, without talks, everyone will just remain in the dark if you will. Putin might simply say "Nope" and bomb on, in which case everyone is equally in the dark. Or, he/they may engage, raise concerns (perhaps even legitimate ones), in which case: less in the dark. Part of talks is to publicize/share information. :up:

We might suppose things kind of freeze for a while with, say, Putin's Russia having taken over Crimea + Donbas + Zaporizhia, now parts of Russia according to them. Russian law, with whatever changes the autocrat circle sees fit, will be enforced. Give it another 8 years, with lots of new Russian soldiers, bomb factories, re-culturation, Putin's Chef (a nasty piece of work) having acquired additional power, industrial-strength propaganda and oppression, whatever along their current trajectory, and you have a recipe for disaster. (Kadyrov is another nasty piece of work in a top position, that ought to take up knitting rather than politics.) From memory (admittedly unreliable), Moldova is neutral by law (their constitution), which Putin's Russia has taken advantage of with Transnistria, a remnant of Soviet takeovers, happily inherited by Moscow. Such goes some longer-term conjectures — speculation yet plausible — that no one (else) wants, that would increase victim counts into an uncertain future.

On the other hand, if talks could reveal thinking, plans, concerns, objectives, issues, etc, then everyone would have something to consider, something stated to mull over, something to talk about. (Maybe Putin would just say "Ukraine is ours"? At least that'd be something.) A next-generation Kharkiv Pact remains worthwhile pursuing.

As an aside, my impression is that the EU needs to step up. There's far too much babbling thumb-twiddling impotence sitting-on-hands. Putin isn't all that likely to pay much attention to, say, Čaputová or Cassis on their own, just wee blotches on his map. Putting it off to our children (or their children) is too close to being complicit.

Talks, where talkers would bring something like the suggestion to be talked about. :up:

BEIJING, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping, discussing Ukraine with U.S. President Joe Biden during their meeting on Monday in Indonesia, said nuclear weapons cannot be used and nuclear wars cannot be fought, according to a statement by the Chinese foreign minister.

This seems to have had an effect on the discussion about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Likely the costs of any "Escalation to de-escalation" would be far too big.

The countries that have acknowledged the annexation of Crimea don't include China btw. (They are The countries are: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela)

China has simply abstained from both recognizing and discouraging the recognition in the votes in the UN.

He doesn't rule over Taiwan. I don't know what you meant by that comment.



For some things yeah, you can do that, for others its much harder. I mean you have to consider military personal, construction workers, tax payers. Automation can only do so much. Maybe some radical new AI discovery will render people obsolete in most things, but we are far from reaching that point.

In any case, whatever happens in Ukraine in terms of winning or losing, has no consequence for us in terms of who will lead us. It's not a serious issue for people who don't share a border with Russia.

I don't even know how to reply to this, because it looks to me so, so far removed from actual possibility. There's been talk - for some time now - of the whole "decline of the American Empire" and so on. — Manuel

What is "far removed from actual possibility”? I’m talking about things that happened and are happening. Besides the West is not just the US.

First of all, this overlooks a crucial problem for China: drastic declining population numbers. This is going to severely affect economic output. — Manuel

Demographic dynamics are one aspect of the problem sure. But a part from the fact that it would be more useful to compare demographic trends of Russia and China wrt the Western countries, considering that now the Rest is ~7B vs the West ~1B (that the difference could grow in the future, see Africa and India), and that authoritarian regimes are trying to extend their sphere of influence particularly in the Rest of the world (according to which - somebody could say - the West "it's been mostly shit" [cit.]), the demographic trends won’t be in favour of the West for the foreseeable future.

But the main point to me anyway, is to ask, how many military bases does the US have around the world? Around 750.
How many does Russia have? 20. What about China? 1. That makes a grand total of 21 military bases vs 750 — Manuel

Now is the case, but how about the future? Considering the growing military buildup of authoritarian regimes (that at this point doesn’t concern anymore only land and maritime control but also space control), the American temptation to reduce their military commitment around the world (due to the costs of maintaining such bases, the pressure of isolationist trends to the point of even having a anti-NATO presidential administration partnering with Putin, and deep unresolved domestic politics issues), and other Western countries weaknesses in military capabilities and mindset (many Westerners are scared to think of a military confrontation with Russia), your observation doesn’t sound all that reassuring at all. Besides military security is not the only issue. There is also economic and political security. Russian attempts to destabilise Western politics through lobby, cyber-warfare and undercover alliance (like with Hungary and Serbia) are already severely insidious and can likely continue in the future. As well as the Russian capacity of threatening economic security by destabilising the market of commodities like for wheat and gas (among others) can likely continue in the future.
Most importantly, it’s precisely because the West didn’t consider Russia or China a security threat that Russia and China could grow richer in 30 years of Western-led globalisation and support their hegemonic ambitions at the expense of the West. It’s after 22 years of economic partnership with the West and Western complacency with Putin’s expansionism in Ukraine since 2014, that Putin could likely feel encouraged to push further his hegemonic agenda.

↪Manuel
That entire post is build on the predicate that the West is a power for good. Which it mostly only is when you actually live there. For the rest of the world it's been mostly shit. — Benkei

Is this an objection to my post? If so, that's a strawman argument since you are suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good for the rest of the world" which thing I never stated nor believe. On the other side, if you are simply suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good" because I'm living in the West where is the objection? You yourself claimed: "Which it mostly only is when you actually live there".
In any case, I never stated such a slogan "the West is a power for good" nor I would express myself in such terms.

He doesn't rule over Taiwan. — Manuel

No, but he wants to.

now the Rest is ~7B vs the West ~1B — neomac

What are you including in the west?

American temptation to reduce their military commitment around the world — neomac

They are constantly overspending on the military, no matter who gets in power.

Anything beyond 5 years is way too much speculation in my view. We don't know what will happen.



Sure. But he can't.

For some things yeah, you can do that, for others its much harder. I mean you have to consider military personal, construction workers, tax payers. Automation can only do so much. Maybe some radical new AI discovery will render people obsolete in most things, but we are far from reaching that point. — Manuel

Yes, we need humans for some things. China's progress toward great power status won't be hindered by having a slightly smaller population.

In any case, whatever happens in Ukraine in terms of winning or losing, has no consequence for us in terms of who will lead us. It's not a serious issue for people who don't border Russia. — Manuel

The war has weakened Russia's international standing and has positioned Russia as a client of China.

Have you guys discussed this article yet? It argues that the war in Ukraine amounts to genocide. I am hard pressed to disagree. Yet it doesn't even go into the destruction of power infrastructure, which I am worried will lead to mass civilian casualties.

, yeah, it's related to what I ended up calling re-culturation (admittedly an invented word from enculturation).

Oct 21, 2022

By the way, I already mentioned the Uyghur situation and the old Canadian Indian residential school system because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations — re-culturation. — Oct 29, 2022

Nov 8, 2022
Nov 11, 2022

Not really the kind of machinery you want rolling into town.

Hmm... Are the war efforts losing steam/support or is that just wishful thinking?

Analysis: Have China and India shifted stance on Russia war?
^{— Foster Klug · AP News · Nov 17, 2022}

G20’s criticism of Russia shows the rise of a new Asian power. And it isn’t China
^{— Rhea Mogul · CNN · Nov 17, 2022}

Angry families say Russian conscripts thrown to front line unprepared
^{— Robyn Dixon, Natalia Abbakumova · The Washington Post · Nov 20, 2022}

Meanwhile in Russia: a rare moment of sanity on Russian state TV, when one panelist was finally fed up with Vladimir Solovyov's threats to wipe Kyiv or Kharkiv off the face of the earth.
^{— Julia Davis · Russian Media Monitor · Nov 20, 2022}

The wife of a Russian soldier says she gave her TV away because the war in Ukraine was making her 'aggressive'
^{— Sophia Ankel · Business Insider · Nov 21, 2022}

Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov had clearly given up on the idea of defeating Ukraine militarily. In his desperation to scare the West into stopping its support, he resorts to nuclear threats—but even fellow propagandists are sick of it & say he lost all sense of reality.
^{— Julia Davis · Russian Media Monitor · Nov 22, 2022}

Families of drafted Russian soldiers accuse Putin of snubbing them
^{— Andrew Roth · The Guardian · Nov 23, 2022}

Putin's only alliance could crumble after special summit shows Russian despot isolated
^{— Alessandra Scotto di Santolo · Express · Nov 24, 2022}

Is this an objection to my post? If so, that's a strawman argument since you are suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good for the rest of the world" which thing I never stated nor believe. On the other side, if you are simply suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good" because I'm living in the West where is the objection? You yourself claimed: "Which it mostly only is when you actually live there".
In any case, I never stated such a slogan "the West is a power for good" nor I would express myself in such terms. — neomac

So the West should lose then?

What might prompt such a time? — Isaac

I could come across one of these guys saying something I find interesting — Olivier5

I'm curious about what you find to be so boring about the risk of nuclear escalation resulting from the very actions you're currently supporting? Unless you're already biased against such views (which would be prejudicial) we have some apparent experts (they do have some credentials without you needing to do any research at all) sating that your preferred course of action might lead to nuclear war and your response is "call me if anything interesting turns up".

You seriously expect anyone to believe that isn't massively biased?

Continuing your education...

Chatham House? Heard of them? Dr Patricia Lewis Acting Deputy Director echoed Avril Haine's concern

Putin made further – and stronger – nuclear threats and seemed to stretch Russian nuclear doctrine from nuclear weapons use being only in the event of an existential threat to instead a threat to territorial integrity – this is particularly worrying given that territory looks set to change and it is contested by Ukraine

These developments are escalating what was already a highly dangerous situation in which mixed messaging with the potential for misinterpretation could lead to decisions being made under false assumptions – there is a well-documented history of close calls with nuclear weapons.

... the application of deterrence theory to the post-cold war realities is hotly contested and far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks which can interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.

Also wondering what your experts say about The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg. Is he one of the...

Kremlin-affiliated cretins — Olivier5

...when he says "The risk of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is low, but the consequences will be huge, so we take it very seriously,"

Oh and as to your absolute bollocks about...

"

assessed their credibility and biases critically and effectively — Olivier5

...here what about 30 seconds of internet research found out about your sources...

Michel Goya works for BFM-TV a channel which has faced numerous accusations of bias, been caught lying (coverage of the yellow-vest protests), co-writing their material with the subject of their inquiries (police unions), and openly giving preferential support to politicians it favours.

Xavier Tytelman is a private contractor whose business benefit directly from conflict

and the ISW... seriously

ISW ... supported in part by contributions from defense contractors[6] including General Dynamics, DynCorp,[7] and previously, Raytheon.[8]

critics have described ISW as "a hawkish Washington" group[32] favoring an "aggressive foreign policy".[6] Writers for The Nation and Foreign Policy have called it "neoconservative".

Edit - I almost forgot - there's 'some bloke off YouTube'. Let's check out his credentials shall we? Confirm his biases and political influences...

I am a Ukrainian — The bloke's entire bio offered

Yep. Seems to check out. Must have taken you ages to research that.

If that's what you think passing a bias check is about then god help anyone relying on you for such services.

As an Englishman, do you have a moral right to some piece of geography, like where you live? — ssu

No. I can't see how I do. If you think I do , then give us an account of it.

It's not about duty. It's simply a very rational response. — ssu

Then why ought we support them? It's rational for me to earn money, does that mean you ought to support me in doing so?

the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac

Here's the US attitude to 'international law' - From https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-makes-a-mockery-of-treaties-and-international-law/

the United States refuses to sign or to ratify foundational international laws and treaties that the vast majority of countries in the world have signed, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), ICESCR (the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights), CRC (the Convention on the Rights of the Child), ICRMW (the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families), UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), PAROS (the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space), the Ottawa Treaty (the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention), and the majority of labor conventions of the ILO (International Labor Organization). In fact, the United States harbors sweatshops, legalizes child labor (for example, in migrant farm labor), and engages in slave labor (in prisons and immigration detention centers). Even the U.S. State Department’s own 2021 Trafficking in Persons Report acknowledges severe problems in the U.S. of trafficking and forced labor in agriculture, food service, manufacture, domestic service, sex work, and hospitality, with U.S. government officials and military involved in the trafficking of persons domestically and abroad. Ironically, the United States tries to hold other countries accountable to laws that it itself refuses to ratify. For example, the United States tries to assert UNCLOS in the South China Sea while refusing—for decades—to ratify it and ignoring its rules, precedents, and conclusions in its own territorial waters.

There are also a slew of international treaties the United States has signed, but simply violates anyway: examples include the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, UN treaties prohibiting torture, rendition, and kidnapping, and of course, war of aggression, considered “the supreme international crime”—a crime that the United States engages in routinely at least once a decade, not to mention routine drone attacks, which are in violation of international law. Most recently, the AUKUS agreement signed between the United States and Australia violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by exploiting a blind spot of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

There are also a multitude of treaties that the United States has signed but then arbitrarily withdrawn from anyway. These include the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, the Agreed Framework and the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, the Geneva Conventions, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and many others.

There are also approximately 368 treaties signed between the Indigenous nations and the U.S. government; every single one of them has been violated or ignored.

There are also unilateral fictions that the United States has created, such as “Freedom of Navigation Operations” (FONOPs): this is gunboat diplomacy, a military show of force, masquerading as an easement claim. FONOPs are a concept with no basis in international law—“innocent passage” is the accepted law under UNCLOS—and it is the United States and its allies who are violating international laws when they exercise these FONOPs. Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZs) are likewise notions that have no recognition in international law—the accepted concept is “sovereign airspace”—but the United States routinely claims that China is violating Taiwan’s ADIZ or airspace—which covers three provinces of mainland China. These are some examples of the absurd fictions that the United States invents to assert that enemy states like China are violating the RBIO. This is weaponized fiction.

The United States also takes great pains to undermine international structures and institutions; for example, not liking the decisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has disabled the WTO’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism; it has undermined—and threatened—the ICC (by passing the American Servicemembers Protection Act [ASPA], also known as the Hague Invasion Act), and more recently, sanctioned the ICC prosecutor and her family members; it thumbs its nose at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its decisions, and generally is opposed to any international institution that restricts its unbridled, unilateral exercise of power. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, in blunt candor, asserted that there is “no such thing as the United Nations,” but this unhinged ideology is quietly manifested in the day-to-day actions of the United States throughout successive U.S. administrations.

Sure. But he can't. — Manuel

Does he know that?

and the ISW... seriously — Isaac

First Wikipedia copy/paste looks a bit raised to a genetic fallacy.
Second looks fine, except you'll rarely find something like this with exclusively positive reception.
Temper mon capitaine, I wouldn't just wholly dismiss them that easily with a casual handwave.
It's not like InfoWars or something.

Chatham House? Heard of them? — Isaac

A bunch of pretentious idiots, as far as I can see.

The risk of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is low, but the consequences will be huge, so we take it very seriously," — Isaac

Yes, NATO takes this risk seriously, I already mentioned that and you disagreed. Now you agree then?

Michel Goya works fro BFM-TV... — Isaac

Ok so you prefer RAND Corporation and NATO top brass. Be my guest... :-) Your experts do not need to be the same as mine. In fact, I would be worried if that was the case, given how poorly informed you are.

First Wikipedia copy/paste looks a bit raised to a genetic fallacy.
Second looks fine, except you'll rarely find something like this with exclusively positive reception.
Temper mon capitaine, I wouldn't just wholly dismiss them that easily with a casual handwave. — jorndoe

Funny your keen anti-bias radar missed...

RAND is a military think tank with good analysts but strongly connected to the US military-industrial complex, which implies a significant bias towards their interests and thus a tendency to take any threat to US military dominance very very seriously, if not to exaggerate them. — Olivier5

'Genetic fallacy' here? or is it just when your opposition say it?

Your experts do not need to be the same as mine. — Olivier5

Even if they would be the same, Isaac would interpret them totally differently. As he has done.

What are you including in the west? — Manuel

I would include North America, EU, UK, Norway most certainly.

They are constantly overspending on the military, no matter who gets in power. — Manuel

“Overspending” in what sense? Not wrt their GDP. As by comparison with other countries, in an age of great power competition we may reasonably expect that the American military spending can grow more likely than decrease to at least preserve their overwhelming military superiority. Yet that’s not enough to think that the American commitment to the security of the West won’t change. Besides if there is a military clash between the US and Russia is more likely going to happen in Europe than in the US (as the Ukrainian war is reminding us of). So I’d find more reasonable to hit an expansionist Russia as hard as possible when it’s in a weaker position, than wait for Russia to recover and give it another try in the future just for the fun of it.

Anything beyond 5 years is way too much speculation in my view. We don't know what will happen. — Manuel

Yet that’s what I take strategic thinking in geopolitics to be all about. Even the demographic crisis that China is expected to face - as you were talking about and you didn’t calculate by yourself, I guess - doesn’t concern the next 5 years, right? If you feel dispensed from engaging in such kind of speculation like anticipating potentially hostile competitors’ moves far before they could actually happen, States will do it at your place anyways and likely much better than you could ever possibly afford because they have means and that’s necessary for their own survival.

Putin's only alliance could crumble after special summit shows Russian despot isolated
— Alessandra Scotto di Santolo · Express · Nov 24, 2022 — jorndoe

I wouldn't be surprised. Russia did nothing to help it's ally Armenia when it was attacked. But naturally for Russia alliances don't mean the same thing as for the West. Just like the Warsaw Pact, they are a tool to control the internal situation of the other member countries. And when Russia doesn't have the similar control of CSTO members as it had of it's Warsaw Pact members, then it can only withdraw that help when the country needs it.

And this is noticed in the Central Asian realm as there is the possibility that the consequence of this war can be a lot more than just a humiliating defeat against the Ukrainians.

Here's the US attitude to 'international law' - From https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-makes-a-mockery-of-treaties-and-international-law/ — Isaac

So what? First of all American violations, withdrawals, refusal to ratify or to sign, undermining of international law that your piece of propaganda has comfortably summarised, however concerning from a geopolitical point of view or eventually legitimate in terms of principles, are often alleged by authoritarian States which themselves have being accused of analogous behaviour, or for American domestic political competition (see the concerns about Trump’s administration attitude toward international law for example). Secondly, and most importantly, International Law is a dimension of geopolitics, so the attitude of ALL geopolitical players toward it will realistically serve geopolitical goals as bluntly clarified by John Bolton in his extended quote [1]. So more important of the attitude of the US toward international law is all other players (allies and enemies) attitude toward the US. Third, I’m siding with the US not because I think the US is good nor because I think the US is good for the West, but because I think Russia or China would be worse than the US for the West if they managed to extend their hegemonic influence at the expense of the American hegemony in the West. So until there is a better alternative for the Westerners in the foreseeable future, I would find more reasonable to partner with the US than to partner with Russia or China.
Do you enjoy our disagreement, Pollyanna?



[1]
There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/19374/

Is this an objection to my post? If so, that's a strawman argument since you are suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good for the rest of the world" which thing I never stated nor believe. On the other side, if you are simply suggesting that I believe "the West is a power for good" because I'm living in the West where is the objection? You yourself claimed: "Which it mostly only is when you actually live there".
In any case, I never stated such a slogan "the West is a power for good" nor I would express myself in such terms. — neomac


So the West should lose then? — Benkei

What?! Is that a logic inference, dude?

Have you guys discussed this article yet? It argues that the war in Ukraine amounts to genocide. I am hard pressed to disagree. Yet it doesn't even go into the destruction of power infrastructure, which I am worried will lead to mass civilian casualties. — hypericin

The problem is that what the Russians are doing is simply Shock and Awe, which is a US military doctrine and involves targeting civilian infrastructure.

Of course, when the West does it then it's because that infrastructure is required by the opposing military and for society to "function" and also we "don't count bodies".

Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "[m]inimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[8] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction." — Shock and Awe, wikipedia

Is a brief description.

Anything the US also does, such as Shock and Awe as well as torture, the Western media isn't all that concerned about. Nothing wrong with a little "enhanced interrogation". Obviously if you have a thing, you'd want an enhanced version of the same thing.

People in the West have been very convinced that Russia shouldn't do these things since the beginning of the war, but is there any feasible way to actually stop a nuclear power?

In the words of Zelensky:

We expect the reaction of friends — not just observers — Zelensky

Apparently your arms dealer isn't your friend after all, as otherwise he wouldn't say this sort of things but just thank his friends the arms dealers.

Oh, you lost the plot again! You can evaluate or criticise everything you want. Even Putin, if you ever wanted to…. Ha ha ha. It’s no skin off my nose. You keep on trying to make it personal, trying to hurt. But the war is not fought here on TPF and there is no point in using violence against other posters. Go fight in Dombass if you want to kill other human beings. Here, you will not succeed. You can yell at me at the top of your lungs, I don’t care and I won’t mind. I’m not the one calling the shots. — Olivier5

What violence?

But anyways, again, excellent demonstration of the incapability of understanding a position other than pro-Zelensky or pro-Putin.

I'm not going to go fight for Russia, nor Ukraine, and I'm not going to support my country going to fight for Ukraine and I recognise the obvious reality that the West isn't going to go do any actual fighting, actual "defending Ukraine". Ukraine is not our ally, not our friend, but a tool for Western policy.

I do not view much difference between Ukraine and Russia. Neither represent "freedom".

What can the West do?

The West could try to broker a peace, which will take compromise and if the West wants a good outcome for Ukraine it would use the leverage it has.

Since the West has dug itself into a propaganda whole of Russia ending up even with Crimea would be a "win" for Putin, compared to this delusional position any peace agreement is essentially by definition a win for Putin. But that's purely a consequence of Zelensky and the West's delusional approach to basic features of reality.

The alternative is more war.

After 8 months it's now clear what more war means. Russian soldiers are harmed, but the harm to Ukrainian society is orders of magnitudes worse.

Compared to the offer Zelensky rejected early in the war (independent Dombas still part of Ukraine, recognising Crimea as part of Russia, neutral Ukraine), the price Ukraine has since paid to accomplish nothing remotely close to a better situation than this deal ... it's obviously a regrettable to any common sense person that doesn't actually want Ukrainians to suffer.

So you think NATO countries should hand over tanks to Ukraine? They’ve taken thousands of them from Russians already. Ukraine now boasts the largest panzer army in Europe. What they really need is an airforce. — Olivier5

Ah, so we've gone from modern Western tanks would obviously be useful for Ukraine ... to Ukraine is totally fine just capturing Russian tanks. Not that your figure is remotely credible, but even if it was true what happens when all those tanks are destroyed; would it not by definition be useful militarily to be conducting the training and setting up the logistics of Western tanks "just in case"?

Likewise for the anti-air. Why didn't the West send in sophisticated anti-air systems "just in case" the Russians attack critical infrastructure? There was 8 months to prepare to deal with the US own playbook of Shock and Awe.

Why didn't we?

I am the only poster to actually describe how an actual Western military intervention (in particular before the war) could have worked, why very likely it would have worked (send in troops, offer economic benefits like Nord Stream 2 going ahead: probability of war very low, mutual beneficial outcome for Russian and Europe ... but no new gas market for the US so of course we can't have a common sense peace).

You are arguing against this sort of actual support for Ukraine.

Why? Because any peace before or during the war would be "not-bad" for Russia. That it would be orders of magnitude better for Ukraine is not even part of your thinking.

You and the other Zelenskyites are not pro-Ukraine. You are simply war horny Russophobes and so reject any peace plan or even military plan that does not result in continuing this mode of warfare with Russia.

Now that you see the cost of your position, it creates cognitive dissonance neatly resolved by "it's the Ukrainian decision" and the West and citizens of the West can wash their hands of it.

American violations...are often alleged by authoritarian States which themselves have being accused of analogous behaviour, or for American domestic political competition. — neomac

So?

the attitude of ALL geopolitical players toward it will realistically serve geopolitical goals... So more important of the attitude of the US toward international law is all other players (allies and enemies) attitude toward the US. — neomac

And?

None of this nonsensical verbiage alleviates your error. You said that...

the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac

How is it a problem that Russia are violating international law, when America clearly violates international law all the time?

Why didn't we? — boethius

Because we are stingy and reactive rather than proactive.

Because we are stingy and reactive rather than proactive. — Olivier5

Behold Ukraine's friends / liabilities: stingy and reactive.

Irrespective of GDP - putting that aside, the money the US spends on the military is absurd. Anything Russia or China do pales in comparison to what the US does when it comes to spending. I do not see a good justification for it at all.

So I’d find more reasonable to hit an expansionist Russia as hard as possible when it’s in a weaker position, than wait for Russia to recover and give it another try in the future just for the fun of it. — neomac

So are you saying that you support the West or no? Based on this comment, I think you sound like a West is good (or least bad) type of person.

What I would add, is that I don't think we have good reasons to believe Russia will come out of this war in good shape. It has a population problem, it's economy is far from being optimally used, without even considering the effects of the sanctions long-term.

In short, I see such conflicts as rather dated and mostly dangerous. Something not worth gambling on.

you didn’t calculate by yourself, I guess - doesn’t concern the next 5 years, right? If you feel dispensed from engaging in such kind of speculation like anticipating potentially hostile competitors’ moves far before they could actually happen, States will do it at your place anyways and likely much better than you could ever possibly afford because they have means and that’s necessary for their own survival. — neomac

Correct. I threw it as an arbitrary number, I think 5 years is reasonable time frame to think about what could happen. Anything longer that that is bound to be distorted or drastically changed given unforeseen events, which if enough of these happen, can alter a countries history.

You could say something like, every 4 years (being the average election cycle in most countries). But if you want to go beyond that, which you have the right to do, the further in the future you go, the more distorted your projections can be. It's just a tendency in human history, it seems to me. International Relations involve many actors and events, it's not physics.

None of this nonsensical verbiage alleviates your error. You said that...

the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac


How is it a problem that Russia are violating international law, when America clearly violates international law all the time? — Isaac

What error are you blabbering about? Why nonsensical? Why "clearly"?
First, if you are talking about international law, it should be a resolution within international law to establish what constitutes its violation.
Second, when I talked about international law violation by Russia I'm talking about this:
UN responses to Russian invasion
See also: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Intergovernmental and international organizations, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1
On 26 February 2022, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for Russia to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine. China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from the vote; the 11 remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.[39][40] Days later, a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion was passed with an overwhelming 141–5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining.[41]
Among other statements, the General Assembly resolution called upon Russia to abide by the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations.[41] The Declaration on Friendly Relations says that assisting a rebel group in another nation would threaten the target country's "territorial integrity," and that states have a duty to refrain from engaging in such actions.[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Third, I didn't claim that the US didn't commit international law violations, I simply claimed that Russia did.
Four, the international law violations I'm interested in must be related to the THE PROBLEM I SEE : "Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US". So OBVIOUSLY I'm interested in the violations committed by Russia against West/NATO/US.

How do you like our disagreement, Pollyanna?