the mobilization is going absolutely perfectly. :smirk: — ssu

It seems strange to try and mobilize a population that has been effectively demobilized for decades, ie told not to get involved in politics.

There's almost no examples of protests stopping wars that the people in charge are set on. — boethius

Vietnam comes to mind.

So Russia's great and wise leader, Vladimir Putin, has called for partial mobilisation. @Isaac is going to tell us how criminal such a decision was, any moment now.

, I don't think the devil's a comedian nor a puppet. — boethius

I see... But NATO is a tool of the devil, isn't it? So since Zelensky is a puppet of NATO... he's one of the devils in any case. Small devil, or big one, I don't know. I leave that to specialists, better introduced than I am to/by the Lord of the Earth in the East.

I am new to all this line toeing, you see? Can't seem to get it right. It's like... I put one toe on the line, and then the other toes fall on that side of the line or the other! Maybe if I turned my feet inward? How do you guys do it?

Zelensky is obviously wrong about everything, since he is a ridiculous comedian, a puppet of NATO, and the devil incarnate.

Der Spiegel makes a broader point, that Putin is becoming dangerous for many, including for Russia herself, with all these civilians being sent to the meat grinder. He's also becoming a liability for his allies, such as China.

With all due respect for Zelensky, I don't believe the nuclear escalation is likely to happen.

Not just to the Ukrainians : to the world.

Dangerously weak

It's interesting to see how much longer the Ukrainian offensive can go. — ssu

Well, the glorious armies of the Russian Federation are apparently making a stand at Lyman and Kupiansk, and resisting further Ukrainian advance there, thus showing far better fighting spirit than displayed so far around Kharkiv.

Their enlighten leader in Moscow must have told them to stop running and face the enemy. Let's see how long they can last.

Let me introduce Nike, the ancient Greek goddess of victory, or what's left of her today in the Louvre:


That's certainly a desirable representation of victory. I love her belly button... :naughty: But note the wings, the running stance and flowing garments, all meant to suggest the swift speed at which the goddess can fly from one side to the other on the battlefield.

For precision sake, I added: Eurasian philosophic circles.

I'm no military expert so cannot forecast much, but it seems to me the Ukrainian side has been cautious and prudent with its operations, not exposing troops more than strictly necessary, being worried of getting trapped if advancing too fast.

Now, from a moral perspective, one could say this is commendable, as it saves human lives.

From a strategic perspective, one could say it is likely to be effective, for many reasons including military ones but also it strengthens national solidarity and troop morale.

However, I'm told by well connected comerades that, from a Russian perspective, it means Ukrainians are little cowards.

If Russians ever freed themselves from the current regime, it would be a catastrophy. First, only a dictator like Putin is strong enough to lead them Russians, because it is well known in Eurasian philosophic circles that Russians are like little children who can't rule themselves. So it would lead to anarchy, people doing whatever they want like in the corrupt West. Second, it would decrease corruption and the flow of free money towards certain pockets. Worse still, some posters here would be left without an income.

‘The war party has won’
Kremlin plans ‘immediate’ annexation of Ukrainian territories — and mobilization at home. Here’s this new decision’s background.
9:08 pm, September 20, 2022
Source: Meduza

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/20/the-war-party-has-won

In Kupyansk, the ambiguous success of the Ukrainian army: "The Russian soldiers were caught without a fight"
By Florence Aubenas, Kupyansk, Le Monde
Posted today at 2:00 p.m.

The capture by Kiev's troops of this northeastern Ukrainian city, a railway hub, had initially seemed a foregone conclusion. But it remains close to the front line.

It was a small town in the far east of Ukraine, discreet and charming, with two factories, 27,000 inhabitants and a river. In February, the Russian invasion turned Kupiansk into a strategic point, now marked in red on the staff maps. A railway junction on the border of the two countries, the town had become the gateway for the supply of Russian troops to the northern front of the Donbass, the limits of which begin barely 20 kilometers away.

In the autumn rain, the Ukrainian counter-offensive has just planted its flag in the town's main square. "The Kharkiv region is 94% under our control and the reconquered area is almost completely cleared," says a Ukrainian deputy commander of a base near Izium, nicknamed "Diver". That "almost" makes all the difference. Around Kupiansk, Russian soldiers continue to fight bitterly, while they have quickly retreated elsewhere. The official Ukrainian visits that were supposed to celebrate the victory there are postponed from day to day.

Near the town hall, residents remember that the city fell without a shot at the start of the Russian invasion. “This will avoid destruction,” argued the mayor, elected from a pro-Kremlin party, welcoming the occupants with docility. The strategic position of the city quickly erected it into a Russian administrative and military base in the region. All the signs of a planned annexation seemed in place: propaganda posters, open registrations to obtain a Russian passport, distribution of telephone chips or payment of a bonus to pensioners. Only Russian TV channels were allowed.

Dmytro, a mechanic, regularly took one of the two daily shuttles to the nearby Russian Federation. There, finding work seemed easier to him. Today, in Kupyansk, passersby who see him talking to us walk away from him, faces closed, hostile and frightened at the same time.

On a camping table, Galina sells pasta, shampoo, matches. Both rubles and hrynvia (Russian and Ukrainian currencies) are accepted. "It was calm with the Russians," she said. "No one was against it," Dmytro continues, raising his voice over the noise of the fighting in the vicinity.

Viktor Pripouta, a farmer, intervenes: “That is false. And Mikola? Do you remember Mykola?" A pro-Ukrainian veteran from Donbass, Mykola was loaded into an armored vehicle after organizing a demonstration of 150 people against the occupiers. It was the first and last event of its kind. To avoid discussion, Galina turns her head away. Uncertainty can be read in her eyes: are the Russians really defeated for good? Who knows how the situation will turn out?

“On television, I saw…” begins Dmytro. The farmer cuts him off: “To find out what's going on, I look out the window, not the television."

With the counter-offensive, the city is now on the front line. No water, no electricity, no gasoline, shops looted. An old lady has been dead for four days, the smell is unbearable. There are no more ambulances or firefighters to evacuate the body. In the streets, the noise of the fighting draws closer.

A car has just parked, marked "humanitarian aid". From everywhere, people come running with used plastic bags, even the older ones who are hobbling around. But when the distribution begins, a bomb falls with a bang on a nearby block of houses. A second one crashes even closer. Part of the crowd makes a sudden U-turn to take cover, while the other continues to rush towards the distribution. We collide without a word or a shout, terror and misery thrown against each other in a chilling silence.

Today, Kupiansk is all the more strategically important as the Ukrainian counter-offensive advances towards Donbass. Huge military convoys are driving south, some heading towards Donetsk, others towards Luhansk. Each battalion is displaying its war trophies, Russian machines seized during the last fighting and triumphantly stamped with the arms of the victors. But the proximity of the Russian border, 15 kilometers away, obviously complicates the recapture of the city. "Our enemies can continue to mass troops on their side of the border," explains a Ukrainian officer in a base in the region.

He took part in the battle of Balaklyaya, a city twice as big as Kupiansk, 70 kilometers away. However, it fell almost by itself, like most of the liberated territories in the region. "We have noticed that Russian soldiers retreated easily when left without a command," the officer continued. "In Balaklyaya, we began by locating and decapitating the headquarters." According to him, the Russian soldiers were then surrounded in large groups, and then attacked. "They were caught without fighting," he rejoices.

As if to whip up the ardor in Kupiansk, President Zelensky posted a photo of a bombed-out square in the city on September 19 with the caption "Our Kupiansk," calling for the return of "order and civilization."

Among the soldiers, they discuss Vladimir Putin's speech, who has just announced a partial mobilization in Russia. "It can change very quickly with them, but we are ready," says one. All in the glory of the counter-offensive, the troops compare their enthusiasm with the pessimistic signs of the adversaries. Glib, a 23-year-old fighter, says he saw on social networks that young Russians from Belgorod, on the other side of the border, about 50 kilometers away, are trying to flee to avoid being drafted.

After the liberation of the town, massive numbers of requests for leave for September 1 were discovered in the Russian command post.

Suddenly, the ringing of Glib's telephone stops the triumphant speeches. He silences the others with great gestures. It is the University of Kharkiv calling him for his online entrance exam. The voice, sounding as if from another world, announces an immediate test in Ukrainian grammar. "If the questions are too difficult, you tell them you don't have network," whispers a colleague. And Glib, looking suddenly serious: "Hey, if I don't get a degree, what will I do after the war?"

Do you see a contradiction?

My point is simply that it is obviously the belligerents who will decide wether or not they keep on fighting. It's not the EU, and it's not little me either. So if you want to understand or to question why the war continues, ask that question to the belligerents. They are better placed to answer.

IOW, you could take the Ukrainian perspective and agency seriously, rather than minimize their role or deny their agency. And this even applies to the Russian perspective, which also needs to be studied if one wants to understand anything about this war. E.g. since the Russians started this war, it's worthwhile thinking about the conditions under which they could be forced or convinced to stop it.

You misunderstood my point. Try again.

if our if our tax dollars are being used to finance Ukraines war effort and supply arms and also government implementing sanctions to harm Russia ... how is that not our direct issue as European citizens? — boethius

Sure, EU citizens are welcome to demonstrate or argue against what the EU does, ie the EU sanctions or the EU support to Ukraine. But they are not the one deciding to fight or not, and to negotiate or not, or whether it's worthwhile to resist or not.

even if all of that is true (which I don't think any of us are in a position to say with certainty one way or the other), should they? Is it worth the deaths and destruction? Surely there's more to morality than beating the Russians at all costs? — Benkei

I am not 100% certain of much. Let's not pretend that things are impossible to tell in the specific case of Ukraine... There's more info on Ukraine than on many other issues.

And yes, Ukrainians in majority think that it is worthwhile to chase the Russians from Ukraine. You are welcome to disagree, but our opinion is not really important here. We're not fighting this war.

Europe facing the energy crisis



Gargalo (Portugal), courtesy of Cartooning for Peace

Personally, I think that if the Ukrainians size the initiative, the Russian front can only take so much; it will collapse at some point under various stress factors, including poor morale, logistical difficulties and relentless attacks. What one needs to take into account is that the Ukrainians have been building up their capabilities while the Russians have eroded theirs. Now the balance is tilting. That means "fear is changing camp."

Crimea is another kettle of fish but it has vulnerabilities, e.g. that bridge linking it to Russia.

Actually, a vast majority of Ukrainians think they can beat the Russians, using NATO-donated weapons as well as their own.

3. Ukraine can't defeat Russia

What is the alternative to a compromise that takes into account Russia's unchangeable perspective and that Russia may accept? — boethius

You might have to tell about your point 3 above to the Ukrainians, because they don't seem to be aware of it... Some 80% of them believe they can beat the Russians.

My position is simply that, if you support the Russian war of aggression and related bombing, murders, tortures and rapes, then you won't be my friend.

It's not that complicated to understand. Even you should get the point.

if you don't understand why someone believes something, there's no chance of changing that perspective. — Benkei

This is an illusionary objective, in any case. Nobody can change someone else's perspective. Rather, a person can decide to change her perspective, or not. So at best, you can help someone change perspective, if that person wants to do so in the first place.

My point is you're not going to shift a perspective by insisting it's wrong (or variants on that). — Benkei

People don't change perspective, most of times. Cf. any debate on TPF for evidence of that. Let's not aim for the impossible. No pro-russian poster is ever going to change his mind because of what you and I write.

The Nazis had their perspective too. Doesn't make it right.

You know the FSB is worried when their rep here writes down walls of text addressed to no one in particular about climate change, the EU, bitches and shit... :grin:

A probing attack or a feint are non-committal attacks. — Tzeentch

There are also attacks that some call "probes" after they failed.

I wonder why you find it so hard to agree that a) Russians did try to take the Capital
— ssu

Because I remain unconvinced that they made a serious effort to do so, and the attack was likely a probe, followed by a diversionary attack or feint. — Tzeentch

Are we to believe then, that if the Russian 'probe' had succeeded all the way to Kiev, it would have been a failure of the Russian strategy?

Iconic Russian singer Alla Pugacheva, 73, a variety superstar for decades in the USSR and Russia, has denounced the conflict in Ukraine on Instagram, citing the death of soldiers "for illusory purposes".

Reacting to the announcement, on Friday, of the placement of her husband, the actor Maxim Galkin, who had openly criticized the military campaign in Ukraine, on the infamous list of "foreign agents", Alla Pugacheva wrote that her husband, currently abroad, wishes in Russia "freedom of expression and an end to the death of our boys for illusory objectives which make our country a pariah and weigh on the lives of our citizens ".

Talking about historical precedents to the current war, and for all the mentions of WW2, there is also a possible parallel to be made with WW1, -- in accelerated fashion. Many milbloggers and experts have made the comparison, because of the importance of artillery warfare, the trenches etc. So there was a first dynamic phase during which the Germans made much progress and threatened Paris; then the first wave was repelled and a long static phase of trench warfare followed; ending with a more dynamic phase again, when the allies kicked back against an exhausted German front and breached it. The threat of total collapse of the front, combined with civil unrest in Germany forced the Kaiser and co. to capitulate.

I see you mentioned me, but same applies to you as to boethius: I don't read your posts, I don't care what you think, so don't jump up and down trying to catch my attention after I already told you to fuck off - it's undignified.
— SophistiCat
I think I should take some example from you. :up: — ssu

Likewise... :-)

Fair enough.

No one's. I'm not a part of this conflict. — Tzeentch

Does that mean you are indifferent to the outcome of the war?

All I'm seeing from you and ↪Olivier5 is knee-jerk reactions whenever your flimsy ideas of how this war is going are challenged. Accusations of partisanship and "subconscious biases" - have either of you ever looked in a mirror? — Tzeentch

Oh I am clearly pro-Ukraine, I haven't been shy about it. Whose side are you on?

Okay. It should thus be easy for you to point out a military event or offensive or situation that did not go according to Russian plans. What would that be?

Don't change the subject all the time. I'm trying to help you understand something, and it's hard enough.

The reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you subconsciously assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. Rid yourself of this assumption, and you may start to read the message on the wall. But if every time something happens, you jump to the interpretation that the Russians must have wanted this to happen all along, you will never be able to understand how Russia is losing.

To caricature your position a little bit, if the Ukrainians ever end up besieging Moscow, you will conclude that the Russian leadership have them Ukrainian hordes exactly where they want them to be!

I trying to help, by teasing out unconscious, unexamined assumptions, thus allowing us to examine them -- a time-honored philosophical tradition.