't going to put that in official documents, but the idea is being discussed unofficially, and has been from inception.

"We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms." — Apollodorus

Hopefully such intentions and plans could be modified by democratic process and these are, in the end, opinions of a small amount of individuals that could be thwarted others.

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime. — Apollodorus

Although the Third Reich called itself that for exactly this reason, and I would definitely agree there's plenty imperialist agendas within the EU, where does the EU self declare its aim as rebuilding the Roman Empire?

However, I do agree that if you're in favour of American Empire there's little moral grounds to condemn people making competing Empires. Actions by empires could still be condemnable and some Empires "better" than others, but Empire building as such is either just for all or just for none.

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"? — Olivier5

I care about the Ukrainians because they are people, as well the Yemens and Afghanis and Ethiopians, Uzbeks, Chinese etc.

I also care about the whole world and avoiding nuclear armageddon.

I don't say Ukrainians are more worthy victims than the Afghanis, and I went ahead and posted a news report of babies starving to death in Afghanistan.

It just so happens that Ukrainians are the victims of geopolitical circumstance and great power competition (regardless of which great power you "blame most"), which could actually be resolved by diplomacy based on a realistic understanding of the geopolitical situation.

Since this topic interests me and I've followed it, I have something to contribute.

Again, I have limited time. But my standards don't change.

I also did commit serious time based on the same standards vis-a-vis the Afghan war during times when I had something to contribute to hopefully avoiding disaster (all the way back in 2006), much more effort than I have expended here and placing myself at risk of court martial in trying to represent the Afghani interests in the chain of command.

There are a lot of problems, I have limited time to contribute and must decide based on circumstances and my own capacities.

By happenstance, I even happened to be involved in business in Ethiopia when the war was brewing and did try to help avoid it in whatever small ways I was able to. But I was told again and again that the Tigray forces couldn't possibly win and there was no need for diplomacy and the war was in the North and would never affect the NGO's in the south I had some business with. So, within my tiny amount of power I did try to motivate people that had (certainly more than me) influence in Ethiopia to not dismiss the disruption and potential damages of a war (which they did offhand and no hesitation before, and then even the initial phases of the war; even though it seemed obvious to me the situation was more serious). So, I do what can when I can.

I am as disturbed by war and saddened by the victims of war (or about to be victims of war) wherever they are and I act on that concern whenever I can.

Again. Let's look at that picture. Do these look like volunteers, people that have lived in Crimea, yet in the days after the Maidan revolution have taken up arms against the new Ukrainian government? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers? — ssu

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to argue on this topic of the "little green men".

Are you saying if we catch the US or the Ukrainians in a lie then we can assume everything they say is a lie?

Or when the Americans and Ukrainians do it that's just "winning the information war" and, you see, we need to understand that they have just cause so anything they do is explainable and understandable.

Ukraine and US have been caught in plenty of lies.

And, if we were talking basic military strategy, we'd obviously agree that deception is a large part of military tactics and intelligence services, which (I think it's safe to assume) that you'd argue that American and Ukraine certainly need intelligence services and information campaigns and it's normal deception and lies are used in that.

Of course, makes figuring anything out difficult. But doesn't prove anything about anything.

If I go ahead and demonstrate the US or Ukraine lying about something ... you'd just say that doesn't matter.

So how does this lie, assuming it's a lie, about the little green men matter?

And, in terms of uniforms, army surplus exists and anyone engaged in militia activity is going to want to look like a badass. So, as @Benkei points out the photo proves nothing and could be staged anyways, and Russia has as much right to conduct intelligence operations as anyone else.

US military and intelligence are on the ground in places they shouldn't legally be all the time (in a sovereign country helping and committing acts of war without a declaration of war by congress), media just repeats the euphemism "advising" ... which even if it really was just advice doesn't change the legality of it and committing an act of war.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. — ssu

Sure, for people that are "close" ... but how is the United States any closer to Ukraine than Ethiopia or Yemen?

@Benkei is talking about Western countries, which in today's parlance also includes Australia.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents?

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded. — Olivier5

That's why I don't say "reach agreement" but rather

before we even make any progress in such a debate. — boethius

... which does not include the word "agree".

However, whether you refuse for the purposes of deflection or then you genuinely don't understand, I am not against discussing moral issues from first principles.

It is simply not my priority and I have also pointed out no one here, including yourself, is doing so. If people wanted to do so, I could not "prevent them", but I would engage insofar as it seemed a productive use of my time (of which I do have a 'productivist view', despite even your disagreement), which, if it seemed to help reach a diplomatic resolution then I may participate in such a debate insofar as it does so.

Your argument was just pulled our of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

How did I prevent anyone expressing their views?

And, notice how the only mechanism available for me to prevent people from expressing their views .. is expressing my view, which, because you assume you have just cause without any scrutiny of the belief, my view (which was simply mentioning it does take investigations and hearing what the Russians say to even start some credible process) is somehow preventing other's from expressing their views about it?

Does it really though? Or does it simply take the edge off the circle of self adulation and pats on the back?

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate.

People have existing moral positions in which they are approaching the war in Ukraine and try to do, or a least promote, their moral objectives.

My moral objective is to contribute to a diplomatic resolution, which is just boring talking.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution, but if you have a proposal on what is the ultimate moral first principles and how to apply them to believe what and to say what and to do what about the war, feel free to teach me about it.