A probing attack or a feint are non-committal attacks. — Tzeentch

There are also attacks that some call "probes" after they failed.

I have not been following all the interchanges here, but I am curious where the taking of Kiev 'free of cost' idea refers to. Who spoke the quote marks, "for free."? — Paine

@Olivier5 argued that if Ukraine didn't fight back and Russia simply marched into Kiev unopposed that would mean the feint (though I think "fixing" is more appropriate for this context) operation would have failed.

Obviously, if your battle plan goes unopposed that's not a failure, and every manoeuvre simply conquers territory whether it was meant as reconnaissance, feint, fixing or the main battle.

Of course, even if Ukrainians offered no resistance, Russians may not have entered Kiev anyways fearing Guerrilla warfare or simply the administrative burden of a large capital. @Tzeentch has pointed out that obviously that didn't happen so discussing what the Russians would have done in the case of zero resistance is pretty irrelevant.

However, if you haven't been following, what is more interesting is the main debate, which is proponents of Zelensky's policies (whatever they are at the moment), which usually boils down to military victory, versus neutral analysis of the war (in the case of @Tzeentch) and proponents of diplomatic resolution (@Isaac, myself and on occasion @Benkei).

The pro-Zelensky interpret all other points of view as "pro-Russian", so the debate simply goes in unfruitful loops.

Pro-Zelensky want military victory and basically Russian surrender, but there's simply no military way to achieve that.

Whenever Zelensky declares he will not negotiate or then makes unrealistic demands, pro-Zelensky faction will basically yell approbation and that Russian's can't be trusted anyways and shouldn't be negotiated with etc.

Whenever there is rapprochement and diplomatic advancement (which has happened several times) it's failure is squarely on the Russians for not accepting whatever Zelensky wanted. At no point is Zelensky's diplomatic strategy a legitimate subject of criticism.

The whole debate is profoundly confusing to pro-Zelenskyites, because their basic argument is simply moral condemnation of Russia directly justifies any and all fighting against Russia.

Of course, even if their moral condemnation is correct, that does not actually in itself support a fight to the death.

For example, I may invade your home and hold you at gun-point to rob you. Barring some extenuating circumstances (such as being myself a police officer and the robbery legal, or then in a war and I'm an intelligence agent etc.) it's easy to accept the premise I am in the wrong and you are in the right.

However, simply because I am in the moral wrong for holding you at gun point, that does not justify any and all acts of violence against me, such as if they are foolish and will just get your whole family killed.

The circumstances that would justify any and all acts of violence, regardless of probability of success, is if you believe I am going to murder everyone anyways (more precisely, calculate the probability I will do so is higher than the probability my successfully defending your attack, which maybe a very high likelihood but my intention to kill you anyways even higher).

This is why the war is continuously framed as "existential" even though Russia clearly does not threaten, nor ever has, complete occupation of Ukraine, and, even if it did, that's only existential for the Ukrainian state and no necessarily Ukrainians themselves. One would have to believe Russia is intent on murdering the vast majority of Ukrainians in the event of total occupation to justify a fight to the death.

Without the fight to the death justified, the policies so far simply make no sense.

The lives lost, people maimed, children killed and traumatised (my own "side"), damages to Ukrainian economy, damages to the world economy and suffering from energy and food inflation, are not worth the demands Russia made at the outset of the war: recognition of Crimea, autonomy for Donbas region, and neutral Ukraine.

The retort is of course "well that's all Russia's fault" ... even if the offer was rational to accept diplomatically and further fighting is extremely unlikely to ever result in a better deal, and certainly no better deal that is worth the price in blood.

For the war to be "worth it" (from a purely state perspective, ignoring any human value), at this stage, Ukraine would need to resolve the conflict occupying a large areas of Russia.

Of course, the Western policy is not to defend Ukrainian interests, but to defend US interests of bleeding the Russians (which is not really what's happening, but that's a different topic), and more importantly destroying Europe as a geo-political competitor.

Only the Euro could have replaced the USD as a global competing currency, and the war in Ukraine now precludes that from happening.

The strategic options for the US was to either accept multi-polarity in a largely peaceful world where economic and diplomatic clout shifts to Europe as a fair arbiter of world economic affairs, or then break up the world into a new cold war paradigm and destroy European soft power.

US, at this stage in Imperial development, has only hard power as leverage, and Europe is the only soft-power competitor around, and the war in Ukraine guarantees a hard-power brokered world going forward in which US is "top dog" in a greatly diminished Western sphere of influence.

Geopolitically, what we are witnessing is the USA destroying its own allies economies in order to remain dominant over them. Of course, this means the West as a whole is abandoning a world leadership position, but all the problems that result from that are far from America's shores. Only Europe directly pays the cost for America's imperial projects within NATO, which makes those projects easy to carry out from US point of view, and the Ukraine war is the culmination of that process (so far mostly in the middle-East and North Africa) and sacrificing Europe as a piece on the geopolitical chess board, on the off chance is might become an equal partner, which it was close to achieving but its leaders sold Europeans out, basically.

How this happened is basically the anti-Russian propaganda since a solid decade precluded European leaders from saying "we're going to go make peace with the Russians and hammer out a deal, and if the Ukrainians don't accept it then they'll be left militarily alone and we won't even allow US supply to go through our territory". Peace that would have been easily achieved; Russia did not invest in Nord Stream 2 on the premise a war with Ukraine was guaranteed.

Which is why the pro-Zelenskyites basically view the war with Ukraine as a good thing and discard any diplomatic resolution at any point as a bad thing.

But that view point meets with the criticism of "then how will the war end?", which they are unable to answer and likewise unable to answer how tens of thousands of lives (other people's sons and daughter) are worthwhile to sacrifice for no rational plan but merely as a "heroic gesture" to make a moral point.

It's clear they don't even understand their own position, as it rests on a common fallacy that is typical in denial. For, in the situation that you are my hostage and you make some heroic attack that immediately gets you and your family killed, it is not really the case that your actions are immoral. I would still be in the wrong, still doing the killing, just that the result could have been avoided (by you) if I was not intent on killing you anyways. On the individual level, such actions we could categorise as unfortunate, perhaps even amoral (as you are not prepared for the situation), but clearly unwise (if it's clear I only want your television and I'll be on my way, and your attack is so surprising that I kill you and your family by accident).

However, such analogy with a individual in a difficult situation does not directly translate to nation states. A nation state is morally responsible to be prepared for a war and its conduct and making unwise decisions that get people killed is not morally neutral. For, the least we can say in the hostage situation is that you are gambling your own life, it is much different if your actions get immediately others killed, and you are fairly safe and have time to reflect, and, moreover, the decision to have others die increases your power and wealth, whereas wise decisions might save hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lives but end your political career (as a compromise never satisfies everyone).

To which they will respond that it's Russia that's bad at fault for everything and the debate goes around in a circle again.

In the background to all this is a parallel moral-logico propaganda loop that NATO is right to oppose Russia and "stand with Ukraine", but of course that means not taking any actual risk directly to NATO nor actually "standing with Ukraine" in any sense that involves actual standing with Ukrainian soldiers on the front line, and is right to limit arms shipments in a way that guarantees Russian victory on the battlefield -- that last part is easily fixed by just claiming Ukraine is winning somehow (because ... basically, Russia could be winning even harder right now, Ukraine could have capitulated, but they aren't winning as hard as is conceivable ... therefore: Ukraine is winning).

What people in this thread should remember is that perspectives may differ around the same facts:



That's still a joke and therefore an exagerration. But both "NATO is a purely defensive organisation" and "NATO is an existential threat" will be considered true depending on who you're talking to. A failure to try to understand either, means parties cannot reach a diplomatic solution and this thread similarly doesn't progress either.

A failure to try to understand either, means parties cannot reach a diplomatic solution — Benkei

Not only this, but also leads to faulty analysis of the military situation.

For, the premise that Russian soldiers are low morale and will collapse ... any day now and Russians will overthrow Putin ... any day now, which was the only justification of both total war and the sanctions at the start (that this would somehow "defeat" Russia via low morale), is based on the idea that Russians have no alternative perspective to Western propaganda. If Western propaganda announces expansion to Ukraine was not a threat to Russia, then Russians too believe that and therefore don't see any possible legitimate point to any of the fighting in Ukraine, and morale will collapse months ago.

And if you think victory will be delivered through the magical thinking operation of other people you don't know all feeling the same as you, then there is no reason not to fight and there is also no reason to have a rational plan for your fighting ... just keep fighting, Russian morale will deliver ... any day now.

I think it's also worth pointing out the great irony of the geopolitical situation for Europe, is that cheerleaders for the war are "liberals" but the outcome of the war and it's disastrous consequences will be right wing and anti-liberal governments across Europe.

Indeed, training ten's of thousands of Nazi's in Ukraine will directly lead to more literal Nazi government takeovers or "influence" as some people here like to refer to it; the formula worked out in Ukraine is not really useful in "defeating" Russia and as soon as that becomes clear and the conflict is resolved or frozen, the focus of these Nazi organisations will branch out to neighbouring countries to expand said "influence".

Economic hardship has as a consequence both rallying behind "strong men" to "fight the scapegoats" as well as the weakening of neoliberal welfare state parties that require economic prosperity to be able to promise and deliver welfare state policies.

Of course, authoritarians (in today's political context; not some logical necessity) are generally right wing with elite backers who want to lower taxes, anti-environment protections, sell state assets and unwind welfare state policies in parallel to the fighting of scapegoats.

In the "name of the liberal oder" that the EU is conducting warfare in Ukraine, will lead to the direct collapse of liberalism in the EU. And not "in the distance", recent elections in Sweden are the first example of this.

Again, EU society unravelling into a fascism is good for US investors and corporations.

Everything turns up roses from the US Imperial perspective. Of course, without the EU economic stability there is no counter-weight to Chinese and Russian economic policies on the world stage, but they are no real threat to the US and are more freinemies that mutually justify each other's totalitarian war economies.

How many F-35's and other war equipment just got sold again?

Indeed, the whole affair is basically a Christmas miracle for the US military industrial complex, going from losers that fucked up Afghanistan to true heroes and defenders of "freedom" in a few months.

The greatest tragedy of course is there will be no further potential to even pretend to agree on climate change and environmental policies.

Again, something only EU was advocating for, and US, Chinese and certainly Russian elites sort-of-kind-of-wanting business as usual to continue, certainly don't not-want it to continue.

Its international relations 101 that peace would be required for international collaboration on climate change, European prosperity to bank it, and that obviously peace requires compromise.

How to explain EU leadership policies?

Bitches. Bitches all the way down.

Also brings up the other big irony is that the war is only a policy possibility for Russia due to climate change opening up the arctic for shipping crude oil: gas has critical economic functions (for the EU) but was not a majority of Russia's fossil revenue in any case and the threat to go without Russian gas to hit Russia's revenue was always a nonsensical and empty one (only practical purpose is to harm the EU economy).

So, European leaders create the conditions for war by immorally doing nothing much about climate change for decades, and the war will now further frustrate any effective action on climate change, which will continue to benefit Russia in relative consequence and power terms (eases energy exports and exploration while increasing food production while those things diminish globally).

European NATO leaders (all of them) do not veto US expansion into Ukraine, tolerate supporting literal Nazi's, despite many calling it a bad idea that can only lead to war.

War comes and European leaders are all Pikachu face and still do absolutely nothing in terms of soft power to try to end the conflict, rather just supply some arms (obviously not enough to win, just cause more bloodshed), and buy into the kindergarten framework of international relations that their decision making and state policies must be deferred to Zelensky ... he was on the cover of vogue and a social media god after all.

They are not morons, they just serve a different master than any EU constituency, even their own domestic elites, for the most part, the others simply begin and end their political analysis based on what's trending on social media today.

And, if your goal is to turn Europe into a pale reflection of the US across the pond.

The recent hundreds of billions of weapons purchase commitments is only a tiny step in that direction.

What you'd really want to do is a coordinated missile attack on European civilian aircraft.

Which will be super dramatic and super traumatic, as planes are not only blown up but planes in the air will not know where it is safe to land, people crying on TV and everything. So it will be many hours of intense anxiety and as many planes as required can easily be shot down in order to change European policy into whatever one's heart desires.

The weapons to do this are now "out there", already in Europe and it only takes a single covert organisation, of one form or another, somewhere with relatively modest funds to accomplish what will basically be EU's 9/11.

Of course, some will ask "why are our own missiles we sent to protect freedom or whatever being used to down our own planes with the obvious consequences of creating a EU security state?". Fortunately, the great thing about a security state is it doesn't have to answer.

So we'll all be able to rest easy.

The good news, though, is that wiping out most of the human population not only makes sound economic sense now that we have robotics and bespoke 3D printing and computer-controlled precision machining, but it is also the solution to almost all the environmental problems. Hurrah!

One factor pointing toward the status of taking Kyiv being a central goal at the beginning of the invasion is how the failure to do so has greatly diminished the utility of Belarus in the conflict.

One imagines that the situation in that country would be very different if it was now the favored access path to a Kiev ruled by a puppet government. — Paine

If the original plan was a blitzkrieg, as the evidence indicates, then the military utility of Belarus would end with the cessation of hostilities. As it is, although the ground invasion from that direction failed, Belarus still hosts Russian air force, which pounds Ukraine from the safety of its airspace.

The Russian "guests" would not be leaving in any event though. Belarus has effectively ceded its sovereignty to Russia.

You know the FSB is worried when their rep here writes down walls of text addressed to no one in particular about climate change, the EU, bitches and shit... :grin:

The Nazis had their perspective too. Doesn't make it right.

↪Benkei The Nazis had their perspective too. — Olivier5

You still fail to even get the point.

Even assuming Russia is entirely in the wrong and no one else is responsible for anything, NATO isn't going to go "defeat" Russia and Ukraine can't "defeat" Russia.

So, how does the war end?

How does more fighting improve the negotiating position or then being at war forever is somehow the best outcome for Ukrainians?

What is even the negotiating position that could plausibly bring a resolution to the war?

I've not committed to any viewpoint with respect to that cartoon. My point is you're not going to shift a perspective by insisting it's wrong (or variants on that).

My point is you're not going to shift a perspective by insisting it's wrong (or variants on that). — Benkei

People don't change perspective, most of times. Cf. any debate on TPF for evidence of that. Let's not aim for the impossible. No pro-russian poster is ever going to change his mind because of what you and I write.

Not my experience. But it is true people are very much married to most of their opinions and this medium isn't necessarily the best. I've personally had a few shifts over time, for instance, with respect to racism.

All that doesn't change the point though that if you don't understand why someone believes something, there's no chance of changing that perspective. And even then, people can still disagree. Which should also be fine.

People don't change perspective, most of times. Cf. any debate on TPF for evidence of that. — Olivier5

I second @Benkei in his response above, but again, even assuming you are right,

if:

1. Russia isn't going to change it's perspective
2. NATO isn't going to defeat Russia on Ukraine's behalf, following through with their Churchillian rhetoric
3. Ukraine can't defeat Russia

What is the alternative to a compromise that takes into account Russia's unchangeable perspective and that Russia may accept?

Your position so far seems to be:

Step one: everyone on Western social media agree Russia is bad

Step two: everyone on Western social media agree that Ukrainians fighting and dying to kill Russians is good

Step three: ...

Another way to understand the basic criticism you are facing is we're just asking what step 3 would be, even if we did accept step 1 and 2.

Ok, Russians bad and Ukrainians good ... what's the plan even assuming that's true?

If there's no answer to step 3, then it seems to me at least Ukrainian welfare is not a consideration in this position and the moralising of bad faith to begin with (along with no one ever answering how many Nazi's would be too many Nazi's).

If there's no answer to step 3, then it seems to me at least Ukrainian welfare is not a consideration in this plan — boethius

That seems unarguable. But it is in general the case that wars are prosecuted on the basis that:

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. — Churchill

War is always 'to the death'. There is no other plan. The welfare plan involves health and safety officers and hospitals, not tanks and bombs.

if you don't understand why someone believes something, there's no chance of changing that perspective. — Benkei

This is an illusionary objective, in any case. Nobody can change someone else's perspective. Rather, a person can decide to change her perspective, or not. So at best, you can help someone change perspective, if that person wants to do so in the first place.

My position is simply that, if you support the Russian war of aggression and related bombing, murders, tortures and rapes, then you won't be my friend.

It's not that complicated to understand. Even you should get the point.

That seems unarguable. But it is in general the case that wars are prosecuted on the basis that: — unenlightened

Not really at all.

Most wars are resolved in surrender of one side (or the negotiated resolution to preempt complete surrender while there is still some leverage) ... the exact opposite of "we shall never surrender".

War is always 'to the death'. There is no other plan. The welfare plan involves health and safety officers and hospitals, not tanks and bombs. — unenlightened

Again, completely untrue. Most wars throughout history are not fought to the death but one side capitulates.

In hunter gatherer times, when one side clearly lost they would withdraw and go elsewhere (wars being generally over territory).

In Imperial times, the losing side is absorbed into the winning empire administrative system as a vassal state or direct administration.

In nation-state times, the losing side accepts the economic and diplomatic policies of the winning side, with occasional changes in territory.

Indeed, most individual battles are resolved with the surrender of the remaining enemy troops rather than fighting to the death.

Fighting to the death is quite rare in the history of warfare. Very few cultures developed such an ethos (because cultures can survive different administrative changes over centuries, but cannot, by definition, survive even one battle to the death they don't win).

Again, completely untrue. — boethius

Indeed. but you are not asking about what the truth is, but what the plan is. The plan is to win - the truth is everyone loses.

3. Ukraine can't defeat Russia

What is the alternative to a compromise that takes into account Russia's unchangeable perspective and that Russia may accept? — boethius

You might have to tell about your point 3 above to the Ukrainians, because they don't seem to be aware of it... Some 80% of them believe they can beat the Russians.

With this one war, Putin has undermined Russia's position as a regional power. China is in the process of taking the role Russia once had. Al Jazeera

Indeed. but you are not asking about what the truth is, but what the plan is. The plan is to win - the truth is everyone loses. — unenlightened

No qualms from me on this.

You might have to tell about your point 3 above to the Ukrainians, because they don't seem to be aware of it... Some 80% of them believe they can beat the Russians. — Olivier5

Correction, 80% of Ukrainians think NATO can defeat Russia using Ukrainians as proxy soldiers. No one believes "Ukraine", as such, can defeat Russia.

If NATO wanted to "standup" to Russia it would have done so before the war broke out.

NATO doesn't want to, it's quite content selling some arms, creating the new cold war, and not "defeating" Russia, which would just complicate everyone in NATO's life (everyone that matters anyways).

No one with any thoughts on Scott Ritter's interviews?

I linked this interview a few days ago and I'm curious what the forum thinks of this man.

Actually, a vast majority of Ukrainians think they can beat the Russians, using NATO-donated weapons as well as their own.

What constitutes "beating the Russians"? I think this is a typical example of a different definition of winning (as I understand "beating the Russians" to mean). @boethius means winning as a surrender, much the same way the Dutch and French surrendered to the Germans and the Germans surrendered to the Allies and the Russians. Winning like that is nigh impossible. I think that's a bit of a semantic trick though.

Winning meaning locking up Russian forces in a stalemate which will lead them to eventually accept some type of truce or even peace deal, I think is highly probable. And I'd rather see that sooner than later.

Winning meaning reclaiming Donetsk and Luhansk and the southern occupied territories is already much more difficult. Not impossible but I think that also depends on what of the stories are true. Did the Russians merely tactically retreat form Kharkiv or was it an actual gain? Are the Russians having problems with their supply lines or are these news items exagerrated? Is Western material support sufficient or not? I can't tell and I don't think anyone on this site can accurately gage it. Along with those uncertainties, the question also becomes one of whether the costs are acceptable (eg. Ukrainian deaths first and foremost but also Russian deaths which are mostly men like you and me forced to fight). My personal feeling about that, is that territory is much less important than people. But then I've never been a nationalistic or patriotic type so I might misunderstand the psyche of Ukrainians in that respect.

Then there's winning meaning reclaiming the above and Crimea. That's exceedingly difficult and to me it's pretty obvious that that should not be attempted from a cost-benefit analysis (costs in human lives). At least as things stand now and appear to continue for the foreseeable future.

But then, the sanctions could all of a sudden have an effect, more through an erosion effect, affecting the broader Russian economy, destroying their supply lines and a general decomposition of the Russian state apparatus. This seems highly unlikely to me though due to the fact so many countries in the world have not imposed sanctions on Russia and I don't think regime change was ever affected through sanctions. The closest was South Africa but that had an active and successful anti-apartheid movement even before the sanctions started so seems to dissimilar to the current case to expect such changes from the sanctions.

So, what type of winning are you thinking about?