Well Russia isn't exactly keen on stopping climate change (in large part due to it's reliance on it's gas), Brazil is currently run by a man who seems fine with letting the Amazon burn (at least hopefully until October), China is the world's biggest emitter currently, India isn't really that far off from China, and the US... well enough has already been said about that. — Mr Bee

Exactly, why destroying Europe as a relevant political actor on the world stage is ... wait, pretty great from fossil fuel exporters who deny the reality of climate change (or already bought their bunkers, and deny the stupidity of such a plan) point of view.

Pretty dark times indeed. Do you see any possible solution to this mess or has humanity royally screwed itself over for the foreseeable future? — Mr Bee

The reason cynicism tends to increase in the environmental movement with age is because the goal posts keep moving. First generation of environmentalists were concerned about humans causing the extinction of single species (carrier pigeon and dodo) and failing to preserve those species was viewed as "losing".

After the environmental movement failed (or society failed the environmental movement, I would say is more accurate) to create policies to preserve single species, the goal posts moved to entire ecosystems.

Where we are in that task is:

- Livestock account for 0.1 Gigatons of biomass
- Humans account for 0.06 Gigatons of biomass
- Wild mammals 0.007 Gigatons of biomass
- Wild birds 0.002 Gigatons of biomass

This shift from wild biomass to livestock represents about an 80% loss of biodiversity, in terms of genetic variation losses in damaged / collapsed populations.



"Conservation" has resulted in a lot of species not going entirely extinct that otherwise would, however, conservation simply delays the inevitable if the whole earth system is damaged to an extent to change things like ... climate comes to mind, thus wiping out even the small pockets of "conserved" nature. If the whole earth system is not cared for, these pockets of conservation can not be sustained over the long term as larger environmental changes.

Which is the general theme of the environmental movement of one faustian bargain after the next.

In short, the ecological apocalypse has already happened.

Now, the goal posts are moved to just basic survival of humans and earth as a going concern.

This is still achievable from an engineering point of view, and even on an apocalyptic landscape with 50-90% of the currently inhabitable earth no longer liveable, humans can likely survive on the poles. There are pathways to full extinction but these seem unlikely edge cases in terms of environmental collapse (such as oxygen depletion or turning the atmosphere toxic).

More damage to earth life and ecosystems is guaranteed, the question is how much more and how many more people will die in horrible ways.

Since the processes of discombobulation are unpredictable and chaotic, even relatively small things done now can have a large effect on where we end up on the biodiversity-loss-dystopian-collapse spectrum.

In terms of engineering and earth stewardship, multiple WWII scale efforts started now would have a decent change of more-or-less stabilising the climate and biodiversity.

Unfortunately, as we enter the "bill's come due" phase of our ecological destruction to fuel hedonistic thoughtless life styles, this destabilises political systems making coordinated action harder.

The last window to act in a "politically feasible way" was the 90s.

Hence all the buildup and focus on Kyoto.

Total fail.

↪boethius ... which has nothing to do with the use of nukes against Ukraine. Thank you for your constant obfuscation. — Olivier5

I just explained exactly how it had to do with Nukes. I can explain it again if you want.

Already the threat of nuclear war precluded NATO boots on the ground and planes in the air (the common sense way to "defend freedom and democracy" a la WWII, which is the West's own preferred analogy). Of the arms and intelligence support Ukraine has gotten ... why only HIMARS now? ... and not literally the first day of the war?

The answer is because HIMARS can be introduced now maintaining a Russian win.

NATO is quite upfront that their goals is to bleed the Russians, not that Ukraine "win's", hence the concept of a "strategic defeat" in the context of a war that you win needed to be developed.

All of these policies and decisions have to do with Nuclear weapons. If the same war fervour developed in pre-nuclear Europe and USA there would already be a continental scale war rapidly escalating into into a global war. What puts the brakes on that process is the prospect of nuclear escalation.

Until or if Putin can threaten/force Sweden/Finland sufficiently, they'll be parts of NATO defense, unlike Ukraine. As it stands, I don't think Putin and team really have the extra resources. Rattling the nukes brought some additional attention onto them. (Might not be the best for them?) Russia threatens, invades Ukraine, threatens a bit, dismisses a bit, two other neighbors set to join NATO, ... — jorndoe

Finland and Sweden joining NATO is not some sort of Ukrainian victory.

Honestly seems a bit insulting to Ukrainians that Finland and Sweden "get to join", having not been asking or wanting to for decades, while for a decade and a half it NATO membership was dangled in front of Ukraine but ... ah, ah, ah, one can look but one must never touch the NATO membership.

The most annoying part of that hypocrisy is that Western media frame the "expansion" of NATO Eastward as not-an-expansion as it was just countries joining out of their own volition, NATO agency and planning had nothing to do with it. But ... again ... why not Ukraine? They wanted to be let in too?

As for Finland and Sweden joining NATO, this has basically zero consequence on anything, at least in the short term. NATO's policy is clearly no direct engagement with Russia and Finland and Sweden joining NATO doesn't change that. It would matter if Russia was planning to invade Finland and Sweden, but there's zero evidence of that and, again, the most annoying hypocrisy that Russia not fully defeating Ukraine in 3 days demonstrates it's a incompetent and nothing-to-worry about force ... but we also need to be so worried as to run to NATO for protection?!

Finland and Sweden are a PR victory to sell Westerners the idea we "stood up to Putin", but there's no evidence that the Kremlin cares about Finland being in NATO or not. Of course, if there's a full scale war, it's strategically inconvenient, but if that's nuclear armageddon anyways ... it doesn't matter all that much.

Framed as a Russia vs NATO conflict ... Finland and Sweden joining NATO is terrible blow.

However, framed as a Russia vs Ukraine conflict--concerning spheres of influence in Russia speaking places (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of), and about oil and natural gas (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of) and black sea port and transcontinental pipelines (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of)--and there's no intention nor much stock put in the idea of a full scale war with NATO, then the whole Finland and Sweden joining NATO is at best meaningless and at worse just rubbing it in Ukrainian faces that they're not valuable enough to be in our little club (but we totally lead them on about for nearly 2 decades anyways just to see what would happen).

↪boethius I'm not interested in speculating about what I see as a totally unrealistic assumption. — Olivier5

It's not speculation, the policy of not escalating "too much" is official NATO policy.

Even Biden just came out one day and shut down talk of a no-fly zone, essentially telling everyone in the media and Ukraine to grow up and get real ... never to be talked about again.

No, it was not realistic, not in the way you fantacized about, i.e. as a way to break Ukrainian resistance. — Olivier5

I did make this claim. I claimed you can use tactical nukes to win battles, bust bunkers, the sort of things tactical nukes are designed to do.

@ssu already pointed that doesn't mean Ukrainians would give up, they could spread out and be less vulnerable to nuclear weapons.

Which I agreed with, but pointed out in return that without concentrating forces for a counter-offensive it's essentially impossible to conduct counter-offensives and basically no way to "win" in military terms against Russia.

This is not some fantasy, it's just reality that Russia has the tactical nuclear card it can play and this is what keeps NATO from escalating past a point that Russia may play that card.

It's also not just about WWIII and ICGM exchange, which Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine is very unlikely to trigger.

The United States has a strategic interest in avoiding Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine which is euphemistically referred to as "breaking the nuclear taboo".

For, if tactical nuclear weapons were to become a common place occurrence in military confrontations, this would negate a large part of US military power.

It "makes sense" that people don't use nuclear weapons ... but a few months ago it "made sense" that "the old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over". Things can change, and the nuclear taboo is the first time in history that an available weapons system has not been used between culturally diverse adversaries (there have been weapons taboos, such as cross bows in Europe or fire arms in Japan, but only within the same culture, and sort of the exception that proves the rule, as even Europeans could use cross bows in crusades and Japanese taboo on fire arms didn't last--in short, the historical examples of weapons taboos are not actually source for comfort).

Really? That's the story and the whole story? — jorndoe

Pretty much.

NATO could have sent in planes and sent in troops and do what logically follows from the moral imperative to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

It didn't. Why?

Nuclear weapons.

And if you're not willing to send in troops to implement your vision of things yourself, because of nuclear weapons, what coheres with that decision is also to not send enough weapons, intelligence and training to win that way either, but the logical corollary to not sending troops and planes is to calibrate support to "no win", which is what we've seen. It's a dangerous game, as war is unpredictable, but it's the game NATO's playing.

Even Zelensky complains about it occasionally, when the blood weighs him down and he can't see through it anymore.

And the Ukrainians are but dumb automatons? — jorndoe

I have been a conscript and this is a good description, as unfortunate it as it is.

How close to light speed could this ship go? — TiredThinker

The short answer is that it can go arbitrarily close the speed of light without ever reaching the speed of light. With more fuel magically available it can increase it's momentum indefinitely, getting closer and closer to the speed of light (from our perspective on earth).

Long answer, the ship will always measure the speed of light as C on the ship, so relative the ship's frame of reference it stays stationary relative the speed of light (its motion relative to us on earth changes, but the speed of light stays constant for all observers, so the ship never measures the speed of light different).

Or perhaps it would eventually convert into energy ceasing to be the ship in order to travel at light speed? — TiredThinker

This would not occur. Only massless particles can travel at the speed of light (and no other speed). Particles with mass travel can get arbitrarily close but never reach the speed of light.

As points out, cosmic rays can go incredibly close to the speed of light, and are a good example of your external energy experiment (energy being supplied to the particle by a quasar or super nova).

Some particles hit our atmosphere with the kinetic energy of a major league baseball pitch, which I find pretty incredible a single particle would have the impact of a 90 mile an hour fast ball (if all the energy could be dumped in a catcher's mitt).

The thing difficult to wrap one's head around is the speed of light being constant for all observers regardless of their relative motion, but there's plenty of youtube videos that explain it in different ways.

The more philosophical aspect of it is that such a principle means the universe has no preferred reference frame, and there's no logical reason for that to be the case (entirely possible to imagine a universe that clearly has a "standing still" frame of reference with some observable effects simply for not being still, with larger effects the less still you are). This no-preferred reference frame (and thus speed of light is the same for all observers), fits in with a series of philosophical / seemingly observed assumptions about cosmology, such as there is no centre to the universe (universe is similar in all directions on large scales), no special time (in the sense of recording events), the laws of physics are the same in the whole universe through both space and time, particles are identical and have no unique identities, and a few others.

Even something as fundamental as the electric and magnetic fields aren't special, what is a magnetic effect from one perspective can be an electric effect from a different perspective. Likewise a gravitational field can be indistinguishable from acceleration.

There's a sort of theme to these "no special reference point" and "no-special place" and "no-special particles" and "no-special laws" and "no special time" set of principles. There's no "logical" reason that this needs to be the case.

As puzzling as these nothing-special principles are, is that there are exceptions to the theme in that there's a special direction to entropy (increases rather than decreases) and special moments in time (beginning of the universe as well as the present moment ... again, just as there's no logical necessity to the first nothing-special principles, there's no logical necessity to either a beginning in time nor consciousness perceiving one moment in time, rather than all time at once or then going backwards or forwards with no particular preference or even just jumping around randomly through time). Non-unique, uniform types of particles (although the kinds of particles are a special quantity for no particular reason), combine to form unique objects with tractable histories. Your consciousness is also special to your body ... again, not really any reason for that when you think about it.

↪boethius That was in response to you equally unrealistic musing about Russian use of nukes against Ukraine. — Olivier5

Russia using nuclear weapons is completely realistic.

Without that being realistic (if Nukes didn't exist or Russia didn't have them) we'd already be in full blown World War III.

The reason the immense pro-Ukrainian social media fervour and anti-Russian condemnation and Churchillian speeches and all that, didn't result in "let's go boys!" is precisely because Russia has nuclear weapons and will use them under certain conditions.

Even the small gesture of a no-fly zone was taken off the table due to the threat of nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the whole reason weapons are being supplied to Ukraine in a sequence, the next weapon system only supplied when it is clear the previous weapon system didn't "beat Russia" is precisely to keep the situation stable.

What's stable? Russia winning easily enough that there's no reason to use nuclear weapons.

The weapons are just so the West can say "it tried" (and also supply the black market to destabilise the entire continents security).

In reality, Russia has nuclear weapons, and a lot of them, and the means to deliver them both tactically and strategically, and the actual moral imperative in the situation is to avoid nuclear war regardless of Russia's actions and regardless of how many Ukrainians will die due to non-"kinetic"-intervention.

The so-called moral imperative of "freedom" or whatever is merely a tool to whip people up into whatever frenzy people need to be in to support self-harming policies, right up to the line that's realistic to go in a confrontation with Russia without resulting in a nuclear war: as soon as we get near that line, suddenly the "adults" come out to say "we need to be responsible and not start a nuclear war, so we get everyone is angry at Russia and Ukrainian sovereignty or whatever, but we need to be realistic".

For those interested, the reason the problem of renewables and backup capacity isn't talked about much is, to make a long story short, the media is dumb.

When renewable energy was in development stage, the media would report cost-per-watt figures of each project, leaving the reader with the strong impression that once solar and/or wind achieved cost-parity with fossils ... we win! Hurrah! Climate change solved.

The problem with this vapid analysis is two fold.

First, cost parity is a stupid metric in the context of fossil fuels being both directly subsidised, indirectly subsidised (such as a giant war machine required to protect shipping lanes and oil-despots--the "friendly" one's ... and also attack the "mean" oil despots), while not internalising the real costs. Using this as a metric is essentially buying into the fossil lobbies "frame" (aka. being their bitch without any capacity for independent thought) as conservative red pillers would say.

However, worse, even if we accept this framework, and just not question fossil fuels getting all these subsidies (let's say for the sake of argument we're morons), then, even so, cost parity with fossil's isn't a good metric.

The grid as designed pre-renewables, already required some level of rapid response in the event a power station went offline all-of-a-sudden the rest of the grid should rapidly compensate. However, this rapid response level, pre-renewables, is generally about 10 to 15% of the whole grid capacity.

So, the first renewable projects can be easily hooked up to the grid no problem as there's already a system to deal with small levels of variability.

However, let's say the grid stays the same and more renewable capacity is added, as this 10-15% level is approached already now there's the risk that the renewable power generation collapses and some other power plant goes offline unexpectedly at the same time ... so already this isn't good.

Push above this buffer zone and collapse of renewable power can collapse the whole grid, or then rolling blackouts are needed to reduce consumption.

Circling back to "grid parity" these added costs need to be included in the cost of solar / wind which, when done honestly, demonstrate the immense scale of our predicament. Energy storage on a large scale is a very large infrastructure project that requires decades to build even if the technologies required were cost-competitive with subsidised fossil. Add in some disruption to the global system as resource competition heats up, a few material bottle necks ... and ... its gone.

What's even the proposed connection between "faltering" wind power and a heat wave?

Or do they have problems with their "freedom" grid again?

Well on the bright side Europe is probably gonna be forced to taking the transition more seriously this time now that they are effectively at war with Russia. — Mr Bee

Put aside the hypocrisy of European leaders all of a sudden wanting actual clean energy to "save Ukraine" and "show Putin" ... yet somehow the entire world and most things that dwell upon the world wasn't good enough all these years?!

Cutting ties with Russia simply forces a return to coal and dirtier fuels.

For large electricity grid based economies, until (1) renewable energy storage is economic and (2) there's enough over-capacity of renewable energy to fill up said storage, then natural gas is required to develop the renewable energy system to accomplish both 1 and 2.

It just so happens that coal and nuclear cannot adjust their output rapidly to compensate fluctuations in renewable energy output. The larger the renewable energy capacity the larger the fluctuations can be, and therefore the larger the online capacity of a auxiliary power source is needed.

Just so happens that basically only natural gas and hydro have this characteristic (that output can be scaled up or down rapidly).

The gas deals and gas infrastructure with Russia was part of a coherent plan to develop renewable energy in Germany and friends. For, if you actually want to go towards 100% renewable, then you need very large natural gas capacity (both power plants and storage of natural gas) to cover a large majority of the grid for when both solar and wind output is minimal (which does happen; the truism that it is either sunny or windy is a "usually" kind of thing, but it can be both cloudy and not-windy).

But far more important than that, European elites have essentially thrown away all their political capital and economic clout in which to influence world policies.

The Ukraine crisis and cold-war "the reboot" effectively removes Europe as a player on the world stage.

We will need now to be relying now on the US, China and India, Russia Brazil et. al. to lead the way in environmental policies.

In short, Europe only had influence as a major economy within the globalised system; destroy that system by doing nothing to use said economic influence to avoid a disastrous European war, and Europe becomes completely irrelevant to global affairs.

US has "asserted its dominance" over its subordinates--what it wanted--but a gang leader that stays at the top by undermining the psychology, material wellbeing and dispossessing his underlings ... well, let's just say it's a double edged shiv.

(As a little footnote, burning biological material for electricity is just stupid and totally meaningless at the scales of concern.)

Well then, I'm a realist alright. That's exactly what I try to do. — Olivier5

Explain to us again how your policy proposal of the US slipping Ukraine a couple of nukes to hit Moscow and St. Petersburg is:

A. Realistic.

and,

B. Example of you just applying not letting your "subjective values taint" your "attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage"?

Sometimes justice is just unavailable. You don't give up on justice because of that, though. You keep struggling, because it might become feasible tomorrow. — Tate

Completely agreed.

What is feasible in the far future is fairly wide open. The world has significantly changed from the distant past, and it is reasonable to assume can be significantly different in the far future.

The complicated part is working backwards to what is actually effective to do today to contribute to a better feasible future.

And, as you say, just hanging on in case circumstances change is morally superior to giving in. Again, total agreement there.

Furthermore, even if the "most feasible" best option had a 1% chance of success (that our chances of extinction or AI enslavement or something was 99%) ... it's still the best option.

Feasible doesn't necessarily mean probable, just at least some chance of working and not delusional.

The best moral choice is whatever the "most feasible" option is. From a moral point of view, it does not matter how probable the most feasible way to achieve the best moral objectives are, only that other choices are worse.

How I conceptualised this when I was younger was that if I agree the goal of continuing humanity was paramount, if not "the" moral imperative certainly up there and should be compatible with other moral imperatives, then it does not matter if my actions extend the continuation of humanity a billion years, a million, a thousand, a hundred, a day or a second or a micro second.

If I say continuation of humanity is a good thing, then I must choose the actions that continue humanity (on some net present value probability distribution) a second than not. If that's just consuming less resources myself, the best I can do, then so be it. If I can contribute more, great.

Regretting the immorality of humankind is one activity. Trying to understand the world is another. — Tate

Agreed.

However, what I would add to that is that the only moral goals are feasible goals.

Political realism is not an anti-moral or even amoral perspective, it's simply trying to choose the best possible achievable outcome depending on one's morality. Of course what's real and what's moral is up for debate.

What is comfortable and easy is of course to ignore both subjects, and live in a fantasy that has nothing to do with reality, and care nothing for the troubles of others.

I agree. Putin could stop any time he wants to. He continues because it's benefitting him. — Tate

Yes, this is the political realism perspective.

The core problem with Western policy is that if you're not willing to go and fight with your own armies, then, by definition, it's not a moral imperative to fight the Russians.

However, by essentially weaponising the moralising to justify as much escalation as possible, within the bounds of the common sense political realism that a avoiding a nuclear war is the actual moral imperative in the situation, you end up with this strange beast of an aborted escalation: Ukraine is encouraged, financed, supplied to fight but can't win; sanctions are half measures (not to say full measures would be effective) and may very well hurt the West more than Russia; and no diplomacy is possible as each side has paid too high a cost to let go ... Russia of real land and Ukraine of their fantasies.

Of course, people can blame Putin for equal or larger moral failings all they want, but assuming Putin "wants to expand the Empire" then Western policies have essentially been a gift to Putin -- not doing anything about the neo-Nazi's secures domestic support for the war; encouraging Ukraine to enter total war and not negotiate allows Putin to make super minimum offers that, once rejected, justify doing things the hard way, and, of course, giving Ukrainians enough support to hurt Russia ... but not enough to win in any military sense, may indeed kill some Russians but it does not effect policy makers nor the eventual outcome much -- the Russians will extract their revenge later ... or right now in shutting off the gas.

As for the actual situation in Ukraine.

The West has backed off further escalation and current weapons supplies do not seem to even match consumption rates of ammunition. The soviet calibre seem to have run out or about to (according even to Ukraine) and the West has not even supplied sufficient NATO calibre replacements.

Unfortunately, even though the West has effectively given up on Ukraine and is working on deescalation, taking ascension of Finland and Sweden in NATO as some sort of Ukrainian victory, there seems at the moment no resolution feasible of the war.

All sides can be blamed morally for that, but it is the current reality.

Since the escalation cycle has been ended by the West, Ukraine has very low possibility of military victory of any sort nor potential for a stalemate.

The media focuses on disparity of one weapons system at a time, generally content when there is some at least symbolic victory of at least some of that system being sent to Ukraine, but all this is nearly entirely meaningless if Russia has overwhelming force in both quantity and types of systems (such as air power).

For sure, Russia has not matched Western expectations of casualties of personnel and equipment in fighting small militaries in the middle east, but it seems pretty clear now that taking casualties of equipment and people is not a problem for Russia in continuing the war, and Ukrainian losses are now even admitted by Ukraine to be far higher.

Sadly, Ukrainian leadership did not see the best time for a negotiated peace was at the start (or before) the war, and completely overestimated the effective control of popularity on social media to dictate Western policy: social media popularity dictates policy insofar as it happens to already be the chosen Western policy. I think the long social media campaign by Ukraine for a no-fly zone is the best example of that; political capital and intellectual energy was spent on that rather than diplomacy or other things certainly due to the belief that enough likes and calls for the idea would result in it's implementation (rather than just humiliating "yeah, no").

Without any realistic prospect of "defeating" Russia on the battlefield, nor with sanctions, and no political possibility of compromising (which, certainly, Russia can be blamed about as well in the current situation; just the difference is they are taking territory and don't need to care as much about compromise), and without further military escalation by the West, the war will unfortunately simply drag on until Russia runs out of steam to continue advancing, which could be soon or in years to come.

In parallel to the war, as further sanctions seem now completely off the table, and the political mood now is workarounds, the global economy will simply adapt to the sanctions situation making them less and less effective over time.

In short, prognosis is more war. Sadly.

Since the situation has not really changed, there's not much further to analyse.

As predicted, the West is calibrating its support to Ukraine for a slow loss (to avoid nuclear weapons being used), and, also as predicted, the shoulder launch missiles are not effective as a basis for counter offensives or defending artillery, and the conversation has nearly completely switched to artillery and range considerations with the euphoria of the flood of Javelines and imminent victory a distant dream.

Nevertheless, propaganda would certainly degrade the conversation and I think warrant at least responding to.

Kazakhstan is apparently taking an opportunity to sneak off?

Kazakhstan withdraws from CIS agreement on currency committee – UNIAN (Jul 10, 2022) — jorndoe

Zero reason to believe this means much of anything.

Just a few months before the war Russian special forces deployed to Kazakhstan to support the Kazakhstan government against a riot / coup attempt.

End of the bromance: why Xi is wary of going to Moscow (Jul 7, 2022) — jorndoe

We have zero clue what Xi actually thinks and the idea that what the West thinks morally about things (what seems to be called "politics" in this article) actually matters to Xi is farcical.

Furthermore, Russia has the second largest arms industry in the world and is trained on all its own equipment, has no shortage of equipment, and mostly Chinese arms are copies of Russian / Soviet designs (often under license). There is zero reason to believe Russia could even make any effective use of arms coming from China.

What Russia needs from China are industrial equipment, industrial services and IT services and systems, and as long as it can get this from China then sanctions have essentially no chance of causing any major disruption to the Russian economy (may cause a recession and lot's of inconvenience, but that's very different to critical capital equipments and infrastructure and industrial maintenance services being unavailable).

Chechen parliament speaker Magomed Daudov says that first and foremost, Chechen battalions in Ukraine are fighting a jihad to defend Islam. — jorndoe

You can find not only US state senators and congress people, but also at the federal level, who have said all sorts of absolutely crazy and un realistic things.

It would be maybe worth discussing if it was Kadyrov, but even then it doesn't really matter much either, if it's just sabre rattling and exaggeration and playing to his base.

None of this seems to have much relevance at all nor form part of any thesis.

If you just want to drop in little trivia or propaganda, supporting no argument just "lookie here" and "oh, over there", just go on twitter or write a blog.

And should I remind that some people on this thread seemed to be openly and triumphiantly believed Russia and enjoyed smirking at US alarms: — ssu

I've read the first few pages of the thread before the invasion, and I don't see anyone Triumphantly believing Russia.

Mostly people seem to expect the war will happen, and are worried of escalation.

I guess this phrase could be interpreted as "fizzling out" meaning the war doesn't happen.

I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). — I like sushi

... or ... or ... could be interpreted to represent exactly what's happening now.

I don't give a fuck about human life.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Some people here do, and they might found your cynicism offensive. Just so you know. — Olivier5

Says the guy who thinks NATO handing Ukraine a few Nukes under the table to nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg is A. a good idea and B. Russia would be like "oh my, you got us! the ol' nukes under the table ploy, plausible deniability, we can't retaliate, untouchable".

I'm not sure about that how much panic there is. It's just usually that when you don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments, some people then resort to ad hominems. — ssu

Oh, you mean ad hominems like:

↪boethius That you are a professional propagandist. — Olivier5

It's just a form of escapism from the resident FSB influencer here, i.e. boethius. Nothing more. — Olivier5

↪boethius I'm just pointing at what I perceive as an important difference between other "Ukraine antagonists" here and you: they are amateurs, while you're a professional, IMO. — Olivier5

As pathetic desperation of people that "don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments"?

Or ... not these ad hominems?

But if nuclear weapons are only to be used as an option for Russia if they feel an existential risk, then there's no risk. — Christoffer

... So when the use of nuclear weapons is inconvenient to your position, then there's simply no risk ... based on Russia's lying word about "existential threat" ... which is up for interpretation anyways.

In short, if Russia keeps its word (about policies it could change anytime anyways), according to you, then there's no risk?

The only one holding the cards here is Russia, if they want to annihilate themselves that's up to them, but even in their battlefield stupidity and imperial fantasies, they don't seem that stupid. — Christoffer

Ah ... I get it now, Russian's are stupid right up until the moment it's convenient to believe they aren't "that stupid" the moment that's convenient for you to believe.

Stay within your borders and fix your shit, until then we won't be fooled into some surprise attack, we will keep our guns aimed at our borders until you grow up from your toxic fantasies. — Christoffer

Maybe do some very basic geopolitical research.

Whether Russia invasion of Ukraine (to get water to Crimea and do other strategic things) turns out in the end to be a good idea or bad idea from a geopolitical point of view ... the "grow up" theory of international relations is new to me.

How did it apply to US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or were you dismissively telling the US to "grow up" the whole time, and they finally listened and have "grown up" from their toxic fantasies of controlling middle east resources since retreating from Afghanistan last year?

They learned their lesson and now you are 100% behind these "adults" teaching the Kremlin trouble making "rebels" the same lesson?

Why would we let Russia ever get to the point of trying? — Christoffer

We agree there's basically zero danger right now or for the foreseeable future.

We agree that Russia may likely win in Ukraine, survive economically, rebuild its military stronger and better than it was before, and, therefore, could be a credible threat to Sweden at some point in the future.

Therefore, the risk of Russian military, economic and diplomatic victory over Ukraine should be taken seriously, and mitigated by joining NATO.

Even if all this we both agree on is true, the counter arguments are simply the same ones from the cold war, that being in NATO guarantees being targeted by nukes in a nuclear war, NATO having more land border with Russia increases (rather than decreases) the likelihood of nuclear war, which one is now a guaranteed nuclear strike target.

Of course, the rebuttal to that would be that major Finnish and Swedish cities are already targeted by nuclear weapons as Russia sees them as functionally part of the West anyways, in which maybe there is some marginal benefit to be in NATO anyways if Russia sees it that way anyways.

This argument can go back and forth.

The rebuttal to this rebuttal, that Sweden and Finland are already nuclear strike targets, is that the benefits are therefor only analytic edge cases and the optimum cost-benefit would be to reduce likelihood of nuclear war overall, which joining NATO increases rather than decreases.

To which is countered that more countries joining NATO lowers, rather than increases, chances of nuclear war, and so on and so forth.

If we're talking about some distant future where the context has radically changed and Russia wants and feels it can invade Finland and / or Sweden with conventional or even nuclear weapons, it's possible that NATO is a deterrent for that ... or it's possible that NATO is not a deterrent for that in this new future context. Indeed, being in NATO may actually increase the likelihood of an attack designed to demonstrate that NATO article 5 is not a credible deterrent anymore.

The general problem of nuclear weapons is that it's rational to cede to nuclear blackmail. For instance, if Russia dropped nuclear weapons on Finland and Sweden today or even the day after they join NATO, it still remains completely rational for the US, UK and France to not attack Russia with nuclear weapons, fearing a nuclear counter attack.

Which is why "madman theory" was developed by the Americans in the cold war, as the only way for nuclear deterrence to work (especially in covering other countries by your nuclear retaliation umbrella ... which Article 5 doesn't quite do), is that you are willing to do the irrational thing and launch nuclear weapons even if it is irrational to sacrifice most or all of your citizens that would not otherwise be harmed, due to a paragraph on a piece of paper.

Why the Western press calling Putin and the Kremlin insane is actually a strategically optimum favour (from a nuclear rivalry point of view, that we don't necessarily need, but NATO has insisted on us having), as it allows the Kremlin to play Kissinger's madman playbook without even trying very hard (American's had to spend significant effort to convince the Soviets they were cowboy crazy enough to launch a first strike if they woke up and felt like it).

Now they won't. Without Nato perhaps as a flank position for missile and weapon placement on Gotland when their military has been built up again, but now that we're about to join Nato they won't, which is the point. — Christoffer

Ok ... well then, when were they going to invade before?

And how does this concern for Finland and Sweden square with the idea Russia is losing in Ukraine?

If Russia can't even beat Ukraine, why would Finland and Sweden be in any danger at any point?

This morning, the CNN headline was basically "Ukraine reports Russia is taking heavy losses".

The headline right now is:

Ukrainian forces reach border near Kharkiv: 'Mr. President, we made it!'

Skipping over this front page, first headline news article starts with "A Ukrainian unit fighting north of Kharkiv says it has reached the Russian border. According to Ukrainian officials," with zero verification, aka. journalism of any kind, just whatever Ukraine says is reported immediately as front page headlines ... where have they "made it" too?

There's no reason to assume the Kharkiv positions are strategically important. It can be claimed that this is a prelude to strategic gains, that Ukraine is "about" to win, etc. but we've been hearing that every day for literally 3 months.

If Russia is intent on consolidating the gains so using only "contract" professional soldiers, and not conquer and passify Karkhiv with troops it doesn't have, then consolidating defensive lines makes sense, and these Ukrainian troops haven't "made it" to anywhere important.

They could invade Russia (let's just ignore there was plenty other parts of border to do that all this time) ... that then gives the Kremlin the mobilisation card (the Kremlin is so far playing by Russia's legal rules as far as possible).

Now, some "pro-Ukrainians" here seem to think that escalating further total war with Russia—even to the point of NATO slipping Ukraine a few nukes on the downlow to casually nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg—is a good thing.

That harming Russia, even if they don't lose but are just harmed according to our standards and not the Kremlins standards (which we don't even know how things are being evaluated), is justified whatever the cost to Ukraine.

People should really think longer, in my opinion, of non-Ukrainians holding this position that any and all harms to Russia, even nuking Moscow, is justified for Ukrainians to carry out, regardless of the cost to themselves.

A position that basically reduces to: Do what we want and cheer for, without any cost-benefit analysis of any kind, ever!! Do it!! Dot it for the vine!!

And you were able to deduce all this from your armchair?

Impressive. Most impressive.

When do you expect Russia will be invading Sweden?

Edit: BTW, I had some older friends over one of whom was a fighter pilot in the Dutch elite squadron and worked a lot with NATO. He still has contacts and it looks like a sure win for Ukraine now. — Benkei

I'm confused here. You say 'win' and then ask if they ought push for Donbass and Crimea. How's that a win? Russia comes in wanting control over Donbass and Crimea, it gets control over Donbass and Crimea. That doesn't sound like a win. What am I missing? — Isaac

Was about to post the same sentiment as @Isaac, just with also a map:



The black lines are what Russia controlled before the recent invasion, and Zelensky's own standard is removing Russia from all Urkainian pre-2014 territory, including Crimea, which no one seems to believe is going to happen (at least any time soon).

So ... where do these standards of Ukraine "winning" come from?

Now, jorndoe seems to believe the standard pro-diplomacy partisans such as my self have set for Russia is:

↪boethius, you continue to describe Putin's regime like an ("immune"/"untouchable") automaton bombing-machine, and, in that context, Ukrainians as meek humans (in contrast) that should just surrender. — jorndoe

And therefore anything less than this is Ukraine "winning" ... but, I have said repeatedly that Russians could have disastrous morale collapse any minute and be routed on all fronts, just as has been predicted since the start of the war by Western media.

It's still the case now, that Russians could be routed from all fronts.

However, as it stands, Russia has occupied and also passified a large chunk of territory; in particular, forming a land bridge to Crimea and also securing the water canal as Kehrson, which are pretty big strategic victories in the Ukraine theatre.

The only evidence for "strategic defeat" is simply ex-CIA type people saying so, in the context of current CIA people unironically saying Ukraine is "winning" the information war and the CIA is just an unbiased third party impartial investigative reporter of these events.

As for the actual strategic situation ... we still don't even know what the Kremlin is trying to accomplish strategically (other than, for sure, a land bridge and canal opening, which they's done).

For example, if the Russians wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war posture, that's happened.

Rather, seems the narrative is changing to Finland and Sweden joining NATO is strategic defeat of Russia, but if Russia wasn't planning to conquer Finland and Sweden then this doesn't really change much strategically, unless Finland and Sweden wanted to join NATO to then invade Russia ... but that seems unlikely.

What seems more likely, is that we are in a phase of the conflict where both NATO and Russia are convincing their respective audiences that their winning / have won.

This could be the prelude of de-escalation, which I would guess both NATO and Russia both want at this point ... or ... a lot more escalation, especially as it seems Ukraine--at least as represented by Zelensky--has no motivation to do.

However, it's unclear if Zelensky has any further escalation options, which would leave the conflict in a stalemate and not a "victory" for Ukraine.

The West portrays stalemate as a Russian "loss", but if the stalemate involves Russia sitting on the critical assets it wanted, the analysis doesn't make sense to me.

Currently, as the map above shows, there's only a small portion of the Dombas left in Ukrainian control, and the media has portrayed this small holdout as a Russian "loss" rather than conquering the rest of the Dombas as a Russian victory so far.

Of course, it would be a morale booster and show of strength for Russia to conquer that last piece of territory, but it hardly seems like a microcosm for the whole war.

Now, if Ukraine started to take strategically critical positions such as Kershon or then retake Mariupole (in particular when there were thousands of Ukrainian and Azov defenders), that would be one thing.

As it stands, considering the troop levels Russia committed to the conflict, the current results seem basically the maximum territory they could aim to conquer and passify ... and, just so happens, the "ambitious" side of the land-grabs experts were speculating before the war.

For, keep in mind, Russia has not mobilised to total war, which would vastly increase its war fighting capability but would have immense domestic political and economic consequences (Russians view conscription as solely for self-defence, and mobilising conscripts removes people from critical civilian roles that they were previously doing).

Which leaves a cost-benefit analysis of whether these Russian gains came at reasonable or unreasonable costs.

Ukraine, as immediately repeated by the Western press, claim that Russian losses have been excessive.

But we don't actually know.

Neither do we know Ukrainian losses.

Who is attritting who we don't actually know.

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker: — ssu

We've already gone over this: it's entirely possible both sides are engaged in propaganda and we should be skeptical of both. Once upon a time you mentioned yourself repeatedly the fog of war.

But I guess some will just continue with NATO bashing and telling how evil the US is. — ssu

Yes, if NATO baited Ukraine into a total war posture by:

1. Letting Ukraine believe it's going to be able to join NATO over an entire decade that Russia simply responded by preparing both to invade Ukaine and survive sanctions.

3. Keeping a "public" position that the door is open for Ukraine (lying to the whole world) rather than say the truth that Ukraine will not join NATO and so allow both Ukrainians, the region and international diplomacy a chance to deal with that fact. Yes, Zelensky is also a liar on this point, but he's only 1 with zero political experience in a severely corrupt system, whereas NATO is an entire institution made up of nation states that pretend to be the most moral agents with the best values and the least corruption on the planet. You can say "of course NATO won't say publicly the truth that Ukraine won't be allowed to join, that would be embarrassing!" but why would it be embarrassing? Only because NATO said Ukraine would be able to join, which turned out not to be true even according to NATO, so NATO is prepared to have tens of thousands of Ukrainians die rather than admit a mistake and tell the truth ... something it now says it's intelligence agencies have gone full hippy and and embraced radical transparency so you know everything that "leaks" is the god's honest truth and has nothing to do with any "information warfare" that, according to the CIA, it's the god's honest trust their helping Ukraine with and winning!

3. Providing enough arms and information support to maintain a total war situation in Ukraine ... but not intervention that would have a chance of actually defeating the Russians, for the sake of justifying sanctions that likewise won't defeat the Russians but happen to make American fracking profitable for the first time ... and maybe for the long term!

4. Encouraging Zelensky to reject peace terms (both through teasing things like a "no fly zone" and, seemingly, just flying to Kiev and telling him to keep fighting a la Boris Johnson, maybe with a little information warfare to prove Russia is "pure evil" on scant evidence sprinkled into the mix, as well as repeating everything he says as truth with zero criticism or scrutiny of any kind at a level reserved usually only for deities with respect to their zealots in relation to their priests) at each point of the war it seemed deescalation was possible. The first week had super light casualties and Ukraine did not topple, and there's no reason to believe Russia's offer (of the making the status quo before the war de jure) wasn't genuine, which exactly what "showing the will to fight" of a smaller power invaded by a larger power is supposed to accomplish: better peace terms than total capitulation while also avoiding the insanely massive harms of total war against a larger foe.

However, more importantly, NATO institutions, under US leadership, are currently the main instigators and maintainers of global ecological collapse.

This is no longer WWII or the cold war where there is some transcendental value (such as freedom and democracy) that the West represents and can excuse some "bad apples" and "mistakes" happening. Arguments, in the context of WWII and the cold war, I agree with in that context.

However, the health and safety of all ecosystems easily transcends freedom and democracy, which, through globalisation, we can also bring into question anyways (the West effectively governs vast areas of the globe without representations -- a very different situation to the largely isolationist America before WWII; which, granted still lot's to criticise such as the genocide of the native Americans, but we may nevertheless see pre-WWII American democracy as a better system than the alternative empires, monarchies and dictatorships, in particular the Nazi's and yes even the Soviets, that can't be said to be doing any better on the genocide front. Aka. the tribute system effectuated through the USD and asymmetric trade policies often implemented at the end of a barrel are taxation without representation, rendering the larger political system an Aristocratic one with geo-segregation of the aristocrats into clubs and quorums they call democracy; indeed, a nearly identical replication of the Athenian concept of democracy, rendering Western claims to that tradition far from ironic).

Now, we say Nazi's were evil for doing a genocide. Pause to think a little and keep in mind the Nazi's said they weren't evil but had just cause and from their point of view the "Allies" were evil.

The West destroys the whole world, perpetrates a genocide on all people's and the vast majority of life, and you think our pointing to that as obvious evil is caricature?

The only retort to this I ever hear is "well, yeah, maybe that's so, but the West has done good deeds in the past".

So have the Russians.

And, as for today, in terms of what actually matters, all life on earth, the Russians just so happen to be doing better than the West: they consume less—unintended moral dividends of centuries of inefficient economic systems—but, more importantly, Russian crude oil is far more ecologically friendly than tar sands and Russian gas far more ecological friendly than fracked gas. So, if we say our transcendent values (by no means perfect but "better") excused all misdeeds in WWII and the cold war (such as dropping nukes on civilians and then later agent orange and a long and fine tradition of torture), the Russian ecological policies (by no means perfect but likewise "better") stands to reason excuses all their miss-deeds according to our own moral system. If Vietnam didn't make US evil for these apologetic reasons of otherwise "doing better" on the transcendent planes of moralising, then the invasion of Ukraine likewise doesn't make Russia evil according to the Wests own dominant ethical system. The Russian's green hand washes its war hand, just as the West washed itself with a free hand in times long past.

Take your own advice: stop cheering the Russians and enlist on their side. Then you get to rape and torture innocent folks yourself rather than vicariously. — Olivier5

I'm not cheering the Russians.

I have no problem saying maybe Ukrainians have just cause, but also maybe the Russians have just cause, maybe neither has just cause or maybe both have just cause.

My position is a negotiated peace is better for Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans, Americans and the whole world, than continued warfare, and a negotiated peace requires discussion and compromise.

The people cheerleading Ukrainians to fight to the last, either as a fanatical gesture or bravery or then useful proxy to US power, which definitely seems your position, should either clearly state they are using Ukraine as a proxy to do their dirty work with minimum harm to themselves or then clearly state their hypocrisy of the Ukrainian fight essentially pure just cause, a moral imperative to fight the Russians as they are so evil, but not going to fight themselves.

I do not state the Ukrainians "should be fought". As an external party I the "should" statement that I view applying to myself is promoting a negotiated peace and criticising the government structures that take actions in my name (participate in the whole "democracy" thing rather than slink away from it like a coward).

You clearly state the Russians "should be fought" ... so ... go fight then.

You say Zelensky is a hero and wise and moral: hear his call to go and fight.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Dante missed a few levels to get to people "brave" on social media but cowards in the real world, for the simple fact social media didn't exist at the time.

Or, are people upset—literally labelling anyone that disagrees with them FSB agents and "propagandists", professional ... or amateur!?—because the entire internet isn't their safe space but they feel it should be?

A safe space they are flummoxed to see somehow the moderators haven't created for them but have kept things "low quality" ... well, if so, why engage in low quality debate?

And for those who don't think it's fair to talk about nukes ... as obviously Russia could just Nuke Ukraine and win that way and obviously no one would be saying Ukraine "won" anything if they get nuked, but, because recognising that makes the idea Ukraine can "win" nonsensical and the whole propaganda machine around Ukraine "winning" completely stupid, first do some of the most basic possible youtube research:



However, also try to square the idea Putin won't use nukes with the belief Putin is a madman, incompetent, war criminal.

If using nukes is a war crime ... then certainly Putin the war criminal won't be bothered by that?

If Putin is a madman ... then certainly using nukes in Ukraine, running the very small risk NATO would nuke Russia in return would be a mad thing to do?

If there's some "reasons" Russia shouldn't use nukes to win ... shouldn't a strategic incompetent not see such reasons and therefore mistakingly use nukes anyways?

What's even the argument?

That Putin is a blood thirsty erratic, cabin feverish barbarian ... but also savvy enough to know that Western media would "really not like him, like for realz this time, like totally, still have him at maximum Hitler level but, like, actually going to scold him a lot more now" if he used nukes in Ukraine?

Now, if the counter argument is that the talk of war criminal, incompetent and madman are all for propaganda purposes, just "simple myths" that Ukrainians need to keep fighting the good fight they are too simple minded to understand if it's for mythical purposes or not ... then what's the point of the existential proxy war with Russia again?

An existential war that stays a proxy war precisely due to the fear of nukes in the first place.

In other words: NATO won't support Ukraine with any actual skin in the game, boots on the ground, won't actually "stand" with an ally as it doesn't have the "will" to do so, but instead bends over backwards to keep buying Russian resources (not just gas and oil) ... and when questioned of why NATO isn't fighting itself the good fight it says must be fought, the answer is always quite clearly: nuclear weapons, let's not lose our heads!

However, when it's pointed out that Ukraine might get nuked due to NATO propping up a puppet to engage Ukraine in total war and reject all peace terms ... what's the answer?

Has NATO said it will nuke Russia if Russia nukes Ukraine because Ukraine is a friend, ally, a good country with a righteous cause that of course is accepted in NATO right away to benefit from collective defense in a meaningful way?

No, it has not.

Russia has a free hand to nuke Ukraine as far as any NATO comments are concerned, and NATO has absolutely zero reason to retaliate against Russia for an attack against ... well, not NATO, I think that's been made abundantly clear in all this: Ukraine is not in NATO, just doing what NATO wants.

So, if you think things through, if NATO is a "real friend" but just not a real friend, then the calculation is as follows:

Calculation 1:
Ukraine cannot actually win or it will get nuked, and even a stalemate may result in nukes, so Russia must be allowed to win, just with significant losses that are easy to calibrate by regulating the weapons and intelligence sent to Ukraine ... just, of course because we're nice people, not so significant that it may cause the Russians to say "fuck it, let's drop a nuke or two in order to save lives; just as the Americans did on Japan, and now their best buds!", but still, scrumptiously significant losses we can really lick our lips over and be proud.

Calculation 2:
Ukraine cannot be allowed to accept peace terms and so all behind the scenes negotiation between the major powers must be sabotaged by just providing a play by play in the mass media of anyone who does talk to Putin, as well as just publicly state all negotiation must go through Zelensky, who has zero political experience and is easy to manipulate and a reckless lose cannon anyways. Of course, massive amounts of propaganda is needed to make people believe that romcom level of political analysis and ethical arguments are serious diplomatic positions of nation-states.

Calculation 3:
Sanctions must be enough to hurt the Russian economy ... but ... just ... not ... quite ... enough ... that there's still not plenty of money rolling in so Russia is still better off winning the war slowly as we allow them to do, than use nuclear weapons. We're still paying Russia to not drop nukes at the end of the day ... unless ... if and when we want that to change.

Calculation 4:
What's so bad about Russia dropping nukes in Ukraine? We've got all these Ukrainians killed so far, what's the difference between more Ukrainians dying just with nukes instead of conventional weapons? You know, when we really think about needing to consolidate US hegemony over those still disposed to US hegemony, the hegemonied. Could anything else really bring us together better than the warm radioactive glow of Ukraine? For, like, is it just me, or when it's time to wind this thing down, wouldn't it be best to go out with a bang? Wouldn't Russia winning with nukes be a moral victory for us? If they are going to win, maybe it's best they win with nukes, so any reproachment between the US sphere of influence and whatever's happening over there in the East is no longer conceivable by our "allies" (which, obviously doesn't include Ukraine if everyone's thinking what I'm thinking, but, you know, the other ones).

Try peace-mongering Putin. :smile: (it's a "truth or dare") — jorndoe

Peace mongering is a play on words, which obviously escapes you.

Peace mongering is a term to describe this new inverted media landscape where people who advocate peace are doing the real violence to Ukraine.

That supporting war and weapons being pumped into Ukraine is just common sense and unquestioned support for Ukrainians, whether they be alive or dead. It's called propaganda ... or is the word "consensus". So hard to keep track of these things.

And where those promoting peace are now peace mongers and presented as literally wishing the death of Ukrainians for even thinking about ways to stop the war, those supporting war and violence, the more escalation the merrier, are now presented as basically "war hippies". The CIA itself has been "experimenting" with radical hippy transparency, just "sharing what it knows" with the world in pursuit of truth.

It's truly amazing how quickly people's brains can be rewired.

Be that as it may, I do not see what your links are attempting to show.

As has been said many, many times, if you think Ukraine is fighting a holy and just war and must and should be fought, whether they can win or not: go fight in said war you say should be fought.

And it is not a rhetorical question, many have "heard the call" and have gone.

Why do you press down on buttons of a key board, when you can be pressing buttons on a weapon system in Ukraine?

Yet you and and and others, are here prattling away as if the battle is really fought on social media.

But look around you, there is no actual fighting here, we are talking.

Which makes sense for people who believe that talking and ending the war through an exchange of words—words, also known as peace terms, that are obviously up for discussion in such a process—is preferable to more bloodshed.

However, I honestly do not get how it makes sense for those here that wish to fight the Russians ... but are not fighting the Russians right now ... despite their hero Zelensky inviting them to do so.

Why cheer on from a distance when you can partake directly of the cup of the glory of Ukraine? Taste death in all its nuance and horrid splendor?

And the Ukrainians aren't bending over. And are willing to use force to defend themselves. :shrug:
But, getting together at the negotiation table (or diplomacy) surely is desirable. Let's not try to stop that. — jorndoe

Sure, Ukrainian's can use force.

Obviously, Russians can also use force.

If Zelensky does not know how to do diplomacy in a non-farcical way, that's Ukraine's problem ... unless there is no reason to do diplomacy and farcical demands are simply to taunt the enemy. No need for diplomacy if you can get what you want by force. Totally coherent. Likewise for Russia.

If you want things to be resolved by force and not words ... why do you give us words rather than force?

What do you seek to accomplish with your words?

Clearly it's not a negotiated peace, so if force is the answer why add pathetic words to the internet rather than join your own force to that of Ukraine.

Or are you just noting that in a war of this kind one side will take some or all the territory of the other, and you're just admonishing such a process happening come what may.

We've been told Ukraine is "winning" in some way since a few days after the war started—that not losing in 72 hours was somehow "winning"—and now it's being said that sometime in June Ukraine will be able to "counter offensive" with heavy weapons (not ATGM's ... hmm, what happened to those being enough?).

If there is no reason to make peace, only demand total capitulation and continue fighting when that offer is rejected, then, sure, shrug, sigh: let them fight.

Ukraine can fight as you say, use the force it has. Totally accurate.

Russia can do likewise, use the force it has. Equally accurate. Just, a slight difference in that Russia has nukes.

So, if Ukraine did turn the tide sometime in June or later as we're being told now it will, what reason in that scenario do you propose for Russia to bend over, rather than have the "will" to fight with nukes as it has them and clearly can use them?

If your reasoning for Ukraines fighting is because they can, certainly your reasoning for Russia using nukes is because it can.

Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson' — Isaac

... are we ... are we the peace mongers?

I'm just pointing at what I perceive as an important difference between other "Ukraine antagonists" here and you: they are amateurs, while you're a professional, IMO. — Olivier5

Ah yes, by promoting peace and being appalled at Ukrainians dying and children being traumatised (and also dying) and wanting the horrors of war to stop by some negotiated peace ... I am "antagonistic" to Ukrainians.

Wanting peace is the real violence in this sordid affair?

But remind us again, the advantages to Ukrainians of NATO fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, and the disadvantages of dialogue and peace.

I haven't said anything about thresholds. Russians can be as nazi as they want to; no problem for me, as long as they don't invade their neighbours. — Olivier5

You're really asserting you have not supported the idea there are not enough Nazi's in Ukraine? Just fringe, Nazi's in every country, etc.?

Be that as it may, doesn't this also apply to Ukraine and their invasion of Dombass after they declared independence? Spearheaded by Azov battalion, isn't this Nazi's--granted, being as Nazi as they like--literally invading their neighbour's in Dombass?

What about these actions? Shouldn't Dombass have the right to self determination and to make defensive alliances with who they wish? Shouldn't Russia honour such alliance just as NATO should honour it's commitments to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO (which it isn't)?

You have all these ad hominem attacks against "Russians" such as:

The extreme nationalism, the invention of a grand national destiny, the banalisation of violence and love of brutality verging on sadism, a hatred for representative democracy, suspicion towards Jews, extensive use of propaganda, all these are quite typical. — Olivier5

Which ... noted, you seem to be saying here Nazi's were only "suspicious" towards Jews.

and,

It's happening now in Ukraine. Torture. Rape. Murder. That's what Russians do. Violence is the only language they will understand. — Olivier5

While also supporting Ukrainian "myth making" or whatever you want to call it.

How do we know these ad hominems against the Russians aren't likewise myths justified by the "need" to boost Ukrainian morale?

The extreme nationalism, the invention of a grand national destiny, the banalisation of violence and love of brutality verging on sadism, a hatred for representative democracy, suspicion towards Jews, extensive use of propaganda, all these are quite typical. — Olivier5

All these qualities can be in other forms of authoritarianism. Jihadist extremists I would say have all these qualities. You may quibble that something like "Islamic State" is not a "nation", but want to recreate a supra-national pan-Arabic caliphate ... well the Nazi's too had a "pan aryan" view of things and creation of a "Reich" far beyond the borders of the German "nation".

However, jihadist extremists, whether better or worse than Nazi's, represent a distinct ideology to Naziism. Authoritarian ideologies often share a lot in common ... doesn't make them the same thing.

But where have your goal posts even moved to?

How many Nazi's is too many Nazi's with too much power, is an independent and stand alone question.

Once answered, we can then evaluate if Ukraine has too many Nazis and also whether Russia has too many Nazis.

If Ukraine and Russia have too many Nazis, then maybe them fighting it out is a good thing for Nazis to die on each side, and it's very clever to pump in as many arms as possible to ensure as many Ukrainians and Russians die as possible: that both sides are wrong, and therefore it's good that they fight each other and maintained in mutually destructive combat forever: defeat the Nazi's in Ukraine by giving them the tools of their own demise.

It could be a coherent argument.

But, to make any argument about it at all, we need this threshold of too many Nazis. People, including yourself, have stated the threshold isn't met ... ok, should be easy to say what the threshold is then.

Maybe Wagner group is both Nazi enough and passes the hypothesized threshold, which people here claim to know but never deliver the goods.

Pointing out: the argument that just war justifies lies, that can always be repackaged as "myths", begs the question of whether the reasons for the just war itself is a lie ... is not "pro" anyone; it's first order analysis of what people say.

If the ghost of Kiev was a justified "information campaign" to boost Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian morale ... maybe the just cause reasons for the war are likewise false and only myths. Certainly discovering the war is not just would be bad for morale ... so, can't have that if the war is assumed to be justified.

Which is the problem of the justified lie: why trust the reasons for that justice in the first place?

Where did you mention the fact that Putin is himself a Nazi? — Olivier5

I don't see the evidence for it ... and it seems incompatible with the idea Putin is a KGB soviet reactionary ... so I don't see how it's supposed to even fit in "information warfare" campaign.

However, noted that "anyone you don't like", such as Putin, can be called a Nazi without evidence for it. Lot's of flavours of authoritarianism, doesn't make every authoritarian a Nazi nor that other forms of authoritarianism can be bad in themselves, on their own merits, without also therefore being Nazis.

But people who literally tattoo swastikas on themselves and call themselves aryans and have SS symbols on themselves and their flag ... reported as Nazis for years by multiple media, big and small (that we're now told to trust, at least the big ones, on face value in their repeating what Ukraine says everyday), is "controversial" to call Nazi's today.

I tend to feel free, generally, and do not need your authorization for it. — Olivier5

Sure, great.

For instance, you've omitted the presence of a nazi-like ideology in Putin -- he's clearly a nazi himself -- and the fact that the Wagner group funded by Putin is headed by nazis. — Olivier5

This has not been omitted, but already been discussed. If Putin was too a Nazi, or supporting Nazi's, and so on, then that would only make him a hypocrite, not change the situation in Ukraine and the questions I've asked.

It's also been discussed at length that Naziism is a form of authoritarianism, but not all authoritarians are Nazi's, nor even, necessarily, bad.

Yes, it's an important part of it, of course, when carefully chosen. — Olivier5

So ... pointing out the Western media accidentally undermining it's own propaganda today (because no one got the memo that Azov battalion was "hands off" at the time, so people naively assumed Nazi's was a bad thing) ... is itself propaganda.

But ok, let's play your game, you say the material I post is carefully chosen, feel free to provide the things I've omitted to make the "true picture" according to you.

People then say "What Nazi's? What Nazi's? What are Nazi's? Who's a Nazi?"

I post our own Western media (who we're now told to believe on face value repeating "information warfare" of Ukraine) ... investigating these Nazi's.

Where as your response explaining these aren't the Nazis you're looking for?

Or then explaining your standard of what "enough Nazis" would be, and that what's in these videos is clearly "not enough of them"?

The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.

Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS. — boethius

And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation? — boethius

And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing: — boethius

January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.

The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".

But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.

[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]

Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — boethius

Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".

And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters:

""
We're Aryans, and we will rise again
"""

But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side). — boethius

This one's just adorable.
""" — boethius

Is reposting the Western media establishment own reporting your idea of "professional propaganda"?

I fear not 'opposing view points', although mass murderers and their apologists are indeed creepy. — Olivier5

Apologising for what?

I have pointed out, according to our own Western idea that appeasing the original Nazi's was a mistake and should have been proactively attacked (I agree), that, if this idea is true, some level of Nazi is enough to justify invasion. That this part of Russia's argument is of a valid form according to our own Western ideas.

I have then simply asked the question of how many Nazi's is too many Nazi's with too much power in Ukraine. If people believe that appeasing the Nazi's the first time was a mistake (even if they were not "a majority" of Germans, as is often repeated), then presumably it's a mistake now, and if there is not enough Nazi's in Ukraine, then such an argument presupposes knowing a level of too much Nazi.

I ask for this knowledge, people claim to have. I thirst and people claiming they have water give me nothing to drink.

People here say "yes, there are Nazi's in Ukraine, but not enough to justify invasion" ... well, ok, that's a statement that presupposes one can say what "enough" would be.

My own position on the subject is that we could likely debate the subject for decades (those of us who don't like Nazis).

Pointing out people have parts of their argument missing (what is "enough Nazi's"), is not apologist for Russia. Maybe there isn't enough Nazi's, but what is "enough" and how to measure it?

The rebuttal to this question is pointing out there's Nazi's in every Western country ... but that still doesn't answer the question, maybe then that's also too much and every Western country would be justified to invade.

In other words: analysis and criticism on a philosophy forum, of which people have opportunity and time to respond to and prove their point.