↪boethius Thanks, I appreciate that. But yes, I remember being shocked to """learn - not long ago either - that it was Russia that destroyed 80% of the wehrmacht in WWII, but in literally any narrative ever, it's the US that gets all of the credit. — StreetlightX

... And West only really invaded Europe after Russia had already turned the tide.

However, Villepin has another really good analysis that follows, that's only partly transcribed, so I've put bellow the whole thing:

"""
Villepin: And there is another factor, above that humiliation, is the sentiment of Western hypocrisy.

We ignore that factor.

For Vladimir Putin we are liars.

News anchor: But on what? [in a tone of clueless, innocent honest perplexion]

Villepin: 1999, the Kosovo, we talked of a military intervention, without authorization of the security council. [can't quite make out the word], the term we used at the time, and Vladimir Putin would hold it against us even today, in us [creating or crediting] a genocide on the part of-on the - on the [can't make it out, I assume Albanians] from the part of the Serbs.

Second step of the lie, and the occidental hypocrisy, the United States in Iraq, where they are evidently [expression I've never heard before], and how many times the Russian foreign minister at the time told us: you did nothing to judge for the monstrous War Crimes, hundreds of thousands dead, not George Bush nor Tony Blair.

Third step, Lybian crisis, where we made a deal with the Russians, since the supported the revolution 1973, and we largely exceeded the mandate.

And when they tell you that, the Russians, what do they add: we stretched out our hands to you, and it's that in 2001, 911, made a considerable gesture, vis-a-vis the United States--

New anchor: that does not permit to explain what is currently happening

Villepin: But, it doesn't expla - it doesn't justify it, but it allows to understand the software of a man who, hates humiliation and hypocrisy, adds to that, and I think we would ignore it in favour of the crisis, we would ignore - if we don't take it into consideration, we would make a colossal mistake, it's the immense feeling of injustice and the desire for revenge, Eastward, yes in the Orient, but also in the South.

And when we see, skipping some steps to save time, where at the general assembly, there are 35 states who abstain, and a few states, not so important, who voted against. But among the 35 states, there's delegations like Senegal, so we need to understand why, why these African states, why these South-American states, feel necessary to send us this message; which is: you have the habit of crushing us, which is from where comes the argument ["masu" not sure what it means; edit: likely means a "sledge hammer"] of Vladimir Putin, that not only he wants to put into question [i.e. challenge] the European order, but he wants to put into question the occidental domination. And thus-

Interviewer: [interrupts]

Villepin: And thus, I finish, as it's a point, a major point. And thus, the whole game, is to know if Russia will stay relatively alone, and the embargo against China will become more and more important, all the way to China taking distance from Russia, or if, as Vladimir Putin puts into question the European order, well then, at the same moment, the President Xi feels the need to put into question the Indo-Pacific order and the World order and then the junction, between those two revindications would happen, and there, the risk - I do not say a World War - but a world confrontation would be, verily, then, current affairs.
"""

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505396482274304000.html

The importance of taking China into account of any analysis of what is going on is made startlingly clear. — StreetlightX

There's one part I found note worthy that wasn't transcribed.

Transcription skips Villepain explaining Russian perspective, in particular no credit for their fight against the Nazis, and instead being antagonized and ultimately humiliated by the West.

Interviewer interrupts with:

"Re-writing history, says Emanuel Macron"

Villepain:

"""
Yes, but it's not so simple as that!

You know, anyways, as a diplomat, we can't just completely deny what other's believe.

We can consider we have differnet opinons, but we are obliged to take into consideration [the others]: above all, when they're in front of us, and we're even brought to confront them.

And a last battle, which is essential, and China advances, obviously has in mind, is the battle of power! And we can all see the effort well militarily, of people here and there, and the economic one by China; thus we cannot consider it a negligible quantity.
"""

(French way of talking sounds a bit weird translated directly to English, but it's just how French people talk; such as "we're brought" to do something, is an interesting French expression which explains what you decided to do ... by presenting it as others stringing you along the whole time; and other people don't even need to be involved at all, it connotes more that the end result, or that part of the story, wasn't some sort of goal, but haphazard series of events)

It’s a well-known fact that NATO was created by America “to keep Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay - NATO — Apollodorus

Hilarious that this exists.

And worth following the link, it's not even buried in a bunch of text as just the historical record relevant for that reason, it's the lead citation summing up this guys contribution to the world.

And definitely, more fruitful, especially on a philosophy forum, to stick to facts that are easy to establish.

True, the term "World New Order" does get mentioned from time to time by our overlords, but it's not an established fact that it's anything more than something "cool" to say they made up drinking on the golf course one day.

And these are people that give themselves Star Wars nicknames:

And there he stayed for 42 years, cultivating a group of disciples who called themselves members of “St. Andrew’s Prep.” By the 2000s, Marshall, then in his 80s, had earned the affectionate nickname Yoda. — The Return of the Pentagon’s Yoda, Foreign Policy

These are just minions, but the people at the top aren't having any less fun.

... There's even a Wikipedia page of George Bush's nicknames for people.

Nickname: Flies on the Eyeballs Guy
Real name: Cofer Black
position: Director of the CIA Counterterrorist Center — List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, wikipedia

It's more Lord of the Flies than 1984, just we're all stuck on the same island.

Britain's clown-in-chief Boris Johnson even said that the Germans should "make a sacrifice in the interests of peace". Shows how easy it is to sacrifice other people's economies and boost America's and Britain's .... :smile: — Apollodorus

Although we are in total agreement here,

I agree with Baden's analysis of:

Throwing sand in the air isn't going to work here. The evils of Western imperialisn are well known. But none of what you've presented is evidence of a NATO anti-Slav plot involving Zelensky. Instead of digging in, you'd be well advised to drop that clownish line and stick with some of yoiur saner points. — Baden

I think it nevertheless worth explaining somewhat more for your and others benefit.

History is filled with conspiracies, but, although interesting to historians, most (if not all) historians will be happy to explain that those conspiracies had little affect.

For example, assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand was a successful conspiracy, and credited with triggering the events that started WWI, but at the same time most historians view the war as inevitable at that point and the trigger largely irrelevant.

Also of note, the "black hand" wasn't some great international conspiracy, but a relatively local organization of random violence, manipulated by people wanting to start the war ... so, if that didn't work they'd do something else.

Let's say the Sinking of the Lusitania was the US doing to get into WWI ... well, if that didn't work, they'd just do something else.

Likewise, if The Reichstag Fire wasn't set by the Nazi's they would have found some other excuse, lit something else on fire, or just waited for the next bad thing to happen to blame on the socialists, or then just done their plan without any event at all.

However, focusing on this historical minutia would be missing the forest for the trees. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler ... fascism was simply a popular movement and that's what brought about WWII, in conjunction with post-WWI policies that brought about the great depression.

In all these "start a war" cases, the policies are already decided by those in power and they're just looking for the pretexts: the choices are 1. just wait for a pretext (if there's all sort of random acts of violence happening anyways, then easy to just pick one), or 2. then make a pretext (conspiracy of some sort), or 3. then just do it anyways for reasons and no triggering event at all.

If a case about WMD's in Iraq couldn't be made, some other reason for invading Iraq would have been invented.

In short, definitely there have been conspiracies associated with immense political events such as starting world wars ... twice!

Conspiracies would matter a lot if option 2 was the only option available, but what people forget who focus on the events above as "the cause" of the bad things happening, is that if it wasn't option 2, it would be option 1 or 3.

There's pros and cons to each option ... and what actually matters is there's a power structure that wants to start a war or purge their political enemies, and can do it with immense support (enough to control society) even, for many, if there was no reason given at all than the other people are bad and we hate them!

What matters is the power, everything else is secondary.

The fact of WMD evidence being fabricated to start a war is totally secondary to the fact there's a small group of people that have the power to start a war in the first place and ... even if the reason is proven (by their own military institutions!) to be bogus, have the power to face no consequences about it anyways, just joke and laugh about "those WMD's gotta be somewhere".

Why the CIA folks love saying "the world is messy" and they don't have total control, is because it's true and it distracts from the structure of power and their part within it ... that maintains the disparity between the rich and the poor.

But it's not a conspiracy, it's simply everyone knowing their place: including most poor people.

Almost everything we see as "the serious politics" of the day is just smoke and mirrors, if people weren't "super concerned" with this, we'd be "super concerned" about something else. The war seems certainly "more serious" than usual, but, as has been discussed, there's been several ongoing wars no one cares about; why we care about this one is just part of the show.

People are dying, true, so easy to sell this is "big" ... but people are dying all the time in horrible ways, with far easier ways to help them than solve this mess in Ukraine. All those deaths aren't "big", but something that a lone intrepid journalists needs to go expose just to be ignored by mass media, because Ukrainian deaths today serve the power structure's already chosen policies (in the West, China and Russia), for different reasons and presented in different ways of course. As soon as the war is over and the deaths of these Ukrainians becomes inconvenient for the West, China and Russia ... we'll stop hearing about it, just as we stopped hearing about Afghanistan after literally a couple months after Afghani deaths became inconvenient rather than a call to arms to "defeat the hated enemy".

The power structure focuses our attention on the dead in Ukraine not because people have some intrinsic value, but because it distracts from all the rest, and that's pretty damn convenient right now. But if it wasn't the dead in Ukraine, it would be something else, and people would be just as emotional about it.

If you peer behind the curtain, you'll find it's just fun and games, laughing and partying between those that are in the party. What they do doesn't really matter, and between lines on a hookers ass crack things aren't thought out all that far and coherently (academia has an entire industry dedicated to re-interpreting the whims of the powerful as representing serious doctrines of some sort, but that's just part of the power structure), but it's why this party is happening in the first place and what keeps it going, that's what matters.

True, the power structure is sadistic, and so it is in fact giving it more credit to believe they exercise their sadism in secret, for they must be ashamed of it. But they aren't! They hide things only if it was more fun and adventurous that way, but if it's funner to just do it in the open to really feel how powerful they are, they have no hesitation.

Not that their stupid, they're just "normal people" as anyone who gets close to them informs us.

And, they do get serious from time to time. What's elites "getting serious" look like? After they blowup the banking system and bank cards are literally about to stop working and the party may actually end, then, for sure they get "serious". What do they do? They sit down and draft a single paper giving the banks unlimited money.

They don't, in their moment of tension and "bringing their best", finally create some giant tome of intellectual mastery, they just give themselves trillions of dollars with a single paper.

Which both explains why they don't need clever plans when they can just print money to fix the last disaster and create the next one, and why they have the power to begin with: the money.

By any measure that will always be the Ukrainians. — Benkei

This is honestly the most bizarre part of Western media "analysis" and the 6th (irrelevant) column of online partisans, that somehow the "humiliation" of Russia not winning on day 1 is not only comparable in harm, but actually more harmful, than millions of people sleeping in basements and subways for weeks, millions of refugees, cities being reduced to rubble, in addition to all the death and trauma.

People online are basically "we got'em".

That is the sad truth. — ssu

This presentation by the Swedish ex Prime Minister about his time really trying to focus and help things when he was in office, is super insightful.



There's also an interesting exchange with a Ukrainian diplomat of some sort who lays out a bunch talking points.

Swedish ex-Prime Minister answers about the idea the gas transit fees "are being weaponized" is that they're a major source of corruption ... and more or less implying maybe it would actually help if they were no longer there!

Germany could have easily recycled Nord Stream 2 massive profits and better and cleaner economic development into EU programs to help Ukraine in a less corrupt way.

EU would have been better off, Russia would have better off, and even the Ukrainians (though perhaps not their politicians) would have been better off!

Which was the craziest part of that argument, all the rage in Western media at that time ... things need to be done less economically efficiently to "help" Ukraine?

Where were all the neo-liberal "nep-classical" economists on the air waves to lecture us on the mad Pareto Gains of doing things more efficiently and just compensating Ukraine for that. If only we had access to their wisdom then! This whole war could have been avoided! By capitalism 101, I keep on hearing so many great things about.

This could all be a lie, but it looks like the end game to me. — FreeEmotion

It's just rhetoric to justify the policy. For, presumably, policies have some objective ... so if we're pumping weapons into Ukraine and sanctioning Russia then, if we're doing international relations and not Tictok, then there's some purpose to these policies.

The only logical thing to say in public is that the goal is to "end the Putin regime".

However, Putin's popularity in Russia has gone up since the war, he has China's backing and India is staying neutral about it, as with the rest of the developing world.

Of course, never say never, but currently there's no indication that the sanctions and the war effort will end the Putin regime.

Now, keep in mind this is just some random official and so they could be just virtue signalling.

However, what is clear--even if the internal evaluation is Putin's hold on power is even tighter as a result of the West "attacking" him--is that the real policy is Cold War 2.0.

That's what the "OMG, we didn't see it coming, but we actually did!" crowd don't really get.

The point of expanding NATO East was to sell arms (a lot of NATO arms can only be sold to NATO countries) and the "warning", from basically every expert, of provoking Russia with this Poilcy, rather than have mutually beneficial trade relations immensely positive, is a great thing from the point of view of this arms selling policy (war on terror was a 'not great, not terrible' place holder) and provoking Russia leads to even way more arms sales and harms the EU (the US' biggest rival).

Kill enough Russians, I suppose. How do you think Russia is going to win this war? — Olivier5

That would not be winning the war.

And maybe it should be pause for thought for you, and anyone that sympathizes with you, that you've engaged in pages and pages of analysis of a military situation, promoted Ukrainians fighting on ... and yet you do not even have in mind what a military victory for Ukraine would even look like.

As I've already explained, even if Ukraine pushed Russian forces to the Russian border, the war would still be ongoing, Ukraine would not have won, as Russia is still there, and no one even proposes that as a possibility.

However, certainly you have really no issue then of Russia employing the exact same strategy of just "killing enough Ukrainians, you suppose" as a military objective?

You don't understand what's happening if you focus too much on Zelensky. Presidents don't fight wars. Armies don't win wars. Nations win and lose wars. — Olivier5

Again: explain how the nation of Ukraine is going to win the war and take Moscow and the East?

But sure, definitely Zelensky the Ukraine "President" should have shared what NATO already told him--that NATO ain't coming and will never be coming--with the "Nation" of Ukraine, so that they, due to the President being irrelevant, could have decided--I guess by referendum--on the cost/benefit of rejecting Russia's neutrality offer before and during the war.

You really think Ukrainians wouldn't have wanted to know that ... or is it they shouldn't know because they aren't the "President" and it's the President with the executive prerogative to do wants?

Zelensky could be dead tomorrow; it won't change much on the battlefield. Don't confuse him with a dictator taking all decisions. He is very different from Putin from this point of view. — Olivier5

Ah yes, the "not a dictator" banning opposition parties and not only banning critical media but consolidating all media into one organization.

The whole nation is fighting; Zelensky is just giving them voice. — Olivier5

Honestly makes negotiation difficult if the whole nation is fighting and all Zelensky has the power to do is casually mention that.

Ukrainians have proven that the Russian army is dumb and far weaker than it looked. — Olivier5

We shall see. Russia has certainly taken losses, but so too has Ukraine. How do Americans justify their opinion of being the best considering Afghanistan? They say "we killed, like 100 Afghanis for every American that died!"

In terms of military capacity, this Russia-Ukraine conflict will be evaluated on the same metric American's evaluate their own military capacity in looking at Afghanistan. US was dumb as it didn't achieve it's objectives of "democratizing" Afghanistan (but don't worry, Afghani's are to blame for that) but not weak (what actually matters to them) because far more Taliban were killed than American soldiers. On this same standard, Russia is not dumb if it achieves it's objectives, and not weak if it has killed more Ukrainians.

You seem to be counting your graves before they've all hatched.

Cretins whining about social media. What else is new? — Olivier5

We're not whining about social media, social media is whining about Putin and all but declaring Ukrainian victory and parading in the streets.

Now, if Putin can be beaten by social media posts, that would be one thing.

However, if the war fervor (that almost no one supporting Ukraine on social media has any personal risk in) just embolden's the CIA's plan, as @StreetlightX has posted a good article about you may want to respond to if you perceive yourself as having a "debate", to pump arms into Ukraine, not for Ukraine to win, but just to bleed the Russians ... is maybe harming Ukrainians for nothing but the CIA's stated objective.

Zelensky got the information directly from NATO before the war that Ukraine will never be allowed to join, was just PR standing beside (in the sense of standing in an entirely different and safe country ... not like "actually standing beside" in fighting) Ukraine's "right" to join NATO.

Zelensky should have taken that information and ... instead of--how you say it--"whining" about that being unfair to Ukraine of being in a limbo and wanting to live in denial of needing to do any diplomacy with it's largest neighbor ... done actual diplomacy and crafted a policy that takes into account never joining NATO.

Maybe consider Blinken's publicly explaining long before the war, how Ukraine's military options aren't very good as whatever military asset is put in Ukraine, Russia will simply double or quadrupedal that. If Zelenesky is such a military genius, maybe he would have taken that obvious fact into consideration: that Ukraine has no military solution by itself in dealing with Russia and that Ukraine is never going to be joining NATO.

Maybe being officially neutral is better than being officially NATO's expendable side kick?

Well, Zelensky couldn't parse this information and seems to have concluded instead that when push comes to shove, he could simply hold Ukrainian civilians hostage and "force" NATO to do the right thing and come and save him ... instead of NATO fearing Russia, as he is realizing now.

For years and years and years, the Western media has been ridiculing Putin for wanting a seat at the "big boy table" and to be taken seriously and respected as a nuclear power. Hahahahah our pundits would say.

Seems now that was just a fact all along, NATO does indeed take Russia's nuclear weapons seriously.

Ukraine didn't want to be neutral, and now it has what it wanted--it's certainly not neutral now, it's fighting a war--but it got more than it bargained for in being neutral alone, when it thought it wouldn't be alone ... but it is alone and was told it was alone before the war.

Or, you disagree?

Or, let me guess, you disagree but you feel you need not explain why.

I hope Ukraine and Russia can work out a peace deal soon and avoid this insane bloodshed. — Benkei

I fear this boat has sailed.

I think the offer Russia made a couple of weeks at the very start of high-intensity warfare, could have been taken.

Zelensky could have then sold it to his people as due to courageous Ukrainians, Russia couldn't just take the whole country, but peace is now needed and so on. Even easier if there was behind the scenes negotiations for Ukraine to join the EU, which Russia said it had no problem with at that time.

And Putin could have sold it to his people as just what he wanted the whole time of ending the war in the Dombas, and Putin could then withdraw his troops as he said he would and I think the whole world would have been super relieved about that.

I am totally willing to believe the Kremlin had larger ambitions, but I think the losses did make them reconsider and so offer the minimum they could accept (... essentially just the de facto status quo before the war).

As hard as it is to believe, the ant-Russian rhetoric was actually pretty tame even a couple of weeks a go and normalizing political relations was potentially possible, everyone having learned war is a bad thing and we should all try a lot harder to use our mouths to avoid it.

However, at from watching his speeches and addresses, Zelensky seems to have now rationalized why the deal would have been good to take then ... but building new rationalizations of why it can't be taken now, and banning opposition political parties and consolidating the media into one organization to double down on the war (of which ... certainly there are some Ukrainians questioning whether it's worth continuing to fight for Crimea and Dombas that can't be taken back militarily and also filled with ethnic Russians that ethnic Ukrainians don't like too much anyways ... and continuing to fight for the "constitutional" right to join NATO, even though Zelensky himself has clarified NATO told him Ukraine would never join).

So, accepting Russia's demands now would make the fighting since the offer was first made basically pointless and Zelensky would be immediately just a dangerous fool that got his citizens killed for literally no reason.

Hence, Zelensky has now chosen to "pull a Brexit" and pass the responsibility on to a referendum that is basically politically impossible to organize. There is literally zero political reason to go on television and place a referendum as a condition to any peace deal, and the whole point of martial law is that it suspends the constitution ... which Zelensky doesn't hesitate to take advantage of in banning opposition parties and opposition media.

There was a few days building up the idea of a settlement in the Western media, but the new narrative is that Ukraine is "winning" ... which, as I've explained previously, you actually have to defeat your enemy to win.

Western media points to a few areas of push back by the Ukrainians, but there is zero evidence that Russia didn't simply tactically retreat to consolidate it's current position (lot's of evidence it's doing this though).

Given all this, it seems now a diplomatic end to the war is currently off the table, and my guess is that Russia will collapse and encircle the Dombas line (accomplish militarily it's stated objectives) and then just sit on the territory it's taken.

We hear good news in the West and around Kiev ... but I don't think internet people keep in mind the Eastern front is over 1000 KM away from Poland. From Lviv to Donesk, it's 1200 KM and 17 hour drive, whereas Donesk to Russia is a 1.5 hour drive.

Not only an incredible distance ... where you may need more gas along the way, but Russia can strike anywhere along the supply chain with missiles at anytime.

Which is something all the "retired" generals and CIA folk fail to mention, is that it's a massive advantage to Russia to keep Ukrainian troops as far East as possible ,if the goal is not, and never has been, to occupy all of Ukraine, but simply wreck it's military, obliterate Azov, and lay siege to Kiev until their demands are accepted.

What seems likely now is that Russia will take the whole Dombas region and then Putin will just declare victory in that his demands were modest, he's achieved them in the field and he doesn't want more of Ukraine and forces around Kiev and elsewhere will be withdrawn as soon as the military reality is accepted diplomatically.

Russia can then just sit behind it's lines and continue to pummel Ukrainian logistics with missiles. With drone spotters, normal spotters and heavy artillery, these lines will be simply impossible to assault.

Zelensky will then be in a "what now?" position: impossible to "defeat" the Russians, and impossible to fight to any better a negotiation position and impossible to get any concessions from Russia who are already sitting on their demands and Zelensky himself has already Ukraine is never joining NATO.

Of course, still better to negotiate the only political end available, before Eastern lines collapse, and sell that as best as can be done (and accept an end to your political career), but Zelensky's ego simply can't that.

Do not be worried !!

The arms are sent to "vetted" Ukrainian military units.

You may have missed that part.

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural. — Olivier5

No one criticizes Ukraine for wanting to join NATO and seeking to join NATO.

The problem is they aren't actually in NATO ... and maybe should have negotiated actually getting into NATO before "flexing" about it.

Zelensky just made clear yesterday that the constitutional questions would need to be done through the constitutional process ... with a referendum.

So what Zelensky says as a soundbite is entirely meaningless.

Of course, NATO, been made up of sovereign nations, could have easily signed a treaty with Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO, regardless of what Ukrainian constitution said.

However, that idea was rejected by all parties, including Zelensky saying things "nothing decided about Ukraine without Ukraine", because it was important to uphold and also fight (except for NATO who wouldn't be doing any of the actual fighting) for the "right" to join NATO.

NATO was pretty clear that it stood by Ukraine's right to join NATO ... even if it couldn't actually join NATO.

"Solidarity brother, I mean sister" was I believe an exact paraphrase of the NATO position.

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO. — frank

When does he say this before the invasion?

He's said, after the invasion, that he's been "cold on NATO" for a while.

And, also, I think just yesterday, said pretty clearly that he asked NATO to tell him when they could actually join, or to say no clearly, and that NATO told him that Ukraine would never be allowed to join, but the door would be left open publicly.

This is after the invasion.

Before the invasion and the first week, I only remember ever seeing a defense of Ukraine's "right" to join NATO.

Do you have a citation of Zelensky that he had no hopes of joining NATO stated before the invasion?

I need to sign off for the day, but I agree with your points. My expectation is that Russia will push to the borders of Dombas and then take a holding position, work out a deal.

Yes, by opposition I was meaning more "opposing Zelensky," and obviously censorship, but it is good to be precise in that it is not a uni-party system ... yet.

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? — ssu

I think this is a central question.

West assumes that hurting the oligarchs hurts Putin ... but maybe Putin wants his competitors, of which this theory presupposes have power to taken down Putin, to take a massive destruction of their wealth precisely so they aren't a threat to him. The oligarchs threat to Putin is, basically, bribing people with wealth ... outside Russia. So, maybe the West just did Putin a favour.

Likewise, escalating the war means more authoritarianism at home ... maybe that's what Putin wants.

A total war as we see now in Ukraine is a pretty big "message" to anyone else that may want to call Russia's bluff in the future.

The war is as much a demo for Russian arms as it is for NATO. People love going on about how NATO arms are better in every way ... but that doesn't help countries that are potential military targets for NATO.

... And on the subject of "NATO's arms are better" ... NATO spending significant political capital to send S-400 to Ukraine to take down Russian aircraft sounds like a pretty damn good commercial for one of Russia's big ticket arms exports.

Russia's response to NATO air superiority is lot's of cheaper missiles, and the more air defense systems it sells the more it can produce for itself also.

Escalation has meant Russia worked up to demoing hypersonic capability, a "world first" I'm sure the US is quite the jellybean over.

However, the real "show" of Russian warfare systems in Ukraine will come after the war and maybe you need a private screening.

We don't actually know what exactly the Kremlin is even trying to accomplish ... so it's difficult to conclude was a good or bad thing from their perspective.

As mentioned in my previous post, escalating the war to the point of NATO pivoting back to Europe is certainly part of the BFF plan with China.

All "Russia has made a mistake" arguments presupposes the Wests position of preeminence and position to dictate global trade relations. The war in Ukraine may, not due to the war itself but the predictable West's reactions to punish Russia, maybe have unexpected results for the West.

If they support it, why is there such a level of censorship in Russia (which is not even under martial law)? — neomac

The West is censoring Russian media, banned outright RT on every medium, even their website on the "world wide web" ... yet the West isn't even under martial law? Why is the west so afraid of Russian state media? We let the BBC, and CBC and PBS to exist globally, why not little ol' RT? If the West supports Ukraine why the censorship of RT?

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

So options A,B,C are practically saying that the West supporting Ukrainian defence is coward, hypocrite and cynical. While you would choose D which implies refusing to support Ukrainian defence and accept Russian demands not out of cowardice, hypocrisy or cynicism of course, but because it saves Ukrainian civilians as much as possible. And this is supposed to be the best example of analysis to make decisions not to morally condemn or virtue signaling, right? — neomac

Not at all.

Option A is obviously not cowardly, it would be the opposite of cowardice: it would be defending Ukrainian sovereignty and "democracy" even if it meant facing tactical nuclear weapons and having only tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons on Russian soil as the only viable military response to continue courageously to fight for what's right.

Option B is only cynical if Ukrainians can't win against Russia (can't roll into Moscow the conquering heroes).

Option C is for sure cynical.

Option D does not exclude arms shipments, that I would still say Ukraine should pay for as paying for your own fights changes the calculus to pick fights in the first place.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and can take debts and pay for weapons if it wants to; wartime shouldn't stop that.

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.

If there are no further military gains to be had, no better negotiating position that can be fought to, the "thing to do" in such a situation is to declare a unilateral cease fire, not resupply (not a trick), and sue for peace. The sooner the better. For, unless there are tactical and strategic considerations, the more you fight the more concessions the other party wants to compensate the losses (and demonstrate to the home crowd the fight was worth it).

In diplomatic situations where diplomacy is concurrent to intense fighting, it is because neither side can win and the likely outcome is the borders will be wherever the battle lines happen to be when the deal is signed.

However, I was not talking about Ukraine in these choices, but my country and the EU ... we're not fighting in Ukraine, so we can either send arms or do diplomacy. Sending arms can be part of a optimal diplomatic strategy, but it would be cautious and non-escalatory (i.e. paradoxically increase the chances of peace than result in more death and destruction as we may usually expect arms to do).

For example, if the EU was bringing it's considerable leverage to the table, engaging in good faith with the Russians, and "making sense" and something the Russians can work with and Ukrainians can work with, then supplying arms to prop up the Ukrainians during that negotiation is just "normal statecraft" and not provoking Russia into a total war posture.

In the first "soft" weeks of the war, EU could have easily done this as it has a lot of things that both Ukraine and Russia want, and therefore could have easily negotiated a resolution where both parties are better off, and so entice a peace. Ukraine gets something (pathway to EU membership for example with some good faith financial and institutional support package, that just so happens to dismantle the neo-Nazi's) and Russia gets something (easing the previous sanctions, Nord Stream 2), and EU gets something the compensates these things. Of course, it's not a as simple as just sitting down and horse-trading these things, just pointing out that EU has considerable leverage on both parties that could have ended the war or prevented the war from happening.

Of course, maybe Russia refuses any reasonable deal and escalates the war anyways; there is no way to know "for sure", but the evidence that Russia is no the escalatory party is that Russia was making zero preparations for war in Georgia or Ukraine until they were surprise invited to join NATO; Russia responded immediately first with a war in Georgia that was viewed by Western analysts as completely improvised. Russia then tried negotiating some East-West middle way with Ukraine, which Ukraine, EU and Russia managed to agree on, and then the Ukrainian government fell in a violent coup; only afterwards did Russia take Crimea and then completely rebuild it's military operations and doctrines to conduct the current war and also sanction proof itself (such as make alternative to SWIFT, build home-grown industries of key components, cut deals with China on a bunch of things).

While this was going on, the US funded and trained the Ukrainian war against the Dombas, including neo-Nazi's, and also started it's "pivot" towards China. Just a normal everyday pivot of the world's super power just doing the righteous and "strategic" thing that no one should question.

... But how do you think the Chinese feel about it?

I bet they feel like there's not quite enough US troops in Europe.

First we take Moscow, then we take Berlin. — Olivier5

Without any guns?

Who said anything about any standard? YOU said that they are so many wars, so why take side. I didn't say you must take side. Don't support the Ukrainians if you find their cause so disgusting. — Olivier5

This is not my argument.

The argument is that if other victims of war are just as deserving as the Ukrainians, certainly you have already put the energy into seeing which are the real victims and which the real aggressors in all the other wars happening right now, and so can share your just as honest disgust on that, as you so readily share about the Russians.

No need to hold back.

Teach us who do be disgusted by.

Maybe with a few examples we could better understand your philosophy.

Especially the Americans. — Olivier5

Ok great, so what's you plan of action?

We condemn the Americans until they put down their guns?

... But if they put down their arms, how do they give arms to the Ukrainians if they've given up those old barbaric ways?

And, if Ukrainians are just and the just thing to do is to put down arms, why aren't you calling for the Ukrainians to put down their arms and do the right and ideal thing?

What would be the point, pray tell? — Olivier5

It's your standard: pick a side, cheerlead one and condemn the other.

And not just your standard you set for yourself, but you assume others have do anyways, just not honest about it: as any criticism of one side is doing what you prescribe for yourself.

Maybe, us serial misunderstandererers could use a few other examples to see how your method works and the righteous values it's based on.

Now you're talking. So ideally the Russians should lay down their arms and turn Russia into a vibrant democracy.

Glad we agree with that. — Olivier5

But, so too the Americans, you agree with that?

And, maybe bother to actually read my posts, as I've mentioned this several times.

I actually disagree with that. I think it should be divided. — Olivier5

The point is ... how will it change?

Ukrainians take back part of Crimea and if Russians don't accept that, they roll to Moscow?

I do. Why don't you discuss them, if they are so important to you? — Olivier5

Go ahead, enlighten us with who's right and who's wrong in every contemporary war.

Is that why you have to cheerlead the Russian side, a soddin' dictatorship, bombing innocent people? Because there are other wars? — Olivier5

I'm not cheerleading the Russians ... and no one in the EU is sending arms to the Russians.

The Russians can fight their own war, that seems clear, and what happens on social media doesn't affect their decision to do so.

You seem to think that "defeating" the Russians on social media will somehow defeat them in the field.

This is not the case. The war will not be fought in the sub-reddit's and the tweeting and the facebooking and in the forums, it's fought in the real world with real weapons and the affect of Western social media isn't very strong.

Pointing out the Ukrainians have no way of defeating the Russians, and therefore the war can only end with either the Ukrainians losing militarily or a negotiated settlement, is simply pointing out a fact, it's not cheerleading the Russians.

There is nothing that can be said on Western Social media that will change the Russian's policy and requirement of concessions for ending the war.

So, the choice are accept some concessions ... or fight to win.

If you have some plan that will have Ukrainians storming Moscow in any reasonable amount of time, then you do the Ukrainians a great disservice by placing your efforts here rather than going and telling them what to do.

Oh you know of things that are morally right? That wasn't apparent so far. — Olivier5

It's far easier to know what are good things, and a good life, and the difference between pain and suffering, love and hate, peace and war, than condemn another as having nothing of value and doing nothing but evil.

Mostly, people agree on what are good things and would prefer love and peace.

The question is how to get there.

So what would be the ideal outcome of this war, according to you? — Olivier5

The war has already started. Assigning blame to who is most morally responsible for the war, can be easily debated many, many years, to get into every moral and political nuance, after the war is ended.

The ideal outcome of the war would be what minimizes suffering in the short term and creates a lasting peace.

No one disagrees that Dombas is filled with ethnic Russians that want to separate from a Ethno-Ukrainian nationalst state, and that they have done so and that there is no way for Ukraine to "defeat them" militarily as Russia won't allow it.

No one disagrees that Crimea is de facto now part of Russia and that won't change.

No one except neo-Nazi's and their sympathizers agrees that neo-Nazi's are a bad thing and policies should be agreed on by NATO, the EU, Russia and Ukraine on how to dismantle neo-Nazi organizations.

Of course, the "ideal" end to the war would be everyone in the whole world, including Americans and gangs and the mafia, laying down their arms and start talking things out in a bottom up participatory direct democracy without nation-states in any similar sense as they exist now.

However, if that "ideal" has no practical way to bring about as an ending for the war, then recognizing the right of "self determination" of the Dombas and Crimea, and that they are de facto in Russian control now anyways without any means of changing that, is a more reasonable outcome than fighting for ... what? To achieve what militarily?

↪boethius Empty words. Go bomb an Ukrainian if you want to be useful. — Olivier5

I don't have a problem with Ukrainians fighting, it's their choice.

I have a problem with neo-Nazi's, that's for sure; but I'm told that's a small part and the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

There is more than one war happening in the world at the moment.

Do you even know about the others, much less have picked one side and condemned the other?

Or do those people and whatever they're fighting about not matter in the slightest?

If so, why would you expect otherwise vis-a-vis Ukraine?

A few questions for you.

boethius disagrees with that. — Olivier5

I said I haven't analysed it yet.

However, I would agree with @Benkei that it's morally wrong in a very large sense of morality. In my view, "morally right" would be turning Russia into an anarchist direct democracy.

Condemnation is a much stronger statement, such as "true evil".

There is also a middle area of whether Russia's Imperial war is "worse" than the other great power's Imperial wars.

For example, all the great powers owe their existence to Imperial wars, but we view the Nazi's Imperial war as much worse in comparison.

We (the West) condemn the Nazi's for WWII ... but we don't have similar condemnation for US in Vietnam or Iraq or the French in Algeria (and pre-WWII Imperial conquests are simply off limits for moral analysis; "different time" kind of thing, I'm sure you understand).

You're more submissive than most people, I guess. — Olivier5

They can come and fight if they care, that would be welcome ... social media isn't "support".

It's hypocrisy.

A war should never be a charity case.

And I know you can do better so I think that this means you're truly worried about an escalation including Finland. — Benkei

An escalation that would only happen due to Finland rushing ahead to join NATO ... but not actually be in NATO.

Otherwise, Russia would have already attacked Finland if that was "the plan all along" ... and, since that wasn't the plan as it hasn't happened, but the status quo has been acceptable to Russia, then if the status quo was maintained ... certainly Russia wouldn't attack Finland after being weakened by NATO in Ukraine.

However, if the exact same warning to Ukraine are sincere to Finland and Sweden, then tactical nuclear weapons would be dropped until they, too, accept neutrality ... the exact same status quo as before baiting Russia into dropping tactical nuclear weapons.

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".

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities? — Olivier5

Yes, if we had no chance of gaining anything militarily and we were just being used as pawns to bleed the Russians, setup before hand to bait the Russians into a war, genuinely believing those "foreigners" supporting us would come to our aid in some concrete "friendly ally" sense.

Being manipulated is far more disgusting than dealing with someone who does exactly what they say they're going to do, even. Being manipulated by your "friends" is a far worse taste than having some sort of clear foe.

I would also not expect anyone to give us free arms, and the honorable requirement to buy our own arms to fight our own wars, and perhaps take on massive debts to do that, would be part of the equation of whether fighting was worthwhile and what sort of deal (which would be the only possible positive outcome of the war ... as we're not about to march to Moscow and actually "beat the Russians" in any scenario whatsoever) would be a reasonable deal to end the war.

You fail to understand that there is no winning in this sort of situation.

The only possible end to this kind of war is negotiated settlement or then complete defeat in the field.

Even if the Ukrainians routed the Russians and they pulled back to the Russian border ... Ukrainians have not "defeated" the Russians, they would still be there, the war would still be ongoing, the Russians would come-up with some other strategy, maybe just drop a few tactical nukes and call it a day.

You don't win a war by not-losing for now, you need to actually go and defeat the enemy in their own homeland, defending their own soil, hoist your flag in their capital, put your feet up in the enemies government offices and drive down their boulevards smoking their cigars.

There is this righteous WWII narrative ... but no feasible WWII pathway to victory.

You have not answered the question. You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions. — Olivier5

Which question? I literally answered "yes" to your last question.

On the "gotcha" of morally condemning the Russians, I simply do not make moral condemnations without the same analysis I would ask people wanting to condemn me to make, and, in particular, after I have provided my own defense of myself as well, to my own satisfaction; analysis of the Russians I have not yet done, as it's mostly irrelevant to the current situation and actually saving a single life, helping a single child.

I view the purpose of analysis to make decisions, not morally condemn.

What decisions matter to me in this situation that I can affect: the policies of my own country and political block.

What are those decisions:

A. Go to war on the assumption of Ukrainian just cause ... well, nearly the entire country and political block believes in Ukrainian's just cause yet we are not going to put our boots where our mouths are.

B. Send arms to Ukraine in the hopes they fight our righteous battle "for the free world" for us and win.

C. Pump arms into Ukraine, not for the purposes of option B, but to ensure an endless insurgency that bleeds the Russians at Ukraine's expense ... Wooooweee!!!!

D. Use diplomatic leverage to protect civilians as much as possible and work on a diplomatic end to the war.

I, personally, don't know how option B is going to work, so, if it can't work, then it's foolhardy and gets a lot of Ukrainians killed for no better a military outcome.

I don't see how C, "give the Russian's their Afghanistan, with love from NATO" actually helps Ukrainians. I honestly don't think Afghanistan is better off after NATO gave NATO its own literal Afghanistan. Which is a bizarre part of that argument, as it's framed like "tit for tat" to the Russians ... as payback for something we did to ourselves ... and not to forget the Afghanis.

So, it seems to me D is the best choice.

Do Ukrainians "have a right" to defend their country: Yes, I would agree, I claim the same right for my own country.

However, simply because something is a right does not mean it's the best choice. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not in my, nor anyone's, interest to do.

Time will tell.

You would do so? Like, if Russia was to attack your country you mean? — Olivier5

Yes.

The difference is that there would be a credible plan, equipment, bunkers and escalation of mobilization in lockstep with Russian force buildup (the whole point of conscripts against a larger country with a larger military that would obviously win in a total war situation, exceed the tolerance for losses and, through diplomacy, remove any reason to have a total war fight to the death situation, and, therefore, not be an "easy target" for a standing army in a non-total war situation).

And the whole point of such a posture is not to "wait for the day" to finally fight the Russians to the death, but demonstrate a respectful realism, and, instead of fighting words, offer friendship and good faith collaboration and grateful burning of Russian gas (that literally heats my home right now).

The point of actually fighting, if it came to that as the situation got out of control due to reckless civilian leadership (otherwise we'd be fighting the Russians right now if they were just that bad and no way to work with them), is to reach a settlement as quickly as possible, in a good negotiating position of having a credible military plan that would require total war to defeat.

Ukraine is in total war, but Russia is not in total war. However, Ukraine is in a severe geographical disadvantage.

There are many countries that do not exist for military reasons, but due to their existing being convenient for the far greater powers that surround them for one reason or another.

Monaco doesn't exist because it can fight the French, but because the French allow Monaco to exist, and you won't hear Monaco picking a fight with the French but rather diplomacy is used to maintain the status quo and continuously convince the French Monaco as it is now is better for them. This is perhaps the most extreme example, but many countries have no military option against a more powerful neighbor. No one claims Canada or Mexico would win in some total war situation with the United States.

Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime. — ssu

There are certainly war crimes, likely Azov battalion not letting people leave Mariupol, which may or may not come out as undisputed fact after the war, is also a war crime.

Extrajudicial killing of alleged "saboteurs" would also be a war crime if they weren't actually sabotaging anything.

But, if the world is suddenly so interested in war crimes, we should probably go in chronological order and start with indiscriminate bombing of Cambodians and use of agent orange (a chemical weapon that causes neurological damages), and targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure ... and torturing people; certainly all those documented things can be wrapped up in a day.

Oh, sorry, my bad, US doesn't recognize the "war crimes court," as it's totally irrelevant and means nothing, and I'm sure US officials making use of that institution now when it suits their purposes is just "a mistake".

However, as @Benkei has pointed out, you need an actual trial to convict someone of a war crime ... a trial where they present their own defense and evidence.

Russia has plenty of video too, and one thing Russia doesn't like to do is reveal it's operational capacity and intelligence methods during an operation and one thing it does like to do is hold onto evidence and prove things wrong later. The more people repeat a claim and for longer, the more credibility is lost when the claim is disproved.

Of course, Western media will simply ignore that, but it means something to other countries being proven to be an unambiguous shit talker and liar.

... And if you hand out weapons to hundreds of thousands of civilians, to walk around feeling "safer" clutching their riffle, you also make hundreds of thousands of legitimate military targets.

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

Exactly.

People compare Russia to Hitler ... but Hitler didn't have Nuclear weapons, there was no threat of world obliteration if we went and fought Hitler.

Putin could be far, far, far more evil than he is now, and far more evil than Hitler ... and there's nothing much we can do about it through warfare ... why no Western country has sent any troops to Ukraine no matter the level of moral condemnation of Russia and praise of Ukraine as a bastion of freedom.

We can try to build a more peaceful world. That is our only practical choice.

Ukraine is completely expendable to NATO.

Finland was Gondor to Sweden's shire, but had the geography to hold out.

Are you Russian? — Olivier5

I am not Russian, I have in fact trained to fight Russians and would do so.

It's precisely because I have actually trained to fight against the kind of warfare Russia brings to the table, that I do not see how Ukraine can achieve any military victory in the field ... which we all agree it can't.

It needed NATO to supply its best and most sophisticated handheld weapons and for NATO and the EU to sanction Russia to put pressure at home.

At the same time the war is used as "proof" other NATO nations haven't been spending enough on their "own defense" ... yet no one holds Ukraine to the same standard, they get a free stuff.

A free pass from NATO, a doctrine NATO constantly rebukes, and they aren't even in NATO.

Zelensky literally threatened Russia with World War III yesterday ... is that a "Ukraine threat" or a "NATO threat"?

Guaranteed, if Ukraine didn't think it had free access to NATO resources and intelligence to fight the Russians, and would continue to have free access up to and including a NATO no-fly-zone, if not boots on the ground, then Ukraine would have had a different policy with Russia.

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 to fight "the bully" you've been talking up a storm about finally teaching a lesson.

So what is the MOST disgusting of the two: to aggress your neighbour in such a war, or to cheerlead the victims trying to defend themselves? — Olivier5

Cheerleading others to fight for your own virtue-signalling on social media is far more disgusting.

Actually fighting a war, at least there's skin in the game."Courage of your convictions" as they say in French.

We say all our wars are just wars that were needed for our current institutions and "nations" to exist, and, just-so-happens, no war that ever inconvenienced us was justified. Is this really statistically credible?

And, who's the aggressor? Ukraine has been shelling Russian citizens for 8 years.

As the videos I posted (spanning several years since 2014) describe it: a "war".

A war, neo-Nazi's are on video crediting themselves as starting and also explicitly stating their objective for a war with Russia and who are most active in both fighting and promoting the war with Russians since 2014.

Just to be clear, do you find Western sympathies for the Ukrainian side, their occasional cheerleading and their arm support more disgusting than the Russian aggression and indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine, or less disgusting? — Olivier5

Russians aren't cheerleading a war, they are fighting a war.

They are fighting a war their political representatives have told everyone they would fight in these circumstances for several decades.

They are at least not hypocrites.

With my limited understanding I can only judge contradictions ... to be contradictions, and thus wrong according to the self proposed standards.

Absolute truth and absolute right and wrong, I honestly can't really judge.

For example, I've pointed out that the moral and political question of "how many neo-Nazi's with power is too many neo-Nazi's with too much power and too much power". We would need to actually answer this question to start judging the Russian's justifications for the war.

Furthermore, the West doesn't take nuclear tensions and nuclear bating seriously (otherwise we wouldn't have pushed missile bases closer to Russia in order to "defend" ourselves in the middle-east) but maybe the Kremlin does and they see not-acting now as increasing the likelihood of a real nuclear exchange in the future.

The West basically assumes that the Kremlin is some sort of circus blundering around, knocking back shots of vodka and determining policy by throwing darts at a word-wall from a unicycle.

What if they are more serious thinkers than that? See themselves as being in control of nuclear weapons that could end the world and take that responsibility seriously and see NATO as an immature school boy skipping merrily into nuclear oblivion, that needs to be taught a lesson.

... Which ... as far as I can tell, NATO has learned that lesson and finally become a "NATO man".

History is made by people who don't hesitate to sacrifice a million souls to save 2 million. We praise those that won our wars and condemn those that lost against us.

This war is the lessor of two evils when it comes to Nuclear war. A classic MAD standoff is, in some respects, more stable than NATO just baiting Russia into nuclear tensions and war ... because it's fun?

Moral condemnation requires analyzing all these things to be sure the condemnation is justified.

Why do I say so? Because I would wish for myself a thorough analysis before I am condemned.

What does not take much analysis is to conclude that ending the war through talking, in some workable solution for everyone, is better than continued warfare.

If Zelensky wins, ok, another intrepid and committed war leader willing to sacrifice any number of his own citizens for glorious victory.

If Zelensky eventually accepts terms that were on offer before and at the start of the war, then it's difficult to justify the lives lost.

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

The Kremlin does not care much about neo-Nazi's in themselves, they care about institutions that can threaten them ... and if those are explicitly or mixed up with neo-Nazi's it just so happens to be easy to explain to a Russian the reason to destroy those institutions.

That Westerners ignore the issue, or even cheer on the Azov brigade to "hold out" in Mariupol and never surrender, doesn't matter to nearly every Russian that is alive today.

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

If Russians generally support the war, which they seem to do, and the objectives of the war are attained, then it's easy to declare victory. Russians were genuinely concerned about Crimea being caught off from it's water source and were genuinely concerned about over 10 000 Russian citizens (all the separatists got Russian citizenship) dying in Ukrainian shelling since 2014.

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. — ssu

In an occupation of the whole country, it would be disastrous, but if Russia simply pushes out the Dombas front (and so the territory is occupied by Dombas separatists and not insurgents) and just removes everyone from their land bridge, then, as we've discussed, ATGM's are so useful in assaulting a buildup front.

20 000 foreign fighters aren't a game changer, and will obviously mostly leave, if they don't die, once there's no military objectives that can possibly be achieved.

You also skip over the moral of these foreign fighters once in Ukraine as well as the moral of the Ukrainian forces. "Not letting men leave" from 18 to 60, was spun in Western media as "look at those heroes go valiantly back to the front! Such bravery" ... but I'm pretty sure those men wanting to leave don't feel the same way.

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. — ssu

If it's a question of money ... Russia has more than a billion to spend.

Have you been drinking or what? — ssu

As I've said many times, maybe there's some brilliant surprise counter offensive that routs the Russian army and the run back tail between their legs. I just don't see what it would be (but that's what a surprise means).

As it stands, Russia has militarily nearly achieved the key objectives it set out to achieve: destroy Ukrainian military capacity (1 billion doesn't magically repair all those bases and depots, nor bring back professional soldiers back from the dead), secure the Dombas, and secure a land bridge.

Although the Dombas front hasn't moved much (where the Ukrainians have been digging in for 8 years), it's logistical supply chain has been targeted by bombing and cruise missiles, and the front itself has been heavily bombarded since the start of the war. Simply because that line hasn't moved much yet, doesn't mean it's in the same condition as a month ago.

It's farthest from Western resupply and closest to Russian artillery and bombs, so I just can't see, from military strategy point of view, that it's possible to hold.

In addition, the Dombas line needs to deal with Dombas separatists who have extreme motivation to fight (get the war over with rather than continue the 8 years of shelling and accumulated deaths ... as well as finally the entire Russian army behind their movement); these aren't hapless Russian conscripts lost in the Ukrainian country side.

Now, if Ukraine pulls a win somehow, ok, Zelensky had speeches and the military strategy to back it up.

If not, and Zelensky accepts terms Putin offered at the start of the conflict, my prediction is that he will fall from grace in the eyes of Ukrainians and the world.

People like winners. Zelensky is winning on social media, which is usually enough for every other kind of dialogue, so people like him because they see he's winning.