Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Based on Ukraines efforts in the last 2 weeks I'd say you havent crawled out from underneath your rock for a while to see whats been happening

For years I have been watching and reading people saying the UN is useless and corrupt. That annoys me, the planet is global and interconnected, it must have a forum were leaders meet. The UN has issues but the greatest achievement of mankind IMP was by a the WHO a UN body and that was the elimination of smallpox. The greatest problem it has is a problem created by its largest critics ie. the large countries with a security council VETO.

The removal of Russia from the UN is not the correct solution, the correct solution is the removal of the permanent security council members VETOS.

This would be counter productive. The whole idea should be to keep them in the room so there is someone to talk to.

Reminds me of the silly "expel the Israeli ambassador" here.

Great, you get an hour of satisfaction, then what? No one to talk to.

In addition countries like Russia would be far more dangerous outside the tent than in it.

It does not make any positive practical sense.

Or the bitter end could be viewed as a western controlled Ukraine.

The unfortunate consequence of the cold war, and what many Russians view as broken promises thereafter, is that Russian citizens don't really need much persuading from Putin in order to distrust the west.

Putin's propaganda goals are not really difficult to achieve within Russia.

Combined with the fact that most Russians are very used to economic hardship, so western sanctions are unlikely to sway many away from this war. And Russia still has very impressive natural resources, so it's unlikely that they'll be going hungry or cold this winter. (while here in the west, it's less certain - which might be another propaganda win for Putin btw)

There is another lie in there, you really cannot help yourself can you.

Those areas have not been under intense Ukrainian shelling since 2014, that is an outright lie. There had been a monitored ceasefire in operation for years. There were numerous violations of that ceasefire and most of those violations were by the Russians and that was observed and reported on for years by independent UN observers including Irish army officers.

There was never any "heavy shelling".

Yes the Veto right as a P5 member is the crucial issue, however if Russia is held to be the Successor State as opposed to the Continuing State of the USSR then it will automatically be a non UN member state, unless of course the UN are willing to accept Russia as a de facto non P5 member.

BS. Russia doesn't need to defend a border against NATO countries as not one of them had any intention of attacking or invading Russia, ever, no matter the considerable justifications they might have had for doing so. Russia frequently meddles in the affairs of neighbouring states and engages in violence against them. The opposite has never occurred in the time NATO has existed.

It's like a criminal living at the end of a street, A street where not so mysteriously, certain houses get burgled, from time to time, getting all hyper and aggressive about the number of houses on the street that have installed alarm systems, banging on the door of the one neighbour he has who hasn't yet had an alarm system installed, and threatening them that they better not be thinking about getting an alarm system.

The neighbour asks him to calm down and asks why would he object if he got an alarm system, surely he wasn't planning to burgle him again? Crickets.

Putins objection to NATO is solely to do with it frustrating his flexibility to meddle in the affairs of other countries with both threatened and real violence to blackmail them into doing as told or for punishing them when they don't. He knows none of his neighbours would ever attack the second tenth best army in the world which has more nuclear weapons than they have had birthdays, but he wants to always be able to do so to them.

People in the west who are apologists for Putins view and think it is legitimate, are filth, scum and warmongers. They are like that coterie of mental defectives who admire Anders Behring Breivik.

Putin will want to fight to the bitter end. His people, though? If his people were that gung-ho to fight, they'd be signing up in their droves. There would be no need to introduce this 'partial mobilisation' measure as Putin would have all the enthusiastic volunteers he could handle, and there would be no protests in the streets, only spontaneous rallies and parades. Putin may be heartened whenever he sees a car with a Z daubed on it (not that he goes outside much these days), but that doesn't do him much good if that doesn't translate into enthusiastic soldiers, ready to give it their all for a common cause. You cannot prosecute a war without the resources and that's a hard reality that no amount of Russian respect for its military history can overcome.

Vietnam wasn't on the USA's doorstep though. And that is a very crucial difference here.

The Russians are highly unlikely to tuck tail and scamper away like the yanks in Vietnam, because they will have to live with the consequences of that decision in their backyard for the rest of time.

Vietnam also wasn't ethnically or culturally significant to your average American, again another important difference here.

Russia stands to lose much more (from their perspective), if they walk away.

For this, and many other reasons, I could see Russia fighting on indefinitely. Even if it means very dire consequences for them. I fear the west may have seriously underestimated how determined they are not to lose this war.