Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he was only conducting a 'special operation' to de-nazify the independent regions. — Isaac

Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he had no intension of invading Ukraine. Denazification I think was the term when the invasion had been launched.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."

And when the US intel got it (the invasion) few days wrong, an active person on this thread posted:



And then continued:

So it turns out American and Western hysteria about entirely made-up threats have done more damage to Ukraine than the dreamed about Russians to the tune of a double-digit billions

Made up threats indeed.

Seems unexpected to me. — jorndoe

Similarly goes the civilian casualty figures. That happens when you fire rocket & artillery barrages at urban areas. And when you're out of wooden caskets, that tells something.

West assumes that hurting the oligarchs hurts Putin .. — boethius

Yeah, this is a very stupid idea. Russia isn't the US. Putin doesn't need any backers for elections. He needs the support of the army and the intelligence services. When the head of the SVR is so frightened of Putin that he confusis his choreographed words, then some oligarch isn't a problem. As KGB guy I don't think there will be a palace coup to oust Putin. An assassination attempt to be successful is well, likely not as probable as Putin dying due to natural health causes.

So waiting for a 70-year old man to die might take a while...

I need to sign off for the day, but I agree with your points. — boethius

Smart move to do (signing off at least), good night.

However, whether gifts or not, as I've been discussing with ssu Ukrainians can fight to a better negotiating position. However, the cost in lives of fighting to a better negotiating position are not trivial. One should be pretty confident the additional lives and destruction and dead and traumatized children are "worth it" for the negotiating position. — boethius

This is how the conflict can drag on for a long time... and that will put the human cost easily well beyond hundred thousand killed. Ukrainian and Russian losses combined is likely well over 10 000 in less than a month. Even if the fiercest fighting would have been seen, how ugly the figures are in a year or two is worrying as this is not insurgency, but a large scale conventional war.

Yet perhaps the "positive" side here is that both sides can retreat to the low burner, low intensity war that they had before. Yet that is difficult. What contained Ukraine from leashing an all out push into Donbas earlier was the threat of Russia launching an all-out invasion on Ukraine. Well, now we have seen that.

Ukraine just banned opposition parties, if Ukrainians are simply united in the war effort ... why ban political parties? — boethius

Not all opposition parties were banned. From the 11 parties I think For-Life was in the Rada and had 39 seats.

Which, may explain, rather than Finland's millennial Prime Minister, who is completely clueless about geopolitics, it is Finland's older president with far longer experience dealing with the Russians and talking with Putin, all of a sudden represents Finland on the international stage (after not a single woke article being written about him and Finland's wonderful young and woman led government ... where are those young woman leaders now?) and ... is one EU leader not just fiercely condemning Putin and calling him a madman but saying things like "the situation is complex". — boethius

After Sauli I guess we'll get an older Sanna Marin as President. She's bound to be the next. If she doesn't really fuck up.

I just find it amusing that this young beautiful woman is picked and put up to be the Prime minister... and then A GLOBAL PANDEMIC breaks out. And after few years that pandemic is starting to be RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE and Finland and Sweden see their foreign and security policy collapse and start moving to NATO membership. With things going like this, I think after this there will come that Asteroid that is going to hit Earth. Then we'll listen to her, dressed in black as usual, explaining what preparations the government has made for the current crisis...



But back to issue at hand:

Biden promised an additional 800 Stinger-missiles and 2000 Javelin missiles to Ukraine. A few years ago Ukraine had 37 Javelin ATGM launchers and a bit over 200 Javelin missiles in all. It tells just how much is poured now into Ukraine. And likely they will stop declaring just what the numbers are. Of course what is needed is medium to high altitude surface-to-air missile systems and those aren't so easy to get and use as Stingers (which cannot shoot down anything flying over 4 km altitude). The talk is of Russia S-300 "Grumble" missile system which the Ukrainians know how to use to be sent there from current NATO users. The simple fact is that in order to train a new Western SAM system, those very much needed Ukrainian professional soldiers should go to the West and train for the system. And all that takes months or at least half a year. The same with combat aircraft. Now during the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US had no qualms about it: especially the Soviets sent their personnel to operate and train their allies (suprisingly always using civilian clothing). And it might be that not only in Korea (which is documented), but also in Vietnam Soviet pilots did fight with the Americans.

But now Biden has problems how to handle this issue. And hence the search for Soviet legacy-system is on in order to help Ukraine.

(After Polish MiG-29's, perhaps Bulgarian S-300's to make that no-fly zone?)

I'm sorry if that's the case but I'm quite frankly a bit surprised that the real politik interpretation is one so difficult to accept for you. As a war/history buff that's what's it's always been, no? — Benkei

As this is a philosophy forum, it think it is worth wile to ponder about morality or justifications. I think if you would understand that if the realpolitik argument would put above anything else in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

But anyway, the only real disagreement we have that I don't think this has been a really, really bad decision from Putin. Perhaps the ease with Putin could waltz into the middle of a Ukrainian revolution and snatch Crimea with a splendid military operation confused his judgement. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the political turmoil made him perhaps to think that the US is weak.

The military aid now pouring over to Ukraine is simply huge. And if the Ukrainians continue to fight, which they will, this can be a drawn out thing. I really don't see what is the success here in this for Putin. Perhaps that because he is now truly in a large war, he can get even more authoritarian?

As a Finn watching Ukraine fight now Russia, I understand how Swedes felt during the winter of 1939-1940.

(Swedish posters of the time)

But when NATO reaches out it's hand to come along as a friend ... maybe is a false sense of security if NATO doesn't show up to the party. — boethius

The small Baltic countries surely hope they aren't expendable.

And it's also a place to jerk, and be horny... For some. — Olivier5

When someone hasn't anything to counter your argumentation, then start the nasty ad hominems.

After all, for some, they have to win debate. Not to learn something new or think issues from another point of view.

Fortunately, as you well know, that's never happened, otherwise you'd be able to fucking quote someone doing it instead of pulling some made up fantasy version of the discussion out of your arse. — Isaac

From Ukraine:


From Syria:


In Afghanistan in a war far shorter than the US war about one to two million Afghans. In the longer US invasion the death toll is 50 000 to 200 000.

In the first Chechen war even the Russian Statistical office estimates 30 000 to 40 000 Chechen civilians died while Human rights groups estimate that 80 000 civilians is closer to the truth and about 10 000 Chechen fighter died or went missing. In the Second Chechen war, that was the war Putin instigated, Chechen military and civilian losses estimates range from 50 000 to 100 000.

Add them up and you have what, perhaps from hundred thousand to two hundred thousand killed from a far more smaller population of a few million.

That's something close to butchery of the Polish in WW2. And I've explained just why the Russian style of war results in this. Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime.

So you just shut the fuck up!

If you support the Ukrainian war effort ... but aren't in Ukraine fighting the war, nor even proposing troops from your own country go and fight with Ukrainians to at least vicariously live through your own soldiers' bravery ... then you are simply cheerleading other people fight a war that you're not willing to fight personally nor you're own government. — boethius

My government has for the first time in it's history sent weapons to another country.

So let's just understand Putin.

He needed that sphere-of-influence.

NATO is bad. It made him do it,what else could he have done, so shame on NATO!

Moi? I have been accused of war cheerleading here more often than I care to count. The words roll off the tongue of your buddies day and night. And when for the first time I return them the compliment, I'm the one to blame? — Olivier5

How dare you... how dare we have say anything supportive of Ukraine or focus on some minor issue like Russia invaded Ukraine. No, this thread is to bash NATO, bash the West and eagerly report anything bad they do, like "supporting bioweapon labs in Ukraine"!!! That's the only sensible thing to do in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

Putin has not made promises that can't be kept: like "democratize" Ukraine at the end of a rifle. — boethius

Oh. So you think the "denazification" of Ukraine will be so easy at the end of a rifle?

Putin has already achieved the land bridge to Crimea and if the Dombas front collapses and territory pushes out regions border, Putin can just sit on this territory and shell to oblivion anything that approaches while continuing to strike command and control and logistics infrastructure. — boethius

Whopee! That sounds like fun. All this for a land bridge!!! :roll:

What the Kremlin has learned from previous episodes, is that Western "Unity" is only ever short lived and only ever exists on social media and not in any tangible form. — boethius

Of course. Those tens of thousands of anti-tank weapons being pushed in Ukraine won't mean a thing. Perhaps those 20 000 or so volunteers will come back after they have had an exiting weekend too.

Winning the social media culture war ... doesn't win a real war, is the main lesson to be drawn from Syria. — boethius

Well, Syria actually didn't get much if any support. The US was fearful of giving arms to possibly Islamist extremists. Hence this outcome, which just reeks to extensive corruption and pocketing of taxpayers money:

The Syrian Train and Equip Program is a United States-led military operation launched in 2014 that identified and trained selected Syrian opposition forces inside Syria as well as in Turkey and other US-allied states who would then return to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The program reportedly cost the US $500 million. It is a covert program, run by U.S. special operations forces, separate from Timber Sycamore, the parallel covert program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As of July 2015, only a group of 54 trained and equipped fighters (Division 30) had been reported to have been deployed, which was quickly routed by al-Nusra, and a further 75 were reported in September 2015.

All that for half a billion! Let's now compare this to what is the aid for Ukraine. Before the war started, the situation was the following:

Overall, the U.S. has provided $650 million in defense equipment and services to Ukraine in the past year — the most it has ever given that country, according to the State Department.

Then afterwards:

The White House also said Washington is “helping the Ukrainians acquire additional, longer-range” air-defence systems, but did not provide further details.

The most recent package brings the total US security aid to Ukraine announced since the Russian invasion began to $1bn. The Biden administration previously approved another $1bn in aid before the invasion began.

And the war has been on for less than a month.

As far as I can tell, the only reason Zelensky didn't accept Russia's terms in the first phase of the war, when it was easy to do:

1. Neo-Nazi's made it clear they would kill him if he did.

2. He genuinely believed in the power of acting to conjure up a NATO no-fly zone a la Churchillian Dumbledore.

3. He got so many views ... no one in show business can walk away from — boethius

:roll: :yikes:

Have you been drinking or what?

:100: :cheer:

I signed on for room and board for Ukrainians because my wife and daughter wanted to and am now left wondering why they never wanted to do that for Syrians. Meanwhile, Ukrainian refugees of colour are being discriminated against. What a surprise! — Benkei

I am happy that you did that. Or that your wife and your smart daughter insisted on that.

Never underestimate how precarious the acceptance of foreigners are. And that's why the Zelenskyi administration saying that all adult men of military age would have to stay in Ukraine was really important to the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees in Europe. Seeing that the refugees are mothers with small children and not young military aged men likely did make the Polish and the Hungarians open their arms for them. Just look at how the Polish government reacted to the hybrid operation of Lukashenko just some months ago.

I think it's very tough for the refugees from the Middle East to cope here in Europe. People aren't hospitable and are very open to negative stereotypes. What I'm worried is how Russians will be treated as the war goes on.

However, not taking that opportunity, now Zelensky and the West are faced with the problem that Ukraine won't be Russia's Afghanistan as their plan is to just completely demolish Ukraine's war infrastructure ... and most it's trained soldiers, and then just lay siege to cities until their demands are met. — boethius

Oh sure, how the war is going it surely won't be an Afghanistan for Russia. It will be much, much worse. In Afghanistan in 9 years of fighting Russians lost merely 14 000 men. Now in less than a month of fighting, the estimate is what? 7 000 dead? Even in the two Chechen wars Russia lost more that in Afghanistan. Now they aren't facing one of the poorest nations in the World. Just one of the poorest European countries that is getting massive support from the West.

I guess the issue with being critical of the West and the US, like you or @Benkei, @Isaac are, is the thing that Russia is fighting a brutal war without caring much about civilian lives. For example @Isaac has stated it quite clearly: he doesn't want to give any credit the the US here as being a "knight in white armour". Fine. Yet talking about the failures and the imperialism of the West doesn't change the war in Ukraine.

That use massive firepower has been the Russian military doctrine in the past and that is it still today. They have done that in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and now in Ukraine. As I said to @jorndoe 21 days ago, Ukrainian cities will look like Grozny. And of course, this will mean a lot of civilian casualties. The Russia warfighting tactics will cause enormous civilian losses.

Yet if someone talks about the attrocities of the Russians, then it's a bit odd to attack those of "believing in Western propaganda" or being "warmongers" or the type. This is thread of war in Ukraine, so that this war is discussed here.

What I meant was, would people ever elect a president who promised never to attack another nation unless they attacked first? That would mean stopping existing wars. The converse of that would be that people would only elect a president who would leave the military option open, which means war is accepted as part of foreign policy.

What do you think? — FreeEmotion

I think the bellicose rhetoric of "fortress Russia" will only end when there is a humiliating defeat and too many soldiers are killed in a war that many don't understand why it's fought.

Take for example France and Algeria. Algeria was seen as part of France and not a colony, it had actually very many French living there. Well after seven years of war, 26 000 French soldiers and 50 000 French Harkis dead (plus the over two hundreds thousand Algerians killed), the French retreated.

That's the way thinking in Russia will change. If it changes. The division between "zapadniks" and the "slavophiles" is quite alive in Russia even today.

Agreed that some infrastructure adjustments would be needed if the EU stopped importing ... but I'm not sure by how much, as Russia has been investing massively in a fleet of nuclear icebreakers, which, I assume, is to be able to ship out oil and gas from the arctic; and that capacity may be already there, at least most of the year, if the tankers can just show up. — boethius

They have already oil & gas pipelines to China and likely will build more:

But yes, people genuinely believe this current New cycle won't go the way of terrorism, Covid, Syrira, Lybia, emails, grab em by the pussy, invasion of the world's superpower's capital buildings, Afghanistan, China pivot, migrants drowning all the time, opioids scandal, toxic male executives (guilty as charged though ... and this one will make a comeback, just like the Red Army!). — boethius

I think that Covid pandemic and it's restrictions did change your life a bit, and of course the current crisis will partly contribute to the run away inflation. Gas, petroleum, food will become more expensive. Something people will notice daily.

Yes, we will surely soon forget this thread and the media can focus on other issues, but as long as the war goes on, the effects of it will be there. And even if the war would tone down as it did after 2015 for seven years or there would be a cease-fire that held, the World has already changed.

If you're not actually stopping the flow of oil and gas ... you aren't really doing anything of significance against Russia's economy. — boethius

An oil embargo has been talked about by EU foreign ministers. For example Poland is openly demanding it and naturally many countries are opposing it. At least yet.

You have to make infrastructure investments and quite a dramatic realignment to stop Russian gas and oil trade. But it is totally possible. It simply cannot be done in weeks. But in few years, totally possible.

But yes, people genuinely believe this current New cycle won't go the way of terrorism, Covid, Syrira, Lybia, emails, grab em by the pussy, invasion of the world's superpower's capital buildings, Afghanistan, China pivot, migrants drowning all the time, opioids scandal, toxic male executives (guilty as charged though ... and this one will make a comeback, just like the Red Army!). — boethius

What if a Presidential candidate came forward stating that he would never engage in a war of conquest with any nation? — FreeEmotion

Well, I guess Putin would be the first person declaring that! He's just protecting ethnic Russians and welcomes them who want to join mother Russia. Just like Milosevic did for the Serbs. And uses his military on special military operations to stop a genocide perpetrated by neo-nazis.

The age when leaders truthfully admitted that they engaged in wars of conquest is ancient history.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

It's his rule that sucks. Many Europeans would just love to have a calm, peaceful and prosperous Russia, where entrepreneurs like Sergei Brin would stay and innovate new things. We don't have that with Russia. And many are eager to point out that Russia never has had democracy. Or when it has, sort of, it has resulted in a dictatorship later.

The reality is that Russia needs leaders that simply will tell the Russians themselves that the old empire is over and lost for good. That Russia is just like the United Kingdom today, a country that has lost it's empire and nothing and nobody will get it back. That if Russians want prosperity, it comes through trade (for which you need good relations with the rest of the World), innovation and not through conquest. Having a World which consists of China, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba isn't so great for trade.

Putin basically started the civil war that people anticipated would happen when the Soviet Union collapsed. Then the Politburo members and the apparatchniks at the helm could (after a hapless putsch attempt) peacefully guide the Superpower to break up without the war (or sort of, as Armenia and Azerbaijan had already started their quarrel). It was Yugoslavia which didn't succeed in a peaceful breakup. There it was Milosevic, who as the leader of the largest republic, opted to "protect" Serbs and make Serbia great again. And now Putin has now taken the role of a Russian version Slobodan Milosevic, the Super-Serb who fought for Greater Serbia. Milosevic was the most ruinous Serb politician to ever be. What comes of Putin now, we will see.

Russia is on the path of a more authoritarianism, seclusion and more poverty with Putin. The territorial gains will not give Russians anything but problems. And only the Russians themselves can do anything about Putin ...or then just wait that he finally dies.

We will just look on. And assist the Ukrainians in this war and put up those sanctions.

I'll rephrase to “inappropriately and illegally affected the internal politics of a sovereign nation". You know the exact same shit those powers did across the world during the cold War? Also, to be complete it must be noted Russia was playing the same games at the time. — Benkei

That's a good start of us agreeing on the picture. You do understand the difference between "in 2014 the US overthrew the Ukrainian government" and "in 2014 the Ukrainian government was overthrown by a revolution eagerly supported by the US".

And this is actually very crucial to understand. Countries and especially Great Powers, not just Superpowers, do try to influence domestic politics of other countries. In my country we've seen a lot of this. Yet the type of Operation Ajax -style overthrow is different. Military interventions, launching off cruise missiles and the part are different from the ambassador using harsh rhetoric making veiled threats and supporting their favorite candidates in elections.

Point being, the war about Ukraine was being fought by Russia and the US since probably 2004. — Benkei

I would put it even earlier, even if you are correct that the fault lines appeared in the Orange revolution. In a more broader sense the NATO war in Kosovo, which was a province, not a Republic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was the final tipping point for Russia that broke the camel's back in NATO-Russia relations. That happened in 1999. And I think that is very crucial part as is the first and second Chechen wars, that started to get also former Soviet countries to be worried about Russia's behaviour.

Yet we should remember that Yanukovich did win the elections in 2010. When you look at the election map of the 2010 presidential elections, then you could see that the country was divided.



Do notice the ominous resemblance with the maps of Novorossiya with the election results table. This was the time when Vladimir Putin was hugely popular in Ukraine and Russia still looked to be a totally reasonable actor. And this is why I do say that Russia had many other paths than outright military intervention and annexation to truly take hold of it's "sphere of influence". Yet Putin chose a very extreme path of violence (as it had worked for him right from the start of his political career) and now we are in a really fucked up situation.

I guess what's promising is your membership in the EU. — Benkei

Yeah. Even if there's a clause to help fellow EU member states, I wouldn't count on it. Never underestimate the fear of WW3. So it's not so bleak as in the 1930's when people knew that war was coming, not if, but when. Yet there's many ways to pressure countries in our time of hybrid attacks. Like you could start a blockade and not call it a blockade and deny it's an act of war. Perhaps you call it just a "Naval Quarantine". Or something. But those are hypotheticals.

The war isn't a hypothetical Ukrainians and for Russians it's not either going to be easy, even if they aren't dying and their cities turned into rubble. I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3.

So "this is all Putin" would be a mistaken argument here. — Isaac

The only thing which is all Putin is that he surely made the choice to invade Ukraine.

What I've said, and many others (perhaps you too agree with it) is that NATO, or especially a former US President made a promise that it didn't keep. To say that NATO membership is for Ukraine open ...in the future, not now. That gave Putin a pretext to act. But a large scale invasion after already annexing territories from Ukraine? That's a decision similar to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

the stated sphere of influence for decades doesn't include them. — Benkei

Actually it does. Finnish airspace is what worries Russia. The Soviet Union inquired as late as in the 1970's from Finland if they could take care of Finnish Air Defence and put some SAM-bases in Finland. Our leadership politely declined. And even Imperial Russia was worried back then about an invasion by sea of the Russian Capitol, and that's why the built the Peter the Great's Naval Fortress on both sides of the Gulf of Finland in the start of the 20th Century. It's totally the same line of "sphere-of-influence".

And Russia has I guess now twice after this invasion started made actually quite similar threats as it did to Ukraine that if Sweden or Finland join NATO, it will have military consequences:

“It is obvious that (if) Finland and Sweden join NATO, which is a military organisation to begin with, there will be serious military and political consequences,” Sergei Belyayev, head of the Russian foreign ministry’s European department, told the Russian news agency Interfax.

What is lacking is that Putin would be saying that we are an artificial country, so I guess that's promising.

Here's a summary. — Benkei

Benkei. That is exactly what I meant. Basically it's the Nuland Pyatt taped phone discussion and then saying that this is improper thing to do. And nothing else.

So where's the evidence that the US created the EuroMaidan protests, manufactured the students on to the streets? Or similar issues?

When you say that "the US overthrew the Ukrainian government", there really has to be that the US has been the major cause of the overthrow and without it, the coup wouldn't have happened. What in that article is said is in no way something like Operation Ajax which really was a US & British funded overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Finland and Sweden joining NATO aren't really an issue; former Warsaw Pact members sharing a border with Russia appear to be. — Benkei

Just check how close the Finnish border is from St Petersburg and Moscow.

So if Russia is serious about its "sphere of influence" any move by NATO to include these countries will likely result in another war. Putin has shown to be prepared to do what he said he'd do. — Benkei

And how many wars can he handle? And aren't we forgetting that his most trustworthy ally, Belarus, just had a year ago huge demonstrations against the Lukashenko government, so that country isn't as firm either... and really isn't at this time ready to go and assist in a war it has absolutely no desire to participate.

My point is that until this year, this invasion, Putin's gamble had paid off. And he had gambled even more and more. And now the gambling is backfiring.

As I've said again and again. Russia isn't the Soviet Union, it has the economy of the size of Italy and now has chosen a course that seems to be leading to an inevitable train wreck. Landbridges to Crimea or even the annexation of Crimea hardly matter when you have to resort to a Stalinist police state and throw your army into a quagmire of a war. Those eagerly quoting Mearsheimer perhaps don't notice that he said this to be the worst possible situation for Russia: throwing resources to fight a huge land war in Ukraine where the West can then bring on it's massive aid to Ukraine. That's the worst situation for Russia.

Hence my, Ok, judgemental, response that this really isn't "the only correct move", but a wrong disastrous move from Putin. It's a move like Saddam Hussein thinking that he could annex Kuwait, and that would take care of his economic problems.

It's a wrong move from the rat to go itself voluntarily into the corner where it cannot escape.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 — Benkei

Why don't specifically tells us how the US overthrew the Ukrainian government.

Because if it's that John McCain and others visited Ukraine among others and reference to the famous phone call of Victoria Nuland to ambassador Pyatt, taped by Russian intelligence services, seems to be all that is enough to declare that the US was behind the events. As if the Ukrainian protesters, or their Revolution of Dignity, was this astroturf US operation.

Not to give any agency to Ukrainians in their domestic issues is actually shows simply hubris and the self-centeredness. Historical events aren't monocausal and simply to describe events of 2013-2014 in Ukraine as "US overthrew the Ukrainian government" is simply false.

You make all kinds of accusations and strawman arguments, which I really don't care about.

Are you defending your country? — Isaac

My country isn't at war. But I'm a reservist, yes, with a wartime position.

Yet Ukrainians are defending their country.

So warmongering for you too then. — Isaac

Of course, for the like of you people defending their country from an invasion is warmongering. Why don't the silly Ukrainians just surrender to Putin? (Just like @frank said)

Just to remind people what you said before the war:

Me personally, in England. Probably doesn't matter at all. Even if we committed to a ground war. I wasn't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Oil prices might go up in the short term, but they'll stabilise. This is kind of the point with these petty tribalisms, we've got no skin in the game, we can pick sides but we're in the crowd, not on the pitch.

The people who'll be affected are obviously the population of Ukraine. They'll be bombed, shot at, and evacuated, have been in the separatists regions for years already. That'll happen whether we leave Ukraine to its own defence or support it militarily. — Isaac

And this shows just your understanding of the matters. If the UK would be committed to a ground war, that would be WW3. But hey, you weren't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. So it doesn't matter at all.

Maybe mobilise the reserves, maybe that'd be too provocative... — Isaac

If you know that the other side is going to attack, then by all means, why not go with mobilization. You won't lose anything. If you think that it really matters that the Kremlin says "Because of the Ukrainian mobilization, we have no other choice than to attack" and attacks in two days, well, nobody out of the blue attacks another in two days with 190 000 troops. But those 48 hours before the missiles start flying does matter.

You describe results without relating that to the Russian strategic objectives. — Benkei

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move".

Will it help to tackle NATO enlargement? Sweden and Finland will now very likely join NATO. What do you get with that land corridor between Crimea? There's already a bridge connecting Crimea. But all this, being the new economic North Korea is really worth it?

No. It's like Hitler declaring war at the US after Pearl Harbour. What was the point to do that? How did it benefit Germany? If even 6 months or a year would have passed before the US would have joined the European theatre, how important would have been for Nazi Germany? (Just an example, let's not go to that).

Starting from the basics as:

- Russia isn't the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the World. Russia's economy is the size of Italy or Spain. Putin has punched well over his class with his reckless gambles that had paid off until this disaster.

- Countries that got independent from the Soviet Union did it for a reason. They aren't coming back. And now they have been independent for 30 years and now you try to get them back?

What's he going to do about that? — Isaac

The obvious. No conclusion is reached. The fighting goes on. Putin wants this war, so he can have and will have it.

I asked what anyone would do. It's irrelevant people just 'knowing' things unless you have some real world strategy that's going to be taken in a different direction because of that knowledge. Otherwise it's inconsequential. — Isaac

You think that understanding that Putin is going to attack even two days before is inconsequential? The Ukrainian government could have mobilized the reserves 48 hours prior to the attack. Not only afterwards the attack had happened. A thing that actually was a small mistake from the Zelensky government.

What is the Ukrainian negotiator going to do differently because Putin used religious language in his speech? — Isaac

He can trust even less what the Russian negotiator promises.

It is not over yet, which is too bad, but we can take stock of strategies then.

Does NATO have a strategy here or are they innocent bystanders? What is 'correct strategy' for them? — FreeEmotion

Of course NATO isn't an innocent bystander. Not even Sweden or Finland are bystanders as both countries are arming Ukraine.

I personally don't think that policies are either correct or incorrect, far better to think of them as "effective" or "ineffective". Relying on sanctions is more ineffective than effective: if there would be obvious incentive of the target country to get the sanctions lifted for the sanctions to be effective, if you get what I mean.

Hence for example the sanctions against South Africa because it's apartheid policies were effective. The South African leadership came to the conclusion that doing away with Apartheid would be better than to have those sanctions. Yet sanctions when are imposed to a country that also is threatened by war and is the target of covert attacks, then the sanctions are ineffective. The hostility creates an existential threat, so changing your policies is seen as dangerous appeasement. Iran (or Cuba) are great examples of this.

Giving weapons to Ukraine is a more effective. Ukrainians have the will to fight and will defend their country. Hence backing them up is very effective as already they have halted the primary Russian attack.

And naturally the "no fly -zone" isn't only ineffective, but extremely counterproductive. It will put NATO fighters in direct combat with Russia, and that is WW3. Hence the most effective policy would give all the help to Ukraine to fight Russia.

OK, I'll bolden myself. Hope it helps.

What Putin says is important. Some days before the invasion, I could tell from the speech Putin gave (and some others noted it too) that this was a man going to war. — ssu

The point was that it becomes difficult to do so if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight here, for the Ukrainians, is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow. — Olivier5

Exactly.

Zelensky's objectives in a peace deal start from the obvious things that are decided in the battlefield. First would be that all of Ukraine isn't occupied and a functioning Ukrainian government exists. Well, that seems likely now.

Then comes the hard part. If simply surviving a Russian invasion is some kind of victory, then where to draw the line on the next consessions? Does Ukraine give Crimea to Russia? Does it accept that Russia takes the Donbas and gets a land corridor to Crimea (as the objective was already in 2014)? The thing here is, Ukraine isn't as small country as Finland was, hence with over 40 million people and having the support of the West, it can opt to continue the war.

Yep. And what does anyone do with that information? — Isaac

Good you asked. It tells a lot for example a) how committed Putin is to the war, b) are there any intensions against others and simply c) what one participant is saying to his people.

What Putin says is important. Some days before the invasion, I could tell from the speech Putin gave (and some others noted it too) that this was a man going to war. The whole idea of the staging of the troops to the border would be a way to get the US to talk and to solve the Ukraine problem went out of the window. This was an invasion force.

And you might have noticed yourself how this new Cold War has gone colder by Biden saying that Putin is a war criminal. Well, you don't talk to war criminals. Yeah, Biden can backtrack that, but still. Now I guess for the US there's one Stalin in Russia again.

Why point that out? — Isaac

Well, Isaac, because if you haven't noticed, there are on going peace talks.

How genuine Putin is at those peace talks, can be observed from what he talks to the Russian public. And when he is talking about neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists (as he mentioned) and about genocide (as he mentioned), and then referring to faith as usually politicians fighting a war can do (as you observed), it's not likely that there's going to be huge breakthroughs in the peace talks.

Perhaps the positive thing is that he left the "denazification" of Ukraine out. :roll:

If you cannot understand that, well...

Yes. Nice of you to get all judgmental over that assessment. — Benkei

Let's just think how according to you, what "the only correct strategic move" has produced so far:

- The primary planned operation of a quick strike (as in 2014) failed.
- The Ukrainian government didn't fall.
- Russia has something like 65%-75% of it's operational forces already engaged in Ukraine.
- However you look at it, it is obvious that Russia has endured a lot of casualties and lost equipment.
- The attack has unified Ukraine in such a way that couldn't have been possible anyway else.
- The Ukrainians put up a far more stiff defense than even the US and NATO anticipated.
- Despite of efforts in modernization, the Russian armed forces performance in this war is closer to the wars in Chechnya and again the West overestimated the operational performance of the Russian military.
- Germany has made a historical sweeping change of it's foreign and security policy and has started to rearm. The one time 100 billion spending and raising military spending to 2% is huge.
- Germany also shut the Nordstream 2. In some time, I think they can do away with Nordstream 1.
- The EU has changed dramatically it's policies and is now arming Ukraine.
- European countries are trying to stop their energy imports from Russia, as these imports are extremely risky.
- Western companies are withdrawing in droves from Russia.
- Both Finland and Sweden are likely now to join NATO. In both countries prior to the attack those wanting to join NATO were a minority.
- Neither EU or NATO haven't been as unified before.
- All those politicians who "understood" somehow Putin in Europe, aren't there anymore for him.
- Russia is not only suffering from sanctions, but is paying a colossal price for this war every day.
- Russia is basically now the junior partner in the Russia-China relationship.

And then according to you, this was "the only correct move". Strategically. Nothing, absolutely nothing else, according to Benkei, couldn't have done. So somehow, starting a similar stupid, irresponsible war that is likely to fail as Mohammed bin Salman's ruinous intervention in the Yemeni civil war is according to you "the only correct strategic move".

That's simply an insane, delusional or very ignorant argument.

So yes, I am judgmental about those kind of stupid remarks.

But you've yet to explain what you want anyone to do about this, nor provided any reason at all for your assumption that they don't already know this. — Isaac

Just to put into the proper context issues like the idea of the US sponsoring biowarfare labs in Ukraine.

It's like someone ardently wants to discuss Pizzagate in a thread of US politics as a real issue. So let's discuss where the children were kept! No really, where are they?

Not one person has said that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi problem morally justified invasion, not one person has said that NATO expansion morally justified invasion. — Isaac

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government and have long wanted to make this a discussion of neo-nazis, even if extreme right has for example in France a lot more support... which has been supported by Putin's Russia. Hopefully we perhaps have sufficiently cleared the role of the extreme-right in Ukrainian politics: that even if they do exist, perhaps the assumption that they rule Ukraine isn't truthful.

Things like what are Russia's options next would be interesting. Or how this war will affect the wider region. Or how the war might end. Or where is Russia going from here.

But I guess NATO bashing is the only proper intellectual issue to do.

If you want to compare it, then the Palestinians are Ukrainians. — Benkei

Aren't the Palestinians similar here to the Ukrainians? There's a link, except that:

- There was no Independent sovereign state of Palestine, whose territory and borders (the new) Israel would have earlier acknowledged.

- Unlike now when NATO and EU are assisting Ukraine, the Arab countries didn't join the war against Israel to help the Palestinians, but to carve up their own piece of the former British Mandate with Jordan being the most successful in this endeavour (thanks to an army trained and lead by British professional soldiers).

- The Palestinians fleeing the conflict thought they would come back after the fighting, but the Ukrainians now fleeing Eastern Ukraine can understand that if Russia holds those territories, there is no going back to home.

I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. — Benkei

WTF?

Only correct strategic move? To start a war they cannot win?

You really honestly say that invading Ukraine was the "only correct strategic move" for Russia? To start a war against a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, doesn't have territorial claims at Russia and isn't thinking of attacking Russia, is the "only correct strategic move"?

Then you "therefore blame the USA and NATO for limiting strategic choices that result in war".

Let's think about just what you say: That what one US president promised years ago about NATO membership in the distant somehow "limited" Putin's options to not only annex Crimea, not only to try instill civil war in many regions (and being successful in the Donbass), but then years later, when there wasn't any indication of NATO membership of Ukraine, to start an all out invasion of Ukraine...and that's the ONLY CORRECT STRATEGIC MOVE?

:vomit:

Something from the pro-war rally that Putin held:

We needed to drag Crimea out of that humiliating position and state that Crimea and Sevastopol had been pushed into when they were part of another state that had only provided leftover financing to these territories.

There is more to it. The fact is we know what needs to be done next, how it needs to be done, and at what cost – and we will fulfil all these plans, absolutely.

These decisions are not even as important as the fact that the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol made the right choice when they put up a firm barrier against neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists. What was and is still happening on other territories is the best indication that they did the right thing.

People who lived and live in Donbass did not agree with this coup d’état, either. Several punitive military operations were instantly staged against them; they were besieged and subjected to systemic shelling with artillery and bombing by aircraft – and this is actually what is called “genocide.”

The main goal and motive of the military operation that we launched in Donbass and Ukraine is to relieve these people of suffering, of this genocide. At this point, I recall the words from the Holy Scripture: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” And we are seeing how heroically our military are fighting during this operation.

These words come from the Holy Scripture of Christianity, from what is cherished by those who profess this religion. But the bottom line is that this is a universal value for all nations and those of all religions in Russia, and primarily for our people. The best evidence of this is how our fellows are fighting and acting in this operation: shoulder to shoulder, helping and supporting each other. If they have to, they will cover each other with their bodies to protect their comrade from a bullet in the battlefield, as they would to save their brother. It has been a long time since we had such unity. — Vladimir Putin

Person referring to Holy Scripture in the justification of the war he started likely isn't going to cut a peace deal immediately.

This is irrelevant to the point that plenty of illegal wars were fought by the USA and NATO and to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy, which once again goes to the point that if legality isn't a relevant measure by all parties involved it shouldn't be an argument to absolve USA and NATO from their responsibility when considered strategically. — Benkei

This thread is about now about the war in Ukraine. Earlier it was about a crisis in Ukraine.

But when you say "to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy", I would politely disagree. Simple plain facts should simply be acknowledged and that is not hypocrisy. If some actors have skeletons in their closet, it doesn't make the issue at hand different.

Before Putin invaded, you put the blame on the West, didn't care about Putin and demanded the acceptance of power projection and spheres of influence for Russia:

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

And then when Russia does invade, what's your comment? Events that happen because of the US:

Bluff called. Watch how sanctions are all that will happen and Putin having effectively made the point Russia won't back off where its sphere of influence is concerned with a "cheap" war.

Let's hope it doesn't further escalate because that will result in a lot of people dying for some shitty geopolitical wrangling as a result of the US trying to project power into areas it doesn't even have realistic interests, meanwhile fucking with energy stability in Europe.

As usual citizens either pay or die for politicians' egos. — Benkei

Then you have made quite clear how skeptical we should be of everything we actually can see from Ukraine. And people were too oriented to NATO and stuff. I got that.

Yet remembering the Benkei that I had a discussion about Israel and it's actions, that Benkei did make a moral judgement and did take a moral stance. He didn't think it's hypocrisy to cry foul and likely wouldn't have accepted "spheres of influence" and other realpolitik justifications in that case. He wrote:

Both the land grabs in 1948 and 1967 are prime examples of aggression and war crimes terrible. And while the Arabs and Palestinians certainly weren't innocent in 1948 the number of innocent victims targeted by the Arab nations and Israel shows a clear difference, with Israel Zionist elites already showing it's true colours in 1948. After 1967 the balance of power in the region had permanently shifted in favour of Israel, or actually before that, 1967 simply was the proof in the pudding.

What is not complicated about the history is that Israel stole land twice and continues to do so through its colonialist settler program, evictions, apartheid rule and stranglehold "occupation". What is not complicated is that there are clear oppressors and oppressed. What is not complicated is that Israeli war crimes far outstrip anything the Arabs and Palestinians have committed combined. What is not complicated, therefore, is having moral clarity as to who deserves our support and who doesn't. — Benkei

So the question is, why the above condemnation (which I agree with, actually, don't find anything incorrect there) is only preserved for Israel, but not for Russia and Putin? Now for some reason I find myself with a realpolitik (or anti-US?) Benkei who doesn't care what Russia does. (Perhaps it's all Western propaganda or what?)

Why are you purposefully misrepresenting I was talking about the Gulf War when I'm referring to Iraq? — Benkei

I'm not misrepresenting you at all. I understood that you were talking about the 2003 invasion. But I was referring to another war.

But the question is what you think about these conflicts. Were they illegal?

The fact is sometimes you can condemn and sometimes justify. That the Soviet Union in a large part destroyed the Third Reich was totally justified. They had been attack. Even if just before they had divided Eastern Europe with Hitler (and attacked my country, btw).

It's useful to keep all this in mind and to condemn every illegal war, including the current aggression of a democracy by a dictatorship in Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

And those who don't condemn it, but accept issues like the annexation of Crimea by force should be as trolls left out of the discussion.

If people want to discuss the issues that Russia is using as propaganda talking points, then it would be good to understand that they are talking about issues that are used as propaganda. Let's take the case of NATO enlargement, one of the most cherished talking points among Ukrainian neo-nazis and US backed bioweapon labs etc. @dclements posted on another thread a great short video of the issue which does give an informative overview about the subject without falling to Anti-Americanism and hence indirectly promote the propaganda of the aggressor in the Ukrainian conflict.

If you haven't see it,