Yes, that is an apposite quote. Is it true? If it is true today, must it always be so? — Srap Tasmaner

“However angry both of us would be,” Kahn writes, “we would not start an all-out [nuclear] war” over an invaded country or a nuclear attack “because suicide is not a rational way of expressing one’s anger.” [1]. And if a tit-for tat exchange were used instead (in the event of an actual nuclear attack), it eventually becomes irrational to continue with escalation. Both sides will eventually have an incentive to stop using nuclear weapons as continued conflict becomes unprofitable. — Herman Kahn, author of On Thermonuclear War, RAND Corps physicist, futurist, Princeton professor, and the historical inspiration for Dr. Strangelove.

What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means?
— Benkei — Olivier5

My first instinct is to want to support Ukraine in every possible way against Russia, but, ultimately, the only effective support would be direct military NATO involvement, which I'm against due to the risk of a wider war. So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands. — Baden

But as you so well put it, this is the thinking of many here. — ssu

After Putin's stadium performance, flags dumped into garbage. Sometimes a picture tells a lot, actually. — ssu

I want above all to ask of you impractical questions. What is our relationship to violence? What is the place of force in human society? Can it change? How could such change be brought about? — Srap Tasmaner

Also Madeleine Albright is dead and I would have preferred if she died violently and painfully but we can't always get what we want apparently. — StreetlightX

“A life review, seeing and re-experiencing major and trivial events of one’s life, sometimes from the perspective of the other people involved, and coming to some conclusion about the adequacy of that life and what changes are needed.” (IANDS FAQ)

The Russians are on the offensive. The West is interested in beating them down — Olivier5

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power. — frank

Incidentally, Ferguson is a respected historian, though I'm sure the NATO jihadis on here would like to label him "Putin troll" .... — Apollodorus

To add to that, I don't see this as a "winnable" war. — Baden

. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime

Emphasize unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted on 27 March 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and entitled "territorial integrity of Ukraine". The nonbinding resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. — Wikipedia

The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter armed aggression, economic and energy disruptions, and malicious cyber activity by Russia, including by maintaining sanctions against or related to Russia and applying other relevant measures until restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. — U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership

The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president.[12] Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address.

The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.[2] — Wikipedia

Prevalent day-to-day decision making of democracies is the majority rule,[3][4] — Wikipedia

Arrow's impossibility theorem suggests that democracy is logically incoherent.

On the other hand, Socrates believed that democracy without educated masses (educated in the broader sense of being knowledgeable and responsible) would only lead to populism being the criteria to become an elected leader and not competence.

The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation

Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men), is a just form of government.

More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline-grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the popular media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change.

Biased media has been accused of causing political instability, resulting in the obstruction of democracy, rather than its promotion

Some democratic governments have experienced sudden state collapse and regime change to an undemocratic form of government. Domestic military coups or rebellions are the most common means by which democratic governments have been overthrown

Less democratic governments rely heavily on censorship, propaganda, and misinformation in order to stay in power, while independent sources of information are able to undermine their legitimacy

Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine. — Apollodorus

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian is somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power. — StreetlightX

By then, Zelenskyy had drawn heavy criticism for his uneven response to the Covid-19 pandemic; an inability to end the seven-year conflict fueled by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine; and his Servant of the People-like habit of placing trusted friends in government roles. In November 2021, a major poll found that just 28 percent of Ukrainians approved of their president's performance — Biography

Zelenskyy has also been criticized for not delivering on his biggest campaign promise — to end the long-simmering war between government forces and the Moscow-backed separatists in Ukraine’s east. The conflict that has left 14,000 dead became a flashpoint last week after Russia officially recognized the breakaway territories, Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic. The move paved the way for the invasion days later. — CNBC

And what came of those protests? Nothing. — baker

↪boethius Yes, they could have been a bit quieter about it, and not put it in the constitution. But whether that would have changed anything re. the war is impossible to tell. — Olivier5

Saudi monarchy

Good point. If the nation being attacked is led by a brutal dictatorship, it might not be the right thing to do to help this dictatorship defend itself, but it's still a morally good thing to help the people themselves; in any case it is better to help them than to kill them. — Olivier5

A significant proportion of the city’s private homes have burned down or been destroyed by explosions. There are traces of shrapnel everywhere. The rare house may still have its fence or window panes intact. Many windows are sealed with plastic or boarded up. The words “people live here” are often found on the gates written in chalk. — RT

Russian soldiers appear to be dying in Ukraine at a remarkably high rate
Casualties in the early weeks far exceed the tolls in other recent conflicts — jorndoe

In Donetsk and Luhansk regions: 903 casualties (222 killed and 681 injured)
On Government-controlled territory: 675 casualties (172 killed and 503 injured)
On territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’: 228 casualties (50 killed and 178 injured) — UN

A 96-year-old Holocaust survivor, Borys Romanchenko, was killed Friday by a Russian strike on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. — Wayfarer

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?
— boethius

Russia Today (International) - Breaking news, shows, podcasts ← This RT? — jorndoe

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. — boethius

What if a Presidential candidate came forward stating that he would never engage in a war of conquest with any nation?
— FreeEmotion
Well, I guess Putin would be the first person declaring that! He's just protecting ethnic Russians and welcomes them who want to join mother Russia. Just like Milosevic did for the Serbs. And uses his military on special military operations to stop a genocide perpetrated by neo-nazis.

The age when leaders truthfully admitted that they engaged in wars of conquest is ancient history. — ssu

Many Europeans would just love to have a calm, peaceful and prosperous Russia, where entrepreneurs like Sergei Brin would stay and innovate new things. We don't have that with Russia. And many are eager to point out that Russia never has had democracy. — ssu

The reality is that Russia needs leaders that simply will tell the Russians themselves that the old empire is over and lost for good. That Russia is just like the United Kingdom today, a country that has lost it's empire and nothing and nobody will get it back. That if Russians want prosperity, it comes through trade (for which you need good relations with the rest of the World), innovation and not through conquest. — ssu

In view of this, a problem with Chomsky’s tough opposition to NATO’s eastward enlargement of the 1990s—apparently a serious foreign policy question—is that the enlargement entirely matched public opinion. In the late 1990s, Americans and Western Europeans as well as Czech, Polish and Hungarian citizens were supportive of NATO’s expansion that eventually happened in 1999.

Turning now to the question, there are plenty of supremely confident outpourings about Putin’s mind. The usual story is that he is caught up in paranoid fantasies, acting alone, surrounded by groveling courtiers of the kind familiar here in what’s left of the Republican Party traipsing to Mar-a-Lago for the Leader’s blessing.

The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.” The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion. He goes on to conclude that the crisis “can be easily resolved by the application of common sense…. By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the ‘color revolutions’ — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?” — Chomsky

Let's just think how according to you, what "the only correct strategic move" has produced so far: — ssu

Some people are going for a trial thing ... — jorndoe

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government — ssu