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.

Ukraine's fighter pilots are vastly outnumbered by the Russians, and have become legendary - thanks in part to the story of an alleged flying ace called the "Ghost of Kyiv".

This hero is said to have downed as many as 40 enemy planes - an incredible feat in an arena where Russia controls the skies.

But now the Ukraine Air Force Command has warned on Facebook that the "Ghost of Kyiv is a superhero-legend whose character was created by Ukrainians!".

"We ask the Ukrainian community not to neglect the basic rules of information hygiene," the message said, urging people to "check the sources of information, before spreading it".

Earlier reports had named the ace as Major Stepan Tarabalka, 29. The authorities confirmed that he was killed in combat on 13 March and honoured with a Hero of Ukraine medal posthumously.

Now, the air force stresses that "Tarabalka is not 'Ghost of Kiev', and he did not hit 40 planes". — BBC

They've become legends! Thanks to lies that people believed, and their belief created the legend, but also didn't believe and actually co-wrote a new myth! ... Information Hygiene people! Because we care about the truth!

It's literally taking people for total fools a lot of this stuff.

Thanks for proving my point. — Olivier5

Proving what point?

Boethius is the true professional Putin-paid troll here. — Olivier5

You do realise that this is a pretty pathetic cope for someone afraid of engaging with opposing view points?

Or do you really believe you've made some sound argument based on zero evidence?

There are differences between them, though. Boethius is an FSB plant, no doubt in my mind about him, or he would not defend the bombing of civilians like he did. But @Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron. — Olivier5

Where do I defend the bombing of civilians?

Pointed out a war crime (in the judicial sense and not internet-meme sense) requires a judicial process, is not "defending" bombing of civilians.

It just so happens that bombing civilians is not in itself a war crime according to our own Western definition; Western armies have bombed plenty of civilians since planes have been invented.

Likewise, pointing out Russia has nuclear weapons is not defending the use of nuclear weapons, just pointing out obvious facts and risks that should be taken into account.

Finally, pointing out that assuming just war justifies lying, that it therefore justifies lying about the reasons for the just war, is not defending one side or another.

My position, which has been consistent, is that my preference is peace and that only diplomacy will achieve that, for Ukrainians as much as for Russians or anyone else, and diplomacy requires understanding the other point of view.

Pointing out that the Western media repeating at face value obvious lies, like the ghost of Kiev, and then immediately praising Ukrainian information warfare and "myth making" the moment Kiev itself admits it's a lie, reduces the credibility of the Western media to zero -- that we're literally at the point of: "we're lying to you, but here why that's a good thing!" -- is not somehow incompatible with the idea that the Russians are also doing propaganda (which was already the object of a long discussion with people here refusing the idea that both Russia and Ukrainians and the US and EU are all engaged in propaganda, and whatever "seeds of truth" we can find and agree on, such as some Nazi's are in Ukraine, aren't "off limits" because it is inconvenient to the propaganda of one side or another).

Pointing out no one has actually made a coherent and complete argument explaining Ukrainian just war, that it is simply assumed by Ukrainian proponents, is not saying Russia has just cause either. As I mentioned: maybe neither has, maybe both have.

If just cause of previous wars are still debated to this day, sometimes many centuries if not millennia after they occurred, doubting the moral prescriptions of people who have zero hesitation to explain how they are lying as part of those moral prescriptions, and that's a good thing!, is pretty easy position to defend intellectually.

But, if you disagree, explain to me why it's right to believe Kiev's lies and also then immediately believe the truth that it was a lie when admitted but simultaneously believe it was right that they lied and to believe it was nevertheless true in a rewriting of my own memories that I was "co-creating" a necessary simplified myth all along.

Nazi party was founded in 1920, which is 2 years after the Finnish plane.

The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), was a far-right[7][page needed][8] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. — wikipedia

Additionally, it's a tiny party at the time, the symbol is a common and there would be no reason for anyone to believe the Finnish airforce is supporting some small party in Germany by using the same symbol.

It's only a "big thing" in retrospect after the Nazi's take over Germany and start WWII.

That there are Nazi sympathisers in Finland both leading up to WWII and during WWII and also after, I would not dispute. However, unlike Azov battalion, these Nazi sympathisers don't have their own institution and integration into the government.

However, this history seems largely irrelevant to the current situation (the current war is in Ukraine, the current government in Finland wanting to join NATO is very left and a long way from being far-right, the direct support for Nazi's in Ukraine comes from the US, and EU countries are simply lapdogs in this affair without much autonomy, so their internal politics is largely irrelevant in any case; the Finnish government supports Nazi's in Ukraine because they are told that's not true and told what to do, so that's the end of the political discourse about that; left or right doesn't matter and it's the same for nearly all EU countries).

In what? Do you read your own sources? The symbol had nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism. — Baden

Which, of note, Naziism had not yet been invented in 1918.

Hitler viewed Scandinavians ( + Finland) as "good aryans" and so borrowed a lot of nordic symbolism.

The basic Swastika motif not being particularly nordic though.

The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party,[1] is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[2][3][4][5][6] It generally takes the form of a cross, the arms of which are of equal length and perpendicular to the adjacent arms, each bent midway at a right angle.[7][8] — wikipdia

The wikipedia lists almost the entire world under the heading "Historical uses".

Second, I wasn’t exclusively referring to the current scenario but also to the risks of escalation as one of your zealous fellows has warned all of us about — neomac

The risk is obvious.

Here are two experts discussing the very real risk of nuclear escalation, posted a few days after my comments:



The conclusion is exactly the same as mine, which is that currently only "taboo" in their words (but same concept as "breaking the ice"), is the main thing holding back use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

The other thing is that Russia is still making gains using conventional methods, and so does not "need" to use tactical nuclear weapons.

And if the situation is maintained (of steady Russian gains and occupying most of the territory it says is the goal), then there's no reason to expect Russian policy to suddenly change.

However, this is not a stable situation. The context could easily change.

To give an opposing point of view, that Putin is "bluffing", here is another commentator:



With a video literally called "Calling Russia's Nuclear Bluff".

In terms of world ending nuclear exchange, Russia isn't making that threat.

The threat is presented always in ambiguous terms, but it's pretty clear the threat to use nuclear weapons is in Ukraine, not against NATO.

As @ssu points out, the threats (or then just the nuclear weapons in themselves) have already dissuaded NATO from things like a no-fly zone and giving heavy weapons early game (to be seen if heavy weapons now are symbolic gestures or not, but clearly it was to Russia's advantage that NATO only supplied limited weapons and still only supplies limited weapons). Given the public holy furore, boots on the ground in Ukraine would have been extremely likely absent nuclear weapons. So the the very real threat of nuclear weapons has already deterred direct NATO involvement.

If Russia was to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it extremely unlikely NATO would launch a world ending nuclear strike. People would be upset, implement whatever sanctions are left to implement, but finally accept it.

The danger to Ukraine is obvious. The danger to the world would be hyper charging nuclear proliferation.

One may postulate various geopolitical constraints, such as assuming China would be upset about Russia using nuclear weapons. However, these sorts of assumptions are tenuous. More conflict and tensions in Europe the less "pivot" happens in the East. We do not know what Xi thinks about things, or wants, now or in some new context.

From the current situation, where Russians forces have no easy way out, and are set to get pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Moscow. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours. — Olivier5

Russia has nuclear weapons. Russia can use nuclear weapons to easily win battles. That is not a dream.

Claiming Ukraine will be given nuclear weapons by NATO or then could make their own nuclear weapons in a few months ... sounds familiar ... sounds really familiar.

Sounds exactly like:

From the current situation, where Ukrainian forces have no easy way out, and are currently getting pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Kyev. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours.

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

You state NATO passing nukes to Ukraine to nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg is not only plausible in some version of reality, but also that Russia would be just like "so clever" and that technically Ukraine launching NATO's nukes would matter in the slightest.

You state I'm a "FSB influencer" for saying things you don't like and have no rational response to.

Yet somehow I'm living a fantasy.

And escapism from what? Obviously Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons, and obviously from a military perspective it is completely rational to use a bigger bomb if you have a bigger bomb, and obviously the long list of political reasons that no one would be using Nukes anywhere that we could list only 3 months ago is getting thinner by the day.

How close are we to literally no political reasons left to dissuade from the use of nuclear weapons? I have not said, only that the required context maybe far closer than it seems.

Ignoring the obvious by simultaneously dismissing the risk, while also believing NATO would give Ukraine nuclear weapons in such a scenario is the escapism.

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. — ssu

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice.

The Kremlin may also be start to be feeling there's a target on their back as we enter into ecological collapse, that they have what countries will be craving: arable land, water and energy ... and more than they had before.

There is now only political factors, in my opinion, preventing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Political factors which seems less and less relevant as time goes by as far as I can see.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine. — ssu

Agreed, standing up to a bully is only "heroic" if the bully can be beaten in a Hollywood style coming of age movie.

The truly powerful take what they want and are idolised for it.

... Take our friends the Americans ...

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. — Christoffer

You assume Russia needs diplomacy with the West.

... and that the current situation is the West handing out fig leaves or something?

Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. — Christoffer

According to "us", the West ... which, see point above, they may not care about nor their strategic partners such as China, India and co.

It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age. — Christoffer

We're already discussed at length that affect of sanctions largely depends on the sentiment of the ordinary Russian, which as far as we know has consolidated around support for the war, as well as substitutes of all critical equipment and services from China, which as far as we know covers everything.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything. — Christoffer

I don't disagree with this.

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home. — Christoffer

"Morale" does not in itself win battles or wars.

... If you're suggesting settlement (peace terms) is the only possible resolution of the war (as nearly all wars end), then the optimum time to settle was in the early days, leveraging exactly that morale you mention to fanatically engage in chaotic total war.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress. — Christoffer

Sure, maybe.

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons. — Christoffer

A tactical nuclear weapon is a regular nuclear weapon, only of smaller yield and delivery vehicle for use in battle, such as a cruise missile or even artillery shell. The word tactical simply connotes the design purpose to be aid in the winning of battles.

A strategic nuclear weapon, is an extension of as strategic bombing ... with simply a lot bigger bomb, and is not designed to win battles--delivery vehicles, such as ICBM's, may have minimum ranges of thousands of kilometres and minimum yields so large that there is no plausible battle situation where it would make sense to use--and are designed to change strategic economic factors like "cities existing".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but this is just a quick note for people who wonder what the difference between tactical and strategic comes from. The criticism of bombing cities to rubble far from the front lines was met with the rebuttal "it's strategic", and that nomenclature has stuck.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. — Christoffer

If you put soldiers nearly anywhere they will start building trenches. It's unlikely this was some "battle plan" coming down from the top.

I honestly fail to see the Russian actions as "stupid". They may fail, now or then later as you say, but the decisions are clearly well thought out and not stupid. Ukraine has embarrassing failures as well, such as letting Russia capture "bio labs".

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here. — Christoffer

I did not say the use of nuclear weapons in Japan was trivial. It was, more than anything, the events that started the cold war that defined nearly the rest of the century.

However, the point of this example is that there can be a context in which ordinary people support the use of nuclear weapons. The justification of the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was to save American lives, and, faced with a equally fanatical enemy willing to fight to the death (for good reasons or bad) it may at some point make as much sense to Russians to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine for the same reasoning.

I am not saying that context currently exists, only it could be far closer than it seems.

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes. — Christoffer

@Isaac already pointed out the face-value flaw in that metric.

However, more relevant metrics would be trade relations and sanctions and diplomatic pressure and sending arms to Ukraine all of which is a "West" thing. I.e. metrics of caring that actually matter and are not essentially symbolic due to Russia's security council veto in the UN.

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks. — Wayfarer

This was certainly plan A and the preferred result was either collapse of the Ukrainian regime or then accepting the peace terms on offer.

But considering they took their positions in south of Ukraine in a matter of days and "denazified" the Azov brigade all the to a few starting holdouts in Azovstal, it seems non-credible to say the Kremlin, or then at least the Russian generals, had a plan B.

Also, the whole analysis that Russia expected Ukraine to collapse completely ignores the last 8 years, the size of Ukraine, and the US and NATO support to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been waging a fanatical war against the Dombass breakaway regions for 8 years, training up with NATO, getting fighting experience, and developing further a fanatical war fighting ideology (NAZI or otherwise), and any competent military analyst would view a total war response by Ukraine as one obvious potential outcome as well as NATO escalating sanctions and flooding arms into Ukraine.

What is unknown is how probable the Kremlin viewed the current total war scenario.

What is equally unknown is the extent the Kremlin actually wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war scenario to obliterate their long term war fighting infrastructure, make the point of walking up to the biggest and baddest country in the region and punch them in the face, while also raising commodity prices.

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers. — Olivier5

It wasn't fantasy.

Ukraine was already being armed and trained by NATO for their war in the Dombass.

The precedent of waging proxy war with conventional weapons goes way back, there's nothing particular unusual in the situation.

NATO giving Ukraine nuclear weapons to strike Russia is pure fantasy and Russia is unlikely to accept this "aha, technically we only 'loaned' some nukes to Ukraine, no string attached as nuclear powers are want to do, so, gotcha, you can't nuke us back".

All NATO would be achieving by giving a couple of nukes to their friends in Ukraine to casually nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg, would be to risk strategic nuclear response without even the benefit of a nuclear first strike.

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes? — ssu

In the current situation, I agree with your evaluation, why I mention some further escalation as the trigger, from Ukraine or from NATO and/or both.

However, to understand the rational for using nuclear weapons, one needs to explore what happens if the premises of your current argument changes. As I mention, things only "seem stable" because we have gotten accustomed to the carnage, but the situation may be far from stable in terms of all sorts of variables we cannot currently see.

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. — ssu

This is still pretty convenient in terms of military tactics to simply "take out" a Ukrainian formation. However, there's also fortified bases and bunkers that cannot easily be completely obliterated by conventional means.

A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. — ssu

I'm not sure if NATO and the EU can escalate the current "outcry", for one, and the Kremlin may simply no longer care what NATO and the EU do or say if the context develops in which using nuclear weapons has more pros than cons.

The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — ssu

This is not simple.

I doubt civilian targets would be targeted, although civilians would certainly die as well.

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot. — ssu

These are the main political reasons against using nuclear weapons. However, the world view and political response of Russia's remaining partners is not so easily predictable. But China and India (governing elites) may have now, or then it develops in the future, some reason to either accept Russia using tactical nuclear weapons (sets the precedent that they can too).

The world also doesn't solely run on social media judgements. Russia has resources countries need and it's easy to rationalise buying what you need from the cheapest source.

Do we not too wear Nikes?

(or some equivalent symbol of questionable fabrication practices that make our sneakers cheaper than they otherwise would be?)

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them. — ssu

The anti-Russian rhetoric should maybe taken more seriously.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true.

If Putin is evil, literally Hitler, already committing genocide, and the risk of a strategic response from NATO is very low, then I honestly don't see why Putin wouldn't use nuclear weapons? Definitely seems to me like an evil thing to do.

In our discussions I believe we both agree the situation is more nuanced, but the rhetoric on this point could be true. We don't really know what Putin and the Kremlin wants or how he'd react in this or that situation.

I word it "breaking the ice" on the use of nuclear weapons due to the wider contextual consequences, not because it would immediately win the war in Ukraine.

In terms of military tactics in Ukraine, it is possible that Ukraine can withstand one or two tactical nukes as you describe, but it would certainly result in a stalemate as spreading your forces out essentially rules out any concentrated offensive, and formation that concentrates for a breakthrough manoeuvre just gets nuked.

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit. — StreetlightX

Whatever else people want to say about Lavrov, Putin or the Kremlin, it seems pretty clear that the risk of nuclear war is far higher than before the crisis.

And it's pretty easy to argue that any increase in the risk of nuclear war is unacceptable.

The statements are simply true about the risks.

What people can take issue with is the part where Lavrov expresses those risks are unacceptable; i.e. his normative rather than factual parts of his statement.

Lavrov and the Kremlin may want nuclear escalation at this point for all we know ... which, if true, makes the statement about the risks being significant far higher and even "more factual". But, whatever the Kremlin wants, the risks are obviously higher now than before the war.

Of course, it wouldn't work for propaganda purposes since if the Western media accused Lavrov of being disingenuous and actually wanting the situation to escalate to nuclear weapons ... then the followup question is why is NATO playing into Russia's hand?

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state. — Olivier5

Worthy goal.

And NATO does not even need to launch. — Olivier5

Lot's of reasons why it would be necessary for NATO to launch to "get rid" of Russia.

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine. — Olivier5

Fantasy.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. — Punshhh

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

If it's not true, and Russia unambiguously defeats Ukraine in the Easter theatre and Ukraine can't take back Kherson is where risk of Russian using nuclear weapons is low.

I agree that even if Russia does use nuclear weapons the risk of WWIII is low, at least in the form of mutually assured destruction being implemented.

However, lot's of chaotic scenarios we may decide to call WWIII even if ICBM's aren't used and only a few choice tactical nukes here and there. For example China may decide to invade Taiwan and other wars may erupt due to food shortages and general discombobulation of the international system.

The phrasing is "shouldn't be underestimated". It's simply true. We shouldn't underestimate war leading to more war.

The Western media projects an image of NATO basically in control of the situation and knowing what they're doing.

This may simply turn out not to be true.

In basic risk analysis you multiple the risk by the impact to get a factor for comparison. Even if WWIII is low probability, it is very high impact, and so easily of greater concern than a lot of other dangers.

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged. — Punshhh

The issue of nuclear weapons being used has already been discussed at length. All those reasons and scenarios have not gone away and may have actually increased even if Johny Depp now dominates the news cycle and the Western media has a new toy ... the old toys of gasoline and firecrackers haven't been put away.

Noting that tactical nuclear weapons are optimum military strategy is not controversial. In military terms, if you have a bigger bomb than the opposing side it's an advantage. The reasons to not use nuclear weapons are political and not military.

All your reasoning (if true, that Russia is weak in conventional forces) simply supports the conclusion they may use nuclear weapons, that they would have nothing else to lose.

So, I'm not sure if you're even disagreeing with my point, or just disapproving of the use of nuclear weapons.

I also disapprove.

One could argue pouring in debt and conventional weapons into Ukraine to the point that Russia uses nuclear weapons would be for the glory of Ukraine, and a worthy sacrifice to demonstrate just how "shameful" the Russians are. If one wants definitive proof that "Putin be bad" then I see how that logic works.

Russia has nothing left but this. — Christoffer

Currently Russia is making gains in Dombass, so we'll see the result there.

They have also already taken Kherson, the canal to Crimea, taken Mariupol except a few hold outs, destroyed Azov brigade, made their land bridge, and degraded Ukraines war industry and war fighting infrastructure and skills and knowledge.

If they succeed in current operation they may view the above as sufficient military achievement.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point.

If a stalemate emerges in the current situation of failing to close the cauldron, it's unclear if that failure would overwhelm the achievements so far. Kremlin may simply accept a stalemate at this point as achieving "enough". Which could be incredibly unstable or then slowly transition into a sort of South-North Korea situation. For a lot of reasons, instability seems a better bet.

It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. — Christoffer

Agreed. If the Nuclear weapons are used by Russia it would be a show of might and power and most rational people will be afraid of that.

they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. — Christoffer

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. — Christoffer

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers.

Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country. — Christoffer

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it").

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. — neomac

Well, this maybe why Russia denies the sinking of the flagship and the recent industrial fires are caused by Ukraine.

For, the only escalation response available would be tactical Nuclear weapons.

However, there can be plenty of political reasons not to use nuclear weapons at this point. In particular if the Kremlin predicts they'll win in Dombass and also avert more boats sinking and industrial fires and that the whole thing will blow over and things will return to some kind of normal.

However, if there are a series of attacks in Russia that normal Russian people find unacceptable and are a like "WTF Kremlin, what are you going to do about that", and all conventional weapons are already being used, then nukes are the only retaliation available.

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that. — Olivier5

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

NATO would be "mad" about it, but if NATO and EU have already done all they can do in terms of sanctions and weapons (now being blown up by Nukes), and further sanctions on energy would hurt the EU more than it hurts Russia, then the US maybe happy with the result as well, and escalation would stop simply because we arrived at the end of escalation road and the next step would be off the cliff into oblivion. The world would simply have to accept that Russia drops nukes now, it would get normalised over time, and the main consequence would be everyone rushes to get or make nuclear weapons (except around Russia because you get nuked if you do; hence, it may end up being a be a bigger problem for NATO anyways).

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency. — Manuel

This simply isn't fear porn.

We've talked at length how nuclear escalation is possible.

It only seems less likely now because both sides have accepted the current situation.

The danger, however, is that neither side is willing to give-up and the stakes are amazingly high and the current situation is evolving slowly but not a stalemate.

If either side (NATO or Russia) gives-up they lose credibility.

Russia would lose a lot more credibility, so much so that it's nearly impossible to imagine they would give-up and therefore would resort to tactical nuclear weapons if need be. Losing the war in Ukraine would likely unravel the Russian state.

Western states wouldn't unravel if Ukraine lost to Russia (whatever definition of loss we're going with), but the US would immediately lose credibility in 2 of the 3 pillars of American hegemony of finance and covert operations, leaving only hard military power which is simply not enough to prop up the American empire for a bunch of reasons.

The window of opportunity of a quick diplomatic resolution is unfortunately over and both sides have committed to military solutions.

There is still the potential for the West to manage the war to a military victory for Russia but simply declare that Russia "learned its lesson" and was "stopped", in which case both sides can say they win and the news cycle changes to something else and we basically never hear about the war again (just like Iraq and Afghanistan: one more pointless war that destroyed the lives of millions of people on the way to losing face vis-a-vis other smaller empires).

In other words, the current "political stability", in the sense the rapid escalations have stopped and the current warfare is simply accepted by both sides, is maintained and then wound down.

There are, however, plenty of ways the current stability, of violent destruction, could be destabilised and a new cycle of rapid escalation is triggered.

Obviously Ukraine may get desperate and find some escalation that triggers some unexpected escalation from Russia, which triggers escalation from the West and so on.

However, it may also be the West that triggers escalation with things like Finnish NATO bids, which Russia may not do anything about ... or maybe they will decide its unacceptable and launch nuclear weapons against Finland before they join NATO. That could be solved diplomatically with a treaty to not station nuclear weapons or foreign troops within Finland, so that the military situation would be exactly the same, with both Finland and Russia not planning to attack each other, just that Finland is part of NATO and so that's a Western "win" against Putin and makes the Ukraine war totally worth it, even if every single Ukrainian dies. That would be the diplomatic thing to do to try to avoid further escalation, but so far the West has been in favour of escalation ... of course, as long as its Ukrainians dying as mentioned. If it's Finns that risk a few nukes, maybe the West will be less escalatory and actually work out some sort of deal that Finland and/or Sweden join NATO without triggering some new round of escalation.

Keep in mind that the optimum military strategy for Russia is to break the ice on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation.

Therefore, if there is a political context conducive to the rationalisation, both domestically and to their remaining international partners, of the use of nuclear weapons they will likely take advantage of the provided opportunity.

The USA justified the use of nuclear weapons in Japan to save American lives in face of a fanatical enemy, and, that justification to save Russian lives in face of a fanatical enemy is likely to play just as well in Russia as it does in the US, if there is no conventional military victory relatively soon.

The disadvantages of breaking the ice of the use of nuclear weapons are also asymmetric. The main consequence is a new cycle of nuclear rearmament and proliferation around the globe. This is of course bad for Russia as it is everyone, but it could be argued it's even worse for NATO.

The situation only appears stable because we have become accustomed to it, and I would say the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by the end of this conflict as about 50%, although extremely limited, mainly to show they aren't bluffing; break the ice and see what happens.

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.

There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better.

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably. — Manuel

I think what you mean to say is after a certain amount of posts it becomes clear some posters are here for purely propaganda purposes or then to protect their own fragile egos in interpreting being able to post with being able to make a coherent point, and have zero good faith engagement in the discussion.

For example, to argue there's not enough Nazis to justify invasion, presumes if there was enough it would justify invasion and one would need to provide that definition of "enough Nazis".

Those presuming "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good" but do not have an answer to this basic question are either:

A. not engaging in discussion in good faith, which always has a point to continue between good faith interlocutors willing to do so, and some discussions have literally been going on for thousands of years without reaching the "certain amount of posts" you mention ... even more notably, good faith interlocutors who are not willing to debate don't chime in just to complain that others are doing so.

B. pro Nazi.

You are completely delusional about what has been discussed in this thread.

Impressively, you manage to preamble your simplifying delusions with talk of complexity.

You actually manage to say:

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread — Christoffer

Followed by:

It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it. — Christoffer

Yet somehow also manage to follow that immediately with:

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Again, how do you know that Russia does not have just cause?

No one so far has actually provided a solid argument, but only their self-righteous ideological BS.

If you use an international legalistic theory: why is it true? Why does Russia need to follow it?

I asked many, many, many pages ago the question of how many Nazis is too many Nazis. It's been declared several times there wasn't "enough" Nazis in Ukraine, but that presupposes some measure of enough that would justify invasion.

If it's clear there's not enough Nazis in Ukraine ... ok, such an argument must logically start with "this much would be too much" followed by evidence that Ukraine had less than their invasion justifying Nazi quota. Some apologetics were thrown out instead (not answering the question of how many is too many, which by definition is required to argue there's not enough), to which I posted the western journalists reporting that clearly demonstrated there is significantly more Nazi's with significantly more institutional power in Ukraine than elsewhere in the West ... which, if we're doing philosophy, even if it was true that there's no more Nazi's with no more power than any Western nation, the question of whether that's too much or not has still not been answered.

It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here. — Christoffer

Please cite any dealing of the Nazi's in Ukraine as "not enough" that wasn't apologetics but some rigorous argument that, by definition, must start with an argument of how many Nazis is too many Nazis.

Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board. — Christoffer

Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism, but part of the "understanding the situation" that you nominally promote. Pointing out the US getting caught red handed perpetrating war crimes like torture and wars of aggression based on made up evidence is not whataboutism, as it helps understand the rest of the world, as @Isaac recently pointed out, not giving a shit anymore about the NATO's moralising, which helps understand why Russia has not been effectively cutoff from the global economy, which helps understand why it can continue to wage war and the goal of the sanctions was not accomplished. And, if non-Western countries no longer even bother listening to NATO's moralising, then it also helps explain why Russians, as far as we can tell, are even less affected by it.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation, which, in turn, is essential for understanding the situation.

As for war crimes, it's simply a fact the only war crimes so far with essentially definitive proof are what the Ukrainians self-document and post to the internet themselves. This is essentially definitive proof as it cannot be doubted as Russian propaganda.

Of course, you can say Russians have committed more crimes but are just less operationally incompetent and don't proudly post it to Twitter ... but, obviously that's not a basis for proof.

As for allegations, the nature of allegations is they need to be proven, and, once proven, the nature of the legal system cited A. means nothing as does not have jurisdiction over the Russians and B. still actually needs a prosecution process.

Pointing out that talk of "crime" requires talk of "evidence" and the potential for the accused to "defend themselves" and then some, hopefully, credible prosecution and impartial judgement, is simply explaining what a "war crime" means apart from self-righteous ideology. If you get rid of the evidence and prosecution and some trusted legal institution that renders justice ... what is left in the meaning of "war crime"?

It, in that case, reduces to: I don't like it.

And, if that's your definition. I don't like it either, so we'd be in agreement.

I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers. — Christoffer

Have you been on reddit about this subject?

This is potentially the most deluded and insane projection I have ever seen anywhere in any context.

You actually have the gumption to call this thread a circle jerk.

Have you visited /r/worldnews on the topic of Ukraine?

I was able to find only a single "pro Russian" (according to your definition) comment on the entire top thread of r/worldnews (since I'll actually bother to verify your claim reddit is an echo chamber of pro Russian sentiment right now):

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/u6w4fn/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/

Which was an answer to the following question:

Out of curiosity, what are the worst takes/opinions youve seen in these live threads?

And was:

That NATO should place a bunch of missiles on the Finnish border by St Petersburg as soon as they join.

That attempted diplomacy is somehow bad, even though it very rarely hurts the situation and is always the preferable solution if it does work.

That Russia has never contributed anything to the world.

The continuous outrage that the UN is the UN and not whatever world government type of organization that people seem to think it is.

That the world is or could be forced to be fair. — khomyukk

Now, if you can find a bunch of more pro-Russian content, please cite it. If you can't ... what would it mean that an entire thread of hundreds of comments is only jingoistic celebration of the "cause du jour"? And, honestly, as far as I can tell, comments I really don't think are up to your standards of complexity and nuance.

Can you cite the comments you're referring to?

But, if I understand correctly, because a few lower-ranked people did face some prosecution, all the people that orchestrated the fake intelligence, torture, mass spying and so on, it's ok that they didn't face any consequences ... because a few lowly grunts were thrown under the bus.

You're really using the daily show pointing out the absurdity, criminality and hypocrisy of the system (and people facing no consequences) as evidence the "system works"?

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things. — baker

So your plan of action is to just get rid of the people who don't value honest work and respect the order of things?

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do. — baker

If all the people without plain old common decency were exterminated (the people that cause the problems) then all would be well?

Not skin color per se, but the specific assumption about the level of civilization of a certain people. The general trend of this assumption being that the darker the skin color of a people, the less civilized they are. And the less civilized someone is assumed to be, the more the people who deem themselves more civilized are justified to patronize or despise them. — baker

What the fuck are you talking about?