The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to fuck up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry. — Manuel

Or cyber attacks. That would be a little less final, but still very destructive.

Correct. I for one am pretty sure that America and its British Poodle are planning a war against Russia, first by arming Ukraine and neighboring NATO countries and then manufacturing a pretext to intervene. — Apollodorus

At least one person agrees with me. Invasion is an awful thing, I wonder if there Russia is ever invaded whether the outcry will be the same because although they look the same, these civilians will be Russian.

This invasion is different, because with Iraq the world could imagine that it was 'us vs them' i.e. Saddam Hussein, but in this case, it is them invading 'us' , which feels different does it not. The country I am from never invaded anyone in the last 500 years, in fact we were colonized and nearly had an invasion in the 1980s.

We are lacking in leaders worldwide. These folks are insane.

All of them are mega criminals, all of them. What a way to go…

Same response as above..losing a potential trade partner is not a cause for military action (takeover of another country!). Misplaced blame. — schopenhauer1

So what is cause for military action in your book?

We are lacking in leaders worldwide. These folks are insane. — Manuel

We're just not used to it. Our ancestors had to deal with this shit all the time.

If the Pax Americana goes down (which it appears to be doing) this will be happening more often. So being passive isn't the way to peace that you think it is.

Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population. — ssu

Russia would be a dominant player in Europe if Washington thinks it should be a dominant player in Europe. NATO countries also have economic priorities also.

Being passive is one thing, racing towards WWIII is beyond words.

Yet one never should underestimate just how much perseverance Russians have. If their economy will falter, then they stand in line for bread. The sanctions won't stop Putin, that's for sure. If the people survived the collapse of the Soviet economy, they surely can survive sanctions too.

Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. So when we can see those destroyed armored columns, they can be replaced. Many can criticize the modest performance of the Russian armed forces, but usually Russia has these slow starts and then simply learns by doing. If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces (into mottis).

The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery.

Russia would be a dominant player in Europe if Washington thinks it should be a dominant player in Europe. NATO countries also have economic priorities also. — FreeEmotion

Nah. Don't think everything evolves around the US. The US isn't at all this omnipotent actor on the World stage.

The simple fact is that if you are successful in international trade, you need to have goddamn good relations with your trading partners. And even if you don't, then either your lucrative markets or the competitive manufacturing, if you have it, will attract businessmen.

Just to give an example: the Chinese made their historical growth mainly by themselves. It really wasn't an American project. Neither was the industrialization of South Korea or Taiwan implemented and organized by foreigners. In the case of China, the US incorrectly assumed that with more prosperity and a bigger middle class, China would liberalize and become more Western. Yet communists cannot give up power: they would be finished.

Being passive is one thing, racing towards WWIII is beyond words. — Manuel

Who's siding with Russia in this scenario? China? China has nothing to gain from bombing its investment and prime market. On the other hand, it doesn't really need Russia for much. Should nuclear conflict transpire, I don't think it will be a world war exactly. It will mainly be the US and Russia being bombed.

Bombs thrown in Russia and the US will spill to China. It will likely set off a chain reaction, in either case, the radiation and change in temperature would kill off almost everyone.

Bombs thrown in Russia and the US will spill to China. It will likely set off a chain reaction, in either case, the radiation and change in temperature would kill off almost everyone. — Manuel

I disagree. China could sit it out. I guess if Russia and the US totally unloaded on one another, a nuclear winter might happen.

I don't think it would kill everybody, though.

Here's a fuck up: Ukraine is a grain exporter to the Mediterranean basin, through its Black Sea ports, which Russia is busy closing off.

So what is cause for military action in your book? — FreeEmotion

Putin wanting to, by an means necessary, without regard for human life, takeover a country that democratically does not want to be ruled by Russia/ a Russian puppet government.

Oh sorry, I misread.. I thought you said what is the cause of this military action...I'll get ya in the next post.

One lacks a proper vocabulary in these instances...

So what is cause for military action in your book? — FreeEmotion

Military action is a last resort and can at best be seen as legitimate if a country is imminently threatening your country by military force. Other reasons that are at the least moral, might be to stop a gross act of crimes against humanity (at the level of let's say large genocide). Even then, it would take getting support by others, and not unilateral (if it's a country trying to help the one with the genocide taking place).

Adding more here:
A people in their own country also have a right to overthrow the power in place if they do not permit basic human rights... I am not sure if that meets the level of military action from other countries though, unless with those restricted rights were things like large and obvious genocides.

So it seems. As I said from the start, Western oil and defense companies are going to make a huge fortune from this: — Apollodorus

They will, true. But when do oil companies not make money? Oil is in demand everywhere, and the oil companies are located around the world wherever there is oil. War or no war, oil is generally a great business to be in. Suck it up and sell it.

In a dangerous world (created partly through the good offices of arms companies), when do defense companies not make money? Big ships may not be the thing this year, but drones are. ICBMs may be in the doldrums, but Stinger missiles are hot. Fighter planes are very expensive, but one can make money on mines.

Oil and Arms will be making money into the foreseeable future, regardless.

Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable. — Metaphysician Undercover

War against Ukraine seemed inevitable for a long time, and yet Putin is blamed for that. So if anyone goes to war with Russia Putin is to blame for that also? It is a funny sense of logic that blames a country for going to war with another country, invading it, and then blaming that country when other countries go to war with it, invading it. If that is the argument, might as well state it.

Any country that uses nuclear arms first will lose its place in the world, and be isolated. I will not be dealing in any way with a country that carries out a first strike for any reason, and I have remained neutral so far: that is an indication of how the neutrals or so called Putin supporters will change their minds based on events.

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? Of course that is not saying that is a reason for invasion, I do not have the intelligence to decide that, but it is a powerful undercurrent that has to be recognized.

The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to f### up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry. — Manuel

Ah yes, modern day war does that, unless you can insulate yourself against that, paper is a good insulator and paper money will do just fine. To them, it will be worth it.

It all reminds me of a short but pithy sentence lyric from the Eagles, in "The Last Resort" : a song that seemed anti-God but is actually anti-man.

“We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds in the name of destiny and in the name of God.” — Eagles

But entertainment is easier than instruction. — Bitter Crank

Also more appealing to the (exhausted and bored) masses (us). We don't want information/instruction, we want to have a good time. Therein lies the rub: here I (we) am (are) blaming the media for shirking their responsibility, but the fact of the matter is, I (we) make them like that.

As for your second paragraph: if it bleeds, it leads!

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? — FreeEmotion

"'diminished' Russia" is a dubious expression b/c it has to do with the potential ambitions of Russia to reach a superpower status on the global geopolitical stage, but due to the emotional connotations attached to it, it could mean "humiliated Russia" for certain Russian propaganda while for those who fear Russia it could mean "harmless/unthreatening/cooperative/supportive/friendly Russia".

So, that wasn't my question. Do YOU agree with Putin's use of force to takeover another country? — schopenhauer1

I don't really reason by taking an opinion first ... and then asking for more information. My initial comment was asking people who knew more about the subject.

As I say, I don't like neo-Nazi's. Now, if as @ssu says they're irrelevant, then for certain there's no justification for the war. However, it is a legitimate question how many neo-Nazi's a state can foster, integrate into institutions and have battalions, carry out language and cultural suppression (form of genocide) and not be morally responsible and invite entirely just war on itself.

I would very much like to see someone demonstrate the neo-Nazi's of Ukraine are as fringe as they are in the US (where, as I mention, I do not think Republican's generally speaking were and are "tainted" by fringe neo-Nazi's supporting Trump and that leftist propaganda was irresponsible; of course, doesn't mean there's not a lot of racism in the Republican base and neo-Nazi's are not also racists, nor plenty totally legitimate reasons to be against Trump and republicans).

That being said, I do not view the Kremlin as a "good" government.

For example, if some country randomly attacked China (totalitarian hellscape, as I call them), in the narrow "self defense" justification then China would be justified for fighting back. But in the larger context of China not being a just state then it's actions are not justified generally speaking. Of course, it gets complicated; for example, I think few would argue China detectives finding a serial killer is "unjust" just because China's state is unjust.

Now, it maybe said Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia ... but Russia would respond Ukraine has been attacking ethnic Russians in the East that have a right to separate after a coup of a democratically elected leader (which, true or false, neo-Nazi's take credit for staging a violent coup). Therefore, not only are there neo-Nazi's that the Ukrainian government are responsible for supporting and so invite invasion, but it is also self-defense of the ethnic Russian separatists.

Ukraine may respond to that the coup / revolution is non of Russia's business, and that Russia attacked first by taking Crimea and it is Ukraine that has a right to fight back in self defense.

These arguments can go on more or less forever.

However, my original comment was seeking insight into something else and far, far worse.

Which is Putin and the Kremlin actually want a total break with the West to recreate the Soviet style totalitarianism based on China's "perfecting" it using modern technology (IPR courtesy of the West of course).

In this case, of course, the moral arguments above are completely irrelevant.

Of course, the Western narrative would be immediate response "Yes! Yes! Putin's evil and wants to re-create Soviet totalitarianism". However, such a response contradicts the idea sanctions are "hurting" the Kremlin. You can't have it both ways of saying sanctions are disrupting Russia and undermining the Kremlin's grip on power and about to trigger an uprising in Russia as normal people get fed up who see zero reason for the war in Ukraine ... and, also, total break with the West is exactly what Putin and the Kremlin want in order to import the Chinese system of social control.

Of course, you can also have a situation where a state is pretty bad but attacked by something even worse, so, reluctantly, we are glad the first bad state succeeds. For example, we in the West are generally reluctantly grateful that Hitler didn't conquer the Soviet Union even if Stalin gave Hitler a run for his money in terms of evil dictatorship, the Nazi's seemed genuinely worse (hence alliance with the Soviet Union). Likewise, the pro-Assad argument (from a democracy is good point of view) rests on Islamic State being far worse than a run-of-the-mill dictatorship.

Certainly Putin and Kremlin would have preferred an easy victory and no sanctions (you don't "need" sanctions to transition away from Western integration, which Russia has been doing since 2014), but the narrative of "miscalculation" assumes Putin and Kremlin didn't have a plan B in place if massive sanctions were put in place and defeating Ukraine longer and more arduous.

This seems dangerous. So in this view, Canada should takeover the US because there are known neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists? Or the other way around if that was known? This is just slippery slope justification. — schopenhauer1

As I've said several times, if neo-Nazi's are fringe (as I would agree they are in the US) the argument doesn't follow. One would need some threshold of neo-Nazi "de facto power" for the argument to work. Unfortunately, neo-Nazi's in Ukraine simply do not seem like a fringe group, I much rather they were. Now, are they "enough" to for this argument to work; that would be a political theory (what would be "enough") and factual question (are there enough) that with all the propaganda is difficult to just randomly guess about.

Just the presence of neo-Nazis.. that is your basis for invading a country? Also, if there were neo-Nazis found in Russia should Ukraine or anyone else invade Russia? — schopenhauer1

I've explained many times, as above, there needs to be enough, some threshold of too many neo-Nazi's with too much influence, that it can be credibly argued not-invading them is appeasement.

Then I explained Putin's ties to the European neo-Nazis and far-right, since you said you were not aware of it. — hairy belly

You don't seem to understand how argument works.

You assumed the argument as your premise--that neo-Nazi's would be a justification for war--and your rebuttal was that Putin also has ties to neo-Nazi's.

Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's would not make a sound argument about justification of fighting neo-Nazi's unsound, it would just make Putin a hypocrite. The argument would still be sound.

Arguing someone is a hypocrite is different than arguing any of their positions are unsound, invalid or false in themselves.

I can present only sound arguments, but be a hypocrite since I simply don't do what I argue; doesn't make my arguments unsound.

Putin's argument that neo-Nazi's are bad, and there's too many in Ukraine, could be sound, and his also supporting neo-Nazi's would then make him a hypocrite.

That's the state of that exchange between us. Now, if you want to backtrack and argue there aren't or then not enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, you may do so, but that's independent of Putin's ties to neo-Nazis. Or then, you can continue your own argument that assumed there was enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine but just that Putin's a hypocrite for also supporting neo-Nazi's and so demonstrate that.

However, if you're backtracking, then Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's isn't really relevant, and if you aren't backtracking then feel free to demonstrate Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's and what relevance that has: for example, if we assume there's too many neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and therefore the Russian's invading is justified, it's this a larger harm to neo-Nazi's (doing more good than not) compared to whatever other links Putin has to neo-Nazi's (how does demolishing a neo-Nazi state help the neo-Nazi cause?).

I think that the rules when you can get in are NATO written in the articles of NATO and evident from the application process. If NATO doesn't want a small country inside, then what kind of a threat is that country to Russia? But this is not solely about "security". It's about being a "Great Power". — ssu

I agree with your points here.

And, again, NATO and Ukraine were completely free to sign a treaty and have Ukraine join anytime since 2014 or even Ukraine becoming independent.

But I guess we are in agreement on this, or in somewhat of an agreement. — ssu

Yes, I don't think our positions are so far apart, and we certainly agree the war is terrible and would have been better to avoid.

I focus on criticizing "the West" because Western media make the anti-Putin arguments in abundance (I honestly don't feel there's any need to make new one's; of course, totally relevant to debate, which is why I present the counter arguments that may exist).

Likewise, as I say, it's not clear to me what exhaustive criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism accomplishes. Criticizing people who are subject to press and democratic scrutiny (what we in the West can learn and do better) seems to me more constructive. Who's "morally responsible exactly for what" in complex international political situations and processes is a different question to "what should we do", which, credible and concerted diplomacy is my thoughts on; diplomacy is insanely cheap compared to the costs the entire world is facing due to this crisis.

Of course, maybe it's true that diplomacy could not have worked and Putin was intent on the invasion since 2014 or even before, but what makes me uncomfortable is, arguably, the largest political institution (with some degree of sovereignty and diplomatic leverage) and trading block (massive diplomatic leverage), is unable to demonstrate any credible diplomatic process since 2014.

Nobody else broke the agreement. In fact, there is no credibility in that you first accept the territorial sovereignty of the states (meaning that you really don't have any issues where the border is drawn) and then you annex parts of it and basically start to talk abou Novorossiya and the Ukraine as a country being "artificial", if it's not part of Russia. With those kind of changes, you lose all credibility.

End result? Putin just have created self-fulfilling prophecies as his actions have resulted what he made earlier accusations about. Hence can be smug about it as they become true. — ssu

It maybe true. My argument on this point is not what's true and false, who broke what first etc. But just that there is a cost to refusing good faith diplomacy. Obviously, the West didn't care since 2014 of engaging with Russia diplomatically and would just write him off as a madman in the press.

However, the perspective I wanted to bring up is the other authoritarian or authoritarian leaning non-Western countries. Their governments are going to be, a priori, more sympathetic to Putin's Russia and security concerns (as, naturally, they are very focused on their own security concerns), so my point was that if Putin can sell his actions as good faith to this audience, they are easier to deal with.

Of course, the cost of the large states just ripping up treatise or interpreting them in a wildly insane way (a memo can make torture legal as long as you have a euphemism for example), is not very high. However, it is a consideration, and you're always in a better position in a negotiation if you can demonstrate the counter-party refusing reasonable offers.

The West's position since 2014 is not to make any offers at all but just do sanctions ... of which Russia responding to by carrying out sanctions proofing programs then makes war in Ukraine more doable ... which is what we have now.

Of course, what would reasonable offers be and whether Russia would have accepted them is a different question, but the EU not having any track record of working on them, just basically ignoring the whole situation in Ukraine since 2014 and letting the bad blood fester there (precisely because of the neo-Nazi's other EU countries wanted to be hands-off, from what I can tell) only to "pop out" and now pretend Ukraine was this bastion of liberal freedom all along.

And again, your arguments could be true and we could see large scale social uprising in Russia as this war was a huge incompetent mistake. My presenting the counter argument is basically the question of to what extent this narrative is a Western media / tic tok driven fantasy.

Revolutions and mass uprisings are often a surprise, and I would definitely agree the Kremlin is risking that, and, indeed, maybe everything has gone totally out of control and nothing has gone as planned.

However, I wouldn't view that as necessarily a good process (even if I don't like authoritarianism in Russia, or anywhere), and if it is actually true, again diplomacy would be, in my opinion, recommended to avoid nuclear escalation.

And, diplomacy begins with understanding the other party's point of view, so my comments are mostly motivated by that.

Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's would not make a sound argument about justification of fighting neo-Nazi's unsound, it would just make Putin a hypocrite. — boethius

If Putin wants to get rid of neonazis, he should fire a bullet in his head.

If Putin wants to get rid of neonazis, he should fire a bullet in his head. — Olivier5

Putin's not a neo-Nazi.

People can be a different flavour of authoritarianism. Indeed, there were authoritarians before Nazi's even existed.

For example, Trump and the republican's are also very authoritarian leaning, doesn't make them neo-Nazi's.

Putin's not a neo-Nazi.

People can be a different flavour of authoritarianism. — boethius

He is the gay nazi type. It's a flavour alright.

He is the gay nazi type. It's a flavour alright. — Olivier5

I don't feel that's a useful analytical framework, as then Trump is also a nazi type.

Indeed, even authoritarians in Israel supporting apartheid would be "Nazi types" in such a framework.

Likewise, Islamic State jihadists who hate Jews as much (maybe a lot more) than neo-Nazi's, would, in your framework, also be "Nazi types" that presumably also hate Arabs a lot too.

It's more useful and coherent and leads to better discourse to say Nazism is a form of a authoritarianism with it's own ideology distinct from other forms of authoritarianism.

Keep in mind that Russia is as nominally democratic as the Ukraine.

It would be very difficult to argue that Ukraine is a "better democracy" than Russia; indeed, the entire premise of the 2014 uprising was that the Ukrainian administration at that time was not legitimately democratic ... and nothing fundamental has changed in Ukrainian governance processes since then.

Also, authoritarian does not equate to "bad". There are good forms of authoritarianism nearly universally agreed, such as parents have an authority on children for some years of life (that the community or state can intervene in, again authoritarianism between society / state and parents, but with a large burden of proof that it's necessary, due to the fundamental justification of parent authority).

It would be very difficult to argue that Ukraine is a "better democracy" than Russia — boethius

Good that I'm not arguing that, then. I'm just stating that Putin is not in any significant way different from the 'neonazis' he brandishes as an excuse for his mass murders.