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

I already addressed this:

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. — neomac

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

To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous.

> 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."

I have reasons to doubt it: 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.
To which I would add: 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). In other words, whatever requests Putin makes about Ukrainian neo-nazi problem can be easily retorted to him (so he could not even claim of himself to be an anti-neo-nazi hero).

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

I guess they could say something like what I've just said.

Those who are so worried about the Neo-nazis in Ukraine, it should be worth wile to mention how Israeli papers reported the election win of Zelensky and how the extreme-right performed in the 2019 elections:

(Haaretz, July 22nd 2019) The Azov movement’s National Corps (which was called a “nationalist hate group” in a U.S. Department of State report published in March), Freedom (Svoboda), Right Sector and others had formed a “united nationalist bloc” the month before the election, running with a combined slate of candidates in an attempt to push past the 5 percent electoral threshold to get into parliament.

Yet even combined, with half of the vote counted Monday morning, the far-right bloc had won only 2.3 percent of the vote. And prominent members running in majoritarian single-member districts — Ukraine has a mixed electoral system — didn’t even come close. It is clear that Ukraine’s far right can’t count on any significant level of public support.

The 2 percent that Ukraine’s far-right bloc polled on Sunday pales in comparison to the results other far-right parties have scored across Europe recently. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 12.6 percent of the vote in Germany’s September 2017 election; in France’s 2017 legislative election, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly the National Front) scored 12 percent; and Italy’s Matteo Salvini and his far-right Lega Nord (Northern League) was the third-largest party in Italy’s parliamentary elections last year with 17 percent. Results like these leave some Ukrainians arguing that too much is made of the country’s far right.

I think (I'm not sure) they got one seat in the Parliament.

Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. It is obvious that the military actions of Russia will understandably increase anti-Russian feelings, but everything should be put into the correct context. The exteme right always tries to act as it would represent the "true" patriots of any country, but this is as a whimsical ploy like the some radical group in the extreme left saying that they represent the workers.

Those that worry about the extreme right should note that Russia has been an active supporter of extreme right movements in Europe. Here it has been Russia that has supported the extreme right and hate groups. Which is a bit amusing given our history.

To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous. — neomac

Yeah, sure, explain the position of Ukrainian Jews to Putin as a diplomatic response if you want.

Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?

Or go fight in Ukraine and defend it from Russian aggression.

People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.

It won't. Russia can't just be cancelled due to social media momentum like some talking head who said the wrong thing on a podcast.

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that.

Effective diplomacy can save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, and arguably millions due to energy price increases and food shortages by actively making this war more disastrous than it is.

Maintaining a stale-mate by flooding in arms can force an adversary to the negotiation table.

But there is no stale mate, Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine in a week because it's so big ... but for the same reason there is no practical way for Ukrainians to defend all of Ukraine. As long as Russian army is steadily advancing, then it is winning and will simply continue to do so until it has "clearly won", and then will negotiate.

Russia certainly had a very soft invasion to start the war to give the Ukrainians the chance to accept the demands of being a neutral country. For the sake of "having the right to join NATO" which NATO isn't offering, those demands are refused and civilians armed to demonstrate a existential battle to the death and call Putin's bluff.

Well, Putin wasn't bluffing about invading Ukraine in the first place, and isn't bluffing about doing things the hard way (relentless heavy artillery bombardment that javelines and manpads can't do much about, only equally heavy counter battery and the logistics to continuously supply shells and fuel, which Ukraine doesn't have).

It's common sense. If NATO isn't actually letting Ukraine in the club (which, to be clear, they could have done anytime) then if you call Putin's bluff about invading, rather than conceding something you don't even have (being in NATO), you better be right or you've wrecked your country and traumatized every citizen and gotten many killed.

If you stage a media campaign of "existential resistance" and passing out riffles to civilians (who will have no effect in a modern battle field and Russia being "less modern" than the US doesn't change that, and get sent a flood of small arms like javelines and manpads from sympathetic countries), to call Putin's bluff about willingness to use tactics that are effective against small arms (big arms), then, again, you better be right about Putin's bluff otherwise your cities get leveled under relentless heavy artillery bombardment and your small arms tactics are of no use.

If the outcome of the war is the same, Russia wins, what was the point of calling Putin's bluffs, which obviously weren't bluffs? Just to prove that Putin was willing to "do what it takes"?

Ukrainian government has had a "Putin defiance, zero compromises" policy since 2014, and goaded on in the West ... and, sadly it seems, truly believed the West was a friend and not just egging them on. Seems to me real tears over the no-fly zone and real frustration with NATO for not actually helping (small arms are effective against US ... because US is unwilling to level cities to the ground and US, at least pretends, to be occupying places for the citizens own good; and, even then, small arms tactics don't actually push US front lines back or overrun US bases, just harasses US patrols until the will to continue occupying the territory, more importantly the strategic purpose, is reduced to zero and then the American's leave ... and even then takes decades of small arms tactics to get to that result).

Yes, Russia does not have as many smart munitions ... but you don't need smart munitions if sending tens of thousands of incredibly cheap shells to obliterate the entire enemy position from tens of kilometres away, gets the job done.

Effective resistance can, in some cases, encourage a settlement on better terms.

Ineffective resistance is A. ineffective and B. likely just angers the counter-party more inviting harsher tactics and worse terms of a negotiated settlement.

And pretty much every military analysist interviewed on TV says the same things (including the former director of the CIA): Ukrainians are fighting so bravely, we got to support them with arms, punish Russia with sanctions so "they learn", blah, blah, blah, but obviously Russia is going to win and Ukraine can't do anything to change that outcome. Why the small arms then? Just virtue signaling that "we tried ... but not really cause you totally not welcome in our little NATO club"?

Sending someone to die should at least serve some strategic purpose, not simply play well on TikToc.

Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. — ssu

It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war.

There are lot's more issues we could discuss. There are two sides of a discussion, if people against "discussing neo-Nazi's in Ukraine" followed that principle and didn't discuss it, then the points would be noted (obviously Putin's saying it's the justification, etc.) and the conversation would then move on.

The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed!

But I agree that it's not the most relevant issue, nor the most important justification for the war: which is Ukraine not joining NATO (which Putin also talks about and demands). The neo-Nazi's, from my point of view, is more an example of how simply ignoring legitimate grievances, painting Putin as "a monster tyrant" (which we both agree is a caricature), backfires diplomatically. So, it's relevant as one of Putin's stated justifications, but also an opportunity to introspect about the EU's diplomatic process on Ukraine since 2014.

> Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?

On a negotiation table Putin can ask whatever he wants, the point is that a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.

> People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.

I’m here to debate about reasons to believe or act as a form of personal entertainment.

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius

This is a worthy comment. Russia has gained ground, even if slowly. It's all too early to say that Russia has failed. What only can be said that they've had some troubles at the start. When Ukrainians are dominating the discourse in the West (a job well done), it doesn't give a clear view on what is happening. There still is a fog of war, which should be obvious to everyone.

It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war. — boethius

True, but we aren't discussing the portrayed genocide that Ukrainian government according to Putin was doing in the Donbas. No evidence of that has been even given (or fabricated) from the Russian side I think. We did have the OSCE monitoring the line dividing the two sides. There's a long logbook at the shellings that have happened. When you look at earlier footage from Donetsk and Luhansk, life was going on fairly normally.

The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed! — boethius

If you insist.

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

I mean withdrawing his troops prior to meeting his objectives (whatever they are). I mean the thing we're trying to get done - an end to the war.

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? — ssu

I wasn't asking about my understanding of the reasons (I already know them), I'm asking about yours. It's like wading through treacle talking to you, why can't you just answer the questions? Discuss the meta-questions later by all means, but at least open with a simple answer. What do you think the reason is why Putin needs a humanitarian-sounding gloss over his invasion?

I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses.

The point I'm making here (to @ssu as well), is that losing the war because NATO intervened doesn't harm Putin's grasp on power much. He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right, so I doubt he's much bothered for (eventually) losing in that way. Thus military aid is just going to worsen the situation.

How's it going to look to the average Russian if Putin says "I'm sending the military in to sort out this far-right problem that NATO have aided and abetted for too long" and we respond by saying "there's no such problem here, nothing to see, now move along or we'll bomb the shit out of you". How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda? Because to me we couldn't have done better if Putin had written the script himself.

We're literally playing the exact role of global bully ignoring the far-right to favour our economic interests, the very role Putin wants us to play for his propaganda machine.

What Putin might just be affected by is a loss of support in Russia. That he cares about (obviously so - otherwise he would have just said "I'm invading Ukraine and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off").

So the question for the negotiation strategy is - how can we threaten to reduce his support in Russia.

To answer that, we need to know how that support is maintained and what is its weakest link. Putin's own justifications are our best guide - why does he need an humanitarian gloss? Obviously he feels that there's a potential chink in his armour, a weak link in his support who might be turned off a simple war of aggression. So that's where we stick the knife in.

You might want to argue that the way we do that is to claim there's no neo-Nazi problem, but there clearly is (there's a neo-Nazi problem in many countries, Ukraine's no exception), and this plays straight into his narrative because we're seen as ignoring it, which is exactly why he's got to invade.

So a much smarter move is to agree, to posit some kind of joint exercise, to ask to share intelligence. Then if Putin refuses, that weak point, those few he though he needed the humanitarian gloss to keep on side, might well withhold their support.

China is also making moves in Central Asia, pulling those states into its orbit (and out of Russia's). This will certainly accelerate that process. Russia is too big and too culturally different to become a true Chinese satellite, but it could be accelerating on that trajectory with long term isolation and economic decline. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I suppose China might rescue Russia, by purchasing it from Putin, they might have enough money. That's assuming Putin hasn't already sold out to the devil.

Here’s something worth a look to help understand the historical context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he25Rl0fE1c

Russia moderating it's demands and looking for a way out more explicitly: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/

Demands are now for the territory they already held before the war started and a pledge not to join NATO, clearly not the original war aims, i.e. a change in government and Russian defacto control of the country.

Essentially looking for the status quo antebellum, with some (likely fairly useless) treaty assurances.


Sorry, but almost everything about this analysis is wrong. The coverage of resistance efforts by regular civilians plays an obvious military role. It is providing civilians and reservists with the small arms that they would need to conduct an insurgency against a Russian occupation.

Given resistance to date, Russia would almost certainly need a long term occupation of the country to prop up whatever puppet regime they leave in Kyiv.

The point of those videos and efforts is to signal to Russia both the likelihood of an insurgency and the Ukrainian will and ability to conduct such resistance. Because COIN operations require a high volume of troops (Russia would need to deploy about 2.6 million to match comperable levels to South Vietnam/the US when adjusting for population), Russia cannot afford to fund them. Russia has just 3.45 million men aged 20-24 total. It's economy cannot support that sort of deployment, nor would public opinion. It's air force has proven utterly incapable of complex operations, making reliance on large ground forces even more important.

Obviously Ukrainian resistance could easily fail to hit the high bar of Vietnamese communist commitment. The low birth rates and older population in Ukraine mean that, relative to population, you will probably get fewer resistors. However, even if only 3% of the population resists actively, you're looking at a 1.2 million strong insurgency. Russia will need far more than 190,000 troops to secure the country, especially if it's initial invasion suffers 10-25,000 long term casualties before the initial fighting is over, something that seems not outside the realm of possibility since the conflict will likely go on for weeks.

So, simply put, this is all about showing Russia that winning the initial conflict would still entail costs they cannot afford to pay.

> I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses.

I do not know how far Putin can go to support his own propaganda and censorship measures, but as we can see he can go very very very far. So I seriously doubt that even making such kind of concessions is helpful. Besides Putin is already having problems in terms of consensus despite his nasty propaganda. Therefore he will not concede anything more that will compromise his narrative for sure.
It is more reasonable to find some agreements on the status of lands (i.e. Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk) that he can always claim to have “liberated” from the neo-nazi oppressor, independently from an international acknowledgement of his propaganda. (Indeed this is what Putin is clearly looking for: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/)


> He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right.

This can be easily retorted. Since far-right political movements have been financially supported by Russia in the west, and they are at home in Russia. Indeed Putin himself is clearly a far-right leader.


> How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda?

For sure not by making concessions to Putin’s propaganda. Besides, concerning the Russian propaganda in their home country we can’t do much as we can’t do much about the propaganda in China or North Korea, especially in war times.

For sure not by making concessions to Putin’s propaganda. — neomac

Exactly.

Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"

You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.

You'll really have to explain that.

, what do you think is going on?

_{Ukraine: what anti-war protesters in Russia risk by speaking out (Mar 1, 2022)
Russian police jail kids who took flowers and 'No to War' signs to Ukraine's embassy (Mar 2, 2022)
Human rights group: "serious crackdown" in Russia (Mar 2, 2022)
Putin's War At Home: Russian Government Pushes Hard To Enforce Total Unanimity On Ukraine War (Mar 3, 2022)}

A year after last year’s joint statement on the situation in Russia, authorities there have further intensified the already unprecedented crackdown on human rights. A fully-fledged witch hunt against independent groups, human rights defenders, media outlets and journalists, and political opposition, is decimating civil society and forcing many into exile.
The gravity of this human rights crisis has been demonstrated in the last few days by the forcible dispersal of anti-war rallies and pickets across Russia with over 6,800 arrested (as of 2 March 2022), attempts to impose censorship on the reporting of the conflict in Ukraine and to silence those media and individuals who speak out against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including through blocking media websites, threats of criminal prosecution under “fake news” and “high treason” charges and other means. — Joint Letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Russia (Mar 4, 2022)

_{Russia Criminalizes Independent War Reporting, Anti-War Protests (Mar 7, 2022)}

Remove others until only the Kool-Aid is left.

> Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"

> You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.

On the negotiation table there is no Russian population nor Ukrainian population nor NATO population nor EU population, nor me nor you. On that occasion Putin can make all the demands he wants the way he wants and then sell it to the Russian population the way he wants. He can say exactly what you just wrote, word by word, as if he was your ghost writer. But he will probably and hopefully fail for the reasons I've already explained: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him. And indeed this is not what he asked so you do no need to overthink about it any more: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/


> You'll really have to explain that.

Sure, here you go: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.

Remove others until only the Kool-Aid is left. — jorndoe

But this makes no sense. Then why the Kool-Aid?

If you're positing an authority with unfettered powers to simply remove those who oppose them, they why bother with the Kool-Aid at all? Why not just say "we're in charge because we want to be and anyone who doesn't like it will get shot".

They need the Kool-Aid precisely because their ability to just shoot dissenters is limited.

a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him. — neomac

No-one's talking about a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification, so I really can't see how this is relevant.

Then what are you talking about?

Air drops require Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), otherwise they are suicidal. SAMs need to be down, along with enemy radar systems, and C3 (command, control, and comms). With an air drop, you're putting a small, vulnerable force behind enemy lines to help create breakthroughs.

Obviously the amount of soldiers you can drop by aircraft is not going to be far smaller than a ground push. The goal of these operations is to place your forces behind enemy defenses in such a way that follow up ground forces will be able to break through because your paratroopers can flank and encircle defenders.

Rotary wing aircraft delivering troops are extremely vulnerable during insertions. That's why you need SEAD. You have aircraft packed with men that need to land or get to low altitudes for insertion, and loiter there in the case of rotary wing insertions. During this time, they are very vulnerable, and a downed aircraft will result in a large number of fatalities.

What you're seeing with videos of the VDV is suicide rushes into areas with operational AA, swarming with MANPADs, and aircraft getting knocked out of the sky. Maybe this made sense on Day One, when you think the defenses might route, but they keep doing it.

You need C3 out because your airborne forces tend to use employ lighter, less well armored vehicles (the BMD-4s employed by the VDV in Ukraine raids being an obvious example, based on the video of the KIA inside the vehicle, it almost looks like the .50 BMG used in US HMGs can pierce the armor, making it a death trap, you absolutely cannot attack with an IFV that lets heavy machine gun rounds through), so you need the element of surprise. Inserting troops into an urban area your guys don't know, but the opposing force does, while the enemy has early warning radar up and knows exactly where you are inserting, is obviously going to be a major issue. The enemy can concentrate combat power around your effectively cut off forces.

These problems can be overcome with close air support and a follow up push by mechanized forces, but we haven't seen that. We've seen drops to secure airfields, followed by those forces being pushed off the objective, often in routed, because they aren't supported. No close air support, no reinforcements pushing at the same time.

Or, because the VDV tends to have more training and better morale, they are pushing in on land, without close air support, in their paper machete IFVs, which are getting absolutely chewed up.

So, you had the nighttime drop on Kharkiv and push by vaunted SOF elements, which was over by the morning with the main result being a morale blow in the form videos of burnt out Russian vehicles all over the streets and dead soldiers in SOF uniforms everywhere, since, unsupported, they ran right into ambushes.

It's tactics that are sure to result in high casualties and highly unlikely to secure lasting gains.

Sorry, but almost everything about this analysis is wrong. The coverage of resistance efforts by regular civilians plays an obvious military role. It is providing civilians and reservists with the small arms that they would need to conduct an insurgency against a Russian occupation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah yes, the point of handing out arms to non-uniformed civilians on live television and making them legitimate military targets and undermining the rules of war we want to accuse the Russian's about ... is so that they can wage an insurgency after the occupation.

If you want to create an insurgency, then you want to create the networks and arms smuggling routes into the country.

You think the average Ukrainian caught up in the patriotic "stand" is going to go around randomly killing Russian soldiers in an occupation with a riffle they barely know how to use ... and may not even have bullets for?

I don't think so, they'll go back to their lives (assuming they're still alive).

On-top of that, Russia may not even occupy Ukraine to begin with, and they've given no indication they even intend to.

Once they've decimated the Ukrainian military (blown up those billions of USD of arms the US has given Ukraine since 2014) and gotten the concessions they want (such as keeping their land bridge to Crimea, any province that "wants to" separate can do so--whether that's actually true or just the regions Russia expects no insurgency and can take without hassle, doesn't matter), and, most importantly, Ukraine finally surrenders on the condition of never joining NATO ... there's zero reason to believe Russia wouldn't simply go back to it's borders (it's new borders).

EU would be left with the legacy problems of cleaning up, and Russia will make clear it will just invade again if it's conditions aren't met.

So, what actual evidence is there that giving small arms to civilians who, we both seem to agree, have zero relevance in modern conventional warfare currently happening (at least by the Russians on the Ukrainians), accomplishes something other than getting those and many other civilians killed?

The duty of a soldier in the modern rules of war is to protect civilians, which does include surrender when further fighting is not justifiable ... soldiers and leaders handing out small arms to civilians to protect themselves (i.e. protect those soldiers and leaders handing out the small arms from the enemy with civilian lives ... somehow, not really clear, I guess a play for a no-fly zone) is reversing on its head literally a thousand years of diplomatic efforts to render warfare less destructive than it needs to be.

At least call it conscription with some formal process to become an identifiable combatant followed by at least some training. Handing small arms to civilians (literally calling it "handing out weapons to civilians") was a media play to garner sympathy in the West, dramatically showing the average Ukrainians "will to fight and defend their country", not a credible military strategy nor responsible or even legal under the current rules of war the West is criticizing Putin about.

Decisions to kill or not are made primarily on the basis of whether people are carrying a rifle or not (which, civilians easily get killed by those decisions anyways as the evidence bar isn't so high).

Handing out small arms to civilians and having them wander around to "insurgency" later will just get them killed. From a professional military perspective, it's outrageous.

Once they've decimated the Ukrainian military (blown up those billions of USD of arms the US has given Ukraine since 2014) and gotten the concessions they want (such as keeping their land bridge to Crimea, any province that "wants to" separate can do so--whether that's actually true or just the regions Russia expects no insurgency and can take without hassle, doesn't matter), and, most importantly, Ukraine finally surrenders on the condition of never joining NATO ... there's zero reason to believe Russia wouldn't simply go back to it's borders (it's new borders).

EU would be left with the legacy problems of cleaning up, and Russia will make clear it will just invade again if it's conditions aren't met.

Pray tell, what areas are those? Their best chance for hearts and minds in a major city was Kharkiv, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians and right across the border. They stalled there, didn't have the forces to take the city because of their ridiculous number of lines of attack, and resorted to shelling residential neighborhoods for hours on end in what looks like exactly the sort of punitive siege tactics that produce insurgencies.

If protestors drive out the new Russian backed countries Russia will just invade again? Another surprise offensive war to liberate their neighbor as their economy implodes? Yeah, that'll go over well. It's not like invasions are expensive or anything.

Armed civilians are useless? What do you think the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were? Yeah, they'd be hopelessly outgunned against an OPFOR with air superiority, close air support for almost all engagements, rapid response teams for ambushes, e.g., the US in Iraq, and take massively disproportionate casualties, but against low morale conscripts who are running out of fuel, abandoning $13 million AA systems, and advancing without comms or support? The NATO MANPADs seem plenty effective, as do the NLAWs and Javelins, so improvised infantry seem like they could keep inflicting high costs on Russian forces, especially as they are forced to draw on more reserves and conscripts and morale falls even more.

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. — boethius

I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war.

However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression:

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns … We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments … For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation … (Putin Speech Feb. 24 2022).

Obviously, it isn’t necessary to attack Kiev in the west in order to protect the Russian minorities on two small patches of land in the east.

In contrast, if Ukraine is seen as a historical part of Russia and, especially, if it plans to join NATO against Russia, it makes sense for Russia to invade Ukraine and either reincorporate it into the Russian Federation, or install a Russian-friendly regime in Kiev.

In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda.

It doesn’t make sense to focus exclusively on Russia when Russia is not the only actor in this conflict. Let’s not forget that NATO is participating in this conflict by arming, training, and providing intelligence to the Ukrainians, and disseminating propaganda for them. Apparently, some neighboring NATO countries are even giving safe haven to Ukrainian military aircraft. NATO was supposed to be a “defensive” alliance. So, how is it still “defensive” if it gets involved in conflicts between non-NATO countries?

IMO, for a more balanced analysis, we need to take all factors into consideration, even when they expose inconvenient truths. For example, Zelensky has been hailed as a “hero”, even though pictures of him visiting troops on the frontline have turned out to be from 2021. But could he be an oligarch puppet as some have suggested? After all, this accusation did not come from Moscow, but from Ukrainians like Petro Poroshenko, incumbent president of Ukraine and himself an oligarch and in a position to know much more about Zelensky than we do.

In order to get to the bottom of it, we need to start from the beginning, i.e., from 1991 when Ukraine became independent from Russia.

What is imperative to understand is that from inception Ukraine was ruled by oligarchs – “businessmen”, speculators, and criminal elements – that transformed the state-controlled, planned economy into oligarch capitalism by taking over state assets during the early privatization program that was implemented in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet system, on the advice of Western "experts".

The Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Maidan Revolution of 2014 aimed to bring about economic and political changes in a society controlled by oligarchs.

Instead, they brought to power oligarchs like Poroshenko who had amassed a fortune by taking over state-owned enterprises in the 1990’s.

For example, the top presidential candidates in the 2014 elections were Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, both of them oligarchs. Poroshenko was elected president. He created the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to eradicate corruption but the head of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office coached suspects on how to avoid corruption charges! Obviously, no one ever got charged with any serious corruption crimes.

Zelensky was elected president in 2019 on the promise to rid the country of corruption and of oligarchs. In 1921, he passed a new law intended to restrict oligarchs’ influence on politics and economy. And yet, as I demonstrated in an earlier post (here, page 64), his own party has close links to the same oligarchs who have controlled Ukraine from the start. Indeed, critics have claimed that the new restrictions were really meant to target his political opponents:

Despite his campaign promises, no progress has been made in fighting corruption. According to Transparency International, Ukraine remains the third-most-corrupt country in Europe, after Russia and Azerbaijan. Anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies are either stalling or run by loyalists appointed by the president … – New York Times

What about the charge that Zelensky is a “puppet of Kolomoyskyi”? In addition to his and his party’s links to oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Zelensky appointed Kolomoyskyi’s lawyer Andriy Bohdan as head of the presidential administration. He appointed the media and production mogul Andriy Yermak, who had assisted him in his presidential campaign, as presidential aide for foreign policy issues. He appointed a number of operatives of Kvartal 95, his production company, to government posts including the head of the national security service, etc., etc. ....

I think everyone agrees that targeting unarmed civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests.

Meantime, the war propaganda and fake news go on:

TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times

Pray tell, what areas are those? Their best chance for hearts and minds in a major city was Kharkiv, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians and right across the border. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Obviously Crimea and the separatist regions they already occupy. You may also overestimate the willingness of normal people to throw away their lives once the war is over and it's entirely possible to continue their lives normally, whether in the Ukraine whatever that ends up being, or now Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, or then in the EU somewhere.

hey stalled there, didn't have the forces to take the city because of their ridiculous number of lines of attack, and resorted to shelling residential neighborhoods for hours on end in what looks like exactly the sort of punitive siege tactics that produce insurgencies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I stated in one of my first comments in this thread, I believe the strategy is to cut through Ethnic Ukrainian territory to the west of the Dnieper river thus cutting off all supplies East of there and making it a matter of time for forces there to surrender or run out of bullets.

They aren't "bringing down the hammer" in ethnic Russian regions precisely for the "hearts and minds" purposes, they are punishing Ethnic Ukrainians.

Now, the exception to this general pattern is shelling Mariupol to the ground, but this I think is not simply it's strategic significance but Azov brigade is based there so collective punishment for that and fits into the narrative of "de-Nazification".

If protestors drive out the new Russian backed countries Russia will just invade again? Another surprise offensive war to liberate their neighbor as their economy implodes? Yeah, that'll go over well. It's not like invasions are expensive or anything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This war was expensive because Russia was not "poised to invade" any moment. Russia needed 8 years to minimally sanctions proof itself (Russia certainly found all those sanctions threats the West constantly talked about credible as far as I can see) and to ramp up economic ties with China.

However, if Ukrainian army is decimated and Russia makes it clear it will simply invade if there's any buildup of any kind, any arms shipments from the West at all for instance (Ukraine can build it's own weapons for basic military needs), then the next invasion would be far cheaper ... and must less land to cover.

Armed civilians are useless? What do you think the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Mujahideen were not civilians.

indeed this is not what he asked so you do no need to overthink about it any more: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/ — neomac

Yes, I'm aware the situation has moved on, but the principle is still the same. whether it's the far-right, the independence of Donbas, or the activities of NATO, we get absolutely nowhere by just saying "you're wrong" and then suppressing all discussion of it, that just makes him sound right (to his population). Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere, denying that fans the flames of such propaganda, it doesn't quash it.

Then what are you talking about? — neomac

Christ Almighty! If you've still no idea I think it best we call it quits there. There's only so much reiteration one can sensibly assume might clarify.

I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war. — Apollodorus

I definitely agree.

I bring up the "how many is too many" as it's honestly seems to me a complicated moral and political question to answer. Are we actually comfortable with a country tolerating and supporting 1 Azov brigade? Is it "Nazi enough" etc. If it's allowable, where do we draw the line?

Not something I think we can settle now, but maybe a good debate after the war. It's relevance in the current situation is that given the difficulty in addressing this basic question, maybe some credible response (such as has already outlined a basic policy about, which seems fine) is a good diplomatic move, and also maybe (regardless of what the West thinks) Russians largely back the war and sanctions may punish them for it ... but not save a single Ukrainian life.

However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression: — Apollodorus

Yes, this is definitely the main reason for the War, the neo-Nazi's being either a pretext (if they don't exist) or then just additionally provoking Russia and giving it excellent justifications to its population (who may not follow geopolitics as closely as we do here) to react to their longer term security concern.

In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda. — Apollodorus

Definitely the more the West is hypocritical the less it's able to corral the various pseudo-liberals countries around. Ignoring something in Western media doesn't mean it's ignored elsewhere, and, for example, India media pointing out Western hypocrisy is going to significantly lesson any public concern about these Ukrainians.

In brief, completely agree with your analysis on these various points.

I think everyone agrees that targeting civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests. — Apollodorus

Definitely over simplifications in Western media ... which Western politicians now seem to simply take at face value (there's even a bizarre reversal sometimes where even the mainest of the main stream journalists are like "isn't it more nuanced than that" and politicians respond basically "nope, just that simple and clear cut").

Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media.

The deaths and trauma and increase in energy and food prices globally is true historic tragedy.

But ... if we're not actually going to follow through the virtue signaling by attacking Russia (which ... isn't that the appeasement argument: we should have attacked Hitler sooner?) then the only other option is through diplomacy which requires understanding the other perspective and striking the best bargain.

People seem to genuinely believe that sacrificing Ukrainian lives without any military justification (just ... "maybe" they'll insurgency later), is, sure is maybe not justifiable, but it is justifiable to preserve our virtue signalling on social media and personal sense of righteousness from our keyboard in our living rooms thousands of miles away.

Icarus
365
Russia moderating it's demands and looking for a way out more explicitly: — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's the way out. Did Russian forces really lose 5-10 thousand troops or was that bullshit?

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. — Christoffer

My point is simply that a population, Russian or otherwise, do not believe their government en masse. This could even be a form of rebellion, or protest. Skepticism is an international thing. However, if sufficient numbers of people believe it, it could make a difference, for example, to get one additional vote. The benefit of the doubt is given and it tips the scales.

Do we understand each other here? I think we do.

I am not too worried about the existence of Neo- Nazis or racists, but the integrity and wisdom of politicians to handle them correctly.

That's the way out. Did Russian forces really lose 5-10 thousand troops or was that bullshit? — frank

They have mobile cremations. Scary shit that we may never know the extent of.

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. — Isaac

It reminds me of another lyric, and I can't help thinking of the innocent child who becomes a cold hearted imperialist.

Child is born with a heart of gold
The way of the world makes his heart so cold — Earth, Wind and Fire