After Putin's stadium performance, flags dumped into garbage. Sometimes a picture tells a lot, actually. — ssu

No-one has pointed out the obvious, no matter what side you are on, that out of thousands of flags given out, there are maybe what fifteen, poked into what looks like a trash can. Protesters? Patriots who don't respect the flag? What are they supposed to do, burn them?

The conclusion that we are asked to draw, that President Putin is not supported widely, and that he forces people to his meetings, that conclusion is not support.

It is an interesting propaganda piece, though.

Patriotism is a disease.

That it's a poor corrupt country where the people have been long angry about their ruling politicians? That even those who have promised them change have disappointed too? — ssu

Yes (insofar as any such description was in word only - not forming part of any conclusion). If you agree that Ukraine is no picnic and Russia not a totalitarian dystopia (yet) then why do you consider it worth thousands of lives to ensure Crimea is ruled by the former and not the latter?

when the leader who starts a war against a country says the "country is artificial", there's not much appeasement that the country could have taken to avoid the war. — ssu

Yes, and yet without a shred of evidence. Leaders lie all the time, the employ jingoistic rhetoric, they whip up a crowd. Taking a few soundbites and saying "well there's not much point in suing for peace, we might as well all die on the battlefield" is monumental stupidity. What Putin says in front of a crowd and what he's prepared to offer at negotiation are as night and day.

Surrendering would have only enforced the idea of Ukrainians being "lesser-Russians" or "little-Russians". — ssu

Not to the millions of Ukrainians who support more integration with Russia. not to mention the millions more who wouldn't give a shit about being considered "Little Russians" if it meant their sons and daughters were not killed in war.

But as you so well put it, this is the thinking of many here. — ssu

There is a difference between a necessary and sufficient condition. It is simply a matter of reasoning. The coup in Ukraine could have happened with or without foreign interference, and it could have been a success or a failure. Ukraine could resist invasion with or without outside help. So what is your point?

And for the record, I support President Putin, and President Zelensky. Do I support their actions? No. But then I do not have their Intelligence. Do I support their aims for their people? Yes.

the millions more who wouldn't give a shit about being considered "Little Russians" if it meant their sons and daughters were not killed in war. — Isaac

Millions of Russians don't want to die for Donbas either, but you don't seem to care for their lives so much.

Millions of Russians don't want to die for Donbas either, but you don't seem to care for their lives so much. — Olivier5

Wtf? What have I said that could possibly lead to that conclusion?

@SophistiCat @ssu

(Just on the practical side here, might come back to the more philosophical point about violence later.)

My understanding from what I've read is that Putin won't agree to a ceasefire until he's negotiating from a position of strength, which he hasn't yet achieved. One metric for achieving that would be to cut the Ukranian forces off from the sea. Another, would be to take some of the major cities. If that is true and the Ukranians are provided with more weapons and encouraged not to back down to Russian demands where does that leave us?

It seems to me the worst case scenario for Ukraine is a continued war of attrition that they're not losing quickly but can't win either and lose slowly until Putin achieves his military position of strength. And so they continue fighting while their cities are reduced to rubble; their citizens lose access to food, water and electricity; civilian casualties mount; and the cost of reconstruction both in terms of time and money skyrockets. And seeing as NATO has explicitly ruled out intervening militarily, which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome?

A) Ukraine eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight was most likely not in their interests.

B) Putin eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight may have been in their interests if they can achieve a better long-term negotiated solution than they would have if they had not continued to fight.

Considering the Kremlin's stated aim (as per a recent TV interview) is to "destroy the anti-Russia the West has created on its borders" how likely is it that the continued destruction of Ukraine over the next few months would be more of a problem for Putin than Ukraine itself to the extent that Putin would risk appearing weak and backing down to stop it happening? And considering Putin has Germany by the balls re oil and gas, how likely do you think threats of further economic sanctions are going to sway him?

My first instinct is to want to support Ukraine in every possible way against Russia, but, ultimately, the only effective support would be direct military NATO involvement, which I'm against due to the risk of a wider war. So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands.

To @SophistiCat @ssu Is the difference between us here anything other than differing assessments of likely outcomes? I presume you would not support the continuation of a pointless war of attrition, the only appreciable result of which is greatly increased levels of suffering among the most vulnerable in Ukraine?

Lastly, it bothers me that NATO countries are likely aware of the above calculus and as intimated early may be delibarately extending the war just to send Russia some kind of message. So, call me a surrender monkey if you will, but the prospect of NATO fighting Russia by proxy to the last drop of Ukranian blood is something that I will never get on board with and will never feel guilty about not getting on board with.

Rather, it's what you haven't said. You keep talking about Ukrainians as if they were the only ones dying, the only ones who can stop this, the only ones in need of surrendering... What about the Russians? Won't you advise them to surrender too?

And don't forget the are many steps of escalation steps available to Russia between this conventional war and nukes. He'll probably drop a tactical nuke before surrendering his states goals in Ukraine. So a long war actually increases the risk of escalation as well.

Yes, I think the danger is our media leading us to believe it's all going terribly for Putin and he's out of options blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to get pummelled, 90% of Russia's forces there are intact and regathering for a new offensive, and Putin has plenty more threats he can use to scare the shit out of us.

Rather, it's what you haven't said. You keep talking about Ukrainians as if they were the only ones dying, the only ones who can stop this, the only ones in need of surrendering... What about the Russians? Won't you advise them to surrender too? — Olivier5

I'm not speaking to Russian soldiers. Nor am I speaking to Ukrainians. I'm speaking (mostly) to Europeans, Americans and Scandinavians. So why would I use my posts to encourage Russians to surrender?

The people I'm speaking to (you lot) are encouraging continued Ukrainian resistance (and continued Western arms supply). I think that will lead to more innocent deaths for no (or minimal) gain, so I oppose it.

If a Russian soldier posted something along the lines of "we should keep fighting to rid Ukraine of those Nazis" I would oppose that too, but since there's been no such post, there's no cause for me to write such a response.

I'm not in the habit of simply announcing to the world things I believe to be the case (as though anyone cared). I respond to what is posted. I presume that's what the posters want me to do, or else why post?

Not to the millions of Ukrainians who support more integration with Russia. not to mention the millions more who wouldn't give a shit about being considered "Little Russians" if it meant their sons and daughters were not killed in war. — Isaac

I think it would be here important for you to see the sea-change what has happened in Ukraine, even before this invasion. As I've said earlier, before 2014 Vladimir Putin was very respected and popular politician in Ukraine. Afterwards not. Russia tried to instill insurrection in 8 regions and was successful in two (Donetsk and Luhansk). Now after this large scale invasion, I don't think there's much enthusiasm to join Russia. That's the funny thing when you start invading countries ,annexing territories and bombing people.

And perhaps you should notice that while Donetsk and Luhansk what the UN or Human Rights Watch have explained of these now "independent" Republics is telling.

From an UN report (from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in 2016:

12. Residents of territories under the armed groups’ control are particularly vulnerable
to human rights abuses, which are exacerbated by the absence of the rule of law and any
real protection. OHCHR continued to receive and verify allegations of killings, arbitrary
and incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment in the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. In these territories, armed groups have established
parallel ‘administrative structures’ and have imposed a growing framework of ‘legislation’
which violate international law, as well as the Minsk Agreements.
13. The ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continued to deny
OHCHR access to places of detention. OHCHR is concerned about the situation of
individuals deprived of their liberty in the territories controlled by armed groups, due to the
complete absence of due process and redress mechanisms. Of particular concern are those
currently held in the former Security Service building in Donetsk and in the buildings
currently occupied by the ‘ministries of state security’ of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
14. OHCHR is also increasingly concerned about the lack of space for civil society
actors to operate and for people to exercise their rights to freedoms of expression, religion,
peaceful assembly and association in the territories controlled by armed groups. In January
2016, the ‘ministry of state security’ carried out a wave of arrests and detention of civil
society actors in the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’.
15. OHCHR documented allegations of enforced disappearances, arbitrary and
incommunicado detention, and torture and ill-treatment, perpetrated with impunity by
Ukrainian law enforcement officials, mainly by elements of the Security Service of Ukraine
(SBU). OHCHR urges the Ukrainian authorities to ensure prompt and impartial
investigation into each reported case of human rights violations, as well as the prosecution
of perpetrators. Accountability is critical to bring justice for victims, curtail impunity, and
foster long-lasting peace.

These new republics have shown the worrying signs of how it will be in the Putin controlled Ukraine.

The people I'm speaking to (you lot) are encouraging continued Ukrainian resistance (and continued Western arms supply). I think that will lead to more innocent deaths for no (or minimal) gain, so I oppose it. — Isaac

Ok, so you think the Russians can't be beaten.

Just watch.

I don't see how that analysis makes any difference. I'm not painting those republics as utopia so you providing data showing they're not is irrelevant, and of course, a Russian invasion is going to turn people against Russia, but we're not (I hope) advising long-term policy be based on short-term hatreds for the actions of an obviously isolated dictator.

The point I made earlier still stands. There are two ways to solve the problems you highlight.

1. Fight a war to ensure they're under the control of a (marginally) better government
2. Fight a revolution to ensure it doesn't matter whose government they're under the control of

If we can beat Russia in war, I don't see any reason why we can't bring about internal change any less easily.

:roll: it's not a fucking Mike Tyson fight you're betting on. There's actual people dying. The likelihood of the Ukrainians winning is inversely correlated to what type of weapons Putin is willing to deploy. Unless you can convincingly argue that Putin will not escalate until he's assured of victory, it's exactly this fantasy that will lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians.

Ok, so you think the Russians can't be beaten.

Just watch. — Olivier5

https://www.rferl.org/a/death-toll-up-to-13-000-in-ukraine-conflict-says-un-rights-office/29791647.html

How many more are you prepared to reach while we "watch"?

beat me to it.

which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome?

A) Ukraine eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight was most likely not in their interests.

B) Putin eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in? — Baden

Hard to tell. Likely at least Putin will declare it a huge victory in any case and the objectives he had have been gloriously met by the victorious Russian army.

And Ukraine can declare...that they survived.

I presume you would not support the contiuation of a pointless war of attrition, the only appreciable result of which is greatly increased levels of suffering among the most vulnerable? — Baden

No. But this is the scariest outcome. From the realpolitik view, an option is for the West to keep Russia bleeding in Ukraine. At least then it isn't threatening other countries. Luckily there is the agency of Ukraine: they are the ones fighting and material support doesn't mean anything if there isn't the will to fight (as seen in the rapid collapse of Afghanistan). If Ukraine agrees on halting the war either from their offer or from an offer Putin has made, nobody else can say something about it.

For a historical example: just look how long it took Iran and Iraq finally to stop the war, even if the Iraqi primary assault was halted quickly.

You're not quite rational if you believe that anything said here can have any impact on the battlefield.

That has exactly nothing to do with what I said but thanks for posting.

You're not quite rational if you believe that anything said here can have any impact on the battlefield. — Olivier5

Then why...

You keep talking about Ukrainians as if they were the only ones dying, the only ones who can stop this, the only ones in need of surrendering... What about the Russians? Won't you advise them to surrender too? — Olivier5

...?

Then what did you mean by:

Unless you can convincingly argue that Putin will not escalate until he's assured of victory, it's exactly this fantasy that will lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. — Benkei

Unless you can convincingly argue that Putin will not escalate until he's assured of victory, it's exactly this fantasy that will lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. — Benkei

Putin has surely his limitations on what he can do. Don't think otherwise.

Your view is shared by quite a few politicians but for less savoury reasons.

Putin has surely his limitations on what he can do. Don't think otherwise. — ssu

I can't do anything with this. What limitations? Why? What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means? You think NATO or the US will all of sudden get involved?

Every party has limitations but who do you think will take more pain before folding? Putin or the West? Who do you think is the tougher and more instransigent party when push comes to shove, Russians or Western Europeans? Who do you think is more likely to effectively tell their politicians "Too much! Make it stop!" when their pocketbook gets hurt more and more by spiralling inflation? Western Europeans or Russians? Who do you think is more scared of military escalation? The Western European public may support continued war now when there appears to be little or no cost to them. Just wait until that changes as the economic and security stakes rocket. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that.

What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means? — Benkei

Pride, I think. Doing so would be to accept that he lost the regular fight. Perhaps he's got some decency left, also.

He could easily set up a false flag chemical weapons attack on his troops and use that as an excuse>Pride solved. As for decency, don't make me fucking laugh.

. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that. — Baden

We're not built for it but neither is he. Putin is weaker than he thinks. If his army can't subdue Ukraine, it can't defeat Belgium. His regime cannot survive critiques, but ours can.

As for decency, don't make me fucking laugh. — Baden

He is still a human being.

Well said, I am very much in agreement with you. Since I am not taking sides, or wish both sides well, it is very clear to see one-upmanship by supporters of one side or the other. "Think they can't be beaten? Think again" I am fine with Russia being 'beaten' after all they are the invader and the outcome of a war had to be accepted. President Putin knows that.

My first instinct is to want to support Ukraine in every possible way against Russia, but, ultimately, the only effective support would be direct military NATO involvement, which I'm against due to the risk of a wider war. So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands. — Baden

There are two other points that I don't see anyone mentioning. Firstly, Zelenskyy talks about 'giving us more time' and 'Maybe by April - reach a deal'. Why the wait? Could it be he is waiting for the de-militarization to happen, and the de-Nazification to happen so that he has an exit path where he can survive politically and otherwise?

Here is a thought, and where Madeleine Albright is sorely missed: why not NATO strike a deal with both parties behind the scenes: supply arms to Ukraine so there is an excuse for the delay in 'Russia's advance' and then provide the gps coordinates of the lets say persons of interest that will be a problem to both Zelenskyy and Putin as well as military hardware that anyway the the West will only be too happy to replace : for a price.

This is cold-blooded in the extreme, and treasonous but that never stopped anyone before. It surely is a 'diplomatic' option for NATO, and a win win situation for all except the Neo Nazis that everyone dislikes.

He is still a human being. — Olivier5

How is that a good thing?