Is Russia starting to lose the war?

@vivify said
You deliberately water-down Russia's takeover of Ukraine as an "occupation", you constantly attack the Ukrainian government and now insist on an article used by Russians to describe Ukraine during Soviet times. Like a Russian tool.

You don't merely criticize NATO, you call for its complete dissolution. Like A Russian tool.

You accuse me of being a "right-winger" when ...[text shortened]... rather than addressing the facts.

Your behavior with Russia is the same as Duchess with China.

NATO should have been dissolved long ago for reasons having little to do with Russia. It has become an aggressive arm of neoliberal imperialist policy intervening militarily in a slew of nations. That is a progressive position and has been one for decades.

At some point responding rationally to someone who clings to absurd beliefs with little basis in facts becomes tedious. That point has been reached with your ridiculous insistence that (the) Ukraine has, so far, been denied NATO membership because of internal policies rather than the risk of war with a nuclear armed State which vehemently opposes that move. You're welcome to your fantasy that Russia views that possibility with no more trepidation than Latvia or Finland joining NATO and the related fantasy that present NATO members are more concerned with internal politics of prospective member States than the geopolitical ramifications of their membership (which in this case includes the not insubstantial possibility of nuclear war).

I have no particular fondness for Russia nor its tyrannical government.

@no1marauder said
That point has been reached with your ridiculous insistence that (the) Ukraine has, so far, been denied NATO membership because of internal policies rather than the risk of war with a nuclear armed State which vehemently opposes that move

Again, based on NATO's history of accepting members who border Russia, including former Soviet states (and the fact that NATO formally welcomed Ukraine's bid to join), that doesn't seem to be the case.

But let's say you're 100% correct and NATO won't accept Ukraine due to risk of nuclear war: then you've proven my point that Ukraine was never a realistic threat of joining NATO and Putin is merely scapegoating NATO as an excuse to invade.

Whether we go with my reasoning or yours they both prove me correct.

@vivify said
Again, based on NATO's history of accepting members who border Russia, including former Soviet states (and the fact that NATO formally welcomed Ukraine's bid to join), that doesn't seem to be the case.

But let's say you're 100% correct and NATO won't accept Ukraine due to risk of nuclear war: then you've proven my point that Ukraine was never a realistic threat of joining N ...[text shortened]... TO as an excuse to invade.

Whether we go with my reasoning or yours they both prove me correct.

Not really; military and geopolitical developments since 2014 have significantly raised the possibility that NATO might accept Ukrainian membership in the near future (or at least it might have seemed that way to Russia's leaders).

At any rate, I have never claimed that the invasion was based on the possibility of imminent Ukrainian NATO membership.

@vivify said
I used Time as my source. They're "idiots" too?

What about the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically

The BBC is a bunch of idiots too, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/01/its-ukraine-not-ukraine-ukrainians-want-you-get-it-right/

[b]It's 'Ukraine', not 'the Ukrai ...[text shortened]... y Russians to denote Ukraine as part of the USSR) seems deliberate. You know...like a Russian tool.

What to call the country is trivial. "Ukraine" is fine with me.

@kevcvs57 said
When it comes to this issue YOU are the right winger along with MB or haven’t you noticed.
Just like him you’ll inflate any slight against Russia by Ukraine and the west and excuse any aggression murder and mayhem by Putin usually by blaming NATO.
Russia has no right any inch of Ukrainian land no matter how it’s apologist’s dress it up. Russia is just a nation like any oth ...[text shortened]... with Belorussia to the determinant of their neighbours, not to mention there own oppressed citizens.

Haven't "excused" the invasion as you well know. So your constant lies to the contrary are propaganda and/or self-delusion.

@no1marauder said
At any rate, I have never claimed that the invasion was based on the possibility of imminent Ukrainian NATO membership.

Maybe not "imminent" but you've used possible Ukrainian membership in NATO as provocation for Russia's invasion as a frequent talking point.

@no1marauder said
OK. They didn't want to commit to open war with Russia IF it invaded Ukraine. That seemed plausible considering the Russia Georgia war. And it would have been a reality in 2014.

It might not have been a reality in 2014, since the likely consequences of annexation would have been a factor in Putin's decision-making. It seems likely that Russia would not have moved to annex the Crimea, had Ukraine already been a member of NATO, since Putin would not have wanted to provoke a full-scale war with the West.

@vivify said
Maybe not "imminent" but you've used possible Ukrainian membership in NATO as provocation for Russia's invasion as a frequent talking point.

"Provocation" is a poor choice of a word in this case.

@no1marauder said
Haven't "excused" the invasion as you well know. So your constant lies to the contrary are propaganda and/or self-delusion.

Yeah you have excused / reduced Putins responsibility for the invasion by talking about everything from the internal politics of Ukraine, to the expansion of NATO and even pure waffle about official language restrictions as if any country that only has one official language warrants a brutal invasion by it’s neighbour for not including theirs.
How would you describe your ongoing rationalisation of Putins position?
Why isn’t a nation that invades a neighbour just simply wrong and why isn’t it perfectly legitimate for other nations to support that victim nation in any way possible.

@teinosuke said
It might not have been a reality in 2014, since the likely consequences of annexation would have been a factor in Putin's decision-making. It seems likely that Russia would not have moved to annex the Crimea, had Ukraine already been a member of NATO, since Putin would not have wanted to provoke a full-scale war with the West.

That's a bit too much of an alternative universe; with Yanukovych as President Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO who's overthrow triggered the Crimean annexation.

The Russian naval base at Sevastopol and other military installations would have had to be considered in your scenario prior to Ukraine joining NATO; the Russians may well have decided to keep them by force if necessary.

@kevcvs57 said
Yeah you have excused / reduced Putins responsibility for the invasion by talking about everything from the internal politics of Ukraine, to the expansion of NATO and even pure waffle about official language restrictions as if any country that only has one official language warrants a brutal invasion by it’s neighbour for not including theirs.
How would you describe your on ...[text shortened]... y isn’t it perfectly legitimate for other nations to support that victim nation in any way possible.

I've opposed NATO and it's expansion before Putin came to power. It's use as the armed wing of neoliberal imperialism justifies that.

We talk about individual countries' violation of human rights all the time on this board; why should Ukraine's violations be ignored as its "internal politics"?

I already said the invasion was "unjustified" and "a Crime against Peace" as you well know.

But the question of what to do after it occurred is where I differ from you and the others; continuation of the war is a humanitarian and economic world nightmare and your positions insure it will indefinitely continue. A negotiated settlement was possible at one point.but it now seems most unlikely because of actions by both sides.

@no1marauder said
NATO should have been dissolved long ago for reasons having little to do with Russia. It has become an aggressive arm of neoliberal imperialist policy intervening militarily in a slew of nations. That is a progressive position and has been one for decades.

To be clear, it wasn't this point alone, it was this combined with other observations about your posts. I share many of your views on NATO.

Based on what you've said I'll stop accusing you of being pro-Russia. Merely defending Russia in the interest of factual accuracy doesn't make one pro-Kremlin. That seems to be the intent of your posts.

@no1marauder said
I've opposed NATO and it's expansion before Putin came to power. It's use as the armed wing of neoliberal imperialism justifies that.

We talk about individual countries' violation of human rights all the time on this board; why should Ukraine's violations be ignored as its "internal politics"?

I already said the invasion was "unjustified" and "a Crime against Peace" ...[text shortened]... ettlement was possible at one point.but it now seems most unlikely because of actions by both sides.

Yes I don’t know anyone who could justify many if NATO invasions but to bring them up along with nitpicking about internal Ukrainian issues as an integral part of your stance on this war is whataboutism at its worse. You portray the wests support for Ukraine as western aggression when it’s blatantly a western defensive stance in the face of an expansionist Russia along with that you ridicule any support on here for the Ukrainian stance of self defence as the ramblings of warmongering neocons rather than a natural bent toward the overpowered underdog.
You need to be honest about your position because it clearly favours the Russian position and implies that Ukraine should simply be left defenceless and sacrificed to Putins ‘Peter the Great’ complex.

@kevcvs57 said
Yes I don’t know anyone who could justify many if NATO invasions but to bring them up along with nitpicking about internal Ukrainian issues as an integral part of your stance on this war is whataboutism at its worse. You portray the wests support for Ukraine as western aggression when it’s blatantly a western defensive stance in the face of an expansionist Russia along with ...[text shortened]... s that Ukraine should simply be left defenceless and sacrificed to Putins ‘Peter the Great’ complex.

These are tiresome lies. Lack of unconditional support for massive flows of weaponry that prolong a futile and destructive war isn't supporting "Russian expansionism"; it's realistically acknowledging the necessity for negotiations to end it rather than quixotically hoping for a Ukrainian military victory.

The West has hardly adopted a "defensive stance" anywhere. And it's push to absorb Eastern European nations into an aggressive military alliance at virtually any cost was always going to have a high risk of war.

To ignore what you call "internal Ukrainian issues" and what say Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International call "human rights violations" is convenient for your simplistic "good guy, bad guy" worldview but not for a realistic appraisal of what must be done to bring peace and security to Ukraine. And not honest when assessing the reasons Russia invaded when they did; like it or not the Russian government and its People regard repression of their ethnic brethren in other nations as a geopolitical issue.

And until you admit that what is going on is far more complex that one "bad guy" trying to conquer the world (like a Austin Powers plot) and thus we are all required to put on our white hats, you're never going to be able to address what is going on in the world in a sensible manner.

@vivify said
That was AFTER Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

California was annexed from the Mexicans in 1948. Get over Crimea. Mostly ethnic Russians live there and support Russia. Crimea river.