Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[examplens]

can anyone give me a real explanation for why people are tied up on poles in Ukraina?
I saw a lot of that, they are often marked with a "moroder" inscription. (I understand what the name itself represents). what confuses me, is probably two different sources Russian/Ukrainian, so everyone interprets it in their own way.
On one side, these are people who are against the Ukrainian government and the Nazis, while the other side claims to be thieves trying to take advantage of the current lawlessness.
I have also seen it go from humiliation to torture and ill-treatment. women are also not spared all this.

isn't there a more civilized solution to punishing criminals? the war will end once, that's for sure, who will then be recognized as a criminal. "moroder" or the hand of justice that brought judgment in the street?

[1714049758]

1714049758

[1714049758]

1714049758

[Gyfts]

...

You're referring to these type of events?

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/ukrainian-civilians-stripped-tied-up-and-beaten-by-vigilantes-in-shocking-videos/news-story/3a2abcc0a87815925dce0db9cee1c09a

Sure is news to me. Maybe it's not widespread and it appears this phenomenon is recent. War usually brings out the animalistic and tribalistic side of people. There is no police, no law and order, so people resort to retribution by mob. And it usually involves a lot of violence, apparently including tying women to a pole and beating them senselessly. There isn't much to understand, when civil society collapses under war so do social norms. I consider what these Ukrainians are doing to be tame compared to what goes on in middle eastern societies, where the punishment of being raped is being killed for having brought upon so much shame. Some might even be stoned to death for being gay. Of course, there is no logic or humanity under consideration. For the vast majority of human history, we've been pretty terrible to our fellow humans.

[be.open]

My point wasn't that there are zero Nazis defending Ukraine right now.  Obviously there are Nazis on both sides of the battle.  In Ukraine, they basically have no political power and are really only relevant because they are pretty good at fighting and have been recruiting others to join (like any 'good' Nazi anywhere in the world).  

Then there's the Nazis on the other side:

Russian ethnic and imperialist nationalism has shaped the official ideology of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.[172] Far-right nationalist groups have played a greater role on the pro-Russian side of the conflict than on the Ukrainian side, especially at the beginning.[123][172] Leaders of the Donetsk People's Militia are closely linked to the neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters.[172][173][174] A former member of RNU, Pavel Gubarev, was founder of the Donbas People's Militia and first "governor" of the Donetsk People's Republic.[172][175] RNU is particularly linked to the Russian Orthodox Army, a religious ultranationalist unit which is part of the Donetsk People's Militia.[174][176] Other neo-Nazi units include the 'Rusich', 'Svarozhich' and 'Ratibor' battalions, which have Slavic swastikas on their badges.[172]

Here's a pretty detailed paper, I've only gotten through part of it so far https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rnv95_uk_likhachev_far-right_radicals_final.pdf

English is not my native language, although I have a decent command of it. I do not quite understand the meaning of your message, what exactly do you want to convey to me? That there are people who adhere to ultra-right views in the People's Militia of Donbass? Well, it is possible - eight years of life under shelling from Ukraine probably contribute to the radicalization of views. As Domitius Ulpian said, "a way of thinking is not punishable." Inside your head, you can hold whatever views you want, whether right or left, and you can even go as far as you want in your ideological radicalization. In Russia there is no Ministry of Truth, which indicates how to think. It is not thoughts that are punished, but illegal actions. If there are illegal actions on the part of the people's militia of Donbass, they will also be punished. If these actions threaten Russia, they will be punished by Russia. Otherwise, this is an internal affair of the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

[paxmao]

blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
....

The success of the operation is largely due to Russia's dominance in the air and preventive strikes with high-precision weapons on military infrastructure.
...

blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.

Success? Bruh, you must have experienced such a serious failures in your life that this looks like a win of some short. Precise munition? WTF, you are carpet-shelling cities... unless you mean precise within +/-10km or the like.

Russia is achieving some territorial "gains" (gains of a hostile territory, not something sustainable) at the cost of equipment that is costly and that, due to sanctions and isolation, probably not easy to replace. If anything is clear on this war is that Putin failed spectacularly in his assumptions (e.g. they won't resist, EU will not act united, ...)

On the rumour front, a large contingent of troops that were near Kyiv seems to actually been cut-out of supplies. Unconfirmed, but plausible.

I made a post on the economics of war mentioning:


A switchblade drone costs 6000 USD, it can be used by a nearly untrained grunt and can destroy a 5 million USD tank or even a multi-million S-400 system. And that is without the guy having to even get close to the target. Guess what? USD has sent a very large batch Putin's way. I would be f**ng scared to be on one of Putin's tanks right now. A javelin or a MLAW have the same rate of "economic effectiveness".

It is not only about winning territory or cities, is about having a win that does not leave your army half-destroyed and unable to respond to revolts in other parts of Putin's Tzardom or with such a number of dead soldiers or POWs that he can no longer propagandize his way out of the fiasco.

I am not even going to bother answering your shitty propaganda.

And yet you just did it. 
...

And with that answer you are implicitly confirming that even yourself considered it as propaganda 

Pretty sure we'd see millions of casualties if Russia wanted to carpet shell a city. There's also no point of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks when there's a Father of All Bombs in your arsenal. Plus the hypersonic missile kinda proved that if Russia didn't care for civilians they could've take out Zelenksy on day one just with a press of a button.

Very doubtful of effectiveness of those switchblades, but sure lets imagine that they're a game changer as claimed. US litters every meter of Ukrainian soil with them along with ATGM and MANPADS. But what's the point, what's the end goal, is it to maximize damage on Russia at a cost of Ukraine or someone believes that Putin will just turn around and leave? Taking Afghanistan as an example, do you think civilians benefited from all of the advanced weapons Afghani soldiers received to fight Taliban? The benefit for US is pretty clear, US gets to fuck with Russia with minimal cost and zero risk to itself, sure why not, lets do another escalation. Now what options will Russia have? Either fold and go home to a guaranteed economical, political and possibly (physical?) suicide, or in a mirror reply to escalation with escalation. Either start getting military help from China, or raise the stakes that's where real carpet bombing will start, go full scorched earth like US in Vietnam. Cost/benefit for US is pretty clear, but is anyone still thinks that Ukraine is in control of any of this? Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen?

If you're still not disillusioned that this is about Ukraine. Here we have Macron saying

“We will be facing a world-wide food crisis,” Macron said in an interview with France Bleu radio on Tuesday. “I want to put in place a food voucher [system] to help the most modest households and the middle class facing these additional costs.”

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-22-22/h_7c10a14208a9646586b8dc400c9a51f5

And then Biden saying That we're at inflection point for new world order can't imagine any of this is good for Ukraine and if warmongering will make things any better for Ukraine

There is nothing left of Mariupol. It is gone. They did shell it nearly to flatness and Putin's ships are now destroying a massacring what's left.

No Ukraine is not in control, but, at this point, looks like Putin isn't either. He cannot withdraw without achieving significant objectives or his reputation would be gone and his Russia would, under his own vision, humiliated.

As harsh as it is to speak of the balance between human life and territory, I am afraid that yes, there is balance to be considered. The basis of this war is that Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Putin and are willing to die for it.

On the weaponry, I think it is not a magic wand, but it is a game changer. With a man portable tank destroyer you have to get really close to a big nasty and ready to kill main battle tank - I would not want to be there honestly. If you can send a drone from 20 miles away and do the job at zero risk to the guy, it changes the game and - my point - it changes the economics. It makes destroying very expensive weapons relatively cheap.

Putin will push forward, but, as impressive as his army may appear, it has a limit. Producing good war stuff is really expensive and eventually does lead to the economical impossibility of waging war or doing so with some effectiveness.

[icopress]

can anyone give me a real explanation for why people are tied up on poles in Ukraina? [...]

This is the response of ordinary people to looting ... they do it in my city.

And I think after such educational measures a person will never steal again (especially at a time when people have nothing to eat).

Although personally in my city the situation has improved a little.

[Hetadrop]

Putin shows NATO the capabilities of modern Russian weapons and how to fight - without general mobilization, without numerical superiority and without burning entire neighborhoods with fire.

Good joke!
But no, you are wrong: https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1499633290004905985
Russian propaganda seems to be efficient.
At least to fool yourself.

Success?

Of course it's a success. What makes you think that a blitzkrieg was planned? From Russia, about 200 thousand soldiers take part in the operation, against 300 thousand soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (whom the West has been pumping up with weapons for many years and trained by NATO instructors) and with a total length of the front line of 3.5 thousand kilometers. Now look at the map of hostilities (if you do not believe the data of the Russian Defense Ministry, take the data that is published in the West). Or is it presented in the Ukrainian media as a tactical lure of Putin's soldiers to their territory before a decisive march on Moscow?  

So basically, Putin is trying to do the opposite of de-nazification.  

Really?

Inside A White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine (by Time)

Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government (by The Jimmy Dore Show)

Ukraine's far-right children's camp: 'I want to bring up a warrior' (by The Guardian)

This is not Russian propaganda, these are investigations and reports from the Western media. Enjoy.

You should look up Wagner Group, a german Nazi group hired by Putin.  
Wagner Group CEO is a Nazi and his whole company is full of Nazis:

A very famous Nazi group of Russia's Troops is a German Nazi entrepreneur participating in Putins wars again and again. It's Wagner group and was involved already in Syria to keep Despot Assad in power and Putin hired Wagner's troops.
CEO of Wagner group is currently Dmitriy Utkin, a russian Nazi: https://www.italy24news.com/world/391586.html

In 2022 images surfaced of Utkin purportedly showing Waffen SS collar tab and Reichsadler Eagle tattoos on his collar and chest. Additionally, several prominent members of the Wagner group have been photographed or recorded in Nazi uniforms or taking part in re-enactments of WWII events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

Dmitriy Utkin, a russian Nazi, is glorifying german Nazi symbolism and ideology.

[DaRude]

blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
....

The success of the operation is largely due to Russia's dominance in the air and preventive strikes with high-precision weapons on military infrastructure.
...

blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.

Success? Bruh, you must have experienced such a serious failures in your life that this looks like a win of some short. Precise munition? WTF, you are carpet-shelling cities... unless you mean precise within +/-10km or the like.

Russia is achieving some territorial "gains" (gains of a hostile territory, not something sustainable) at the cost of equipment that is costly and that, due to sanctions and isolation, probably not easy to replace. If anything is clear on this war is that Putin failed spectacularly in his assumptions (e.g. they won't resist, EU will not act united, ...)

On the rumour front, a large contingent of troops that were near Kyiv seems to actually been cut-out of supplies. Unconfirmed, but plausible.

I made a post on the economics of war mentioning:


A switchblade drone costs 6000 USD, it can be used by a nearly untrained grunt and can destroy a 5 million USD tank or even a multi-million S-400 system. And that is without the guy having to even get close to the target. Guess what? USD has sent a very large batch Putin's way. I would be f**ng scared to be on one of Putin's tanks right now. A javelin or a MLAW have the same rate of "economic effectiveness".

It is not only about winning territory or cities, is about having a win that does not leave your army half-destroyed and unable to respond to revolts in other parts of Putin's Tzardom or with such a number of dead soldiers or POWs that he can no longer propagandize his way out of the fiasco.

I am not even going to bother answering your shitty propaganda.

And yet you just did it.  
...

And with that answer you are implicitly confirming that even yourself considered it as propaganda  

Pretty sure we'd see millions of casualties if Russia wanted to carpet shell a city. There's also no point of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks when there's a Father of All Bombs in your arsenal. Plus the hypersonic missile kinda proved that if Russia didn't care for civilians they could've take out Zelenksy on day one just with a press of a button.

Very doubtful of effectiveness of those switchblades, but sure lets imagine that they're a game changer as claimed. US litters every meter of Ukrainian soil with them along with ATGM and MANPADS. But what's the point, what's the end goal, is it to maximize damage on Russia at a cost of Ukraine or someone believes that Putin will just turn around and leave? Taking Afghanistan as an example, do you think civilians benefited from all of the advanced weapons Afghani soldiers received to fight Taliban? The benefit for US is pretty clear, US gets to fuck with Russia with minimal cost and zero risk to itself, sure why not, lets do another escalation. Now what options will Russia have? Either fold and go home to a guaranteed economical, political and possibly (physical?) suicide, or in a mirror reply to escalation with escalation. Either start getting military help from China, or raise the stakes that's where real carpet bombing will start, go full scorched earth like US in Vietnam. Cost/benefit for US is pretty clear, but is anyone still thinks that Ukraine is in control of any of this? Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen?

If you're still not disillusioned that this is about Ukraine. Here we have Macron saying

“We will be facing a world-wide food crisis,” Macron said in an interview with France Bleu radio on Tuesday. “I want to put in place a food voucher [system] to help the most modest households and the middle class facing these additional costs.”

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-22-22/h_7c10a14208a9646586b8dc400c9a51f5

And then Biden saying That we're at inflection point for new world order can't imagine any of this is good for Ukraine and if warmongering will make things any better for Ukraine

There is nothing left of Mariupol. It is gone. They did shell it nearly to flatness and Putin's ships are now destroying a massacring what's left.

No Ukraine is not in control, but, at this point, looks like Putin isn't either. He cannot withdraw without achieving significant objectives or his reputation would be gone and his Russia would, under his own vision, humiliated.

As harsh as it is to speak of the balance between human life and territory, I am afraid that yes, there is balance to be considered. The basis of this war is that Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Putin and are willing to die for it.

On the weaponry, I think it is not a magic wand, but it is a game changer. With a man portable tank destroyer you have to get really close to a big nasty and ready to kill main battle tank - I would not want to be there honestly. If you can send a drone from 20 miles away and do the job at zero risk to the guy, it changes the game and - my point - it changes the economics. It makes destroying very expensive weapons relatively cheap.

Putin will push forward, but, as impressive as his army may appear, it has a limit. Producing good war stuff is really expensive and eventually does lead to the economical impossibility of waging war or doing so with some effectiveness.

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.

During Operation Linebacker II, 741 B-52 sorties were dispatched to bomb North Vietnam; 729 completed their missions. B-52s dropped 15,237 tons of ordnance on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including eight SAM sites) while fighter-bombers added another 5,000 tons of bombs to the tally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II

As of 2022, it is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft, the fastest bomber in use and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown...Two internal weapon bays for 45,000 kg (99,208 lb) of ordnance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

I see a high probability of a new world order coming up. If it happens all the lines will be redrawn anyway. If it doesn't, choosing death over Putin seems pretty silly if Russia will collapse once again in 1yr.

[be.open]

Putin shows NATO the capabilities of modern Russian weapons and how to fight - without general mobilization, without numerical superiority and without burning entire neighborhoods with fire.

Good joke!
But no, you are wrong: https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1499633290004905985
Russian propaganda seems to be efficient.
At least to fool yourself.

Buddy, it's better for you not to know the alternative scenario, because instead of houses with broken windows on your video there would be only craters from rockets and air bombs and nothing else. During the month of the special operation, the losses of the personnel of the Russian troops exceed the losses among the civilian population. You seem to have problems with propaganda, because instead of understanding that the Russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties, screams are heard that the blitzkrieg failed. There would have been even fewer losses if the Ukrainian army had defended its people (and why else would an army be needed?), and not hide behind their backs. If Ukraine does not understand such simple things, well, it will no longer have its own army.

Russian warship fuck you? Go fuck yourself.

[TwitchySeal]

the Russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties

Except for the whole decision to bomb cities while cutting off their food, gas and electrify for weeks now.  These aren't things a military that's trying to minimize civilian casualties does.  Remember, they're in Ukraine.  The Russians are the ones invading Ukraine.  You realize that right?

[be.open]

the Russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties

Except for the whole decision to bomb cities while cutting off their food, gas and electrify for weeks now.  These aren't things a military that's trying to minimize civilian casualties does.  Remember, they're in Ukraine.  The Russians are the ones invading Ukraine.  You realize that right?

Of course I understand this correctly. Russia is conducting a military operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine and, as part of achieving its goals, strikes at everything that shoots. If the shooters are hiding in residential buildings, strikes are made on residential buildings. The strikes will continue until the desire and ability of Ukraine to continue to shoot will not completely disappear.

The appearance of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is a farce, negotiations are going on without a ceasefire. The negotiators essentially do not decide anything, their composition makes one doubt their authority to decide anything at all. The operation will end when Russia reaches its goals in full, and the attempts of the Ukrainian side to negotiate better terms of surrender are ridiculous. I regret the losses on both sides, but it is unacceptable for Russia to show pity now, because it will be perceived by the West as a sign of weakness. Anyone who does not lay down their arms will be killed. I respect the Ukrainian soldiers who continue to fight without a chance to win, their death will be heroic, although in vain. Russia offers Ukrainian soldiers to surrender and save their lives, but cannot forbid them to die for their ideals, even if these Nazi ideals are unacceptable to Russia.

[Etranger]

the Russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties

You can be awarded a medal: "Not as absolute killers as you could be."
the russians are trying to minimize civilian casualties -> means you haven`t killed everyone in Ukraine yet. Some of us, thank God, you just can't reach.

The appearance of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is a farce, negotiations are going on without a ceasefire. The negotiators essentially do not decide anything, their composition makes one doubt their authority to decide anything at all. The operation will end when Russia reaches its goals in full, and the attempts of the Ukrainian side to negotiate better terms of surrender are ridiculous. I regret the losses on both sides, but it is unacceptable for Russia to show pity now, because it will be perceived by the West as a sign of weakness. Anyone who does not lay down their arms will be killed. I respect the Ukrainian soldiers who continue to fight without a chance to win, their death will be heroic, although in vain. Russia offers Ukrainian soldiers to surrender and save their lives, but cannot forbid them to die for their ideals, even if these Nazi ideals are unacceptable to Russia.

Your so-called soldiers are taken prisoner by whole platoons with equipment and their snotty generals. They do not understand what they are fighting for and hate those who sent them to die in Ukraine. They know that they are murderers, they know that they are killing unarmed people and even children, they are just shooting those who are standing in line for bread or for humanitarian aid. Their deaths are in vain, they don't even realize why they lived at all.

I see you are a big supporter of war. Believe in your righteous cause. I have a question: do you have such a great internet catch from the tank that you write here every ten minutes? Or do you still prefer to sit in a warm apartment (until you cut off the latest resources and the Internet) and write here, how well you understand the war and the politics of your low state? If the second option is yours, then why not change the situation and enlist in the army (until you are forcibly mobilized, it's still not far off), do not go to Ukraine and look at what your adorable army are doing here? An unforgettable experience will be guaranteed.

[be.open]

Your so-called soldiers are taken prisoner by whole platoons with equipment and their snotty generals. They do not understand what they are fighting for and hate those who sent them to die in Ukraine. They know that they are murderers, they know that they are killing unarmed people and even children, they are just shooting those who are standing in line for bread or for humanitarian aid. Their deaths are in vain, they don't even realize why they lived at all.

The whole world is frankly laughing at the fakes of Ukrainian propaganda. You're leaving out one simple thing - wars are won by planes, missiles and tanks on the battlefield, not by videos with editing and graphics from video games on TV and on the Internet.

https://youtu.be/VgsVJADK8jg

I see you are a big supporter of war. Believe in your righteous cause. I have a question: do you have such a great internet catch from the tank that you write here every ten minutes? Or do you still prefer to sit in a warm apartment (until you cut off the latest resources and the Internet) and write here, how well you understand the war and the politics of your low state? If the second option is yours, then why not change the situation and enlist in the army (until you are forcibly mobilized, it's still not far off), do not go to Ukraine and look at what your adorable army are doing here? An unforgettable experience will be guaranteed.

The transition to personalities in forum discussions is always evidence of the weakness of the interlocutor's argumentation, but I will answer you to this as well. There is no war in Russia either, there is a special operation on the territory of Ukraine. There is no general mobilization in Russia, professionals are doing well without my help.

[paxmao]

...

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

[Tash]

Lynx Vehicles at the Checkpoint in Mariupol
https://youtu.be/DkjqW5O44KY

Biden warns of "real" food shortage following sanctions on Russia
https://youtu.be/tIg96D2lhbw

[DaRude]

...

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia. First step NATO will have to do is control the sky, to do that it needs to take out all Russian planes and try to take out all Russian anti-aircraft missile systems and ships with AA capabilities, many AA systems are located on Belarus and Russian land. If all of these countries in their great wisdom decide to make this regional war into global, stop pretending to be a defensive pact and start shooting down Russian planes, and if i somehow survive initial blasts as a radioactive ghoul, my sole mission in life (?) would be to hunt down and eat the brains of any remaining survivors who participated in that decision making!

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Hope surviving astronauts would be able to transmit out a last message into space that the Great Filter is maniacs in power, and send out our world's history finishing it with

...we were able to split the atom and one country decided to nuke two cities, then that same country decided to start a war with another nuke country as it thought the second country wouldn't nuke it back. Now, don't laugh, but yeah they were wrong. In retrospect we have no idea how our species managed to make it this far. Good luck. -The End"

World is unfair, care to estimate civilian deaths from US embargo on Cuba? They're commies but somehow totally different from Chinese commies which are the biggest trade partner, despite literally whole world (except Israel) asking it to stop for like 30yrs now.

A total of 184 countries on Wednesday voted in favour of a resolution to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba, for the 29th year in a row, with the United States and Israel voting against.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612

US couldn't care less and justifies it as an existential threat, i fail to see why same logic cannot apply to Russia and Ukraine. Yeah unfair, still I bet any Cuban wishes to have it as good as Ukraine did, but sucks for them both. Putin will take Ukraine, easy way or the hard way, or Russia will collapse, or of course we all die in a nuclear winter. There's also a good chance of Russia taking Ukraine but then still collapsing afterwards. I put chances of scaring Russia out of Ukraine with escalations at the same level as scaring US into letting Russia go into Cuba.

Edit: i can't spell

[paxmao]

...

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing

[...]

I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda.

As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution?

On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical.

[LTU_btc]

Now Russia stated that more limited goal of this war, or ''special military operation'' how they call it is liberation of Donbass:
https://globalnews.ca/news/8709579/russia-donbass-ukraine-war-kyiv/
Question - liberate from what? Since 2014 Donbass is controlled by Russian separatists
And also, Ukraine regained control of Kherson - first big city that was occupied by Russia in the beginning of war.

[TwitchySeal]

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia.

The complaints are Russia making it a crime to call the war a war.  Look at all those media outlets that had to close up shop and leave the country because they were afraid if they reported on the war truthfully they would be arrested or worse.
 Don't you think that's fucked up?  Wouldn't it be nice if Russian news was independent of the government and the people were free to disagree with Putin?

[DaRude]

...

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing

[...]

I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda.

As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution?

On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical.

We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right? So in reality, US, who's officially not a party to this conflict, and under no obligation whatsoever, deciding to attack Russia under whichever flag, would probably lead to Nuclear Winter. I mean Putin would have to be a saint to just stand down and save the world. Frankly i just don't see it happening. I'm not an expert on this by any means so imagining that within minutes of the attack a single hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere in Poland EMP frying some airplanes and troops stationed there getting radiation poisoning. Auto MAD system and Russian Dead Hand are activated. Hundreds of thousands die, and some idiots whom humans somehow bestowed with such powers, pick up the red phones and decide if they should end our civilization.

Realistic case: US sells out Ukraine with some backhanded deal with Russia. Covered in such a way so everyone saves face

Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head:
-Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence
-US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing
-EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter
-Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba.
-China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another Marshall Plan for Europe.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia.

The complaints are Russia making it a crime to call the war a war.  Look at all those media outlets that had to close up shop and leave the country because they were afraid if they reported on the war truthfully they would be arrested or worse.
 Don't you think that's fucked up?  Wouldn't it be nice if Russian news was independent of the government and the people were free to disagree with Putin?

Russia is in survival mode. It tried to compete on the soft power field, but its sphere of influence was being taken away with cookies faster than it could grow. They were playing a game that they were meant to loose. Boat was rocked too far, and we're seeing Russia take its last stand.
Truth Is the First Casualty in War always was, and probably will be. Information warfare is a thing and is just another front. US has control over mass media and social networks, so they can just censor unfavorable coverage like this (not safe for life!) and majority would never know about this, if Russia had such soft power it wouldn't have rolled tanks into Ukraine in the first place. Yeah it's fucked up and unfortunately I'm afraid it's only the begging and I fully expect them to follow in US's footsteps like with Kent State massacre

[be.open]

Yeah it's fucked up and unfortunately I'm afraid it's only the begging and I fully expect them to follow in US's footsteps like with Kent State massacre

I think Russia is now in no hurry to invade Western Ukraine, because the ideas of radical nationalism have penetrated very deeply into the mentality and they are almost all Nazis there, demilitarization can transform into mass genocide. It is necessary at least first to completely defeat the regular army of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass in order to demoralize the militants in the Lviv region and try to push them to Poland to the maximum so that this becomes Europe's problem with refugees on its territory.