Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

Yeah I saw that when the Russian ministry of Defense reposted it, and when it popped up on the conspiracy forum. Mearsheimer, like most realists, has some very questionable views. In a nutshell, according to him, democratic countries existing beside Russia was a threat to Putin which culminated in the invasion of Ukraine, so those countries, alongside the West are ultimately to "blame" for the invasion. It has a twisted sort of technical truth to it, but using that same logic then e.g. the war reparations and Versailles treaty created the groundwork for the rise of Hitler, therefore, the West is ultimately to "blame" for WW2. This kind of schtick is why people don't take political scientists very seriously these days.

Anyway here's a decent rebuttal and explainer.

If I understand Realism correctly, it says "The bigger bully wins, accept it and just surrender now"

If Russian divisions are actually surrounded in Bucha, Irpin and Hostomel, then the only realistic option for the defenders given the level of Russian ferocity this war, is to annihilate them, and not accept any surrender. The Russian military sowed the wind, let them reap the whirlwind.

No. Pick off their officers with drones and snipers. Leaflet drops or whatever is the modern equivalent encouraging them to surrender and they'll be treated fairly as per the Geneva convention.

It will have a demoralising effect on other Russian battalions if they did surrender. If they are massacred, that motivates the other Russians to fight to the death knowing that death awaits them regardless of what they do.

Except the Chechens. I don't care what happens to them.

This 100%. Allow the ICRC into Ukrainian places of detention ( something Putin seems reluctant to do? At least I have not seen any reports of it anyway) I'm sure that this would meet with international acceptance.

War crimes. A foggy and nebulous concept. A hollow academic exercise. A farce for the ICC with its empty chairs.

Russia never declared War on Ukraine. Even according to Moscow, it isn't a War. They expected to be an annexation and its gone bad, quickly.

It is an extended act of military hostility on an independent Republic. It has no internationally referenced cause or basis. For that, all bets are off. For the continuous Russian targeting of Ukrainian civilians in their own homes, all bets are off. For the deliberate starvation of populations in Mariuopol and other places, all bets are off.

The question is, what tactical decisions the Ukrainians choose to make in positions where they have the advantage, that won't trigger mass genocide of their people in the East. And that's a tough call. My instinct would be to attack the forest from above, because if they do not, those Russians are available to be withdrawn and put back into the fight elsewhere.

There is talk of Belorussian forces entering the conflict within days from the North. I believe myself, that becomes a red line for NATO. It becomes an internationalised conflict that NATO cannot any longer stand idly by and tolerate. A lightning attack on and occupation of Belarus and Kaliningrad would be proportionate and correct.

Yes, this risks the major escalation of the conflict with Russia, but the question is, if NATO was established on the 'never again' echo of World War 2. Of what value to anyone is living with the prolonged shame of failing the Ukrainian people and maybe others, in the 21st Century.

Yep. And all pertinent points.

agreed - and not to mention the Neo Nazi who has now been awarded 'Hero of the Soviet Union Russian Federation - By way of Putin's Executive order-

Mentioned it previously, i have been reading up on this story - seems glossed over quite a bit - everyone concerned with the AZOV brigade should examine this guys unit - which is officially supported by Putin

What war crimes?

It’s difficult not to be pessimistic about the potential for this war to escalate further. Use of chemical weapons seems like a very real threat now. Russian insiders are becoming blunter in their threats of nuclear escalation.

There is also the possibility of false flags, such as Russia staging a chemical attack on their troops to bolster domestic support and elecit condemnation of Ukraine from their international supporters. There is also the possibility of similar rogue Ukrainian staged attack to force NATOs hand in intervening.

IMHO we are being prepared for a coming major escalation.

A Ukrainian American was making the point on Prime Time though that every single outcome is a bad one with Putin. If Ukraine wins, it makes Putin angrier. Stalemate means thousands dead and things still fraught with danger. If Putin was to succeed, that makes him more dangerous than ever. There is no good outcome, bar Putin being assassinated or removed from office.

I think a scenario where the war is perceived by the Russians to have gone badly and then Putin gets removed would be a decent outcome. Agreed that if he was assassinated or removed from office tomorrow morning, it wouldn't really help things in Ukraine.

Hi Liamo, just finished going through that email exchange between Harris and Chompsky. I have read and watched and listened to both of them a fair bit over the years.

I have been taken with their ideas off and on. I just like their courage to challenge approved narratives. Be that Chompskys critique of US foreign policy or Harris' take on radical Islam. However, I must admit to being more of a consistent admirer of Chompskys. Even if he appears to have lost his mind over Covid-19! But I suppose I can forgive him that because his age makes him more vulnerable...

I don't know though, I just find Harris rather egotistical and patronising to be honest. He is certainly similar in many ways to Hitchens and even smacks a little of Jordan Peterson by times.

A shallow analysis would be of two opposing apologists verbally fighting it out over email. Harris excusing the violent and bloody aspects of USFP and Chompsky the bloody and violent reactions of its victims.

Being Irish and having witnessed the consequences of disenfranchisement, violence and occupation first hand, I find it hard to have any sympathy whatsoever with Harris' ethics and outcomes theory.

I have no time whatsoever for organised religion, let alone Islam, however, I can certainly identify with the young men and women who get caught up in their brand of fundamentalist terrorism. I was surprised that Algerian resistance to French colonialism never came up over the course of their exchange. That would have made for interesting reading...

I dont buy into the idea either that Terrorists would not use smart or magical bullets to reduce collateral damage, or whatever Harris was arguing...If the IRA had possessed such a weapon in the 80's would they not have used it to cull old Maggie T and CO instead of carrying out an indiscriminate bombing campaign? Maybe the Islamofacists are so religiously warped and wedded to terror that they would continue to target civilians but I am no expert by any means...

Anyway, I still don't think anyone can categorically say that the US had no idea of how things were going to pan out vis a vis Ukraine. To do so would be an insult to their intelligence, in both senses of the word!

Therefore, like it or not, the US does bear at least some responsibility for the current crisis.

Sorry if that was a little rambling of a response. I still hope Ukraine can win out against the Russians and that maybe Putin will be forced to step down and **** off with Abramovich and chums on one of their disgusting super yachts to Saudi Arabia or some other debauched **** hole, but I would not hold my breath....

Well, I will start with your last point first and your view that The US are blameless as regards the current situation.

Would you not concede that the US have been ball deep in Ukraine since, at least 2014, in terms of financial assistance, providing military hardware, tactical and weapons training, not to mention business dealings, most notably Hunter Biden on the board of The State energy company?

Who knows how long they might have been meddling covertly prior to 2014 as well....

Anyways, the past 8 years their involvement has been quite public. Given Putin's past utterances in respect of his position as regards Ukraine, not to mention his actions in Georgia and Syria, is it not conceivable that, at the very least, The US was taking a massive gamble in their support for Ukraine?

I mean in terms of likely Russian or, if you prefer, Putin's reaction to same?

I really do not see how this is a contentious point of view in the circumstances and given past examples of similar situations.

I would argue, for instance, that US/NATO support for Ukrainian resistance is analogous to Russian/Chinese backing of North Korea/North Vietnam. Or US backing Afghan fighters against Russia in the 80's.

Another proxy war where the Nuclear Powers do not wish to engage each other directly for fear of starting WW3.

On to your point about the moral gap between state or non-state actors.

A fucker like Putin is obviously not going to care one jot for civilian casualties, in fact, he deliberately targets them. I will grant you that.

As regards non-state actors, Freedom Fighters or Terrorists, depending on your point of view, they are hamstrung by their lack of conventional weapons, small numbers of volunteers, need for secrecy etc. Confronted by a far superior enemy they are forced to employ underhand tactics which can and often do lead to high civilian casualties.

The Ukrainian army, on the other hand, may be small in comparison to Russia but they are well trained and well armed after 8 years being supplied and schooled by their US counterparts. They are proving much more effective than the jaded and unenthusiastic Russian troops. But then, they have more of a fire in their bellies as they (Ukranians) are fighting for their homeland and their very survival...

So, the moral or ethical gap, for me, simply depends on motive. Are the motives behind the actions pure or legitimate even if the result of those actions are sometimes abhorrent? Perhaps the fight against communism in southeast Aisia, South America etc had some merit, given the horrors of Totalitarian Communist regimes. But there always seems to be some economic or resources dividend for the US thrown into the mix, along with their support for whatever rightwing guerrilla group or tyrant that can help them achieve their goals, which oftentimes goes a long way towards nulifying whatever moral justification is cited as reason for their intervention...Maybe Afghan invasion warranted after 9/11 too, however disastrous it turned out in the end. Arguably, they should have just gone in and killed or captured the terrorists instead of their failed attempt at nation building...

But certainly not Iraq 2003. No pure motives behind that as far as I can see. A big blunder on so many levels. Not least the establishment of a Shia corridor to the Med from Tehran via Baghdad, to Beirut and Damascus. The consequences of which we will be living with for decades.

Not to mention the misery heaped on Iraqi civilians or the rise of Isis and their subsequent attacks in E.U and US.

Well, that's about all I can muster Liamo. I hope I haven't offended you and that I've made somewhat of a cohesive argument.

Look forward to your response.

Cheers