It boggles the mind to think that the leadership is so into their groupthink.... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very early on, a number of commentators observed that Putin's major problem was in believing his own propaganda. His web of deceit is now so vast that he himself is entangled in it. It comes from sorrounding yourself with people who always tell you that you're right while insulating yourself from any real contact with evidence to the contrary.

Putin will have to come to the table at some point, he can't occupy Ukraine and large areas are vehemently opposed to the Russians. — Benkei

At least he has had no troubles of doing that partly for 8 years. So why take some more?

There's no reason why he now would have to stop. Do notice the logic behind terrorizing people to move away from their homes. Will he stop because of sanctions??? Lol.

The only way Putin is going to come to the negotiation table is if a) Ukraine gives in to his demand or b) he has similar success in the Donbas as he had encircling Kyiv.

Other than calling Putin names, the US hasn't helped Ukraine either except making money off the militarization of Ukrainian society. We do know that when negotiations need to happen, France (and Germany and Italy) are the only countries that haven't disqualified themselves as negotiation partners. — Benkei

So what's the difference with France?

French President Emmanuel Macron has moved to extend €300 million ($337 million) of aid and military equipment to Ukraine, according to French daily Le Monde.

According to the report, which came on the second day of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, France will also freeze Russian officials' assets within the country.

President Emmanuel Macron on Friday announced at the country’s national assembly the delivery of additional €300 million in aid, along with military equipment, to Ukraine and pledged to undertake steps in the NATO framework "to protect the soil of our Baltic and Romanian allies."

In a message sent to lawmakers explaining France’s response to the Ukrainian invasion, Macron said "nothing will be neglected in matters of aid" to Kyiv.

Oh yes, they don't publicly tell just what weapons they are given to Ukraine. So perhaps that's the diplomatic touch worth of praise.

I'm surprised that Russia is allowing for other countries to send arms to Ukraine. — Manuel

No way they can prevent it.

they don't publicly tell just what weapons they are given to Ukraine. — ssu

That's because they don't give much, I believe.

If...

Russia already has the groundwork to enable these problems, — Christoffer

...and...

the US doesn't — Christoffer

...then how come...

We see the behaviors of corruption and radical movements of people under Trump. — Christoffer

..., when the lack the necessary 'groundwork' for those behaviours to emerge. And furthermore, if it's true that...

if people "don't care about politics", they could wake up in a world similar to places like Russia. — Christoffer

...then the 'groundwork' you spoke of with regards to Russia appears to be completely irrelevant as you're suggesting that the US could end up like Russia despite having none of those factors.

I'm talking about how Russia's political groundwork for authoritarianism can happen in other nations — Christoffer

No. You haven't once mentioned Russia's 'political groundwork' occurring in other nations. The factors you've provided for the US's descent into 'Russian-ness' are "the behaviours of corruption and radical movements of people under Trump" (which you admit occurred despite the US not having any of Russia's political groundwork yet) and that "people "don't care about politics"". You've given no other factors related to any of Russia's political groundwork.

How? Websites, newspapers and social media spreading 'misinformation' have been increasingly banned since Covid times. — Isaac


Yes, they spread misinformation in a time of crisis. The problem is the uneducated with a megaphone spreading misinformation that hurts other people. How many people died during this pandemic due to misinformation telling them not to get vaccinated? — Christoffer

Naysayers have been ridiculed, de-platformed, sacked — Isaac


That's not what I've seen. The ones that have been ridiculed, de-platformed or sacked have all taken part in spreading dangerous misinformation or acted with such disregard for safety, like nurses not caring for protocols when people risk dying around them.

Protests have been met with militarised police under emergency powers. — Isaac


The large gatherings who didn't have permission during a time when large gatherings need to be avoided? People who don't understand how a pandemic works, who don't understand that large gatherings could create super-spreading events which result in people outside of this gathering getting killed by the consequence of such a super-spreading event, don't know what the fuck they're talking about. To be blind to how pandemics work is to ignore facts. — Christoffer

I didn't ask about the reasons for the response, I asked about what more you wanted people to have done. You seemed to think the response to 'misinformation' was dangerously lacklustre. I was pointing out that it was a more robust response than any we've seen since McCarthyism. You said you wanted it to be...

At least on par with the vocal minority advocating for extreme nationalism, racism, antivaccine, conspiracy theories etc — Christoffer

It is. Websites have been banned, social media is being filtered, searched engines have buried Russian output on the war, there's a generally hostile environment for anyone not toeing the general anti-Russian line... I'm asking you what more you expect the 'moral majority' to do.

Also fighting over money can be moral of course, — neomac

So what factor (or factors) governs the difference?

You just keep claiming that “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” without providing evidences and while being contradicted by the evidences: Ukrainian families got exterminated by Russian soldiers, no Ukrainian ruling class member has exterminated those families. — neomac

Are you suggesting that the policies of the ruling classes have resulted in no deaths?

You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y. — neomac

Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.

And what is the relation between Russian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children? — neomac

Very little. Which is probably why I didn't restrict my assessment to the Russian ruling elite, nor the Russian poor.

if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac

Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers. Which is probably why I have never suggested they are.

I talked about math because you talked about multi-causal theory and multi causal theories would allow to evaluate the exact or statistical relevance of a cause in a given output. — neomac

How?

No single dimension is a priori sufficient for a moral assessment. — neomac

So you keep saying, yet you seem quite clear on what dimensions are not to be considered. Perhaps a quick run down of these multiple dimensions would help?

If you want to object to me for good, tell me if you would morally support Isis over America and why. — neomac

I already did, right at the beginning of the paragraph you're supposedly critiquing.

if you contrast Zelensky’s government with a Putin puppet, blaming the first while assuming more acceptable the second. — neomac

Again, how on earth do you get from the notion that a puppet government wouldn't be so bad as to be worth thousands of lives to "I think we ought to depose Zelensky". It's just an insane leap of inference.

> It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.

Where else did I do that? Can you fully quote me? — neomac

I just did.

Poor people bring to life children that they are incapable of taking care of, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children? — neomac

Yes. I presume that would be why they try with every ounce of their soul to feed and protect those children.

Palestinians bring to life children that they are incapable of fully protecting against the oppression of Israelis, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children exposed to the Israelis’ oppression? — neomac

Yes. Again probably why they try so desperately hard to protect them.

So shouldn’t they stop having children? — neomac

That's one solution, yes. Not the only solution, clearly.

Ukrainians do not want to be eradicated from their lands nor they want their children to grow up under a Russian dictator capable of committing another Ukrainian genocide like the Holodomor, so they act accordingly. — neomac

The former is true, the latter is a strategic judgement. I'm not speaking to a Ukrainian so I can't interrogate their reasoning. I'm speaking to a non-Ukrainian, form the comfort of their non-bombed home and asking why they are supporting continued fighting so fervently.

BTW, for the third time, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? — neomac

Then for the third time, no, the outcome continued war is compared to matters.

if you were familiar with propositional logic, you would understand that my argument corresponds to the valid form:
p1. if p or q implies r
p2. p and q
c. r
So it totally follows. — neomac

What? You've not labelled p, q or r so I can't possibly use this.

> What I expect them to do is to offer concessions and make demands in the same way any party to a negotiation would.

What concessions and what demands do you expect them to do wrt Putin’s? — neomac

Concessions might be things like - independence for Donbas and Crimea, keeping Ukraine out of NATO (or keeping US weapons out of Ukraine), independent monitoring of far-right groups in Ukraine, consultation on economic ties with Europe which might impinge heavily of Russian trade interests.

Demands might be things like - an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Ukraine, submission to war crimes investigations, adherence to the full independence of Donbas (and possibly Crimea, if they can win that)

It's not difficult to think of options, I'm sure there's more.

I don’t need to assume that the US leaders are acting out of moral intentions. All I claimed is that there are moral reasons to support Ukraine. — neomac

But I support Ukraine. So does everyone writing here. We disagree about how. Are you claiming there are moral reasons to back particular strategies?

Whenever I talk about strategy you switch to intention, when I talk about intention you say it's about 'moral reasons' when I talk about morality you defer back to tactics again. You don't seriously think that looks anything other than completely disingenuous do you?

It’s enough to re-read what I wrote because I’ve already addressed this many times already: geopolitical entities per se have no moral agency — neomac

Fine. Replace all my uses of US, NATO and Europe with the names of their current leaders and influences and then answer the questions.

If making concessions and avoiding sanctions will consolidate Putin’s power as well as not making concessions and adopting sanctions, I think it’s indifferent which option is chosen. — neomac

Not what I asked.

My point was simply that I’m well aware that there are risks when taking position on such matters. Yet I don’t think that we can take risk-free decisions on such matters, nor we can simply suspend our judgment or action just because we can’t make enough risk-free decisions, if pressed by the events. — neomac

Again, not even addressing the question I actually asked.

cruel and unfair treatment of people, especially by not giving them the same freedom, rights, etc. is morally defensible when it’s for punishing immoral people. — neomac

So you think punishing immoral people is unfair?

If one wants to explain why a negotiation fails, then either demands/grievances/expectations/complaints/wishes/concessions/requests/desires/[fill up as you please] are not perceived as acceptable and/or they are not addressed with enough assurance. And an alternative to 2 parties' strategies in terms of demands/grievances/expectations/complaints/wishes/concessions/requests/desires/[fill up as you please], can not possibly coincide with one of 2 parties' strategy. — neomac

There cannot always be an alternative, otherwise negotiations never end. At some point in time the agreement has to coincide with both parties' strategy.

> So If I think their standard of living will be considerably worse, then It's a reasonable position to take that involving the US is not worth the benefit.

You can take side in accordance to your beliefs. So do I. Now what? — neomac

Well, you could start by refraining from referring to my beliefs as 'preposterous', if you accept that they're just beliefs.

> So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government?

Never made such claims. — neomac

Good. So are they?

If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?

I already answered: “So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge” — neomac

That's not an answer. All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer "because of some reasons", then we might as well give up here. I'm asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.

What matters to me is what Ukrainians and Western leaders consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms — neomac

Why? Why not, for example, what the various military and foreign policy experts consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Or what the various political commentators consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Why put your faith in the Ukrainian leadership and the Western powers' leadership?

Well. Maybe. But they surely must have heard that NATO will intervene if they use chemical weapons, or at least, this is what they've stated. — Manuel

Nah, NATO will not intervene over an alleged use of chemical weapons (which Russia will, of course, deny or blame on Ukrainians themselves). They've been careful this time about not setting any red lines. Even Biden, loose cannon that he is, has consistently been saying that US would not intervene under any circumstances whatsoever. "Dire consequences" is as far as anyone would commit, which would likely amount to nothing more dire than a nonbinding UN resolution.

Yet now we do have that bloody civil war of the former Soviet Union.

This is what I’ve been thinking.
This war along with all the others involving previous members of the USSR are fallout from the collapse of the USSR.

I see EU, or NATO expansion as a side show to this. Although it might act as a catalyst. Also I expect the US is aware of this.

There are reports of Sarin gas being dropped from drones over Mariapol last night(11/04/22).
I agree, NATO won’t act on this if it’s proven.

At least he has had no troubles of doing that partly for 8 years. So why take some more?

There's no reason why he now would have to stop. Do notice the logic behind terrorizing people to move away from their homes. Will he stop because of sanctions??? Lol. — ssu

This is a common tactic. Ignore disagreement over premises and then act with faux shock at the apparent disagreement in conclusion. It's about as subtle as a brick.

If Putin held ,say, Crimea against the will of the population purely by terrorising them, then you'd be surprised anyone would question his ability to do it some more.

But since that premise is disputed, your surprise over the disputed conclusion is absurd.

It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Putin could not (and would not even attempt) to hold the whole of Ukraine because its perfectly reasonable to believe he's yet to demonstrate such an ability. You might well not believe that, but your disagreement doesn't make alternative views ridiculous.

At least he has had no troubles of doing that partly for 8 years. So why take some more?

There's no reason why he now would have to stop. Do notice the logic behind terrorizing people to move away from their homes. Will he stop because of sanctions??? Lol.

The only way Putin is going to come to the negotiation table is if a) Ukraine gives in to his demand or b) he has similar success in the Donbas as he had encircling Kyiv. — ssu

They weren't in a costly war for 8 years. Sanctions obviously don't deter, they've never done that and basically act as a mechanism for collective punishment that kill a lot of people (Israel - Palestine, Cuba, Iraq are prime examples) and in some cases (like now Russia but also Palestine and Cuba) I'd even argue they rise to the level of a blockade.

In any case, at some point the costs don't outweigh the (potential) benefits any more. I would suspect that if Mariopol falls and control over the Donbass region would be obtained, that that too would count as a victory to him and would have him move to the negotiation table.

So what's the difference with France? — ssu

France has already recognised that Russia does have security interests in the region, which a lot of people keep pretending don't exist because "sovereignty". The US only communicates positions, complains about crimes it regularly commits itself and makes childish insults everybody that knows anything is happy to ignore. And in any case it does not have a real interest in the region other than its insane imperialist ambition to have a sphere of influence across the world, which we shouldn't be supporting to begin with. Both the EU and Russia have a shared security interest in the region where stability and peace are preferable over war. That shouldn't include the US. It shouldn't have any business here but Europeans have been only too happy to rely on US military power. That has to stop. Finally, Russia and the EU have an important shared history and we aren't under Nazi-rule largely thanks to them. There's plenty of common ground, which Macron understands and has stated several times.

There are reports of Sarin gas being dropped from drones over Mariapol last night(11/04/22). — Punshhh

As far as I can tell those reports come from tweets by the Azov battalion.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1513603720646467589?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Do you have any reliable sources?

No, just the media reports and the Azov video.

No, just the media reports and the Azov video. — Punshhh

I see. It's just that the latest from American officials was that

there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine — https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014

I was wondering if that had changed.

You know the problem with evidence, like proof, is how do you prove it.

Indeed. But if the source of a claim is a far-right organisation with a history of anti-Russian activism, it might be worth mentioning that when presenting their evidence against Russia?

As I've said to @ssu earlier, if a common Russian propaganda tactic is to claim Western anti-Russian bias clouds the facts, it's hardly helpful to give them ammunition to that effect. A Russian source claiming Ukrainian intent to use chemical weapons would, quite rightly, be treated with deep scepticism. If we don't apply the same principle to a far-right, anti-Russian source saying the same of Russia, then we're literally playing into the hands of Putin's propaganda by acting out the role of 'anti-Russian, biased propagandists' that he's made for us.

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight.

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight. — frank

Cool. That's why I was asking about the other sources for this claim. Do you have them?

frank

Cool. That's why I was asking about the other sources for this claim. Do you have them? — Isaac

I don't think there are any yet. They're looking since the Russians already threatened to use chem weapons and they have a history of using them.

I don't think there are any yet. — frank

Well then your suggestion that...

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight — frank

...seems off. Claims from a single biased source that the US were hiding biological weapons in Ukraine were, quite understandably, given quite vitriolic short shrift. Claims that Russia are planning to use chemical weapons, from no less partisan a source, are discussed as meaningful news.

It sounds a lot more like evidence which conforms to the zeitgeist is given more weight, no?

the Russians already threatened to use chem weapons — frank

Well, that adds some weight doesn't it. What are your "multiple sources" for that?

I’ll remember that if I present their evidence against Russia.

It sounds a lot more like evidence which conforms to the zeitgeist is given more weight, no? — Isaac

Ok.

You do realise that Russia can and will use chemical weapons with impunity, right?
For two reasons, it is what they have previously demonstrated to do, it’s in their playbook and they are safe behind a veil of plausible deniability.

They know that NATO won’t respond, so why not?

You do realise that Russia can and will use chemical weapons with impunity, right?
For two reasons, it is what they have previously demonstrated to do, it’s in their playbook and they are safe behind a veil of plausible deniability. — Punshhh

Yes. I agree.

The problem is this...

Russia says it's not the aggressor, not evil because blah, blah, blah

The West says Russia is the aggressor and evil because... well, they are.

But the West then goes on to exaggerate, decontextualize, and outright lie to make Russia out to be even more the aggressor, even more evil than there is sufficient evidence to show.

Russia says "see how the West fabricate and propagandize to make us look aggressive and evil", which there's no denying we do.

Voilà. Waters successfully muddied. Now it looks like it's an open question who the aggressor is depending on whose propaganda you believe.

And it's useful idiots repeating the excessive claims who've allowed that strategy.

Poland is deploying top tier banter against Russia in Ukraine.


a caged bird summary

Maybe they can call on the Holy Mother to lead another Miracle of the Vistula, only a bit further East this time. If Russia hates NATO, imagine how much they'd hate a renewed Intermarium... You'd think ideas like that were in the graveyard of history, but given how Putin has so rapidly isolated Russia and made it reliant on China, it seems the "Tartar Yolk" might be making a comeback too. Maybe the Balkan nations would find it easier to negotiate in the EU with Germany and France under a unified, ceremonial Hapsburg state? I hear there is a surviving heir. It would make geography easier...

If I was Ukraine and really wanted to get under Russia's history obsessed skin, I'd rename the country something like "The Federal Republic of Kyivian Rus."

So the first task is to determine which cases are black and white and which aren't.

Is that decision black and white? — Isaac

It's actually a question of absolute morality. Seems unlikely regarding the global geopolitical stage.

They could respond. Aid to Ukraine so far is mostly only usable defensively. Anti-tank missile systems are far less effective when used offensively. NATO could supply systems that would make seizing Crimea more likely, or at least enough anti-ship missiles to make supplying it by sea untenable.

Poland's attempted donation of MiGs for example, or predator drones. Hell, basic training time for the F-15 for experienced pilots that would allow them to use stand off weapons to down Russian aircraft is even feasible. There is a lot more the West could do to ruin Russia's day, even without supplying manpower.

Giving Ukraine longer range missiles and technical assistance using them would make these multi-mile long convoys into death traps and greatly reduce the likelyhood that Russia can get its new offensive rolling. They have pretty garbage anti-missile defense. The AA in general isn't looking to hot either given the Ukrainian raid on Belgorod, the continued action of the Ukrainian air force, or the fact that Israel flew 3,000+ sorties through their AA network in Syria in just one year without a single loss, hitting with impunity, often with no evidence of early warning reaching targets (the F-35 seems to be doing its job on some of these).

Even aside from that, they could give Ukraine more armor. Their use of guided artillery is absolutely pounding Russian tank columns:

https://youtu.be/PQ3R6bEB5RE

https://youtu.be/icSJPqkzupI

This won't work near as well on the offensive, since Russian tanks (should) be digging in instead of parking as a massive target for artillery. We haven't seen that to date, but you have to assume someone competent would start a change in tactics.

In order to retake Kherson and Mariupol, they'll need more IFVs and tanks, which NATO could provide on larger numbers. That they haven't I think beliefs fears about Russia doubling down on the invasion of they begin losing territory. However, their actions against civilians in areas they've held is probably tipping support to send more armored vehicles.

There is a lot more the West could do to ruin Russia's day, even without supplying manpower.

Giving Ukraine longer range missiles and technical assistance using them would make these multi-mile long convoys into death traps and greatly reduce the likelyhood that Russia can get its new offensive rolling. They have pretty garbage anti-missile defense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, because Russia's anti-missile defense is the only issue to worry about when one global superpower provides weapons to attack another global superpower with enough range to reach into their territory. Shall we insult his mother as well, I don't think we've quite done enough yet to really rile up the nuclear armed psychopath. Did you learn diplomacy from a fucking pack of football hooligans?

Russia
Global superpower

Might want to rethink that. They couldn't support their advances more than 40 miles from their border. This isn't 1975.

reach into their territory

Given Soviet era helicopters have been able to make it through the vaunted Russian AA to hit strategic targets in urban areas across the border, I don't know if this is exactly a sea change. NATO had plenty of leverage to keep Ukraine from using the missiles on Russia. They're clearly getting fed extremely accurate intelligence. The US basically published Russia's exact invasion plan before it started as a way to dissuade them, and AWACS are likely painting every Russian aircraft as it takes off. Hence the case of the missing Russian airforce and all the MANPAD shootdowns.

Also, it'd still be a good deal less than what Russia did in Vietnam to counter the US, or what China did in Korea. Russia will kick and scream about their nukes regardless because it's now the only thing keeping them relevant, but given the state of the rest of their military, and given the US now had ship portable missiles that have successfully shot down ICBMs (and which work with the Aegis on-land launchers they have all over Europe), I don't think they think they are in a particularly good place to use that threat.

Also, what are you going to do, let Russia invade all of their neighbors because they will threaten to attack civilians with nukes every time they lose a war?

It was Putin's choice to reenact the Winter War for his own ego.

They weren't in a costly war for 8 years. — Benkei

That low intensity war with Ukraine since 2014 wasn't cheap. And the about 13 000 casualties before this invasion tells that there obviously was a war.

Naturally without the present intensity.

In any case, at some point the costs don't outweigh the (potential) benefits any more. I would suspect that if Mariopol falls and control over the Donbass region would be obtained, that that too would count as a victory to him and would have him move to the negotiation table. — Benkei

I don't think Putin views this war from a cost / benefit stance were costs and benefits would be economic or monetary. Because then it really doesn't make any sense. No, I think he views this conflict like how he talks about it. This is his legacy, this is what is what the position of Russia. And in he can go after any opposition because it is undeclared wartime.

So yes, perhaps he'll be happy if he has that firm land bridge to Crimea. But then why not push Ukraine out of the Black Sea and have Odessa too?

Nope. There is the similar logic going now on as went on during the first years of WW1. Then you couldn't stop the war for small changes in the border (or no changes) after masses had been already been killed.