keep kicking that putin Cunt until he fucking dies.

It's been explained regularly on this thread — Benkei

Translation: some posters, including you, have tried very hard over 400+ pages to peddle the lie that Putin is only defending Russia against NATO, or that NATO provoked Russia into a war with Ukraine. The rest of us wonder if you are just criminally stupid, or worse, complicit.

Now you may delete my post because it's "poor quality". :-)

As I said: snark.

Acknowledging that Russia had reasons to wage war against Ukraine the way Russia did so far based on whatever has been declared by Russian representatives ("NATO enlargement", "denazification", "genocide", “provokation”, etc.) or otherwise guessable (security threats for the Black Sea fleet in Crimea, long range missiles in Ukraine, worse if equipped with nuclear warheads, American military bases at the border with Russia, no-fly zone over Ukraine, risks of direct military clashes between Russia-NATO, risks of nuclear escalation, etc.), doesn't compel people to take those reasons to be justified. Indeed I think avg Westerners can question those reasons on moral, legal, geopolitical grounds more consistently and plausibly than avg Westerners can defend them. Besides my guess is that the same is at least partially true if we replace "avg Westerners" with "avg Russians” (avg wrt to standard of life and education)

Yet what worries me more than nuclear escalation is the vulnerabilities of the Western front which will likely remain (if not deepen) after the war ends: uncertain American future commitment within the Western front (due to domestic unresolved political tensions and impending competition with China more than with Russia), Europe without military and economic security (e.g. Germany is losing at once energy input from Russia and output to China) and its political polarisation between East and West Europe. Add to that the possibility of having an unstable Russian Federation at risk of collapse.

Russia cannot possibly use nukes just to stop a nation from freely joining a trade group like the EU, but moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response. — Olivier5

Russian doctrine is clear, attacks on the motherland will illicit a nuclear response. This wouldn't qualify. — Benkei

Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO has been to invade Ukraine and annex parts of land. I would not be so certain that Russia wouldn't use nuclear weapons to defend the parts of land it now occupies. So it does seem at least plausible that Russia is willing to resort to nuclear weapons in this conflict.

In a new interview John Mearsheimer actually argues that the chance of nuclear war is non-trivial, and that the bar for Russia to use nuclear weapons is lower than we think because, A. the Ukrainians cannot retaliate, and B. the US/NATO would likely not risk general nuclear war over Ukraine.

Mearsheimer even theorizes that nuclear weapons use by the Russians would end the war. I'll leave it up to you whether you agree with that assessment.

Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO has been to invade Ukraine and annex parts of land. — Tzeentch

And the West's response to that invasion was to help defend Ukraine. :up:

Not any more than you dish out.

Putin + team want Crimea, at least. A secured Donbas would sort of help with connecting Russia and Crimea (Kerch is a bit skimpy) — jorndoe

Now that Kherson and Zaporizhya have been formally annexed along with Luhansk and Donetsk, retaining Crimea has made the Sea of Azov into a Russian Lake. For Russia truly to own Crimea requires keeping enough of Kherson to secure the water supply from the Dnipro River. Perhaps having that much conceded to Russia through negotiations would make it worth for them to agree to an end to hostilities.

It is difficult to imagine that deal happening since it would amount to rewarding the invaders for their efforts so far. The destruction of civilian infrastructure to render the place uninhabitable is a demand for unconditional surrender.

Given how far away the sides are from something like mutual recognition, what else could be a starting place for more than a ceasefire based upon limited agendas?

, using nuclear weapons would be bad for Russia as well as for others. Unless you think Putin doesn't care? The doctrine (if you want to call it that), is the mutually assured destruction thing. That's not quite the case here. No one has threatened with marching on Moscow ‡, let alone spraying nukes over Russia. It's the other way around, Putin's Russia has proven a real, present threat to Ukraine. Even if Putin ordered the (tactical) nukes in, I wouldn't expect a straight escalation to world war. NATO and others are more tempered than so. But Russia would definitely get attention, eyes-on, not in a positive way. This has been suggested both by Washington and Beijing, albeit in the usual political fashion.

, it's just that those formal annexations have become but a ritual, a performance to appease certain sensibilities. :/ Fake, a sham, an imposition. Just about everyone already knows, but that might not work on some mindsets, and hence the humbug sticks around.

When it comes to talks, which I'd think generally is seen as a positive thing, it seems that various parties say they're ready, serious, good to go, just say the word — except, only if what they bring to the table is already accepted. And so, no talks. Wouldn't be talks anyway, would be declarations.

As an aside, per se I'm not quite convinced that Crimea is as secured (Russian) as some. I guess it depends on Ukrainian support and such. Also, rumors on the street will have it that bomb shelters are being prepared in Moscow, despite no indication they'd have to be used. I suppose, if they want to waste resources (instead of using them for their "Ukraine project")...?

‡ Except Danilov perhaps, depending? Some have argued for political change, like doing away with the oppression, autocracy, shamming, rigging, but that's not the same.

It exactly doesn't make it different. — Tzeentch

Seriously: joining voluntarily and being attacked is the same thing?

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty.

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Doesn't then being a member of the United Nations mean a lack of sovereignty?

At least for me joining a club voluntarily or some goon forcing by violence to join a club are two different things. And so are the terms just what I give up in joining those clubs, obviously. Besides, Russia is annexing parts of Ukraine, so that is totally different than just joining the CSTO, for example.

But back to an issue you asked some time ago in this thread:

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. — Tzeentch

When I listed to some interviews that Mr Ritter made just now, going through all the Russian propaganda talking points (of how hard it will be for the Russians to denazify Russia), this question came into my mind.

I think Ritter is a case example of just how Russian propaganda works.

First of all, Ritter was a Marine officer and was a member of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) overseeing the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He has written books including a small booklet where he exposed that there were no WMD program during that time and the UN mission transformed to be used as propaganda. Naturally in the post 9-11 era dominated by the Bush administration he was a persona non grata. But as an truthful whistleblower (as there indeed was no WMD program in Iraq), he naturally had credibility.

So suddenly he appears now as an expert on the Ukraine war? An expert that tows to the point the Russian line: Ritter declared in February that Russia will not invade Ukraine. After the invasion Ritter said Ukraine will fall in a week. Ritter got suspended from Twitter after claiming that the National Police of Ukraine is responsible for the Bucha massacre. Ritter often appears on Russian government channels (Channel 1) and various Facebook pages, his comments being shared by Russian embassies in multiple countries. So why does an earlier self-proclaimed Republican and a former Marine Corps officer tow the line of Russian propaganda?

The most likely answer is that for a repeated sex offender (involving minors) that has done jail-time, you have trouble to get otherwise work. That credibility of being one of those who exposed the WMD lie about Iraq is enough for Russia to pay. And if your focus group is conspiracy theorists, they will likely believe that you were "set up" and sent to prison by the intelligence services...or something.

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

L'obéissance à la loi qu’on s’est prescrite est liberté.
(Obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom.)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Of the Social Contract

Doesn't then being a member of the United Nations mean a lack of sovereignty? — ssu

The United Nations is completely different from NATO or the EU. Nations do not give up any sovereignty to the UN. It's basically a public forum for states.

At least for me joining a club voluntarily or some goon forcing by violence to join a club are two different things. And so are the terms just what I give up in joining those clubs, obviously. Besides, Russia is annexing parts of Ukraine, so that is totally different than just joining the CSTO, for example. — ssu

The suggestion was given that there was any way that Ukraine would come out of this conflict neutral, sovereign, independent, free, etc.

To that I said, it is practically impossible, since it must accept overlordship from either Washington or Moscow. Whether it accepts overlordship voluntarily or by force doesn't matter to the final state of affairs.

An independent, neutral Ukraine is a fantasy now, except for the unlikely case in which the US and Russia agree on reinstating Ukraine as a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia. This would be the ideal outcome to the conflict, but alas a fantasy.

To that I said, it is practically impossible, since it must accept overlordship from either Washington or Moscow. Whether it accepts overlordship voluntarily or by force doesn't matter to the final state of affairs. — Tzeentch

It may not matter to you but still matter to them.

The United Nations is completely different from NATO or the EU. Nations do not give up any sovereignty to the UN. It's basically a public forum for states. — Tzeentch

Really?

First of all, it's not basically a "public forum for states".

Article 4

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

and if the member doesn't comply,

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

And furthermore, "public forums for states" don't have articles in the Charter as the following:

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

So just remember @Tzeentch, that it was the United Nations that went to war with North Korea when the country invaded South Korea. The closest it came to a similar situation was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then neither the Soviet Union or China vetoed the military action in the UN as the invasion was unanimously condemned by all major world powers.

So if you think members of EU or NATO aren't sovereign states, then isn't also the sovereignty of the members of the UN also limited with the charter saying what they can do or not?

Article 2(1)

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

:roll:

Really? — ssu

I didn't mean to suggest Crimea is now militarily secure for Russia. On the contrary, it is more vulnerable than Donetsk. I was trying to frame the idea of talks based upon each side giving up something significant enough to satisfy the other. I agree with ssu that negotiation of that kind usually only happens when both sides reach the end of their tether. That does not seem to be the case at the moment.

I see what you mean by the annexations being theater, but they do shape any negotiation regarding borders because Russia now holds them directly instead of maintaining the mask of 'independent' republics. Losing them militarily will weaken Putin more than before the annexations.

(, I didn't really mean to argue, more like add some stuff :up:)

British Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) published Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022. You can read the executive summary at the linked page, and the full PDF is available from there.

This report is an account of the pre-war plans of both Russia and Ukraine, the course of the initial phases of the war between February and July 2022, an overview of what has been learned about the AFRF, and an assessment of the implications for NATO and specifically the UK military. — RUSI

The authors caution that the report was based to a large extent on classified and sensitive data, which precludes discussion of methodology. "For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations."

Got it.

In the spirit of adding stuff, the latest Kremlin speak regarding the annexations and talks:

Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters earlier that Mr Putin remained open to talks aimed "to ensure our interests". But Moscow was certainly not ready to accept US conditions: "What did President Biden say in fact? He said that negotiations are possible only after Putin leaves Ukraine."

It complicated the search for a mutual basis for talks, he said, that the US did not recognise "new territories" in Ukraine. At the end of September, President Putin declared four Ukrainian regions as part of Russia, but while Russian forces in eastern Ukraine occupy most of Luhansk, their invasion of Donetsk has stalled and they are on the back foot in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in the south. — https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63832151

Macron says new security architecture should give guarantees for Russia
^{— Geert De Clercq, William Maclean · Reuters · Dec 3, 2022}

This means that one of the essential points we must address - as President Putin has always said - is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia. That topic will be part of the topics for peace, so we need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table. — Macron

:up: Address the point they brought up (plus public awareness)

In fact really.

If you are going to go for the trope NATO members of being vassals to the US and EU members to being vassals (umm...to somebody), then you really should look at the organizations themselves. The UN can use force (and has used force), as it's founders understood quite well just how the previous organization had utterly failed.

NATO is an European security solution. One should just look at it's first articles:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

It's basically also to prevent the Western states to have conflicts among themselves. I'm sure that without NATO there would likely have been several conventional wars between Greece and Turkey. And perhaps territorial disputes between Hungary and Romania, for example. To have the armed forces operate together is quite a way enforce that they won't start to eye each other as potential enemies.

Countries don't cede sovereignty to NATO as a result of signing the charter, but as a result of neglecting their armed forces to the point that the United States is the only nation presenting a credible deterrent.

And countries definitely do cede sovereignty to the European Union by becoming a member state.

Putin takes war to new level of 'barbarism,' U.S. diplomat says
^{— Tom Balmforth · Reuters · Dec 3, 2022}

Diplomacy is obviously everyone's objective but you have to have a willing partner. And it's very clear, whether it's the energy attacks, whether it's the rhetoric out of the Kremlin and the general attitude, that Putin is not sincere or ready for that. Putin has taken this war to a new level of barbarism, taking it into every single Ukrainian home as he tries to turn off the lights and the water and achieve what he couldn't on the battlefield. — Nuland

It is not for Nuland to teach the world - only the United States and NATO combined destroyed more energy networks than the United States destroyed by itself. — Zakharova

But...then that's an admission...? :o Bad rhetorical tactic, ma'am.
^{(two wrongs don't make a right, whataboutism, diversion)}

Notice how neatly this replays a particular narrative (while ignoring a few things of relevance) — with evil NATO, Nazis, etc, rousing anger — dancing (and yelling) to the tune of a particular dish of propaganda:

The USA Caused the War in Ukraine, and Only the USA Can End It
^{— Bryan Davies · CODEPINK · Nov 24, 2022}

Some have (and perhaps will) lap such colorific bias up without further ado. It's not that it's all plain wrong, more that it ignores too much, skips past a few things of relevance, expresses too much preconception, ending up with a story of wholesale blame-switchery. Had that "PINK TANK ~ BLOG" been posted a good while back, then it could perhaps have been said to provide a perspective surely worthwhile of consideration, but not any longer. At least they got one thing more or less right, in principle (if only Putin + team had taken that to heart):

NO WAR

Anyone can sympathize. And then get their feet back on the ground.

Irina Scherbakova from Memorial: 'No Diplomatic Solution' to Ukraine War, hasty calls for peace are 'childish'
By AFP
13 hours ago

There is currently no diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine, a co-founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Russian rights organization Memorial said Sunday.

"I am absolutely convinced that there is not a diplomatic solution with Putin's regime, so long as it is still there," said Irina Scherbakova.

"The solution that there will now be is a military one," said Scherbakova, who was presented with an award for her human rights work at a ceremony in Hamburg, Germany.

There would ultimately be some form of diplomatic resolution to the conflict, she said.

"But these decisions, this diplomacy will only happen when Ukraine believes it has won this war and can set its terms," she said.

Hasty calls for peace were "childish," she said, adding that things would not return to the way they were before the outbreak of the conflict.

"This war has turned so many things upside down, it will never be like that again," she said.

In Hamburg, Scherbakova was presented with the Marion Doenhoff Prize for her years of work on human rights in her home country by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Scherbakova's efforts showed the way of a "better future for Russia," Scholz said, even if the prospect "still seems unlikely."

The war would not end with "a victory for Greater Russian expansionism," said Scholz, who has faced repeated criticism for not doing more to support the Ukrainian war effort.

Russia would, however, "still be there" after the end of the conflict, Scholz stressed.

Scherbakova's organization, Memorial, will be presented with the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Saturday December 10.

Memorial was awarded the prize along with fellow campaigners the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine and the Belarussian activist, Ales Bialiatski.

One of the foremost Russian civil liberties organizations, Memorial has worked for decades to shed light on terrors from the era of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, while also compiling information on ongoing political oppression in Russia.

The group, founded in 1989, was forcibly shut down by Russian courts at the end of 2021 and Scherbakova left Moscow following the invasion of Ukraine. She is now based in Germany.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/12/04/no-diplomatic-solution-to-ukraine-war-nobel-winner-a79584

Countries don't cede sovereignty to NATO as a result of signing the charter, but as a result of neglecting their armed forces to the point that the United States is the only nation presenting a credible deterrent. — Tzeentch

Yet the US has wanted and still wants them to spend more on armed forces?

And countries definitely do cede sovereignty to the European Union by becoming a member state. — Tzeentch

And Ukrainians have seen how prosperous and stable this has made other countries. Earlier Ukraine enjoyed a higher GDP per capita than for example Poland had. Now it's totally different.



The simple fact is that in a globalized World it is better to seek that cooperation with your neighbors and thus shed some of that sovereignty in decision making than go it all by alone. To somehow hang on to an economically weak and authoritarian neighbor that obviously has desire to annex you is the most ruinous decisions you could do. Apart if you aren't a dictator yourself, like Belarus has.

Sherbakova says the truth. An imperialist Russia won't change: it will continue to threaten it's neighbors and continue to try to dominate them.

And Ukrainians have seen how prosperous and stable this has made other countries. — ssu

And peaceful, too.

giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Giving up one's virginity voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of virginity.[/quote]