The Ukraine Question

[Adam Strange]

Once the Russian-occupied regions finish their referendums (is there any doubt that they'll vote to become part of Russia? lol), I don't suppose that Russia will agree to cede them back to Ukraine. Ukraine's public stance is that it intends to liberate all captured territories. Is there still any hope for a negotiated peace at this point, or is one side just going to have to win decisively?

I really don't understand why people think that a negotiated peace is in Ukraine's favor. Look at the history of treaties and promises between Russia and Ukraine. The only treaty that Russia ever kept was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
@xerx, you're in Canada, correct? What if the US military just rolled into Ontario, flattened the cities, killed men, women, and children indiscriminately, then held a "referendum" which said that Ontario is now part of the US, and the men there have to join the army to fight the other provinces?

Plus, you Canadians don't speak American.

What would you want to negotiate?

[Adam Strange]

Some people say that Russians should be allowed to travel to other countries, because denying an escape route from Russia would harm the "good" Russians.

Other people say that closing the borders and keeping the "good" Russians in their own country just might force them to take action against their present government, assuming that they don't actually like it, and aren't just fleeing to avoid getting killed in Putin's war of imperialism.

Let's hear what the Russians themselves say: https://nitter.net/Fella_Tuga/status...772367704067#m

[Adam Strange]

A'ight, I'll need to read more about the subject. It's pointless to have an opinion about stuff like this without doing (lots of) research.

It's entirely possible that Nuland's telephone conversation was completely taken out of context. I also know for a fact that Yanukovich was indeed voted out of office by the Ukrainian parliament following Euromaidan, not somehow removed at gunpoint, and that his removal wasn't necessarily illegal (although, again, I'm out of my depth when discussing the legality and legitimacy of this move).


But I'm going to look for a more objective source. This author seems biased, and she glosses over some things when dismissing Donetsk and Luhansk's case for independence:

She describes the Donbass republics as "gangster states", citing their criminality and corruption (I can believe this, and I somewhat doubt that these problems will be quickly solved by joining Russia). But it isn't immediately obvious that their criminality and corruption were far outside the norm compared to other parts of Ukraine, in case that's her implication. And even if they were criminal and corrupt, I don't see why a region's internal problems would affect its legal case for independence under international law.

She says that the rest of Ukraine, including its Russian-speaking regions (which also disapproved of the post-Euromaidan government), were opposed to the secession of the Luhansk and Donetsk republics. But she doesn't provide legal reasons for why one region's disapproval would negate another region's case for independence. In a recent instance, the International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo (which was also in conflict with the Serbian central government and barred from independence under Serbian law) was legally allowed, under international law, to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia (1). I don't know for sure if these (and other) cases for independence are similar, but it seems like an important question to tackle.

When discussing the war in Donbass, she condemns but glosses over Ukraine's rocket attacks in populated areas (2). She says that these crimes "cannot compare" to the "criminality and lawlessness" of the Donbass republics, but she never justifies this. The killing of civilians, however intentional or unintentional, doesn't seem trivial, and it certainly can compare unfavourably to criminality and lawlessness. It's possible to invoke her logic for justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine, citing the fact that Ukraine is a corrupt country that's controlled by oligarchs.

@xerx, I'm constantly amazed at how legal and proper you are. Your instincts are very different from mine, and I admire them.
I'd rather have you than me as a judge.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Some people say that Russians should be allowed to travel to other countries, because denying an escape route from Russia would harm the "good" Russians.

Other people say that closing the borders and keeping the "good" Russians in their own country just might force them to take action against their present government, assuming that they don't actually like it, and aren't just fleeing to avoid getting killed in Putin's war of imperialism.

Let's hear what the Russians themselves say: https://nitter.net/Fella_Tuga/status...772367704067#m

i believe most ppl in eastern europe are degenerates, this also has to do with the good ones fleeing leaving the nationalists to reproduce there and keep ruining their own countries and forcing even more of the good ones to flee . it makes sense the case would be the worst in russia. this does not mean all of them are like that, and u may not care too mcuh about minor casualties if u see it as necessary evil. it should be also obvious that russians who didnt express hatred towards ukranians were not included in the video. its unclear to me if u think russians should be allowed to flee. as a minority they cant overthrow the government and everyone whom supports it

[Adam Strange]

i believe most ppl in eastern europe are degenerates, this also has to do with the good ones fleeing leaving the nationalists to reproduce there and keep ruining their own countries and forcing even more of the good ones to flee . it makes sense the case would be the worst in russia. this does not mean all of them are like that, and u may not care too mcuh about minor casualties if u see it as necessary evil. it should be also obvious that russians who didnt express hatred towards ukranians were not included in the video. its unclear to me if u think russians should be allowed to flee. as a minority they cant overthrow the government and everyone whom supports it

I’m looking for arguments for why I should be more reasonable. You’ve provided a few, thanks.

I’ve also thought about why some countries seem to have a “Sociotype”. I believe that every society on earth has a natural and identical “normal” distribution of sociotypes. I also believe that the ratios between every type can be changed, by, say, shooting all the IEIs, or only allowing ESEs into the country. So, in this Darwinian way, a given type can become over-represented for a generation or two after the policy is applied.

I think that the US is LIE because, in the 1880’s, a lot of LIEs moved to the states from Europe, and the place has been a bastion of cold-hearted efficient self-interest ever since.

Similarly, a country can lose sociotypes if those types move away or cannot prosper or reproduce in adequate numbers to offset the selection process.

That may have occurred in Russia, but I have no proof of that.


My real question is why are countries the way they are? Socionics with Darwinian filters offers one explanation, but there are many other possibilities.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

My real question is why are countries the way they are? Socionics with Darwinian filters offers one explanation, but there are many other possibilities.

i swear u can see tribes in nature where u see all the people share exactly 1 perceiving function in the ego block, those tribes are defined by lifestyle and u can VI them all. from facial features to body features. it took me years to learn to VI and ofc i am not always accurate, and along those years i was skeptical of that idea, both of typology and of ppl in those tribes having particular types, but i kept looking and i started seeing it, and now not only with personality types but also mental illnesses and even god damn astrology.

lifestyle, personality, relationships and sociotype are related to human evolution in nature

[Poptart]

@Adam Strange put yourself in the shoes of a 70 year old Russian man who was born when Stalin was in power. @VewyScawwyNawcissist put yourself in the shoes of a Russian teenager about to get drafted to fight in Ukraine.

[godslave]

It's a provocatively obvious false flag Operation.



"I can't stand it, I know you planned it
I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate
I can't stand rocking when I'm in here
'Cause your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear
So while you sit back and wonder why
I got this fucking thorn in my side
Oh my God, it's a mirage
I'm tellin' y'all, it's a sabotage"

[Adam Strange]

@Adam Strange put yourself in the shoes of a 70 year old Russian man who was born when Stalin was in power. @VewyScawwyNawcissist put yourself in the shoes of a Russian teenager about to get drafted to fight in Ukraine.

@Poptart, I can try to do this, but what I come up with is a person whose information about the world is restricted.

I believe that all other differences would be due to intrinsic attitude.

So, I can almost do this. What should I conclude from this?

I actually know a 71 year old Russian LIE who is extremely smart and also really reactionary. His view of the world is severely dysfunctional.
I also know 40 year old Russians, also graduates of Moscow University, who are not complete political idiots.
I think that willful ignorance and prejudice are choices.

[Poptart]

@Poptart, I can try to do this, but what I come up with is a person whose information about the world is restricted.

I believe that all other differences would be due to intrinsic attitude.

So, I can almost do this. What should I conclude from this?

I actually know a 71 year old Russian LIE who is extremely smart and also really reactionary. His view of the world is severely dysfunctional.
I also know 40 year old Russians, graduates of Moscow University, who are not complete political idiots.
I think ignorance and prejudice are choices.

Is ignorance a choice when access to information is heavily restricted?

[Poptart]

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by intrinsic attitude.

[Poptart]

I wonder if Sol will be drafted

[Poptart]

I also know 40 year old Russians, graduates of Moscow University, who are not complete political idiots.

@Adam Strange education tends to have that effect. It’s why in 2016, your level of education was the strongest indicator of whether you voted for Trump or Hillary lol.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

@VewyScawwyNawcissist put yourself in the shoes of a Russian teenager about to get drafted to fight in Ukraine.

i will find a way to escape or if i fail i will ruin as many of the lives of the men around me (as in russians drafted with me who are complcent) as i can before i die. i guess that could be not so good bc some of them may be trying ways to refuse to participate bc they have a brain and a moral compass, i should try to get that information without being suspected but assuming whoever is leading us thats my primary target, if i cant figure out a way to disable the unit

[Adam Strange]

Is ignorance a choice when access to information is heavily restricted?

Ignorance in many cases can be corrected by life learning.

My grandparents were casual racists and I absorbed that attitude as a kid, but quickly discovered that prejudice is largely a measure of insecurity. To say nothing of it being disrespectful and (because I’m LIE) inefficient. If you discard a set of people for non-performance reasons, you are only hurting yourself.

[Adam Strange]

i will find a way to escape or if i fail i will ruin as many of the lives of the men around me (as in russians drafted with me who are complcent) as i can before i die. i guess that could be not so good bc some of them may be trying ways to refuse to participate bc they have a brain and a moral compass, i should try to get that information without being suspected but assuming whoever is leading us thats my primary target, if i cant figure out a way to disable the unit

Just surrender. You can Google the process. Hopefully, you don’t get killed accidentally.

[Wavebury]

Just surrender. You can Google the process. Hopefully, you don’t get killed accidentally.

Adam, I'm beginning to think your cynicism towards Russian people who are mostly victims of disinformation and a shitty dictator is pretty low.

[Adam Strange]

Adam, I'm beginning to think your cynicism towards Russian people who are mostly victims of disinformation and a shitty dictator is pretty low.

It is so hard to please everyone, @Wavebury.

Your assumptions about my opinion are wrong. I don’t disrespect Russian people. My comment about not getting killed while surrendering is merely practical advice. I’ve seen videos of Russians surrendering, and there are bullets flying everywhere. It is a situation where anyone could get killed.

I’m sorry that your first impulse is to assume the worst about people.

[Coeruleum Blue]

What do Russia, Tucker Carlson, Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor, and Trump all have in common?


Julia Davis
@JuliaDavisNews
Some things never change: translated clips of Tucker Carlson are still an ever-present feature on Russian state TV, rivaled only by those of Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor and Trump.

https://nitter.net/JuliaDavisNews/st...483935248384#m
.

Their names contain the letter R?

More seriously, it's probably "white Christian nationalism."

[Poptart]

My real question is why are countries the way they are? Socionics with Darwinian filters offers one explanation, but there are many other possibilities.

There are tons of books on why nations succeed and fail if you want look at this through lenses other than Socionics and Darwinism.
https://a.co/d/22OOJIw

[xerx]

I really don't understand why people think that a negotiated peace is in Ukraine's favor. Look at the history of treaties and promises between Russia and Ukraine. The only treaty that Russia ever kept was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

I never said that Ukraine should trust Russia. In fact, no country should trust any other country—ever! Countries aren't people with whom you have personal relations—they are rigid bureaucracies that pursue their naked self-interest irrespective of the personalities of their leaders—and international agreements aren't based on trust and friendship; they're based on deterrence.

My point is that NATO partnership was a bad mechanism for achieving that deterrence (Ukraine wasn't officially in NATO, but it was becoming a NATO "Enhanced Opportunities Partner" (1) and a NATO member in all but name). A much better strategy would have been to guarantee Ukrainian neutrality while building up its defensive capabilities. NATO shouldn't have provoked Russia by, say, installing MK-41 missile systems in eastern Europe.

If joining a foreign alliance was meant to deter Russia, that strategy failed in the most dramatic way imaginable, as it may have motivated Russia to act before that alliance was strong enough to deter it.


I don't want to be misunderstood, so I'll summarize my position: I want Ukraine to have its lands back (all of them, including Crimea, which credibly prefers to be Russian) because I want this country to be economically viable for the foreseeable future. Ukraine has already lost its most economically productive lands to the Russian invasion, and if it loses all access to the Black Sea (which is entirely possible, since Russia can still take Odessa), it will go on to become a landlocked rump state.

I believe that the best way to have achieved this is via strict neutrality and federalization (ala the Minsk agreements). A decentralized, federalized Ukraine could have also offered cultural protections to its Russian minority (it may come as a shock, but "Ukrainian" isn't a homogenous identity, in spite of how this war is presented, and not every Ukrainian subscribes to a specific form of Russo-sceptic Galician nationalism).

@xerx, you're in Canada, correct? What if the US military just rolled into Ontario, flattened the cities, killed men, women, and children indiscriminately, then held a "referendum" which said that Ontario is now part of the US, and the men there have to join the army to fight the other provinces?

Plus, you Canadians don't speak American.

What would you want to negotiate?

Believe me, I'm more sympathetic to Ukraine's position than you can possibly imagine, precisely because our two countries share borders with powerful, brash neighbours. I have nothing but awe for the average Ukrainian defender. And if the United States ever invaded Canada, I can only hope that I'd fight as bravely.

But the United States pursues amicable relations because it already gets what it wants, not because of some fraternal amity, and certainly not because the United States is uniquely trustworthy (if it isn't already obvious, the United States doesn't exactly f*ck around when it comes to pursuing its geopolitical interests).

Canada is nearly an American vassal under a suzerainty arrangement with the United States, and it is more integrated into the American sphere than Ukraine was into the Russian sphere. Canada won't challenge American homeland security in any serious way, as it would be suicidal to, say, invite China to build a base in Canada. Comprehensive free trade agreements ensure that American businesses have thorough access to Canada's market and resources. That is the correct survival strategy.

[xerx]

@xerx, I'm constantly amazed at how legal and proper you are. Your instincts are very different from mine, and I admire them.

Thank you. (:

I'd rather have you than me as a judge.

If I've learned anything in the past few months, it's that most people shouldn't be judges, hostage negotiators, or military strategists.

[Missmessy]

So, we are on the verge of a new world war?

[Missmessy]

I can't think of a possible end to all of this, the situation seems so complicated and as I read in a friend's Facebook post, all sides have reached a point where they can't step back

[Alive]

I’m looking for arguments for why I should be more reasonable. You’ve provided a few, thanks.

I’ve also thought about why some countries seem to have a “Sociotype”. I believe that every society on earth has a natural and identical “normal” distribution of sociotypes. I also believe that the ratios between every type can be changed, by, say, shooting all the IEIs, or only allowing ESEs into the country. So, in this Darwinian way, a given type can become over-represented for a generation or two after the policy is applied.

I think that the US is LIE because, in the 1880’s, a lot of LIEs moved to the states from Europe, and the place has been a bastion of cold-hearted efficient self-interest ever since.

Similarly, a country can lose sociotypes if those types move away or cannot prosper or reproduce in adequate numbers to offset the selection process.

That may have occurred in Russia, but I have no proof of that.


My real question is why are countries the way they are? Socionics with Darwinian filters offers one explanation, but there are many other possibilities.

I think a lot about this too. Sometimes I wonder if something like the black plague or a world war change quadra values, because certain types get eliminated for a while.

[Minde]

Mark Sayers is one of my favorite people to listen to on big picture views of world events, particularly as is relates to culture. Here's his latest commentary podcast: Could this October Change the World as We Know it? https://rebuilders.co/podcasts/2022/...-as-we-know-it

(He talks about Russia/Ukraine, which is why I put it here.)

[Minde]

The Psychologists Treating Rape Victims in Ukraine https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...in-ukraine/amp

I have two questions, related to the above:

1. Is there any evidence, anywhere, of non-Russians treating Russians populations in this way?
2. Do Russians have similar groups or systems in place to address such trauma?


There isn't a lot of moral high ground to go around, but from my view this Russian aggression has none.

[get R]

, because certain types get eliminated for a while.

maybe it'd be many Alphas & Deltas if they keep living in a bubble (hopefully not, but still)

[Clarke]

I actually think that surrendering to Russians is a pretty bad idea. There was news a while ago saying that people might be taken to camps in Russia. I don't think that's ended well in the past.

My personal opinions about Ukraine are that Putin probably decided for some reason that invading Ukraine seemed like a good idea, maybe due to what he's historically said about greater Russia or the return of the Soviet Union, and now realizes that he kinda messed up. And now he can't really get out of the trap that he set himself into because he would look like a weakling if he backed out of the situation. And Russians have historically liked strong leaders.

I think that Ukraine will probably win. The Russian military seems pretty bad at really doing anything. Or at least that's what I've heard from the news.

[Clarke]

The Psychologists Treating Rape Victims in Ukraine https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...in-ukraine/amp

I have two questions, related to the above:

1. Is there any evidence, anywhere, of non-Russians treating Russians populations in this way?
2. Do Russians have similar groups or systems in place to address such trauma?


There isn't a lot of moral high ground to go around, but from my view this Russian aggression has none.

Honestly, Russians have been raping people since WW2. It might just be what they do.

[Clarke]

I really don't understand why people think that a negotiated peace is in Ukraine's favor. Look at the history of treaties and promises between Russia and Ukraine. The only treaty that Russia ever kept was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
@xerx, you're in Canada, correct? What if the US military just rolled into Ontario, flattened the cities, killed men, women, and children indiscriminately, then held a "referendum" which said that Ontario is now part of the US, and the men there have to join the army to fight the other provinces?

Plus, you Canadians don't speak American.

What would you want to negotiate?

Perhaps there's a treaty that Ukraine could negotiate that doesn't force their people to be treated like Russians? That allows Ukraine to be separate from Russia?

I don't have alot of knowledge on the Russia situation. From what I know, speculating about peace is kind of pointless because Ukraine doesn't want to accept it anyway. So far, it looks like Ukraine signing a peace agreement would mean Russia officially keeping a large section of their land, including ports that would help Ukraine survive. Ukraine's greatest hope if they signed some kind of peace agreement with Russia would be to join NATO. I don't think Russia would currently want that.

The way for Ukraine to make any kind of peace deal with Russia that allows them to join NATO would be to somehow exploit Russia's political situation. Putin seems to have public support problems right now, and I don't think that his war on Ukraine is sustainable. He also doesn't really seem to have a way out of the war, given that quitting the war now (and giving Ukraine their territory back) would make his war effort look like a massive waste of time. If Ukraine can give him a way out of the war, some way for him to say that peace and allowing them to join NATO was the correct option, then Russia shouldn't really be a threat. Or at least maybe they wouldn't be one before Ukraine could join NATO.

The key is that Russia can't win against Ukraine. At least, it seems like it can't with what it's currently willing to do. Russia could carpet bomb or nuke Ukraine, but for some reason it hasn't done that yet. There's a reason why, and if Ukraine can somehow exploit that, it might be able to get what it wants.

[DogOfDanger]

And how will they fight with Russia? Do you really think that a poor country whose name translates as "Outskirts" and which was the outskirts of the Soviet Union, after which it was plundered by constantly changing groups for two decades, has anything other than Soviet weapons of the 70s? And who will fight? I have already mentioned the numbers, you can estimate the alignment of forces. 200,000 men against a militarized country that has 10 times as many soldiers in reserve alone and 150 times as many if it goes all out? Against the world's second largest arms manufacturer? Who you want they fight for? For a comedian? For the oligarchs?

Therefore, it is obvious that the negotiations will be about anything Putin wants.

Your post reads like a lifetime of political biases fostered by Russian state propaganda has crystallized into something impenetrable. You will inevitably find, in time, that so much of what you believe is slanted and rooted in state propaganda.
Fundamentally, none of what you've written justifies the violence your country has brought to Ukraine.

All I'll comment on is your battlefield analysis... The war has been going on for months now, the West has had more than enough time to supply Ukraine with weapons. Ukraine has Western weapons... they're on their home territory, their morale is very high. The numbers indicate they're killing Russian soldiers at about a 2 to 1 ratio throughout the war... they've regained about 200 square kilometers of territory in the last few weeks.

If you believe the war is going well, I recommend listening to some phone calls of Russian soldiers on the front lines, you will get a very different impression - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPz...RDpw_vLSPMHMgQ

We've seen severe dysfunctions and blunders by the Russian armed forces all throughout this war. The war was supposed to go quickly - Kyiv was going to be surrounded... it's 8 months later, what happened?
Why is Russia drafting citizens if it has so many soldiers in reserves? This achieves nothing but creates domestic problems.
Estimates are around 20K Russians killed and 60K wounded thus far, and those numbers are 1-2 months old... there have been major Ukrainian offensives in the last couple weeks.
Your scenario where the whole population of Russia joins the fight is an absurd scenario. Ukraine has citizens, too - but unlike Russians, they're joining voluntarily - that tends to happen when a country gets invaded. On the other hand, in response to the "partial mobilization" we've seen about 500,000 Russians attempting to leave Russia.

Drafted citizens who have been led to believe the war is going well, who have no real reason to be there fighting, and little training, will crumble when they realize the Ukrainian resistance is not a joke.
You're going to end up dead if you go fight this war - don't be stupid, don't believe anything you read or hear... I recommend you leave the country if you get the chance.

[pregnantman]

Authoritarian regimes are composed of people who want a strong ruler who will brutally punish their enemies, who are ubiquitous. This means that the more cruel and punitive the leader is, the more the authoritarian followers love them. You can see this behavior in Trump’s followers, too. It’s a cycle of abuse, but it seems to be widespread in populations.

This means that Putin, or any guy who rules people like this, have almost no restraints placed on their behavior by their supporters. Their end has to come from outside their support group, from people who either are not authoritarian or are stronger than the ruler.

If you have spent a lifetime being rewarded for behaving as if you are above the law, you are probably not going to be able to moderate your behavior just because things seem to be going badly right now.
Witness both Trump and Putin doubling down on their bets.

Both of them are also making vague threats that there will be terrible consequences if they are opposed in the slightest.
Well, they are right about that.
There will be terrible consequences. For them.


Let’s talk about nuclear weapons. First, they will not end civilization. There haven’t been just two bombs exploded in history; there have been thousands, all exploded in tests, and the world keeps chugging along. Burning carbon is a much bigger threat.
Second, a nuclear bomb is one of the most complex devices ever made by humans, and the trigger mechanisms sit right next to a source of very hard radiation. Radiation tends to weaken metals and wiring and destroys electronics, which means that the triggers have to be replaced every four years or so, or else the bomb just won’t go off.
Putin has been in charge of Russia for twenty years. That’s twenty years of stealing everything that can be resold. Russia has the most advanced jet fighter in the world, and has been able to build and maintain about five of them.
Russia has one of the most advanced tanks in the world, and they have been able to build and maintain just a very few of them.
Russia has very advanced delivery rockets, and about one third of them fail to get anywhere near their target. As for numbers, they are taking the rockets from the ring defenses around St. Petersburg to use to bomb Ukrainians.
What are the chances that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is any different? Do they have five working devices? Do they have rockets that will get these devices anywhere near their target?

Most knowledgeable experts say no.

Russia is currently leveling cities and killing everyone in and around them. Does it make any difference to the dead that they died by conventional or by nuclear weapons? At least, a nuclear bomb doesn’t torture you for weeks before killing you.

Putin and Trump really are like serial abuser husbands. They threaten ultimate violence in order to perpetuate continuous violence.
They both need to be course-corrected.

i agree. burning carbon and food production from farming poses are faar greater threat than nuclear warfare, which is a form peacocking

Damn commies

[xerx]

Now that the captured territories have been formally annexed, I don't suppose that Russia will ever agree to negotiate their return (certainly not after that massive "welcome home" celebration); and, at this point, agreeing to cede back Luhansk seems about as likely as agreeing to cede Belgorod. Given an opportunity, Russia may even annex more of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian leadership certainly haven't dropped their maximalist aim of liberating all Ukrainian territory. Honestly, at this point, it really does seem like diplomacy, involving a swift return to the status quo ante (give or take), is a lost cause and that this war won't end, if it can end, unless both sides tire out or one side achieves victory.

[xerx]

It was reported, some months back, that Ukraine & Russia had nearly reached an agreement (involving mild territorial concessions). But there's a claim/rumour that Boris Johnson helped scupper the negotiations.

As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky, following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.

"Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign [an agreement] with you [Ukraine], but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.

link

[Clarke]

I’m sorry but Putin is such an desperate loser.

He really tried to invade Ukraine with like half a tank of gas and blames NATO for all of his problems like a jealous abusive boyfriend who holds everyone but himself accountable. “I’m mad that Ukraine likes the West more than me. Now I must mobilize for war. It’s your fault for making me mad!!@ You deserve to be hurt for hurting my feelings. Make another move and I swear I’ll fuckin crack your head open dude—I have a nuclear arsenal and I’m not afraid to use it! Laugh at me one more time, I dare you..”

So I'm not completely confident in my knowledge base about the Ukraine situation, but my impression was that Putin got a vision of a better world for Russia and just started. I don't think that he cared about the west. He knew that the west was going to get pretty mad at him for attacking, but he decided to take that risk anyway because of his thoughts about what he could do with Ukraine, and potentially, any other countries he could eventually take.

I don't think Putin can win. His political situation isn't good, and his invasion of Ukraine basically has no solution unless he completely nukes it. His military clearly isn't designed for the kind of warfare that the Ukrainians wage, if they're even designed for any modern warfare at all. I have this thought though that regardless, Putin should be watched. If he had a vision of a better future for Russia, maybe he has a trick up his sleeve.

Regardless, I think that we're all screwed if Putin feels trapped in a bad situation. I think that a cornered Putin is a loose cannon.

[xerx]

The recent aerial attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, against inadequate air defences, means that Russia had the ability to cripple vital infrastructure all along. It's logical to assume that they've been holding back—I don't think that we've seen the full extent to which Russia can escalate.

[Coeruleum Blue]

The “Hardcore” Russian Neo-Nazi Group That Calls Ukraine Home - bellingcat

Ukraine's Azov Battalion is a rather far-right group with even further-right subgroups, and if you know who O9A is you can easily trace them to other far-right groups in other countries. However, that does not automatically justify what Russia is doing.

[Manatroid92]

So I'm not completely confident in my knowledge base about the Ukraine situation, but my impression was that Putin got a vision of a better world for Russia and just started. I don't think that he cared about the west. He knew that the west was going to get pretty mad at him for attacking, but he decided to take that risk anyway because of his thoughts about what he could do with Ukraine, and potentially, any other countries he could eventually take.

I don't think Putin can win. His political situation isn't good, and his invasion of Ukraine basically has no solution unless he completely nukes it. His military clearly isn't designed for the kind of warfare that the Ukrainians wage, if they're even designed for any modern warfare at all. I have this thought though that regardless, Putin should be watched. If he had a vision of a better future for Russia, maybe he has a trick up his sleeve.

Regardless, I think that we're all screwed if Putin feels trapped in a bad situation. I think that a cornered Putin is a loose cannon.

Disagree on Putin’s motivation; he’s at the behest of Russian oligarchs and himself, I don’t think he has any real concern for Russia’s people or it’s future. The closest dream I ever heard that he might have is bringing the Soviet Union back from the grave, but I’m doubtful that he’d bring doing it for anyone but himself.

It’s understandable to fear that he might massage the nuke button when he’s been cornered, but if you think about it, he doesn’t get any benefit in doing so. If he does so, then retaliation is assured, which very likely means civilian Russian casualties (which in turn means outrage at Putin from Russia’s populace).

If Putin loses the war, he *might* get to keep his own life. If he tries to nuke Ukraine, he’s life is essentially kaput.


All that being said, I still agree with you for the most part.