I think Germany made similar mistakes … to regain the glory days and by doing so you don’t really understand what empire building really is.

Yeah, his actions were stupid beyond belief, it made everything he wanted to avoid happen: NATO got bigger, large swaths of the world sanctioned Russia, etc.

But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized.

Disagree on your last sentence at best both parties are to blame with NATO not really taking into account the little man’s insecurities.

It's easy to blame a complex geo-political situation on "little mens insecurities". But fine, we can leave it at that, or, if you want a final response, go for it. Not point in arguing this further if we have settled opinions on the matter.

That’s ok. Thank you for your stance in all this. At the very least I have been educated on the thoughts of various philosophers on your profile wall as I glanced at it and even absorbing pink floyds brief philosophical point

Thank you.

But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized. — Manuel

How do facts bear this out?

Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.

NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders.

Far more likely, Russia considers Ukraine at best a proper satellite of imperial Russia. Even the suggestion that Ukraine join NATO challenges this status and is intolerable.

Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.

NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders. — hypericin

Once the conflict started it was too late. Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc.

As far back as late 2021 there were gestures at NATO membership. If the Russians weren't serious about this being the main factor of the war, they wouldn't have been mentioning it for 20 years, it was a red line.

As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html

Yeah, Ukraine in NATO is a great idea for having a nuclear war any random day, if a mistake is committed by either side.

As an aside, Putin asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO back in 2000, I believe. It was considered by Clinton and rejected by his advisors. Why? That's a question worth exploring.

In any case, nothing of what I've said justifies the war, it should be clear. But the provocations did happen.

If Russia did ask to join nato back in 2000 what was their intention and long game.

There is no precedent in history of two superpowers forming such an explicit alliance. But perhaps western influence would have been useful to their leadership.

but whether supporting the US agenda is part of your narrative or not is unclear. — Isaac

Oh Lordy. At least we know your agenda then. I’m just interested in the whys and wherefores.

Far more likely, Russia considers Ukraine at best a proper satellite of imperial Russia. Even the suggestion that Ukraine join NATO challenges this status and is intolerable. — hypericin

Yes, Putin was afraid the store would close before he could rush in to steal the item.

Interesting development in the weapons supply coming from U.S:

In bid for new long-range rockets, Ukraine offers U.S targeting oversight

My intuition is that national pride trumps everything else. — Manuel

I hate to say it, but I'm actually glad at this stage that the US, and I suspect Russia, are run by klepocratic opportunists. Their greed may be the only thing actually preventing this ridiculous Hollywood fantasy roleplay that seems so popular from escalating further.

I'm unclear on something: You mean bad economics inside the US or in Russia?

Russia seems to be surviving somehow. — Manuel

Both. Russia are more self sufficient than many of the larger economies, but those invested in the big industries (oil, fertilisers, wheat) still would rather their markets were viable - and, of course, let's not pretend any of the big players have been remotely effected by sanctions. Most wealthy Russians have a broad enough range of investments to benefit from whatever crisis is stoked as the latest excuse for profiteering.

Once the conflict started it was too late. — Manuel

"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief.

Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc. — Manuel

So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible?

As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html — Manuel

This hypothetical is in response to a Russian nuclear strike. By that point, the calculus changes dramatically.

But I ask you, what country with nukes, would willingly accept humiliation in the battlefield? — Manuel

America has been humiliated on the battlefield without resorting to nukes. We've lost entire wars without nuking anyone.

I'm positive I remember Zelensky offering to abandon his NATO bid immediately before the invasion. But I cannot find this anywhere. Did I hallucinate this?

I hope so. I mean, it looks to me as if these people watch too many action films. They've reaped plenty of profits and have set back Russia for some considerable time. What more do they want by now?

The billionaires are fine, you're correct, the rest of the country less so, and who knows what longer term impacts will happen with these sanctions.

"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief. — hypericin

You really expect that, prior to the invasion, the negotiations were rejected, and then as soon as it was launched, they would've stopped and retreated? Really? Would any other great power do that?

Now is a different story (and even months before, not a week or two after invasion), much life has been lost and is only getting more dangerous every day for everybody.

So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible? — hypericin

Oh, you prefer the virtually non-existent honest politicians? Politicians, by definition, are liars, so of course proven liars must negotiate.

America has been humiliated on the battlefield without resorting to nukes. — RogueAI

Where? Vietnam? Killing 1,000,000 civilians and destroying the ruling government is humiliation? Iraq? They got rid of Saddam.

Afghanistan, maybe. But everyone who has tried if Afghanistan has failed. But then nuking Afghanistan would not have changed much by way of war aims, I don't think.

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin.

Ahhh. Yeah. What a nutjob, that would have been insane.

But - now we have the Taiwan issue, so, history repeating.

Fantastic.

the negotiations were rejected, and then as soon as it was launched, they would've stopped and retreated? Really? — Manuel

Obviously. They would have been negotiating from a position of power, and gotten what they wanted. But what they wanted is nothing less than Ukraine.

Politicians, by definition, are liars, so of course proven liars must negotiate. — Manuel

Yet you are holding Zelensky to this unrealistic standard while he negotiates with one of the greatest liars in politics.

Obviously. They would have been negotiating from a position of power, and gotten what they wanted. But what they wanted is nothing less than Ukraine. — hypericin

If they retreated as soon as they invaded, that would convey weakness, not power. By now, as you said, the situation is very different.



More of a liar than Trump, Obama, Bush? I highly doubt that. Not because he's less bad, but because he doesn't have the same amount of power.

Whatever you think of Putin, it's with him you must negotiate, cause he's the one in power. That's a much lower standard than risking a nuclear Armageddon.

Whatever you think of Putin, it's with him you must negotiate, cause he's the one in power. That's a much lower standard than risking a nuclear Armageddon. — Manuel

Exactly. There's two options. 1) Negotiate a peace deal. 2) Defeat Russia so utterly they have no bargaining position.

For the first Ukraine needs a position - what they're prepared to give up. For the second there needs to be a plausible strategy whereby it might happen. Choosing the second over the first is only reasonable if fewer lives are going to be destroyed that way. I've yet to be given even a vague notion of how the second option, especially with the nuclear risk, could possibly involve less risk to human life.

Anything not directly addressing that decision is just theatrics.

Also, the purpose of taking the airport is to use it. Failure to secure it through combined forces is part and parcel to the failure of the whole operation as detailed in this comparison of Hostomel with the failure of Market Garden in WW2 — Paine

Yes, the later waves coming by cargo aircraft couldn't land as the fighting continued. Basically the Hostomel Airport (or Antonov Airport) I guess was the furthest Russian forces came.

And they were relieved, weren't they? — Tzeentch

And withdrew later.

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin. — RogueAI

There's actually two reasons for not using nukes in Korea.

One was the political ramifications, which are obvious and more-or-less the same as today.

But the other reason was the fear that the mountainous terrain would render the nukes not so effective, and that the world would actually fear them less and not more after their use.

Same argument has been presented here that nukes wouldn't be effective.

However, apart from the situation not being the same, Ukraine being quite flat, it's also not the same situation technology wise with the kinds of nukes and speed at which they could be fabricated.

US policy back in Korea days was to build 600 nukes (it was reckoned the magic number) and to then simply destroy the Soviet Union. Anything less and you have protracted war, but 600 was reasoned to be "enough" to destroy the Soviet Union as a going concern.

Of course, it's anyone's guess if the US would have gone through with it, but the soviets developing nukes put an end to that plan.

The danger today is of course escalation does go out of hand and leads to full on nuclear war.

It definitely seems now the general mood, a sort of ethereal nihilism that civilisation has wandered into and launching nukes maybe just the next tic toc meme: felt cute, might delete the planet in 20 minutes.

It is frightening, and even if low probability, something to be worried about. A small risk of nuclear war is still unacceptable morally speaking.

However, even if nukes are used and there is no escalation to nuclear exchange (which I would put my money on, and not simply because it's the scenario I can spend money), the use of a nuke usher in crazy nuclear proliferation and that would get out of hand later.

If the great powers cannot manage world affairs responsibly, everyone is going to want nukes and the great powers will also go back to having even more.

It's not a good thing to throw into the mix of climate change and resource depletion of various kinds.

Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, does not make it the default position that any dissenters must overcome a high burden of proof to critique, just makes it propaganda. — boethius

Bold claims without justification like prior 24th of February that Russia was posed to attack Ukraine. :smirk:

Bold claims without justification like Ukraine has regained territory. :snicker:

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin. — RogueAI

After 1945 usually victorious countries in war aren't having a public (or private) debate of using nukes. It usually is brought up when things don't look so good. I think there was some debate/discussion to use nukes with Dien Bien Phu, but that naturally didn't go anywhere.

Whether Putin can be baited into doing it on the other side though remains open. I think he's unpredictable enough to do it if he's got nothing left. No one thought he'd invade the way he did in the first place. — Isaac

Wait a minute! Didn't Joe Biden talk about it a lot? You remember? The thing you didn't believe was true / was just US propaganda?

Anyway....

Lyman has fallen. Although Russians did manage to withdraw. And some advances seem to be made by Ukraine in the south too.

However, even if nukes are used and there is no escalation to nuclear exchange (which I would put my money on, and not simply because it's the scenario I can spend money), the use of a nuke usher in crazy nuclear proliferation and that would get out of hand later. — boethius

I think the response to Putin using nuclear weapons wouldn't be a nuclear escalation. And naturally the West is trying to make a sincere warning that it would be a bad thing to do.

We can agree then that Mearsheimer was correct in that Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons was a very bad idea: with them it could have deterred Russian imperialism.

When Ukraine regained its independence at the end of 1991, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 44 strategic bombers and some 1900 strategic nuclear warheads remained on its territory. Under the terms of the May 1992 Lisbon Protocol to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), Ukraine agreed to rid itself of the strategic weapons, but Kyiv made clear that certain questions first had to be resolved.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators tried for months to find answers to those questions. In September 1993, however, it became apparent that the bilateral discussions would not succeed. U.S. negotiators thus engaged in a trilateral process with Moscow and Kyiv. The exchanges played out over the fall and resulted in an agreement early in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk signed the statement on January 14 in Moscow.

The Trilateral Statement confirmed that Ukraine would eliminate all of the strategic nuclear weapons on its territory and accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state “in the shortest possible time.” In return for this, the statement provided that Kyiv receive:

Security assurances. The United States, Russia and Britain would provide security assurances to Ukraine, such as to respect its independence and to refrain from economic coercion. Those assurances were formally conveyed in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances signed in December 1994. (Curiously, Kyiv has never invoked the memorandum, not even during its dispute with Moscow over Tuzla Island in 2003 or when the Russian government applied trade sanctions in 2013 to dissuade Ukraine from signing an association agreement with the European Union.)

Compensation for highly-enriched uranium (HEU). Russia agreed to provide fuel rods for Ukrainian nuclear reactors containing low enriched uranium equivalent to the HEU removed from the nuclear warheads transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement.

Elimination assistance. The United States agreed to make available substantial Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance to cover the costs of eliminating the ICBMs, strategic bombers, ICBM silos and other nuclear infrastructure in Ukraine.

While there were minor hiccups, implementation of the Trilateral Statement went fairly smoothly. The last train with nuclear warheads from Ukraine arrived in Russia on June 1, 1996, and the last of the strategic bombers, ICBMs and ICBM silos were destroyed by 2001.

So the pretext here then SSU is that ignoring the above trilateral agreement was because of the perceived threat of NATO expansion.

Not worth the paper it was written on then.

Yes. And the end of the day, these are - at bottom - the two choices available to us. The answer for any rational agent, should be obvious.

So the pretext here then SSU is that ignoring the above trilateral agreement was because of the perceived threat of NATO expansion.

Not worth the paper it was written on then. — Deus

That was the time when people where genuinely thinking that Russia might someday join NATO. And the Cold War was over. An NATO was interested in "new threats" like fighting terrorism.

I think it's quite obvious what the objectives have been for Russia. First Crimea, then Novorossiya. Pretty hard to deny it. Same old line since Catherine the Great.