Sure. It may not work. Crimea did, but that doesn't attach to other territories by necessity.

But it would have been much better, in terms of less human suffering.

As long as Biden is the US president, Zelensky will have deep pockets to draw from. If Trump is elected, though, that would change, but I think the Ukrainians would still get bombs from somewhere. — frank

I think you are all missing something here. President Biden is voicing the increasingly popular statement that "Putin cannot remain in power" - maybe it is an campaign strategy. Ukraine and Russia can make some sort of a deal relatively easily. Ukraine has little choice, but also, a peace deal will boost Ukraine's fortunes: investment, arms, and the 'war tours' see how the Russian Bear has mauled our poor country. Down with Putin. Investment or exploitation? Who knows.

What no-one is predicting, and no-one knows, is the position of America and NATO in the post - war scenario. For a force wanting to destroy Russia (by the way, protests and crackdowns are fine for this purpose, and the longer the authoritarian rule, the better), how will they proceed? Can Russia defend itself?

"Win without going to battle" if I remember Sun-Tzu correctly.

6. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

and

14. “Do not engage an enemy more powerful than you. And if it is unavoidable and you do have to engage, then make sure you engage it on your terms, not on your enemy’s terms.” – Sun Tzu

I see that NATO is as much Ukraine's enemy as Russia is.

It is tragic and disappointing to see nations ravaging nations and destroying them, when, if the statistics are correct, the wealthy are increasing their wealth and comfort levels further. Maybe the statistics lie.

Reminds me of 1984. Maybe some people enjoy this.

But it would have been much better, in terms of less human suffering. — Manuel

In that case, let me ask you, if you were in put in President Putin's position:

• What do you think are the threats to your country? "Existential Threats"
  
• How do you meet those threats without going to war?

For those who cannot access RT, the following is a link to a news item and some selected comments copied from the site, presumably viewable in Russia and the world. I do not know if the commentators were arrested or deleted, but here it is. So much for total control of the media.

Roderick Alberts
Russians seem angry about losing the war in Ukraine, just read the posts below. poor buggars

ZZZZZinga
moderator-puppet Prove you can defend a single oil tank. Buffoon.

https://www.rt.com/news/553149-us-gives-ukraine-chemical-weapons-protection/

I think it is legitimate to have NATO being a concern for national security. No powerful country would willingly allow a hostile military alliance in its border. And while it may be true as SSU says, that NATO was not the only thing that motivated Putin, it clearly was a cause for concern - for decades in fact.

"Existential threat" is perhaps used to frequently, as I don't think NATO would reach for nukes immediately even if Ukraine were a member. Nevertheless, it's a massive risk that could lead to the destruction of the world - hate to harp on the same point, but, that's how I see it.

So there's that one issue. Other threats are much less severe, Chechnya, internal dissent and so forth. Not existential in terms of the country being gone, but in terms of the Putin regime losing legitimacy if enough dissent occurred.

How to avoid a war? It's a bit tricky. Forgot who said this, and I'm going to probably phrase it badly, but, after a certain point, it can no longer be avoided. What that point is, is obscure-ish in terms of timelines.

I mean, how many ways do you tell the "West" that you will not tolerate NATO on your border before things go badly? The "West" is not used to countries refusing to take orders. Hence the hate of China too. It's not because of "authoritarian regimes" (which they are), it's because they don't follow orders.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Brazil are very authoritarian now, the West doesn't really care about them, they're obedient (mostly or by and large).

So, having said all this. Taking these two regions somehow and saying, if you send troops to Ukraine, we will invade the whole country, might have made this go a bit differently.

Or maybe not.

A full scale invasion is just the very last option that should have been pursued.

A full scale invasion is just the very last option that should have been pursued. — Manuel

Well yes, but I look at the Wikipedia facts on the recent history of Ukraine. While Russia or NATO can be blamed for the conflict there were a string of institutional failures that made problems more likely. These do not have much to do with democracy, maybe a lack of it.

How could this have been avoided? What were the factors leading to this war?

How to avoid a war? It's a bit tricky. Forgot who said this, and I'm going to probably phrase it badly, but, after a certain point, it can no longer be avoided. What that point is, is obscure-ish in terms of timelines — Manuel

The interconnected issues of Crimea, Sevastopol, and the Black Sea Fleet not only constituted Ukraine’s thorniest postindependence problem but also posed a significant threat to peace in the region. In 1954 the Russian S.F.S.R. had transferred the administration of Crimea to the Ukrainian S.S.R. However, it was the one region of Ukraine where ethnic Russians constituted a majority of the population. — Britannica

Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine.

The parliament finally stripped Meshkov of his powers and elected a pro-Kyiv prime minister. In March 1995 Ukraine abolished the post of Crimean president and instituted direct political rule, though it granted Crimea significant economic concessions. The Crimean separatist movement collapsed.

Removal of the presidency and establishment of direct rule.

The turbulent relations between Ukraine and Russia in the post-Soviet period were likely inevitable, given that the independence of Ukraine was such a sudden, fundamental change.

Sudden, fundamental change: the breakup of the USSR (to avoid civil war, perhaps) incidentally all but destroyed North Korea's economy and caused widespread famine.

Nevertheless, on December 3 the Supreme Court ruled the election invalid and ordered a new runoff for December 26. Yushchenko subsequently defeated Yanukovych by garnering some 52 percent of the vote

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Orange-Revolution-and-the-Yushchenko-presidency

The Supreme Court getting involved in elections - the US Supreme Court had the sense to avoid involvement in 2020.

You could read on, however, my point it that political instability, interference, and lack of proper political skills set the stage - how to avoid this - ensure a stable, secure national government, however it also has to be worship facing West, and this is a problem.

Have John Mearsheimer or Chomsky addressed any of this in their articles?

I don't know about Mearsheimer, I think I remember him saying something about the conflict, but don't know specifics.

Chomsky has mentioned a few things, but not those details you mention. More so the foreshadowing of such a conflict by leading figures back when the USSR collapsed.

Putin-Russia’s apparent fear of NATO expansion, though especially the deployment of additional U.S. anti-nuclear-missile defense-system batteries, further into eastern Europe is typically perceived by the West as unmerited paranoia. Surely he must realise that the West, including NATO, would never initiate a nuclear-weapons exchange.

But how can he — or we, for that matter — know for sure, particularly with the U.S.?

For example, while Ronald Reagan postulated that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong,” who can know what may have historically come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry. There’s a presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American governance as somehow, unless physically provoked, being morally/ethically above using nuclear weapons internationally. After all, absolute power can corrupt absolutely.

After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. It was still a record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

Had it not been for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, could/would Truman eventually have succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow MacArthur’s command to continue?

After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. — FrankGSterleJr

You have to agree that from a military point of view, nuclear weapons are very attractive. Generals do not have to worry about politics.

. Surely he must realise that the West, including NATO, would never initiate a nuclear-weapons exchange. — FrankGSterleJr

My question is always this: why keep nuclear weapons if you are never going to use them? I feel the public is afraid to go for total disarmament.

Here is more likely propaganda, but like all fiction, food for thought.

Consider the old story that Jimmy Carter left his biscuit in a suit that got sent to the dry cleaners. Today, no one will confirm the story, but no one will deny it either.

https://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-bill-clinton-lost-nuclear-codes-office-book/story?id=11930878

Fuck off frank. 1. Make an argument. 2. Stop making this personal. There's nothing wrong with my moral compass.

The day all countries respect sovereignty, it will be a great day. As long as they don't, complaining about it is just hypocrisy. Especially coming from an American citizen.

Respecting sovereignty also means not trying to influence internal politics, which the US and Russia have been trying to do for decades in Ukraine.

Most people here keep thinking the UN system of rules are relevant or that sovereignty is some fundamental right. It's quite clear this isn't the case based on what countries actually do. Except for the first gulf War and a humanitarian intervention by France in, I think, Cote d'Ivoire we have not seen any military conflict in accordance with UN rules in the past 30 years. And even that last one is debatable based on the rules.

And it also ignores any strategic considerations, which we have seen time and again is reason for every county in history to do what they do. But let's pretend that no longer exist so we can just complain about how evil the Russians are.

Lastly, that something is in a constitution doesn't make it right.

So what qualifies as 'an established fact', according to you? — Olivier5

One which the overwhelming majority of my epistemic peers agree on. Like "the earth is round". Something which I would simply assume someone knowledgeable in the subject believed without feeling the need to ask.

I need you to explain how Russia’s legitimate security concerns is at the same time actually related to Russian security and to a flag on top of the parliament building in Ukraine based on your “parenthesised part”. — neomac

The part in parentheses was "even if sometimes only figuratively", Ie not necessarily referring to an actual flag. The flag represents control by the government of that country. Control over some aspect of Ukraine's government (either by having them sign a binding agreement, or by installing a friendly 'puppet' governor in some region) would reduce their risk from foreign influence.

You not only misunderstood what I said but also missed to fully quote me, as I explicitly asked. So here is the full quotation: “I 100% agree with you, if the independence war Ukraine is fighting against Russian military oppression, can be reasonably rendered as a fight over an ornament of a Parliament building. ”
My agreement was conditional. — neomac

Well then your agreement is nonsensical. I don't know what more to say. Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't become wrong or right based on the interpretation of some specific historical event. If your agreement that "fighting over a flag is always wrong" is dependant on how the Ukraine war is interpreted, then how did you decide before Russia invaded Ukraine?

“For me it’s matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism”, so the issue has nothing to do with a flag as piece of colored fabric decorating a building — neomac

Right. So you'd have to forward some argument to that effect. It's no good just saying 'for me' at the beginning and expecting that to act as an excuse not to supply any reasoning at all. Why do you see it as a matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. Why not, for example, a matter of American expansionism vs Russian expansionism? To quote from the article @StreetlightX posted earlier...

This definition, which requires an inter-imperialist war to be one where both sides are seeking to conquer each other’s territory, doesn’t even fit the Second World War. British and French imperialism weren’t interested in seizing German territory, but in hanging onto their already overstretched empires. And Hitler wasn’t particularly interested in these. It was eastern Europe and the Soviet Union he was after. — Alex Callinicos

...expansionism isn't always about territory.

if “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” expresses a logic claim — neomac

It doesn't.

if diplomats lie all the time (which already sounds as an exaggeration) they lie also when they claim to have found an agreement at the end of their negotiation sessions, so no negotiation agreements would be reliable and the practice itself would be pointless. — neomac

Not at all. Diplomats are not the arbiters of whether a negotiation has worked. If a process stops the war, everyone can see that it has worked, we don't rely on diplomats to tell us this.

If “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” is an empirical inductive generalisation and “diplomats lie all the time” just a gross exaggeration, it can be statistically true, and yet lead to fallible predictions in the given circumstances — neomac

Of course. But I'm not the one claiming that it will not work. I'm only claiming that it might. I only need to demonstrate that it is possible in order to substantiate that claim. Those who argue that Ukraine shouldn't negotiate because Putin lies, have the much harder task of demonstrating that such a process never works, otherwise it'd still be advisable to try.

What is morally/strategically interesting is precisely to understand how geopolitical agents come to think “they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them — neomac

That matter is undeniably secondary to actually partaking in negotiations. The parties involved must actually be negotiating in order for it to even be a question.

I’m not relying on any specific expert’s views, and more importantly I already provided to you some of the main arguments I find persuasive. — neomac

That wasn't the point against which I argued. I don't have a problem with the fact that there are arguments exculpating America which are persuasive. I was arguing against...

the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications. — neomac

...that you find some arguments persuasive is irrelevant to this claim. Your claim is that arguments of America's culpability are not supported by an objective analysis of the facts. I asked how you justify that claim when so many experts, after having made an objective analysis of the facts, reach a different conclusion.

1. Ukraine is the oppressed and not Russia, and the West is helping the oppressed not the oppressor — neomac

The west is delivering weapons to the oppressed. Whether that's 'helping' them depends entirely on your analysis of their options.

2. Ukraine & the West adopted a more “stick & carrot” containment strategy while Russia opted for an invade and wreck aggressive strategy — neomac

So? How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.

3. Whatever action is taken by the West is not coming from the decisions of a single dictatorial leader but of a bunch of democratic leaders with problematic coordination, we can not say the same of Putin — neomac

I don't see what difference this makes if those decisions all tended in much the same direction.

4. Ukraine seems more open to share our views on standard of life and freedoms than Russia. — neomac

What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have? As I've posted many times (to no effect whatsoever), every single metric that humanity has seen fit to produce shows Ukraine and Russia at much the same level in every measure of human well-being. So what makes you think they're 'more like us' than Russia?

it’s enough to give me links to your posts where you mention and/or argue the views of the experts you rely on. — neomac

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136, for example.

So you are for pushing Ukraine to concede to Russia all they have demanded (no NATO membership, acknowledgement of Crimean annexation, independence of a couple of Donbas provinces) in exchange to stopping the war. I fail to see how this is a third strategy as you have claimed (“It’s clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both”): in what sense is this strategy opposing Russian expansionism? — neomac

1. This gives Russia no more than is de facto the case already, so it doesn't give an inch on Russian expansionism, it just admits that we've failed to contain it peacefully as we should have. Russia already run Crimea, Donbas already has independent parliaments and make independent decisions, NATO have already pretty much ruled out membership for Ukraine, as have Ukraine.

2. I care very little about Russian expansionism when compared to the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainians. If you want to throw them in front of the tanks to prevent it, that's on you, but I'm not going to support that.

Crimea is a hub of utmost strategic importance in the Black sea for commercial, energetic and military reasons, while the Donbass region is vital for industrial and energetic reasons. So this concession would not only empower Putin to further his expansionist ambitions (e.g. against other European countries), but it will threaten the EU economic security (due to the energetic and alimentary dependency on Ukraine and Russia as Putin’s blackmailing is proving). Not to mention that it will prove the weakness of the West to the world, from its enemies (starting from Russia and China) to its allies (the eastern and central European states).
So such concessions are not only the opposite of containment strategy. But likely a major breaking point for the entire World Order as we know it. In other words, the West and Ukraine have plenty of strategic reasons to keep fighting Russian oppression as long as they can and as best as they can. — neomac

A perfect summary of the West's interests in this war, well done.

Now explain how it's morally acceptable for us to throw Ukrainian civilians in front of Russian tanks to help us achieve these goals.

Even if the concerns are exactly the same, which I questioned because NATO in this case didn’t expand through forceful annexations of other sovereign nation’s territory and this is a crucial point which you should address before anything else when you talk about Russian security concerns, then we should support NATO against Russian expansionism also for moral reasons in addition to the strategic ones — neomac

What 'moral reasons'? (I've addressed the significance of tactics already. There's no inherent moral preference for one tactic over another if both cause the same level of misery)

from a more concrete and personal point of view there is a big difference in how this influence is deployed: e.g. Isis might want to put their flag in our decapitated head, while the US might want to put their flag on the sandwich we are eating. Do you see the difference? Because if you don’t, I do and I value it. — neomac

We're talking about the US and Russia here, not Isis. The US 'method' is causing more deaths in Yemen right now than are being caused in Ukraine by the Russian 'method'. And Yemen isn't even the US's only theatre of war as Ukraine is Russia's.

geopolitics is not all what counts to me.
Russia can try to influence whoever they want the way they see fit to their geopolitical goals, yet I will react differently depending on moral implications and personal preferences. — neomac

Care to expand on these clandestine 'personal preferences'?

I find this line of reasoning analytically too poor and misleading to support such claim about the West: “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. I explained that to some extent here — neomac

Right. That just goes back to your disagreement that Russia had any reason at all to see NATO's actions as a threat (ie arguing that NATO weren't even shaking the table at all). The problem is, an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts disagree with you and you've not provided a single reason why anyone would take your view over theirs.

One which the overwhelming majority of my epistemic peers agree on. — Isaac

You mean, like in a beauty contest?

You mean, like in a beauty contest? — Olivier5

Obviously not. I can't see an overwhelming majority of my epistemic peers agreeing on what is literally the most famous example of subjective judgement there is. Did the expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" not make it into French?

Besides, who would be my epistemic peers in judging a beauty contest? What body of knowledge is there in that regard?

Do you even think before you write?

If a majority of your 'epistemic peers' agree that Merkel is the sexiest woman alive, by your definition then it is an established fact.

If a majority of your 'epistemic peers' agree that Merkel is the sexiest woman alive, by your definition then it is an established fact. — Olivier5

It doesn't make any sense. There's no body of knowledge about beauty, so there's no 'epistemic peers' relevant to the matter.

If you just mean 'everyone' then the answer is obviously yes. If everyone agreed that Merkel is the sexiest woman alive, then that's clearly what 'sexy' means. The word is defined by the community of language users, it's not defined first by God and then we find out what things fit it.

The day all countries respect sovereignty, it will be a great day. As long as they don't, complaining about it is just hypocrisy. — Benkei

If your country was invaded by Germany or France, would you think that complaining about it is hypocrisy?

Your definition isn't working then, it is too close to that of a beauty contest.

Your definition isn't working then, it is too close to that of a beauty contest. — Olivier5

It's not even remotely close to a beauty contest. I've just explained that.

There's no body of knowledge about beauty, so there's no 'epistemic peers' relevant to the matter. — Isaac

Well, you did not mention the necessity for a body of knowledge in your definition of an established fact. So I guess you would need to add that somewhere, without going into a tautology like : an established fact is part of a body of established knowledge.

Beside, there is a body of knowledge about beauty.

If your country was invaded by Germany or France, would you think that complaining about it is hypocrisy? — Olivier5

This doesn't follow from what I said. Try again.

Try to answer the question, if you can.

I answered it. When you figure out what I actually said as opposed to what you want me to say in a pathetic "gotcha" attempt, the answer will be automatically apparent.

So what were you trying to say?

you did not mention the necessity for a body of knowledge in your definition of an established fact. — Olivier5

I said...

Something which I would simply assume someone knowledgeable in the subject believed without feeling the need to ask. — Isaac

You got to give it to the Ukrainians : they are no-nonsense, business-like, pragmatic folks, and not so easy to impress. Here is the mayor of Melitopol berating his kidnappers, and his beef is essentially that they failed to prepared properly for the meeting....



Ukraine mayor says Russian soldiers who kidnapped him knew nothing about his country
March 31, 20224:42 PM ET
Eleanor Beardsley, NPR

PARIS — The 33-year-old mayor of the Ukrainian town of Melitopol was kidnapped by Russian forces in early March and held for five days. Now Ivan Fedorov is in France to bear witness to his town's occupation by the Russians, and he says the soldiers who interrogated him knew nothing about the town or Ukraine.

Fedorov appeared on French television channel BFM TV to describe what his town has been living through. The boyish-looking mayor said his town in the southern, Zaporizhzhia region woke up to war on Feb. 24, when missiles struck a military airport just a few hundred yards from some apartment buildings.

He said Russian forces are becoming increasingly aggressive because their plans for a lightning war didn't work out and his town's resistance has made them angry.

"They saw that the citizens were not welcoming them. To the contrary, people have been openly opposing the aggressor," Fedorov said.

"Citizens have been coming out — thousands at a time — in plazas and streets despite armed soldiers, and yelling, 'Leave our town!' I am amazed by their courage," he said.

On March 11 Russian forces put a black bag over Fedorov's head and took him away From Melitopol's crisis center, where he was working. The scene was caught on surveillance cameras.

Fedorov says he was held in a prison cell without his phone and unable to contact his parents. He told BFM interviewer Bruce Toussaint that he could hear people screaming as they were tortured in other cells.

Fedorov says he was interrogated by five Russian soldiers who were completely unprepared and knew nothing about Melitopol or Ukraine.

"They said they wanted to liberate the town from the Nazis and where were they, and I told them in my 30 years in this town I've never seen a single Nazi," Fedorov said.

He said that after that the soldiers told him they wanted to defend the Russian language.

"I told them 95% of us speak Russian already and nobody's stopping us, so there's no problem," Fedorov said.

After that, they told Fedorov they had heard that veterans of World War II were beaten during the last commemoration day.

"I told them I know these men personally, because there aren't many of them left, and they're treated as heroes," he said.

The mayor says he believes he was only released because his kidnapping was caught on camera and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for his liberation.

Fedorov said 29 other elected officials are still being held by Russian forces.

"We came to France and to the EU to tell people what Ukrainians are living through," Fedorov said. "And to counter this Russian propaganda, which is very strong."

On an unrelated note, the new narrative is hilarious. All the stalling out and counter attacks are actually part of a grand strategy.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh and here of course is a useful idiot echoing the generals' line with his trenchant "analysis":

It's not "convoluted" to point out they achieved those core goals ... which manoeuvres elsewhere in the country, in particular pressure on the capital, help achieve by spreading forces and supply lines thin (and making it easier to map and blowup said supply lines). — boethius

Oh and here of course is a useful idiot echoing the generals' line with his trenchant "analysis": — SophistiCat

And what 'analysis' are you contributing exactly? "Russia said it, so it must be false". Stunning next-level analysis there.

Of course Russia also said they expected Ukrainians would 'lay down arms and welcome them'. They also said they wanted to unite Ukraine with Russia. But we believe them there because...

"When Russia says something that matches our narrative they're definitely telling the truth. When they say something that doesn't match our narrative, they're definitely lying"

The day all countries respect sovereignty, it will be a great day. As long as they don't, complaining about it is just hypocrisy. Especially coming from an American citizen. — Benkei

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty.

My work here is done.

Oh and here of course is a useful idiot echoing the generals' line with his trenchant "analysis": — SophistiCat

How is it "echoing" if I said the same trenchant "analysis" weeks before.

Of note (4 weeks and a day ago) "Kremlin can stop anytime and just consolidate the land grabs they've made so far, say 'enough war' we have achieved our security objectives and to demonstrate our 'peaceful intentions' are ending the war here, and declare victory" and "The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture."

Also 29 days ago:

And again, Russia has already achieved key strategic objectives and can declare a magnanimous new peace now at anytime and declare victory. — boethius

Likewise 29 days ago:

This is definitely a risky move by the Kremlin, so could indeed fail; but with at least some strategic gains in Ukraine (that Russia has already solidified) I wouldn't say there's actual chance now for military failure (Kremlin can stop anytime and just consolidate the land grabs they've made so far, say "enough war" we have achieved our security objectives and to demonstrate our "peaceful intentions" are ending the war here, and declare victory).

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine.

Definitely full scale rebellion in Russia would be a failure or then failing to re-orient their economy towards China integration. I'm definitely not saying these aren't risky things, just presenting the arguments and, indeed, potential facts in which success is possible.

In particular, the Western media is basically just in a circle of saying Putin is failing because the Western media doesn't like Putin like "a lot" now ... but that was already the case from Putin's perspective.

Putin's not some youtube influencer living in fear of being cancelled by Western media corporations. — boethius

and,

Preparing in advance for "total sanctions" is not necessarily a sign they are unexpected. They are also not yet total; only some banks are shutoff from SWIFT and Western corporation "abandoning" Russia ... only matters if there's no replacement in Russia or China. — boethius

and,

The Russian army is shelling cities to the ground and already achieved a key strategic goal of linking Crimera to Russian territory. Russia may pay a price for these land grabs, but all military analyst agree whatever Russia takes it will keep. There was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control; hence, Russia simply keeping such territory and leaving insurgent territory and so having conventional fronts is a perfectly acceptable endgame. The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture. — boethius

and

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China. — boethius

All analysis stated 29 days ago.

Now, certainly Russia would have achieved more militarily if it could and accepted Ukrainians complete capitulation if they did, but already 4 weeks ago they had achieved enough military objectives to simply say they achieved what they set out to achieve (and, consolidating those gains, in particular conquering Mariupol, in 4 weeks is a reasonable military time frame).

If Russia now accomplishes effective encirclement of the Eastern front ... which may be somewhat functionally being achieved now through air strikes on supply lines (it is 1000km trip from Poland to the Eastern front), then that would be the last strategic objective I pointed out Russians clearly trying to accomplish.

So, withdrawing from Kiev could be due to "weakness" and "losing" or it could be due to achieving the core objectives and exposing troops to harassment around Kiev no longer serves a purpose so they are being withdrawn to reduce losses (i.e. if they now calculate they can complete their remaining goals in the East with less losses even if Kiev troops are freed-up to redeploy to the East--such as due to degrading military infrastructure and capacity in the East--then there's no further reason to have troops near Kiev in exposed salients).

Likewise, withdrawing around Kiev is maybe the first steps to a peace agreement.

28 Days ago:

Yes, obviously discussing the stated reason for something is relevant. You can argue is purely propaganda if you want, but it's obviously relevant to the situation.

"I just don't get your position here.. I guess my question to you is do you agree with Putin's use of force to takeover a country? — schopenhauer1"

I'm presenting the counter argument to the Western media narrative, understand the counter-party perspective, which is the basis of negotiation; which I think is preferable to more bloodshed. — boethius

26 Days ago:

Everyone is saying "urban combat, urban combat" ... but if Russian forces just avoid urban combat and cut the country in half it is effectively laying siege to not only Kiev but the entire East of the country.

Combat in the East after that point is simply a matter of time before ammo runs out, and mayors and commanders can only ask people to starve only so long.

In the West, assaulting a conventional battle line would require heavy artillery and tanks, anti-tank weapons would be relatively meaningless.

Notably, the only city the Russian's have so far actually done urban combat and occupied is the only city required to carry out the above plan: Kherson. Every other city the Russian's are simply laying siege at minimal risk to themselves.

The armor dashes at the start of the war make sense to simply take as much territory as possible as Ukraine didn't preemptively mobilize, also make sense in terms of public relations of starting "the soft way", and also gave the chance to Ukraine to get a "taste" of war and maybe accept the offered peace terms.

Ukrainian leadership decided that calling Russia's bluff of doing things the hard way was a better idea, and so started handing out small arms to civilians to make clear the cost of urban combat in a social media campaign the likes the world has never seen.

... Which is what Western media keeps on going on about, how it's a "second Russian Afghanistan etc." but, other than the only city Russia has taken with experienced Urban combat units, I don't see any need for Russia to do any urban combat at all.

Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine, everyone agrees it's impossible to do with their committed troop numbers and would be a costly disaster if they did commit the troops to try to do it ... so maybe that's just not their plan, but what they can do is cut the country North-South and just wait out the Ukrainian will to fight.

Easy to be brave when your heroic and defiant statements immediately get a thousand likes on facebook. It's far harder hungry, tired, cut off from communications, running out of ammunition, and no viable pathway to victory in the face of continuous shelling. — boethius

25 days ago:

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically — boethius