If Putin pulled out of Ukraine now, how long would it take to normalise relations with Europe? — frank

The time it would take to make sure it's not a ruse, I would guess. Like a few months.

We should also treat the same way people who think a bit of genocide is OK because it's realpolitics.

Supported with oil dollars and conscription? — frank

I'm no military expert, but my understanding is that Russia is able to keep up with a high intensity conflict only for a few weeks, maybe a month. They have already reduced their frontline attacks, perhaps temporarily. But they could keep bombing civilians and occupying Ukraine for a long time.

The Russian economy could pivot to become better integrated with the Chinese economy. It would be less profitable and also place Russia in a situation of dependency to China, something they would resent, but what choice do they have now? Withdraw from Ukraine and ask for forgiveness?

It could take a few years, yes. But I could be wrong; Mr Putin could still surprise us.

I think the war will go on untill a new Russian president is ushered in, who is psychologically and politically capable of making peace. There might be ceasefires now and then though, or long periods of low intensity conflict.

Where have I treated it as gospel? — Isaac

In your posts. Why do you trust them?

You keep repeating that journalists are suspect, while treating as gospel a bulletin who pretends to be of scientists but is in fact written by journalists. Mmmmokay.

Atomic scientists are not scientists?

But you already know these things. You're just looking to start an argument for who knows what reason. — Tzeentch

No. You started arguing something rather vague. I'm just trying to understand your point. But you apparently don't care enough to make a clear point, and you're probably right about that: wallowing in ambiguity is much safer for jokers.

The UN Charter forbids a nation to attack another without a mandate from the Security Council, and enshrines the right for a country to defend itself. Putin is the commander in chief who decided to invade and bomb Ukraine. For the Ukrainians, killing him would be fair play as per the UN charter, although i agree such reasoning does not apply to non-belligerants.

So the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are what? Too stupid? — Isaac

I'm sure they know a lot about atoms.

Arguing semantics already? Or you really want me to believe you don't understand what I mean with the term "international community"? — Tzeentch

I asked you a precise question: not accepted by whom? And your answer has been quite vague so far. The concept of 'international community' is vague, whether you realize it or not. The "international community" doesn't have a precise contour, and as the phrase tends to be used in the media and diplomacy, it stands for "the West".

here's a decent article in the Guardian from yesterday: — Benkei

It's not saying much about what NATO can do...

The international community — Tzeentch

It's an oft mentioned phrase, but there is no such thing as "an international community", I'm afraid. "Community" means having shared goals and values, and I wonder what those would be... Just because we're all on the same boat called 'Earth' doesn't make of us a 'crew', a 'team' or a 'community'.

What diplomats mean by that phrase is usually the West.

That certain nations are horribly hypocritical when it comes to their ideals and upholding international law is nothing new, but assassinations are certainly controversial and not accepted. — Tzeentch

Once again: not accepted by whom? By those who do it secretly? Putin is an assassin himself. What right does he have to a decent treatment? Who lives by the sword may die by the sword.

Talk about a warship boasting with huge missiles. — ssu

Yes, these missile ships must be real power kegs. You don't want a fire in the ammo depos...

I hope you're not implying assassination. — Tzeentch

Not implying anything in particular. You may have noted the words immediately following those you quoted: "natural or otherwise".

He's old, he could blow a gasket tomorrow. Or there could be a palace revolution. Or the Ukrainians could have a go at it, in a tit for tat mode. Or suicide. Same result, and the way to get there would not necessarily make much of a difference.

I'm just saying that Mr Vladimir Putin is the guy who started it and I doubt he has it in him to stop it. So there's IMO no path to durable peace while he is in the equation.

It would not be beneficial to world peace that assassinating each other's heads of state becomes an accepted practice in international politics. There's a reason it is not an accepted practice today. — Tzeentch

Not accepted by whom, pray tell? The US tried to murder Castro dozens of times. The French helped locate and kill Ghadafi. The Russians tried to off Zelensky too. I could go on.

KYIV/LVIV, Ukraine, April 14 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday the flagship of its Black Sea fleet was seriously damaged and its crew evacuated following an explosion that a Ukrainian official said was the result of a missile strike.

Russia's defence ministry said a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser caused ammunition to blow up, Interfax news agency reported.

It did not say what caused the fire but Maksym Marchenko, the Ukrainian governor of the region around the Black Sea port of Odesa, said the Moskva had been hit by two Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles.

Ukraine's defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify either side's claims.

The Moskva is the second major ship known to have suffered serious damage since the start of the war. Last month Ukraine said it had destroyed a landing support ship, the Orsk, on the smaller Sea of Azov.

I am not for the death of the good Vlad. — FreeEmotion

Only Dracula is immortal.

another Putin clone might emerge with no change. — Punshhh

Yes, that's possible of course. I am just unable to see how Putin could swallow a serious peace treaty with Ukraine.

It could be far simpler than any of your crap. People die. It happens.

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia? — Punshhh

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin -- natural or otherwise -- and/or his replacement by somebody less confrontational and militaristic. It is probably what it will take for this conflict to end for good.

I thought the IMF was this evil western institution harnessed by the US to dominate the world. They are worth quoting now?

There's no such thing as "today's philosophy of consciousness." There are variety of ideas, some less stupid than others. Reductionists have not achieve anything close to commanding a consensus position, in fact reductionism has been philosophically dead since the 70's, the way I see it.

We shall see.

Wouldn't that do it? — frank

Haven't they done that already?

Russia would allow Ukraine to integrate into the EU? — frank

How could they stop it, if the EU is willing? Nuke Brussels?

For them it's just another war not worth talking about.

What does that say about Western media and politicians? — Benkei

Not much. There is a war going on between Ethiopia and Eritrea. How many pages does the Taipei Times devote to it? Or to the war in northern Nigeria with Boko Haram? Rhetorical question of course, to show that geographic proximity matters. What matters to Europeans does not necessarily matter that much to Africans, and vice versa. What's newsworthy is relative to one's locale. Why should a Nigerian reader care that much for a European war at this point, other than re. possibly price hikes in oil and better export prospects for oil-producing Nigeria?

Europe is not the center of the world.

Had you sampled Italian, Spanish, Polish, German or Danish newspapers, instead of Brazilian, Chinese and Indian, you would have found more reporting on the war in Ukraine.

What does it say about the hopes of a rule-based international order?

Again, not much, but it's a more interesting question. In my view, the UN charter became obsolete in 2003, when the US (who had founded the UN) decides to ignore it and invade Iraq, stabbing in the back any possibility of a rule-based international order .

There is a reason why Putin is aping Bush with those accusations of bioagent labs, etc. He is trolling the US about Iraq.

they don't publicly tell just what weapons they are given to Ukraine. — ssu

That's because they don't give much, I believe.

I'm surprised that Russia is allowing for other countries to send arms to Ukraine. — Manuel

No way they can prevent it.

Good one.

A new word appears in Ukrainian: "Stop macronizing!"
By Christel Brigaudeau, special correspondent in Kharkiv (Ukraine), Le Parisien, April 11, 2022

The conflict has given rise to new words in the Ukrainian language. Names that pay tribute to the nation's heroes. Insults, like so many arrows shot at the invader. And then this verb full of irony: "macronete", which could be translated as "to macronize". Definition: "to be very worried about a situation, but not to do anything, in fact", summarizes on Telegram one of the online lexicons of the words of war. With this precision: the neologism owes its origin to the president of the French Republic, "who is not remembered for real help, but for his concerned photos taken from the Élysée palace".

In the cities threatened by the Russian invasion, Ukrainian residents and soldiers hail the active support of the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union to their country's resistance. Berlin and Paris are vilified though, accused of hesitation and false promises. The French president is accused of showing solidarity with Ukraine without doing anything concrete.

Oh, you're back? That was fast.

Wanna talk about the war in Ukraine, for a change?

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

You presumably have an opinion on whether one ought to discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? You presumably have reasons for that opinion. I'm asking what they are. What I choose to do doesn't enter into it. — Isaac

Sure, one ought to discuss whatever one wants to discuss. I think it's called freedom of speech. And if one doesn't want to discuss something, one is free not to.

. The part of the conversation I'm asking about is why you then say

"yes but Russia also does X..." — Isaac

I don't see anyone doing that here. They just think your points are irrelevant and they go back to their original issue with something they see as more relevant.

What are your reasons for thinking we ought not discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? — Isaac

You mistook me for someone who cares what you talk about very much. I don't. When I see a mistake or a lie, I point it out. So for instance, all I meant to say in this particular instance is that your description of the exchange above was getting things upside down.

This precision made, you may carry on with whatever you were saying about the Big Satan.

Indeed. I don't see anyone denying a difference in scale. You are attempting something much more categorical than that. — Isaac

There is a categorical difference here. Those countries fighting in the Ukraine war, vs those not fighting. Two different categories.

A further categorical difference is between the party that started the war, and the party defending itself.

Why does the difference in the scale of responsibility mean we can discuss one party ad infinitum but should never mention the other? — Isaac

You can mention whatever. The influence of Saturn in Virgo is also relevant, I guess. But this is a thread focused on the war in Ukraine first and foremost, with tangents. So your description of the exchange above was getting things upside down: the real discussion is like this:

We say: "the Russians are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but the US also does X..."

Or: "The US does Y which is worse..."

Not vice versa...

You'd argue that despite not being in Ukraine, Putin is responsible for the events there and integral to how any solution might work.

That's exactly the same argument by which discussion about the US, Europe and NATO is included. — Isaac

NATO have no troops fighting in Ukraine, the Russians do. This makes a big difference in terms of involvement and hence responsibility.

Then why do you keep going on about Putin? He's not even in Ukraine. — Isaac

His forces are, cretin.

It strikes me now that this sums up nicely the issues with your responses (and to an extent Olivier5 and the conversation I'm having with @neomac).

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..." — Isaac

The exact opposite is happening. We are here to talk about Ukraine and you guys try to make it about your anti-american obsession, to deflect attention and blame away from Russia.