I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. — Benkei

Strategy can result in an illegal war, we all know this. Strategy is only a plan of action to achieve something, in this case, not the survival of the world, but the survival of the fittest, with the 'not fit' being pushed down the food chain, not necessarily extinction.

Many wars are started by democratic countries, which raises the question who is really in control? A "government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great until you realize that he missed out a word.

"government of some people, by some the people, for some of the people" . The idea has been suggested before.

A Government For Some People, By Some People

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/government-for-some-people

One view is that ethical dilemmas of this kind only exist for world leaders as they act to advance the interests of their countries in the context of competition for political survival. — frank

Economic survival also. One option is for people joining the armed forces that they will not engage in any war or military action that proceeds without UN Security Council approval. Tell your local recruiting officer. Not sure how that will go down.

You need a legal standard to establish legality, are we talking about the UN Charter and the ICJ rulings?

Thanks for the link to the Reuters report. "What are our leaders doing?" Well, they are prolonging your suffering for some good reason. National honor I guess.

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754

Ok so fight on for honor, principles etc. In the end it will be worth it. This looks to be more like a war between Europe and the United States. Someone pointed out the US never left its WW2 military bases.

US Military Bases are located in over 135 countries. Russia has 9, some of them radar stations, hence the empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad#Current_bases

Oh Yes President Putin has a lot of empire building to do. As the nations of the world watch helplessly, maybe Russian Propaganda is working.

We should recognize that powerful nations will pursue their interests as brutally as they can get away with, regardless of who they are. — Baden

Side taking is an act of free will, so we have to all accept that. I have changed sides on occasion, given the facts, admittedly reaching me from the media, but also from media outlets from both sides.

Nations have a right to defend themselves, I think we all agree on that. Or do we? Alliances are one thing, false promises are not a defense. Nuclear arms is another, but I am not sure we want to take that route, although it has worked. Defense is the key, but with all the defense spending only a few nations are able to defend themselves. The solution? More defense spending of course.

I don't believe in insulting people, it's a sign of not being able to make a convincing argument. If you want, here is a quotable quote:

“Saddam, Bush, and Putin – they are all dogs,” al-Idreesi said. “And if Putin could learn anything from Iraq, that is this will be the beginning of his end.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/as-russia-invades-ukraine-iraqis-remember-painful-war-memories

I don't recall the end of Bush.

A related BBC article is worth reading for its deadly mix of propaganda and fact.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754

Maybe someone could explain the following lines or maybe it needs no explanation?

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them. — BBC

Found a link.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60776929

Mariupol theatre: 'We knew something terrible would happen' Why?

Mariupol city council said a Russian plane dropped a bomb on the theatre, calling the attack "deliberate and cynical".

A single Russian plane releasing a single bomb on a theatre? Is that theatre? Of course it may be true, but usually they use more than one bomb and more than one plane.

even a murderous war criminal like Kissinger — StreetlightX

Looks like he has retired.

Is Putin the only one ? In that case we are done. - Anon.

Plenty of people in the 30's thought that Hitler and Mussolini made a lot of sense. — Olivier5

I find the following quote the most chilling:

“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
― Adolf Hitler

It's all about economic prosperity. For whom? Those below the poverty line? The starving of the world?

Many humanitarian crisis are actually caused by conflict. Maybe the current crises will raise awareness of people around the world, I think and put pressure on governments to maybe focus on illegal bloodless coups rather than on war. Maybe that is what started this in the first place.

Conflicts map: I never knew there were so many.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/maps-and-graphics/2017/04/04/updated-mapped-world-war

However, if Ukrainians aren't going to win, the diplomacy now is almost always better than diplomacy tomorrow in this sort of situation. — boethius

So who should be involved in this 'diplomacy' and who should have the most weight? Is it Ukraine - Russia or is it Ukraine-Russia NATO/USA ? Proxy diplomacy?

I had such high hopes when President Barak Obama was elected, but subsequently things changed. Something changed along the way. George W. Bush spoke about 'America's arrogance' many years ago but maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he forgot. Let's say I do not have the same opinion I had of him before. Let's see how President Putin and for that matter, President Biden handle this, and judge for ourselves. No country has outlawed using its forces in an aggressive war yet. Why? I am very disappointed that they do not have the brains (meaning advisors) to avoid armed conflict but maybe it has to so with effects of Covid 19 who knows?

I am not for insulting or disrespecting anyone much less for refusing to take official high-level phone calls.

It's easy. It could go like this, in the sort of detached, ultra-formal way the Russian governments makes its statements:

"Mr. President, we welcome the United States statement that it is 'not interested' in nuclear war. As we have said before, Russia will continue to act to protect its strategic interests, and to achieve its stated objectives. As partners we make a request to respect our decisions as a sovereign nation"

"Mr. President These peace talks with Zelenskyy how is it going?"

" As President Zelenskky has said, he needs more time to consider his options. He may have the requirement to consult with his allies and partners, that is his right. We have nothing to add to this but we need to state that Ukraine's sovereignty must be respected, both by allies and adversaries alike."

Of course President Putin could throw in a bit about Neo-Nazis or bio-weapons and the like. People need to talk after all, the Saudis, the Russians, the Chinese, what could possibly happen by talking?
President Biden could ask if the President Putin is feeling the sanctions yet. Maybe that may be too much.

A roughly remembered quote from the 3min segment:
" No child should die from starvation today, given the 430 trillions of dollars around the world". — Amity

No child should die from starvation but from the trillions spent on weapons, used in illegal armed conflicts over the world.

For countries that are democracies, it follows that people want war. For those which are not democracies, the people of that country are off the hook.

I saw the latest pictures of the theatre that was bombed in Ukraine. No one fleeing the building, no bodies visible, no blood spatter, no one injured. — Book273

Could you post the link so we could see what the reporting is like?

I think the maps are accurate

Surely there is something you can be sure of, like if all sides report something, for example, you don't know what exactly. You may have to wait a few days for the dust to clear up, but propagandists usually live for the moment, and are usually careless about proof.

Then there are live pictures of Kiev. Surely that is real.

I don't happen to believe that. That's the standard media propaganda line. Meanwhile:

UN court orders Russia to halt invasion of Ukraine
The International Court of Justice orders Russia to halt its invasion and says it is ‘profoundly concerned’ by Moscow’s use of force in Ukraine.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/un-court-orders-russia-to-cease-military-operations-in-ukraine

MARCH 18, 2003
The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.

https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

They are consistent, I will give them that

A better President of Russia? I am not sure. In any case, his views are relevant here:

You can read the entire article in context.

In early 2012, Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV, "Russian foreign policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus… In fact, we are one nation. We should enhance integration". During the same broadcast Navalny said "No one wants to make an attempt to limit Ukraine's sovereignty".[403][404]

In October 2014, Navalny said in an interview that despite Crimea being illegally "seized", "the reality is that Crimea is now part of Russia". When asked if he would return Crimea to Ukraine if he became president, he said "Is Crimea some sort of sausage sandwich to be passed back and forth? I don't think so"

In Ukraine now, there are no politicians who do not have extreme anti-Russian positions. Being anti-Russian is the key to success now in Ukraine, and that is our fault". — Wikipedia

https://worldbeyondwar.org/statement-by-the-ukrainian-pacifist-movement/

World BEYOND War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.

World BEYOND War was founded on January 1st, 2014, when co-founders David Hartsough and David Swanson set out to create a global

movement to abolish the institution of war itself, not just the “war of the day.” If war is ever to be abolished, then it must be taken off the table as a viable option. Just as there is no such thing as “good” or necessary slavery, there is no such thing as a “good” or necessary war. Both institutions are abhorrent and never acceptable, no matter the circumstances. So, if we can’t use war to resolve international conflicts, what can we do? Finding a way to transition to a global security system that is supported by international law, diplomacy, collaboration, and human rights, and defending those things with nonviolent action rather than the threat of violence, is the heart of WBW. Our work includes education that dispels myths, like “War is natural” or “We have always had war,” and shows people not only that war should be abolished, but also that it actually can be. Our work includes all variety of nonviolent activism that moves the world in the direction of ending all war.

Nice thought.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/volodymyr-zelensky-says-ukraine-wont-join-nato/ar-AAV5q1d

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

That is one heck of a realization and rather late in the day. The nation of Ukraine at peace with its neighbor Russia will be in a secure and strong position to build back better and profit from the outpouring of sympathy worldwide, which will put pressure of governments to invest in Ukraine and sell them arms. I can already see the "Buy Ukrainian" signs coming up. What's not to like about this?

"For years we've heard the opposite, open doors, However, it is not," he said according to Ukrainian news outlet, Trukha. "Our people understand this, and we are beginning to count on our own strength," he added. — MSN News

NATO, plenty of nations will abuse the position, NATO won't do anything as otherwise it will just encourage more abuse, and so the Article 5 will be undermined and the alliance start to fall apart in a practical sense. — boethius

So NATO is careful about who joins them as well, some sort of a balance.

Neither me nor Isaac or @Benkei (to the extent he's criticizing NATO / EU as well) have defended Putin's decisions morally.

We are simply being realistic that we cannot convince Putin to just give up on the war and turn Russia into an participatory devolved direct democracy somewhat loose confederation of cantons as a resolution to the problem of Ukrainians dying and children dying and being traumatized for life. — boethius

I think Putin's actions can be defended if, as he has said, Russia is fighting for its survival. As the world's greatest military power that won the cold war, it is only rational to beat down any nation to the size you want it to be so it stops interfering with your foreign policy.

That may not be morally defensible.

Is Russia fighting for her life? Does the 'invasion from the West' bring reminders of the Nazi invasion that cost so Russia so much? To the first question I simply do not know. The answer to the second I can only guess.

Democracy may not be the answer as apparently the Russian population does not want Ukraine to join NATO. If it came to a vote they may even support war, or 'military operations'. What then of democracy?

A Pacifist would be bound to suggest to Putin some have suggested to Zednesnkyy: don't fight oppression, fighting will get you killed. Make some sort of a peaceful settlement with Russia and for Russia to make some peaceful settlement with NATO and live with it, until an opportune time to re-assert yourself.

The basic thing you want to accomplish in conventional warfare is surround your enemy cutting them off from reinforcements and supplies — boethius

How does the civilian population figure in all this? Surrounding a city and asking the civilians to leave seems like a good strategy but the combatants are unlikely to let civilians leave combatants in any case may not be wearing uniform. Isn't it reasonable to expect civilians to be prevented from leaving a battle zone?

Talking of siege:

However, almost all of this overlooks an uncomfortable truth. The truth is that while high-end wars between nations have decreased, war has certainly not gone away, nor is it getting any less violent. Furthermore, when looking at the conduct of warfare since the end of the Soviet Union, one thing becomes very clear—the siege is a defining feature of modern warfare across the globe. When hearing the word siege, it is easy to let one’s mind wander to the time of kings and castles, trebuchets and battering rams, but that is to overlook the frequency of sieges in modern warfare. In fact, a brief survey of history illustrates that the siege is a defining feature of the late 20th and early 21st centuries; perhaps today is the siege’s golden era.

https://www.ausa.org/publications/reemergence-siege-assessment-trends-modern-land-warfare

I just explained it pretty clearly. The whole basis of Russia wanting Ukraine not to join NATO and commit to neutrality, is because NATO has nukes.

Hence NATO has this leverage vis-a-vis Ukrainian neutrality because it has nuclear weapons. — boethius

To put it bluntly, joining NATO gives a nation absolute impunity, because any military action, whether sanctioned by the UN Security council or not, with our without just cause, cannot be responded to by Russia in kind because that would mean attacking a NATO member, which is tantamount to attacking them all, including the United States.

This was Putin's point when he suggested that if Ukraine joined NATO, they could attempt to take back Crimea and he would not be able to do anything about it.

Come to think of it, a good strategy would be for everyone to join NATO and paralyze Russia's ability to use their military ever again. Whom is Russia going to have left to attack? China?

The evaluation metric the Western media is using of how much land Russia "occupies", makes zero sense. If you want to trap the enemy forces and encircle them (common sense strategy), then the goal is not to just take and occupy a lot of land, but to take the land required for encircling. — boethius

This strategy is discussed on Fox news, just saying the public is aware (or some of the public).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newslondon/gen-jack-keane-on-russia-ukraine-war-russian-forces-are-trying-to-encircle-kyiv/vi-AAV0top

Well well, there are laws concerning occupation, which is really surprising...It would seem to be an acceptance of war...

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval....

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

Theoccupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

(My emphasis)

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm

As I pointed out, how Putin and Russia is viewed has changed from time to time, from "Russia is not the enemy" and responding "Why not?" to Russia joining NATO (allegedly) , things change.

It is generally accepted that having standing armies means that those forces can be used any any way that is seen fit by that nation: there are no laws concerning that. There is the United Nations, but as we have seen, it may be better to manage things outside of conflict.

Accepting the current borders is a tacit agreement to the forcible means by which they were established.

Meanwhile that Ukraine growth rate (a crude measure of economic well - being ) needs to pick up. Maybe it will, post - war.

Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2020 was -4.02%, a 7.24% decline from 2019.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2019 was 3.22%, a 0.18% decline from 2018.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2018 was 3.41%, a 0.94% increase from 2017.
Ukraine gdp growth rate for 2017 was 2.47%, a 0.23% increase from 2016.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-growth-rate

Per capita income is better.


Ukraine gdp per capita for 2020 was $3,727, a 1.76% increase from 2019.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2019 was $3,663, a 18.27% increase from 2018.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2018 was $3,097, a 17.27% increase from 2017.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2017 was $2,641, a 20.7% increase from 2016.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-per-capita

And for Russia:

Russia gdp per capita for 2020 was $10,127, a 11.92% decline from 2019.
Russia gdp per capita for 2019 was $11,498, a 1.86% increase from 2018.
Russia gdp per capita for 2018 was $11,287, a 5.29% increase from 2017.
Russia gdp per capita for 2017 was $10,720, a 23.15% increase from 2016.


https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita

The war won't help in the short term.

George W. Bush said "Russia is not the enemy". George Bush, Tucker Carlson...Donald Trump... all Republicans. It seems like a partisan thing here, but not to worry, each person will decide who the enemy is and whom to vote for.

NATO was a thing of the past then.

Our nations also agree on the importance of a new NATO-Russia Council that will be launched in a few days in Rome. And, Mr. President, this council is also a tribute to your leadership and your vision. For decades, Russia and NATO were adversaries. Those days are gone, and that's good. And that's good for the Russian people, it's good for the people of my country, it's good for the people of Europe and it's good for the people of the world. — George W. Bush, May 24, 2002, White House Archives

My emphasis

Although Zelensky is of course a huge celebrity in the UK already... — Isaac

I don't know if you have seen Zelenskyy's latest interview with Vice TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpmglcRV71Q&t=319s

I can only say that Vladimir Putin knows, as we all do, that ensuring his Zelenskyy's safety is essential to Russia's aims. Making a hero out of him will be the worst thing for Russia and will make Ukraine more difficult to manage as a puppet regime.

Are there alternatives to puppets?: was Emperor Hirohito kept in place as a "puppet" after the Allies won the second world war?

I quote from the transcript. Draw your own conclusions.

The subtitles are not captured: so here I transcribed them as accurately as I could, check for yourself. (This part is marked as 'music' on the transript)

"We are thankful to NATO... but we wanted to be equal..apparently quality costs a lot"..

"I know they want to fight to the last soldier, the last military man"

"I would like to save our heroic soldiers"

"But we will defend our land as long as we can"

7:09
can you make a compromise with putin can
7:12
you trust putin
7:14
trust
7:15
oh no i trust only my family
7:18
i trust my family my people
7:21
now when we united our great
7:24
great people great nation i trust

....

7:35
we have to because to stop this war
7:38
how to stop this war only dialogue and
7:41
only dialogue with him he the president
7:43
of russia ...

Freedom of the press?

Courage? — Olivier5

Courage has to have a reason for its exercise. What do you want to achieve with your courage?

For your information, there is a documentary on interviewing Putin available online, also a documentary on Ukraine.

It might contain useful information, like CNN news, or it might offend you, in any case here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5mFuDu70z4

Much of what is there can be fact checked. The importance thing is not to accept it as truth, but use it as a starting point for looking for it.

I am saying that I respect the legitimacy of Zelensky, that he is in charge of a country at war, and that I don't want his job. I will respect his strategic choices. I am not going to question his decisions from the confort of my living room. I have no information, no legitimacy and little interest in second guessing him. From what I can see, he is doing a fantastic job. — Olivier5

I hope he does his job and makes decisions that favor Ukraine's well being, present and future.
Does anyone see any other rational choice than to agree to stop fighting? From what we can see, it seems a good idea, but we may not have all the inputs he has.

So what possible reasons would a rational human being have to keep fighting at this point? We are discussing reason, not Ukraine now.

And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread. — ssu

I believed Putin would not invade. I was wrong. I believe Zelenskyy will give in at some point.

An amendment? (peacekeepers = :up:)

Russia ends its military presence in Ukraine, including Ukrainian airspace
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
the Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member
Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine
Ukraine agrees to UN peacekeepers
if Russia insists on an investigation into bio-facilities in Ukraine, then the same is to take place in Russia (perhaps under WHO/UN supervision)
Russia recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign state
Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine, Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians

The victims of the invasion/bombings are still the Ukrainians on the ground, not Putin or his Kremlin generals, or other Muscovites. — jorndoe

Nor Zelenskky.


The Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member

Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine

That will not work, one country cannot rule on affairs of another sovereign state. Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereignty once before, it can do it again.

Ukraine has to promise to 'postone joining NATO indefinitely' . To put it bluntly, they can make a false promise, and break it, somewhat like the Minsk Agreements. What does he have against lying, really?
Some sort of Non-Agression Pact (NAP) would be nice.

On August 23, 1939, representatives from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union met and signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also called the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact), a mutual promise made by the two leaders guaranteeing that neither would attack the other.

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

How about supporting the right for a nation to defend itself? How many nations can defend themselves against an invasion? The Swiss, for example, I have read, have each citizen trained to fight:

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[3]).

Thousands of tunnels, highways, railroads, and bridges are built with tank traps and primed with demolition charges to be used against invading forces; often, the civilian engineer who designed the bridge plans the demolition as a military officer. Hidden guns are aimed to prevent enemy forces from attempting to rebuild.

However, the same article states:

Since 1989, there have been several attempts to curb military activity or even abolish the armed forces altogether

I don't get it.

Totally agree, that's my anarchist dream for sure. — boethius

There is another view, possibly inherent in the worlds' religions, some of them, that wars and the human condition are actually a process of growth and self-actualization or purification in some way, a sort of spiritual evolution that involves in pain, sacrifice and death.

I am being very vague here, I do not want to highlight any religion.

To put it another way, war is a crash course that forces us to look at deep moral questions. It is learning by trial and error, better no war, but at least we learn who we are.

Here is a thought:

And the place to begin, says Grayling, is to recognize the fact that the very idea of war is far too easily and thoughtlessly accepted. Alas, war is not the exception but the rule. If war were genuinely the exception, it would not be a “permanent presence in the budgets, decisions, and attitudes of states.” — Grayling

Progress...

There is the other thought, a great theme for a sci-fi novel, of an 'invisible war' where people are conquered and enslaved silently and secretly through ideas and propaganda of hostile nations. Maybe it has already taken place.

It hoped that economic growth would create a striving middle class that then would "naturally" lead these countries to join West. — ssu

As subservients of course, judging by the rhetoric alone.

Finland is praised as the archetype resistance to Russian imperialism ... yet Finland was literally part of the Russian empire for a century, and owned by Sweden before that. — boethius

Interesting information. It just shows how things can change over the years. I like the status quo, though. That means no imperialisms.

Predicting Russian victory is not a moral justification for Russia's actions. — boethius

I believe there is no moral justification for war. There is a moral justification for protecting you country. I am not justifying Russia's actions - not morally.

There are other justifications : the argument from freedom as in 'freeing the Iraqi people from oppression'. Preserving Russia's security is another example. These may be based on disputable facts, but they are justifications no less.

This is what I was trying to point out: there are many basis for justification: in the current context where war is not a crime, war can be justified : reasons can be given for starting a war, and the populace will largely accept it: why? Economic competition, ideology, religion, etc.

People have to demand that their governments rule out war as an option, forever.

Countries with No Military
According to the CIA World Factbook, 36 countries and territories do not have a military. Per the CIA’s definition, several of these states do not have a “regular military force,” but their national police forces act as de facto military forces. For example, Costa Rica’s Public Forces of Costa Rica are responsible for protecting their country’s borders.

Andorra
Aruba
Cayman Islands
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Curacao
Dominica
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
French Polynesia
Greenland
Grenada
Iceland
Kiribati
Kosovo
Lichtenstein
Macau (China S.A.R.)
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Federated States of Micronesia
Monaco
Montserrat
Nauru
New Caledonia
Niue
Palau
Panama
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sint Maarten
Solomon Islands
Svalbard (unincorporated region of Norway)
Tuvalu
Vanuatu — World Population Review, CIA Factbook