Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying? — schopenhauer1

Those kind of comments would have more weight if Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine, which makes them a bit dubious in the case of this war. The imperialist ambitions of Russia simply cannot be denied.

But in the case of China (which has last time attacked Vietnam in 1979 and had some skirmishes in the 80's with the country, which didn't go so well for the China) or Iran (which hasn't attacked anybody, even if it does give aid to various combatants), the profiteering argument would be more credible.

So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica? — Isaac

No. You literally said that Costa Rica is outside of the Western sphere of influence.

That is the thing I corrected.

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence. — Isaac

Costa Rica? :chin:

It's a long time since President Oscar Arias was angry at the US for using the country as a staging post for Contras. Something nearly 40 years ago.

From the State Department's website:

Beyond migration, U.S. assistance to Costa Rica helps counter drug trafficking and transnational crime, supports economic development, improves governance, and contributes to security in Central America.

The United States works hand-in-hand with a wide range of Costa Rican government agencies and non-governmental organizations to help secure Costa Rica’s borders, professionalize its police, strengthen its judicial sector, improve its corrections system, and empower at-risk youth and other vulnerable populations.

U.S. Embassy programs promote entrepreneurship, economic inclusion, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) works closely with Costa Rican security partners to build capacity and assist disadvantaged communities.

US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations (diplomatic relations since 1851). Costa Rica is quite under the influence of the West I would say.

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix

Which in the end you cannot disprove.

So countries wanting to join NATO because they fear Russia might invade them...which then becomes reality and Russia attacks them, is I guess the provocation. But what was the NATO prior to 2014 and where was it's focus?

This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. But let's forget the various number of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship, or just how silent the West was about the actions of Russia in Chechnya, because it was an internal conflict. All that doesn't rhyme with the US-is-out-to-get-Russia narrative.

In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries. The Brussels Summit Declaration from January 1994 defined the goals of PfP as expanding and intensifying political and military cooperation in Europe, increasing stability, diminishing threats to peace, and building strengthened security relationships.

On 27 May 1997, NATO leaders and President Boris Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, expressing their determination to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.” The Act established the goal of cooperation in areas such as peacekeeping, arms control, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and theatre missile defence. In the Founding Act, NATO and Russia agreed to base their cooperation on the principles of human rights and civil liberties, refraining from the threat or use of force against each other or any other state.

Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny. — ssu

This was not the issue under contention. — boethius

OK, at least with this you agree. Yet you continue...

apokrisis's hypothesis is that no analysis and no expert is credible, other than the Russian military is incompetent.

Incompetence is a pretty high threshold and you can of course be competent and still fail, especially in a negative sum game such as war.

Even higher threshold is claiming "all credible analysis" agrees with your position. — boethius

Umm...just who is saying that the Russian army is competent and very effective? :roll:

There are several reasons just why people can argue that Russia's armed forces are incompetent, just starting from actual eye-witness stories and that performance on the battlefield. One can simply see themselves from the footage. The looting, the brutality towards civilians, the use of alcohol, failure of resupplying, it all tells of low morale and serious problems. Many armies suffer from these kind of problems, usually in the poor countries with low education levels and large social problems. It takes a lot, not just money, to create an effective armed forces. (Just look at the performance of the Saudi's in Yemen.)

The reasons for the problems in the Russian armed forces are many and start, as usually they start, from the society that the armed forces are part of. The Russian armed forces were formed from the Soviet Army, and that there is a really big bag of problems, which couldn't be easily reformed and modernized. The Russian army is enormous compared to the economy of Russia, which itself creates problems. Then there's the military culture. which starts from things like not focusing on the individual and him or her initiative, but a top-down command structure where initiative in lower ranks isn't promoted. Even the Finnish military manuals (that are public) say that the attack of the enemy can halt if the commander/commanding unit is destroyed.

It's said (quite convincingly) that the reason just why so many generals have died in the war in Ukraine is that they have had to lead from the front, literally. This isn't anything new. From the Russo-Georgian war there's video footage of the commander of the entire army, not a division commander or a battalion commander, giving orders surrounded to a large groups of officers and drivers on how the armoured spearhead should advance. He is standing next to the row of tanks on the road side and hence creating an obvious target assuming there would have been good forward observers and drones for the Georgians artillery (which they didn't have). It's basically WW2 style command when radios or any other communication equipment was scarce. Then comes everything else in the Russian system from corruption.

I could go on, but I don't think anyone would read me as it's a very long story.

That you honestly believe ex-US officers, in this case not even a ex-general!, working for "think tanks" is for sure not feeding you bullshit and represent an agenda, is worrisome. — boethius

Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny.

But you think it's all bullshit.

Well, even the Russians admit it and there's quite a lot of Russian observers noting how bad the war is going.

But somehow your counterargument is that it's just all propaganda.

Russia has gone so much backwards.

Arctic soldiers relocated to the Kherson farms:

Russia’s Reindeer Brigade Is Fighting For Its Survival In Southern Ukraine (Forbes; Oct 7, 2022)
(alternatively via msn) — jorndoe

Now there are fewer troops behind the Finnish border than anytime. The garrisons have only a skeleton crew and new conscripts in training.

The Scandinavian countries have been part of mutual defense agreements for over a decade, so what exactly do you believe has changed that would make this so significant? — Tzeentch

Do you refer to them being EU members or what?

Another smoking accident has happened, this time on the Kerch bridge. — Paine

The rail line is extremely important to Russian logistics. Russian supplies depend on rail. Seems that it is quite repairable.

The latter ruling was later controversially revised, but this was no common-law holiday camp. — Baden

Thanks for the correction, Baden.

The fact that you don't know this speak volumes about your biases. — Isaac

Learn what prior to means. And then correct your own biases.

The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact. — boethius

I think there was far more belief in the strength of the sanctions. But I guess someone than predicted the dire situation that Russia would be now six months ago was then simply correct.

For Russia this war is going as well as the Russo-Japanese war. (Which btw went on for over 1 year and 6 months)

The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.

That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them. — Isaac

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You really think people were disappearing prior to the Russian invasion? Why don't just refer to that. What Amnesty International criticized Ukraine was about police using excessive force and how they handled the Euromaidan protestors, during the student protests. But I didn't know that dissenters were disappearing in Crimea / Donbas prior to the war.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all? — Tzeentch

But is interested in Finland and Sweden. You are just making things up. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

But when a person here genuinely thinks that it would have saved lives for UK to surrender to Nazi Germany, repeat SURRENDER, not just to try staying out of the conflict and have diplomatic relations Germany, than to fight the war until victory was obtained. I think I should stop responding to such nonsense.

The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion. — boethius

Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The thinking was that Ukrainian could only fight successfully with an insurgency. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point.

Quote:

Even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine earlier today, several commentators, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, argued convincingly that a Russian occupation of more of Ukraine, perhaps including Kyiv, would lead to an insurgency like that which the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I believe the United States and NATO should help the Ukrainian resistance but we should understand the potential consequences, risks, and costs up front. Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine could well prove to be another geopolitical catastrophe for Russia but only if we help the Ukrainian resistance.

Notice the wording of "resistance". When you compare to what is happening now, it's not about an Afghan type resistance.

This is not an article that portrays the Ukrainian army to be a clear match on the battlefield for the Russian juggernaut.

Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. — Isaac

The sad fact is that if Putin had ended with Crimea and not had started a war with Ukraine for Novorossiya, likely the World would have de facto moved on. But I guess the mass graves and torture chambers don't tell anything for you.

Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse.

That Putin's Russia has now more political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during later years is very telling, something you aren't picking up.

Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. — Isaac

AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer:

The Vichy government a) sent Jews to extermination camps, b) fought against the resistance and the Free French, c) fought against that allies too in Northern Africa. Hence had there been a "Vichy Government" for the UK, similar things would have happened. Hence your idea of the UK surrendering to the Nazis may have saved lives is delirious.

but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland. — Isaac

The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens".

That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. — Isaac

And how many of the British Jews that would have saved? At the start of WW2, there were about half a million jews living in the UK. Add the over 50 000 that escaped to the British Isles.

And how many you think would have been deemed as enemies of the state? In a country with strong liberal roots, guess how many Britons would have been a problem for the new regime?

You're idea that surrender may well have saved lives is simply false. The fact is that the Jewish community in the UK outnumbered the deaths that the United Kingdom actually suffered during the war tells this obvious fact. You simply are delusional if you think that Nazi machine would stopped at killing only the British jews.

If a man loves a woman but the woman only loves the man for the money thats not love. Although it could be in fair circumstances. — Deus

The major factor is of course the human relationship when to people are in love. Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. It's not just the income, but in a meritocracy usually the more talented people end up in jobs paying more. We still have these old ideas that a man should take care of his family, even if it usually is now that the parents should be able to take care of their children.

Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.

Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia. — Isaac

So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation".

No? :snicker:

Let me guess. That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). :smirk:

Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal. — Isaac

Oh now it's just humanitarian goals, and hell to Westphalian sovereignty?

So I guess you are against the UN charter then.

Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. — boethius

I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that.

It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well. — boethius

With what troops, that's the question. The newly mobilized troops can basically formed into battle capable formations likely for some spring offensive. Now the question is to avoid Russian forces to be pocketed in the Kherson region, so I guess the few troops they have should go to stop the Ukrainian advance.

The point, for anyone with a post-kindergarten level of interest in the subject, was that there's no good reason to believe that atrocities would continue at the same level in Russian controlled territories. — Isaac

And anyone with a post-kindergarten level of understanding Russian/Soviet actions understands that it will happen. Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war, but still in a way that anyone clear headed would call it a war. The first the Russians will deny is the existence of a war or insurgency, if they can. I guess you have absolutely no idea how long the Lithuans fought against the Soviet invader after WW2, well into the 1950's. Or that the last "Forest Brother" were killed in 1970's in Estonia. Yet if there were a small number of insurgents, partisans, the Soviet response was quite chilling:

The repression of the population in Lithuania started on the first day of the Soviet occupation on 15th June 1940 and continued until the 31st of August 1993 when the Soviet-Russian Army finally returned home. The Soviet authorities carried out deportations, mass killings, imprisonment, and sovietification of the Lithuanian people and Soviet colonists were settled in Lithuania. Soviet-oriented historians have tried to justify the mass deportations by referring to Lithuanian partisan activity, but in fact the deportations were largely directed against the so-called enemies of the people of which a majority had never been partisans. The Soviets deported whole families; infants, children, women and elderly to Siberia. Altogether the Soviets deported 12 percent of the population. A rough estimate is that during the period 1940-1990 Lithuania lost one third of its population due to war, destruction and repression, as well as to emigration and deportations a total equal to about one million citizens.

Lithuanian Forest Brothers fighting Soviet troops in the 1950's:


And if well over 100 000 killed Chechens from a population less than two million doesn't make you see it, nothing will wake you up from your blissful ignorance. You won't be thrown out from here because you aren't an apologist to nazism, just making the points Putin does. And believing his stories of Nazis ruling Ukraine.

At least when it comes to your own country, the UK, they (the British Army) have had the decency to call afterwards the events in Northern Ireland an insurgency (if during the time it was referred to "The Troubles"). But the British at least upheld the common law and what the UK stands for, hence the IRA perpetrators of most deadly attack on the British armed forces were not charge because there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them. The other one died later when compiling another bomb, yet the other one lived (or lives) as a free man. That is how a democracy fights an insurgency. Russia doesn't fight it that way. As @SophistiCat pointed, in Russia the war stops when the leader tells it stops, not when the fighting stops.

We cannot take our millions nor our mansions nor our fancy cars to the grave with us.

Wealth and wealth management then is an excercise of power and influence to those who have that kind of capital but even that is short sighted in the face of the reality that we are mortal.

So for a human beings brief and short existence on this planet the accumulation of such wealth can become an unhealthy obsession.

To what end ? — Deus

Have you inherited anything?

Inheritance, a family farm or a beautiful rare painting is something you pass on to the next generation. Or then you are that selfish asshole who sells it and spends the money on alcohol, drugs, sex and driving in a taxi. Because you don't care the fuck about anything or anybody else but pleasuring yourself. You aren't taking anything with you when you die!

And then your children remember this wonderful summer place or this rare painting that the family had which awed everybody, but then you came and now it's just a distant memory.

Would the West still be supporting the war in Ukraine under say, a Republican US president and a right-leaning (read, anti-EU) Europe? — Tzeentch

Yes.

Wasn't (or isn't) the current UK administration right-leaning (read, anti-EU)?

Who are against the support of Ukraine are usually the right-wing populists who have gotten money from the Kremlin. And those that have issues with the US (Turkey) or the EU (Hungary), for example.

REDUCE. Reduce. Reduce. — Isaac

Pointing out that there is still some war crime activity in occupied territories is not an argument that there is more war crime activity in occupied territories than there is in the actual war. — Isaac

Isaac the apologist seems to be on the roll, again.

When a war is over, there should be NO killings, no war crimes or human violations. But somehow when Putin is fighting the war, the killing doesn't end with the proclaimed victory.

In my view the two Chechen wars resulted in what can be described as a genocide or genocidal warfare. Remembering that Chechnya has a population of 1,4 million, the death toll is staggering.

According to the pro-Moscow Chechnya government, 160,000 combatants and non-combatants died or have gone missing in the two wars, including 30,000–40,000 Chechens and about 100,000 Russians; while separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov (deceased) repeatedly claimed about 200,000 ethnic Chechens died as a consequence of the two conflicts.According to a count by the Russian human rights group Memorial in 2007, up to 25,000 civilians have died or disappeared since 1999. According to Amnesty International in 2007, the second war killed up to 25,000 civilians since 1999, with up to another 5,000 people missing.

Somebody with that kind of track record might usually apply same methods that previously have been so successful.

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. I would think the complete absence of such a situation from the annals of human history would count as fairly substantial evidence.

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays. — Isaac

Except where Putin has succeeded in gaining a military victory: In Chechnya, the Chechen Republic. Of course, Russian officials and Putin and Kadyrov have declared the war to be over. However:

The separatists denied that the war was over, and guerrilla warfare continued throughout the North Caucasus. Colonel Sulim Yamadayev, Chechnya's second most powerful loyalist warlord after Kadyrov, also denied that the war is over. In March 2007, Yamadayev claimed there were well over 1,000 separatists and foreign Islamic militants entrenched in the mountains of Chechnya alone: "The war is not over, the war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years." According to the CIA factbook (2015), Russia has severely disabled the Chechen separatist movement, although sporadic violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus

And that there are Chechen fighting on both sides in Ukraine tells something about this conflict, even if it can be declared to be a victory for Putin.

But the war crimes? They are simply called human-rights violations nowdays:

Over the past decade, the world has been shaken by stories about human rights abuses in Chechnya. State-run executions of gay people were the the most notorious, but the reach of Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, exceeds the borders of the republic. His disregard for human rights, and his deal with Vladimir Putin, is increasingly becoming a greater threat - even for his fellow human rights abusers in Moscow.

(See here)

Now, if you have a situation in which the military gets tired and get rid of Putin, OK. Maybe that ends the war. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, we don't know if that would work well. — Manuel

I don't think anyone is now eager to jump into Putin's place.

As it's just now speculated that the north of the Kherson front might be collapsing (or retreating), the thing with Russia and Russians is the severe beating that they can endure and still persist. Just remember how it was after one and a half years of fighting in 1941-1942? Or how successful Napoleon was until he finished in Moscow?

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. The West can keep up such aid as it's giving now for quite a while. And now the mobilized troops can basically be formed into meaningful units for a spring offensive. Putin can likely continue the war longer than anticipated. Still, a collapse is also possible, although rather unlikely.

I'll grant you Afghanistan, no doubt. — Manuel

The other one, which I had in mind (and apparently many in Russia have thought about also), is the Russo-Japanese War. That was a war started by Russia with high hopes of a victorious war and with severe contempt and underestimation of the Asian foe. And the under performance of the Russian armed forces came as a surprise to everybody, which just showed the underlying problems of the Empire.



Russia made a peace which was quite unfavorable for it, but the reality at the war's end dictated this.

Unbelievable. The region won't recover in our lifetime, huh? — frank

Ummm...depends on just how old you are. :wink:

I have trouble seeing a military defeat as being an option for Russia. I really do think they'll risk a nuclear war before being defeated. I hope I am wrong, I really do. — Manuel

I don't. Russia has seen it's share of defeats (just like the US with Vietnam and Afghanistan), which have brought political instability.

The sane nuclear escalation would be an underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya test site or somewhere else.



The insane escalation would be to try to hit Ukrainian formations with tactical nuclear weapons. This is harder than it sounds as Ukrainian battlegroups don't move in tight confined formations to create great targets. And hitting an airbase or military command center near a town or city would simply make some Ukrainian place name have the similar creepy vibe as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They already have Chernobyl, you know.

The question is what course of action we should endorse as a solution to it. — Isaac

If you want the aggressor to have a face saving victory, I guess now would be the perfect time to have an immediate cease-fire and set Russian territorial gains to start where the no-mans land is now. A time-out is what the Russian army needs now.

Yep. They say about 60,000 Russian soldiers have died. That's how many Americans died in the whole Vietnam war. — frank

We shouldn't forget how many Ukrainians have died too. This is a huge conventional war and likely it will cost over 100 000 killed in less than a year, which just tells about the ferocity of the fighting.

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. But stopping now as opposed to later, would be better for everybody.

Again- I could be wrong. — Manuel

An outcome where Putin can declare victory, having achieved a land bridge to Kyiv and have gotten more territories annexed so that he can declare "Novorossiya" to part of Russia again seems hardly a great outcome.

You can then wait a decade, rebuild your army and attack again.

No, the real problem is that Soviet Union created a continuum for a Russian Empire that should have ended just like Austro-Hungary or any historical multiethnic Empires, which had their roots in Medieval Times. Putin's idea of Russia is imperial. It is a Russia spread across many nations with Russians being on top. It's obvious in the grandeur of the backdrop that Putin uses, with retro-19th Century uniforms worn by the soldiers at the moment when the new territories "joined" Russia.



Since the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully, people like Putin think it was just an accident. Hence the way to redefine the "official" idea of Russia has to come through a similar path as Serbia had with Yugoslavia. And just like the present day Serbia, Russia will likely be cautious of the West even in the future, but will hopefully shed it's imperial ambitions. And that will likely happen with a military defeat.

But speaking of the cost of the war, what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? Fear for their own safety? Or what? — frank

Obviously Putin wouldn't stop at Ukraine. Perhaps the territorial annexations might end there, yet the fact is that Russia would want to enlarge it's sphere-of-influence to the West. Finlandization: my country knows the game extremely well.

From Putin's view he is restoring things after the greatest tragedy in history, the fall of the Soviet Union, with a re-emerging Russia taking it's place where it deserves to be against the decadent, failing West.

Yet the war seems to be going well for the Ukrainians... :up:

Watching News at 10pm on BBC1 and Ukraine is reported as having taken back, two villages near Kherson, in one of the annexed regions. How the Russians respond now will reveal how this horror will develop, I think. — universeness

Russian warfare can look like an epic fail to observers. But the key is that where everybody else would simply quit, they can keep failing until the other side is totally exhausted even if it has been victorious. Just look at what Russian fighting looked like from summer 1941 to Stalingrad.

If you have a point, please make it more explicit. — frank

Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. We might forget this because it's obvious that Russia is the aggressor here, Ukraine is the victim and the US is aiding Ukraine. Isaac would be extremely angry if now the US would look good as a "white knight in shining armour" coming to help a victim. Because the US is bad. Remember all the children that died in Iraq thanks to the sanctions etc. Even if this is a thread about the war in Ukraine, that doesn't matter.

Since the Russo-Georgian war, it ought to be clear that Putin doesn't care at all about economics or business relations. Good business relations are just a possible way to blackmail others, if it comes to that. Putin is politician who isn't interested in how well the economy works: he's in the Empire rebuilding game. Wars are his policy, right from the start of his era.

That this is the main conclusion people are drawing from this conflict, a new cycle of nuclear proliferation has certainly already started. The actual use of nuclear weapon would simply super charge that in my opinion. — boethius

Then we will wake up in World where two nations have used nuclear weapons against their non-nuclear armed opponents. But the interesting question is: would we actually panic?

Some will likely panic. Go immediately for playbook response Putin (or the Russian doctrine) wants with escelate to de-escelate: immediate cessation of all military operations, an immediate cease-fire on the lines now. I think the Pope would call for it, I guess. Or people of that status.

But what if the response wouldn't be that? Ok, they used a 5 kt tactical nuke. And the war goes on... Then what? The US and the West has had a long time to think about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway....

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

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

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

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

And withdrew later.

Sure they can. Airports are a classic target for airborne assaults. — Tzeentch

With the assumption that the airborne force can be then quite quickly be relieved by a ground force. Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air from the area if faced by a heavy counterattack.

Once an airborne detachment has occupied an area, it can basically hold on to that area until relieved. And that's basically it. Operation Mercury was the first, and the last, time when an air assault was planned to do basically everything.

It seems to me taking out airports would be a key strategic goal regardless of their intentions. — Tzeentch

Not with landing paratroops on them. This was classic way to use paratroop landings to ease the attack towards the capital.

Do notice the location of Hostomel airport:

But I do agree with this: once the defender will defend, then any kind of "Thunder run" into the city is nearly suicidal. Russian's learnt this during the first Chechen war. Yet taking the capital is quite important since the times of Clausewitz.

However quickly they noticed the mistake, to assume in the first place such an attack was a real blunder. It's quite clear that this quick strike into the heart of Ukraine was attempted. The heliborne landings in Hostomel Airport just next to Kyiv show the intent what Russians had.

The only real blunder I have seen from the Russian military is the sinking of the Moskva. — Tzeentch

Not the failed attempt of quickly reaching the capital?

The Russians’ armored columns were not dispersed and spread out across a massive plain, as in the World War II during the largest tank battle in history at the Battle of Kursk (500 east of Kyiv). In hindsight the Russian desire for need for offensive speed and mass, vs dispersed security and maneuver, was a poor strategy. Instead, these massive, armored columns were attacking in formation on multiple lane highways in convoys that were up to 40 miles long. Javelins fired from up to a mile away with precision accuracy, completely destroying the first tanks or BMPs could stall the whole column. Then pre-sighted artillery claimed the majority of Russian casualties. For several days the 40-mile armored column north of Kyiv was stalled after sustaining massive casualties.

Or not the "special military operation" having to resort mobilization of reservists after a successful Ukrainian counter attack? If I recall, Putin was first saying that conscripts wouldn't be used in the operation. :smirk:

Putin annexes territory, from where he is retreating from...