The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. We can blame individual human beings, but we cannot blame an entity like NATO. So there is no comparison to be made between blaming NATO and blaming Putin. Nor is it likely that we can blame a democratic government, blame being properly directed toward the actions of individuals.

One of the intents behind a democratic organization is to minimize the relevance of any particular human being's actions, thus minimizing the consequences of an individual's personal weakness. On the other hand this leaves the democratic organization impossible to read in terms of strategy. In fact, since strategy is a personal trait, inherently practiced by an individual in secrecy, it is doubtful that we could even say that a democratic organization has a strategy.

I watch CGTN and RT as well, critically. Newspapers - which ones do you read, and maybe we need a separate thread on that. — FreeEmotion

Do you watch PBS? At some point Frontline will have a show where they explain more deeply what Biden was thinking through all of this.

I don't have a TV. I read the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. I listen to NPR.

Otherwise, I form ideas about what's going on by trying to fit the facts into a scenario that makes sense to me. Sometimes it takes a while because the facts just aren't available.

It's a world in which everyone is out to exploit everyone else and you can't even trust your immediate family, friends and co-workers. — Srap Tasmaner

That's the difference between right-populism (to give a name to what you're describing) and socialism: it's not that everyone's out to exploit everyone else; it's that there's a specific class - we call them capitalists - who is out to exploit - and is in fact stupendously successful at it - another specific class - we call us workers. Liberal democracy is a sham to the extent that these class relations are not - in fact cannot be - substantively addressed within that framework.

I mean, there's a reason why gas flows from Russia to Germany via Ukraine at now at record rates (google translate the first paragraph). Or why Biden needs to give a free pass to Credit Suisse thanks to their $100k in bribes to him, despite their being pals with the very Russian 'oligarchs' that everyone has lost their collective mind over.

That's why it's really not everyone out to exploit everyone else - because anyone with eyes can see that there is no stronger bond of solidarity and unity than among capitalists themselves. There is plenty of unity and brothery love. Dead Ukrainians be damned.

So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler? — ssu

The point of my post was not to apply a saying as the end of truth in the matter. It's supposed to give pause and think before choosing sides. I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. But that the US and NATO have acted callous with no respect for the dignity or sovereignty of Ukraine is for me entirely clear.

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on. — ssu

So we're not actually in disagreement then.

And notice how those ex-Soviet countries in the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have performed against their former Soviet counterparts — ssu

Good one! :100: :up:

Question: One of the Dutch posters on the forum was saying NATO should have "abandoned" Ukraine earlier to avoid war. Surely he wouldn't say that about Italy, for instance. Is that a kind of prejudice regarding countries near Russia?

↪Christoffer You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. This is how the real world works. — StreetlightX

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it.

Funny (ridiculous) propaganda from Sky News

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, — FreeEmotion

Yeah so paranoid that they signposted and labeled exactly what to not do at every point, joined in by a chorus of Western notaries who similarly warned against very specific actions. Strange definition of paranoid.

The Atlantic article is worth reading, and though I cannot prove it correct, makes sense as an example of corporate group-think run amok. I think it is plausible, given the fact that 200 nuclear weapons are enough.

There are some people who have made an indication that a reduction in the human population is desirable (for them obviously) and are also building bunkers. Do your own research.

From the article:

Here he was, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, a man privy to all of our secrets, and fully privy to what threatened. And he took me aside one day and shared his fear and his despair. And he said, if we don’t change the way that we’re conducting ourselves as a nation, the world is doomed. And I believe that. I believe it more than ever. — The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/

I don't know if you'd noticed, but defense and attack use the same military. Whether it's one or the other is about intent, nothing concrete can prove which it is. — Isaac

Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. Because it's the same military, one is bombing civilians and forcing themselves into another nation, one is building an army guarding the people of Sweden... it's just a mess, how could I ever see the difference here between defense and offense...? It's impossible!! :chin:

Why? — Isaac

Why? — Isaac

Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. — Christoffer

Yes, I see how the discussion is changed, but you didn't say changed, you said "harder". — Isaac

It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate.

We're talking politics here, we don't conduct political philosophy as if we were establishing the existence of God. God help us if we did. — Isaac

Burden of proof still applies. You're not free of logical fallacies just because we talk political philosophy.

No, but it has everything to do with your "we can't discuss anything without concrete evidence" rule. If you demand concrete evidence before we can discuss 'The West's' role, then why doesn't the same criteria apply to you discussing Putin's motives? — Isaac

Because how can we establish a clear motive if the reasons for that motive need to be established first? If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. It generally informs the "bad man" argument. If he is a bad man acting out selfish delusions or does he have just reasons for his acts (outside of bombing civilians and all that shit). The consequence of answering this question is that it informs a large part of how to properly analyze the events, intentions/motives.

Of course it matters. Your argument is that it wasn't a threat to Russia, so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. If you can't say what their reasons were, then how can you say they weren't 'to threaten Russia'? — Isaac

Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. If Australia joins NATO, don't you think that this is because of the tensions in the pacific and has little to no connection with Russia? They would join in order to have security against China, that's their reason. How does that fit with "threatening Russia"?

So the reasons can be whatever. But you frame it exactly in the way that you don't have evidence for:

so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. — Isaac

You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really?

Yes. An analogy which relies on them have solely defensive reasons to join NATO (and NATO solely defensive reasons to allow them). So your analogy fails unless you can demonstrate that this was the case. — Isaac

This is one part that I asked over and over you to answer. And it follows burden of proof. If the official and mission statement for NATO is to form an alliance of defense so that if any nation gets attacked, all nations will aid in defense of that member nation. You have to prove that there's another agenda. For example, I want you to explain the reasons why Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. Because that explanation would inform whether Sweden and Finland have any other agendas with joining NATO.

You can't say "Who Knows?" in one breath and then in the other say that threatening Russia definitely wasn't one of them. If no-one knows the reasons, then why is Russia acting irrationally in assuming that threatening it wasn't one of them? — Isaac

Again,burden of proof. You aren't correct in your conclusion because I can't name one nation's reason to join NATO for defence. You aren't automatically correct because we don't know Polands reason back then. Are you unable to see how all of this lacks any kind of logic? How can you be right like that? It's you who needs to provide support for the conclusion that joining NATO is an act of threat against Russia. So for, I see jack shit from everyone having this conclusion.

We've been through this. There doesn't need to be 'concrete' threats for strategic decisions to be monumentally reckless. Concrete threats are not the only type of threat. In fact they're probably the least common since 1945. — Isaac

RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE!

You are fundamentally confused if you believe that being reckless = threat. Being reckless can be PERCEIVED as a threat by Russia/Putin. But that doesn't mean NATO IS TO BE BLAMED, it doesn't mean NATO has any logical GUILT for Putin's actions.

Putin perceiving threat [does not equal] Actual threat by NATO
Putin's actions based on his perceived threat [does not equal] NATO being responsible for those actions.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves.

The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, that's where this part of the debate started. By the usual suspects in here on this topic dismissing any notion that Putin acts on his own and has little to no real viable reasons to do what he does. If there are no viable reasons, then his actions become purely criminal. If there isn't a threat against Russia, if he would just let go of his empire dreams and cared for the Russia as it is, nothing would happen to him or Russia. But this is not the case, his actions stem from claiming something he has no right to, and in doing so murdering civilians, destroying another nation and decimating his own people's economy and freedom.

To even say that NATO is to blame for this, creates a situation where we give credit to Putin for having valid reasons to act out aggressions. But since no such blame can be established, since no actual threats have been made towards Russia and Putin, we can interpret his actions with far more judgment than in the opposite scenario.

Here's baby steps for your baby brain:

1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.

True. Which is why it went from 12 to 30 as the cold war faded.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.

2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.

False. They have to vote. I do not know the level of influence the US has.

3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.

True

4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.

Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.

True. Not threatened in words. Taken action that they know full well Russia does not like or will perceive as a threat, like putting your hand in the glove compartment when a police officer ask you to step out of the car. Maybe you are reaching for your mask, but you know how that will go down.

5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.

False. Based on the whims and fancies of NATO members who can veto.

Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.

6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.

Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.

Again, if Russia feels threatened and has said it does not want a nation to join NATO then what is a threat? Threatening means doing something that is interpreted as a threat, and you know it will. Again, put your hands under seat to reach for your mask.

7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.

False. They have therefore unequal blame, a factor of some sort. Putin could have tried non-violence.

Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby. — Christoffer

OK, Hope that is clear. That is my view.

There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border.

Yeah so paranoid that they signposted and labeled exactly what to not do at every point, joined in by a chorus of Western notaries who similarly warned against very specific actions. Strange definition of paranoid. — StreetlightX

I think you just let the US off the hook for every atrocious thing it's ever done.

"You guys shouldn't have threatened us. You should have backed down before we squashed you flat!". - - Uncle Sam.

And notice how those ex-Soviet countries in the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have performed against their former Soviet counterparts: — ssu

Well yes, the ex-Soviet counterparts get the pleasure of being fucked over by the rentier capitalism of the Putin state, which is definitely a far shittier situation to be in. And to take just one of your named countries:

Post-Soviet economies were free of public debt, business debt, real estate and personal debt or other bank loans when they obtained their political independence in 1991. Their residential and commercial real estate, transportation facilities and highly educated population could have provided the foundation for a competitive low-cost modern economy. Every family could have been given its home at a nominal price. Prime real estate and infrastructure monopolies were turned over to insiders on such terms. But by the time most families started to buy home ownership, prices were soaring. The debt-free situation with low housing costs and a broad array of public services did not last long.

Latvia imposed Europe’s heaviest taxes on labor and industry, and the lightest on real estate and finance. Its miniscule property taxes left almost the entire rental income available to be capitalized into bank loans, and property prices spiked to among the highest levels in Europe. Accepting U.S. and Swedish advice to impose the world’s most lopsided set of neoliberal tax and financial policies, Latvia levied the world’s heaviest taxes on labor. Employers must pay a flat 25 percent flat tax on wages plus a 24 percent social-service tax, while wage earners pay another 11 percent tax. These three taxes add up to nearly a 60 percent flat tax before personal deductions. In addition to making labor high-cost and hence less competitive, consumers must pay a high value-added sales tax of 21 percent (raised sharply from 7 percent after the 2008 crisis). No Western economy taxes wages and consumption so steeply.

.. Latvia’s alternative to Soviet-style bureaucracy was a far cry from classical democracy utilizing its endowments to achieve an American- or Europeanstyle success. It fell subject to a smash-and-grab privatization of the Soviet-era assets created prior to 1991. Instead of undertaking the social spending and infrastructure investment found in successful Western economies, the “Baltic miracle” featured a privatized oligarchy, dependence on foreign
banks, and wage austerity.

...Some 10 percent of Latvia’s population has left since 2000, and roughly 14 percent of the working-age population, with emigration accelerating after the 2008 crash. In 2013 a full 10 percent of “Latvian” live births were reported to have occurred in Britain! As in other countries subjected to austerity, Latvian emigration is concentrated in the most highly educated and employable population: 25 to 35 years old. Latvians joke about collapse by 2030, by which time the last person to leave the airport is asked to please turn off the lights.

Via Michael Hudson's Killing The Host. Estonia and Lithuania have similar stories of course, once you go past skin-deep comparisons of GDP. But you're welcome to do your own research.

One more thing to keep in perspective in the current context:

We took off on bombing campaigns that were horrible beyond any American’s ability to reckon with, then or now. We killed something like a million civilians in the last seven months of the war. We haven’t reckoned with that kind of violence, that kind of brute inhumanity. The kinds of crimes that we would never ever ever commit on the ground, we committed routinely from the air. We didn’t even pretend to distinguish between military and civilian targets in Japan, so that by the time the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was made, we were morally blind, paralyzed. We no longer had the capacity to understand exactly what it was that we were doing. So of course we dropped the atomic bomb. That was almost anti-climactic considering what we had done to fifty or sixty other Japanese cities. — The Atlantic

The American War Machine
James Carroll

I think you just let the US off the hook for every atrocious thing it's ever done. — frank

Did I? Because those who can follow a basic train of implication might note that none of this lets Putin off the hook. No judgement about those who can't, just saying. I understand that not everyone has an IQ above 12.

Did I? Because those who can follow a basic train of implication might note that none of this lets Putin off the hook. No judgement about those who can't, just saying. — StreetlightX

Oh good. So join me in condemning Putin for doing the same thing the US has been doing to South and Central America for years.

:up:

If you want a performing monkey, you should try e-bay.

If you want a performing monkey, you should try e-bay. — StreetlightX

I use Walmart.com these days. Best way to get my cheap Chinese goods.

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it. — FreeEmotion

Still not the fault of NATO if Putin starts a war. What NATO and other nations are doing is up to them. Russia has no claim in demanding anything abour other independent nations' right to choose their defense strategy.

True. Which is why it went from 12 to 30 as the cold war faded. — Christoffer

Which can be a natural progression of an alliance overall. I mean, EU has also expanded, so that doesn't mean anything specific for just NATO. Over time most alliances grow.

False. They have to vote. I do not know the level of influence the US has. — Christoffer

Exactly, but some position that the US controls NATO, and therefore they have an anti-Russia agenda and all the expansion efforts are only there to beat back Russia. If they only have one vote, how can that be?

True. Not threatened in words. Taken action that they know full well Russia does not like or will perceive as a threat, like putting your hand in the glove compartment when a police officer ask you to step out of the car. Maybe you are reaching for your mask, but you know how that will go down. — Christoffer

Taking actions that Russia doesn't like, in this case, building defense in member nations close to Russia, still doesn't warrant Russia to do anything. What nations do in their nations is their business. That Russia doesn't like, why should that be cared for? Is Putin a child whose feelings shouldn't be hurt? Since we established that NATO does not act with invasion or offensive actions over any borders without first being attacked, then him not liking people establishing a defense just boils down to him totally misunderstanding NATO, or... as I've described, he knows that if his precious nations he wants to claim become members, he cannot establish the old Russian empire he wants. Nothing of that is nothing more than Putin's ideas of NATO threatening, they did never and have not actually threatened him.

And... the police officer? Is Russia the police officer? Should Europe bend down to Russia and Putins will? No, he's not a police officer in that analogy, he's a guy pretending to be a police officer and when we say that he doesn't have the right to ask us to do anything he shoots us.

False. Based on the whims and fancies of NATO members who can veto. — FreeEmotion

If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone. — Christoffer

Again, if Russia feels threatened and has said it does not want a nation to join NATO then what is a threat? Threatening means doing something that is interpreted as a threat, and you know it will. Again, put your hands under seat to reach for your mask. — Christoffer

How is a defensive collaboration a threat? Putin can say whatever he wants, he can believe whatever he wants, but it's still not a threat. If Sweden joins NATO in order to feel more secure on the global geopolitical stage, that is not a threat to Putin, regardless of his fantasies that such an action is.

If Sweden, however, said that we will take back Kalinigrad because we think that this part should belong to us (since it once did long ago), then that is a threat.

Us setting up a better anti-air defense on Gotland in collaboration with NATO, even if it's to secure against a Russian attack... is still not a threatening act to Russia or Putin, regardless of his delusions.

All of this is about establishing actual guilt. What he believes is irrelevant. Because "guilt" of others for Putin's actions gives him partial justification for his actions. I'm saying that he doesn't have justification for his actions.

That is the importance of this argument.

False. They have therefore unequal blame, a factor of some sort. Putin could have tried non-violence. — Christoffer

Exactly like how things like this are done in modern times. If you want a nation back, ask them, do you want this? Do we all want to vote in this? If it leads to a vote and it fails, tough luck better luck next time. There's nothing wrong in wanting to expand a nation, or create a union, what is bad is if you try to claim it by force. This is considered a crime by international law.

The world is not the same today and can't be judged by the same measuring tape as before.

There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border. — FreeEmotion

Still can't do anything. A nation can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't break borders and actively threaten another nation. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. But when he invaded, that's when he broke everything and why the world now acts.

There's nothing in international law or any kind of post-world war agreement in the world that a nation can't put forces at their borders. And the same goes with NATO building defense in NATO member nations. People, like Putin, can complain and question, but he has no right to demand anything and he has no right to feel threatened by it, regardless of what fantasy he cooks up to be the case.

So we're not actually in disagreement then. — Benkei

If we just have the patience to read thoroughly each others comments and genuinely try to understand the others points, we usually do that.

I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. — Benkei

I think this is quite universal and only a few would disagree with this. And this is also my point of putting things into perspective.

. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. — Christoffer

I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this.

In real life, people need to act and react based on what others do and think and say, justified or not. Because typically people are not utter morons who can afford to entirely ignore their strategic environment out of some high-minded sense of principle, although NATO and the EU seem not to have got the memo. — StreetlightX

This logic works both ways of course. Putin can be blamed for not having gotten the memo either, because he too has the intellectual capacity to recognize that the Western world acts out of a sense of high minded sense of principle, even if he thinks those principles are hypocritical and naive bullshit. That is to say, just as you can criticize NATO for having acted in a way that provoked certain action, it should have been fairly obvious to Putin it would have done exactly as it did. If you're going to require that NATO and the EU be Grandmaster chess players in this environment and expect them to respond precisely to the strategic environment, then let's impose that same standard on Putin.

The matter is just unfolding, so we don't know the final result, but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire. With the money being pumped into war effort by the West, it should go on for decades and the economic sanctions will do their fair share of damage, and Russia will also be cast off the world stage in every other regard.

It would seem that if I were Putin, I would have calculated a high minded moralistic response from the West, where the fight was not going to be over empires, land, or resources, but over righteousness itself.
Why would I want to provoke a group of crazies that believe that God is on their side? Sounds like someone just provoked a proverbial battle of Good versus Evil that the West can't help but throwing every last of its soldiers at.

I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this. — FreeEmotion

But it isn't a threat, it's not a threat that warrants extreme actions as counters to it, which is what Putin is doing. You cannot use it as any evidence of threat in order to then justify attacking that nation, just because you "feel" it's a threat. If that were the case, then if Sweden joins NATO and Russia breaks airspace or sea with submarines, then that is an act of war, so let's invade Russia. That won't happen. And if Russia had troops close to Finland and Finland was a member in NATO, would that warrant them to attack Russia? With the combined outcome being "they threatened us with having troops on their side of the border so Russia is to blame for what we did"

We can talk of escalating conflict of the psychology of it all. Actions and who's to blame have clear parameters based on all of this. Blaming others for your actions without any logical reasoning as to why others are to blame doesn't make them any more guilty.

but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire. — Hanover

Since they have no right to Ukraine or any nation other than the borders of their own, Putin could just retreat the troops, deal to get the sanctions lifted, and promise to care for what he already has (current Russia). That is also an option, but that isn't an option for Putin.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. It's either to establish the new world order and rebuild the empire, or fuck the world and the west and NATO and every single fucker (hit the button).

just as you can criticize NATO for having acted in a way that provoked certain action, it should have been fairly obvious to Putin it would have done exactly as it did. If you're going to require that NATO and the EU be Grandmaster chess players in this environment and expect them to respond precisely to the strategic environment, then let's impose that same standard on Putin. — Hanover

At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. — Christoffer

He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe.

The west will then back off the sanctions and go back to normal with no further overtures to Ukraine and less trust for Russia than it had.

The matter is just unfolding, so we don't know the final result, but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire — Hanover

Putin reacted predictably, that's all to it.

Putin is the one attacking, and he sees a benefit to continuing the attack, to get maximum concessions.
Lots of options for Putin including agreeing to a ceasefire: a ceasefire will never revert back to a status quo. What Russia can bring to the table is the offer to stop attacking, what Ukraine can bring are concessions, since Ukraine's resistance was accounted for in the initial strategy.

Maybe NATO is telling Zelensky not to give concessions. At least the press is making him out to be a hero: helping him to press on.

Meet the Press:

Zelensky's rise: See how Ukrainian leader met this moment - CNN

OPINION: Ukraine vs. Russia: Here's how Zelenskyy and his country win - Fox News

Children 'in grave danger' as Russian forces close in on Ukrainian capital - ABC

Wow

At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world. — unenlightened

Except that apportioning blame is part of the game. There is a battle for public opinion in Russia, Europe and elsewhere. For the Russian leadership, blaming the West for the war in Ukraine is a matter of survival. If Putin fails to convincingly pin this war on NATO and "Ukrainian drug addicts", if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip, then Putin is politically dead. And possibly, biologically dead too. So blaming the West is key to his survival.