Forums / Discussion / General

Thinking about it, outside of the argument about the war there was one topic that I wanted to mention, which is what Ukraine will do after the war. Anything I say next is extremely simplistic, there's articles which goes into more detail. Imagine that in the scenario where Russia loses/withdraws/basically becomes irrelevant for the rest of this exercise:

Ukraine will be left as a heavily damaged country, but I suspect that there will likely be an attempt either way to integrate it into the global economy. Or 'western economy' considering how there's a risk of separate economic blocs.

Now, if the EU & NATO accepts to expedite aid and membership (that's already a big if, but the EU's greatest bluff is also that it's a highly bureaucratic organization, when it only becomes so if the members don't like someone, because even Hungary meddling wasn't able to do much) than Ukraine could have more aid to recover . It wouldn't be quick as Poland took 35 years to recover from the Soviets, but when Ukraine & Poland gained independence the former had a larger GDP than the latter and now it's reversed several times. It would be expensive and takes reforms, but this isn't money thrown into nowhere.

Poland is also the EU country with the fast growing economy and with Ukraine in the mix, it and many others would probably go from net recipient to net payer in the EU. That could pose some unique political challenges, even if it's understood it's better for the long-term for everyone it's still frustrating for voters to pay for the development of others. There's even some who say it'll force the EU to get out of it's anti-enlargement coma, In the end building up a member is a win-win situation, and even with all uncertainties and with the EU's failures in Southern Europe (to be fair, it was still an economic boost to join but member states there are still reeling from austerity) it's main success is in Eastern Europe. It won't be easy, or fast and the EU will probably be focused on the project of rebuilding Ukraine for the next generation, but it could be a net positive.

Geopolitically, Ukraine would become the single largest member in the EU by sheer size. Right now the Visegrád Group is split because of differing policies on the Russian invasion (Hungary is a member), but if Ukraine joins it could heavily throw the center of the EU to the East. Than, who knows what that would mean? Maybe it will prosper and leverage it's position to give it's perspective greater influence or maybe it won't. Maybe it will make investment into the Black Sea & the East in general more attractive, maybe it will give a big enough counter to the Franco-German partnership, maybe it will improve relations wit the US or maybe it'll turn the EU more inland facing. Lots of possibilities and hopes, but also pitfalls.

In the end, everything I've said above is probably biased.

I love how almost every recent comment has 2 guaranteed downvotes lol. Even my milquetoast as fuck Crazy Taxi comment. Someone here has a bit of a chip on their shoulder…

If you are going to comment with any sort of authority on the invasion of Ukraine and even bring up and engage with topics of Russification and deny the genocide of Ukrainians, it looks HIGHLY SUSPECT when you resort to Russian spellings.

Buddy, the Russified names have been standard for well over a century. Insinuating that someone is a Russian agent or whatever the hell you're on about because they haven't yet sufficiently updated their vocabulary in the span of two years (a purely symbolic act, I should note) is fucking insane.

Anyways, on the topic of Europe, I found this interesting opinion article on free speech, its declining condition all across the continent, and the consequences this holds for the United States.

I admit it's rather Americentric (obviously, civil rights having flimsy protections in Europe is a greater and more direct threat to Europeans than Americans), and it's wrong to blame a whole continent for the actions of a relatively small body of politicians and bureaucrats. But it rings true, like with American politicians begging Europe to censor on their behalf because Twitter fell out of their hands.

And this could segue into a third topic, about how I'd say the single biggest benefit of Elon buying Twitter was that it made a lot of left-wing authoritarians, of all stripes, show their asses. Also, that time he told a Eurocrat to "fuck his own face" was funny.

Greyblades ghost haunts these hallways

Buddy, the Russified names have been standard for well over a century. Insinuating that someone is a Russian agent or whatever the hell you're on about because they haven't yet sufficiently updated their vocabulary in the span of two years (a purely symbolic act, I should note) is fucking insane.

As I said before when you speak extensively of national demographics, of accusing Ukraine of propagandize attacks on its civilians, of war crimes real and fabricated, and of the necessary course of action for the ethical good of defending Ukrainian people your words matter. If you truly care for the Ukrainian people you learn to empathize and listen to them to hear what they want for themselves and what they want others to know them and their land as. When you only hear what reaffirms an isolationist view or even worse a pro-invader view you hear a different narrative and ignorantly or spitefully use the language of the invader. For one that claims to have spent a long time researching this (they are above being manipulated mind you!), Empress sounds more like the latter which contradicts their pro-civilian claims in my eyes. This either has to be born out of intellectual dishonesty (backed by the rest of my critique of their statements) or excessive ignorance.

For someone who speaks in a way to obstruct justice for civilians I find it not too harsh to call them a stooge or useful idiot.

For someone that delights in the actions of a dude who enabled censorship requests from India and Turkey, blocks critique of Russian propaganda, and lifts government funded tags from Chinese affiliates like they're some sort of grand champion of free speech… well I think just plain old "idiot" works there.

The Republicans gave one order for the last week leading up to the DNC: lay low and stem the bleeding.

oh booooooooooooy did they fuck that up. I can only think 'oh wow, this is what it's like watching from the outside of the seppiku'. Aside from about every twitter post in the last 10 days, no, they did not need to get coked up and lose an argument to a literal 12yo saying 'source pl0x', and Charlie did not need to post people laughing at him for running around screaming 'what is a woman?!'

Speak of the devil, Spaghetto appeared right after you.
Well, whatever I guess this is a problem that's here to stay for now.

@Misspelled Tiger

Greyblades ghost haunts these hallways

Or that.

@wisehowl_the_2nd

For someone that delights in the actions of a dude who enabled censorship requests from India and Turkey, blocks critique of Russian propaganda, and lifts government funded tags from Chinese affiliates like they're some sort of grand champion of free speech… well I think just plain old "idiot" works there.

That and spreading AI deepfakes. Really indicative of the American Right.

Okay, that's a lot of words to say fucking nothing at all. I was right in my assessment that you're insane, and I think you need to lay off the ideological purity testing. I'd start using Lithuanian names for places in Ukraina out of spite, but tbh I don't want to commit to the bit.

For someone that delights in the actions of a dude who enabled censorship requests from…

"You say person good in situation A? You must also approve of situation B where person bad!!!"
This line of argumentation is barely above flinging insults (which tbf we are already doing) and it's actively dumber. It'd be far preferable if Musk was more consistent when it comes to standing up to authoritarians, but standing up to ones more close to home that serve as a more direct and active threat to free speech is still overall good.

"Close to home" in this case means North America, Western and Central Europe, and also Brazil for some fucking reason.

"I can't read"
Cool, thanks for taking the time to digest my statement.

"I don't suck Elon's cock and worship his feet I just like him because he's standing up for free speech"
See that's the thing I'm getting at. I'm sure you're not some Tesla-owning, bluechecker that exclusively follows Musk, but you still believe him. He censors people abroad when requested by foreign governments of Turkiye and India, and censors domestic western sources like NPR and Bellingcat seemingly of his own volition. He promotes right-wing conspiracy theorists and enabled state-sponsored ones to run rampant and unchecked, dismissing community notes on things he deems not in line with his beliefs.

This is not a man standing up to threats to free speech, my brother in Christ he IS the threat to free speech. You can't call yourself a "free speech absolutist" and then not absolute it.

elon also has a stupid face
(edit: imagine that with tf2 engineers voice)

y'all know a motherfucker that can't order donuts without coming off like a sexual predator?

Only vance

trump rolls worst vp since andrew johnson, is asked to leave the united states

as is often said about Russian agents, thank god they are so stupid

is this a setup to a joke or am i legit missing something

Something about a recent event where JD Vance was at a donut shop.

There is strong, provable, incontrovertible evidence that the Ukrainian government and their Western allies have lied, directly or by omission, manipulated evidence, made claims with with no substantiation and dubious evidence and directly pushed misinformation as factual. It's not just "we shot down 20/20 missiles that attacked our city, no comments on those burning warehouses on video, in fact those are illegal to upload (unless they prove the Russians hit something they shouldn't, then we'll openly praise on Twitter those brave civilians who uploaded them)". It's not just "We shot down 11 Su-34s in a week. Source: Trust me" or "We totally destroyed the S-500 we reported was deployed on Crimea, look at this 144p low res screenshot to prove it. We have video, but we don't feel like publishing it". It's stuff like chips from dishwashers and washing machines", being pushed as a factual claim in a Senate hearing from "Ukrainian sources", despite experts in electronics saying how fantastic and stupid those claims are.

How many times did they say "Russia will run out of missiles by 2023. Or the overly optimistic claims about sanctions and NATO instructors telling Ukrainian Leopard 2 crews to "just go around minefields", with Western experts later admitting how ridiculously optimistic their predictions were. How many times they pushed some weapon or equipment as a "game changer"? Javelins, Stingers, Patriots, Leopard 2s, M1 Abrams, HIMARS, ATACMS, F-16s? How many of the studies used to justify the deployment of those weapons were conducted by think tanks sponsored by companies who provide those weapons? "After close analysis, we concluded that the US should send General Dynamics products like Abrams tanks, Stryker IFVs and F-16s to Ukraine, upgraded and maintained by General Dynamics contractors, to secure an Ukrainian victory. Signed, the ISW, sponsored by General fucking Dynamics".

When the government and its close allies twist the truth pretty much every single day, lie directly or by omission, gaslight and push disinformation and even believe their own BS, as long as they drum up international support from other states and public support from the general population, how is it unreasonable to cast doubts on the veracity of their claims, which include such strong elements like genocide and deliberate attacks on civilians?

Ukraine has been condemned by Amnesty International for putting civilians at risk Using civilian warehouses as ammunition depots on heavily populated areas and carrying out strikes from within cities without evacuating civilians. Does Ukrainian propaganda ever mention when an ammo depot or factory or civilian building used as a command post in a populated area was struck? Do they separate intentional from accidental strikes, including their own, like their own AD or their own drones accidentally hit civilian buildings?

Remember the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and all the accusations floating around suggesting it was Russia? Ursula von der Leyen saying a deliberate sabotage would face "strongest possible response"? Well, recently the German media reported that it was carried out by Ukrainian divers with (at least initially) Zelenskyy's approval? Well, where's the condemnation and strong response? The Polish prime minister instead saying that they should apologize and keep quiet Why is the side who claims to be fighting for rule of law picking and choosing based on geopolitics?

Truth is, one side is trying to present itself as a bastion of democracy and law, ignoring all the corruption, all the conflicts of interest and all the geopolitical ambitions, but we should all pretend the rosy picture they paint is the truth, because Ukraine was invaded and their government gets a free pass at being a complete lying sack of shit, because the Russians are worse. The Russians tell propaganda, the West tells the truth. Any criticism, even using names like Kiev, Dnieper or Kharkov instead of the preferred Ukrainian spelling, is at best tacit support for the Russians and at worst a justification, because it's all Russian propaganda. It's "With us or against us". Now let's all give more taxpayer money to the military industrial complex or else boogeyman Putler will win. He'll march into Estonia with ten men and a donkey, and Xinnie the Pooh will turn Taiwan into commie Hundred Acre Woods while nobody's looking.

This isn't good guys versus bad guys. It's one deeply corrupt state on a proxy war against another. Funny how I'm not the one asking for unconditional support for either side of the war or unquestioningly pushing baseless propaganda or fearmongering, yet I'm the useful idiot.

It now seems like much of your critique is aimed towards analysts, politicians, and spokespeople enthusiastically speaking on things they don't have a full picture of. I myself am guilty of getting swept up in the hype from moment to moment and also have tried to been the wet blanket to dismiss some of the hype as the stories from the front develop and the picture clears. We can both agree there is a need for a "sobering" view on the war that dismisses this hype to get to the truth of the matter, passing aside the shitty OSINT for the good OSINT and the shitty spokespeople for the actual analysts. Some comments:

"game changing tech"
HIMARS was game changing its first week out in the field where it hit dozens of ammo dumps and the western APCs & tanks provided have had nothing but praises by Ukrainian crews for their ability to take a hit and not have the crew explode immediately. This is game changing tech if it had been provided in more significant numbers. We hand them less than 3 dozen HIMARS initially, see the absolute havoc those things do on the front, and go "yeah they got what they need job done" instead of upping the scale of deliveries to make it really count. We're ensuring their tactical success, not strategic success with this tech. That's the real reason why it's not "game-changing".

"amnesty international"
Ah yes the famous AI report where in the middle of being invaded by Russia Amnesty reports that Ukraine should deploy their tech wide out in the open because they totally had that luxury because it's the defender's fault the aggressor is firing so close to civilian facilities. Way to share the most garbage report that came out that AI had to put out an apology for immediately afterwards because they were so off the mark, basically stating that despite all of what they said and what you are saying Ukraine has the right to defend itself.

"nordstream"
I'm warm to the idea of it being a Ukrainian or Polish sabotage team, but I'm unclear on if it was state-sponsored or not. But as that pipeline was used by Russia to threaten the EU against sanctions, I say good riddance. We've dragged our heels on investigating it because no one should be seriously bemoaning its loss like you're doing. If it truly was a Ukrainian sponsored activity then I see no difference between sabotaging that or the oil refineries on Russian soil.

"corrupt nations"
Pre-Feb '22 Ukraine was in the process of trying to de-Oligarch its government and push for EU integration, the war has only expedited that. It has a ways to go to join, but they are procedurally getting rid of the corruption inflicted on them by the weakening of the system from post-Soviet and post-Yanukovych days.

Russia on the other hand has turned more totalitarian. Arresting folks for any sort of critique on the war to absurd levels (holding a blank piece of paper out on the streets? here come the riot police buddy), revoking your rights if you ignore a mobilization summons, killing the leading oppositional figure in jail among dozens of other suspicious deaths, and more. To equate things like Ukraine forcing its oligarchs to divest from political spheres, arresting corrupt conscription officials in Odesa, or other things with Russia where corruption is a feature of the system is a disingenuous narrative to promote isolationist talk.

"civilians"
Do you sincerely have any good evidence that Ukraine is lying about what is happening to its civilians? I bombard you with a link to over 2 dozen attacks on civilians perpetrated by the aggressor and you instead choose to seek out a shitty report that says it's Ukraine's fault for standing too close to the missiles. Even if I begin to digest parts of your argument where you claim Ukrainian missile interception claims are exaggerated I then have to ask well that means more missiles are hitting Ukrainian soil doesn't it? WHAT ARE THEY HITTING? It's like schrodinger's missiles with you: they're simultaneously too accurate to believe Kyiv's claims while also probably being accidentally fired at things that weren't intentional; they're not getting as intercepted as much as Kyiv claims but also doing less damage than Kyiv claims. Make it make sense.
-
You closed off your first response to me with "I support civilians, I sincerely hope they get the best outcome that causes the least of damage for them because they're the victims." Yet when presented with evidence of systemic terror enacted on those civilians you hide under post-truth narratives. You lump fog of war claims, uneducated guesses, media hype, and actual propaganda you digested uncritically with expert narratives, aggregated analysis, and photographic evidence so you can try and somehow conclude that the best recourse is to not get involved at all. The evidence is there but you intentionally put the fog of war between you so you don't have to pick a moral side. You conclude that the best moral action on behalf of the civilians is to try not to look at their suffering and let the actions of the aggressor take precedence in both seeking justice and peace.

You are lying to others that you care and you are lying to yourself that you're a moral person.

My problem is not with particularly with the OSINT community or people with stupid photoshopped Cheems avatars propagating thinly-disguised xenophobic jingoism on Twitter and passing it off as support for Ukraine, though they do deserve their share of criticism. It's the media, the Ukrainian MOD itself and policymakers I have a problem with, as well anyone who who uncritically passes them as unquestionable truth for the simple reason that it fits their narrative.

Western equipment needs to be integrated into a doctrine, there needs to be trained crews to operate them and they create logistical challenges that need to overcome, in a wartime environment. New ammunition types, hundreds of different spare parts with different standards, different maintenance procedures, different tactics and operational procedures that require months of training. You don't just send a thousand tanks, planes and IFVs to a country that doesn't even speak the language the manuals are written in and expect for them to be magically integrated. This is something most armchair generals don't seem to understand when they speak about sending new equipment, especially when actual generals don't even seem to understand the complexities, as demonstrated in the 2023 counteroffensive.

All the propaganda depicting the Russians as incompetent morons incapable of learning from their mistakes and using third rate equipment has also backfired, even debunked by the Ukrainian soldiers themselves, yet it's still repeated by the general public. "The T-72/80/90 series of tanks are terrible because they explode, Russian engineering sucks, at least the Western tanks don't explode". Okay, except for the Challenger 2 that cooked off, because it doesn't have the same blowout panels as the Abrams or Leopard 2s. But no, it's the Soviet designers being stupid for not anticipating that 40 years later drone warfare would make the advantages of a low profile turret with a carousel autoloader useless.

The Amnesty International response also highlights one of the problems, the public backlash from even daring to criticize Ukraine. Note the point where they say "We fully stand by our findings". Because you can, and in fact you should, point out the flaws and problems, not turn a blind eye when Ukraine does something unethical, just because you agree with their cause.

If Ukraine attacked the Nord Stream pipeline, they should declare it as an act of war. Implying it was a false flag while everyone else acts wishy-washy about it after they are outed, trying to instead bury it under the rug is complete hypocrisy and a mockery of international law, which undermines their credibility. "But the other side broke the law first" is no justification. You either act impartially all the time or you don't get claim the moral high ground.

I mentioned one case, a very public and recent one, with lots of evidence around it, to make a point of why I am skeptical (note, skepticism and certainty are two different things) that it was an intentional attack. Because civilian casualties are inevitable in war and allowed by laws of war as long as principles of proportionality, distinction and necessity are maintained. That's putting it objectively, not any form of justification. What I am questioning is the veracity and objectiveness of the reporting. Once again, if Ukraine is misreporting interception numbers to make itself look good, if they're being okay with their own laws being broken as long as the PR is good and damages the other side, what makes you think they're above manipulating casualty numbers and information in their favor?

As a final note, have I ever claimed Russia is not corrupt or stated anything in favor of the invasion? I asked if, pragmatically, Ukraine should consider the price of the war as something worth paying for. You won't get rid of Russia through wishes or prayers, Putin isn't suddenly having a change of heart and saying "yeah, those 2.5 years, billions of rubles and hundreds of thousands of lives we lost on this war, let's ignore them and withdraw from Ukraine and let NATO have a port on the Black Sea". But the war will only get increasingly bloody the longer it goes. At some point you need to ask where does it stop making sense.

I'm not Ukrainian, I presume you aren't either. Some politician from the US, I can't recall which one, said that he would rather "send bullets to Ukraine and not American boys". It's really easy to fan the flames of war when it's not your sons, husbands, fathers or brothers dying in the trenches. Especially if the war is fought by people who were deceived by propaganda that pushed a rosy picture that is far from reality, made by people who most likely never had their best interest at heart and who will never put a foot on the battlefield, like war profiteers making a fortune off of their misery. When I mentioned corrupt states, I didn't mean Ukraine. I meant the United States.

Cool, thanks for taking the time to digest my statement.

Oh, I did, you just said nothing of substance. Much like how it's hard to eat hot air, it's hard to respond to an angry wall of nothing. In the span of four very run-on sentences, you said "Empress failed my ideological purity test, therefore they must be a RUSSIAN STOOGE/AGENT!!!". Given how that was all you had to say, I suppose it makes sense that you'd bloviate so heavily…

This is not a man standing up to threats to free speech, my brother in Christ he IS the threat to free speech.

Ah yes, he "censored" NPR by labeling it as "state-affiliated media" – which didn't actually affect their reach, and is technically true. While not as directly supported by the state in the same way that RT or the BBC are, NPR was founded by an act of Congress and receives much of its funding from CPB, a non-profit corporation subsidized by the federal government.
As for Bellingham, the only indication that a story of theirs being labeled "dangerous" was an unrelated comment of Musk saying that they "specialize in psychological operations". This seems… untrue, but it is true that much of their funding comes from the "National Endowment for Democracy", a quango that inherited some of its roles from the CIA, which I'd consider at least a bit concerning.

Furthermore, I'll repeat myself, with elaboration: it'd be far preferable if he stood up to all authoritarians, but I think he's trying to choose his battles; namely, he seems to be fighting battles that are picked for him, rather than starting them himself. This is judging by his reactions to authoritarians like Alexandre de Moraes and Thierry Breton, but tbf I don't think we know much about the nature of the requests that were sent by Turkiye and Bharat. What I do know is that Turkiye has been sending mass volumes of censorship requests since at least 2014, and they've usually been accepted as they are now – so this is just a continuation of a Jack-era policy. Again, not preferable, but prioritizing immediate Western concerns (and those that imperil your employees) makes sense enough.

>labelling NPR as state-affiliated media is fine actually
>even if I understand it's completely inconsistent with others that don't get labelled it and are more deserving of the label
>even if it's clearly just for petty reasons and the best I can manage is that it receives non-profit donations from the gov as a portion of its funding

You are SO SO SO close to finally realizing and admitting that Musk is unevenly applying free speech on his platform. I know you can do it you don't have to dance around the topic you're nearly there.
-
Also I'm not sure who Bellingham are but if you're talking about BellingCAT they were called a psyop and limited in visibility after investigating the Allen Tx shooting yes (which should still concern you that Musk is making these baseless claims and add context to what I'm about to say) but what I was more referring to was that their story on the same thing that Empress tried to question the credibility of was labelled as unsafe/spam by X for no apparent reason. That whole thread has more information to show it's the only Bellingcat link to manually get that mark to limit their spread, which I'd call much more concerning than Bellingcat receiving a grant from an NPO as a portion of the 51% of their funding. Like calling Bellingcat or NPR a government psyop or state-funded media is like calling PBS state-funded media. It skirts the definition sure but it completely misses the point of what that label is supposed to mean.

Musk is a threat to free speech against actual authoritarian regimes that need transparency. He directly targets the orgs that go after these regimes and hinders their ability to speak out against them. He's completely impartial with his handling of free speech and it's plain as day to see which regimes he favors. Don't kid yourself that this is what we need going forward for free speech.

@TheHolyEmpress

In the interest of avoiding repeating points and bloating the discussion, could I ask again for a response to one specific remark, that there is a solution: Russia withdraws. It's the third time and now I wonder why that hasn't been discussed.

In attempts to equivocate or go from various points, I think you've tried to paint the conflict as one that just 'happened' (which is why I responded strongly against the Russia accidentally invaded point). That is not the case, one country can leave the other cannot.

Also, on the final point about corruption. Why exactly is that dysfunction of the US the problem of Ukraine? The US thanks to the American Right took itself out of the equation for months and that didn't make the situation better, and I already said something about between complicity and inaction…

@wisehowl_the_2nd
Elon Musk sabotaged Ukrainian efforts and had the exact immature response towards the Ukrainians as he had now and towards that cave diver rescuer. So, even if he thinks he's allowed to spread deep-fakes without consequences, he cannot in the EU.

Like the rest of the American Right, he kow-tows to autocrats and principally attacks Democracies.

When I started participating on the politics forum thread it was at the peak of the animosity between Trump and American Right vs the EU. You know what the response I received for that was? Some kind of justification based on some ideal? No, it was "We're stronger than you, so you have to do what we say" (there went sovereignty which was their excuse at the time). That's what that political group is when they take off their mask, they're thugs. It's not strategy or priorities, they spent more time in trade wars against the EU than against China as an example, and the American Right still lost both of them.

The person you're arguing against tried to make a case of Hungary versus Germany in democracy. This was before the Chinese Police boots arriving on the streets of Budapest, but the signs were there. The American Right couldn't give anyone a lecture on democracy, that is shown by their actions, and that is good because they use it's principles as a cudgel as they betray them.

… Anyway in a bit of serendipity today's Black Ribbon Day

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2889715-discord--2
Idk which entry to pick, but I still wanted to post it here. Basically, frogposters don't believe Trump is a Zionist at all all because of this outdated screenshot.
But the thing is that Trump openly said about his support for Israel.

>could I ask again for a response to one specific remark, that there is a solution: Russia withdraws.

I did mention that it's just not going to happen. They just can't, once they sent the troops into Kyiv there was no turning back. They've sunk too much into the war to even start considering it. That's just the reality of the situation. Even if Putin and his whole regime were somehow to be replaced, their successors would face the same exact problem. They can't withdraw their forces and try to go back to a pre-2022 world let alone a pre-2014 one. So it's kind of a moot point to even bring it up.

The conflict didn't happen spontaneously. Putin didn't wake up one day and say "Golly gee, I really feel like invading a sovereign country today! I better call my generals and tell them to gather the troops!" There's decades worth of historical context there, I'm not even going to try get into, because it's not relevant. But this narrative that they invaded with the ultimate goal of restoring the USSR before marching into Europe just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

>Also, on the final point about corruption. Why exactly is the dysfunction of the US the problem of Ukraine?

Are you telling me you don't see a problem with the people making foreign policy also being funded by the people selling them weapons, or a Senator talking about natural resources in the Donbas and how much he hopes the US can profit from exploiting them, or bragging about how much money the US is making from weapons sales and how much they're learning from their weapons, while they Ukrainians are the ones dying? There is a huge conflict of interest at the very least, a callous disregard for the lives of the Ukrainian people at worst.

Something people who support keeping the war going on at all costs is that, militarily, pushing the Russian forces out of pre-2014 Ukraine would imply fighting battles over the whole of Crimea, as well as places like Donetsk, Lysychansk, Luhansk, Melitopol, Mariupol, Bakhmut, and Avdiivka. Basically undo every single advance from the Russians and then keep going. It seems increasingly like a near impossible task to me and a huge cost for the Ukrainian population, which is something that I don't think you folks are considering.

It skirts the definition sure but it completely misses the point of what that label is supposed to mean.

Yes, "non-Western state-affiliated media". After all, is it not different when we do it?

it receives non-profit donations from the gov as a portion of its funding

Friendo, receiving state funding makes something "state-affiliated".

Musk is a threat to free speech against actual authoritarian regimes that need transparency.

Are you not concerned about the erosion of free speech and the rise of authoritarianism in the West? Or again, is it "different when we do it"?

Elon Musk sabotaged Ukrainian efforts

IIRC wasn't the case that Starlink wasn't enabled in a region it never was enabled in? Hardly a "sabotage".

The person you're arguing against tried to make a case of Hungary versus Germany in democracy.

Germany recently made it illegal for the opposition to own firearms. Trying to hold up Germany as an exemplar begets one's own authoritarianism.

I did mention that it's just not going to happen. They just can't, once they sent the troops into Kyiv there was no turning back. They've sunk too much into the war to even start considering it. That's just the reality of the situation

That's called the sunk cost fallacy, and of course they bloody can. They can continue to do so, until that finally becomes evident to them. Same with France in Algeria, or the US and France in Vietnam, or the British in the Americas, Mongols in Japan or any war where the agresseurs finally stopped.

The more they put it off, the worst the effects when the war ends for the Russians, win or lose (especially lose in a way).

The conflict didn't happen spontaneously. Putin didn't wake up one day and say "Golly gee, I really feel like invading a sovereign country today! I better call my generals and tell them to gather the troops!"

Because it's a part of a backdrop of Russian Imperialism. As confirmed by multiple interviews from Putin's own mouth, you can't have the excuse of it there being some 'complicated reasons' why they're aggressive and than deny the dangerous ideological element of it. It's having your cake and eating it.

All of their other cassus belli have been complete nonsense after all.

Are you telling me you don't see a problem with the people making foreign policy also being funded by the people selling them weapons, or a Senator talking about natural resources in the Donbas and how much he hopes the US can profit from exploiting them, or bragging about how much money the US is making from weapons sales and how much they're learning from their weapons, while they Ukrainians are the ones dying?

1. I've been complaining about all of that since the Iraq War, but I'm happy that I now have a volunteer to call upon in the event that the discussion veers onto that territory. After all, billionaires meddling in the democratic process is a huge issue, isn't it?

However in this situation, for better or worse that shit is the problem of you lot to sort out (as part of the current model of Sovereignty). Maybe campaign more on getting the grubby paws of your leaders off, because when your dysfunction imperils Ukraine and everyone else, you're making your issues everyone's problem.

2. Want to go in the reeds about if you care about the exact same statements, but more dire coming from the Russians? The ones actually fucking killing the Ukrainians?

Donetsk, Lysychansk, Luhansk, Melitopol, Mariupol, Bakhmut, and Avdiivka. Basically undo every single advance from the Russians and then keep going. It seems increasingly like a near impossible task to me and a huge cost for the Ukrainian population, which is something that I don't think you folks are considering.

Than. Russia. Can. Leave.

Look, you're inadvertently repeating the arguments of the Vichy Regime to me, there's fundamentally an issue in how you attribute agency, fault and responsibility, but here we're going back full circle in the arguments:

You've made a false dichotomy here, resist and be harmed in the fighting or surrender and be preserved, when it will be "surrender and be harmed"

I think the significance of Black Ribbon Day must have escaped some.

In news that should surprise no one, RFK Jr. drops out of the race and endorses Trump, meaning that it's finally Kennedover

Why it should matter to the west (and the rest of the world) is a multi faceted issue. I'll start with what I consider is the gravest issue, of why the West and the rest of the World should care. Especially the MAGA crowd.
In Peter Frankopan's (Director of the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research, University of Oxford) book The Silk Roads which retells the history through the lens of international trade and it's deep impact on historic events, he describes Hitler's goal of conquering Ukraine, being driven by the goal of conquering Europe's breadbasket, and to starve out the USSR completely. Indeed, Ukraine, for all it's internal issues, corruption, etc, Ukraine is the 7th largest exporter of wheat in the world. Australia and US being the top 2 producers respectively. According to the Atlantic Council in 2021 the untapped potential of Ukranian agriculture is staggering, given that it's agricultural technology has not yet caught up with modern techniques and efficiency. Yet despite that, it is still one of the 3 largest producers of soybeans, and sunflower oil.

Ukraine also is one of the largest potential sources of oil and gas with an estimates of 900 billion cubic meters of proven reserves of natural gas. In Europe, Ukraine ranks second for gas reserves. 3 Ukrainian regions contain hydrocarbon resources: the Dnipor-Donetsk basin, the Carpathian region in the west, and the Crimean region in the south. Incidentally, Dnipro-Donetsk basin accounts for 90% of all Ukrainian production. Nearly 90% of the production is natural gas.

Global food insecurity and energy costs is one of the largest reasons for massive upheavals. According to researchers "Researchers have defined an unprecedented global wave of more than 12,500 protests across 148 countries over food, fuel and cost of living increases in 2022. And the largest were in Western Europe."

The Arab Spring was largely driven by sharp increases in food costs, and the impact on the world's food supply through climate change is going to only increase the level of instability all around the world. One study from Kyung Hee University in South Korea, for example, shows that high temperatures during corn growing seasons in sub-Saharan Africa reduced yields and led to a rise in civil conflict.

If Russia succeeded in it's original goal of effectively conquering Ukraine it would have become the #1 exporter of Wheat in the world, it would have become the largest exporter of grains, dominating the global market share. Now how does this affect MAGA.

It is very evident that Russia is more than happy to play it's own game of Hydraulic Despotism. (water in this case being food and energy) for geopolitical purposes. They have threatened to, and have succeeded in, turning off the spigot of gas flows when it was necessary for them to make a change in Europe. They can, if they so choose, greatly undermine any of our allies in the ME, or Asia, by threatening to withhold food shipments. Indeed, I can only imagine what a country like Egypt, which is the 2nd largest importer of wheat, with a population of 200 million, dealing with it's own massive food insecurity issues and an insurgency in the Sinai, would have to deal with if let's say Russia decides to affect the global grain market for it's own purposes.

This is what I don't think MAGA understands. This isn't the world of the early 20th century or the late 19th century where markets were more or less relegated to regions or nations. We live in a global market. A shake up halfway across the world can deeply impact our economy in the US. An interruption to global food supplies would rapidly increase the cost of food in the US. If the cost of groceries is one of the largest drivers of economic outrage towards the Biden administration today, can you imagine if those food costs double or triple in a very short time frame? How would that impact our jobs, our industries?
You can make a strong case that the US can isolate itself – become increasingly more self sufficient, not export and not be part of the global food or energy market. Which would still impact it's economy deeply. But we aren't as isolated as we think, and we have an entire continent to the south of us that is also constantly in a state of conflict and food insecurity.

The Europeans don't have the luxury of having an ocean to the east and west of them, they have a warm-shallow sea to the south, connecting to a continent already food insecure. If Russia should choose so and snap it's fingers it can create a cascade affect that would create a refugee crisis that makes what Europe is going through right now pale in comparison.

We've seen in the 20th century what OPEC can do when it get's pissed off at the Jews. Imagine what Russia can do when it controls even more of strategic and global resources than OPEC could ever imagine.

So to me, the biggest issue is: do you want or trust Russia to have the power to control such a large chunk of the global food, energy, and mineral supply?
Personally, I sure as hell don't. I'd trust the Chinese with that power before I'd trust the Russians.

You're a wannabe terrorist

And good morning to you too, my fascist friend.

who still hasn't answered this bit on the British riots

Hey, what were your thoughts on the 2020 riots in America?

Of course you'd call rule of law 'authoritarianism'

And of course you'd call authoritarianism "rule of law". Why do you take issue with Viktor Orbán again? I think you two would get along very well.

Any line where we can even talk has long been crossed.

That's fair, I'm far past the point of taking you even remotely seriously.

And good morning to you too, my fascist friend.

Don't you know calling others fascist is real fascism? Or are we finally done with that farce?

Hey, what were your thoughts on the 2020 riots in America?

Bad, out of control and politically destructive. Something you'd never admit, problem with your brainless "no you" strategy.

And of course you'd call authoritarianism "rule of law". Why do you take issue with Viktor Orbán again? I think you two would get along very well.

I'm not the one who slobbered over him. Like the taste of that Chinese secret police boot?

That's fair, I'm far past the point of taking you even remotely seriously.

Really? I think is far more your true face than the bullshit your normally spout.

On top of the first reason I outlined above I'll go into one that is less tangible to our daily lives. Since WW2 the global order, seeing how utterly devastating WW1 and WW2 was for the European continent, and the rest of the world, came to realization that we must do everything we can to end war, and especially, on civilians. In this endeavor we sought to create an international system of rules which would, hopefully, minimize the impact of global conflicts on peoples. The cynical side of me would also suggest that the reason we created a lot of these rules was to preserve the now horrifically weakened power of the European colonial order – but that's besides the point. The number one rule that we all strive to achieve is to prevent wars over territorial conquest. That's the biggest taboo. Even when those wars are defensive in nature, conquest of territory over people's sovereignty, is our largest taboo. Every single country's number one goal is the preservation of it's sovereignty and it's borders. Smaller, weaker, countries rely on the rule based order the most, and are willing to rely on Pax-Americana to at least guarantee their survival.

It used to be that smaller, weaker, countries would have no chance over a larger more powerful adversary. Might is Right was the dominant force that gave way to massive empires that were able to swallow up smaller, more decentralized states.

We don't live in that world anymore. We live in a post Nuclear world. We live in a world where a small country can preserve it's existence by the very idea that it has access to a nuclear arsenal. That's horrifying to major power players like China, as an example, and the US. It's also horrifying to the ME countries that hate the shit out of Jews, but strangely stopped waging war on them when it became clear that Israel is now nuclear armed. Nuclear weapons are the perfect shield. We saw the horrors of it's use on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and since then we've only made them larger, and more destructive. Nuclear Non Proliferation is built on the idea that we should prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, in exchange for guaranteeing the sovereignty of those nations.

Indeed, one of the biggest fears and least spoken about accomplishments of the Bush era and the USSR collapse was the fear that the Soviet nuclear stock – distributed across a myriad of countries – would put nuclear weapons into the hands of rogue nations, or even worse, violent and adversarial non-state actors.

Incidentally, we promised Ukraine to exchange it's nuclear weapons for guaranteed safety from Russia and the US. (Look where that got us).
If the international global order is so easily violated. If a country like Russia can conquer it's neighbors, and utilize the threats of nuclear war, you aren't preventing a WW3. You're guaranteeing it. Because this will mean for smaller countries that if they want to survive against the great white sharks in their neighborhood, they will need to go nuclear armed.

I don't think we, in the US or the West, appreciate the privilege of living in such a relatively prosperous, relatively peaceful, times. Since the Cold War ended I think all too many of us take for granted the world order we built around us, and the importance of pax-Americana is for our own prosperity and our safety.

I also think we don't truly understand how much of the world is constantly on the tipping point chaffing against this global order, are eager as hell to go all out conquering each other, ethnic cleansing or genociding each other because of how badly the post-colonial borders were made. Imagine these countries now buying and freely utilizing nuclear weapons to get what they want.

TLDR for Chewybunny (with no intention to disrespect, but it will be in my own words):

There's a moral and rational reason to support Ukraine. The Moralists who aren't are to coin a progressive term "victim-blaming" and the Realpolitikers who aren't are morons.

Did I get that right?

Holy shit this thread is filling up with so many walls of text that i might be able to build a text house with them

Than. Russia. Can. Leave.

Why are you telling it to me like I was the one making the decisions? I'm merely stating why they aren't doing it and why, logically, the WWII comparisons don't make sense. Whether you disagree with the reasoning or not, it doesn't change the facts.

Take a look at any map of the conflict. I suggest DeepStateMAP. Look at the state of the war since October 2023 when the counteroffensive stalled and compare it with the state of the map today. Then go to Settings and activate the "Defence lines" option.

Now tell me, with complete honesty, if you think Ukraine can push through all those defense lines and drive the Russians out of their territory, when they have less soldiers and a heavily depleted army after all the fighting. If you think they can, imagine how many soldiers it would take and how many years of fighting it would mean. I don't know how closely you follow the war, but just watching daily clips published on social media barely starts giving you an idea of how brutal the fighting is.

You seem to imply I'm tacitly supporting the invasion by suggesting Ukraine should surrender. I'm actually asking at which point, pragmatically, the cost of resisting becomes too high. Based on real facts, not on rosy propaganda.

Whether you disagree with the reasoning or not, it doesn't change the facts.

We're right now disagreeing on what you consider the facts, it's why I mentioned the sunk cost fallacy. Yes, we're disagreeing but this isn't some kind of prophesy that the sheep will refuse to see the truth of, as I think you may have been implying when talking about people who "won't see the truth".

You outright partly mentioned WWII about history in one your responses to Wisehowl, you can't be the only who does. That part of history is alive in this conflict.

You seem to imply I'm tacitly supporting the invasion by suggesting Ukraine should surrender.

… Wisehowl has already discussed the issue that what you sometimes say isn't any more free from propaganda. I have already my issues clear with some lines above.

Although I won't lie to you, Spaghetto (who has a … history) and you inadvertently teaming up on Black Ribbon Day set off alarm bells.

I'm actually asking at which point, pragmatically, the cost of resisting becomes too high. Based on real facts, not on rosy propaganda.

Why are you telling it to me like I was the one making the decisions? I'm simply pushing back on arguments, about Russia's reasons which is not strictly about this. if you want to go for the armchair strategist's viewpoint why haven't we gone on the onus of how Russia is in a quagmire, that it can't sustain the losses it's taking everyday and that it's borders. Remember also the prior discussion on Kursk (the popular support you predicted didn't actually materialize, looks like cultivating apathy at a societal level has it's downsides).Fog of war is in effect, but Russia can easily solve it by withdrawing.

Want a cost-benefit analysis? If you want, you can reply to my comment at the top, I'm sure there could actually be an econometric approach about the value of independence and independence wars, based on prior case studies with Russia and other post-colonial nations, and to account with the modern economic system as Chewybunny mentioned.

Sincerely, that could actually be interesting.

Lmao at you calling others fascists
the only thing you do here is downplay and defend every single bad thing the right does

Yep, they realized he wasn't stealing away dem votes so they folded his sockpuppet campaign back into trump's

I would say that the TLDR is that there are tangible reasons such as access and monopolies over strategic resources (food and energy) and what that could mean to global stability, should it fall into the hands of a state like Russia. There is also a broader international order to maintain that, despite what the morality over it is, I think too many people take for granted.

I appeal to the international right who is against Ukraine by highlighting that giving Russia the power to control such a magnitude of the world's food and energy supply, would exacerbate the very things that are currently motivating them: inflation and the economy in North America, and a refugee/immigration crisis in Europe.

I do not appeal to the international left who is against Ukraine because they are driven almost entirely by a luxury ideology, that is, largely anti-Western and anti-Americanism.

I also am not going to go into the more abstract reasons for Russia to invade Ukraine such as historical claims, history, and the desire for Putin and Russia to hold on to not just power, but also the very kind of political system that justifies their power. (This, incidentally, is reflected in China cannot stomaching the idea of a democratic liberal Taiwan as it poses an alternative to the Chinese model for the Chinese).

I can sum it up with this: If the fear for supporting Ukraine is WW3, letting Russia win is a guarantee for an inevitable WW3.

Fair enough, although I wouldn't focus on resources because for the foreseeable future neither Russia or Ukraine or anyone will do much with it, due to the destruction caused. The breakdown on global order is important however, every tinpot dictator & terrorist group (such as in Venezuela) used or plan to use this chaos to enact their power-plays.

Personally, there's a reason why I did not make a left-right distinction, preferring moralists & realpolitik, partially illustrated here. I do not excuse the American Right of this same pettiness , Putin would not have made a call about "immigrating for Russian values" if there weren't takers (as there already has been). However going around the world, realpolitik needs to be rational or they cease being that, while moralists is a coin-toss (I've already described being dismayed by 'anti-imperialists' who were all for Russia's imperialist war).

I can sum it up with this: If the fear for supporting Ukraine is WW3, letting Russia win is a guarantee for an inevitable WW3.

Exactly the issue with appeasement.

EDIT: I upvoted you, so it's not me.

As a note Spaghetto now has 15 total votes for his second comment on this page. As a reminder for the previous page we tended to average 4.

To those who don't know, when I called Spaghetto a cheat it's because I highly suspect he uses alts to manipulate votes. Didn't want to keep on harping about it, but here we are.

If he doesn't respond that everything his opposite said is nonsense, he goes for "no you", and if he doesn't do that he'll go quiet than take time afterwards to shift the votes. As we see here, his 'free speech in action'. No wonder he admires Elon who uses AI to fake videos.

We're right now disagreeing on what you consider the facts, it's why I mentioned the sunk cost fallacy.

It is way too early to tell whether the sunk cost fallacy applies here, because we don't know what kind of resources Russia has and how much longer they can keep going. Anything said would be based purely on wishful thinking.

You outright partly mentioned WWII about history in one your responses to Wisehowl, you can't be the only who does. That part of history is alive in this conflict.

By indirectly addressing the ever present "Putin is the same as Hitler" arguments? Every direct reference to WW2 has been in response to your arguments.

… Wisehowl has already discussed the issue that what you sometimes say isn't any more free from propaganda. I have already my issues clear with some lines above.

I've never stated I'm immune to propaganda. No one is. I simply try to look at things from every side and come up with what I think is the most objective approach. While I make mistakes and errors in judgment from time to time, until I have enough reasons to change my mind I stand by what I've said so far.

Why are you telling it to me like I was the one making the decisions? I'm simply pushing back on arguments, about Russia's reasons which is not strictly about this. if you want to go for the armchair strategist's viewpoint why haven't we gone on the onus of how Russia is in a quagmire, that it can't sustain the losses it's taking everyday and that it's borders.

I am asking what the fundaments for your arguments were when you said Russia cannot be allowed to succeed.

I should ask first, what is your source for the claim that Russia "can't sustain the losses it's taking every day"? Because if you're going by Ukrainian MOD estimates ten I think everything I've said so far has fallen on deaf ears. I would also push back against the "quagmire" narrative when Russian forces are close to entering the Pokrovsk area, which is described as a linchpin for logistics of the AFU in the Donbas. CNN describes it as a "key city" and The Economist as a "vital town" and those are just the latest headlines. The Russians are advancing in the Donbas, slowly but steadily.

Remember also the prior discussion on Kursk (the popular support you predicted didn't actually materialize, looks like cultivating apathy at a societal level has it's downsides).Fog of war is in effect, but Russia can easily solve it by withdrawing.

Are you in Russia or do you have sources inside to make those claims? Or what kind of support were you expecting? As far as I can tell Ukraine is still advancing, albeit at a relatively high cost. Some fairly valuable assets like HIMARS and air defense have been hit, a MiG-29 and several tanks and dozens of IFVs. Assets that could have been used to defend Pokrovsk. I'm still baffled by the Kursk offensive, to be quite honest.

It is way too early to tell whether the sunk cost fallacy applies here, because we don't know what kind of resources Russia has and how much longer they can keep going. Anything said would be based purely on wishful thinking.

Your response doesn't actually refute the sunk cost fallacy. To review what you said:

I did mention that it's just not going to happen. They just can't, once they sent the troops into Kyiv there was no turning back. They've sunk too much into the war to even start considering it. That's just the reality of the situation

That is it's dictionary definition, that you keep going because you invested too much. Whether you have resources to continue to pour in is irrelevant, that's why the Americans and at the time Global Colonial Powers who had comparatively far more resources than Putin's Russia, could still engage in quagmires.

Although, I will pick on your last sentence as a subject on the position on the fog of war.

By indirectly addressing the ever present "Putin is the same as Hitler" arguments? Every direct reference to WW2 has been in response to your arguments.

No, actually. To quote you directly last page:

Maybe also suppress the intensely nationalistic movements within Ukraine, the ones seeking to remove any traces of Russian or Soviet culture and hold members of the OUN as heroes.

That was before we actually interacted with each other for this segment.

I've never stated I'm immune to propaganda. No one is. I simply try to look at things from every side and come up with what I think is the most objective approach. While I make mistakes and errors in judgment from time to time, until I have enough reasons to change my mind I stand by what I've said so far.

.. Sadly, everyone says that.

I am asking what the fundaments for your arguments were when you said Russia cannot be allowed to succeed.

Let's make a trade. You answer in detail first what casus belli Russia has on Ukraine, other than the sunk cost fallacy. I've had glimpses of it, but I want to know clearly who I'm debating. Than I'll answer.

I should ask first, what is your source for the claim that Russia "can't sustain the losses it's taking every day… The Russians are advancing in the Donbas, slowly but steadily.

… Do the lives of the Russians lost in their advance not mean anything to you?

They're advancing at the rate of WWI. To use your own argument, how much would it take to even attempt to take Kyiv again? Kherson? How much to actually take instead them of just destroying like Bakhmut? How much to hold it, how much to guard it considering you mentioned regime change and it may be like Belarus? How many manpower reserves until the actual muscovites? You mentioned the impossibility of the task, do the Russians actually have a pathway to anything?

Are you in Russia or do you have sources inside to make those claims? Or what kind of support were you expecting? As far as I can tell Ukraine is still advancing, albeit at a relatively high cost. Some fairly valuable assets like HIMARS and air defense have been hit, a MiG-29 and several tanks and dozens of IFVs. Assets that could have been used to defend Pokrovsk.I'm still baffled by the Kursk offensive, to be quite honest.

Are you?

You did make the claim first, something very vague about national fervour that would inflame the Russians as it has with Ukraine. Why should I define the extent of your claim? Whatever the case, I think normally that would mean an increase in conscription, partisan attacks, something in interviews than the usual "I don’t know, I don’t care, I don’t follow it”. Seems Kursk has been left to rot by Moscow, considering attempts to present it as a new normal.

Would the resources have been better used for Pokrovsk? We'll have to see, maybe I'll eat my words but fog of war is in full-effect, as you said:
"Anything said would be based purely on wishful thinking"

Hey, Sir Snakeboat this is just to reply to something that was discussed a while ago.

You said something along the lines of how Spaghetto could be using alts if he still gets into the negatives. Well, it's almost always temporary, except when he gets fully bodied (so sometimes here or more often in the main site).

Well now that he's (hopefully) asleep his second comment +8; -9 for -1 on a total of 17 total votes.
He must have really wanted it, but I suppose that was the limit of alts.

We don't have that many people, we just don't. It's not randos (it's too centered a phenomenon on one person), it's not 4chan, it's not any easy explanation that externalizes blame and the issue.
____________________________________

… Now to actually answer what you're responding about.

@KZN02

Vance is a blackhole of charisma, and I don't know why he's being kept in the Trump ticket. He even undercut any pretense of moderation.

That is it's dictionary definition, that you keep going because you invested too much. Whether you have resources to continue to pour in is irrelevant, that's why the Americans and at the time Global Colonial Powers who had comparatively far more resources than Putin's Russia, could still engage in quagmires.

I think you didn't get my point about sunk costs. The explanation is simply that Russia can't pick their bags up and leave, because it would be political suicide. Whether the decision would be rational or not is up for debate. It's impossible to predict accurately simply because we don't have the information. The Russians should know a thing or two about quagmires, they were kicked out of Afghanistan as well.

That was before we actually interacted with each other for this segment.

The OUN operated even before WW2 started. And there is an Ukrainian ultranationalist movement that reveres people like Stepan Bandera. You can see portraits of the guy in the offices of Ukrainian politicians and generals. Russians bring it up for propaganda all the time, but the questionable history behind the movement is completely real. I mentioned Iryna Farion as well. Read the Wikipedia article on her. I don't think it's a reach to think the Russians would want to suppress that movement. Whether you think it's justifiable or not is beside the point.

Let's make a trade. You answer in detail first what casus belli Russia has on Ukraine, other than the sunk cost fallacy. I've had glimpses of it, but I want to know clearly who I'm debating. Than I'll answer.

If you mean geopolitically, it's most likely about control of Crimea and the Black Sea being threatened. What territory was annexed by Russia in 2014? It's no secret that Ukraine has been very focused on trying to push Russia out, the entire 2023 counteroffensive being about cutting through the defenses into Mariupol, destroy the Kerch bridge and isolate the peninsula.

It's also worth noting that the one thing both sides are adamant on is Ukraine's NATO membership. You may think it's about Article 5 and Ukraine not being invaded in the future, but why did Russia not make a fuss about Finland joining NATO? I think it's more about the US Navy having a permanent base on Sevastopol. Putin betting on ousting the Ukraine government and placing one that constitutionally guaranteed no NATO membership, thus no risk of retaking Crimea, sounds to me like the most logical reason for the invasion. Which again, the legality or morality are completely beside the point. I'm not bringing it up to justify it, if that's why you're implying.

… Do the lives of the Russians lost in their advance not mean anything to you?

They do. Which is why I'm wondering what would be the point at which the war should be stopped. I just see it much more likely that Ukraine will be the one forced to take the decision, not Russia.

They're advancing at the rate of WWI. To use your own argument, how much would it take to even attempt to take Kyiv again? Kherson? How much to actually take instead them of just destroying like Bakhmut? How much to hold it, how much to guard it considering you mentioned regime change and it may be like Belarus? How many manpower reserves until the actual muscovites? You mentioned the impossibility of the task, do the Russians actually have a pathway to anything?

That is actually a very good question. DeepState doesn't mark Ukrainian defenses, but from other mappers I've seen, the Ukrainian defenses get less dense the further west you go, because Ukraine had been digging trenches and fortifications in the Donbas as far back as 2014. Thing is, instead of maneuver warfare, Russia is using attrition war tactics, because the terrain, fortifications and technology don't allow for any big maneuvers. That's the big difference between something like Kursk and the Donbas. In attrition war you keep your forces within defensive artillery range, bomb the hell out of everything first and then advance slowly and methodically, first with small unit tactics to secure footholds, then bring in more troops, with many shallow advances across the front rather than one big push. And the goal is to slowly degrade the combat capability of the enemy. When one side gets enough manpower and material advantage, the lines can start to be broken through, because the enemy can no longer defend them. The side with more manpower reserves and a stronger industrial base, as well as the willingness to sacrifice them, always has the advantage. See where this is going?

You did make the claim first, something very vague about national fervour that would inflame the Russians as it has with Ukraine. Why should I define the extent of your claim? Whatever the case, I think normally that would mean an increase in conscription, partisan attacks, something in interviews than the usual "I don’t know, I don’t care, I don’t follow it”.

I said there was a possibility, because an attack from a perceived foreign enemy has a tendency of uniting people against it. Imagine if during the Iraq War, a fairly unpopular war in the US, Saddam had launched missiles into US territory. Wouldn't that be enough to turn some moderates and detractors into supporting the war? This is also why the Russians have played up the historical memory of the Battle of Kursk, "Once again enemy tanks are rolling into Kursk, foreign invaders are attacking for the first time since WWII". Whether that is working or not, I cannot say. I do not live in Russia and I don't particularly care for interviews that can be easily cherrypicked by media supporting either side.

Seems Kursk has been left to rot by Moscow, considering attempts to present it as a new normal

Because, strategically, they don't have a reason to stop it. By nature, offensive operations tend to have a higher cost than defensive ones. In manpower, fuel, ammunition and casualties. The further you advance, the further you need to stretch your supply lines, the more difficult it is to rotate troops and evacuate casualties. For the attacker it is important to keep advancing, for example, in order to secure new logistic hubs, but ultimately there has to be an strategic goal in mind. As in Pokrovsk, where the goal is to remove the logistic hub for Slovianksk, Kramatorsk and most of the southeast of Donbas.

In Kursk there is no such logical strategic goal. If the Ukrainian goal was to lure Russian forces away from the Donbas, and the Russians instead keep the Ukrainian forces tied up in Kursk with the bare minimum of reserves, while they keep the momentum elsewhere, it would not make sense to change the strategy, no matter how bad it may look to the public in Russia to have Ukrainians roaming around Kursk, or how disastrous it is for the displaced civilians.

Would the resources have been better used for Pokrovsk? We'll have to see, maybe I'll eat my words but fog of war is in full-effect, as you said:
"Anything said would be based purely on wishful thinking"

Not wishful thinking, it's basic military logic. The 47th Mechanized Brigade was achieving some pretty good results in the southeast with their Western equipment and tactics. For example, the Russians would storm a location and the 47th would attempt to flank them and inflict casualties before retreating. Now they've been redeployed into Kursk where they're taking casualties from Lancets and drones, for what is to me still an unclear purpose, while the Russians keep advancing elsewhere. Maybe they're making some sort of brilliant 4D chess play I'm way too dumb to understand, but I guess time will tell.

Vance is being kept in because at this point he's stuck due to most states' election laws. The only way to replace him would be to disqualify himself via the 20th after being VP-elect.

Just replace Trump already. He is too old to take care of everything.

I may focus on the tactical details you brought up later, but I was always more interesting in the reasoning first and foremost. I've read all of it.

I think you didn't get my point about sunk costs. The explanation is simply that Russia can't pick their bags up and leave, because it would be political suicide.Whether the decision would be rational or not is up for debate. It's impossible to predict accurately simply because we don't have the information. The Russians should know a thing or two about quagmires, they were kicked out of Afghanistan as well.

Once again, that doesn't mean it isn't sunk cost fallacy. The logical fallacy behind it is, just that. There is no mitigating circumstances, no explanations or justifications, nor vagueness here because that was your explanation, and that explanation was:

They just can't, once they sent the troops into Kyiv there was no turning back. They've sunk too much into the war to even start considering it.

"The Sunk Cost Fallacy is our tendency to follow through on something that we’ve already invested heavily in (be it time, money, effort, emotional energy, etc.), even when giving up is clearly a better idea."

As facts go, than that is a baseline. Hell, note that the even when giving up is clearly a better idea isn't central. During the war against terror the Americans lost far less than the Russians, but the central issue is they couldn't figure out a reason why they were invading anymore other than "because they were already there".

Whether you think it's justifiable or not is beside the point.

I brought it up, because you said to not go for WWII. Your arguments are even older than that, nothing more, nothing less.

Black Sea

Russia is boxed into the Black Sea and has stripped itself of many of the trade links that maritime access allows, and has even some of it's Black Sea Navy in the prosecution of it's war. The value of the described goal is nonsensical in comparison to it's cost and how it's value is undermined by the means. Not a good ROI, and that's not even counting the legal and economic limbo for Russia creating another 'Gray Zone' of such a size and it's associated costs to them.

"I want that land" is also not an acceptable cassus belli and is base imperialism, thus your argument that it wasn't imperialism but something vague, more complex and justified is false. It's a crass resource grab that you tried to criticize, it's disappointing and why I preferred national defense.

They do. Which is why I'm wondering what would be the point at which the war should be stopped. I just see it much more likely that Ukraine will be the one forced to take the decision, not Russia.

This was the answer I was looking for, thank you. I suspected it for a while, out of 2 possible options, so at least it was the least onerous one. I simply wish you had said it sooner. Here's an issue which percolates with the rest of the analysis; I think you miscalculated.

With a focus on the tactical level instead of the political and strategic level, which is strange considering the subject was partially on 'Western Support'. Unclear and changing self-destructive territorial claims & dreams of empire (or chauvinist hatred of Ukraine and allies) and desperation to survive his own war for Putin is Russia's reasons. When I said earlier that fanaticism turns in nihilism quickly, I meant it. Many of the Russian propagandists who were fervent in non-leader roles, are dead or disgraced now. The sunk cost fallacy seems to be the main motivator left. Defense is a more reliable motivation.

Industrial bases & manpower in comparison to what? Do you think the 'West' will ever recognize Russia's territorial claims (the Eastern Europeans certainly won't)? When exactly did Russia think it would end this war? When Putin says he's "at war with NATO", the actual implications beyond just propaganda to soothe Russians doesn't seem to have truly sunk in, while defense of Ukraine is paramount, did you think that would be the end even in the event of failure? No, to go for WWII this is Hitler thinking he can demand peace terms after getting control of mainland Europe. That's not even going for the issue of those who will copy Russia.

Russia withdraws and the situation de-escalates, Russia advance and the situation escalates. If you truly care about civilians, remember that.

Or to quote Chewybunny, but in a different way:
"I can sum it up with this: If the fear for supporting Ukraine is WW3, letting Russia win is a guarantee for an inevitable WW3."

Once again, that doesn't mean it isn't sunk cost fallacy.

And once again, it's irrelevant if you don't know the costs incurred or the potential outcome. Even if Russia was losing catastrophically, which I don't believe it is, it would be in their best interest to push for negotiations and keep as much leverage as they can for them, not just cut and run. Which is, incidentally, one of the explanations for what Ukraine is doing in Kursk that I keep seeing floating around.

Russia is boxed into the Black Sea and has stripped itself of many of the trade links that maritime access allows, and has even some of it's Black Sea Navy in the prosecution of it's war.

Trade is one thing. Permanent NATO access to the Black Sea and its ports is another.

Let me give you a small example. A single Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has the Aegis anti-air/anti-ballistic missile system with a listed range of 370km and launchers for BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a range well above 1,000km for most variants, including those with nuclear warheads. And there's 73 of them active in the US Navy. Now imagine having at least some of them permanently stationed in the Black Sea, along with other assets, including land weapons that could be stationed inside Ukraine. Not in remote places like the Baltics or Finland where logistics aren't the easiest, but in what's essentially the doorway into Europe. That's the kind of balance of power shifts that have to be considered, not just raw resources or land by itself.

Industrial bases & manpower in comparison to what? Do you think the 'West' will ever recognize Russia's territorial claims (the Eastern Europeans certainly won't)? When exactly did Russia think it would end this war?

In comparison to Ukraine, of course. You can send all the tanks in the world, all the artillery guns and all the fighter aircraft. They don't mean a thing without the people to operate them. People need to be trained, at the very least for several months and the longer the fighting goes on, the less people who are able and willing there will be. Russia has the same problem, obviously, but they also have the bigger population. The only real solution is NATO troops, but that would be extremely unpopular in the countries and a fast ticket into WWIII.

Do you think the 'West' will ever recognize Russia's territorial claims (the Eastern Europeans certainly won't)?

At some point the war has to end and internationally-accepted lines have to be drawn. Zelenskyy has already mentioned that the war can't go on for years and that there need to be negotiations at some point. The question being where is that point and what is the price to be paid for reaching it.