Putin's address to Russia's parliament
^{— Lucy Papachristou, Gareth Jones, John Davison · Reuters · Feb 29, 2024}

Uncanny how little change to the relevant parts could make it a speech by the Ukrainian president instead. Then there's that whiff of alternate world stuff again. So hard life is for poor Mr Putin :cry:. Or Mr Putin's vision, let's say.

Just about all nuclear posturing lately has come out of the Kremlin circle and North Korea. (2023Oct20, 2024Feb7)

Why would anyone in their right mind want to invade Russia? (e.g. hostile takeover)

• Whereas some reasons can be thought up, it doesn't make much sense. (Napoleon, Hitler, Danilov (ukranews 2022Dec1, news360 2022Dec1) are excused.) Besides, it would be a massive + costly undertaking. No one is particularly interested, and most would rather just the Kremlin chill out and democratize instead. Not much by way of threats to invade China, the US, India, Brazil, either.

What sort of nuclear threat is Russia faced with?

• Not a whole lot. Russia is already the world's largest country with the largest nuclear weapons stock around (and has long-range delivery). Mutual assured destruction seems a deterrence. If a country with nuclear arms is led by a paranoid/insane person, then the world already has a larger problem. No one is particularly interested in nuking Moscow (barring Ukrainian animosity due to their treatment of Ukraine), and no one is particularly interested in a nuclear world war.

Omitted above: "backstabbing" (supposed) partners of Russia; long-range attacks; threats to their land-grabbing and neo-colonialism.

Maybe it's the (present) Kremlin that's the main threat to Russia at the moment? They allegedly have popular domestic support.

Russia (including Kaliningrad) borders

• Norway ⁿ
• Finland ⁿ
• Estonia ⁿ
• Latvia ⁿ
• Lithuania ⁿ
• Poland ⁿ
• Belarus ☢
• Ukraine
• Georgia
• Azerbaijan
• Kazakhstan
• China ☢
• Mongolia
• North Korea ☢ †

Belarus borders

• Poland ⁿ
• Lithuania ⁿ
• Latvia ⁿ
• Russia ☢ †
• Ukraine

ⁿ NATO member
☢ presence of nuclear weapons (theconversation 2022Apr1)
† nuclear posturing

What sort of nuclear threat is Russia faced with?
Not a whole lot. Russia is already the world's largest country with the largest nuclear weapons stock around (and has long-range delivery). Mutual assured destruction seems a deterrence. If a country with nuclear arms is led by a paranoid/insane person, then the world already has a larger problem. No one is particularly interested in nuking Moscow (barring Ukrainian animosity due to their treatment of Ukraine), and no one is particularly interested in a nuclear world war. — jorndoe

Yes. But that's the way nuclear weapons bring peace, one might argue.

Yet once there here, the nuclear arsenals of Russia, US and in the future of China, which are at least theoretically capable of a first strike, you do need to think in terms with them. Military thinkers in Russia have to think about them. You can disregard things like the British nuclear deterrent, where the missiles in the four ballistic submarines seem not to be working (see Trident missile test fails for second time in a row).

Yet US / Russia balance is crucial for Russia. Just ask yourself: If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons and US/NATO would have, what is the probability of NATO having declared a no-fly zone over Ukraine at the start of the war? I think that that would have been high. The war happened because and only because Russia had nukes and Ukraine had given them away. As history has shown us again and again, nuclear weapon countries can go and invade countries without them. Just look at Israel. (The Falkland islands was so remote, that Argentina could easily understand that Thatcher wouldn't respond with it's few nukes)

If already nuclear weapons are absolutely crucial for Putin, I think Putin is really saying honestly what he is thinking and I think it's no surprise that he was talking so much about nukes. US Presidents hardly say anything about them, even if they have the extremely costly program to replace the age old Minuteman III missiles with a somewhat mediocre system (The Sentinel ICBM). Nuclear deterrence is the one thing that Russia has to cling on at all cost. If there was one thing even Yeltsin did hold on to, it was the nuclear deterrence. Russian/soviet soldiers could die of starvation on a remote radar site in Siberia because of the Soviet collapse and the state could have huge difficulties to get the last Kosmonaut back from space, yet nuclear weapons were improved even during the chaos of Yeltsin.

Here's a good 51 minute primer on what the US nuclear war plan looks like and what the nuclear triad is like. Assuming the old missiles work. The video also teaches the nuclear jargon and what is meant by counterforce and countervalue.


Nuclear weapons are this delusional realm that has little if any attachment to real life, yet it's real. They do exist. And obviously Putin and his close circle thinks a lot about them.

Understanding these arguments is the easier part, agreeing is harder.

Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly
^{— Vladimir Putin · The Kremlin · Feb 29, 2024}

Here is a good example of their hypocrisy. They have recently made unfounded allegations, in particular, against Russia, regarding plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Such fake narratives, and this story is unequivocally false, are designed to involve us in negotiations on their conditions, which will only benefit the United States.

We are also aware of the Western attempts to draw us into an arms race, thereby exhausting us, mirroring the strategy they successfully employed with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Let me remind you that in 1981–1988, the Soviet Union’s military spending amounted to 13 percent of GDP.

We all know that their claims are utterly baseless. And at the same time, they are selecting targets to strike on our territory and contemplating the most efficient means of destruction. Now they have started talking about the possibility of deploying NATO military contingents to Ukraine.
But we remember what happened to those who sent their contingents to the territory of our country once before. Today, any potential aggressors will face far graver consequences. They must grasp that we also have weapons – yes, they know this, as I have just said – capable of striking targets on their territory.
Everything they are inventing now, spooking the world with the threat of a conflict involving nuclear weapons, which potentially means the end of civilisation – don’t they realise this? The problem is that these are people who have never faced profound adversity; they have no conception of the horrors of war. We – even the younger generation of Russians – have endured such trials during the fight against international terrorism in the Caucasus, and now, in the conflict in Ukraine. But they continue to think of this as a kind of action cartoon.
Indeed, just like any other ideology promoting racism, national superiority or exceptionalism, Russophobia is blinding and stupefying. The United States and its satellites have, in fact, dismantled the European security system which has created risks for everyone.

Others might comment·suggest·mention·talk ("space weapons", "ground troops") and be recast (in the extreme), or consistently shut up. Either works for the Kremlin as long as the recast is taken seriously. I don't think people are going to shut up. For that matter, the Kremlin circle isn't shy about dishing out nuclear and other threats.

Did "not ruling out troops on the ground" hit a nerve? Maybe "troops on the ground" is a major concern (fear) of theirs after all. Not NATO though, I think it was just French, maybe some Baltics, and everyone else declined. Well, "our territory" isn't Ukraine; French soldiers in Ukraine isn't French soldiers in Russia; ask anyone but the land grabbers, the significant majority.

With Gorbachev a kind of optimistic attitude — not Russophobia, but Russo-hug — aired in the world in terms of Russia. Now there's a kind of Kremlin-phobia, largely due to the (present) Kremlin circle, especially in Ukraine. (Is Putin sort of looking for "payback" for the cold war, having learned from that...?)

As mentioned before, the clear threat to them is against the Kremlin's free reins to bomb, grab land, sham, destabilize, their neo-colonial ambitions, etc. That's one primary "threat" they're faced with. And related to bona fides peace.

Only they, along with North Korea, are doing nuclear posturing. With the attitude on display, what's to stop them from nuclear blackmail anyway? Hopefully North Korea won't jump on South Korea (whether on a signal from Moscow or not).

Don't they wonder why their claims·arguments·sentiments are so markedly outnumbered? And apparently need friends like Kim Jong Un? Maybe if they wonder in public they'll go the way of Navalny (not the best way to avoid revolutions).

Some US-Europe efforts after the 2nd world war that came to mind...
• keep it from happening again
• the Marshall Plan
• keep the USSR from taking over
How much was in good/bad faith? NATO has helped dull national attention to defense in Europe, which has since been criticized (Obama, the Clown, whoever). I suppose we might compare East/West Germany (back then), North/South Korea, ...

So, to what end?

Anyway, good to see that Putin is addressing domestic issues like poverty, even if the details surrounding numbers and such are opaque.

Queen Vicky has resigned.

The Ukraine debacle is slowly becoming complete.

Though, one may wonder why Vicky resigned, since the US approach to Ukraine has been mostly successful. 15 years of prodding the bear finally bore fruit and got them the conflict they were looking for.

Perhaps Washington is disappointed by the lack of enthousiasm for war in Europe?

Prodding the bear, lol. Still going strong with Putin's narrative of US coups and NATO enlargement. And let's not forget Ukrainian Nazis! :joke:

Oh poor, poor Russia!

The history speaks for itself.

The US intentionally sought to flip Ukraine, while a neutral Ukraine was the key to stability in eastern Europe and everybody from the administrations in Washington to the Kremlin knew it, and openly complained about it.

Well, they got what they wanted: war.

Vicky did her job.

Worse still, they always knew they were just going to prop up Ukraine until it eventually collapsed, to maintain at least some international credibility towards their other allies. Vicky taking the fall for this was probably established way beforehand.

Hmm, after 554 pages @Tzeentch, perhaps we indeed should let the historians answer these issues.

If you have the time, here's a good (but extremely long) discussion by Lex Fridman and historian of Ukraine. Lex asks him seemingly everything that comes to his mind about Ukraine. NATO enlargement and why Putin attacked and what was the situation in the peace talks at start of the war all all discussed. Luckily you can find the topics on the youtube video (for example why did the peace talks fail starts at 2:09:30) or then listen for more than three hours. A long walk is great when listening, exercise is healthy.

, alternative brief: "Witty defender of democracy retires"

We don't need historians telling us what happened. We have first-hand accounts from the Ukrainian side and neutral mediators of what happened.

Ignoring those in favor of random people who say what you want to hear is silly and a clear sign of bias.

Russian missile may have targeted Zelenskiy, Greek PM, says Ukraine aide
^{— Yuliia Dysa, Bernadette Baum, Gareth Jones · Reuters · Mar 7, 2024 (— WION 3m:7s)}

Further troubles if the Greek Prime Minister had been killed? I'm guessing much noise, but nothing drastic. There are a few examples of Russian attacks, not particularly military (infra, civil). Coming up with denials excuses rejections isn't hard, whatever the truth of the matter.

Observation: A few comment as if Russia is invisible, "the unmentioned attacker", the Kremlin a machine in a Siberian basement somewhere, blind to the Kremlin circle, only to repeatedly go "NATO bad" "Ukraine sh¡thole" "US evil" ... I guess it's up to others to pick up the slack?

Was just going over some analyses of seemingly influential dis/mal/misinformation campaigns, maybe I'll post something later. Will likely remain applicable for the foreseeable future.

Part of what I'm also seeing (personally) is a Ukraine trying to develop past the sticky (post)Soviet shadow, trying to free themselves from the dominating regressive authoritarian north+east neighbor, trying to make new friends if you will. But then they're sh¡t all over by some instead — "Nazis" "Banderas" "Genociders" "Beggars" "Burdens" "CIA-puppets" "Fools" "Betrayers" "Underlings" what-have-you — prior having allowed them to try. Well, some people are decency-challenged. Bombed all over too, by a Kremlin seemingly lost to keep them from developing/trying, while working hard at reasserting control over them. Trying is a pertinent part of what's going on, which admittedly takes time.

What they wanted: (Different in Russia...? :chin:)

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations,^(29)(30) and repressive anti-protest laws.⁽²⁹⁾ — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)

At least with support they've proven more than a mouthful for the world's largest country. Good for them I guess. And in mentioned north+east (check "I want the Soviet Union back" :fire: :grin:):

• What young Russians in Saint Petersburg think about Putin? (2023 Jan 10 · 11m:53s)
• Should we invade Finland and Sweden before they join NATO? (2023 Mar 7 · 10m:45s)
• Rural Russians, why do you support Putin if you live poorly? (2023 Dec 26 · 8m)

Russians and Ukrainians will live exactly as befits brothers and good neighbors after the implementation of the goals of the special operation. — Sergey Lavrov · 2024 Jan 22

For them (the West - TASS) this is about improving their tactical position, but for us this is about our destiny, a matter of life and death. I wanted people that will listen to this [interview with Carlson] to realize that. It’s not up to me to judge whether it hit the mark or not. — Vladimir Putin · 2024 Feb 18

Some developments so far:

The election was recognized as free and fair.⁽⁴⁾ — 2019 Ukrainian presidential election (Wikipedia)

• Accession of Ukraine to the European Union » Candidacy (Wikipedia)

Wouldn't it be cool if Mr Bush, Mr Putin, and various (politically) related persons, headed to The Hague for public hearings and inquiries (and potential trials, depending)? :)

(end rant, and pardon my French)

Well, some people are decency-challenged. — jorndoe

When you take the side of the aggressor, you have to vilify the victim. Hence a) Ukrainians have no agency over their own country and b) they have to be corrupt and neo-nazis.

In some places you're not allowed to laugh...

We will no longer tolerate criticism of our democracy and allegations that it is not what it should be. Our democracy is the best, and we will continue to build it. — Pesky · RIA Novosti · Mar 6, 2024

Ironically, this was during a "Knowledge.First" marathon of the Russian "Knowledge" Society. :)

When you take the side of the aggressor, you have to vilify the victim. Hence a) Ukrainians have no agency over their own country and b) they have to be corrupt and neo-nazis. — ssu

This is really the strangest of the propaganda vis-a-vis Ukraine.

Western policy is Western policy. "Ukrainian agency" is not a cause of Western policy.

If Western policy has been to manipulate Ukraine to its detriment, that "Ukrainian agency" has chosen this path is not somehow a justification for the policy.

If Boris Johnson went to Kiev and made the argument and certainly made promises and assurances of Western support, and on that basis Zelensky decided to reject the Russian peace proposal, the Western policy here is even potentially justifiable by Zelensky agreeing to it.

Why does everything the West and Ukraine do need to be justified by "Ukrainian agency"? Because it's clearly turned out to be terrible decisions that have completely wrecked Ukraine. The situation is really bad.

"Ukrainians chose it!" Is not a justification for Western policy, even discounting the influence the West and the dozen or so CIA bases have in Ukraine.

To the extent the West has goaded Ukraine into this total war with Russia, that was a bad policy for both Ukraine and the West.

To the extent the West goaded Ukraine into this total war with Russia based on promises and assurances they knew to be false (Whatever it takes! Ukraine will join NATO ... anyway now!), that was an immoral policy.

b) they have to be corrupt and neo-nazis — ssu

The corruption and the neo-nazis, though closer to just straight up nazis, are extremely well documented fact. I can post the videos of Western reportage on the nazis and corruption again if you to actually go through them and explain how these are fabricated or the journalist's are "reading the runes wrong" or something.

Does the corruption and nazis in Ukraine in itself justify Russia invading? Well, one could argue it would be appeasement of Nazis not invade. However, to get into this argument we'd need to start with a definition or estimation of how many Nazis with how much power would justify invasion, as to do otherwise would be appeasement, or then there is no threshold and any amount of Nazis is ok. No one has ever even attempted to answer this question, and without an agreed threshold then saying things like "sure there's nazis but not too many nazis" isn't really meaningful; one needs to start with a definition of too much and then demonstrate Ukraine does not reach this threshold.

The corruption and the nazis are also critical to understanding the war, as there are real effects from both the corruption and the nazis on outcome of events.

Obviously dealing with reality deflates enthusiasm to just cheerlead more for Ukraine, and if your starting point is "Ukraine good, Russia bad" then anything that may reduce our sympathy for Ukraine (such as nazi groups doing their best in the Donbas to trigger the current larger war, and explicitly explaining to Western journalists that's what they want: a grand purifying war and destruction of Russia ... and then Berlin!) obviously is a bad thing that should be just ignored and trivialized if the goal is just more cheerleading the war.

Which is another reason why "Ukrainian agency" is so vital, for if Ukrainian Agency is what justifies Western policy then an objective review of Ukraine and their decisions and policies is simply superfluous.

However, the reality is that there is no onus on the West to support one side of a conflict. The decision to send arms is not justified simply because Ukraine asks for it. Ukraine is owed zero arms.

Since the beginning (just as the RAND report clearly stated) an objective view of the situation is:

1. Nazis are bad and the West (to the extent "Western values" have any content at all) shouldn't arm and train Nazi factions in Ukraine; so whatever the policy it shouldn't support Nazis. Likewise, Ukraine and the West tolerating and arming these nazi factions is simply (at best) handing an immense propaganda win to Russia both domestically can internationally, so it's just bad strategy even if the goal is to have a big war with Russia.

2. Ukraine has little chance of winning on the battlefield against Russia and simply the attempt would be (and has been) extremely destructive to Ukraine.

3. The West is no chance in hell in it for "as long as it takes" and saying so is simply lying. That Ukraine has "agency" to not believe a lie doesn't excuse a lie. Any individual has "agency" to prevail in hand to hand combat, but that doesn't excuse murder. It's just a maddening argument to use Ukrainian agency to justify Western policy and lies.

4. Ukraine is in terrible demographic situation and a long war has removed half or more of the younger generations, less and less of whom are likely to return to Ukraine the longer the war drags on.

5. Encouraging and "leaving the door open that you are not allowed to walk through" of Ukraine joining NATO simply helps cause exactly the war the purpose of joining NATO would likely cause. That Ukraine maybe delusional enough to believe "Western values" would cause the West to just throw Ukraine into NATO and blow up Russia with nukes if ever Russia attacked Ukraine, is, again, not a justification for having a policy that encourages Ukraine to pursue something self defeating. Fighting for the "right to join NATO" (which was a main slogan and justification for fighting at the start of the war, before there was so much bad blood and it was clear to everyone the the war could be stopped anytime and the main issue of contention was NATO) when you can't actually join NATO is stupid. Again, at best, it is simply providing a propaganda victory to Russia both domestically and internationally that this hostile alliance was trying to expand to its border (pretty much any statesperson outside the West will empathize with Russia in this situation—as no nation, and especially the other great powers, want a hostile alliance to expand to its border, and would therefore act to stop it—which goes a long way to explain why no nation outside the West has gotten on board with the sanctions). However, even if Russia believed Ukraine was unlikely to join NATO today, the fact that process exists leads to the conclusion that as soon as Russia is in a weak position that Ukraine could then be "slipped into NATO", would be the military fear.

Which sure, you can look at the objective reality that negotiation (since before 2014) was a better way to manage the situation with Russia rather than building up arms and negotiating in bad faith the Minsk agreements and not carrying them out, repudiating negotiation of a new security architecture before the war and then encouraging Ukraine to fight, and making it clear that was the only choice the West would support (rather than an integrated negotiation strategy of both Ukraine and EU leverage, obviously the US wouldn't participate, to negotiate peaceful relations), and then still have the view that "Russia bad". No problem.

What is problematic is the Western discourse has degraded to a series of thought-terminating clichés such as "Ukrainian agency" and ad hominems against Putin such as he's Hitler (while Israel can genocide by starvation an entire population in overt genocidal practice of gaining their Lebensraum, and ... we cool, we cool). That's pretty much the entire Western discourse at the moment.

Why does everything the West and Ukraine do need to be justified by "Ukrainian agency"? Because it's clearly turned out to be terrible decisions that have completely wrecked Ukraine. The situation is really bad. — boethius

Why was the women beautiful in the first place? Her fault. She had the rape coming!

Sorry, no matter what you say and try obstinately push the Russian rhetoric and Russian talking points: Russia wrecked Ukraine. It attacked in 2014, it attacked Ukraine in 2022.

Why was the women beautiful in the first place? Her fault. She had the rape coming! — ssu

How is this in anyway related to what I explain?

The core question is what is the best policy to manage the situation. For me I am primarily interested in Western policy, as that's where I live and the policy I'm responsible for.

Now, if you want to take this premise of Ukraine as an innocent defenceless maiden, I am the only person in this entire discussion that even entertained the idea of putting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine before the war started (or, more precisely, larger war starting in 2022), and also made clear I'd be for such a move if our goal was indeed to "protect democracy" (also, if it worked and avoided war and nuclear exchange, that would be good too and I explained how that was achievable using common sense, negotiation leverage and the "strength" we keep hearing is Putin's only language).

The reason why Western institutions and talking heads dismissed this option out of hand is because the only way it's workable is in combination with a negotiation strategy to prevent the war actually happening. Basically create a Cuban missile crisis standoff. Obviously to actually prevent the war from starting there would need to be an offer to Russia that Russia could accept, better than fighting, mutually beneficial, makes sense, etc.

However, if the goal really was to protect Ukrainian sovereignty then you'd certainly consider very carefully the idea of sending troops into Ukraine in a "escalate to deescalate" strategy (that you've repeated yourself many times the basic logic of how that works). Even moreso if you thought Ukraine a defenceless innocent fair maiden.

The reason it was not considered at all, just throw a little WWIII thought-terminating cliché of why that's impossible (to go with the thought-terminating clichés of why sending heavy weapons "wasn't possible" ... it was just "no, no, no, of course note, don't be silly" ... until they send those exact weapons systems), is because the policy is to have a war and not protect Ukraine.

The drip feed of weapons systems policy doesn't go from "obviously not, of course not, don't be silly" to "send them in! whatever it takes! everybody send everything they got!" because there's a change of heart, or change of analysis, or change of policy. The policy remains exactly the same: have a war.

In order to ensure on having a war you need to calibrate between two scenarios:

1. Russia winning outright, which ends the war, and therefore more arms and heavier weapons systems are needed to prevent this scenario whenever your risk threshold of this happening is surpassed.

2. Ukraine winning outright, which may result in Russia simply retreating to their borders and ending the war that way and taking the L or then resorting to nuclear weapons and so also ending the war, just in a different way.

Of course, the policy of just wanting the war (for war profiteering, getting Europe on LNG, weakening Europe and the Euro structurally over the long term, distraction, maybe also even harming Russia a bit), eventually fulfils its purpose.

Stocks are liquidated, war spending is up, the gas lines are blown up, recession all over Europe ... and, oh! what have we here, the 60 billion promised to Ukraine and critical to keep fighting are held up. Fancy that. Fancy fucking that.

Sorry, no matter what you say and try obstinately push the Russian rhetoric and Russian talking points: Russia wrecked Ukraine. It attacked in 2014, it attacked Ukraine in 2022. — ssu

Ok, say you're right.

Well, what did we do about it?

The core question is what is the best policy to manage the situation. For me I am primarily interested in Western policy, as that's where I live and the policy I'm responsible for. — boethius

Yeah. Now you gave the Chomsky refute.

So not much interest in Ukraine, Ukrainian history, Ukrainian people, Putin's fixation in dubious history and the role Ukraine has for Russia or Russian imperialism and so on.

Because you don't live their. So we have to ONLY concentrate of errors that the West made. :smirk:

Well, we don't live there, yet we are talking...so I'll try to answer.

How is this in anyway related to what I explain? — boethius

You won't even understand? Who attacked? Who? I think you do understand it as you continue:

Now, if you want to take this premise of Ukraine as an innocent defenceless maiden, I am the only person in this entire discussion that even entertained the idea of putting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine before the war started (or, more precisely, larger war starting in 2022), and also made clear I'd be for such a move if our goal was indeed to "protect democracy" (also, if it worked and avoided war and nuclear exchange, that would be good too and I explained how that was achievable using common sense, negotiation leverage and the "strength" we keep hearing is Putin's only language).

The reason why Western institutions and talking heads dismissed this option out of hand is because the only way it's workable is in combination with a negotiation strategy to prevent the war actually happening. — boethius

I disagree.

The real reason was that they simply couldn't fathom the idea that Putin would go and invade Ukraine even more than it had done 2014. That's it!

All Minsk agreements and their failures had just put them to think that "Oh well, this is one of those frozen wars" as we know from various places. They have their own domestic politics, so they don't give much thought to a conflict before it actually happens. The only thing they were giving Russia was assurances that Ukraine won't be a NATO member. Naturally they cannot give that in writing, because that would go against the NATO charter of it being open to countries. But Germany said that they would be firm in not letting Ukraine into NATO.

However, if the goal really was to protect Ukrainian sovereignty then you'd certainly consider very carefully the idea of sending troops into Ukraine in a "escalate to deescalate" strategy (that you've repeated yourself many times the basic logic of how that works). Even moreso if you thought Ukraine a defenceless innocent fair maiden. — boethius

Escalate to de-escalate is a horrible idea! I've emphasized it because it's a really, really, bad idea. Because what can the Escalate to de-escalate give justification? A Pre-emptive attack! You see, the idea comes from the narrow view that other side would behave logically to your illogical escalation. Well, it can simply create a shock that justifies more escalation.

And which European country would have then put forces to Ukraine when the Ukrainian government was downplaying (at least publicly) the threat of a Russian invasion. Oh, the Putin lovers would have had a field day with that one!

The reason it was not considered at all, just throw a little WWIII thought-terminating cliché of why that's impossible (to go with the thought-terminating clichés of why sending heavy weapons "wasn't possible" ... it was just "no, no, no, of course note, don't be silly" ... until they send those exact weapons systems), is because the policy is to have a war and not protect Ukraine. — boethius

Umm, what? That countries took Russian threats of nuclear war seriously and are timid then to back up Ukraine isn't because of the nuclear threats, but because they want war and not to protect Ukraine?

Now your are starting again with the similar rhetoric "She obviously was so stunning, that her beauty sent mix messages. So it wasn't the rapists fault."

Oh poor, poor, POOR Russia. All the time everybody else wanting it to start wars. How wicked from others. :snicker:

In order to ensure on having a war you need to calibrate between two scenarios:

1. Russia winning outright, which ends the war, and therefore more arms and heavier weapons systems are needed to prevent this scenario whenever your risk threshold of this happening is surpassed.

2. Ukraine winning outright, which may result in Russia simply retreating to their borders and ending the war that way and taking the L or then resorting to nuclear weapons and so also ending the war, just in a different way. — boethius

That's the most lurid thought for a long time. But of course, as in your alternative universe the West has planned to get Russia to attack Ukraine (just like the beautiful women sent mix message with her stunning beauty), of course the only viable objective for the West is to have a perpetual war. Because...what else would the evil West want? (Hence with deduce that beautiful women want to be raped by rapists.)

Ok, say you're right.

Well, what did we do about it? — boethius

Or do about it?

It's still going on, the war you know.

I think it's up the Ukrainians to decide. They have tried to open negotiations. Putin still wants more territory from them and still the ludicrous denazification is there, so I'd say to continue supporting Ukraine until otherwise.

Likely Putin is still happy with the war economy that he has. If he gets to hold the land that he has, he can put is as a victory, especially saying that he was fighting all the West. Perhaps then Putin is then in his happy place, worthy to be remembered with Peter the Great, Stalin etc. A great Russian leader.

You keep repeating that:

“such as nazi groups doing their best in the Donbas to trigger the current larger war, and explicitly explaining to Western journalists that's what they want: a grand purifying war and destruction of Russia ... and then Berlin!”

“Many of the factions supporting these provocative policies vis-a-vis Russia had no qualms of explicitly stating their main goal (to Western journalists on camera) is starting a war with Russia that will destroy said Russia.”

“The Nazi's are definitely there in Ukraine (I am happy to re-post all those Western journalist documenting it) and are definitely a problem (mainly for Ukraine). They are also a genuine security concern for Russia (as they have no hesitation to explicitly say their goal is a war with Russia and to destroy Russia”

Can you link your source?

So when Ukraine loses this war, as they’re currently doing and bound to do, all that the US — the instigator of the war — will have to show is lots of profits for Lockheed Martin and company.

Guess when it’s Ukrainian lives it doesn’t matter. It’s easy to undermine peace talks and be uncompromising in that case.

Make no mistake; while there are many perverse incentives at play in this conflict, and the MIC is certainly one of them, it is US grand strategy that has primacy.


The US succeeded in:
- driving a wedge between Europe and Russia
- tanking the German economy (a geopolitical rival)
- changing the nature of European energy dependency
- creating fertile ground for further conflict in eastern Europe

And,
- is in the process of remilitarizing Europe, which will further increase the chance of escalated conflict between Europe and Russia in the future.


This is the ultimate goal: to prevent both Europe and Russia from becoming the laughing third once the US gets sucked into large-scale security competition in the Pacific, by embroiling the two in a war with each other.

That's why Ukraine matters to the US - it's a geopolitical pivot area and the key to stability in eastern Europe, thus the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

Thus by controlling Ukraine, the US got to decide when conflict would break loose. After all, the Russians made it clear over the course of some 15 years that Ukraine was a red line for them: if the US wanted conflict, which they did, they knew exactly what they had to do to get it.

Russia and Europe also represent a gigantic market that the Chinese will have to rely on once the conflict between the US and China starts. The US will block Chinese overseas trade; that's why the Chinese started their Belt & Road Initiative - to create an alternative to sea trade, to keep their economy going when conflict erupts. If Europe and Russia are in shambles, it will negatively impact the Chinese economy and deny them the market that they need to keep their economy going.

It's a classic strategy of divide and conquer, and, if all else fails, of sowing maximum chaos on the Eurasian mainland, which is the only way the US can maintain its primacy with its relatively small population of 300 million.


Don't let the MIC or BlackRock play the patsy here. Again, it's US grand strategy that is driving this conflict and US decision making. Corporate interests are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh corpses.

Yeah. Now you gave the Chomsky refute.

So not much interest in Ukraine, Ukrainian history, Ukrainian people, Putin's fixation in dubious history and the role Ukraine has for Russia or Russian imperialism and so on.

Because you don't live their. So we have to ONLY concentrate of errors that the West made. :smirk:

Well, we don't live there, yet we are talking...so I'll try to answer. — ssu

I point out my primarily responsibility: Western policy.

First, it's not an exclusive statement, we can obviously also talk about Russian and Ukrainian policy. Indeed, our policy would be vis-a-vis policy elsewhere so understanding that is critical.

Second, pointing out that the West was lying to Ukraine when it made all sorts of long term assurances ... I just don't see how we would be justified in ignoring that "because Russia bad". Is it justified to lie to Ukraine and manipulate it for our (mostly the US) policy objectives because "Russia bad"?

I just don't get how this logic is even supposed to work.

I disagree.

The real reason was that they simply couldn't fathom the idea that Putin would go and invade Ukraine even more than it had done 2014. That's it! — ssu

Ah yes, the "real reason" is because Western policy makers simply didn't even read their own policy documents and the long list of warnings by experts that Ukraine was a redline for Russia and a war would result if the West continued its policy there.

Furthermore, what was Minsk 1 and 2 even nominally about if not to resolve the war in the Donbas and prevent it from escalating?

You really think no one took that seriously during those negotiations, that it was a minor and irrelevant process because they "couldn't fathom the idea" of an existing hot war escalating?

We then have directly from the French and German leaders involved in those negotiations that it was to "buy time" ... well buy time for what? To build up arms to deal with an escalation in the conflict. Obviously, they thought that was a good idea at the time, and if they thought it was a good idea because arming Ukraine would deter Russia from escalating, well obviously they could therefore fathom Russia escalating the war as their plan was to mitigate that. But was that even the plan? Blinken himself pointed out that any buildup of arms in Ukraine would simply be matched, likely overmatched by Russia.

This whole idea that policy makers of the largest most powerful nations on earth are essentially children who don't even read anything, don't know anything, can't imagine anything untoward ever happening, is honestly one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole conflict.

All Minsk agreements and their failures had just put them to think that "Oh well, this is one of those frozen wars" as we know from various places. They have their own domestic politics, so they don't give much thought to a conflict before it actually happens. The only thing they were giving Russia was assurances that Ukraine won't be a NATO member. Naturally they cannot give that in writing, because that would go against the NATO charter of it being open to countries. But Germany said that they would be firm in not letting Ukraine into NATO. — ssu

Again, Merkel and Hollande literally sate Minsk was just to "buy time" for Ukraine. Where does anyone even try to explain what you propose here that it was just "oh well, back to domestic issues".

You're really arguing that Merkel and Hollande didn't have experts pointing out that a failure to unwind the war in the Donbas would potentially, perhaps likely, lead to Russian escalation? That everyone just expected Russia to do nothing if the Minsk process didn't work and fighting in the Donbas continued indefinitely. The conflict was not frozen, it was a hot war between 2014 and 2022.

Umm, what? That countries took Russian threats of nuclear war seriously and are timid then to back up Ukraine isn't because of the nuclear threats, but because they want war and not to protect Ukraine? — ssu

Yes, obviously.

If they wanted to protect Ukraine they would need to brave Russia's nuclear threats with their own nuclear threats: put boots on the ground and dare Russia to attack them and risk nuclear escalation.

If their actions are determined by taking Russia's nuclear threats seriously and simply avoiding nuclear escalation, that's just another way of saying they are going to let Russia win the war to avoid nuclear escalation.

So why prop up a half-assed war?

Because it serves several policy objectives that has just summarized I think adequately.

The only thing I would add is that the war profiteering is fundamental in corralling US elite and politicians into going along with the war (until it has served its purpose of course). "US defence contractors go bling bling" is a much faster and easier way to explain the rationale for the policy to most US politicians, who are on a need to know basis and that's all they need to know.

And US politicians have no shame in just saying that "hey, this money is going to US defence contractors, not even leaving the US!" because that's how it was explained to them and it just makes sense.

Now your are starting again with the similar rhetoric "She obviously was so stunning, that her beauty sent mix messages. So it wasn't the rapists fault."

Oh poor, poor, POOR Russia. All the time everybody else wanting it to start wars. How wicked from others. :snicker: — ssu

It takes two to tango: I have stated many times that the fundamental cause of the war on Russias part is Russian imperialism.

The conflict is a feature of the nation state system and within our system simply makes a lot of sense from the Russian policy maker point of view. The Russian response is the expected response that experts predicted and that former policy makers predicted.

The difference is that Russia made a lot of attempts to avoid this situation through diplomacy. Putin has not come out and said he negotiated Minsk in bad faith, maybe he did, who knows, but he gets the benefit of providing us no basis of accusing him of bad faith ... because his counterparties admit to it first! Truly unbelievable.

We have a situation that is a recipe for war. The events as they appear in the public domain is that Russia attempted consistently to avoid the inevitable war with diplomacy and the West consistently pressed on towards the war even admitting that the little diplomacy that was engaged was bad faith.

Now, maybe Putin was masterminding the whole thing and playing the West like a fiddle, taking advantage of Western duplicity and cupidity, in order to bring the West along the path of war that Putin wanted, but it's convenient for a lot of reasons for all available evidence pointing to the US primarily pushing for the war that the US also wanted. That's possible, there's just no evidence for it.

That's the most lurid thought for a long time. But of course, as in your alternative universe the West has planned to get Russia to attack Ukraine (just like the beautiful women sent mix message with her stunning beauty), of course the only viable objective for the West is to have a perpetual war. Because...what else would the evil West want? (Hence with deduce that beautiful women want to be raped by rapists.) — ssu

Lurid thought in a long time?

I've presented exactly this though on numerous occasions. I've been presenting and defending the "drip feed hypothesis" since near the start of the war, and pointing out all of its predictions coming true: a new weapon system is only introduced when previous weapons systems fail to pose a serious problem to Russia.

Why not F-16s and all manner of fancy missiles for the much hyped counter offensive of last year?

Is it because "we can't supply F-16s and longer range missiles"? No, as we're doing that now.

The reason is because F-16s and a bunch of fancy missiles last year may have actually broke through and reached Crimea causing a "real problem" for the Russians (not something that is legitimately or then can be easily played off as a tactical retreat, while pointing out to achieving the critical military aims such as a land bridge to Crimea).

Now it's clear Ukrainian offensive capability is spent and so more advanced weapons can be sent in to prop up the war a little longer, such as avoid an embarrassing total collapse.

Likewise, the optimum time, from a military point of view, to supply Ukraine with Western tanks was day 1, as then logistics and proper use of the tanks with the most experienced crews could be worked out, even a working out the best use of Western and Soviet tanks respectively.

Most importantly, weapons systems are most effective when all the other weapons systems available are still operational and effective in order to maximize synergy.

Why this didn't happen?

Because Russia was vulnerable in 2022 with not so many soldiers mobilized; so had there been heavy weapons supplied to Ukraine then there was a real danger Ukraine's million man army if actually supplied with "whatever it takes" could have routed the Russians; continuing the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives far deeper, cutting the land bridge for example.

Now, even if the Russians retreating from Kharkiv and Kherson was a tactical retreat, they only needed to tactically retreat in the first place because they didn't have the manpower to hold, much less advance, in 2022. A tactical retreat doesn't mean your "winning", just is different from a route in that you can inflict heavier casualties on the opponent while the retreating (i.e. a well executed tactical retreat loses territory but at significant losses for the opponent, compared to a route which is both losing territory and significant losses of men and material); it's of course still better to not need to tactically retreat, and it was then when the Russians were weakest so more / better weapon systems would have had the most effect in the outcome of the war. Likewise Russia needing to deal with the sanctions, uncertainty in diplomatic relations, potential unrest at home etc. all amplified the weakness in 2022.

Basically, Ukraine's only strategic advantage in military terms in the whole war is the total mobilization at the start of the war. A smaller nation coming under attack can fully mobilize and covert rapidly to total war, whereas as invading imperial force doesn't have that option as easily (as invaders are less motivated than defenders, it would be embarrassing to need to totally mobilize, would cause all sorts of long term economic harms that an empire needs to think about).

The time to make gains for Ukraine, therefore, is at the start, in 2022, which is when we saw them make gains and additional weapons systems would have had optimum effect (as well as setup the experience and training needed to continue to use those weapons systems to keep said gains).

I pointed all this out at the time, that if we actually wanted Ukraine to "win" we'd give them all sorts of stuff. Instead not only do we not do that but we maintain this creeping Overton window of what we can even discuss giving to Ukraine.

Why the limitations and narrow scope of what weapons systems can even be considered?

Because the policy is not to support Ukraine in any sort of rational military way, but to prop them up to accomplish other policy objectives.

Yeah, sure, maybe "harming Russia" as some sort of lesson about invading other countries is one of those policy objectives; feel free to argue that, but what goes along with that is totally wrecking Ukraine to deliver this spanking and finger wagging exercise to Russia.

Or do about it?

It's still going on, the war you know.

I think it's up the Ukrainians to decide. They have tried to open negotiations. Putin still wants more territory from them and still the ludicrous denazification is there, so I'd say to continue supporting Ukraine until otherwise.

Likely Putin is still happy with the war economy that he has. If he gets to hold the land that he has, he can put is as a victory, especially saying that he was fighting all the West. Perhaps then Putin is then in his happy place, worthy to be remembered with Peter the Great, Stalin etc. A great Russian leader. — ssu

So basically continue with the status quo? Continue with the drip feed of weapons system that results in Ukrainian losses and no way to "win" the war. Putin gets what he wants.

But Ukraine decided that's what they wanted, if it was based on lies from the West about "whatever it takes" then that doesn't matter, so much ado about nothing in the end?

Am I reading you correctly?

Russia deepening ties with global axis of evil, Israel charges at UN
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-789156

On a Russian perspective (Kremlin really), here are some options (inexhaustive), not mutually exclusive:

• ↓ Ukraine to develop on a self-chosen path
• ↓ maintain a Kharkiv Pact of sorts
• ↗ force Ukraine into a vision of Russia of theirs
• ↘ democratize

They're running with the 3rd and rejecting the others (so far), for all to see. :death:

Largest countries, further perspective: military, population, area

Apparent reasons are themselves straightforward enough ... (attempt to) assert control in order to implement their idea of what Russia ought to be; (attempt to) manage threats to said vision ... Common to invasions, power ambition resources etc, evident origin.

Here apparent threats risks dangers include ... Ukraine going its own way, e.g. democracy (can be unpredictable); NATO membership, or any strong defense; Ukraine increasingly looking to others (the EU) and decreasingly Russia (slipping away) ... Threats everywhere, poor Kremlin.

And threat management includes ... counter-threats; diversions, e.g. point fingers at others; muddle the waters; oppress, strangle, solidify ... Here be playbooks.

When freedom and sovereignty themselves are perceived as threats then we get results like what we're seeing (word, infra, civil, grab). Too bad for Ukraine, eh? They're not ready to get sucked down that drain.

Will we see an end to it? As it stands, is there any progress in sight or available?

^{(↑ taking available evidence into account is relevant, un/controversial main/fringe-stream less so)}

Posts like these seem tankie to me:

10 years since the far-right coup in Kiev
^{— A Ukrainian socialist · World Socialist Web Site · Feb 28, 2024}
In Kiev visit, Trudeau reaffirms Canadian imperialism’s support for US-NATO war on Russia
^{— Roger Jordan · World Socialist Web Site · Feb 28, 2024}

Ironically, they could have come straight off the Kremlin's propaganda press, and Putin's Russia is not socialist. I'm more "socialist", in a democratic sort of sense anyway. TF? :D

In modern times, the term is used across the political spectrum and in a geopolitical context to describe those who have a bias in favor of authoritarian states that have socialist legacy and often anti-Western, as the Republic of Belarus, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation. Additionally, tankies are said to have a tendency to support non-socialist states with no socialist legacy if they are opposed to the Western world, regardless of their ideology,^(4)(11) such as [...] — Tankie (Wikipedia)

A tankie is a member of a communist group or a "fellow traveller" (sympathiser) who believes fully in the political system of the Soviet Union and defends/defended the actions of the Soviet Union and other accredited states (China, Serbia, etc.) to the hilt, even in cases where other communists criticise their policies or actions. For instance, such a person favours overseas interventions by Soviet-style states, defends these regimes when they engage in human rights violations, and wishes to establish a similar system in other countries such as Britain and America. [...] I wouldn't be surprised if the tankies even defend Saddam Hussein. — tankie (Urban Dictionary)

The World Socialist Web Site has been infiltrated by Putinistas or there be tankies (in a pejorative not-so-socialist sense), something like that. Can you tell which?

I point out my primarily responsibility: Western policy. — boethius

And that policy has to start with the real situation. Not the imagined one where everything revolves around the West and it's actions or failures.

And that policy has to start with the real situation. — ssu

The relatively stable and friendly relationship between Russia and the West in 2008? :chin:

And that policy has to start with the real situation. Not the imagined one where everything revolves around the West and it's actions or failures. — ssu

My primary responsibility does indeed revolve around the West and its actions or failures because I live in the West.

I have zero problem discussing other people's responsibility in other countries independent of the West's policy vis-a-vis whatever it is, including Putin's responsibility, it's just not my main focus.

Sure, analysis should start with the reality of the situation, a few points of reality:

1. Maybe it was Putin's intention was to invade Ukraine all along, there's just no evidence for it. Maybe it was secretly his goal and he then used the fact the US also wanted bigger tensions to maneuver the EU and Ukraine into the war he wanted all along. Well, if so we played into his hand and he's outplayed us, that's my main take-away; but independent of that, if we assume Putin "gracefully lured the CIA into Ukraine" and managed everything precisely to this end all along ... doesn't really seem to change the other salient facts.

2. Ukraine simply cannot win a long war with Russia and the only way to even have a chance to do that involves extreme harm to Ukraine.

3. The West simply does not value Ukrainian sovereignty enough to send in its own troops. I'm always accused of being pro-Putin yet I'm the only one here who has advocated Western troops in Ukraine (ideally before or at the start of the war, now it's less workable for a bunch of reasons).

4. If you put point 2 and 3 together, the only reasonable conclusion is that the West should (especially before or at the very start of the war), if we cared about Ukraine (just not enough to send our own troops), used the West's immense negotiating leverage to workout the best deal possible for Ukraine. Putin wanted to continue to sell gas to Europe, that's why they built a bunch of giant pipes (unless that too was a cunning ploy knowing the US would blow it up and that would cause tensions in the alliance ... or then know the US would threaten to blow it up and Putin could then send his own frogmen out there right under NATO's nose in the thickest thickets of sonar traps and blow it up and everyone would think it was the US since they literally promised to bring it to an end come what may, and they have means of doing it), and a whole bunch of incentives to agree to and stick to a peace deal as well as the disincentive to try to resolve things on the battle field as the arming of Ukraine during the negotiations is further leverage the West has.

Of note, if the West was putting reasonable proposals on the table that are obviously acceptable to all parties, then it would have been natural to send in more advanced Western equipment (equipment that is obviously necessary at some point if the war continues, so at the start is so crazy a lot better for so many reasons). Likewise, the whole point of sanctions is that they will be lifted if a reasonable deal is accepted (if we're talking rational, good faith and ethical diplomacy). Would Putin resort to nukes when there's a reasonable deal on the table? Could Putin be sure to actually hold on to the land bridge in 2022 if the West was sending in advanced tanks, HIMARS, and so the other weapons we've sent anyways (which could be far more effectively employed)?

If the West was pursuing a reasonable and ethical result for Ukraine, it had immense amounts of leverage to do so and if Putin stubbornly refused then all the advanced weapons could be front loaded to Ukraine and it would much better chances.

I explain for over 2 years how to get the best outcome for Ukraine: diplomacy, using both economic incentives and the potential for continued violence (which even if devastating for Ukraine is still harmful for Russia and, most importantly, there's huge error bars on all sorts of processes and events at the start of the conflict, which must be priced into decision making) as leverage in that diplomacy, prevent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths, mass trauma and injuries, a large part of the entire youth of Ukraine permanently gone, retain as much territory as is viably possible ... and somehow I'm pro-Putin.

Cheering on Ukrainians to die fighting Putin as basically a gesture to represent "we don't like him" is not pro-Ukrainian, it's pro destruction and death on the off chance it harms Russia.

Ukraine has no means to resolve this conflict on the battlefield, so the choices are to send in Western troops or then have a negotiation strategy (in which arms can be one of several vectors of leverage, but in the context of a workable deal).

It may seem (for people who think Putin is literally Hitler ... while an actual genocide is carried out elsewhere) emotionally satisfying to see Zelensky repudiate negotiations and simply demand Russia leaves Ukraine and we'll negotiate after that!

However, it is not good for Ukraine. Russia can resolve this conflict on the battlefield; if there is no reasonable peace proposal, Russia does have the means to simply attain a battle field outcome.

Encouraging Ukraine to fight without any negotiating strategy that is plausibly workable is simply cheering the death of Ukrainians for no benefit to them or anyone else.

The decision to send men and women to die should be based on something more than "what sounds good to hear" and thought terminating clichés such as "Russia can end the war any day!". Men who are for the most part drafted, cannot legally leave Ukraine, and it may not be their desire or their own volition to fight Russia for no viably achievable objective or even no desire to fight at all.

As we speak Russia has achieved air superiority over the front line, certainly with standoff glide bombs but there's also reports of fighter jets flying directly over the front, Ukrainian lines are collapsing and the combined arms matrix that allows assets to remain in the field at all (even many kilometres behind the front) is crumbling.

Which is all expected and predictable since months, and since the very start of the war I explained exactly this would happen. You can hold out for some time against a superior force but eventually one side breaks, and it's usually not the superior force. The comparison to WWI made in the media and therefore it's some sort of stalemate they would conclude is preposterous; WWI was not a stalemate! One side won, the other lost. Just in trench warfare the process of losing is not gradual loss of territory but breaking.

Things hold until they don't, then it happens very quickly the destruction of the remaining forces and assets in the field.

Likewise, what's being learned: Russia is learning how to systematically break Ukrainian lines while Ukraine is learning they have no way to stop that happening.

The idea a smaller force could hold against a larger force that overmatches them in every category of arms is just ludicrous ... and our leaders were selling us that the smaller force would not just hold but achieve total victory!

The drip feed — boethius

... idea suggests a single point of decision, like monolithic or "one voice". Yet, that's the kind of thing that happens in autocracies. Ukraine's supporters are broad and wide, they discuss debate quarrel, back-and-forth, dis/agree alike, both domestically and internationally, subject to whatever bureaucracy, you name it, "many voices" (to accommodate). Should be evident enough. Too bad perhaps, but Ukraine's supporters are readily susceptible to divide et impera.

neo-nazis [...] I can post the videos of Western reportage on the nazis and corruption again [...] Nazis [...] nazi [...] Nazi — boethius

I point out my primarily responsibility: Western policy. — boethius

Hmm Your responsibility? (For the occasion?) :halo: Anyway, when will we then see something about your domestic extremists? (Does Hells Angels count? Actually, they're international.) By the way, what the Ukrainians wanted is consistent with "Western policy", the Kremlin not so much.

Maybe it was Putin's intention — boethius

Geo-power-military-political aspirations include long-term control over Ukraine ... irredentism, "demilitarization", anti-NATO/defense, land grabbing (no independence), Mearsheimer (Crimea), vision ("destiny"), industrial strength nationalist propaganda, a variation of imperialism/neo-colonialism (according to some), ... Loss of control (threat, danger) → act :fire:. Potential loss of control (risk) → act :fire:. Threats dangers risks include Ukrainian (and Russian) free democracy, strong Ukrainian defense (like NATO), Ukraine steadily looking away from Russia towards the EU (or "West").

(↑ not new in the thread)

The relatively stable and friendly relationship between Russia and the West in 2008? :chin: — Tzeentch

At least for Finland, but also for other European countries...yes relatively stably and friendly relationship.

Compared to now, of course.

I have zero problem discussing other people's responsibility in other countries independent of the West's policy vis-a-vis whatever it is, including Putin's responsibility, it's just not my main focus. — boethius

That has come obvious to others, yes. :smirk:

1. Maybe it was Putin's intention was to invade Ukraine all along, there's just no evidence for it. — boethius

LOL! :grin:

Soo... how many other countries does he call "artificial" and being an integral part of Russia. How many other countries Russian spread far before maps of parts of it belonging to Russia? Like this from year 2015.



Putin has been very consistent. Yes, he has also mentioned that NATO enlargement is what he doesn't like, but the annexation of Crimea and further the other oblasts that he has now annexed into Russia (even they all aren't in Russian held territories) simply just show he wasn't kidding with all his references of the historic connection of Russia and Ukraine. And then you say there's wasn't no evidence. Hilarious! Perhaps later we can look at this thread and see how ingrained Putinism and Pro-Putinists were.

2. Ukraine simply cannot win a long war with Russia and the only way to even have a chance to do that involves extreme harm to Ukraine. — boethius

Just like in the case of my country, the real question is if Russia cannot take over the country it attacked. What then? Well, then Russia simply admits defeat, like it did against the Japanese. Or the Poles. Or in a way, with us Finns making this kind of Peace deal without annexation or creating the country to be a satellite state. Likely Ukrainians have no dreams of the war ending with an Ukrainian military parade on the Red Square. But please, do promote the vast power of Russia here, if you want.

the only reasonable conclusion is that the West should (especially before or at the very start of the war), if we cared about Ukraine (just not enough to send our own troops), used the West's immense negotiating leverage to workout the best deal possible for Ukraine. — boethius

And that naturally should happen from an advantage point. Hence military support of Ukraine should continue as long as the Ukrainians want and are willing to fight.

As we speak Russia has achieved air superiority over the front line — boethius

The fact is still that it doesn't have the air superiority that it should have taken in a few days.