Russia still needs to sell a PR "win" for this to end. — Manuel

I wouldn't worry about that. The current regime have some of the best crafters of PR ever; a chekist runs it, he's an astute PR professional himself.

They reproach me here that I drive people into depression with my news. They say, you need to be more positive. Well, at time such as these, there will be no good news in the near future. Neither from the Kherson front, nor from now Lugansk.

In many of our sectors, let's say, fatigue has set in after a long offensive period, during which large territories were liberated. But there is no longer any strength left to hold them.

Why is that? Because there are not enough people. Although, for sure, among the top brass everything looked different. These slaps in the face were necessart so that everyone would understand how it really is. After that, they announced a partial mobilization.

The enemy, on the other hand, brings prepared reserves into battle, realizing an advantage in both manpower and morale. The time they spent retreating and on the defensive, they used to prepare new combat-ready formations.

You can sprinkle ashes on your head and tear your chest hair with a cry of “Everything is lost!” But now we need to do the same thing - to prepare people to dilute the bloodless units with them (?). Solve interaction and communication problems. Set up rears.

We drove just now from Kreminna to Svatove. I don’t see panic, hatred either. The men are preparing for heavy battles for the territory of the Russian Federation. Which we have to win back when the operational crisis of the SMO is overcome.

https://t.me/s/sashakots

The argument is too odious to continue. — unenlightened

Well, give it a rest then. Non-violence would likely not work against Putin.

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire was anything other than ruthless and amoral? — unenlightened

Indeed, comparatively speaking.

the methods are well developed by Gandhi, King and others. — unenlightened

Those methods have not proved to work against a ruthless, amoral enemy. In 1940 Gandhi appealed to GB to stop fighting Germany. Good thing they didn't listen.

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened

That's just theory. In practice, how would you suggest Ukraine to resist Putin's fascist regime and invading armies in a non-violent manner?

But I harbor no illusions of changing minds - and it's too late now to do anything about the past. — Manuel

You could change your own mind though, by recognizing the asymmetry of this war: Zelensky is far better than Putin, and Ukraine has just cause.

Looking at this map, one might conclude that the Russians tried to encircle and take or destroy Kiev. We can only speculate of course, but for me, nothing could be further from the truth. What if the Russians only wanted to send a message?

Okay, they could have sent an email instead, but they were not sure it would be read. So they sent their best troops around Kiev to send their message.

The message was: Sergei, where did you put the 12 mm spanner?

We don't know what the Ukrainians answered, but it must have been something good, because the Russians then left the area.

Maybe slow down the expansion, based on more stringent criteria? Or maybe the expansion was the only choice not to miss the "historical moment" of the fall of the USSR. I don't know.

I agree the expansion eastward was too quick. But history called, and the EU answered something, something they were confortable with: markets.

She's not even twerking... :groan:

The Russian army is extremely competent at killing civilians. You can't take that away from them.

Good piece, thanks. I might have to re-assess my opinion that nukes won't be used in this conflict and that the talks about nukes are gesticulations. In fact, the stem simply from the realization the Russia is losing the conventional war.

Interesting piece on war theory, specifically on how wars end, in the New Yorker:

How the War in Ukraine Might End

In recent years, a small group of scholars has focussed on war-termination theory. They see reason to fear the possible outcomes in Ukraine.
By Keith Gessen, September 29, 2022

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

If their command gave a crap about force protection, they would have had them retreat while they could do it in orde — Paine

In my understanding the forces holding Lyman are mainly East-Ukrainian, pro-Russian territorial defence militia. That's why they are so tough and resisted so long, I guess: they are not actually Russians. But it may also be why they are left hanging there.

But the tensions remain and anti-'ever closer' sentiment is a political theme throughout the union. I was thinking about our conversation today and an old Thurber cartoon came to mind - man to wife - 'Well, who made the magic go out of our marriage - you or me?' — Cuthbert

I don't consider the "ever closer union" as actual policy. European integration has been stalled for two decades, its electroencephalogram is flat. It just phraseology.

The real policy is more something like: "When it's really important, we can come together. Or not."

Every polity has problems, in final analysis.. There's no such thing as a perfect political system. So yeah, the EU has plenty of issues. The real question is not whether it's perfect, but whether it's better than what was there before or what one could go back to. And if yes, whether and how it can be further improved and respond to emerging challenges.

Same with the UK. Ain't perfect by any means and some Scots want out. So the polity has to reform and improve, or it will become obsolete.

This is not a simple case of an isolationist Britain versus all the rest. — Cuthbert

Technically speaking, Brexit was precisely about the UK vs all the rest, and note that the 'rest' stuck together during the negotiations.

At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.

Russian milblogger @RYBAR reports on the Lyman front:

On the night of September 29-30, Russian troops had to withdraw from Yampil' , and the defensive lines at Drobysheve were also broken through. The Lyman defensive line had narrowed to the administrative borders of the city.

d my goodness, these people are not playing with delays at Dover or with logical curiosities, they are playing with lives and terror. — Cuthbert

Why yes. The EU and its predecessors were/are a peace building project, meant to ensure peace at last in Europe after two world wars and zillions other conflicts of old. And it has been reasonably successful in doing so. It follows that undermining the EU entails a very real risk of rekindling old conflicts like the one in NI.

From a modern historical perspective, UK's colonisation of Ireland is a rather awful story, of which NI is a remnant. It would make a lot of sense for the UK to give up NI, allow Irish reunification, , repatriate a few orangists, and call it a clean slate, a new begining.

Pending such a radical repair of the historical injustice of colonisation, the UK could try and make the agreement with the EU work, by aligning economic regulations in NI with those in effect in the Republic of Ireland. This requires a 'hard border' in the Irish Sea. A bitter pill to swallow but it's the only alternative.

Doing the metaphor to death, perhaps they thought their love could change us? — Cuthbert

Thanks for that pearl and the chuckle. And it's true: certainly the EU project is transformative. It's meant to reconnect folks in a broader and more consensual narrative for instance. Hence the 'EU speech', a parlance replete with notions of togetherness and solidarity that all continental politicians can speak. It doesn't mean they all mean it all the time, it can behave as a mantra, a pretense even. But enough of them mean enough of time that the project goes on.

I remember an interview with an academic shortly after the 2016 vote who said that 'The UK is currently in but half out - no single currency, no Schengen, rebates - and after this is all over it will end up out but half in.' I can see that happening. — Cuthbert

There's a lot of wisdom packed there., And perhaps a bit too much wisdom. We should remember that Brexit always has been and remains an irrational project, not one based on a cold calculus of risks and opportunities, but a protest, a desire for something else, for something more out there, an irresistible élan towards one more glorious, heroic, perhaps hopeless act of sheer irrationality. An attempt at jumping in the unknown.

Understood as inherently irrational, Brexit or some of its features become strangely easier to understand.

The NI protocols for instance the UK trying to have its cake and eat it too: the UK ought to be both a unitary state from a regulatory standpoint, and honor its obligations in the Good Friday agreement for a lack of hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, all the while creating a hard border between itself and the EU, of which the Republic of Ireland is a member.

That is an irrational expectation. Which is perfectly normal and to be expected in a wholly irrational process.

Indeed. The EU has so far tolerated a country that has chosen not to be a member of EU not being a member of the EU. — Cuthbert

It's not like they had any choice in that matter of course. (In addition, some pro-Eu folks do actually agree that the UK never really belonged in the EU, not the way other members try to belong and contribute. Why then not separate agreeably if you can, like in a divorce based on mutual agreement, to use a metaphor you seem to like?)

What I meant was that all during the protracted (read endless) negotiations, the EU tolerated inordinate amounts of crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness from over the Channel.

A few days ago, a twitter account called Gandom ("wheat" in Persian) posted a video of an anonymous, unveiled Iranian woman singing Bella Ciao.

https://twitter.com/Gandom_Sa007/status/1573300331412348930

It seems the Italian antifascist song has fans in Ukraine too. From three months ago:

And yet you say my analysis is off the mark? — boethius

I wouldn't refer to it as "analysis". "Unfettered wishful thinking" is more apt. Or simply "verbal diarrhea"...

Your writing increasingly resembles the average putinista's rambling nowadays. No logic, no focus. Headless chicken gesticulation.

Let's not make things more complicated than they are. This war could be over tomorrow and everything back to normal if the regime had the good sense of offing Mr. Putin. One bullet would be enough.

nor any historical precedent that states have any tendency at all to collapse in such situations before. — boethius

Did you forget the USSR and the German very very Democratic Republic?

The EU has never said anything like that
— Olivier5
Well, not literally, just as the UK hasn't been referred to the 'ex'. — ssu

I mean that the EU never said it won't cooperate with the UK. In fact it has been extremely patient.

For the EU the stance that "I don't have anything to do with you now after we broke up" simply doesn't cut it. — ssu

The EU has never said anything like that, though. It is the UK which is separating, and not taking their relationship with the EU seriously enough.

As for NI, there's no way out of the dilemma highlighted by @unenlighted. The best and simplest solution in my view would be to reunite Ireland.

I am not worried about nukes, for one because it won't make any difference if we are worried or not; for two because I believe "Russians love their children too", and won't nuke a place so close to Russia; and for three, because the only reason they evoke nukes is to get us scared, and I won't give them this satisfaction.

Ukrainians could also retaliate: not with a real nuclear weapon (at least initially) but with "dirty bombs". Add nuclear waste material to a conventional bomb, and find a way to blow it off on the Red Square.

I think no nukes will be used in Ukraine. It's just too close to Russia, the fall out would be spread all over western Russia. Assuming the missiles themselves don't crash in Russian territory by mistake, as happened recently.

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

A better question would be: "Could AI provide etc.?" It seems the answer is no, since there's nothing original in the outputs provided.

Has Russia lost Kazakhstan? — ssu

More precisely, Putin has apparently lost Tokaïev, Kazakhstan strong man.

Georgia and Kazakhstan likely have far more. — ssu

Kazakhstan will guarantee the safety of Russians fleeing their country as Russia moves to conscript hundreds of thousands of army reserves to fight in Ukraine, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has said.

“A lot of people from Russia have come here over the last few days,” Tokayev said in a speech on Tuesday.

“Most of them are forced to leave because of the hopeless situation. We must take care of them and ensure their safety.”

So, when people speak of war crimes, you pull out your calculator to estimate a margin of error? Have some decency.

Again, any evidence this has a chance to stop the war? Will all these people be signing up to fight to Ukraine? — boethius

Again, it is not meant to stop anything. Boys don't want to be criminals, kudos to them. If you want to commit war crimes instead of just advocating them on TPF, go right ahead and enlist. But that too won't stop anything.

a quarter of a million people leaving the country does tell something. — ssu

It used to be called "voting with one's feet", in the good old days of the USSR. They all tell the same story: not interested in committing war crimes, thank you very much. I thought they would say they are saving their skin, but it seems they primarily don't want to take part in what they rightly see as a crime.

Sources: FSB reports 260,000 men left Russia, wants to close borders
09:30 AM, 26 September 2022
Novaya Gazeta Europe
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has reported that 261,000 men had left Russia after the announcement of “partial” mobilisation in the country, our source in the Presidential Administration tells us.

Discussions on closing the border for men of military age began in the Presidential Administration on Wednesday, 21 September, when law enforcement agents had started reporting the numbers of men leaving the country. According to our source, the last report by FSB from 25 September stated that 261,000 men had left Russia in the period from Wednesday to Saturday evening.

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/09/26/sources-fsb-reports-260000-men-left-russia-wants-to-close-borders-news

Wasn't that your idea?

Once the 'referenda' have run their course and the occupied territories are integrated to Russia, there won't be anything left to negotiate.
— Olivier5

There is the rest of Ukraine to negotiate over and avoiding or inviting the use of nuclear weapons. — boethius

What a splendid idea! The West could nuke Moscow and Saint Petersbourg, putting Putin in a stronger position to negotiate peace.

The good thing with today's Russia is that all the old soviet jokes can be recycled. So...

God created three great virtues: Honestly, Intelligence and Putinism.

But since nobody is perfect, one who is honest and intelligent is rarely a putinist; if one is putinist and intelligent, one is often dishonest; and if one is an honest putinist, then one is not very intelligent.

Once the 'referenda' have run their course and the occupied territories are integrated to Russia, there won't be anything left to negotiate. Putin won't give up what he sees as Russian territories in exchange for peace.