Compared to the deadliness of Russian tactics in Syria and Chechnya, the attack on Ukraine is, so far, relatively restrained. The Russians could simply level the place, if they wished.

Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent. — Apollodorus

Great point, but we understand that that attack was carried out during a world war, in which all countries were involved and were attacked and occupied by Japanese forces. Come to think of it, conventional warheads would have the same effect, or even cruise missiles. Many of us were on the winning side, we were fighting the war.

In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces.

The consensus, I think, among the nations of the world is that the only justification for a nuclear attack is a first strike against that country, and this is not the case here.

Should have said, thanks for sharing. Very interesting hearing non-Western perspectives, gives a more accurate picture of the situation.

It seems Putin advocates, if I may coin this term, “Neo-Tsarism.” He seeks a revival of Imperial Russia. My Russian history isn’t that good but I think he forgets that the Bolshevik’s executed Tsar Nicholas Romanov II and screwed up Russia so coming off as an autocratic dictator is gonna bite him in the butt. Pitting the Russian Orthodox Church and Ukrainian Orthodox who don’t want to be under Moscow against each other doesn’t help the situation either.

I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right .... — Apollodorus

Yes yes but what for? What is the end game here? What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? Is that what the human race was meant for?

What happened to peace and the common good?

Barack Obama calls for 'world without nuclear weapons' during historic visit to Hiroshima

He called for the world to embrace the notion of a "single human family" to move beyond conflict — The Independent

In a call with Macron, Putin has said:

A settlement is possible if Russia's legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account, including the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the demilitarisation of the Ukrainian state and ensuring its neutral status

Putin tells Macron he will stop targeting civilians as Ukraine invasion continues – RFI

Russia doesn't really need Ukraine. But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea. I think Putin is using Ukraine as a bargaining chip, not to keep it for good.

So, it looks like there is still a chance to come to some agreement and stop the unnecessary fighting before it’s too late. But if the EU and NATO insist on unlimited expansion, then there is no chance of reconciliation. Someone will be the winner and someone the loser. Either way, the main winner will be China as it will have one rival less in the race for global hegemony.

What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? — FreeEmotion

Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi.

You view the matter as a game of Risk. I look at it more as what justifies killing populations. A lot of states justify violence on the basis of playing a game. East, West, North, and South, whatever.

Electing to go to war can be a decision to fight an enemy who is about to kick your ass or a phantasy like Hitler dreamed.

In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces. — FreeEmotion

I don't see how the world is "at peace" when there are wars of various degrees of intensity in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. and when people are suppressed, persecuted, and killed in many countries around the world.

The US doesn't need to get into direct conflict with Russian forces when it's got European allies and puppets ....

Are we really this ingenuous? Or is this just our forum's personality?
Why use nuclear weapons when you could inflict greater damage with economic and chemical/toxin terrorism using less resources? The covid pandemic had exemplified it could be done -- although I am not saying that it was a conspiracy. But we now know, this is one hell of a bitch!
The nuclear war would wipe out the whole civilization -- read the nuclear winter, as the aftermath is much more deadlier than the actual weapons themselves. So, the nukes come with attached diplomacy and networking to make sure everyone does not become trigger happy. Putin included.

All countries with nukes are licensed to kill. But being licensed to kill does not mean your nuclear ambition and decision are your decision only.

Electing to go to war can be a decision to fight an enemy who is about to kick your ass or a phantasy like Hitler dreamed. — Paine

I think every war is a gamble as no one can predict the outcome. Look at Iraq where the West thought it was going to enforce order. It left chaos, death, and destruction behind, with Islamist dictatorships like Iran stronger than before and no end in sight. Or Afghanistan. Too many "unknown unknowns" as Rumsfeld said.

And let's face it, every major power wants more power. The only difference is the tools you employ to acquire power, financial, economic, political, military, or any combination of these, and the narrative you use for justification, "world peace", "economic progress", "democracy", "human rights", etc.

For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte

I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat.

It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. — ChatteringMonkey

That's a defeatist attitude. Quantum mechanics presents us with a huge mystery. Mass is, for the most part, a mystery.

For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte
I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat. — Metaphysician Undercover

Two. One to mix the martinis and one to call the super.

But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea — Apollodorus

You keep saying this but I don't get it. As long as their naval base is secure what else would they want with a practically closed sea?

I keep thinking about Julia Ioffe’s on-target criticism of the US media narrative of this war:

—the underdog Ukrainians,

—the hear-throb president,

—the plucky citizens.

No.... This is a tragedy, an attack on human rights, a war crime of fascism & attempted genocide.

Solemnity, please.

Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi. — Apollodorus

All very unfortunate. He who dies with the most toys wins? Is that it?

Well then you can count me out of that, it's not in the spirit of 'one family' that world religions or humanists for that matter talk about.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out — The Beatles

Ukraine needs to get some things right, putting the minority Russian speaking populace in a corner is not really a good thing. One example is the restriction on Russian books, while the Ukranian President appeals to Russians by speaking Russian in his speech.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On December 30, 2016, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine signed into law a decree that restricts import of books into Ukraine from Russia.

According to the law, a person can bring at most 10 Russian books without a permit. Unauthorized distribution of books from Russia is under a penalty — Wikipedia

The Denazificatiom claim of Putin is valid. The Azov battalion is a neo-nazi right wing militia and an actual unit of the Ukrainian national guard. In the eastern Ukraine, the neo nazi battalion was deployed without reservation to quell pro Russian sympathizers and by "quell", l mean torturing separatist, killing children, forcing people to speak Ukrainian and spreading Russophobia.

Here are two short documentaries on the neo nazi problem of Ukraine from western media before the invasion

Just for a few members of a neo-nazi command you do not have to bomb all Ukrainian cities... I think we are mixing up some issues here.
Those "nazis" fight in the invaded area by Russians. They are like militias. Nothing related to an average citizen.
In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. I think this is the worst part

The Denazificatiom claim of Putin is valid. The Azov battalion is a neo-nazi right wing militia and an actual unit of the Ukrainian national guard. In the eastern Ukraine, the neo nazi battalion was deployed without reservation to quell pro Russian sympathizers and by "quell", l mean torturing separatist, killing children, forcing people to speak Ukrainian and spreading Russophobia. — Eskander

None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it. They're old-fashioned that way.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also.

So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question.

As to...

What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine? — ssu

... I've already explained that too. Twice. There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). And the same people are still in positions of power today. Showing that the main strategy motivating one of the potential peace brokers is simply the opposition to one of the parties to that process is highly significant.

Whatever we think of Putin's methods for addressing it (we roundly condemn them I assume), the conflict remains. War or no war, there is a conflict between Russian interests and European/US interests in the region. If that conflict is not resolved, then resolving the current war will be nothing more than a temporary ceasefire. As you so rightly pointed out (to completely deaf ears it seems) Russia was already at war with Ukraine, to the cost of over 14,000 lives. A fact that the Western media seem only too willing to paint over in favour of the Disney version (bad man suddenly invades united, peace-loving nation of brave heroes).

The solution here requires solving the conflict, not just the war, and the extent to which either of the parties to that conflict is dishonest about their intent is exactly the extent to which any resolution will fail and the bloodshed will continue.

The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. Negotiating with Putin from a platform asserting that he's a madman with no legitimate strategic interests at all, and America are as pure as the driven snow with only the poor Ukrainian civilians in their minds is doomed to fail, and the result of a failed negotiation is more people dying.

The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict.

What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? — Isaac

I don't know, but I know that the only advantage of blaming the West for this war, is to exculpate Putin.

I don't know, but I know that the only advantage of blaming the West for this war, is to exculpate Putin. — Olivier5

This is a stupid thing to say, said only by stupid people.

---

Anyway.

Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐​deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐​century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.

...Western (especially US) leaders continued to blow through red warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐​Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway with a vengeance.

History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that Nato expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. We are now paying the price for the US foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

The number of influential and knowledge people in the West who understood that what the West was doing would lead to fucking tragedy, is mind boggling. Yet utter morons who are totally fixated on Putin as a personality - while ignoring decades of history and politics - would like to sanctify a West which very well knew its own role in bringing this about:

This is a stupid thing to say, said only by stupid people. — StreetlightX

You are stupid alright. The truth is just stubborn. There's a difference.

None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage. They're old-fashioned that way.

The primary motive for the Ukrainian invasion from the perspective of Putin is obviously out of a security concern and the threat of further NATO expansion. Since Putin isn't stupid or an irrational lunatic ( contrary to western propaganda), the benefit of an invasion outweighs the cost here (economic sanctions, isolation etc). I don't side with Russia or NATO in this matter as each side is considering its own interests. However, we have a lot of evidence to suggest the existence of state sanctioned racism against Russians in Ukraine and the Azov battalion being a part of the National guard isn't a trivial fact. If Putin succeeds in his venture, the denazification of Ukrainian government would be a secondary effect.

I hope people stop seeing this conflict as good vs bad. If anything, both sides are at fault for not reaching a compromise through dialogue/diplomacy

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. — Isaac

Thank you.

It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also. — Isaac

Then hopefully history will later tell that! But do notice that what is lacking is the smoking gun showing that indeed there was a far greater role than we know now. For example, if you could show that the US assisted the Svoboda-party in the 2012 elections, then things like that would make your argument more credible.

And then there is the obvious case that we know, thanks to the Russian intelligence services, that Victoria Nuland and the US embassador wanted to keep Tyahnybok out of the government. So how can the US have this affection to neo-nazis, when they don't want them in the government?

Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐​term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”

As I've seen this, it was the Ukrainians that likely wanted to contain Svoboda, yet taking them into the interim government and not wanting it to be hostile against the new government. And after elections, they were out. Not thinking of this from the Ukrainian political dimension (which was earlier explained just why the extreme right came to be so popular in 2012 electons), but just what the US wants and does, is too narrow.

There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). — Isaac

You remember what the first phase of the Revolution of Dignity, the student protest were called? The EuroMaidan. The time when Ukrainians were waving flags of the EU. And this still has an obvious link to the present, where President Zelensky wants that Ukraine would be accepted part of the EU. This urge to be part of the West is obvious in Ukraine. In 2014 it was basically only a quite normal trade agreement, the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, that caused Russia to pressure Ukraine and Yanukovich to back down from the agreement.

That was the spark, it should be noted.

And thus to see all this merely a way for the US to get at Russia isn't correct. It doesn't explain the events and the motives of the various actors, starting from the Ukrainian people. They (the Ukrainians) had seen how countries that had joined the West had prospered where they were left poor. Now if some American politician just sees this a way to get at Russia and nothing else, well, that's not what the Ukrainians and the Russians saw in this.

For Russia it was important that Ukraine wouldn't fall closer to the EU, hence this wasn't just about NATO or the US. And then come the territorial objectives that Russia had towards Ukraine. The Russian minority that was favorable towards Russia. And everything that Putin has talked about history, the "special relationship" between Russia and Ukraine, which is an artificial entity without link to Russia, according to Putin.

The number of influential and knowledge people in the West who understood that what the West was doing would lead to fucking tragedy, is mind boggling. Yet utter morons who are totally fixated on Putin as a personality - while ignoring decades of history and politics - would like to sanctify a West which very well knew its own role in bringing this about: — StreetlightX

How about then reading what for example John Mearsheimer so well said far earlier:

Mearsheimer in 1993:

Conventional wisdom argues that Ukraine should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons to ensure peace and stability in Europe. This is quite wrong. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, Washington should have encouraged Kiev to fashion its own secure nuclear deterrent. The dangers of Russian-Ukrainian rivalry bode poorly for peace. If Ukraine is forced to maintain a large conventional army to deter potential Russian expansion, the danger of war is much greater than if it maintains a nuclear capability. U.S. policy should recognize that Ukraine, come what may, will keep its nuclear weapons.

Yes, as John Mearsheimer said, giving up it's nukes lead to a disaster for Ukraine. That indeed was the failure that West did. It really was too naive to think that a peace of paper, assurances that Russia accepts its borders and sovereingty etc, would do it for Ukraine.

Sometimes, American political advisers do know what they are talking about:

Okay?

The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. Negotiating with Putin from a platform asserting that he's a madman with no legitimate strategic interests at all, and America are as pure as the driven snow with only the poor Ukrainian civilians in their minds is doomed to fail, and the result of a failed negotiation is more people dying.

The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict. — Isaac

Again and again, you misrepresent. You choose an opponent, like @Christoffer as an example of 'people playing out Top Gun fantasies...' calling this a 'tragedy'.
Previously, you generalised Ukrainian citizens as neo-Nazis, for which you 'apologised'', albeit only after an intervention by TPF admin @jamalrob.

I think you have used the phrase 'innocent as the driven snow' before but nobody here, as far as I can tell, has painted the US or Ukraine in such black and white terms.
And of course, we are not the 'negotiators' in the situation. Just as well...

Again and again, you talk of a generalised 'Western media'. It seems to be an obsession.
A wish to counter the rosy picture presented. That's fine but not all Western media do this.

A fact that the Western media seem only too willing to paint over in favour of the Disney version (bad man suddenly invades united, peace-loving nation of brave heroes). — Isaac

Your rhetoric and misrepresentation are not persuasive.
Posters affected have dealt with this continual distraction with patience.

***

ust for a few members of a neo-nazi command you do not have to bomb all Ukrainian cities... I think we are mixing up some issues here.
Those "nazis" fight in the invaded area by Russians. They are like militias. Nothing related to an average citizen.
In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. I think this is the worst part — javi2541997

Well said. This is what is important to highlight.

None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked.

The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO.

The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it. They're old-fashioned that way. — jamalrob

Clear and succinct summary, thanks.

OK.

You see, the smartest thinkers not only saw that NATO expansion would get the Russian Bear angry. They also saw the obvious imperialism aspirations that Russia has too. Especially when it came to Ukraine.

But perhaps when you are situated on a flat land going from Europe to China, one wants to keep the borders as far as possible. If that means aggressive expansion and hostility towards your neighbors, well, being on the offense is the best defense, I guess.