Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[kirku 1,334]

33 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Anyone else feel or think the same?

Timeline wise, I've got absolutely no idea. I could see the logic for the 9th of May, which turned out to be a fuss about nothing.

I agree with you on the broad themes, though. But it's very hard to draw clear strategic conclusions from what's happening at the moment, whereas earlier in the invasion it was clearer: e.g the battle of Kyiv.

We currently see massed Russian forces using slow creeping long-range firepower to level towns and small cities and then declare victory over the rubble. What many predicted as a 2022 version of Kursk more closely resembles Verdun.

In addition to the desperate attempts to recruit more Russian soldiers, we've also seen them pull absolutely antiquated armour out of storage and to the frontline. T-62 tanks being the most obvious example. It's going to be hard for them to conduct the types of advances needed if their forces have been reduced to that level.

What felt a few weeks ago like meaningful Russian progress now looks less ominous. I'm sure the emotional pendulum has plenty more swings left, mind.

I thought I'd end with a pretty picture, which neatly sums up the more optimistic view of the situation:

 

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

I'm quite sure that many of us are familiar with the writings of Kant, if not so much with your shallow understanding of them, to say nothing of your application of them to this particular issue.

Then you will have no problem explaining Kant's view on the principle, that if you will the end you must will the means to that end. So rather than demonstrate the idiocy of the rest of your post I will let you answer that one question. Meanwhile I will refresh my own "shallow" understanding of Kant by re-reading the PhD I wrote (largely) about Kant. In the meantime I'll let the panel of 5 expert academics know that you think my understanding of Kant is "shallow"; I'm sure they will be grateful for your advice on where they went wrong in passing my PhD first time without the need for one word of correction. Looking forward to your in-depth analysis and explanation of Kant's theory.

Bullsh-t!

So we're back to that, "if you will the end, you must will the means" quote now, are we? All these variables of the "theory" you present suggest that you might need to refer back to that PhD of yours to get some clarity.

All that boastful, self-promoting dialogue does is suggest a growing desperation that requires the need to such add weight to an argument that has been misplaced from the outset. If, indeed, there's any truth in it all.  

I'm quite sure that few on here will be the slightest bit impressed by your Melvyn Bragg act, especially as it has been applied as just a confused and pettifogging attempt at trying never to be in the wrong. 

I am also quite sure that many of us on this forum have high levels of qualification in our own fields that we could show pony on this football forum the way you seem to have a need to. Being more socially aware, within the context of that forum, though, they never do. Ego tripping never comes over well.

It's just not appropriate, in the same way that the constant peddling of personal insults never is. Both slightly embarrassing, actually. 

A man apart.

   

Edited June 1, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

Bullsh-t!

So we're back to that, "if you will the end, you must will the means" quote now, are we? All these variables of the "theory" you present suggest that you might need to refer back to that PhD of yours to get some clarity.

All that boastful, self-promoting dialogue does is suggest a growing desperation that requires the need to such add weight to an argument that has been misplaced from the outset. If, indeed, there's any truth in it all.  

I'm quite sure that few on here will be the slightest bit impressed by your Melvyn Bragg act, especially as it has been applied as just a confused and pettifogging attempt at trying never to be in the wrong. 

I am also quite sure that many of us on this forum have high levels of qualification in our own fields that we could show pony on this football forum the way you seem to have a need to. Being more socially aware, within the context of that forum, though, they never do. Ego tripping never comes over well.

It's just not appropriate, in the same way that the constant peddling of personal insults never is. Both slightly embarrassing, actually. 

A man apart.

   

I asked you a very simple question. It was you that said that my understanding of Kant is superficial, and you that implied you know that Kant didn't really mean that you must will the means if you will the end when he said, "You must will the means if you will the end" So, instead of entertaining your attempt to distract from that question with your standard abuse filled rant, I will wait for your in-depth analysis of Kant. Or is it the case you haven't got a word to say in defence of your very obvious lie that you are "familiar" with the work of Kant?

This is not some arcane academic issue, as you disgracefully try to justify with your standard ad hominem ranting. The principle of willing the means if you will the end is fundamental to the case to be made for providing Ukraine with the military and political support it needs in resisting the invasion of their land. It is precisely the principle that must be invoked by our own government (and others) in justifying to its own population why they should pay billions for such support, and also endure the hardships that come with imposing sanctions. Now try answering the question for once.

[Indy 3,301]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

I really don't get why you think Russia would commit suicide by declaring war on NATO. Do you really believe that occupying the Donbass region would take priority over preventing the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city?

If Ukraine were to cede the Donbass region to Russia the very obvious likelihood would be that Russia would saturate that area with multiple tens of thousands of Russian troops, supplied with massive quantities of weaponry, including thermobaric and nuclear. That would provide the perfect strategic base for further incursions into Ukraine and other countries such as Moldova. Ukraine and its allies recognise that to allow this freely to happen would be an utter disaster, and must be resisted despite the human costs. While Ukraine continues to fight in the Donbass region they seriously undermine Russia's attempt to build that area into a strategic military base. 

Diplomacy quite obviously would be the preferred option; that was the whole point of the Minsk protocols that Russia has so brutally transgressed. The "way out" you don't seem to envision is that Ukraine continues to resist the annexation of their territory in a war of attrition, and Russia comes to the realisation that its attempt to annex another country's sovereign land is not worth the cost it is paying. There are various ways in which that might play out, including, for example, the overthrowing of Putin by a coup of military chiefs who refuse to allow the continued mass sacrifice of their troops for an unjustified cause. Or the Russian people themselves might make clear they can no longer accept the costs of such a futile war (see Afghanistan for something similar). Clearly none of us knows how this war will eventually play out, but it is hard to see how Ukraine has any other rational (or moral) option at this moment other than to continue the fight for the integrity of their country's land and borders.

 

Do you really think Putin will allow anything other than taking in Donbas as his victory? I don’t see anyway where Ukraine can take that region back, without a massive change in weapons being more offensive type equipment. Once Russia have control then I’m sure negotiations will start again!

Not what anyone wants but the scenario which is the most likely outcome in my opinion.

As for Putin not going nuclear! No one thought he’d invade all of Ukraine! He’s at the end of his time, he knows this and the more he’s pushed the more likely he will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, I have no doubts he would if needed, how the rest of the world reacts will dictate how far it all could go! If you really think tactical nukes won’t be used then I hope you’re right, I just don’t see it ending very well, certainly not as you and some others think it will, Russia are in the Donbas for the long term, so until a change in leadership in Russia happens it’s going to be a long and precarious time to come, in my opinion.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

 

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

I asked you a very simple question. It was you that said that my understanding of Kant is superficial, and you that implied you know that Kant didn't really mean that you must will the means if you will the end when he said, "You must will the means if you will the end" So, instead of entertaining your attempt to distract from that question with your standard abuse filled rant, I will wait for your in-depth analysis of Kant. Or is it the case you haven't got a word to say in defence of your very obvious lie that you are "familiar" with the work of Kant?

This is not some arcane academic issue, as you disgracefully try to justify with your standard ad hominem ranting. The principle of willing the means if you will the end is fundamental to the case to be made for providing Ukraine with the military and political support it needs in resisting the invasion of their land. It is precisely the principle that must be invoked by our own government (and others) in justifying to its own population why they should pay billions for such support, and also endure the hardships that come with imposing sanctions. Now try answering the question for once.

Yeah, yeah. More keyboard diarrhoea with yet more of the same.

"I asked you a very simple question. It was you that said that my understanding of Kant is superficial......"

Don't bother,  the cat's out of the bag now. I was getting increasingly puzzled as to why you had the consistent need to apply   reasoning in some pseudo-intellectual manner to the use of the word "telling," when it clearly made no sense, especially with the added flaw of inconsistency.

Evoking the thoughts of Kant was over-egging, even by your usual standards. Now it seems the reality is that you saw an opportunity to direct the conversation, however ridiculous it had become, towards your need to blow your own trumpet. Nothing new there. You derailed the debate because you sensed the opportunity to preen.

Now you have decided to apply the same logic  to the matter of supplying Ukraine with support in order to maintain your momentum. You clearly seem to feel you are on a roll.

In that case, is willing the means (the supply of arms) if you will the end (Ukraine's victory) supposed to be revelatory or anything other than stating the obvious? There's no in depth analysis of Kant needed there. Does it have any real connection with your nitpicking over your use of the word "telling" though, or is it a case of you just getting carried away with your own verbosity again?

Perhaps you could start a new trend by applying  Kantian philosophy to every single issue presented on this forum, no matter how trivial. It might well go down better than a lot of your usual guff.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

55 minutes ago, Indy said:

Do you really think Putin will allow anything other than taking in Donbas as his victory? I don’t see anyway where Ukraine can take that region back, without a massive change in weapons being more offensive type equipment. Once Russia have control then I’m sure negotiations will start again!

Not what anyone wants but the scenario which is the most likely outcome in my opinion.

As for Putin not going nuclear! No one thought he’d invade all of Ukraine! He’s at the end of his time, he knows this and the more he’s pushed the more likely he will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, I have no doubts he would if needed, how the rest of the world reacts will dictate how far it all could go! If you really think tactical nukes won’t be used then I hope you’re right, I just don’t see it ending very well, certainly not as you and some others think it will, Russia are in the Donbas for the long term, so until a change in leadership in Russia happens it’s going to be a long and precarious time to come, in my opinion.

 I was positive he was going to invade all of Ukraine as soon as he started building troops and I remained convinced he was going to even while he was lying to the world that he was withdrawing troops from the border. He's a liar, a crook, a thief, and a bully, but like I said, the day he makes a nuclear strike order is the day his own administration removes him.

[Indy 3,301]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 I was positive he was going to invade all of Ukraine as soon as he started building troops and I remained convinced he was going to even while he was lying to the world that he was withdrawing troops from the border. He's a liar, a crook, a thief, and a bully, but like I said, the day he makes a nuclear strike order is the day his own administration removes him.

I wasn’t and I was more convinced he’d go after Donbas, he totally misjudged the response and he’s now at a point of no return other than taking Donbas. He doesn’t have the resources to go further and it’ll take years to build up, years he doesn’t have.

As for thinking his administration would remove him, don’t be so sure, he’s surrounded himself by hard liners, those who question him aren’t there, it would take a monumental turn in the population to see that happen! Time will tell but more people in power are now looking the scenario I’ve said from the start as the catalyst for talks and the point of a ceasefire! We shall see, not that I think it’s right but it’s the probable outcome short term.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

22 minutes ago, Indy said:

I wasn’t and I was more convinced he’d go after Donbas, he totally misjudged the response and he’s now at a point of no return other than taking Donbas. He doesn’t have the resources to go further and it’ll take years to build up, years he doesn’t have.

As for thinking his administration would remove him, don’t be so sure, he’s surrounded himself by hard liners, those who question him aren’t there, it would take a monumental turn in the population to see that happen! Time will tell but more people in power are now looking the scenario I’ve said from the start as the catalyst for talks and the point of a ceasefire! We shall see, not that I think it’s right but it’s the probable outcome short term.

The EU is weak regarding Russia because it is dependent on Russian gas; I suspect the German chancellor would secretly kiss Viktor Orban for getting a complete ban of Russian oil and gas off the EU table given its own dependence.

The US has no such dependence though and, actually Putin's war is the biggest present he could give Biden in terms of destroying Donald Trump's prospects. The US is committed and so the long as the US is committed, so are we. And the EU definitely won't resist US efforts to contain Russia, because the further west Russia expands, the more Russia becomes a threat to more and more EU countries.

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Indy 3,301]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The EU is weak regarding Russia because it is dependent on Russian gas; I suspect the German chancellor would secretly kiss Viktor Orban for getting a complete ban of Russian oil and gas off the EU table given its own dependence.

The US has no such dependence though and, actually Putin's war is the biggest present he could give Biden in terms of destroying Donald Trump's prospects. The US is committed and so the long as the US is committed, so are we.

As I’ve stated, the US is making a mint out of this war, they can afford to be in this long term and we can’t! It won’t be the US who brokers any deal it’ll be the EU most likely Turkey and the UN! 
The longer the US dictate the arms the longer and more hostile Putin will become! That’s the truth in my view, peace will only come from a compromise or it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Add to the war the realistic cost to the global economy, India not releasing grains means that price of wheat and other grain has risen 30% and forecast to be very much higher! The world is under pressure this year and governments will start to believe that a compromise to end this war for the good of the rest of the world will take effect! Orban has the best interests of Hungary in his mind and rightly so, no country should be dictated to otherwise it’s as bad as having another’s countries dictator telling you what you should be doing!

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

As I’ve stated, the US is making a mint out of this war, they can afford to be in this long term and we can’t! It won’t be the US who brokers any deal it’ll be the EU most likely Turkey and the UN! 
The longer the US dictate the arms the longer and more hostile Putin will become! That’s the truth in my view, peace will only come from a compromise or it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Add to the war the realistic cost to the global economy, India not releasing grains means that price of wheat and other grain has risen 30% and forecast to be very much higher! The world is under pressure this year and governments will start to believe that a compromise to end this war for the good of the rest of the world will take effect! Orban has the best interests of Hungary in his mind and rightly so, no country should be dictated to otherwise it’s as bad as having another’s countries dictator telling you what you should be doing!

The Russian arms manufacturers making the rockets that are razing Eastern Ukraine to the ground are also making a mint out of this war, as are those making the bullets used by Russian soldiers to execute unarmed Ukrainian civilians. Providing weapons to a nation victim to these actions counts as positively ethical arms dealing in my book, seeing as the only people killed by them will be Russian soldiers. 

Arms are necessary in war and Putin started this war where Russian soldiers are committing war crimes against Ukrainian civilians on a daily basis. Many of them aren't even allegations, but already provable fact. 

It's not the US' fault that Putin invaded Ukraine; this is Putin's war. And Russia will only be interested in any deals when it's desperate enough to be looking for a way out, which means continuing to tighten the sanctions and arming Ukraine to hell and back to make that happen. 

I'm entertained that you're prioritising the global economy making money over sanctioning Russia for it's illegal and unprovoked invasion, and accompanying war crimes. How very neoliberal of you. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

Yeah, yeah. More keyboard diarrhoea with yet more of the same.

"I asked you a very simple question. It was you that said that my understanding of Kant is superficial......"

Don't bother,  the cat's out of the bag now. I was getting increasingly puzzled as to why you had the consistent need to apply   reasoning in some pseudo-intellectual manner to the use of the word "telling," when it clearly made no sense, especially with the added flaw of inconsistency.

Evoking the thoughts of Kant was over-egging, even by your usual standards. Now it seems the reality is that you saw an opportunity to direct the conversation, however ridiculous it had become, towards your need to blow your own trumpet. Nothing new there. You derailed the debate because you sensed the opportunity to preen.

Now you have decided to apply the same logic  to the matter of supplying Ukraine with support in order to maintain your momentum. You clearly seem to feel you are on a roll.

In that case, is willing the means (the supply of arms) if you will the end (Ukraine's victory) supposed to be revelatory or anything other than stating the obvious? There's no in depth analysis of Kant needed there. Does it have any real connection with your nitpicking over your use of the word "telling" though, or is it a case of you just getting carried away with your own verbosity again?

Perhaps you could start a new trend by applying  Kantian philosophy to every single issue presented on this forum, no matter how trivial. It might well go down better than a lot of your usual guff.

 

 

So just more ad hominem tripe because yet again you have been caught out as a fraud. Not a word in defence of your entirely spurious claims. You really are a pathetic old man who simply can't face up to the reality that your poor knowledge of issues is repeatedly exposed. So unless you wish to make good your claim that you have a superior knowledge of Kant, I suggest you shut up and let others discuss the actual issues.

BTW perhaps you might like to take note that Biden has just agreed to supply Ukraine with medium range MRLs, precisely because he understands that you can't claim to support the end of Ukrainian resistance without supporting the means to that end. Of course, that's likely to be a bit too highbrow for you to understand.

[horsefly 4,301]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

Do you really think Putin will allow anything other than taking in Donbas as his victory? I don’t see anyway where Ukraine can take that region back, without a massive change in weapons being more offensive type equipment. Once Russia have control then I’m sure negotiations will start again!

Not what anyone wants but the scenario which is the most likely outcome in my opinion.

As for Putin not going nuclear! No one thought he’d invade all of Ukraine! He’s at the end of his time, he knows this and the more he’s pushed the more likely he will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, I have no doubts he would if needed, how the rest of the world reacts will dictate how far it all could go! If you really think tactical nukes won’t be used then I hope you’re right, I just don’t see it ending very well, certainly not as you and some others think it will, Russia are in the Donbas for the long term, so until a change in leadership in Russia happens it’s going to be a long and precarious time to come, in my opinion.

Do you really think Putin will allow anything other than taking in Donbas as his victory? I don’t see anyway where Ukraine can take that region back, without a massive change in weapons being more offensive type equipment. Once Russia have control then I’m sure negotiations will start again!

Why would the Ukraine and its allies allow Putin that victory? Of course he wants it, but the whole point of the Ukrainian resistance is to not allow it. The war is likely to be long and attritional precisely to deny Russia any settled occupation of that region. This is why they have moved to a counter-attacking strategy, according to Sky News defence strategy expert professor Michael Clarke. Biden has now agreed to supply medium range MLRs about which Clarke has said, "the weapons could be a "game changer" for Ukraine and give them a "real chance" of fighting Kremlin forces to a standstill. When we think about weapon systems we often talk about game changers. If the Ukrainians get enough of these soon enough they will be a game changer because they can compete with Russian artillery, which is the Russian strong suit," he said. The Russians are really good with artillery, they use an awful lot. If the Ukrainians keep their artillery away then their other military virtues can come through and they have a real chance of fighting the Russians to a standstill. The defence analyst went on to say the M142 high mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS), which is among the weapons the US will send to Ukraine, is "extremely accurate".

As for Putin not going nuclear! No one thought he’d invade all of Ukraine! He’s at the end of his time, he knows this and the more he’s pushed the more likely he will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, I have no doubts he would if needed, how the rest of the world reacts will dictate how far it all could go!

I'm with LYB on this. I don't think anyone thought he wouldn't invade the whole of Ukraine, having built up circa 150,000 troops along the border, including Ukraine's border with Belarus. If things get so bad that Putin orders the use of tactical nuclear weapons then that will be the signal that he has already lost, because the response from Ukraine and supporting countries would be devastating. You seem to have a lot of confidence that military leaders would simply obey the orders of a failed leader on his last legs. 

Russia are in the Donbas for the long term, so until a change in leadership in Russia happens it’s going to be a long and precarious time to come, in my opinion.

Indeed, and the Ukraine with the support of its allies will also be there for a long time, never allowing Russia to settle. In all likelihood it will turn out to be another Afghanistan that sees Russia's troops completely demoralised and its expansionist ambitions humbled.

I completely understand your desire to see peace Indy, but just don't see Ukraine ever accepting that the sacrifice of their sovereign territory in the Donbass is a price they are prepared to pay for that peace. Neither do I think any of the western powers could tolerate such a victory for Putin that would seriously destabilise Europe for decades to come. They made an enormous error in letting him annex the Crimea with barely a whimper; I don't think they will repeat that mistake again. Sadly I don't think anyone possesses a genuine plan for how this war can be ended diplomatically as things currently stand. Alas, many more blows will be traded before one side decides it can no longer sustain the losses (militarily, financially, politically and otherwise) that this conflict has caused. 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

So just more ad hominem tripe because yet again you have been caught out as a fraud. Not a word in defence of your entirely spurious claims. You really are a pathetic old man who simply can't face up to the reality that your poor knowledge of issues is repeatedly exposed. So unless you wish to make good your claim that you have a superior knowledge of Kant, I suggest you shut up and let others discuss the actual issues.

BTW perhaps you might like to take note that Biden has just agreed to supply Ukraine with medium range MRLs, precisely because he understands that you can't claim to support the end of Ukrainian resistance without supporting the means to that end. Of course, that's likely to be a bit too highbrow for you to understand.

Well those first three lines contain just the usual self-demeaning diatribe of abuse which, as usual, is more revealing of your own inadequacies than anything else. 

Please state exactly where I claimed to have this "superior knowledge" of Kant when, as I recall, I merely stated that I should imagine that 'most of us {on this forum} are familiar'  with the writings of Kant." Quite some distance from "a superior knowledge, don't you think? Do really need to make things up now?

In actual fact I know precious little of it, my familiarity is limited, and why should it be otherwise? It is neither my field, nor my interest. Others will likely know more.

You are the one who claims to be an advanced scholar of the subject yet all you manage to come up with, and with an appalling consistency, is this one-liner which states that if you have the "will" you must also have the "means" as if it is some sort of intellectual chestnut reserved for the few, when in actual fact it amounts to nothing more than stating the obvious. 

I might know little of Kant's writings, but I do know he had more depth than that.

Now, you've just done it again by relating the gem to Biden's latest arms provision, and then lauding it as something 'highbrow.' If that's all it takes to achieve a PhD in that particular field, then we might as well all go for one.

Btw. What did happen to Jock?

Edited June 1, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Indy 3,301]

30 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Do you really think Putin will allow anything other than taking in Donbas as his victory? I don’t see anyway where Ukraine can take that region back, without a massive change in weapons being more offensive type equipment. Once Russia have control then I’m sure negotiations will start again!

Why would the Ukraine and its allies allow Putin that victory? Of course he wants it, but the whole point of the Ukrainian resistance is to not allow it. The war is likely to be long and attritional precisely to deny Russia any settled occupation of that region. This is why they have moved to a counter-attacking strategy, according to Sky News defence strategy expert professor Michael Clarke. Biden has now agreed to supply medium range MLRs about which Clarke has said, "the weapons could be a "game changer" for Ukraine and give them a "real chance" of fighting Kremlin forces to a standstill. When we think about weapon systems we often talk about game changers. If the Ukrainians get enough of these soon enough they will be a game changer because they can compete with Russian artillery, which is the Russian strong suit," he said. The Russians are really good with artillery, they use an awful lot. If the Ukrainians keep their artillery away then their other military virtues can come through and they have a real chance of fighting the Russians to a standstill. The defence analyst went on to say the M142 high mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS), which is among the weapons the US will send to Ukraine, is "extremely accurate".

As for Putin not going nuclear! No one thought he’d invade all of Ukraine! He’s at the end of his time, he knows this and the more he’s pushed the more likely he will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, I have no doubts he would if needed, how the rest of the world reacts will dictate how far it all could go!

I'm with LYB on this. I don't think anyone thought he wouldn't invade the whole of Ukraine, having built up circa 150,000 troops along the border, including Ukraine's border with Belarus. If things get so bad that Putin orders the use of tactical nuclear weapons then that will be the signal that he has already lost, because the response from Ukraine and supporting countries would be devastating. You seem to have a lot of confidence that military leaders would simply obey the orders of a failed leader on his last legs. 

Russia are in the Donbas for the long term, so until a change in leadership in Russia happens it’s going to be a long and precarious time to come, in my opinion.

Indeed, and the Ukraine with the support of its allies will also be there for a long time, never allowing Russia to settle. In all likelihood it will turn out to be another Afghanistan that sees Russia's troops completely demoralised and its expansionist ambitions humbled.

I completely understand your desire to see peace Indy, but just don't see Ukraine ever accepting that the sacrifice of their sovereign territory in the Donbass is a price they are prepared to pay for that peace. Neither do I think any of the western powers could tolerate such a victory for Putin that would seriously destabilise Europe for decades to come. They made an enormous error in letting him annex the Crimea with barely a whimper; I don't think they will repeat that mistake again. Sadly I don't think anyone possesses a genuine plan for how this war can be ended diplomatically as things currently stand. Alas, many more blows will be traded before one side decides it can no longer sustain the losses (militarily, financially, politically and otherwise) that this conflict has caused. 

 

We shall see Horsey, I would love it to go into a total withdrawal, but as of an hour ago, Russian response is to go into next phase sabre rattling mode with more nuclear manoeuvres! The warnings there and I fully expect that once the midrange weapons are used, Russia will respond in kind and more! Destroying more of Ukraine.
In addition we have the next threat of Boris now testing the waters by implying we are thinking of sending in the Navy to allow the grain out of Ukraine! It’s escalating to a point where there will be no dialogue but massive conflict and I don’t have your confidence in Russians turning on Putin if he orders nuclear weapons, tactical field weapons or worse! I think there’s enough brain washing now to say there’s no one left to say no! 
Time will tell, but I’m not as confident in the outcome you seem to portray, your narrative is only true if we’re dealing with a sane man with a future, we’re not, we are dealing with an out of date old governance of Kremlin cronies with absolutely nothing to lose now! Dangerous!

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

We shall see Horsey, I would love it to go into a total withdrawal, but as of an hour ago, Russian response is to go into next phase sabre rattling mode with more nuclear manoeuvres! The warnings there and I fully expect that once the midrange weapons are used, Russia will respond in kind and more! Destroying more of Ukraine.
In addition we have the next threat of Boris now testing the waters by implying we are thinking of sending in the Navy to allow the grain out of Ukraine! It’s escalating to a point where there will be no dialogue but massive conflict and I don’t have your confidence in Russians turning on Putin if he orders nuclear weapons, tactical field weapons or worse! I think there’s enough brain washing now to say there’s no one left to say no! 
Time will tell, but I’m not as confident in the outcome you seem to portray, your narrative is only true if we’re dealing with a sane man with a future, we’re not, we are dealing with an out of date old governance of Kremlin cronies with absolutely nothing to lose now! Dangerous!

It certainly is a dangerous situation, but I suspect the western powers have calculated it is far more dangerous to allow Putin a victory. It's no surprise that Putin has organised nuclear manoeuvres as a rather crass attempt to threaten nuclear holocaust if he doesn't get his way.  The west will not be impressed by that threat, as it relies on the Russian military being prepared to exchange a brief sojourn in the Donbass for the potential annihilation of every major Russian city. It should be noted that the hugely embarrassing withdrawal from Kyiv, and the loss of his initial aim to overthrow the Ukraine government did not result in Putin authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.  Putin may not personally have much to lose, but Russia has everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. I don't believe there are enough "cronies" so sycophantic as to allow Putin to destroy his country. You can bet your life that the US are in conversation with Kremlin contacts to ensure this situation doesn't escalate into nuclear conflict. 

[Indy 3,301]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It certainly is a dangerous situation, but I suspect the western powers have calculated it is far more dangerous to allow Putin a victory. It's no surprise that Putin has organised nuclear manoeuvres as a rather crass attempt to threaten nuclear holocaust if he doesn't get his way.  The west will not be impressed by that threat, as it relies on the Russian military being prepared to exchange a brief sojourn in the Donbass for the potential annihilation of every major Russian city. It should be noted that the hugely embarrassing withdrawal from Kyiv, and the loss of his initial aim to overthrow the Ukraine government did not result in Putin authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.  Putin may not personally have much to lose, but Russia has everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. I don't believe there are enough "cronies" so sycophantic as to allow Putin to destroy his country. You can bet your life that the US are in conversation with Kremlin contacts to ensure this situation doesn't escalate into nuclear conflict. 

 

 There’s absolutely no doubts about open lines of communication between US and Russia, it’s a known fact that open comms are there as a safeguard! 
We certainly see things from either end of perspective and as Putin has family I’d hope he has enough sense not to follow through on any threats!

I don’t think it safe to just think it wouldn’t escalate though! Safeguard or not things need to be put into perspective, global famine and the economic crises will only help to fragment alliances the longer things go on, the more strain on countries and leaders the more dangerous things become. It’s not safe to assert that arming Ukraine and prolonging this war won’t lead to potential conflicts breaking out elsewhere! The quicker this is put to bed the better.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[horsefly 4,301]

10 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Please state exactly where I claimed to have this "superior knowledge" of Kant when, as I recall, I merely stated that I should imagine that 'most of us {on this forum} are familiar'  with the writings of Kant." Quite some distance from "a superior knowledge, don't you think? Do really need to make things up now?

In actual fact I know precious little of it, my familiarity is limited, and why should it be otherwise? It is neither my field, nor my interest. Others will likely know more.

Yet you arrogantly described my knowledge of Kant as "superficial" which could only be taken to imply that your knowledge of Kant was superior. Now we have the admission of the truth that was always very obvious, you haven't read a word of Kant despite your previous lies. My God what a huge chip on your shoulder you have. All you do is throw around ad hominem insults dripping with anger that you don't have the same education to back up your all too frequent baseless assertions. Frankly I find you a crashing bore and really can't be bothered to respond anymore to your tedious outbursts of envy. At least you have an ally in Michael Gove to console yourself, he too thinks we shouldn't listen to experts or people who have knowledge in their field. I shall now only engage with individuals who wish to discuss the actual issues (Like Indy) rather than spout  a load of ad hominem frustration and abuse.

Edited June 2, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,301]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s not safe to assert that arming Ukraine and prolonging this war won’t lead to potential conflicts breaking out elsewhere! The quicker this is put to bed the better.

Of course it will be an important part of the campaign to mitigate against such a prospect. But I think the fundamental point remains true; that it would be far more dangerous to allow Putin victory by ceding the Donbass to Russia. To allow him to turn the Donbass region into a massive military encampment, stocked with tens of thousands of troops and massive amounts of weaponry, would be catastrophic in destabilising the European region for decades to come. Thus, as horrific as the present situation is, I see very little rational alternative to an attritional campaign that ensures Russia is never able to settle in the Donbass in a way that would allow it to establish a massive strategical threat to all the neighbouring countries. Russia eventually withdrew from Afghanistan when it could no longer tolerate the attritional costs of trying to sustain its occupation. Persistent Ukrainian resistance supported by Western powers (through sanctions and military aid etc) presently stands as the only genuine alternative to an outright appeasement of Russian aims which, for the reasons I have just stated, is simply not tolerable or remotely wise.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

Conflicts and human rights abuses have been breaking out all over the world while all eyes are on Russia's invasion of Ukraine; Putin has done the tin-pot dictators of the world a big favour with his idiocy. 

The Saudis conducted 81 executions in a day in May, while Iran has also been getting busy with executions while everyone's looking at Putin. But that's okay with Putin as he's not interested in any sort of international rules-based system anyway; might is right. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

45 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

 There’s absolutely no doubts about open lines of communication between US and Russia, it’s a known fact that open comms are there as a safeguard! 
We certainly see things from either end of perspective and as Putin has family I’d hope he has enough sense not to follow through on any threats!

I don’t think it safe to just think it wouldn’t escalate though! Safeguard or not things need to be put into perspective, global famine and the economic crises will only help to fragment alliances the longer things go on, the more strain on countries and leaders the more dangerous things become. It’s not safe to assert that arming Ukraine and prolonging this war won’t lead to potential conflicts breaking out elsewhere! The quicker this is put to bed the better.

Pulling the rug out from under the Ukrainians won't put this to bed; it will simply preserve more of Russia's armed forces for Russia's next invasion, be it targetting more of Ukraine or parts of other neighbours such as Georgia and Moldova. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

We shall see Horsey, I would love it to go into a total withdrawal, but as of an hour ago, Russian response is to go into next phase sabre rattling mode with more nuclear manoeuvres! The warnings there and I fully expect that once the midrange weapons are used, Russia will respond in kind and more! Destroying more of Ukraine.
In addition we have the next threat of Boris now testing the waters by implying we are thinking of sending in the Navy to allow the grain out of Ukraine! It’s escalating to a point where there will be no dialogue but massive conflict and I don’t have your confidence in Russians turning on Putin if he orders nuclear weapons, tactical field weapons or worse! I think there’s enough brain washing now to say there’s no one left to say no! 
Time will tell, but I’m not as confident in the outcome you seem to portray, your narrative is only true if we’re dealing with a sane man with a future, we’re not, we are dealing with an out of date old governance of Kremlin cronies with absolutely nothing to lose now! Dangerous!

The mid-range weapons are all about giving the Ukrainians the capability to decapitate Russian units' to make sure the Russian's can't sustain the bombardment of Ukrainian cities. No doubt the US will be assisting them with targetting. 

As an aside, Russia has been suffering a lot of fires breaking out in munitions factories. Funny that. I guess it's a problem with launching a genocidal war on a neighbour that speaks the same language and has close cultural ties that they might possibly be able to sneak in and do that sort of thing, unless it's Russian sympathisers to Ukraine doing it. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[kirku 1,334]

"russia now occupies more than half of the small donbas town of sieverdonestsk

and all it cost putin was 30,000 soldiers, 11 generals, more than 4,000 vehicles, the flagship of the black sea fleet, and all credibility as a force capable of waging war on nato

strategic mastermind"

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

11 hours ago, horsefly said:

So just more ad hominem tripe because yet again you have been caught out as a fraud. Not a word in defence of your entirely spurious claims. You really are a pathetic old man who simply can't face up to the reality that your poor knowledge of issues is repeatedly exposed. So unless you wish to make good your claim that you have a superior knowledge of Kant, I suggest you shut up and let others discuss the actual issues.

BTW perhaps you might like to take note that Biden has just agreed to supply Ukraine with medium range MRLs, precisely because he understands that you can't claim to support the end of Ukrainian resistance without supporting the means to that end. Of course, that's likely to be a bit too highbrow for you to understand.

Some swansong then, and not without genuine pathos in so many ways, yet vulnerable to so much critical dissection.

If you had once managed to present those irrelevant Kantian diversions of yours in any other than a flimsy and confused manner, then you might have avoided giving the impression that your knowledge was anything other than superficial.

"My lies?" Where? Making things up as you go along again then?

"My God, what a huge chip on your shoulder you have."  That coming from the only one who has consistently come up with an unsavoury tirade of uncouth personal insults whenever up against it. The only thing on my shoulder these days is my golf bag.

"Dripping with anger?" When there has been so much to amuse me, including that priceless gem?"

For reasons that I need not go into I was confined to the grounds yesterday and, with the swimming pool having a clean, I actually remain grateful to you for helping  me pass some of my day in such an amusing way.  

"Outbursts of envy?" Where? Surely you are not suggesting that I am envious of a loser like you? Come on!

".... that you don't have the same level of education ....." You were the geek who, for reasons only known to your pompous self, decided to play the role of the amateur philosopher. Not my chosen field.  

"....... to back up your baseless assertions." You've only managed to come up with the one.

And finally, this priceless gem, "Listen to the experts." Do you mean yourself here? The one who spends half  his time sounding off on an internet football forum like a petulant overgrown schoolboy?

That was fun.

(I note that, quite uncharacteristically, you have omitted the second part of my posting,  so I'm guessing it was too uncomfortable for you to address.)

"I can't be bothered to respond any more." Meaning, "I've given up."

Bye then.

ลาก่อน Jock.

Edited June 2, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,301]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Conflicts and human rights abuses have been breaking out all over the world while all eyes are on Russia's invasion of Ukraine; Putin has done the tin-pot dictators of the world a big favour with his idiocy. 

The Saudis conducted 81 executions in a day in May, while Iran has also been getting busy with executions while everyone's looking at Putin. But that's okay with Putin as he's not interested in any sort of international rules-based system anyway; might is right. 

We must add to that appalling list, the threat of starvation of millions of people dependent on Ukrainian grain. Yet another overwhelming reason why Russia can not be allowed to settle in the Donbass and build up a massive military force there (and in the Crimea), potentially controlling southern access to the Black Sea.

[horsefly 4,301]

4 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Some swansong then, and not without genuine pathos in so many ways, yet vulnerable to so much critical dissection.

If you had once managed to present those irrelevant Kantian diversions of yours in any other than a flimsy and contradictory manner, then you might have avoided giving the impression that your knowledge was anything other than superficial.

"My lies?" Where? Making things up as you go along again then?

"My God, what a huge chip on your shoulder you have."  That coming from the only one who has consistently come up with an unsavoury tirade of uncouth personal insults whenever up against it. The only thing on my shoulder these days is my golf bag.

"Dripping with anger?" When there has been so much to amuse me, including that priceless gem?"

For reasons that I need not go into I was confined to the grounds yesterday and, with the swimming pool having a clean, I actually remain grateful to you for helping  me pass some of my day in such an amusing way.  

"Outbursts of envy?" Where? Surely you are not suggesting that I am envious of a loser like you? Come on!

".... that you don't have the same level of education ....." You were the geek who, for reasons only known to your pompous self, decided to play the role of the amateur philosopher. Not my chosen field.  

"....... to back up your baseless assertions." You've only managed to come up with just the one.

And finally, this priceless gem, "Listen to the experts." Do you mean yourself here? The one who spends half  his time sounding off on an internet football forum like a petulant overgrown schoolboy?

That was fun.

(I note that, quite uncharacteristically, you have omitted the second part of my posting,  so I'm guessing it was too uncomfortable for you to address.)

"I can't be bothered to respond any more." Meaning, "I've given up."

Bye then.

ลาก่อน Jock.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOSER!!!

Edited June 2, 2022 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Is that all you have left?

Besides, I thought you couldn't be bothered any more. Still outraged?

ลาก่อน

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Is that all you have left?

Besides, I thought you couldn't be bothered any more. Still outraged?

ลาก่อน

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOSER!!!

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOSER!!!

Weak.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Weak.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOSER!!!

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

Just now, horsefly said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOSER!!!

Stop shouting, you'll wake the neighbours. It must be disgustingly early in deepest Norfolk.