the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily," — neomac

The probability of Kherson being liberated so soon was not very high either. The morale and readiness level of Russian troops is unknown but probably very low, and for all we know, the whole Russian war effort could crumble tomorrow. So I agree a quick ending is unlikely, but not impossible.

Let's assume that's true. On the basis of belief but not evidence, because that's difficult to get by according to you, he thinks it's perfectly fine to follow a political line aimed at escalation? — Benkei

If Zelensky believes in good faith that the missile was sent by Russia, then he is not following a political line in saying so. He is just saying what he believes is the case.

Not everything Ukrainian is necessarily sinister, you know?

Either Zelensky is optimistic about escalation not really escalating to something I'd rather not think about or that was a hell of a cynical political move. — Benkei

Or he just genuinely believes that the missile that crashed in Poland was not fired by Ukraine. It's not like the evidence is out there for everyone to see.

The theories don't interest me. — Isaac

Interesting... Do facts interest you at all?

Giving up Kherson may very well be the price. — Tzeentch

Giving up the land bridge and Dombass would be more likely to work.

what do you think I'm saying? :lol: — Tzeentch

Well, you are not saying that the reasons for the Russian retreat are partly the strength of the Ukrainian advance, but could also be influenced by back door negotiations. Your stance is less half-assed than that. It is that the Russian decision to leave is primarily the result of a peace deal secretly in the making.

That is not what @Tzeentch is saying though.

How could I miss this gem? The Russians are -- against all evidence -- pretending to be forced out of Kherson, all in the service of (secret, of course) diplomacy and peace! That one is a BEAUTY. Mr Putin deserves the Nobel peace prize.

evidence that Russia was forced to retreat from Kherson, as opposed to Tzeentch's theory that they left in preparation for a peace deal? — Isaac

That's an easy one: there's no evidence of any peace deal, and the Russian general admitted on TV that they couldn't supply the troops on the right bank of the Dniepr and thus had to withdraw. So as far as the evidence goes, the retreat of Kherson was NOT the result of a secret peace deal but the result of months of fighting.

You didn't follow the conversation. All I am saying here is that @Tzeentch has displayed a pro-Russian bias in his interpretations of events on the battlefield, as evidenced by his take on the retreat from Kherson. He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson so he must imagine that there is some mysterious secret peace deal behind it all.

What position, exactly?

Cite some of this 'evidence'. — Isaac

The Russian retreat from Kherson.

If parts of reality just don't happen to be "good" for Ukraine, pointing that out isn't being pro-Russian, it's just understanding reality. — boethius

That is entirely correct, but not at issue. My point was rather that if parts of reality just don't happen to be "good" for Russia, pretending against all evidence that they are "good" for Russia is being pro-Russian,

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why. — frank

They say hypocrisy is the homage of vice to virtue.

Agreed. I just tried to have him express his opinion clearly. He's too much of a chicken for that, apparently.

Well, you just lost an excellent occasion to clarify your position.

But be my guest. Wallow in ambiguity all you like, if you have something to hide to yourself.

Ambiguity is not my cup of tea. I asked you a simple question. You should be able to answer it with a yes or a no.

Let me make it even simpler for you: if Ukraine was to kick Russian forces out of its territory, would you be happy, or sad?

So you don't agree that you are pro-Russian, in this particular conflict? Just to be clear.

I've written two or three times about your obvious pro-Russian bias. I have an obvious pro-Ukrainian bias, btw, and I am not shy to admit it. I don't understand why you hide away from your own opinions. Why do you fell so touchy and anxious about being called pro-Russian?

What you perceive as an attack on your "partisanship" is simply me telling you a fact: that you have a pro-Russian bias, or preference, in this war. Facts do not attack anyone, so relax already.

I would think that these decisions are subjective and personal, not factual or normative.
— Olivier5

I guess our intuitions just differ there! :) — invizzy

Thus proving my point that my philosophical decisions may differ from yours. :-)

You've been hostile to me alright.

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well. — Tzeentch

Nice self-criticism. Now do something about it.

You agree that this situation is not anywhere close to being as bad as an actual military defeat in Kherson, positions overrun, lines routed, soldiers surrounded ... so how is the current situation a "strong signal" of military might? — boethius

The Ukrainians forced the Russians to withdraw by cutting them from their supplies and by slowly grinding their defense lines. And they keep pushing; they won't stop at the river Dniepr.

In any case my point was simply to show that you have no intellectual honesty. A couple of months ago you said: Kherson is the litmus test for Ukraine's capacity to fight back Russia, and today you are saying something else altogether. You are a joke.

A sign of a "winning" army would be taking Kherson — boethius

The signal is not there. — boethius

Say the three wise monkeys... :-)

I would think that these decisions are subjective and personal, not factual or normative. Your decision of what you consider philosophy does not concern me, my decision making process being different and independent from yours.

but not some total disaster and strong signal Russia's military just can't compete with Ukrainian military — boethius

The signal is there alright: they were forced to withdraw from what their lord Putin sees as Russian territory. That signal was well received in Ukraine, given all the celebrations, and it was also received in Russia, I would think, though less well given all the complaints and arguments. The Russians are losing ground, period. You are welcome to convince yourself otherwise, but it's a fact.

obviously not as bad as losing on the field, positions overrun and thousands or tens of thousands of troops encircled. — boethius

Yes, they avoided total humiliation. Most importantly, they saved a lot of Russian and Ukrainian lives by deciding to withdraw from a position they were unable to hold. So they lived to fight another day, and Ukrainians could liberate Kherson at minimal cost.

I believe that the massive casualties among newly mobilized men incurred in the east over the past few weeks have taken a toll: all these wives protesting that their husbands are treated as cannon fodder and holding government to account can't be good politically... So it seems to me that the mobilisation reduced Russian appetite for wasteful death. That's a positive.

So yes, a sign of a "winning" army is that Ukraine's offensive operation succeeded. It did not. — boethius

LOL... It did succeed in recapturing Kherson. :-)

You're parroting western propaganda — Tzeentch

You haven't the faintest idea of what I write about or think of this war.

Accusations of partisanship is all you have left? — Tzeentch

It's a fact, not an accusation. Your interpretation of anything happening in Ukraine is systematically viewed through a pro-russian bias. So you are "wearing rose-tinted glasses" in the sense that you are interpreting data through a strong pro-Russian bias. That is why the battle for Kiev, seen by everyone else as a Russian defeat, is interpreted by you as a mere "message" sent by the Russian monarch to the Ukrainian government. This is why you must interpret the retreat from Kherson as the result if some sort of occult deal, rather than the Russians fleeing. And that is why you can write things as improbable as this:

Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be, and it will only deteriorate from here, — Tzeentch

Let us reconvene in a month, and see how that particular prediction panned out. Although you can probably find a way to present any development as a loss for Ukraine.

I just don't look at the world with rose-tinted glasses where the "good guys" always win. — Tzeentch

Of course you do. It's just that your rose-tinted glasses are Russian made, and so are your 'good guys'.

Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be,
— Tzeentch

What makes you think so? — neomac

@Tzeentch is unable to imagine a world where brutal dictators don't win.

Things people say and forget:

A sign of a "winning" army would be taking Kherson — boethius

taking Kherson would be a turning point. — boethius

Losing Kherson would be both bad militarily (likely thousands, if not tens of thousands, stuck and captured troops) as well as intensely embarrassing. — boethius

likely deals have been made. — Tzeentch

Unlikely that the war will stop soon. The Russians were simply unable to hold Kherson and afraid of losing many men for nothing in that battle, so they ran away, leaving a lot of material behind. Nothing unusual here, except the fear of massive casualties is growing anong the Russian leadership, which is something new I think, perhaps because of the loss of thousands of mobilised men in the past few days in the eastern front and the ensuing scandals in the rear.

Okay so they deny that anyone was forcefully taken, but not that there are 'refugees'. Fair enough. It follows that one would expect the status of those 'refugees' to be addressed in any peace agreement, for instance through something like a 'right of return' for all 'refugees', including children.

Moscow are denying it. — Isaac

Not really, no.

Tell me how that's a difference which makes a difference. — Isaac

You should be able to figure that out by yourself. It's elementary.

It was not a peace agreement.

the usual switch — Isaac

No switch at all. Even ethical discussions have to be logical. Ethically, Russia should withdraw its troops and try and negotiate a peace agreement. with Ukraine. Logically, it cannot do so without first recognizing the entity called Ukraine.

To come back to the topic at hand, the issue of illegally displaced people and adopted children would have to be addressed in any such peace agreement, alongside the issue of war prisoners. I would think through a system of 'right of return' for Ukrainian adults and children currently in Russia.

As to enforcing powers, the UN pass for the closest thing we have to a global legal system. — Isaac

The UN cannot enforce anything. Therefore, there's no enforcing power here. Therefore, your conceptual framework doesn't work. Come to think of it, there's no supplicant here either. In an international treaty, there are parties, the signatories, and they strike a deal, an agreement. And since you cannot agree anything with someone who doesn't exist, the first step in drafting such an agreement is usually some form of mutual recognition, which often features in article 1 of the agreement, for this reason of logical anteriority.

The supplicant changes depending on the term. — Isaac

Ok so your "supplicantS", plural, would be Russia and Ukraine. Who would your "enforcing power" be?