The United States and Europe could have done much to prevent this conflict — Tzeentch

So no matter what Putin does, the fault is with the West?

I only comment in this thread to register my sense of outrage at what is being done by Putin. That is all — Wayfarer

But...

my hope, and belief, also. — Wayfarer

...in response to....

I still think the Ukrainians will win, and resoundingly so. — Olivier5

...is advocating a policy (Ukrainians beating Russians in a war).

If you want to just register outrage, then just post "isn't Putin horrid". Pointless, but I'm sure everyone would agree.

So no matter what Putin does, the fault is with the West. — Wayfarer

No, given the geopolitical context in which trouble in Ukraine and Crimea started, which goes back to at least 2008, the fault is predominantly with the United States (and Europe by virtue of its complacency and blind adherence to the Americans).

In no way does that justify Russia's invasion. It does however give us an idea on where to look for solutions to this conflict.

This geopolitical context is explained in detail by thinkers such as Noam Choamsky and John Mearsheimer, both of which I have shared in this thread, and they come to that conclusion.

but do I really need to explain to you the difference between realism and idealism, which is where we fundamentally differ? — Tzeentch

I'd love to see you try, because the way I see it, it's your idea of what is realistic vs. the rest of the world's. A facile example: it is IMO ridiculously unrealistic and even lunatic to suggest that Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals.

In reality, it just so happens that Wayfarer agrees with the values for which Ukrainians are fighting.

All that comes to mind is Russia/Putin isn't a nitwit - war must've been always the last option. Why would you send thousands and thousands of one's soldiers into battle when the consequences, in case of defeat, can be geopolitically catastrophic and I haven't even talked about the possible of anti-war movements that could destabilize the campaign and end it abruptly and shamefully.

In short, Russia is the cornered cat and basic self-perservation drive kicks in and then...all bets are off, oui monsieur?

Why would you send thousands and thousands of one's soldiers into battle — Agent Smith

Why did W do it in Iraq?

Hubris.

I'd love to see you try, ... — Olivier5

I don't need to try, since the realist - idealist split has been something that has characterized international politics for a long time and are concepts widely accepted in academia. If you want to argue that they don't exist that'll be for you to prove.

Idealism Versus Realism

A facile example: it is IMO ridiculously unrealistic and even lunatic to suggest that Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals. — Olivier5

[...] on behalf of whose ideals do you believe they're speaking other than their own? — Tzeentch

In reality, it just so happens that Wayfarer agrees with the values for which Ukrainians are fighting. — Olivier5

Indeed. They are speaking on behalf of their own ideals, they just happen to correspond. And to suggest such ideals should be a driving factor behind the decisionmaking process is, you guessed it, typically idealist.

This couldn't be farther from the realist perspective that argues actions and consequences, not ideals, are what matter.

Why did W do it in Iraq?

Hubris. — Olivier5

There's one and only one answer why people do things these days - MONEY!

From your link:

Two advisors present you with options. One of them recommends that you punish the foreign government, arguing that the United States should prioritize supporting those who are fighting for human rights and freedom around the world. The other encourages you not to intervene, arguing that it is more important to preserve your relationship with the foreign government, which encompasses billions of dollars in trade and a security partnership that has helped maintain regional stability for years.

This difficult decision reflects two schools of thought in foreign policy: idealism and realism.

So as a realist, are you saying that US presidents should keep on making profitable deals with dictatorships, human rights be damned? Kindly confirm whether this is what you mean by "realism".

to suggest such ideals should be a driving factor behind the decisionmaking process is, you guessed it, typically idealist.

This couldn't be farther from the realist perspective that argues actions and consequences, not ideals, are what matter. — Tzeentch

That is a category error. Actions and consequences must be assessed against some sort of value scale in the end. Otherwise, how do you know which option is the best? Realism is a means to an end. And the end is defined by your value system.

So as a realist, are you saying that US presidents should keep on making profitable deals with dictatorships, human rights be damned? Kindly confirm whether this is what you mean by "realism". — Olivier5

As a realist I'll say that that's exactly what they'll do. (Note: there is no "should" in there) And lowe and behold, you just summed up United States foreign policy.

As a realist I'll say that that's exactly what they'll do. (Note: there is no "should" in there) And lowe and behold, you just summed up United States foreign policy. — Tzeentch

And as a realist, you think that policy is wise, correct?

I wonder if anyone is interested in a different analysis of war, in which it has a psychological/religious function. This goes around the moral ideal v the realist profit. We might assume that the cost benefit of war almost never adds up either economically or morally, and examine therefore how the irrationality that is war functions at the unconscious level.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/resources/marvin-ingle-blood-sacrifice-totem/

And as a realist, you think that policy is wise, correct? — Olivier5

I am concerned with how states act and why they act that way. I'm no policymaker. If you want my non-realist opinion: states are run by crooks. Period. I expect nothing even vaguely resembling wisdom from any state actor, only self-aggrandisement.

The Ukrainians aren't going to just give up.

It is ridiculous to think that if Zelensky gives such an order, the people will lay down their arms. People are fighting not for Zelensky, not for the president. Like some. — Evgeny Vladimirovich (Jun 28, 2022)

Been mentioned a few times in the thread on whatever angles. Comparatively, it's a fairly large population, and they're in a defense position.

The invasion or bombings/ruinage (or something at least), could end by the words of Putin or one of his compadres.

Mykhailo Podolyak has stated some conditions ...

• ceasefire
• withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine
• return of citizens
• reparations mechanism

... but, with continuing bombings/ruinage, Peskov's comments, concessions (mentioned already), etc, the Ukrainians are (increasingly) distrusting whatever comes out of the Kremlin. (Actually, I'm guessing most are and have been for some time.)

There are journalists, foreign news teams, whatever, scattered over Ukraine; they've been largely contained or disabled (or banned) in Russia and areas under Russian control.

Has a measure of "realism" ↑ @Tzeentch.

I am concerned with how states act and why they act that way. — Tzeentch

As a realist, you ought to have nothing to worry about, no values to defend, nothing you really care for is at stake here. Reality will continue to unfold in a real way, the way it tends to do... And that will be it.

Putin says a lot of things, like in 2014:

Don't worry, Putin says he doesn't want Ukraine (PRX; Mar 29, 2014)

Others have other things to say, like in 2015:

'Nobody here is asking to leave Ukraine': Minorities see Russian meddling (Al Jazeera; May 4, 2015)

As a realist, you ought to have nothing to worry about, no values to defend, nothing you really care for is at stake here. Reality will continue to unfold in a real way, the way it tends to do... And that will be it. — Olivier5

Realism is a tool for understanding international politics. What one does with that understanding is up to them.

To say a realist does not have any values to defend is false. A realist simply doesn't let their subjective values taint their attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage.

The Ukrainians aren't going to just give up. — jorndoe

I don't presume to tell the Ukrainians what to do. It's their country being invaded.

Putin says a lot of things, like in 2014:

Don't worry, Putin says he doesn't want Ukraine (PRX; Mar 29, 2014) — jorndoe

I think United States meddling in the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 was a turning point in Russia's view on the question of Ukraine. I think a peaceful solution to the brewing conflict went off the table then and there.

A realist simply doesn't let their subjective values taint their attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage. — Tzeentch

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

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

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

A. Realistic.

and,

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

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

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

Russia using nuclear weapons is completely realistic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The so-called moral imperative of "freedom" or whatever is merely a tool to whip people up into whatever frenzy people need to be in to support self-harming policies — boethius

Really? That's the story and the whole story? (And the Ukrainians are but dumb automatons? And Putin + team?) :/ "Tunnel-vision" came to mind. Was going to start listing examples/quotes/whatever, but the thread is almost at page 300, plenty's been posted already, bit more than the ↑ quoted account.

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

Pretty much.

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

It didn't. Why?

Nuclear weapons.

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

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

And the Ukrainians are but dumb automatons? — jorndoe

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

Russia using nuclear weapons is completely realistic. — boethius

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

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

Nothing to see with your argument back then, when you mused about the possibility to break Ukrainian resistance with nukes.

That's the problem with so-called "realists". They never agree on what is realistic. There is no criterion for realism, so generally it just means that their personal fancy is realistic but not others'... :-)

, wow, thought this would have been clear enough, and already spoken to in the thread, guess not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick check on the Sweden Finland NATO thing, from whatever sources:

^{Feb 24 Russia invades Ukraine
Feb 25 Russia threatens ‘military and political consequences’ if Finland, Sweden try joining NATO
Feb 26 Finland, Sweden brush off Moscow's warning on joining NATO
Mar 12 Russian Official Warns Finland, Sweden Against Joining NATO
Mar 23 An anti-Russian 'disinformation operation' has singled out a Finnish university but it's unclear why
Apr 11 Ukraine War: Russia warns Sweden and Finland against Nato membership
Apr 14 Russia warns of nuclear deployment if Sweden, Finland join NATO
Apr 22 Russian media in Switzerland: A mix of propaganda and anti-regime critics
Apr 25 Sweden and Finland agree to submit Nato applications, say reports
May 06 Posters in Moscow accuse famous Swedes of backing Nazism
May 12 Russia threatens ‘retaliatory steps’ if Finland joins NATO
May 15 Finland and Sweden confirm intention to join Nato
May 16 Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up
Jun 30 Putin says Finland and Sweden can 'go ahead' and join NATO but warned the countries against hosting the alliance's 'military contingents and infrastructure'
Jul 05 Russia Reacts to Sweden and Finland Nearing NATO Membership
Jul 13 Moomin features in anti-Finland propaganda on Moscow streets}

(the articles themselves are usually fairly short, don't take a day to read, but have references, which can take a while to sift through)

Someone's been busy. Spreading garbage left and right.

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

What are the trends? What to make of it?