Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else? — Isaac

So what are you comparing it to? There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups.

What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine? — Isaac

There isn't a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine that is greater than in other nations. So why do you even talk about this in the way you do? Nothing of this has to do with the war other than you buying into Putin's propaganda. It becomes even less of an issue when you weigh in the fact that Putin's connection to such groups makes him more dangerous in terms of neo-nazi movements than anything in Ukraine.

Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics. — Isaac

"All politicians lie" is not the same as how Putin uses propaganda, which goes beyond lies. It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. So you can't use a part of the false narrative and try to navigate it when the entire construct is formed to control it. That's what gullible diplomats do and then gets puppet strings pulled by Putin himself.

It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever. — Isaac

I'm just gonna quote my own breakdown of how this works, since you clearly are naive when it comes to how this propaganda works.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff. — Isaac

What intelligence? You have already bought into the narrative that Putin provided, but you have nothing to give them, you have no leverage in the peace talks because of the fact that it is an impossible demand to be met, especially at a time when the entire nation is war-torn.

Relates to my questions above... — Isaac

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac

Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons while making it a "never-ending battle" to denazify so that even if he levels the entire nation of Ukraine he can still spin it as "the only option we had to destroy the nazis".

I cannot believe how naive you are on this subject. You buy into it in the exact way I described:

since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Let's focus on the nazis of Ukraine. Putin will retreat their troops, they will put down the guns and hug the Ukrainians in a big warm celebration that the war is over, as long as the peace talks give up the nazis. :shade:

There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups. — Christoffer

Where did I say there was?

why do you even talk about this in the way you do? — Christoffer

If you want to know why, I suggest reading my post, in which I explain why. It's not rocket science.

It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. — Christoffer

...is one opinion. "you can decipher something without first dismissing the entirety of it." is another. In order to discuss these opinions you have to provide reasons for them.

What intelligence? — Christoffer

The intelligence Ukraine (and others) hopefully have on far-right extremism in their country. We have intelligence on far-right extremism in our country, you'd hope Ukraine does too.

it is an impossible demand to be met — Christoffer

You don't have to meet demands in negotiation, you have to go some way towards them.

Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons — Christoffer

Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? Why can't 'the glory of Russia' be a reason? Why does he need 'gullible idiots of the world' to be fooled? And why fool them into thinking he's denazifying Ukraine? Why not fool them into thinking Russia's great and would be greater with Ukraine?

It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me.

Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link — Isaac

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? Well it depends. If you claim that this is relevant for negotiation between Ukraine and Russia now, I doubt that for the reasons I pointed out (including the war crimes allegedly committed by Putin). The problem for Russia is not neo-nazi activities in Ukraine per se (if you also consider that the president and the prime minister of Ukraine are jews, there are the Ukrainian laws banning anti-semitism [1], and Ukranian Jewish community is voicing their disagreement with Putin's "denazification" claims ) but the far-right nationalists who are against Russian minorities. So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO).

[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-passes-antisemitism-law/31473362.html

And you are repeating your posts like a parrot not even understanding the answers you get. It's pointless trying to discuss something like this with someone who ignores anything said that challenges your point of view while just answering every minor point with the same argument over and over.

You simply don't understand how Putin's propaganda narrative works. It doesn't matter how any of us try to explain it, you keep ignoring and keep repeating.

It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me. — Isaac

And you are a Putin apologist as far as I can see it. Or just so naive that you don't understand how you're a part of the propaganda machine. It's brilliant really, you are living proof of how Putin's propaganda can work even when someone acknowledges that it's propaganda.

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac

Exactly this. Get it already.

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? — neomac

You literally prove in the next clause of your sentence that neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are a problem ... because they're a problem everywhere.

Which, is a false equivalence. Neo-Nazi's are clearly not the same level of problem in every Western nation, there's going to be more or less with more or less power and influence.

The neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine is things like Azov brigade that has been admitted by Western governments themselves to be neo-Nazi based and inspired.

Western governments "responded" by simply not training and arming Azov brigade directly, which is not really a credible response and still accepts their legitimacy and that the Ukrainian governance is overall legitimate in integrating Azov brigade.

Now, you can argue Azov brigade is not "so neo-Nazi" just generally inspired by Nazism as they want to fight Russians and actively advocate for a war with Russia.

However, it's completely coherent argument to say one Azov brigade is too many Azov brigades and we'll invade your entire country if you tolerate them as part of your formal governance. (This is not a group playing cat and mouse with police, but are the de facto police where they operate)

Now, regardless of whether Azov brigade is "too much" and tolerating it further would be appeasement, what we can know for sure is that this is the major justification for the war by the Kremlin.

What we can also know for sure is that if the EU had credible policies since 2014 to try to dissuade Ukraine's formal government flirting with and also and using neo-Nazi's to fight separatists that A. maybe those policies would have actually worked and there wouldn't be things like Azov brigade and B. the EU could credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's other than a full scale invasion.

Instead, since the EU did nothing, they just deny the problem further (which admit is essentially "by definition" there) and Germany just declared itself the "experts on Nazi's" and that there is no neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine ... which doesn't necessarily sound convincing to a Russian.

It sets up a very poor diplomatic position.

Now, you may say "Ha! NATO doesn't need diplomacy with this madman Putin" ... but then why isn't NATO in Ukraine.

As for sending small arms and arming civilians.

Small arms without heavy equipment and a logistical network will not defeat Russia that has heavy equipment and a logistics network (certainly has had problems ... but it's still a lot better to have a logistics network with some problems than none at all).

Giving riffles to civilians in a modern conflict is essentially condemning them to die and makes all civilians legitimate military targets. The rules of war around civilians and soldiers requires soldiers to be in identifiable uniforms.

Obviously, the West doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians are used as cannon fodder (with zero ability to impact the outcome of the war, I guarantee you that), but, again, it's another bad faith thing Putin can point to at home: these cowards are arming civilians to protect their positions of power.

It takes real time and effort and training to be remotely effective in a modern battle space.

True, civilians can help in non-combat roles ... but then why would they need riffles?

Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? — Isaac

Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? If he pushes this propaganda everywhere, then people will keep talking about it, even outside Russia and it validates the narrative to anyone who seeks further information from independent sources.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? — Christoffer

No one's saying otherwise, obviously it is also propaganda, will be exaggerated.

Doesn't mean there isn't a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine that has solid evidence (crazy speeches and interviews by people essentially self-identifying themselves as neo-Nazi's ... and the argument "they're only fanatically anti-Russian and not so much anti-Semite and just like the Nazi's world view and approach to politics and get inspiration from the Nazi's struggle against the Soviets ... is not necessarily that important distinction for Russians).

Likewise, doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be able to agree with Russia, anytime since 2014, that neo-Nazi's aren't a good thing and there can be some good faith cooperation on that issue.

By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." Which is simply a true argument, these neo-Nazi's were tolerated because they were the only one's not only willing but totally enthusiastic about fighting separatists in the East; yes, Russians sent in their own "volunteers" but had these neo-Nazi types not insisted on attacking these break away regions there would not have been any fighting.

So, what's the ultimate truth of the situation and the moral and political principles of who's justified doing what, is one question.

However, the more relevant question is that considering NATO will not send anyone to actually fight in Ukraine (i.e. no NATO country actually cares all that much about Ukrainian lives or Ukrainian sovereignty) the only way EU (obviously US will cheerlead more bloodshed as it leads to more arms sales generally speaking in starting a new cold war by traumatizing everyone in Europe at the expense of Ukrainians) can avoid more unnecessary bloodshed is through diplomacy. If you want to solve things diplomatically it requires acknowledging legitimate grievances of the other party.

If you don't want to solve things diplomatically, then go hop on a plane and fight in the Ukrainian volunteer brigades, tell us later if you won or not.

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac

Why? You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.

So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO). — neomac

Why not? You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.

I was going to reply, but I need only quote who has put it perfectly well.

By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." — boethius

The 'denazify' rhetoric isn't used in isolation. If it were, then there'd be no 'need' to invade just help the Ukrainian authorities and European antiterrorism units. No. The propaganda is "there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Europe/America are ignoring it, therefore we have to step in".

You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it?

@ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real?

I also had an interesting talk with my six year old daughter who we watch the Dutch children's news with. She came home from school saying it was good the Netherlands gave weapons, so the Ukrainians could defend themselves. I asked here what would happen if two sides would be more or less equally strong. She realised they would keep fighting and more people would die. So now she wasn't sure what was better but she "felt" it was wrong to do nothing.

So I said that in the end this war only exists because grown men are too weak to accept they cannot have everything they want and resort to violence as a result to get it. We're left with making decisions we don't know whether they are right or wrong so all we can do is have the right intention. I told her to think about what she thinks is best and that maybe we could help in different ways.

So she woke up today and she doesn't want to send guns anymore but we decided together to make a room available in our home for fugitives instead. I asked her why? She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times!

You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it? — Isaac

My point is the West should have had some policy response anytime since 2014, so as to credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's than a full scale invasion; such as the policies you mention as well as just putting pressure on Ukrainian government to distance themselves from neo-Nazi's, to keep it a fringe thing (as that's a good objective in itself anyways).

That would have made a better negotiation position before the war started (who knows, maybe, in itself, prevented the war if Putin couldn't sell it at home without this justification).

Now that the war is here, ignoring the issue further plays to the Kremlins position about it, but not-ignoring it would undermine "NATO resolve" to ensure maximum civilian trauma and casualties of Ukrainians, while doing nothing that will change the outcome.

So, that's more lessons learned (to motivate starting credible diplomacy at some point).

Going forward, the main relevance of the issue is that it's Putin's stated justification, so obviously relevant to discuss as you point out.

The other way it's relevant is more just as a lesson learned of how ignoring legitimate grievances of the counter party for a decade certainly doesn't help.

Pointing out the coherent arguments that can be made based on there clearly being neo-Nazi's in Ukraine with formal integration into governance, is relevant in that it maybe explains why Russian's are convinced by it and maybe make us second guess the impact of sanctions on the Russian people.

If the propaganda is effective, as based on true elements the West cannot debunk (I'm sure you're aware how long it would take the two of us, not to mention anyone else, to actually agree on a "what's too many" threshold; we could easily still be debating meticulously all the political, moral and information-evaluation aspects in 3 decades; so, if it would take us that long to be "more sure" of our position, it's a pretty good basis for propaganda: facts are clear and basiclaly self-documented by the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and the argument based on those facts is of a valid form, requiring significant philosophical energy to really demonstrate to be "a lie"), which will inform the probability of the Russian government, army and / or population giving up on the war, which is an important element for decision making.

Doing things (without even attempting to understand the Russian perspective) that increase violence and (from a purely self-referential Western media perspective) "sound like it will pressure the Russians" is not necessarily constructive if it won't actually pressure the Russians.

I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. There is no point in meeting Putin's demand when the demand is only for Putin to control Russians' perspective on the war. Putin doesn't give a shit about international relations and any idea that peace talks about this nazi narrative would yield peaceful results is downright stupidity. All while the extreme focus in this thread to talk about the actual neo-nazis in Ukraine as something important just enforce the propaganda narrative without people understanding that this is what's happening. Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. To meet Putin on this point, to even consider it as a foundation for peace talks just validates the propaganda and enforces Putin's reasoning. If the west starts talking this narrative as something real, we've just made Putin's propaganda real and that is a trap. The denazification narrative that Putin pushes should be shot down, period. Don't even engage with that bullshit, don't validate the propaganda by linking this war to that narrative in any way. So once again, this is how the propaganda works and why engaging in this narrative just helps Putin.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. — Christoffer

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?

This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.

"""
The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
""" — NOS4A2

Furthermore, are you saying the West and also Ukraine hasn't been making any propaganda about the current situation?

Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. — Christoffer

But this is simply not the case; the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are not suppressed by the Ukrainian government in any credible way since 2014, and it's been documented with plenty of journalists going and reporting on it since 2014.

You can't just make false equivalence because it suits your own propaganda. Well you can ... just doesn't make it true.

Ukraine has Azov brigade and other groups patrolling the streets since a few years (aka. brown shirts) with formal government powers, what's the equivalence in Sweden or Portugal or Canada?

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal? — boethius

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet.

1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there? — Isaac

What harm could a lost, pointless war could do to the leadership that instigated it? A lot. After losing the Falklands War and not getting the "Malvinas" back, the junta in Argentina was deposed. After the disastrous war against the West after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein faced an insurrection both in the north and the south, that he succeeded only barely crushing. Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin, so likely he would simply call it quits before that would happen. The fact is that Ukraine is in no condition to militarily crush Russia like let's say Israel did in the Six Day War. Victory for Ukraine is to fight Russia into a standstill.

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable.

Because Ukrainians are so close to Russians, that they can see each other as brothers, just like Finns and Estonians can see each others brother people, Putin has to dehumanize the opponent: the leadership and the armed forces. They have to be neo-nazis. The enemy has to be the worst kind of people possible, who have somehow taken control of Ukrainians. The rhetoric comes from the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, the Great Patriotic War, which is I think far more important, far more closer and a far emotional issue than the "Battle of Britain" is for the British. Everybody uses there the rhetoric of fascist/nazi/neo-fascist/neo-nazi/fascist-imperialist to depict the worst enemy.

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?
— boethius

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

Are you saying that reports of Nazification on Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated? I agree with you there. There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. Nazi is the wrong word, I guess because it has nothing to do with anti-antisemitism. It may have to do with ethnic cleansing, which seems to be supported by limiting the number of Russian language books one can bring to Ukraine and the fact of a military conflict with the eastern, Russian speaking (correct me if I am wrong) 11% minority.

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. — ssu

I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want.

If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis.

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

I literally quoted the response.

And as just pointed out, there's a difference between saying it's exaggerated or "not exactly Nazi's ... but really close" and saying such groups don't exist at all or have no ties to Ukrainian formal government.

I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion

That's not really in the cards due to the Nuclear weapons.

I think what's more likely is the winners of the cold war want a second cold war (sell more weapons and have more "fun").

There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. — FreeEmotion

They're more or less like in most other nations of Europe that have a large problem with Neo-nazi groups. But nothing of that has any real relevance to Putin's reasons of denazification. As I've described, the most effective propaganda uses a small truth and bloats it up to a big problem so that any criticism of the propaganda can be met with "but... there are groups in Ukraine that are...". Any validation like that, even if recognizing the propaganda as propaganda, will just help that propaganda to get more validation.

It's pretty clear what the Russians believed going into Ukraine. It wasn't some neo-nazi groups, there weren't some "small groups of nazis somewhere", it was blatant propaganda of painting the entire nation as a Nazi regime, with the top leaders and Zelinskyy as being Nazis and them conducting genocide on the civilian population.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real? — Benkei

Who knows. I assume at least securing a land bridge to Crimea and at least getting the parts of Donbas that are now "independent states". He cannot retreat now from assisting the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, that likely later will join the Russian Federation afterwards. And if Ukraine opts for peace and accepts that they are now Russia, that would be a victory for him. A Pyrrhic, quite meaningless victory, but still a victory.

The maps like the ones under here may hint at the objectives that Russia has or might have. These kind of maps showing a Novorossiya became popular after 2014:





Of course there are the Ukrainians here too. They might be not so "Finnish" and give large chunks of their territory just to preserve their independence. People consisting only a few million know they are quite expendable, replaceable and can be forgotten just like the Armenians. But when there are 44 million Ukrainians, that makes it different. Zelensky and Ukrainians in general can continue this war for a long, long time if they wish. And that's the really ugly part. Now the casualties are in the thousands, but the death count can easily be in the tens of thousands, and can climb to the hundreds of thousands. The worst thing is if this become the "Great Patriotic War II" for Ukaine. Or Russia. In a way this war is like a civil war between close Slavic people and has civil wars often are, can turn very bloody.

Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei

They are smart and learn a lot from their parents. I haven't talked about the war with my daughter. But she came next to me and drew a heart with an Ukrainian flag. Her best friend has close family in Ukraine.

> You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.

Because I don’t know how the negotiation demands will be specifically formulated by the Russians wrt to the alleged Ukrainian "neo-nazi problem". We are hypothetically reasoning based on the available evidences, and all I can say is that there is no neo-nazi political majority, nor a neo-nazi regime, besides anti-semitism is banned in Ukraine, the president and prime minister of Ukraine are jewish, and Ukrainian Jews reject Putin’s claims. On the other side Russia is also affected by neo-nazi and anti-semitic propaganda and activities (russian neo-nazi are also involved in military operations against Ukraine). If these are the premises, I don’t see how the “denazification” claims can play any relevant role on the negotiation table.
Putin probably wants to keep Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, under Russian control and formulate his demands accordingly on a negotiation table. But all this can be formulated in a way that is perfectly understandable without being based on "neo-nazi" or "denazification" claims.


> You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.

I don’t get your line of reasoning. The opinion of the Russian population is relevant to Putin for keeping his authoritarian power, not for Ukraine, EU or NATO. He needs excuses to justify the costs of his “special military operation” in Ukraine before the Russian population. And nobody is expecting Putin to put on the negation table whatever limits his authoritarian power in the interest of the Russian population. Besides Ukraine, EU or NATO are not primarily worried about freeing the Russian population from Putin’s authoritarian regime. But to free Ukraine from Russian invasion.

She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei

Always good to know as a parent that you can't have gone too far wrong when they come out with stuff like that.

Indeed. I'm disturbed by the crass jingoism I read here and in the media, I just can't get my head around people lamenting the tragedy or war in one breath and then actively pursuing it as their number one response with the next.

I think the ploemicising effect of social media has had some part to play in this. We see, even here, how anyone not sabre-rattling for 'the west' must be an apologist for Putin, like those are the only two possibilities. Politicians know this and so have to be seen to be aligning themselves clearly. Thus, petty social media tribalism ends up having tragic real world effects.

I think, potentially (in my most pessimistic moments) that it doesn't even matter if we do learn from our mistakes here. Politician's interests are better served adhering to social media tropes than listening to a range of experts. It's not as if they weren't warned about what was likely to happen as a result of their continued provocation (without, as you say, any intent to back it up). They were warned, but it played better to a polarized public to go all out anti-russia bluff and hope it never got called. Well...

It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

And by what are you measuring 'understood'? It seems you're using it as simply synonymous with 'agrees with me'.

Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin — ssu

You've not taken into account the element I asked you to consider. I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling.

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable. — ssu

This is a description, not an answer. Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need?

> You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table. — neomac

Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.

A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."

Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?

The opinion of the Russian population is relevant to Putin for keeping his authoritarian power — neomac

And therefore is our most powerful bargaining tool. It's that simple.

His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion

Russia wasn't broken up. The Soviet Union, the successor to the Russian Empire collapsed. Ukrainians aren't Russians, Lithuanians are not Russians, Estonians are not Russians, Kazakhs are not Russian, Uzbeks are not Russian and so on...

The Cold War wasn't won by anybody by the normal definition of winning and losing. There were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down and the new Russian flag took it's place at the Kremlin. The Soviet union collapsed because the Soviet experiment utterly failed.

If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. — FreeEmotion

Would he? If he is surrounded by generals promising that Ukraine will fall in days, that Kiev will be conquered in hours, and that the armed forces that he has been uprgrading and improving since 2008 is totally ready, he might think the gamble is worth it. He might think that Ukraine will just improve it's defenses as time goes on, that the US is in dissarray with a weak President who just unceremoniously withdrew from Afghanistan when the Pro-US government had already collapsed.

Just think of the gambles he has done and been victorious. He annexed Crimea without a similar war like now starting. It was a brilliant campaign which gained strategic surprise. Then he went to Syria. It wasn't a quagmire. He could train his air force pilots there. Then he actively and openly influenced the American elections. Many could have said that this would be dangerous, that the American gorilla would become angry as hell and respond with severe sanctions. That didn't happen. The gamble paid off! He had agent Trumpov in the White House.

If you are a gambler, then you gamble. So why not start a massive invasion against a huge nation?

Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis. — FreeEmotion

I don't think so.

I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling. — Isaac

First I think you should define just what Putin losing would mean.

Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need? — Isaac

Why do leaders need this? Simply to portray to their own people that they are doing the right thing. Or in this case, all the other options have been used and they cannot do anything else than a "special military operation" against neo-nazis.

Why was the US invasion of Iraq called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation? Why did George Bush link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11?

> Yes, the message about neo-Nazis is not a reference to antisemitism.

Well Putin expressly talked about antisemitism too in denouncing the Ukrainian government. But even if we ignore the accusations of antisemitism against the Ukrainian government, Putin is clearly misusing the expression "neo-nazi" and "denazification" [1] to justify his special military operation for his own personal and geopolitical ambitions. Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants)

[1]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-calls-on-ukraines-jewish-president-to-halt-frenzy-of-neo-nazism/