Is the chance of Ukraine regaining their lost territories worth the cost? It's a simple question. How many lives is that region's choice of governance worth? — Isaac

When you in your ignorance (or living in your alternative reality) think there is no difference between Ukraine and Russia...

Ukraine and Russia, however, have quite similar governments, particularly in the East where Ukraine were fighting the pro-Russian breakaway factions. Similar in levels of corruption, similar in human rights, similar in press freedoms, similar in approach to ethnic and national minorities within their territory. — Isaac

And don't understand why Ukrainians would fight an aggressor in the first place, because the only thing would be that more people would die....

It's simple

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Then it's obvious nobody can make you understand the reality here. That Ukrainians will fight an imperialist aggressor, which in the end will likely lose just like it lost in the Russo-Japanese war or in Afghanistan.

Well, you convinced me to buy cryptocurrency (Bitcoin). We obviously are in the fear mode. Actually that might sound like a simple thing to do, but it isn't in real life: to know when the very bearish and when very bullish.

And I'm not going to be angry at you if (when?) the meager investment is -75% of the current price. :wink:

Putin's Russia has been and is in a (dehumanizing) systematic process of creating a Ukraine of more hate, which, in time, I'm sure they would/will use to justify more (given the chance), perhaps with the help of some questionable friends. — jorndoe

It's interesting that those neonazis don't get the focus of those seeing neonazis in Ukraine as Putin sees. But Putin's far-right views are in line with the imperialist idea of Russia being the third and final Rome... and everything good coming from Holy Russia and everything bad coming from the decadent immoral West.

From Putin's annexation speech (30th September):

Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. I now want to return to what I said, I want to address all the citizens of the country – not only to those colleagues who are in the hall – to all the citizens of Russia: do we want to have, here, in our country, in Russia, parent number one, number two, number three instead of mom and dad – have they gone made out there? Do we really want perversions that lead to degradation and extinction to be imposed on children in our schools from the primary grades? To be drummed into them that there are various supposed genders besides women and men, and to be offered a sex change operation? Do we want all this for our country and our children? For us, all this is unacceptable, we have a different future, our own future

I repeat, the dictatorship of the Western elites is directed against all societies, including the peoples of the Western countries themselves. This is a challenge for everyone. Such a complete denial of man, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, the suppression of freedom acquiring the features of a “reverse religion” [the opposite of what the religion is] – outright Satanism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ, denouncing the false prophets, says: By their fruits you shall know them. And these poisonous fruits are already obvious to people – not only in our country, in all countries, including many people in the West itself.

Now trying to change the question again?

What in "as long as it takes - for the territory to be intact" do you not understand?

Anytime soon doesn't mean never, especially when you just said the US will back them up as long as it takes. And notice just what Milley says:

But Kherson and Kharkiv, physically, geographically, are relatively small compared to the whole, so that that -- the military task of militarily kicking the Russians physically out of Ukraine is a very difficult task. And it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks unless the Russian army completely collapses, which is unlikely.

And this is quite in line what the Ukrainians are actually thinking about: Crimea is an issue for next summer. Or something on that timeline.

Incoherent ramble again from you, Isaac.

The fact that I stated is that Milley doesn't see a quick victory for Ukraine (just as the Ukrainians don't either see it) makes you fantasize that Milley (or your Miley) is concluding "that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain." That's simply is utterly false.

Please look at what he actually said (from the site given):

(Milley) So, in terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back.

The Russian military is suffering tremendously. Leaders have been, you know, their leadership is really hurting bad. They've lost a lot of causalities, killed and wounded. They've lost -- I won't go over exact numbers because they're classified, but they've lost a tremendous amount of their tanks and their infantry fighting vehicles. They've lost a lot of their fourth and fifth-generation fighters and helicopters and so on and so forth.

The Russian military is really hurting bad. So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.

More of the timetable is actually discussed during the briefing.

And of course, the Ukrainians have put forward their terms, hence they are open for peace talks.

There are no correct moral claims. People only have incorrect opinions on what's good/bad, what should/shouldn't exist. — Leftist

How far postmodernism has taken us.

The fact that morality isn't totally similar as logic where things are either true or false and usually provable as so, yet this shouldn't really be any kind of problem for us. There is a link and it is studied in a branch of philosophy called ethics. So is the question...what?

So just to continue this thread. FTX went bankrupt with billions of missing.

Newly appointed FTX CEO John Ray III minced no words in a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, declaring that “in his 40 years of legal and restructuring experience,” he had never seen “such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.”

Ray formerly served as CEO of Enron after the implosion of the energy titan.

So the guy who handled the Enron mess says this... :smirk:

Is it a trend that some the Super Bowl adds are for some new upstart companies a canary in the coal mine indicator (just notice what companies Super Bowl add is from my last comment above)?

Yet is the demise of FTX the bottom of the hype? Bitcoin is still more expensive than when this thread was started. And perhaps the hype is at least now over. Or then I'm wrong again and let's say the value of cryptocurrencies will go down another 75% or more. Likely people will want to forget it and hence the actual technology might really get into normal life.

Where in any of that does it say that Ukraine are likely to win back Crimea?

Nowhere. — Isaac

Wrong again, Isaac.

It's even in bold, so you could notice it. (But again, too much to assume you would read what people say or write)

we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to keep them free, sovereign, independent with their territory intact.

No, just the normal view. I cited General Mark Miley, — Isaac

LOL! :rofl:

An absolutely ludicrous idea!

Even you wrote his name wrong (MIlley), and obviously that when the general says the obvious, that there is no quick victory for Ukraine (something that Ukrainian military leaders themselves have said), you interpret in your fantasies "every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain." How telling.

For others here, let's just quote what actually this Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said, which obviously is very important. To have this thread to be about the reality about the war in Ukraine. From US defense.gov website:

This is a war of choice -- it's a war of choice for Russia. They embarked on a tremendous strategic mistake. They made a choice in February of this year to illegally invade a country that posed no threat to Russia. In making that choice, Russia established several objectives. They wanted to overthrow President Zelenskyy and his government. They wanted to secure access to the Black Sea. They wanted to capture Odessa. They wanted to seize all the way to the Dnipro River, pause, and then continue to attack all the way to the Carpathian Mountains.

In short, they wanted to overrun all of Ukraine, and they lost. They didn't achieve those objectives. They failed to achieve their strategic objectives and they are now failing to achieve their operational and tactical objectives.

Russia changed their war aims in March and beginning of April. Their war of choice then focused on the seizure of the Donbas, the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. That was their operational objectives and they failed there. Then they changed again and expanded to seize Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

The strategic reframing of their objectives, of their illegal invasion have all failed, every single one of them. And we've just witnessed last week Russia's retreat from Kherson. They retreated across the Dnipro River, they moved to more defensible positions south of the river. Their losses due to Ukrainian success and skill and bravery on the battlefield have been very, very significant.

And it's clear that the Russian will to fight does not match the Ukrainian will to fight. On the battlefield, Ukrainians' offensive up in Kharkiv has been very successful, where they crossed the Oskil River and they have moved to the east and are near the town of Svatove.

There is a significant ongoing fight down in Bakhmut right now and in the vicinity of Siversk and Soledar, where the Ukrainians are fighting a very, very successful mobile defense. There is limited contact right now in Zaporizhzhia and limited contact in and around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. And as we already discussed, Kherson's offensive has already been successful.

So across the entire front line trace of some 900 or so kilometers, the Ukrainians have achieved success after success after success and the Russians have failed every single time. They've lost strategically, they've lost operationally, and I repeat, they lost tactically.

What they've tried to do, they failed at. They started this war and Russia can end this war. Russia can make another choice, and they could make a choice today, to end this war.

And what Milley continues about the Ukrainians:

Ukraine is going to continue to take the fight to the Russians. And I just had a significant conversation with my Ukrainian counterpart and he assures me that that is the future for Ukraine.

As Ukraine continues to fight, air defense capabilities are becoming critical for their future success. An integrated system -- an integrated air defense system, an integrated air and missile defense system, is what is necessary as Ukraine repels Russian aerial attacks.

And a significant portion of today's conversations in today's meeting with almost 50 countries focused on how we, as a global coalition, can provide the right mix of air defense systems and ammunition for Ukraine to continue its control of the skies and prevent the Russians from achieving air superiority.

To combat continued Russian strikes, last Thursday, the United States announced $400 million in additional commitments to support Ukraine, and those capabilities included missiles for the HAWK air defense systems, which is a complement to what Spain has recently committed. There's other air defense systems included in that $400 million package, along with ground systems such as up-armored Humvees, grenade launchers and additional HIMARS ammunition and lots of other pieces of equipment.

Wars are not fought by armies; they're fought by nations. This war is fought by the Ukrainian people, and it's fought by the Russian people, and this is a war that Russia's leadership has chosen to put Russia into. They didn't have to do this, but they did, and they have violated Ukrainian sovereignty and they violated territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is in complete contradiction to the basic rules that underlined the United Nations Charter established at the end of World War II. This is one of the most significant attempts to destroy the rules-based order that World War II was fought all about, and we, the United States are determined to continue to support Ukraine with the means to defend themselves for as long as it takes.

But at the end of the day, Ukraine will retain -- will remain a free and independent country with its territory intact. Russia could end this war today. Russia could put an end to it right now, but they won't. They're going to continue that fight. They're going to continue that fight into the winter as best we can tell, and we, the United States, on the direction of the president and the secretary of defense, we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to keep them free, sovereign, independent with their territory intact.

AND FURTHERMORE, Milley continues:

Ukrainians are not asking for anyone to fight for them. They don't want American soldiers, or British, or German, or French, or anybody else to fight for them. They will fight for themselves. All Ukraine is asking for is the means to fight, and we are determined to provide that means. Ukrainians will do this on their timeline, and until then, we will continue to support all the way for as long as it takes. It is evident to me and the contact group today that that is not only a U.S. position, but it is a position of all the nations that were there today. We will be there for as long as it takes to keep Ukraine free. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

See reference here.

co-Zelenskyites on here because virtually every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain. — Isaac

Hardly surprising that that you are living in an alternative reality. As Ukrainians already have regained territory. They didn't have to rely on an insurgency to fight the Russians, which some experts thought they would have to rely.

But as a leftist tankist I assume you have a totally different view on 'experts on the matter' are.

Putin lost this war on the first day. Ukraine didn't collapse as the Afghan government did.

Over 8 months ago I posted several reports by Western media (made before the war) investigating the Nazi's in Ukraine. — boethius

I remember someone eagerly quoting articles from 2014, when the right-sector had fought on the streets of Kyiv yet had not lost in the elections (which seems to be a minor detail). And of course that fringe party isn't in government. And then of course the favorite unit of Ukraine, which seemed to represent the Ukrainian armed forces well over half a million strong.

And needles to say, no mention of the true right-wing extremism in Russia. Who cares about that!

Of course, what you lack to understand is that Putin justified the war with the denazification of Ukraine argument, which accused of the present administration to be neonazis. This administration has no ties to neonazis. Trump has more to do with neonazis and nobody accused that populist administration to be neonazis (or perhaps some did, actually).

There's the old saying in Finland: the dog that barks is the one that the sticks hits.

It's a good saying. :smile:

Seems pretty collectivist to me… — Olivier5

But seems like not to some. :wink:

The Nazi thing was and is a ruse. — jorndoe

Yes it was.

But notice how eagerly it was employed even on this thread by some very active participants.

The sophistic art of the historicist... — Isaac

The illiterate....

. If we are only considering Zelensky lying to us; I think what matters is the intention. Zelensky's intention is clearly to escalate tensions between nuclear powers in a way that he certainly has in mind may go all the way to nuclear war; either as a desirable thing or then just a risk he's willing to take. — boethius

Nonsense.

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians.

It would be typical of Russian propaganda to say Zelensky has "in mind to go all the way to nuclear war". As if he was the instigator of this war.

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter? — Mikie

At least he's not the US President, so you likely won't have every media outlet repeating what outrageous tweet he made last night.

Republicans should understand that for Dems Trump is like Hillary was to them, but on steroids.

So you would agree that Russia could employ nuclear weapons in Ukraine "out-of-the-blue" with zero fear of any US response. — boethius

Of course not!

I'm implying that if there is an unfortunate accident, let's say Russian aircraft shoots down a NATO aircraft of vice versa, things won't automatically escalate.

This isn't 1914 or 1939. Nobody is looking for a general war.

Of course, what you are saying is what Medvedev said earlier: that the US / NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine. Naturally to that kind of public statement, US and NATO had to reply in some way.

And of course, backchannels are open and used now.

(France 24, 14th of November 2022) A White House National Security Council official said the CIA chief met Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia's SVR foreign intelligence service to discuss "the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, and the risks of escalation to strategic stability".

If there's one positive thing in this Poland missile debate, it's the demonstration that NATO is perfectly capable of avoiding escalation into WW3, even when Mr Zelensky is having a bad day. Poland reacted with measure, and so did the US. — Olivier5

The idea of one incident then leading to another and then leading to WW3 is the typical unreasonable scaremongering of some. But it's quite natural that saying the obvious, that things do tend to go like this, is basically politically incorrect at least to the nuclear armageddon fearing crowd. Yet nuclear deterrence works: it's pretty hard to go up the escalatory stairs. Sides show obvious restraint.

The fact is that all the potential global clashing points are like this: North Korea vs US and South Korea, Iran vs US, China vs Taiwan and of course, Russia vs US/NATO, all show the obvious restraint when things do escalate.

Let's take an example,

The below pictures are of artillery engagement between North and South Korea. In it several artillery units from both sides engaged in an artillery duel lasting for about an hour which resulted in South Korea having two soldiers killed and 19 wounded, two civilians killed and three wounded and perhaps some North Korean soldiers killed and wounded (South Korea estimates 30-40 North Korean casualties).





And this happened in 2010.

So does anybody remember the great panic in the Korean Peninsula twelve years ago?

No. Even at the time there was no media panic. The out-of-the-blue engagement just raised eyebrowse.

There wasn't any continuation, neither side escalated the fighting. The event wasn't in anybodies interest to escalate. The Bombardment of Yeonpyeong is a forgotten detail in the Korean crisis.

Another example is when during the Trump administration Iran retaliated the assassination of a high level military leader with artillery missile attack on US bases in Iraq. The US didn't respond.

Hence if in this war there would be an escalation: a missile on a logistical base or something, the likely response would be a limited similar response designed specifically to be basically a tit for tat. If by some reason Russian and NATO jets would engage each other, it would be limit to the aircraft at hand, likely in the air at that time.

How the above potential events would lead to all-out nuclear war is beyond me. And beyond any credible reasoning from the nuclear scare mongers, but their motivation is just to alarm people.

From the looks of it, either their losses are higher than what they report, or they have further war plans of sorts. — jorndoe

I think it's pretty obvious that their casualties and overall losses have been substantial. If the US military is estimating about 100 000 casualties (meaning killed and wounded), that is a huge amount. The verified equipment losses are very large. Hence the mobilization has been a stop gap measure.

As Russia doesn't have a large organized system for mobilization and training (because at peace time the training is done in the units now deployed to Ukraine), they likely have to limit the taking in of reservists. The mobilization had simply to be stopped to do the conscription. After the conscripts are possible to be put forward to the units, then the mobilization can continue. I think Putin has understood that something obviously ending up in a mess (as there isn't the organization and the manpower to do it properly), it's better not to make a huge deal about it.

as if Ukraine is part of some collective. — boethius

As if?

The UN? OSCE? WTO?

Or is it that artificial countries run by neonazis aren't part of a collective? :smirk:

So, at this point in time, I'm going with "Ukraine accidentaly hit Poland while defending against a Russian barrage" as the most rational position. — Benkei

This seems to be the most likely scenario. And that Zelensky had a stupid gaffe that he is now backtracking.

And one should note, this wasn't the first time thanks to the war flying objects came out of Ukrainian airspace. It was the first time that somebody unfortunately got killed. Had the missile landed just few hundred meters somewhere else, it might not even had broke the global news media threshold.

Impossible. They aren't the Dutch.

(Btw, thanks for the Leopard 2 tanks and the MLRS systems you sold us.)

I really don't give a fuck what matters to Ukrainians, why would I? — Isaac

We surely have seen that.

And hence as you cannot comprehend them, your views aren't much worth of discussion. Just gaze at your own navel.

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic. — Benkei

I disagree. Your attitude is Western hubris in short (assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight if it wasn't for the West). I think the Ukrainians would fight even if they didn't have the backing of the West. Or in such numbers.

First of all, Ukraine didn't collapse, it fought back. For Putin to succeed, he would have needed the Ukrainians to be as passive as the Czechs were in 1968. They were not. Hence the less than 240 000 or so invading force of Russia simply couldn't take out all of Ukraine and hold it. Likely the fighting would be going around Kiev, perhaps also Kharkov would have fallen and Ukraine wouldn't have made the gains as it did now. Ukrainians wouldn't be holding the initiative as now, that's for sure.

Weapons don't mean anything if there isn't the will to use them. And Ukraine still had a lot of weapons for an European country.

No. No one is forced to make agreements.

Even if a party can't possibly win, even then sometimes a party will not surrender and the other party does what they want by force without any agreement at any point about it. — boethius

So you think the Soviet Union would have gone fine on with unlimited weapons armament during the Cold War. One fifth going to defense spending wouldn't be enough? No. And on the other hand the West, which just was putting 5% into defense spending, it wouldn't have been detrimental to brush off any kind of talk of arms reductions and spending on other issues? Usually leadership of a country is rational, at least about it's popularity and survival.

In no way true. There is always the option to keep fighting, even in a hopeless military situation (see: Nazi's sending children to fight) and just having all your positions overrun and your high command captured and / or run away. — boethius

Not only you had a leadership that wanted Gotterdämmerung for Germany and Germans, but also because the Nazi government had no option. Remember Yalta. There was (luckily) the ability for separate peace for Finland, but that option wasn't open for Germany. Something that is a very good choice: if the allies would have stopped at the borders of Germany, it's likely that the Nazi regime would have survived and Germans wouldn't be such pacifists as they are now.

Certainly parties enter agreements because they think it's a good idea, but no one's ever forced to. — boethius

I think that we are just arguing about just when a country needs to do a decision and when not to. I would just emphasize that a country that has started a war has gone to the extreme and doesn't back out of it's decisions for minor inconveniences.

So, even without any trust, both sides were able to "trust enough" that the other party saw it was in their own interest to abide by various nuclear control and proliferation treatise. — boethius

Basically both sides are simply forced to make agreements. And this is with this war in Ukraine too.

Negotiations will be successful if both sides, Putin and the Ukrainians, have no option to continue the war or continuing would be a very bad decision. Hence very likely the war will continue.

Yes, this will be a litmus test for when the US plans to hang Ukraine out to dry like they did with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan once they've milked the situation for all they think they can get out of it. — Isaac

Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. After all, according to Isaac, why should Ukrainians even defend their country? Here's what I'm talking about. @Isaac's thinking is clearly showed in this quote from him months ago:

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Hence to Isaac, it doesn't matter at all to Ukraine and the Ukrainians if they are in control of their own country or under Putin's de-nazification program. All the killings, the forced evictions, the fake referendums and the Russification measures in the occupied territories are totally meaningless for Isaac. Because all that doesn't matter to Isaac. Perhaps it doesn't matter because it's not done by the Americans (and then it would matter a lot to Isaac). Yet it does matter to Ukrainians and hence Isaac's comments should be left to their own level.

Now this explosion in Poland. Right before winter.

Cool heads must prevail. — Manuel

And cooler heads seem to have prevailed.

What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. — Mikie

:smile:

Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see.

Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush. — Mikie

Really? Lol.

How much did he truly "drain the swamp" with those billionaires in his cabinet? From 2016:

Donald Trump has built a cabinet in his own image. The first billionaire U.S. president has appointed two billionaires and at least a dozen millionaires, with a combined net worth of about $6.1 billion, to run government departments.

Well, at least one third of his cabinet had no prior government experience, so if you think government is bad, that must be good then.

I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies.

How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether? — universeness

It relates in the way that even if you have parties, it's actually difficult to know just what a candidate stands for even if there belong to parties.

How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem. They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing.

Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

?

Russia, or Putin and the five men or so who decided to escalate this to an all out war, didn't get what they wanted. That was basically shown in the first 24 hours of the attack: Ukrainians fought back, Zelensky didn't evacuate himself like the Afghan President.

Russia had to withdraw from the Kiev region, from Kharkivregion, from Kherson (which it reached basically in the first days of this campaign). When the Ukrainians hit the weakest point in the northeast of the front, Russian forces there were routed. This is not some propaganda, which you think it is. Russia is really facing huge problems.

Yet you think of the Russian Army as some kind of unstoppable Juggernaut that has simply so much arsenal and men to mobilize that only when "it gets it act together", the Ukrainians will be destroyed. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Or then perhaps you assume Putin could just use nuclear weapons ...as if that would be the solution. Or then you assume everything is just Western propaganda. It isn't. Follow then the Russian side as they aren't either happy how the war is going.

The only thing Russia has a lot is it's famous artillery. Hence Russians can lob ordinary shells for a long time at the Ukrainians.

Ukraine has only 16 HIMARS -systems (in comparison: during the Gulf War US and UK had over 250 MLRS-systems, which packed a bigger punch than the HIMARS) for destroying the thousands of artillery pieces. Hence that isn't going to happen quickly.

New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber. — universeness

Term limits is smart, but it's another issue.

But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.

Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.

I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.

I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end. — Hanover

You saying that makes me feel optimistic about the political right in the US.

Insanity has to come to end sometime.

Democrats holding the Senate is a huge win for them and a loss for Republicans.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.

In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.

Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.

I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period. — Tzeentch

The Russians surely didn't give ground for free. They avoided a possible encirclement of their forces. There's nothing odd at that. Remember that the fighting at Kherson has gone since the summer in earnest. So holding the defensive line for months isn't "giving up ground for free".

Those forces are simply crucial for it because the Russian ground forces, which never were so large to begin with, and Russia has taken serious losses. Ukraine has more men now on the field than Russia basically. Russia had tried to create a small professional army and wasn't thinking mobilizing a far larger force, hence all the confusion in Putin's mobilization, which had to be ended because there simply weren't the resources.
Ukraine on the other hand had used the last eight years to fight this kind of war.

Russians need that artillery firepower, which itself needs a huge logistical tail. If those supply lines are cut, there's no firepower once the rounds you have next to the gun or rocket launcher have been fired.

Besides, notice how cautiously Ukrainian forces closed into Kherson, you didn't see columns of Ukrainian tanks rumbling into the city. Those would be a lucrative target for Russian artillery.

:up: :100:

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation. — Tzeentch

What is odd?

The reasonable explanation is that Russia cannot simply supply a force of tens of thousands of troops over the precarious few bridges (that Ukraine can hit) over the Dniepr on the western side of the river in Kherson. Russia lacks the logistical ability to move far away from the railway lines was well known even before the war started. They lack simply the logistics. Hence Ukraine has targeted supply dumps with the accurate HIMARS rockets and basically fought a similar conventional war that NATO planned to fight the Soviet war machine.



When you look at the rail lines in Ukraine, one immediately notices the only way is through Crimea by the now infamous bridge that was attacked.

The next possible Ukrainian offensive would be to circumvent the Dniepr altogether and launch an attack from the Donetsk region to the sea and cut the land bridge to Crimea and take Mariupol or Melitopol. In manpower Ukraine has the advantage, yet in artillery and arms Russia enjoys still the advantage. However that it articles it might have sustained losses of nearly 100 000 are breathtaking and show the urgent need to send the newly mobilized forces immediately (and prematurely) to the front). Of course such an attack would need huge combined arms maneuvering, which might be too much for the Ukrainians to do.

Nothing stopped the Russians from reducing the force occupying Kherson, allowing it to be supplied while also imposing a cost on Ukraine for taking it. They chose not to, and that is not typical for two nations at war. — Tzeentch

Everything written or documented is against this.

There's only few bridges over the Dniepr and they are quite in reach of HIMARS rockets. You are simply wrong assuming Russian didn't have huge difficulties. In WW2 or even as late as in the Vietnam War a bridge as a target was very tricky. It isn't now with modern precision guided weapons.

And Ukraine has also by Russian sources used these precision guided weapons to destroy bridges:

(Daily Telegraph, 22nd August) Ukrainian forces have used Himars rocket systems to halt Russian repairs to a key supply bridge in occupied Kherson as they continue to press on the southern frontline.

Online footage shows a fiery explosion on Antonovsky bridge after at least 15 people were injured as a result of the broad daylight shelling on Monday, Russian news agency TASS said.

"At around 1pm on August 22, in order to disrupt the work to restore the roadway, Ukrainian troops attacked from the American Himars rocket systems at the site of repair work on the Antonovsky Bridge," a local official was quoted as saying.

The bridge has come under fire at least eight times since July 19.

It is the only road crossing that connects the city of Kherson with the wider region on the eastern side of the Dnieper river.

The argument that "Putin can't be trusted" as a basis to reject an otherwise good peace deal is simply an invalid argument. The trust in an international counter-party has little to do with reasons to enter an agreement or not. US and the Soviets never trusted each other, but entered into all sorts of agreements.

Indeed, the basic assumption of international relations is that countries don't just go ahead and trust each other, but the situation is more complicated than that. — boethius

The Soviet Union couldn't continue the arms race and actually did collapse partly because of it (even if Americans tend to overemphasize this). Soviet Union was spending twice the percentage of GDP than the US was and it was failing to keep up in the technological race. You are correct in that the two Superpowers never trusted each other, but agreements could be found simply when there wasn't any other sustainable option.

As I said:

Likely the deal has already been struck.

The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.

Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place. — Tzeentch

Where do you get this idea? By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"?

The Ukrainians had made it impossible for Russia to supply over the Dniepr a huge force as it's dependence on rail lines made this totally obvious. Russia wasn't willing to sacrifice it's best troops. And of course Putin was no where to be found in the TV theatre where the commander in Ukraine and Shoigu discussed the withdrawal (which is typical Putin: he never gives the bad news).

It's interesting how many seem to be desperately hoping that Putin has many aces on his sleeves, that the Russian army isn't marching on to a defeat. As if the situation isn't so bleak to the Russian army. Yes, likely the West can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not supplying Ukraine and demanding a possibility for Putin to "save face".

Ironic that the Russian army has bloodthirsty neo-Nazis in their employ. Nothing new though I guess. — jorndoe

Nothing new, but dramatic changes can happen.

Alexandra Polinova from the now banned Memorial said the obvious: it is actually Russia that needs to decolonize.

There should be another narrative than the imperialist one when it comes to what Russia is. This narrative creates the reality were Russia sees necessary to intervene and dominate it's near abroad. First and foremost, the collapse of the Soviet Union, is seen as a mistake. An unfortunate accident. Russia is seen to be an multi-ethnic Empire and therefore it should obviously control what has been part of the Empire. And this makes everybody so nervous about Russia. It's not acting as a normal country. Yet the imperialist narrative dominates official Russia. It is fomented with the huge conspiracy that the West is against Russia, hence to defend itself, it has to attack.

Is change possible?

Russia does have the groundwork of a legal system, if truly used, to make it to be a justice state. But there should be a dramatic change, something equivalent of a revolution. Otherwise views that are in the West confined to the political fringe will stay dominant in Russia. Putin just bowing out won't change the political landscape, if someone then just inherits the security system.

Anyway, they seem noticeably keen on keeping Crimea Russian. Also a land corridor via Donbas in addition to Kerch. Not a lease on otherwise neutral ground or whatever, but secured Russian land, which any strong military would have gotten in the way of (and still might). — jorndoe

This is what is basically left now for Putin. No overthrow of the Ukrainian government and replacement with a pro-Russian regime, no larger Novorossiya.

Crimea may be the real question.

Not nuclear weapons as a first response. What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter. If this happens (US troops go inside Ukraine), then we are really playing with lava, not fire.

Of course, anyone using the first nuke, must know what the consequences will be, not only for their country, but for the world. — Manuel

First and foremost, this is a sabre rattling response to Russia's sabre rattling, the potential use of nuclear weapons with conventional forces. And this response hasn't been official. It has been given to the media by other retired people, who have said that this kind of response has given to Russian counterparts behind closed doors, not openly.

This means that Joe Biden and the West haven't drawn a public red line like Obama did in Syria (and failed).

If Russian would use nukes, the claimed Western response would be to target Russian forces in occupied Ukraine and the Black Sea fleet. The response would be done by the Air Forces and cruise missiles. For ground forces to go into Ukraine is a huge, slow operation.

But let's think just how credible the Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons is. What do they really gain? Would China really support this? Besides, that Russia withdraws from Kherson shows that cool heads prevail and they can make rational battlefield decisions and aren't confined to what it politically looks like. After all, the military leadership announcing that they will withdraw from Kherson is a humiliating defeat for Putin.

With all the talk of negotiation (on both sides and other parties(like the US and telling Ukraine to say they're open to negotiation and mentioning "Ukraine fatigue") it seems a strong signal that both sides are hurting pretty bad, but I still fail to see any evidence Russian forces, government, economy is about to simply collapse and the front seems stable going into winter apart from Kherson. — boethius

At least the discussion of talks shows that there might be a deadlock in the battlefield.

I agree. The war can still continue.

Also crossing the Dniepr is a big difficult operation for Ukraine. And let's not forget that this is one of the poorest nations in Europe that has it's economy severely wrecked. But when the threat is existential, that there's no electricity or people have to go hungry to sleep isn't going to change the will of the Ukrainian people. It's more a question of Western resolve to aid Ukraine. The Russians can take a beating also, and still continue the war.

[

The nuclear ransom is exactly what's preventing NATO planes and troops in Ukraine. — boethius

Deterrence and ransom is different.

Putin implying that Ukraine cannot be assisted or otherwise he will use nukes is more of ransom/sabre rattling. The nuclear sabre rattling is an attempt to decrease the military aid to Ukraine.

Russia defending itself or it's aircraft from attack by in the end having nuclear weapons is deterrence.

Supposedly someone inside the Biden administration, not Blinken, had discussions with a high-ranking government official, discussing "red lines", allegedly Russia was told that a mass retaliation would incur a reply by NATO. — Manuel

I think it is reliable, but for the US and NATO to say they will respond to use of nuclear weapons is more an answer to deputy-chairman of the security council and former Russian president Medvedev saying that NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.

"I have to remind you again - for those deaf ears who hear only themselves. Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary," Medvedev said, adding that it would do so "in predetermined cases" and in strict compliance with state policy.

When describing a possible strike on Ukraine, a Slavic neighbour which Putin describes as an artificial historical construct, Medvedev said NATO would not get involved in such a situation.

"I believe that NATO would not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev said. "The demagogues across the ocean and in Europe are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse."

Which actually may be so, but to that kind of statement NATO/US has to rattle it's own sabres. And anyway, the first thing would be to make a simply underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya.