So it was a Ukrainian missile. Which I'm sure the Ukrainians knew but blamed on the Russians any way. 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.

Après moi, la deluge!

I disagree. Your attitude is Western hubris in short (assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight if it wasn't for the West). I think the Ukrainians would fight even if they didn't have the backing of the West. Or in such numbers. — ssu

They might have fought and Ukraine would've been Russian in the first week. You seem to forget western support was there well before the war started.

Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. — ssu

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic.

Jeez. I'm glad I haven't been participating in this thread for a while. You guys are entrenched. It's like WWI all over again. Carry on!

I say just take the wretched bombs out already, aggressively, throughout, whether it takes lots or more or special or expensive tech or not.
They've been wreaking destruction for a long time and it's apparently spilling over.
It's not like shooting them down is going to kill anyone, at least that's very unlikely, rather the opposite.
Yep, keep heads cool, NATO shouldn't just retaliate. — jorndoe

Retaliate against whom, anyway? There's an assumption these were fired by Russia but latest news is this is unlikely given the trajectory. We need to wait to understand what happened. If it wasn't the Russians though... that's going to complicate matters. But I'd rather not speculate at this point.

Just found this great website: https://goodonyou.eco/

And my country doesn't have a real right wing party. — ssu

And yet you're not pretending there are right wing communists. Seems like we're perfectly capable of distinguishing left and right based on a more theoretical baseline than what exists in a given country.

At least Finland has more to choose from. And the Dutch system is getting almost hilarious with the number of parties.

Since when are left and liberal related and when did the Democrats deserve the moniker left? It's a right party on any European spectrum. There are no political choices in the US, Trump is simply unfit to rule on a personal level and therefore a danger to the world. Particularly in a volatile situation like Ukraine.

Not a superpower though. Watch me be a lot less worried about Bolsonara :yawn: as opposed to the spectre of Trump. :scream:

Not because he thinks it's a good idea for the US but because it is an imminently bad idea. If even Putin recognises that, you'd think it was a hint but since US media is mostly intent at gazing at its own belly button, nobody is aware voting Republican weakens the US.

It's funny how no one anywhere but in the US would ever consider voting Republican. The US political system is a tragedy.

I'm boycotting. I won't watch any game.

Still fits the frame. You're just more likely to argue it's worth the cost because you see benefits outside of the protection of human lives at the expense of human lives. Or the other way around, whatever. I don't know what side of the fence you sit and I don't care.

I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. The only difference of opinion on this thread is when that yes becomes a no. Avoid nuclear war is obvious, the evaluation of what actions increase that risk is not. Then there are knock-on effects like causing an energy crisis that hurts the poorest all across Europe. Is it worth that? There are plenty of people divided on that.

Emission gap report: You Fucktards Aren't Doing Enough.

This also reads like fiction.

I really think people here have a tendency to extrapolate all sorts of stories from a minimum of facts.

We have seen an irrational Putin. Which is a variation on the theme whenever leftists proclaim "but why do poor people vote against their interests? whine whine". It's elitist and almost always misplaced. Putin is not an idiot, he's not irrational. He simply thinks other things are important than most "Westerners" fed on a steady diet of neoliberal economic policy, white saviour complex while being blind to the financial and cultural oppression of other countries and sometimes outright wars (based on lies). He doesn't care about the legal order so the whole "it's an illegal war" is not a consideration at all. We know this because Russians bomb the shit out of civilians in every war and those rules are older than the UN charter.

Then there's the "Putin is a mastermind" kind of exposition you just wrote. We see coping and market mechanism developing alternative financial systems, we see increased trade between Russia and countries that didn't join sanctions. These are reactions to circumstances and I don't believe for a second these steps and consequences can be predicted by any type of accuracy because you cannot accurately predict the shape and form of sanctions, the level or type of support by the West and even your own allies. etc.

Then there's the "imperial" Putin because he referenced tsaristic Russia a couple of times (and boy, what a lot of books that invited). I'm sure lizards dream of being dragons too. That doesn't automatically mean they actually try to breathe fire.

I still believe the simplest explanation is NATO expansion or the threat thereof. The BBC in 2008 on Georgia:

President Saakashvili has made membership of Nato one of his main goals - and Nato agreed in April 2008 that Georgia would become a member of the alliance at some unspecified date in the future. — BBC

I think the similarities in 2008, 2014 and now in 2022 are obvious. It's the simplest explanation for Putin's actions. A basic realpolitik interpretation of the geopolitical situation where Russia considers NATO an existential threat. The knee-jerk reply that "NATO is a defensive alliance" is neither here nor there - it's not about what we believe, it's what Putin believes that drives his decisions.

Well, actually I think that's the problem, we have no way to interpret it other than establishing it happens. My gut feeling is pretty optimistic this has an effect on the war effort in Ukraine but it's just a vague sense and too many other variables swirling about to trust it.

I'm banking on Russia imploding from the inside as the most likely way of this war ending in favour of Ukraine (eg. land returned, possibly even Crimea then).

A second option is Russian "allies" get fed up with the fall out from the war, such as India, NK and China. In guessing they're not too happy about current food prices either. But this would probably force Russia to the table and might mean some territorial gains (eg keeping what they currently occupy) or even a reversal. It's unclear what the West would back and Russia would be expected to swallow.

I guess if neither of these play out by the end of winter, we'll have to assume this is unlikely to happen and sanctions aren't accomplishing what the West wanted.

Worst thing that can happen is that the Russian disgruntlement and logistical problems with the mobilisation are grossly exaggerated in the news and we'll see a huge influx in personnel on their side. That will lead at a minimum to a long protracted war or worse new gains by Russia.

@Jamal do you have any sense about sentiment in the Russian population? Some "resistance" seems quite well organised but no clue how big or small it is.

Biden classified what you had for dinner last week when his turd spelled an "M".

I just love how 7 months ago everybody was like "we need to make sure this doesn't escalate to nuclear war" and now at least in the UK they're entertaining just that on national television. The applause was... worrying.

Liz Truss: I feel great, I launch, it's an important duty of the Prime Minister (... to annihilate the world when ordered to do so?!?!). — boethius

She doesn't say how she feels about it though.

It wasn't my point. I was pointed there as support for a Russian identity of imperialism, which I didn't find particularly if nationalism is just a political tool. It doesn't contradict indeed but it doesn't support it either.

also, from one of those sources apokrisis keeps insisting I don't read.

The Kremlin conducted a campaign against radical nationalists in the 2010s, and as a result, many of them are currently imprisoned, according to a Russian political scientist and a senior visiting fellow at the George Washington University Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies Maria Lipman.[32]

Sociologist Marcel Van Herpen wrote that United Russia increasingly relied on Russian nationalism for support following the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.[33] Nationalist political party Rodina cultivated ties with Eurosceptic, far-right and far-left political movements, supporting them financially and inviting them to Eurasian conferences in Crimea and Saint Petersburg.[34]

However, the Kremlin scaled nationalism down out of fears that prominent figures such as Igor Girkin began to act independently, following a brief period of stirring activism that resulted in Russian men volunteering to fight in Donbas in 2014 and 2015, according to Lipman. In Lipman's view, the Kremlin's aim is to prevent emotions that "might get out of control and motivate people to act independently".[32] — Wiki

It's funny how you keep trying to find a psychological issue with me simply because I don't agree with you. If I'm not an apologist (bad by association) I'm angry and frustrated. You've got such a narrow view of the world anything that doesn't fit in it is intrinsically wrong. Good luck with that.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation.

I'm not the one making sweeping claims about Russian identity based on a few speeches by Putin or even the existence of nationalism in a country. It's pretty clear Putin has been using nationalist sentiments as a political tool. First he cracks down on it, then he employs it, then he puts the breaks on it because others are getting to popular. And if some support is enough to support claims of the existence of Russian identity as you're doing now then equally showing there's some lack of support proves the opposite.

Some arguments are so vacuous a single sentence suffices to waylay them.

It contradicts the facts and still you maintain it by equivocating the acquiescence to existing power by a population that has barely any agency, with support.

Jesus.

"Russian identity is imperialistic". Reality: Russians fleeing mobilisation.

I think the crux in that quote is what he means with Russia. If he meant including Crimea and Donetsk then following that premise, I guess technically not a lie because we're supporting Ukraine to reclaim their territory* (we reject the premise of course but I want to tease out the exact meaning) and much more worrying than if he meant Russia without Ukrainian occupied territory. I was hopeful he meant the latter but could be worse obviously.

*again, for me this is not at any cost, which never seems a worry for most supporters.

I provided sources. If you want to posture on the issue, then provide the sources that argue against these sources. Kindly put up or shut up — apokrisis

I don't need to provide sources when what you bring to the table aren't facts. The onus is in you to show the facts supporting your position. Merely offering up additional opinions that agree with you, aren't facts, and in any case I already pointed you to two other writers who hold different opinions. I've argued why I believe your position is a leap of faith based on the links you've provided. You're just dodging.

Where have I claimed that anything you might have said reached the level of an argument. I’ve said exactly the opposite.

Anyone who claims Putin’s war is going to plan is rather hard of understanding. It makes no sense on any level. The incompetence is plain to see. — apokrisis

Blah blah. I have offered an argument, you simply choose to ignore it and then pretend I haven't. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

See here

People who believe Putin and that Russia has been attacked by Ukraine/NATO, well, are crazy. — ssu

Which is not what he's talking about. He's saying the West is pushing Ukraine to move military action into Russia (a bit unclear but I think he means Russia proper, excluding Ukrainian occupied land). Which is a lie. But the point he's making is that if that were to happen (the conflict moves until Russian soil), then he would authorise the use of nukes. It's literally in the text.

The interesting bit about the lie is that it actually opens the door that allows him to "lose" while maintaining face.

I think it is beyond discussion(or debate) that Russia has imperial aspirations about Ukrainian territory as it is holding referendums to join more of the occupied territories to Russia. Annexation of territories and saying that they are an integral part of Mother Russia says the obvious to anybody with some understanding about history and the objectives of the people behind such talk.
9h — ssu

Where have I argued this not to be the case?

I’m merely pointing out the widely reported view that FSB corruption saw funds diverted from creating a network of stooges. That was one more proof that Putin runs a rotting kleptocracy rather than anything resembling a competent superpower. — apokrisis

That was not your argument. You had a whole shtick about Russian identity that was pure fiction. That's what I took issue with. The above seems accurate to me.

My error here was in not realising there is a whole bunch of you Putin apologists pushing the crackpot idea that all the Russian set-backs have been part of a grand plan to achieve very minimal invasion goals. Every reverse is a feint followed by a tactical regrouping. — apokrisis

And where have I argued that? Your error is inferring arguments I'm not making.

During that time, there were several insurgencies, civil war and the rise of IS when they left. That's your idea of an occupation? Just being around seems a low bar. To me that was just a continuous conflict.

But sure, if that qualifies as an occupation than Russia's aim was to occupy Ukraine and to then have an insurgency on their hands and unsuccessfully try whatever the Americans were also unsuccessful at.

Neither of which were occupations. So that doesn't compare. It's defeat and hold and for the latter you need boots on the ground.

Or instead, the FSB’s expensive network of political stooges were meant to ensure a swift and easy win. But - irony - corruption saw the money going into other pockets, Just as did the funds meant to keep the army’s tanks and trucks in serviceable shape.

Events have shown just how many miscalculations were involved in Putin’s “rational, well planned, limited aims” debacle.

But you can write your own history of the world. — apokrisis

You're suggesting the FSB singlehandedly overturned military doctrine which is consistent both in NATO and Russia for decades that an offensive force to be successful needs to be at least 3 times larger than the defensive force to be successful more than half of the time and 5 times as large as a prepared, dug in defensive force. This seems highly unlikely even when it is likely that they misrepresented facts - but counting soldiers and material is the one thing that's basically freely available on the internet nowadays. As a result, I don't believe the goal was getting the entirety of Ukraine, because they didn't commit the manpower to hold it. That doesn't preclude a lot of things going wrong.

A successful blitz to Kiev still wouldn't have implied occupying Ukraine either and there I agree with @ssu, they did try. It probably would've led to a very short war with parts of Ukraine breaking out and joining Russia or some sort of federalist system and temporarily having a "pro-Russia" government in place. It would've been the "easiest" win and they failed at it and lost a lot of material in the process. But again, if you don't have the manpower to occupy the entire pro-Western part of Ukraine then I would sooner assume they didn't intend to occupy it than assume the FSB decides on how Russian forces are to be deployed.

You incorrectly infer that I think Putin is somehow infallible. My point is merely that your recent points are conjecture. That you can point to other people engaging into similar conjecture doesn't validate it and is in any event an appeal to authority.

This is inconsistent with sending far too few troops to occupy Ukraine. It's also based on relatively recent speeches, so while certainly Putin may have changed his mind, I find the leap from there to Russian identity just that... a leap that finds no basis in facts.

I also love how the assumption is that when someone disagrees with you they are simply uninformed. I could say the same thing about you then. Haven't you read Mearsheimer and Kissinger? But of course I've read some of these exposés since @ssu is a proponent of them as well. I'm simply not convinced by them.

Aha, so even if that's accurate then you claim that Putin is Russia? Seems a bit of a stretch.

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. — Olivier5

Our opinions seem to be "important" to the point where they're relevant to their thread. Most discussions don't change the world but we still have them so this is a strange dismissal. We can also dismiss individual Ukrainian opinions because they don't get to decide and we can dismiss all their opinions as not really important because in the grand scheme of things this doesn't even register on the scale of the history of the universe. Doing this, we can make every opinion unimportant.

Either it's interesting to discuss the morality surrounding this war or it isn't. If it is, then my opinion on that matter is as important as yours. So I'd still would appreciate you to engage the earlier question. When is it no longer worth it to fight? (If you're familiar with the just war theory, this is an explicit consideration - does the war ultimately result in a better outcome than not fighting?)

Living ecologically is unfortunately considered optional and something to be weighed against economic interests. I don't know. I feel rather strongly that we need to move away from an expression of profit solely in terms of money. A labour theory of value is already a step up but that still misses the point. If it doesn't improve the world we're living in, why should we be bothering?

We've had racists point out that there never were "real" civilisations in Africa. The other view is these people were so far evolved in their natural niche and living in equilibrium with nature they had no need to learn how to do bullshit jobs just to survive. In that view modern civilisation is a devolvement away from what we could be. But then I'm sure that view is again tainted by ideas of noble savages.

I've got kids man. It's like everybody is just focused on making marshmallows above a fire, while forgetting their house is burning.

No seriously. What facts underpin what reads as assumptions on what the apparently monolithic Russian entity wants? Something that Russian society and the apparatchick is so thoroughly convinced of that surely these telltale signs have been there since the fall of the Soviet Union.

There's so many assumptions in your post that it is fiction.