My advice to you, Stench, and to the other Kremlinophilic idiots here, is to stop lying. Try a little intellectual rigor and honesty for a change. Otherwise don't bother with engaging others.

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead... — Isaac

I think a case can be made that the most powerful nation was using its power to obtain greater power. Always ask 'who benefits'. At least I agree that there was a possibility.

It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time, and China has had to move to clarify after the recent invasion. It's now repositioning it as "a gaurentee against nuclear weapons," which still has relevance for Russia's first use "escalate to descalate" doctrine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I like China. I also like their 'no first strike' - if they can survive a first strike, then, maybe lose a few billions, they can seize the moral high ground forever. How to excuse a first strike...let' see:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-vulnerable-to-chinese-electromagnetic-attack-experts-say

They are really smarter than I thought : I can see the headlines - The Pentagon reported today that a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMMP) destroyed .... 'high probablility' orignating from Beijing....

If you are a Devil and don't mind killing for your country you do have a lot of options for patriotism I must say.

China has pledged since 1964 that it would not be the first party in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. The South China Morning Post reported in October that Beijing had reiterated its “no first use” policy, despite some officials urging a rethink.

The United States has repeatedly refused to adopt a “no first use” policy, but has vowed not to use nukes against countries that do not have them.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/top-general-china-could-spring-surprise-nuke-attack-on-us/

And...

https://warisboring.com/step-by-step-heres-how-to-defeat-china-in-a-war/

I wonder about Russia's policy.

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction? — EricH

Personally I think the decent, good-hearted people we know as Americans are not running your government. Have you seen Bill Moyers 'Secret Government?".

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start.

Or we're just tired that predictions and analysis made before turned out correct but the apologists keep saying the same things anyway. Logical arguments are made and countered by "where's the evidence" while the evidence to the contrary is Fox news, some unreliable bloggers, and extremely politically biased opinion pieces. If there's little understanding of what is a logical argument with educated predictions and what is actual evidence, there's no discussion that's possible. I'm tired of the low quality in this thread and mods don't care because it's a "political thread" so the bar for quality is set lower than Reddit and the bar for ad hominems is set to bottomless. What's the point when most posts are just Putin apologetic BS?

Mods have been wallowing in low quality themselves on this thread, and have consistently played the anti-NATO flute. Disappointing.

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start. — FreeEmotion

It's called getting your hands dirty. They think it's the price of doing business.

Your people are only innocent because they can't kill thousands, not because they wouldn't and haven't. I know that and I don't even know where you're from.

killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security — FreeEmotion

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war.

Ukraine surrendering? Not gonna happen.
Russia declaring "victory" and going home? Not gonna happen.
Regime change in Russia? Not gonna happen.
Other?

I would gladly be wrong, but it looks like any "solution" is going to be determined on the battlefield.

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe. — Isaac

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US.

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine.

We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West. — Isaac

Because you are making this all to be in your mind a US lead thing. And you simply blatantly disregard everything else. You just simply stack up things that are later responses to events that have happened as to be somehow the causes. The US is one actor, but so is Russia and so is Ukraine.

And your later comment shows this perfectly:

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East. — Isaac

Yes, why? Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state? Because it's crucial to the whole narrative here.

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market — Isaac

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe.

U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has grown rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in February 2016. In 2019, the United States became the world’s third-largest LNG exporter, behind Australia and Qatar.

So the first exports of American LNG happened TWO YEARS AFTER the war started between Russia and Ukraine. And of course Norway has increasing it's production of LNG, but we should remember the agenda to go off from fossil fuel energy because of the Climate Change, which has hindered all such investments. If you favor non-fossil fuel energy production, the first thing isn't to start thinking about LNG.

Yet we all remember how President Trump did lecture Germany about the issue of the Nordstream pipelines, but then Germany didn't budge. But Putin massing two hundred thousand troops on the Ukrainian border and making an all out attack on Ukraine changed that. Only after that Germany did budge.

But somehow that "minor detail" isn't any kind of reason for you, it seems. And when Russia starts from proposals like NATO has to withdraw from all of it's Eastern member states and isn't interested in continuing the Minsk argeement or the Normandy Format, this wasn't an action from Putin to seek a settlement by the negotiation table without a war.

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals. — Isaac

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China? China is the biggest trade partner with Ukraine. Germany is something like half of that.

So you just make this assumption that Ukraine won't trade with China. Out of nowhere.

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe. — Isaac

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets?

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice. — Isaac

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU.

Von der Leyen said she intended to, "present Ukraine's application to the [European] Council this summer."

During the joint press conference von der Leyen said: "Russia will descend in economic, financial and technological decay while Ukraine is marching towards a European future."

That's the actual game plan. Luckily EU membership is far more tougher for the whole society than NATO membership. The EU will likely assist Ukraine as it already assisting it with weapons deliveries. Here actually is a danger, as loose money invites corruption, and if the Ukrainians don't finally change their ways all that EU assistance will make things worse. Actually the Ukrainians do want to for their corrupt system to end, but don't realize how annoying the EU system is.

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action.

The West didn't force him to annex Crimea. The West didn't force him to attack Ukraine. It's Putin that has made everything possible. Large scale invasion of Ukraine was a very stupid move for Russia. Nobody has actually furthered the agenda of US hawks than Putin, that is true. But then one should ask who has responsibility for this: US hawks or Putin?

Of course we shouldn't discuss Russia or the Russian agenda. Even to talk about that is US propaganda. Well, here's one Ukrainian meme, which is quite apt for that discussion:

Lol imagine thinking the US even gives an iota of a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. Jfc you post literal propaganda and expect to the taken seriously.

Lol imagine thinking the US even gives an iota of a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. Jfc you post literal propaganda and expect to the taken seriously. — StreetlightX

I'm not an American.

I do give a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. They've worked just fine in my country.

Yeah, which is why you consistently work so hard to minimize attention and apologize for the worst abuser of all three on the planet.

You're actually minimizing it with your approach.

anti-NATO flute. — Olivier5

Pointing out relevant historical context gets slapped with “anti.” Criticize American foreign policy? You’re anti-American.

Fairly typical jingoism.

He's French.

As I pointed out already, history is relevant to the present IFF you can derive a lesson from it applicable in the present. Otherwise it's water under the bridge. What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/18/turkey-launches-new-offensive-against-kurdish-rebels-in-iraq

Oh look NATO member Turkey is bombing and murdering Kurds in Iraq. Can't wait for Westerners to start caring about Iraqi Kurds and demanding that we send weapons to them to stave off the evil Turks.

You seem to have a serious problem with black and white thinking. "Morale is sometimes the most important issue in a conflict," is not equivalent to "morale is always the deciding issue in a conflict."

Obviously some degree of morale is a necessary condition for victory. In certain cases, as I have given examples of, superior morale is a sufficient cause for victory in spite of inferior numbers, equipment, tactics, and leadership. Obviously, sometimes dumb luck also intervenes to change the course of history as well (e.g., the role of storms in attempts to invade Japan and the degree of losses suffered by the Spanish Armada).

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/04/russian-invasion-ukraine-us-sanctions-inflation-global-economy

Turns out that most countries in the global south - whose opinions actually matter - have more sense then NATO bootlickers who like to frequent this thread, which is unsurprising but fun to be reminded of:

I think that most countries in the Global South have condemned Russia’s invasion but have been very hesitant to go beyond that, at this point, and be dragged into a US-NATO-led bloc. I think this is a recognition of three things. One is that it was partly NATO’s expansion right up to the borders of Russia that created the conditions for Putin’s countermove. This push to get countries on the border with Russia into NATO has been going on since 1994.

The West, and in particular the United States, has been involved in regime change in Ukraine, especially with the Maidan uprising in 2014, very much linked to fascist groups. And now this is being used by the United States for a real drive to regain its primacy as the global hegemon, seeking to rescue its tattered reputation after its defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was also a NATO defeat.

...Yes, I think [Western double-standards] is one of the reasons why Global South countries are keeping a distance from the US efforts to drag them onto Washington’s side. Definitely the double standards in relation to Ukraine versus the Iraq War, the civil war in Syria, the Palestine-Israeli long war, and the Saudi genocidal war in Yemen, that is all very clear in the Global South and there is an awareness of the real historical record. We won’t be duped.

This is why trying to create a unified anti-Russian alliance isn’t going to work. Everyone knows there are clear double standards and the United States is really using the Ukrainian crisis to reassert its hegemony. I think Washington was hoping that somehow it would be able to reconstruct the past and create amnesia about what happened in the Middle East with its wars there, but that hasn’t worked.

Always ask 'who benefits'. — FreeEmotion

A good principle. Seems to lose against 'who's benefit does it benefit me to ask about'.

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US. — ssu

I've quite clearly included Europe and NATO in my analysis, referring often to 'the West' or "US, Europe and NATO", so no, it's not all about the US, just mainly so. I've been quite clear about my reasons for that. 'The West' is where I live and where virtually everyone here lives, it's the governments over which we have some say and some responsibility for.

you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US. — ssu

How does the subject matter of the conversation here exculpate Russia? Russia invaded a country. No one's disputing that, and seeing as no one has said that it was OK for them to have invaded a country, there's no exculpation. you're actually arguing that the US did nothing wrong (not morally wrong, anyway) that's far from saying 'other players were also wrong' (as I am in focusing on the US), it's actually saying 'no other players were wrong' ie exculpation.

In other words, it's not exculpation to say that other people were also wrong. It is exculpation to say they weren't.

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine. — ssu

...and a dozen other things.

you simply blatantly disregard everything else. — ssu

I've written hundreds of posts. I haven't 'disregarded' anything. My most recent reply to you...

The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have. — Isaac

That doesn't disregard what you said. It directly quotes it and then takes issue with it. Just because I don't agree with your position, it doesn't mean I'm disregarding it. You seem to be falling into @Christoffer's trap of confusing saying something is the case with 'explaining'. You're not my teacher, nor are you an expert, so when you say something, I may well disagree with it.

Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state? — ssu

A combination of alienation, condescension, and provocation in its foreign policy which (knowing the type of person Putin is) was knowingly more likely to lead to the situation we have now then not. I mean this isn't crazy 'out there' thinking. It's what foreign policy expert after expert has been warning successive US governments about for years. I've already cited them saying exactly that.

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe. — ssu

This is a great example of the issue you have confusing 'explaining' with discussing. I didn't just make up what I said did I (I mean, if you seriously think I'm just going to take a guess about something as specific as LNG imports...) So you looked up something, I looked up something... but you just assume the difference simply must result from me being wrong - blinded by my ideology - and not, say, you being wrong.

If you're struggling, a normal conversation would go "oh, those aren't the figures I've got. Where did you get yours from?"

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals. — Isaac

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China? — ssu

Russia. Ukraine's third largest export market. To the East of Ukraine, no?

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe. — Isaac

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets? — ssu

Well, because there's a war on, obviously. So they act to ensure it continues rather then end it as soon as possible.

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice. — Isaac

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU. — ssu

EU - 1.2 billlion, IMF 1.4 billion on top of the 27 million already lent. But yeah. The EU will shaft them with pecuniary loan terms too. So?

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action. — ssu

That's literally saying exactly what I suggested. That all this fortune merely accrued to the US (and Europe) by chance. It's all Putin's actions and they just happened, by sheer good fortune, to be exactly those actions which most benefit the West.

Cui bono.

Mods have been wallowing in low quality themselves on this thread, and have consistently played the anti-NATO flute. Disappointing. — Olivier5

Yeah, it seems that it's impossible to be both critical of the west and still understand things like Sweden and Finland's will to get security through Nato. I think the biggest problem is a black and white fallacy: the reason for the invasion can only be one or the other, and the will to join Nato means supporting everything they do, and being in Nato means supporting the US in everything they do (which makes little sense to the educated about Nato), and being critical of Russia means Russophobia and so on and so on...

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread. It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it. But things change, things get complicated, and being rational means understanding more sides than one. This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine. Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board. It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here. Fucking whataboutism everywhere, trying to shift the discussion from what is actually going on to a topic closer to the heart of the one writing. Ego-boosting their intellectual delusions by trying to sound smarter than all experts in the field, cherry-picking evidence, and rhetorically ignoring everything that is hard to counter, choosing only segments easy to twist their tongue around. All while the mods ignore the cesspool quality of this thread. :vomit: I expected some level of moral understanding, some level of understanding of pragmatic hard choices, but this thread is just as bad as any Reddit thread on the subject. I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers.

Got no takers on the "is this the end of the main battle tank era?" question I see, but I'm starting to think the bigger lesson learned will be the reemergence of artillery as a much larger part of operations. Guided artillery shells seem to be doing much more damage as the war goes on. The ability to use far cheaper artillery, with infinite "loiter" time, to provide the equivalent of close air support and to hit moving vehicles seems like a game changer. The Excalibur shell the US fields has come down in cost, from $250,000 to $65,000. It allows the use of 155mm artillery to within 150 feet of friendly forces. Newer rounds can be blind fired and pick up targets and feed back recon data in flight, and can be called off if too close to friendlies. Extended range versions can cover 43 miles.

This could be huge for lower budget forces. The ANA was extremely hampered by coming to rely on close air support that it lost when the US left. This provides similar functionality at a fraction of the cost. It appears to be devestating Russian advances in some cases, that is for sure.

Edit: my understanding is that the ability to hit moving targets is somewhat limited, and self-guided shells that pick targets are more expensive. Ok for hitting something large like a tank, APC, or IFV, provided it is moving slowly, not at the level of drones or jets, where a guided munition can hit a windshield on a truck speeding down the highway (yet).

Already though, there is a counter to this. The new M1 has an interceptor system for shells, rockets, and drones, but more impressively, Israel just unveiled a laser system that fries incoming shells and rockets. The bonus here is that you don't have to rely on munitions, and it should be cheaper over time. In theory, you could cover counter battery fire using a system powered by a solar panel.

The new Mitsubishi F-3, which might be the first Gen 6 air superiority fighter to actually make it out, has a huge powerplant for future laser projectile defense, and the ability for it to intercept long range missiles with the laser system (in theory). However, it strangely is missing the ability to fly without a pilot, which I think will be common in the future (my guess is that all first wave bombers will be unmanned soon, but not fighters for a while).

Russia, overshooting the space between high concept and ridiculous sci-fi, claims that the MiG-31 will not only have both these abilities, but will have a working scramjet, allowing it to hit Mach 4-5 (sort of ridiculous) and the ability to travel into space (farcical on the level of Reagan's satalite-based laser missile defense bullshit).

the reason for the invasion can only be one or the other — Christoffer

Yes, but what kind of dogmatically blinded idealist would be so stupid as to assume such a complex situation was all down to one reason or another...?

So, yeah, this is all Putin. — Christoffer

...oh, yeah, I remember.

being critical of Russia means Russophobia — Christoffer

I know! Fancy thinking that being critical of one party makes you a supporter of one or the other...

everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it — Christoffer

the other Kremlinophilic idiots here — Olivier5

being rational means understanding more sides than one. — Christoffer

I see. So just point me in the direction of any of your posts which are understanding of the arguments that NATO provocation was partly responsible for this war?

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine — Christoffer

Russia is bombing the shit out of it. Can you quote a single person denying that?

their intellectual delusions by trying to sound smarter than all experts in the field, — Christoffer

I've repeatedly asked you for citations from experts supporting your position and you've repeatedly refused. Experts in the field have repeatedly warned successive US governments that NATO's actions may provoke a war. I've cited several. You cited no one. In fact when I asked, you've specifically said...

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment. — Christoffer

So who exactly is "trying to sound smarter than all experts"? The ones directly citing them, or the one claiming he doesn't need to cite them because he does his own 'deep dive' research and his amazing 'rational induction of the facts'?

You are the one proving my point the most Mr people-don't-need-education-professor-expert. Impossible to take you seriously and I don't.

I expected some level of moral understanding, some level of understanding of pragmatic hard choices, but this thread is just as bad as any Reddit thread on the subject. — Christoffer

I used to think so but I then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here...

Yeah, kind of starting to think all the "NATO" "Nazi" "Putin is unstable" whatever stories are diversions or bullshit, and the invasion is a snaffle. (Or attempted, so far.)
What more reason do you need? Coherent.
Of course NATO would get in the way of that (baad for momentum), maybe even China could, and now, unlike Crimea, the Ukrainians sure have (baad for momentum). Roll into Donbas (good for momentum).

another stage of this operation is beginning — Sergei Lavrov (Apr 19, 2022)

Yeah, Sweden and Finland should join NATO. Might have a good influence there, too.

I used to think so but I then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here... — Olivier5

I'm not surprised.

You complain about black and white thinking yet you exclusively blame Putin for everything.

You complain about partisanship yet you assume anyone critical of NATO is 'siding with Russia'.

You accuse people of trying to play 'smarter than the experts' yet you refuse to cite a single one and claim your own rational induction is superior.

You complain about ad hominem attacks yet can't write more than two paragraphs without using one.

You complain about the gutter-ward direction of the tribalism in this thread yet fill half your posts with invective about 'the other side'.

You clearly have compartmentalising down to a fine art. I'm impressed.

You are completely delusional about what has been discussed in this thread.

Impressively, you manage to preamble your simplifying delusions with talk of complexity.

You actually manage to say:

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread — Christoffer

Followed by:

It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it. — Christoffer

Yet somehow also manage to follow that immediately with:

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Again, how do you know that Russia does not have just cause?

No one so far has actually provided a solid argument, but only their self-righteous ideological BS.

If you use an international legalistic theory: why is it true? Why does Russia need to follow it?

I asked many, many, many pages ago the question of how many Nazis is too many Nazis. It's been declared several times there wasn't "enough" Nazis in Ukraine, but that presupposes some measure of enough that would justify invasion.

If it's clear there's not enough Nazis in Ukraine ... ok, such an argument must logically start with "this much would be too much" followed by evidence that Ukraine had less than their invasion justifying Nazi quota. Some apologetics were thrown out instead (not answering the question of how many is too many, which by definition is required to argue there's not enough), to which I posted the western journalists reporting that clearly demonstrated there is significantly more Nazi's with significantly more institutional power in Ukraine than elsewhere in the West ... which, if we're doing philosophy, even if it was true that there's no more Nazi's with no more power than any Western nation, the question of whether that's too much or not has still not been answered.

It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here. — Christoffer

Please cite any dealing of the Nazi's in Ukraine as "not enough" that wasn't apologetics but some rigorous argument that, by definition, must start with an argument of how many Nazis is too many Nazis.

Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board. — Christoffer

Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism, but part of the "understanding the situation" that you nominally promote. Pointing out the US getting caught red handed perpetrating war crimes like torture and wars of aggression based on made up evidence is not whataboutism, as it helps understand the rest of the world, as @Isaac recently pointed out, not giving a shit anymore about the NATO's moralising, which helps understand why Russia has not been effectively cutoff from the global economy, which helps understand why it can continue to wage war and the goal of the sanctions was not accomplished. And, if non-Western countries no longer even bother listening to NATO's moralising, then it also helps explain why Russians, as far as we can tell, are even less affected by it.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation, which, in turn, is essential for understanding the situation.

As for war crimes, it's simply a fact the only war crimes so far with essentially definitive proof are what the Ukrainians self-document and post to the internet themselves. This is essentially definitive proof as it cannot be doubted as Russian propaganda.

Of course, you can say Russians have committed more crimes but are just less operationally incompetent and don't proudly post it to Twitter ... but, obviously that's not a basis for proof.

As for allegations, the nature of allegations is they need to be proven, and, once proven, the nature of the legal system cited A. means nothing as does not have jurisdiction over the Russians and B. still actually needs a prosecution process.

Pointing out that talk of "crime" requires talk of "evidence" and the potential for the accused to "defend themselves" and then some, hopefully, credible prosecution and impartial judgement, is simply explaining what a "war crime" means apart from self-righteous ideology. If you get rid of the evidence and prosecution and some trusted legal institution that renders justice ... what is left in the meaning of "war crime"?

It, in that case, reduces to: I don't like it.

And, if that's your definition. I don't like it either, so we'd be in agreement.

I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers. — Christoffer

Have you been on reddit about this subject?

This is potentially the most deluded and insane projection I have ever seen anywhere in any context.

You actually have the gumption to call this thread a circle jerk.

Have you visited /r/worldnews on the topic of Ukraine?

I was able to find only a single "pro Russian" (according to your definition) comment on the entire top thread of r/worldnews (since I'll actually bother to verify your claim reddit is an echo chamber of pro Russian sentiment right now):

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/u6w4fn/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/

Which was an answer to the following question:

Out of curiosity, what are the worst takes/opinions youve seen in these live threads?

And was:

That NATO should place a bunch of missiles on the Finnish border by St Petersburg as soon as they join.

That attempted diplomacy is somehow bad, even though it very rarely hurts the situation and is always the preferable solution if it does work.

That Russia has never contributed anything to the world.

The continuous outrage that the UN is the UN and not whatever world government type of organization that people seem to think it is.

That the world is or could be forced to be fair. — khomyukk

Now, if you can find a bunch of more pro-Russian content, please cite it. If you can't ... what would it mean that an entire thread of hundreds of comments is only jingoistic celebration of the "cause du jour"? And, honestly, as far as I can tell, comments I really don't think are up to your standards of complexity and nuance.

then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here... — Olivier5

Off you go then.