You were on the one hand saying the Ukrainians stood a good chance of victory against the Russian military and on the other saying that the Russian military were so strong no-one would ever present a legitimate threat to them. The same military. So which is it. Are they so strong no-one presents a legitimate threat, or are they so weak the Ukrainians have a good chance of defeating them outright? — Isaac

Because defense is much easier than attack.

The best thing about the Ukraine war: It's not about money.

The worst thing about the Ukraine war: It's not about money.

It IS of course about money.

It IS of course about money. — Olivier5

How?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia?
— ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians. — Isaac

Whatever happened to the long term? If Ukraine agrees to keeping the present government, staying out of NATO "forever" (who would have thought Putin would request to join NATO?) and peacekeepers to babysit the Neo-Nazis, Ukraine will be a hugely advantageous position: supported by the world, and with Russia under crippling sanctions, rocked by protests. Who could ask for more. Maybe they will

Something else is going on here, things we cannot see. Maybe it is all about the money. I saw it somewhere a human life was quantified in dollars.

They contradict themselves constantly — Olivier5

You think they do. I think they do. Others don't think they do. Can you somehow demonstrate a contradiction? Do you seriously think that what seem clear to you is just how the world is, that you (and you alone) have some kind of 20/20 vision into reality that others lack? What seems like a contradiction to you, does not seem like a contradiction to others.

Do you have good reasons to mistrust them? — Olivier5

Yes. Look at their funding sources, their political agendas... Some sources are simply smart enough to conduct their propaganda by deciding what not to publish, by controlling the narrative, using context, blending opinion and fact... That doesn't make them more trustworthy, it just makes them less likely to outright lie.

? What seems like a contradiction to you, does not seem like a contradiction to others. — Isaac

All post truth blah is exactly why you're so confused all the time. That and a lack of street wisdom and exposure to the world. But I suspect you enjoy the confusion, otherwise you wouldn't wallow in it.

Because defense is much easier than attack. — Olivier5

I grant that, but that doesn't qualify the scale of the difference.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. Notwithstanding the fact that my main point in all this (which @ssu deliberately ignored) is that if powerful nuclear nations have nothing to fear by way of attack, then how exactly is NATO a purely defensive organisation. Against whom is it defending?

It IS of course about money.
— Olivier5

How? — Agent Smith

https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE

Whatever happened to the long term? If Ukraine agrees to keeping the present government, staying out of NATO "forever" (who would have thought Putin would request to join NATO?) and peacekeepers to babysit the Neo-Nazis, Ukraine will be a hugely advantageous position: supported by the world, and with Russia under crippling sanctions, rocked by protests. Who could ask for more. Maybe they will — FreeEmotion

Absolutely. Given the response to Russia from the West thus far, Ukraine has little to lose by the current deal. They weren't going to join NATO anyway, no way they were ever getting Crimea back and the separatists regions were locked in a bloody internal war beforehand, independence might even help.

As for being 'under the boot' of Russia - it's ridiculous to suggest that continued fighting could somehow eliminate the Russian threat on one hand, but on the other claim that their involvement in those regions would somehow result in some totalitarian dystopia.

This is a theme we see over and over in this. When talking of resistance Russia are painted as weak, about to crumble, sanctions on the verge of bankrupting them, humiliated, Putin's support crumbling... Yet when talking about how it might be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent (but we assume influenced by Russia), Russia becomes this unstoppable behemoth, whose iron grip cannot be loosened by any force in the world.

Seems like a contradiction to me - but perhaps I simply lack the 'Street Wisdom'. Maybe @Olivier5 or @ssu could patiently explain to one so unwise in the ways of the street how sanctions might cripple Russia now, but would miraculously have no effect whatsoever if it intervened in an independent Donetsk and Luhansk with too heavy a hand?

https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE

Military types say you need three or four attackers for every defender, so it does make a huge difference.

Seems like a contradiction to me - but perhaps I simply lack the 'Street Wisdom'. Maybe Olivier5 or @ssu could patiently explain to one so unwise in the ways of the street how sanctions might cripple Russia now, but would miraculously have no effect whatsoever if it intervened in an independent Donetsk and Luhansk with too heavy a hand? — Isaac

Question unclear, please rephrase. Especially the last part. Sanctions will cripple Russia whether or not they murder or otherwise brutalize folks in Donbass.

:up: Arigato gozaimus.

Military types say you need three or four attackers for every defender, so it does make a huge difference. — Olivier5

Interesting. So what 6 and a half million strong military are America legitimately concerned about?

Sanctions will cripple Russia whether or not they murder or otherwise brutalize folks in Donbass. — Olivier5

So what's wrong with Ukraine accepting the current deal?

Donbass regions will be independent, probably heavily influenced by Russia, but if Russia get too heavy handed in that influence we can apparently cripple them with sanctions. So it sounds like the people of that region are going to suffer a lot less under the current peace terms than under another week, month, year of war.

My sense is that the Ukraininans want to punish the Russian army as hard as they can, so that they will never even dream of attacking Ukraine again. They want fear to change camp, and so far these damn Cosaks are succeeding.

They also would want Crimea back. Otherwise they will always be encircled and will lose on the opportunity to compete with Russia on the gas market, since the known petroleum and gas deposits are off the coast of Crimea. Crimea is strategic. Donbass doesn't matter as much.

Then there is the issue of war reparations: how much should Russia pay for the reconstruction of what they destroyed? (assuming Russia is not back to economic stone age in 6 months).

So what 6 and a half million strong military are America legitimately concerned about? — Isaac

No objective security concern would justify the current bloated US military. It is more a question of how the militaro-industrial complex is phagocytating the US budget.

Yes, in large part I agree with your assessment. Ukraine want some military security in the region, and they want control of the gas market.

What I'm not seeing is why anyone outside of Ukraine should be encouraging the pursuit of those objectives at the expense of people's lives.

No objective security concern would justify the current bloated US military. It is more a question of how the militaro-industrial complex is phagocytating the US budget. — Olivier5

The original issue I took up with @ssu was his argument that Russia had no legitimate security interests because they are a massive superpower. I asked, if that were the case, why a) we'd encourage Ukraine to fight them, and b) how come America has legitimate security interests in the region if Russia don't.

You've answered (a), though I disagree with it as justification (even a 4:1 Ukrainian forces are just under what's required against Russia). What I was next asking about was (b). According to @ssu's logic, and your 4:1 ratio, America, by virtue of its enormous military, should need to take no part in any military action, planning, installation, or intervention anywhere in the world. Its defensive force is so large that it has no legitimate security interests.

So why's it got a missile base in Poland?

Two things really trouble me here:

1) Seeing NATO countries standing by and watching by while Ukraine is invaded, having the most advanced weapons in the world and not giving them to the Ukrainians. Even I could think of ways to prevent invasion. In any case why not give Ukraine the arms they wanted? I simply did not know what weapons were being provided to Ukraine did you see the the list? They are not allowed to get or to buy what they think they need. Regardless on what side you are on this, being let down by friends is a tragedy. Makes you wonder if NATO actually will rush to defend a member.

Maybe Putin is trying to break Ukraines' trust in NATO

2) The prospect of some sort of deal between Russia and Ukraine, something that will undercut the power of Western European countries. With their combined resources, they could be a very powerful trading and military block. This means more conflict.

My sense is that the Ukraininans want to punish the Russian army as hard as they can, so that they will never even dream of attacking Ukraine again. — Olivier5

I favour neither side, however I support any countries right to defend itself, that said, it has the right and the duty to obtain the weapons and training it needs to do that. Can't you see they withheld that from them? Is it any wonder Ledensy is so unhappy.

Zelenskyy says Europe and US 'did nothing'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0I-AqUEGaU

This is betray, you can expect your enemies to do you harm but not your friends. What is going on here?

So why's it got a missile base in Poland? — Isaac

Because Poland is part of NATO, of course.

Because Poland is part of NATO, of course. — Olivier5

That doesn't answer the question. Poland's membership of NATO doesn't somehow lead to missile bases by some law of physics. Why has America chosen to place one there?

What I'm not seeing is why anyone outside of Ukraine should be encouraging the pursuit of those objectives at the expense of people's lives. — Isaac

Europeans are afraid of Putin too. They see him as unreliable, corrupt, ultra-violent and manipulative. They can see that under his rule there is no hope for democracy in Russia. And thus there is an objective need, from EU residents perspective, to scare Putin into a less bellicose posture. Putin needs to know that he can lose wars, and he needs to know how it feels, to internalize it, to learn his lesson.

Another thing is: as long as Russia controls so much of the gas trade to Central Europe, Germany and even Italy, they have a huge lever that they can use against us. They also fund their whole army and all these new weapons with the money we pay for their gas. So it is in Europe's long term interest to diversify its gas suppliers. Hence it is vital to European long term, strategic interest that Ukraine takes back Crimea.

To help protect Poland, I suppose.

there is an objective need, from EU residents perspective, to scare Putin into a less bellicose posture. — Olivier5

Right. But your claim is that sanctions can cripple Russia. So why do we need Ukraine to send it's young men in after them? Sign the peace deal, cripple Russia with sanctions (not to mention arrest Putin for war crimes). Why continue the actual war?

Putin needs to know that he can lose wars, and he needs to know how it feels, to internalize it, to learn his lesson. — Olivier5

Why? If we can cripple Russia with sanctions, why do we care? Is our schadenfreude at seeing Putin humiliated worth hundreds of Ukrainian lives?

as long as Russia controls so much of the gas trade to Central Europe, Germany and even Italy, they have a huge lever that they can use against us. — Olivier5

So which is it, Russia on the verge of bankruptcy crippled by our sanctions, or Russia so powerful economically that it has leverage against even so powerful an economy as Europe?

it is in Europe's long term interest to diversify its gas suppliers. Hence it is vital to European long term, strategic interest that Ukraine takes back Crimea. — Olivier5

Then why the fuck aren't Europe doing it? Your argument sounded callous enough when it was putting Ukrainian economic interests above Ukrainian lives, now you're arguing we should put European economic interests above Ukrainian lives? What kind of sociopathic position is that?

Right. But your claim is that sanctions can cripple Russia. So why do we need Ukraine to send it's young men in after them? Sign the peace deal, cripple Russia with sanctions (not to mention arrest Putin for war crimes). Why continue the actual war? — Isaac

To recover territory and scare the Russian army for a long time, as already explained. Besides, the sanctions are hitting us as well and might benefit China. They are not a good solution long term, from a European perspective.

Is our schadenfreude at seeing Putin humiliated worth hundreds of Ukrainian lives? — Isaac

:roll: It's not you and me fighting there, it's them. And they fight for their own reasons. Why do you need to confuse yourself all the time like this, to muddle the water, to spit and disparage so much? Is it because you have in fact no point? Is the spitting standing in for absent meaning and sense? Must you spit because you have nothing to say?

Is our schadenfreude at seeing Putin humiliated worth hundreds of Ukrainian lives? — Isaac

:up:

"Putin must be punished" is indeed just about the most stupid, sociopath approach to international politics I can imagine. But this is to be expected from those who treat the latter as a video game.

Imagine observing the current events and thinking: "we need to aggressively address ...Putin's feelings. This is very important - the most important - and totally not bad fiction writing for edgy teen novels". The brain-rot it must take.

The brain-rot it must take. — StreetlightX

Why are you wasting your time here, when there are all these kangaroos outside, calling for your affection?

To recover territory and scare the Russian army for a long time, as already explained. — Olivier5

No, not 'explained'. An explanation goes from cause to effect. You've 'said', not 'explained'. Why do we need to recover territory, why is scaring the Russian army (if we even believed in such nonsense) necessary for us when we can apparently cripple Russia with sanctions instead? And why do we need to be scaring the Russian army using Ukrainian forces anyway, we have NATO, a force I've been assured has no realistic threat of being attacked?

It's not you and me fighting there, it's them. And they fight for their own reasons. — Olivier5

For a start 'Ukrainians' aren't fighting as if one entity, the Ukrainian military and some civilian men are. The women, the children and the remaining men in the 41 million strong population are not fighting and you've absolutely no idea whether they even want to.

But if its all just Ukrainian private business then why are you even taking part in this discussion, you're not Ukrainian? All I'm saying is that we in the west didn't ought to be encouraging Ukraine militarily or through social media, to continue the war rather than sign the peace deal available.

If you agree with that sentiment then we have nothing to argue about. If you disagree with it then it's you I'm discussing with, your motives, your reasons, not the Ukrainians. Why do you support the continuation of the war?

I don't think a single person here is Ukrainian, so everyone opposing the current peace deal is doing so for reasons other than those arising from being a Ukrainian. I'm disputing those reasons.

Imagine observing the current events and thinking: "we need to aggressively address Putin's feelings. This is very important - the most important - and totally not bad fiction writing for edgy teen novels". The brain-rot it must take. — StreetlightX

Yeah, it's this vacillation between war being the crisis to end all crises on the one hand and then immediately pivoting to war being so trivial as to be considered a useful tool for the ritual humiliation of people we don't like and the defense of 'sovereignty'.

If they must treat international politics like a game of dungeons and dragons they could at leat make the effort to stay in character. Is it anti-war peacenik or nationalist hawk.