And your opinion as to the most likely outcome?
— Punshhh

I don't really have one. At a guess I'd say that there'll either be a deal which gives independence to Dombas and Crimea... — Isaac

I looks like it is totally upto President Zelesnkyy and his brothers-in-arms in the West, so it is his call. So it makes to sense as to what will satisfy them. He may reach an agreement in May, he said, so that date seems to be in his mind, any Ukraine - significant dates in May...

Not Ukraine. Some truth always slips out. Russia. Victory day. Brilliant public relations move.

Vladimir Putin's 'end date' for Ukraine war matches Russia's WW2 victory, spooks say
Reports from inside Ukraine and Russia have suggested that the Kremlin is eyeing a potential end date for its invasion of Ukraine, considering May 9, the anniversary for their WWII Victory Day

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putins-end-date-ukraine-26553858

I am not for the death of the good Vlad. — FreeEmotion

Only Dracula is immortal.

KYIV/LVIV, Ukraine, April 14 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday the flagship of its Black Sea fleet was seriously damaged and its crew evacuated following an explosion that a Ukrainian official said was the result of a missile strike.

Russia's defence ministry said a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser caused ammunition to blow up, Interfax news agency reported.

It did not say what caused the fire but Maksym Marchenko, the Ukrainian governor of the region around the Black Sea port of Odesa, said the Moskva had been hit by two Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles.

Ukraine's defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify either side's claims.

The Moskva is the second major ship known to have suffered serious damage since the start of the war. Last month Ukraine said it had destroyed a landing support ship, the Orsk, on the smaller Sea of Azov.

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin — Olivier5

I hope you're not implying assassination.

It would not be beneficial to world peace that assassinating each other's heads of state becomes an accepted practice in international politics. There's a reason it is not an accepted practice today.

Besides, whoever would succeed Putin would have to deal with the exact same geopolitical, military and socio-economic problems Russia faces, and after an assassination the West will be a lot less likely to be part of a peaceful solution to those problems.

All I'm saying, is something that I think should not be controversial: no big power would want a hostile military nation on its border. — Manuel

I would put it in a different way:

Big powers justify (or portray) their imperial aspirations with reasoning that they are threatened by hostile powers. And if the little country they take interest in cannot be in any way a threat, then it's the hypothetical argument of another great power using that little country.

After the Soviet Union collapsed only the Armenian-Azeri conflict wasn't about Russia having these imperial aspirations of being a Great Power. Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and naturally Ukraine have been those places where Russia has intervened with "peacekeepers", with puppet states and now with a "special military operation" and "denazification".

They're not Mexican, either. Lol — Changeling

California to Oregon used to be Mexican, besides Texas. Of course much of California was like the Baja California then and not many people besides native Americans lived their.

The old Soviet "Slava" got it. Talk about a warship boasting with huge missiles.

I think this puts an end to the thoughts that there could be a maritime invasion. From the debacle with the "Alligator"-landing ship that was providing supplies now to this shows how vulnerable you are without total air dominance. Few anti-ship missiles carried on a truck can tip the scales.

I hope you're not implying assassination. — Tzeentch

Not implying anything in particular. You may have noted the words immediately following those you quoted: "natural or otherwise".

He's old, he could blow a gasket tomorrow. Or there could be a palace revolution. Or the Ukrainians could have a go at it, in a tit for tat mode. Or suicide. Same result, and the way to get there would not necessarily make much of a difference.

I'm just saying that Mr Vladimir Putin is the guy who started it and I doubt he has it in him to stop it. So there's IMO no path to durable peace while he is in the equation.

It would not be beneficial to world peace that assassinating each other's heads of state becomes an accepted practice in international politics. There's a reason it is not an accepted practice today. — Tzeentch

Not accepted by whom, pray tell? The US tried to murder Castro dozens of times. The French helped locate and kill Ghadafi. The Russians tried to off Zelensky too. I could go on.

Talk about a warship boasting with huge missiles. — ssu

Yes, these missile ships must be real power kegs. You don't want a fire in the ammo depos...

Not accepted by whom, pray tell? The US tried to murder Castro dozens of times. The French helped locate and kill Ghadafi. The Russians tried to off Zelensky too. I could go on. — Olivier5

That certain nations are horribly hypocritical when it comes to their ideals and upholding international law is nothing new, but assassinations are certainly controversial and not accepted.

When powerful nations bully weak nations they may get away with it regardless.

It’s not necessary to trust a media resource in order to derive information from it. — Punshhh

Of course it is, otherwise you're deriving misinformation from it.

Better to take a broad take of many sources to arrive at a sense of what is happening on the ground. — Punshhh

How exactly? How does your 'broad take' give you a sense of what's happening on the ground - give me an example of a state of affairs on the ground you've gained a sense of by this 'broad take' of many sources?

when growing numbers of people emigrate due to the dire standard of living in Russia due to sanctions etc. Presumably Putin will seek to restrict the numbers leaving. — Punshhh

Well no, because that would be the 'iron curtain' you were referring to and you asked me what a situation without it would look like. Such a situation would be one in which he didn't do that.

That certain nations are horribly hypocritical when it comes to their ideals and upholding international law is nothing new, but assassinations are certainly controversial and not accepted. — Tzeentch

Once again: not accepted by whom? By those who do it secretly? Putin is an assassin himself. What right does he have to a decent treatment? Who lives by the sword may die by the sword.

The international community, obviously, including those nations that are powerful enough to get away with it when it suits them.

The international community — Tzeentch

It's an oft mentioned phrase, but there is no such thing as "an international community", I'm afraid. "Community" means having shared goals and values, and I wonder what those would be... Just because we're all on the same boat called 'Earth' doesn't make of us a 'crew', a 'team' or a 'community'.

What diplomats mean by that phrase is usually the West.

Did Russia invade Ukraine in 2022 because the US set up missiles in Europe decades ago to counter the USSR? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I missed your earlier post. I agree with most what you say so I'll just cherrypick what I think is a misrepresentation. Russia invaded because of the continued talks and reaffirmation of Ukraine joining NATO along with a history of NATO expanding where Russia didn't want that.

Also, here's a decent article in the Guardian from yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/13/nato-ukraine-russia-end-war

here's a decent article in the Guardian from yesterday: — Benkei

It's not saying much about what NATO can do...

Why can't there be different reasons for different invasions? Shouldn't a professor expert be able to grasp that two nations with two different positions in relation to Russia could mean two different reasons for invasion? Russia being angry about the Nato border expansion is not the same as invading Ukraine, even if Nato is a driving force for pushing the invasion to occur. But I guess it's hard for you to understand that there can be different reasons even if Nato is involved in both. Nato is a driving force for Russia's military actions in different ways for different nations. For the old USSR states, their membership would block any reestablishment of the old empire. While Nato in Finland and Sweden would enlarge Nato to the north much further as well as block much of the Baltic sea. That's why I didn't say Russia would invade Sweden entirely, but just invade Gotland, since that enables a larger presence in the Baltic sea.

But it doesn't matter anyway since Nato wouldn't invade Russia, this is just Russia's paranoia driving their actions and Nato needs to expand against such mental illness. Russia is just too stupid to understand that its aggression is what drives Nato, both Sweden and Finland wouldn't have thought to join Nato if it weren't for bloathead Putin. Russia does not have power over other nations and any argument positioning other nations as needing to do what Russia requests and wants is just Russian apologetics.

Sweden and Finland may join Nato because WE want to be secure against Russia, but I guess you would point out that we are slaves to the US for doing so. :rofl: Alright Dr Professor

Arguing semantics already? Or you really want me to believe you don't understand what I mean with the term "international community"?

California to Oregon used to be Mexican, besides Texas. Of course much of California was like the Baja California then and not many people besides native Americans lived their. — ssu

I was referring to the names themselves, and implying the places were under Castilian rule.

Of course it is, otherwise you're deriving misinformation from it.

That’s a simplification, there is real information in such a bulletin. Even the biased narrative is in itself and contains information.

The very fact that this subject is being discussed here in an intelligent way is proof of people deriving knowledge of what’s happening on the ground. As we are all sitting in our armchairs.

Well no, because that would be the 'iron curtain' you were referring to and you asked me what a situation without it would look like. Such a situation would be one in which he didn't do that.

And when there is only one person left in Russia, we’ll apart from those who are paid by Putin to stay there? Will things just carry on as normal?

Why can't there be different reasons for different invasions? — Christoffer

There can be. You are arguing that there actually are, not merely that there could be. That's what we professors call a 'difference'.

That's why I didn't say Russia would invade Sweden entirely, but just invade Gotland, since that enables a larger presence in the Baltic sea. — Christoffer

I see, so Russia invading Crimea or Donbas would be something NATO expansion might reasonably be expected to have provoked?

Russia is just too stupid to understand that its aggression is what drives Nato, both Sweden and Finland wouldn't have thought to join Nato if it weren't for bloathead Putin. — Christoffer

Yeah, and he smells too, and apparently, he rides a girl's bike, what a wally!

Sweden and Finland may join Nato because WE want to be secure against Russia, but I guess you would point out that we are slaves to the US for doing so. — Christoffer

Well yeah.

Dr Professor — Christoffer

Just 'Professor' will do, thank you.

Arguing semantics already? Or you really want me to believe you don't understand what I mean with the term "international community"? — Tzeentch

I asked you a precise question: not accepted by whom? And your answer has been quite vague so far. The concept of 'international community' is vague, whether you realize it or not. The "international community" doesn't have a precise contour, and as the phrase tends to be used in the media and diplomacy, it stands for "the West".

I asked for a source. It's not rocket science. You find the article from which you got that assessment and you paste the web address (or paste the quote). — Isaac

If the referral is that "to assist a third country with weapons" didn't mean that the Cold War would escalate to WW3, I think history pretty well shows that.

Russia's aid and actual involvement in the fighting in Korea against the US -> didn't escalate to WW3
Russia's aid to North Vietnam fighting the US -> didn't escalate to WW3
US aid to the Mujaheddin fighting the Soviets -> didn't escalate to WW3

These are example were the other side has assisted a country or faction that is directly engaged with the other sides armed forces. In none of these cases it escalated to WW3.

This in not rocket science. It' basic historical knowledge.

Dr Professor
— Christoffer

Just 'Professor' will do, thank you. — Isaac

Ok, dr Professor Expert.

You're still arguing the same premises that you've done for over a hundred pages, so it doesn't matter what people tell you since you don't even really answer to the premises and points others make, just cherry-pick what is needed to repeat yourself once more. You think people don't need education and you continue to be a Russian apologetic, there's nothing any argument seems to adjust or change, just like a detailed argument against your other ideas didn't change anything. What's the point of having philosophical arguments if you just parrot yourself through hundreds of pages. Discussing with you is irrelevant and pointless.

This in not rocket science. It' basic historical knowledge. — ssu

He's unable to grasp such things, he's opposed to formal education, so I guess he's opposed to learning basic historical knowledge. Or at least it's hard to learn such things if expecting students to learn by themselves without guidance. If this would have been a normal thread on this forum he would have been banned for low-quality posts a long time ago, but here he can roam free.

That’s a simplification, there is real information in such a bulletin. Even the biased narrative is in itself and contains information. — Punshhh

But also dis-information. Or are you saying that all bulletins are factually accurate? The task is to determine which of two opposing (or non-overlapping) narratives you're going to support. Simply saying there's 'information' in them all is insufficient for you to choose between them.

The very fact that this subject is being discussed here in an intelligent way is proof of people deriving knowledge of what’s happening on the ground. — Punshhh

How? Everything said in this entire thread could be false. The fact that you find it to be intelligent doesn't have any bearing on whether it's actually the case.

when there is only one person left in Russia, we’ll apart from those who are paid by Putin to stay there? Will things just carry on as normal? — Punshhh

I doubt it, not with only one person.

If the referral is that "to assist a third country with weapons" didn't mean that the Cold War would escalate to WW3, I think history pretty well shows that. — ssu

What. The fact that we haven't yet had World War Three shows that we couldn't initiate World War Three? That's something of an heterodox argument to say the least.

This in not rocket science. It' basic historical knowledge. — ssu

So the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are what? Too stupid?

So the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are what? Too stupid? — Isaac

I'm sure they know a lot about atoms.

I'm sure they know a lot about atoms. — Olivier5

They're journalists, not scientists.

International community; members of the United Nations.

Do not accept assassination of heads of state as legal practice by virtue of having signed the United Nations charter which forbids the targeted killing of non-combatants under international law.

But you already know these things. You're just looking to start an argument for who knows what reason.

which forbids the targeted killings of non-combatants under international law. — Tzeentch

If the head of state is ordering top military generals on matters of military actions, isn't that like killing generals on the battlefield? They're part of the operation. If Putin is in direct line of command, it's strategic to take him out in order to disorient the chain of command of the ongoing conflict.

Isn't what you are referring to regarded in peacetime, like if some nation conducts an operation to kill a president without that nation being in direct open conflict with the nation conducting that operation? Otherwise (and if our modern international laws of war existed back then) if Hitler didn't kill himself, having the invading alliance troops in Berlin send in an operation to kill Hitler would not have been a violation in such times of war.