I posted a call by Jonathan Little for a revolution in Russia, here:

My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan

(source: https://www.lemonde.fr/le-monde-in-english/article/2022/03/28/jonathan-littell-my-dear-russian-friends-now-is-the-time-for-your-own-maidan_6119497_5026681.html)

I hope you like it. You good friends here did not.

Because the chances of a victory are very, very small, thousands of people will die in the meantime, and Russia can have a revolution without a Ukrainian victory just as well. — Isaac

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I trust that Ukraine will win this war, and that it will result in regime change in Russia.

Interesting piece on Kherson, on the conundrum people faced there under the occupation and on some's divided allegiances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/22/kherson-city-sympathies-russia-complicate-reintegration-into-ukraine/

if you are serious about Russians 'reforming', that's what you should call for: a revolution, like the Ukrainians did at Maidan.
— Olivier5

Yep. — Isaac

Then why did you object when I called for a revolution in Russia?

And why don't you hope for a Ukrainian victory, which would likely trigger a revolution in Russia?

Logic, anyone?

I said Russians could reform — Isaac

Russians cannot reform their being Russian -- so this is not about race -- but they can reform their polity, their government -- so it is about politics. This much is obvious, even to you.

The current Russian government has a lot to see with the Nazis: nationalistic, violent, sadistically cruel, sexist and racist, dominating, destructive, and relying on big-man worship to replace rational administration and make do for the lack of individual agency. These sorts of regimes do not reform from within. Why should they? How could they? They just rotten slowly, and then crumble at some point, like the USSR did after 75 years in existence.

The only way to transform Russia would be a revolution.

So if you are serious about Russians changing for the better, that's what you should call for: a revolution, like the Ukrainians did at Maidan. And Putin losing the Ukraine war could trigger a revolution in Russia, so logically speaking, if you care about Russians, you should hope for Ukraine to win this war.

all those non-war solutions you've apparently put forward — Isaac

Option 1. Russian unconditional surrender would be a great outcome, avoiding a lot of unnecessary suffering. This would probably be the best option for everyone involved, except perhaps for Mr Putin.
Option 2. Dombass and Crimea could be administered by the UN or something similar until such a time when all their original population can freely come back to their birthplace, so that a fair referendum can be organized. This option would take forever -- like half a century or so, see for instance what happened in Cyprus -- but it would also avoid a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Option 3. A revolution in Russia, and/or the decapitation of the Russian regime by Kiev forces or by Kremlin insiders, could lead to a political transition in Moscow and ultimately to a peace deal based on some classic qui-pro-quo: e.g. land given back, war crime prosecuted, but no war reparations.

Russians are, and you just likened them all to Nazis. — Isaac

Where did I do that?

So Russians are Nazis now? Your anti-russian racism is getting ever more disgusting. — Isaac

Nazis are not a race. They are just folks like you, who despaired too much.

Yes, really yes…

It could be, for example, that Russia gets its way and very little changes, as is the case in Crimea. — Isaac

A lot has changed in Crimea.

It could be the case that Russia gets it's way at first, but solid pressure from exactly the kinds of groups who liberalised Ukraine bring about a better Russia. — Isaac

The odds for that are minuscule. The Nazis did not reform from within.

You've rejected every option for making a better life for the people of the region that isn't war... — Isaac

No, I have proposed plenty of options for that. It is you who never proposes anything but submission.

But I get it, you won't actually take a position, just defer to the Ukrainians, deny any criticism of the freedom of that choice they are apparently fighting for, and evaluating our arms shipments is off limits, how confident we should be it can and will result in an good outcome for the "common good", or then if it's not enough, certainly tanks are in short supply ... can't spare them at the moment, sorry Ukraine, but we thank you for your sacrifice.

Is there a better way to paraphrase your position? — boethius

Oh, you lost the plot again! You can evaluate or criticise everything you want. Even Putin, if you ever wanted to…. Ha ha ha. It’s no skin off my nose. You keep on trying to make it personal, trying to hurt. But the war is not fought here on TPF and there is no point in using violence against other posters. Go fight in Dombass if you want to kill other human beings. Here, you will not succeed. You can yell at me at the top of your lungs, I don’t care and I won’t mind. I’m not the one calling the shots.

So you think NATO countries should hand over tanks to Ukraine? They’ve taken thousands of them from Russians already. Ukraine now boasts the largest panzer army in Europe. What they really need is an airforce.

I don’t know what the Ukrainians would be willing to endure. My country sacrificed 2 millions men in WW1. The USSR sacrificed 9 million men in WW2.

The decency of supporting a policy (or supporting other people with those policies) that results in thousands of people dying but ... shhh ... we do not say so? — boethius

We can say so, of course. We must. An enormous sacrifice is being paid by Ukraine for the common good, which must be recognised.

Am I missing something? — boethius

Decency?

Then by what metric do you determine your support for, say, continued drip-feed arms to Ukraine? — Isaac

I compare it with the alternative, which is Russia getting its way in Ukraine, which would result in attrocious consequences for both Ukrainians and Russians.

But, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to lay out a reasonable price to pay for reconquering all of Ukraine, seems indeed you no longer have any position at all in this discussion. I'll note that down. — boethius

I’m not in the business of putting price tags in human blood over territories, if that’s what you are asking.

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

You’ve been saying that for 8 month.

However, embarrassment is not suffering. — boethius

The only reason they left Kherson was the suffering they went through there.

would you pay that price? — boethius

What is it with your obsession with little me? This war is not about me. I pay no price for it, or very little.

Your position is that Ukraine can and will win ... but just barely after a maximum amount of preventable Ukrainian suffering, because if they won an inch faster that would be an escalation? — boethius

It’s not my position. You’re very easily confused. I just tried to provide you with an answer to your question, based on what I heard and what seems reasonable to me. You are welcome to address my explainations, but they are not « my position ».

Note that the suffering is mutual. Over the past few months, the evidence is that the Russians suffered the most. I wonder why you keep forgeting their sufferings… not allowed in the putinista narrative I guess. Russians ought to be depicted as victors, always.

Seems pretty collectivist to me…
— Olivier5

But seems like not to some. :wink: — ssu

I am struck by how quickly our good friend @boethius here is prompt to lose the plot, or change the goal post. First he says Ukraine is part of no collective, then that the UN -- which includes Ukraine -- does not define itself as a collective, and when proved wrong on it, he then segues into the UN not currently operating as a collective... Well, it does and it does not, depending.

If we both agree fighter jets and tanks would be useful in that effort, and training is only a temporary problem and totally irrelevant as the war could still be on years or decades from now, why hasn't NATO already started those programs to train, supply, workout the logistics for tanks and planes months ago? — boethius

Did you read my answer to that question, re. the tanks? Maybe we can stop asking queestions that have been answered already.

For the airforce support I believe an additional issue would be related to avoid escalating the war.

keep in mind that apologising for Zelensky is also apart of it ... which we just went through an example of:

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians — boethius

Just because folks have opinions and share them here, does not make those a form of "parroting" of anyone. @ssu and @SophistiCat have been critical of Zelensky after the Polish missile incident, and that is evidently at a variance with Ukrainian propaganda. You guys don't like it when we disagree with you, fair enough, but we are not parroting the enemies of the folks you are parroting.

However, does just parroting whatever Zelensky or Ukrainian intelligence service say, benefit Ukraine? — boethius

This is a pretty ridiculous canard, even by your standards. Nobody here repeats Ukrainian intelligence service material or whatever Zelensky says.

And, despite it being now completely obvious to everyone that Ukraine needs armour to compete on the battlefield, NATO still maintains the policy of no NATO produced tanks ... well, why is that? NATO just want Ukrainians to die when superior NATO tanks could save them?

The excuse is that NATO tanks are different and it would require training ... — boethius

I would think that the reasons for this are that tanks cost a lost of money, are in short supply, and you don't want the enemy to get hold of them.

What's the consequence of propping up Ukraine enough to fight but not with? A very large amount of suffering in the pursuit of objectives that cannot be accomplished. — boethius

So you think NATO countries should support Ukraine with fighter jets and tanks? I mean, that's an option worth considering.

UN is the worst possible example ... for, whatever you want to call it, Russia has a Veto, so it's pretty unlikely the UN will come to Ukraine's aid of "collective security" of the UN "collective", if you insist on calling it that anyways. — boethius

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

And, keep in mind I am not an anti-Ukrainain advocate.

Thanks for the laugh. You’re the voice of Moscow here. Of course you are anti-Ukrainian.

The UN is not a collective and doesn't define itself like that:

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. — boethius

The UN Charter, which starts with:


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Seems pretty collectivist to me…

That you find this reassuring is seriously worrying. — Isaac

Glad I could worry you a little more than you normally are.

I'm not sure the West will continue as Ukrainians may hope.

Hope springs eternal, but the support they got so far has been quite significant. Biden is evidently interested in checking Putin and their support will likely endure the current row. Europeans may opt out, some of them (Hungary) are nit even in the coalition.

If there's one positive thing in this Poland missile debate, it's the demonstration that NATO is perfectly capable of avoiding escalation into WW3, even when Mr Zelensky is having a bad day. Poland reacted with measure, and so did the US.

What other "action" than a further escalation was he alluding to according to you? Christoffer already mentioned a no-fly zone which is a huge increase in risk towards nuclear escalation. — Benkei

Answer your own question, please. What is your interpretation of what Zelensky meant by his 'action is needed'?

I'm pointing out that your opinions are naive, boot-licking, ill-informed and dangerous — Isaac

You haven't actually done that. That's what you dream of doing perhaps, in this fantasy world of yours where you are a hero. What you have done here, consistently and on countless topics, is to confuse yourself while attempting to confuse others.

You 're reading too much into this. Maybe you need to open a dictionary and read the entry for "action", rather than try and impose your skewed interpretation.

. If understanding English leads to wild misinterpretations, then just imagine trying to formulate a rock solid conclusive message in a language you don't even speak natively :scream: — Christoffer

We should all speak French, it would be much easier, and more precise. :-)

Pending that, native English speakers should make an effort and try to understand airport English, which is what the rest of us speak, including Zelensky.

Pending that, them natives could decide that philosophy is inherently British, and therefore non native speakers are not allowed on TPF.

Or perhaps they could just talk among themselves, the english-speaking elite, and let the rest of us unwashed masses talk to one another. That would actually be useful: it would allow us to filter out all that anglosaxon 'analytical' noise about Mary in her room with the red p-zombies.

ain't none of us perfect! — Baden

Some are more perfect than others though, like our boy @Benkei here. He understands Zelensky more perfectly than anybody else, and if you disagree with him, he might perfectly delete your post. He's the perfect putinista.

It's not a fallacy to contest another poster's interpretation nor method of argument. @Benkei says he knows best what Zelensky meant, "in the context", because we're not native speakers. That's a ridiculous claim.

Note that Zelensky is not a native speaker either, so arguably Chris and I understand him better than any of you natives.

What's your native tongue, pray tell?

Why don't you find a French translation and share it here? — Benkei

action (n.)
mid-14c., from Old French action (12c.) "action; lawsuit, case," from Latin actionem (nominative actio) "a putting in motion; a performing, a doing; public acts, official conduct; lawsuit, legal action" (source also of Spanish accion, Italian azione)

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

We don't know what he knows, though. Beside, I think one could be forgiving of a certain rashness in judgment, under the circumstances.

Shall we have a look at the furores kicked up when people suggested America blew up the gas pipeline?

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

What about the backlash you yourself take part in at the mere mention of US involvement in Maidan?

I'm entitled to my opinions and to not seeing them branded as some sinister backslash. If you can't argue your case, just shut it up. Don't whine about 'backlashes'. You are as toxic a poster as any.

The slightest suggestion of a back door negotiation recently brought a scathing rebuke.

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

It is generally assumed an effective translation of the Latin bona fides, which is about reliability and trust between two parties in their dealings towards each other. — Benkei

That is correct. There is that dimension. However, I wouldn't say that my trust in Zelensky has been shattered. Would you?

I already mentioned to Christoffer that in the context of that small speech it's quite clear what he means. — Benkei

Someone died and made you the final interpreter of anything Zelenskian?

You have an interesting idea of "good faith" — Benkei

Not really, no. I go by the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation, but does not imply that only reasonable statements are in good faith. The word 'faith' is not synonym of the word 'reason'. It's more an antonym in fact. Sometimes it is rational to lie. but one cannot lie in good faith.

Zelensky's willingness to make these claims without knowledge, or more likey with knowledge to the contrary, is a reminder that our interests do not align 100% with that of Ukraine. — Benkei

That would be true, and obvious, even if and when Zelensky argues in good faith. In fact, each and every country at play has its own interest. They just happen to coincide momentarily, in each camp (Russia and Belarus on one side, Ukraine and 'the West' on the other).

Tomorrow, it may be that the interests of Belarus and Russia do not align anymore. Or it could be that, say, Italy leaves the pro-Ukraine coalition. Not saying it will happen but it's perfectly possible

So he doesn't know (according to you) but he's totally fine with calling for an escalation of a war with a nuclear super power — Benkei

He is only calling for 'action'. That's vague enough. It could be anything. An increase in weapon delivery would qualify.

There are (most likely) two possibilities here: either 1 the Russian flew this missile, or 2 the Ukrainians did it. ( excluding other hypotheses a bit hastily perhaps but open to rebuttals)

If 1, then the US intell got it wrong, something which we haven't been used to during this war but it has happened before, and Zelensky is right, and right about opining so. He would be in his role. You can't expect the Ukrainian president to act otherwise, if indeed the Russians did send this missile and Zelensky have some reason to believe it (his own intell).

If 2, then either 2.1 Zelensky knows it and therefore he acts in bad faith in saying Ukraine didn't do it, or 2.2 Zelensky does not know it, and/or believes otherwise. He is still in good faith and in his role then.

Maybe they are a bit smarter than you are, or a little more interested in understanding things than you seem to be. A good thing you don't work in NATO.

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

His words could have brought NATO into a war with Russia on false premises. That's negligence on a criminal level. — Isaac

I know that you scare easily, but this is ridiculous even by your chicken little standards. NATO does not take its orders from Zelensky. Beside, it's not yet certain that Zelensky is wrong on the origin of the missile.

Looking forward to explaining all that to you for the 7th time, dude. — neomac

As you must know, some posters are more interested in spreading confusion and misunderstanding than in understanding anything.