I'm kinda surprised there still isn't a thread on the topic. I live here, it has dramatically touched my standard of living, though everyone's health is good. And I'm very saddened with the way info is given in the west.

I wonder how do you view the conflict? And then I'd share my thoughts.

Well, well. In short, I already think war is a bad thing. It's smelling shit and money. And Poutine is a fucking dumbass. He did not even listened to the Russian people living in Ukraine. And killing of innocent people is always painful to see .
What else, well, EU, USA and all others are playing all along the red line. They do want to embarrass Russia, but they do not want an open war. No yet. And Putin, that dumbass, is using the nuclear treat to protect himself when doing unjustified (or worse, lie justified) invasions and mass killings.
That shit is real, and not even far from France. They even took down (Russia) one of our journalists.
I feel sorry for the Russian people, sorry for the Ukrainian people. In all cases, it's a matter of a crazy guys wanting to attack another (maybe less) crazy one.
Should we put them all in a boxing ring / octagon instead of letting them send armies to destroy each others ? I wonder.

Everyone already agrees its terrible and there's like 5 posters left here.

Nothing we can realistically do other than vent.

It’s terribly sad.

Invading a democratic and free country because the elected government takes a dicision you do not like is beyond all reason.
And terror bombings on civilian centres are a hideous warcrime !

Putin just wants the cold war era back. With a capitalist Soviet. He may argue that it was Nato's fault, after last expanding. Thanks to Putin, next expanding will happen with Finland and Sweden.
Putin's way of thinking is same as Molotoff-Ribbentropf, or the allied dividing Europe after WW2. It goes like "What can we big and powerful do with these small countries?" But the Nato expansion and the West way of thinking (goes for EU, too) is "What can we small countries do together?"
Even though USA is (still) a main part of Nato, it is very far from Europe. We Europeans live in independent countries and form strong bonds. One bond is Nato, another is EU, a third is a cultural history, one is pure geografy.

The stupidest thing with Putin's war is that Russia is a part of Europe. Russia can't be a member of Nato, nor a member of EU. But Russia is a member of EBU, Russia participates in UEFA European Football Championship etc.

I get the feeling that Putin hates being a part of international communities. It is during Putin's era that Russia has totally fucked up its international relations.

war is unfortunate however i stand with mother Russia

piccolo you're nuts.

Russia is the aggressor here. The attack on Ukraine is unprovoked, unjustified, and evil.

Piccolo has some explaining to do. In fact, any supporter of Russia's actions, please, write your thoughts! Are there any other thoughts than the idea that the world must simply be ruled by giant countries, no matter how terrible dictators are ruling them?

If you love Russia so much move there. See what it's like to live in a Communist state. Russia has no business taking sovereign territory from another country.

long explanation short ,there are things going on in this world that most of the population are blind too because they don't think logically and any attempt at logical thought is swept away by their emotions when their string are plucked.

i am able of see those things logical and Russia is opposing those misguided things

i am able to see because my ability to critically think under pressure is at very high level emotions can not affect my logical thinking easily

piccolo, can you give use an idea of what you are talking about?

i will hint that there has been a chest game of world dominance going on but it is there for all to see.

however if you want to be able to see you have to strengthen your masculine logical mind so that your feminine emotional mind can not over power it so easily in panic

study so that you auto think and process using Truth Tables and you will not be fooled by anything. because Truth has to make logical sense or common sense some call it

if it don't make sense then your missing information or you logical understanding is not correct and your logic needs to be re worked or refined

Logic 101 (#12): Truth Table Practice

piccolo's link doesn't work for me, but THIS appears to be what he was linking to.

Piccolo, will you finally admit you are just full of shit?

I wonder if piccolo drank the same thing as bam?

Or Piccolo is really some sort of AI at this point

I mean really Piccolo, not everything can be reduced to masculine/feminine yin yang black and white binary thinking. I'd like to see one of these so-called truth tables of yours that you use to make your decisions based upon. 101 SRSLY

EDIT
P.S. piccolo is an AI programmed by the Namekian Piccolo.
{"name":"a253b78e2b5cd0efc8c69fce7e90fc4a25f56ba6_hq.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/0\/c0b27fa0ebab24cc312ce7e0f97029a9.jpg","w":1024,"h":576,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/0\/c0b27fa0ebab24cc312ce7e0f97029a9"}

The implications for the rest of Europe are terrifying. I think Putin was/is taking advantage of the covid related vulnerability of the world to do something massively appalling. I hope the Ukraine holds its ground.

open statement with no supporting arguments

not everything can be reduced to masculine/feminine yin yang black and white binary thinking

supplied variable context definitions

binary thinking == masculine/feminine == yin yang == black and white

piccolo is proof aliens from other dimensions exist. You make my wildest comments sound normal.

i wanted to give an example using his words but thinking about it, he should just take the 5 min videos course to lesson 12 because one of the lessons before 12 shows you how to break down a sentence too populated truth tables.

use truth tables to evaluate your thoughts to make sure you are thinking using correct logic that is how your logical mind grower stronger

You can be logical and still be completely wrong.

that just means your logical statement and self assessment of your own logic will allow you to see that yourself

reduced logic that is correct is all ways correct a+b = c
c= a+b

Not always. If you start with an incorrect assertion that you believe to be correct, you will be wrong, even if all the logic following the assertion holds. And if you do not know that the assertion was incorrect, then your self assessment will also be wrong.

Some statements are also neither true or false inherently, such as "you are uglier than me" or "chocolate tastes better than strawberry."

give an example of your incorrect assertion

neither true or false inherently
means poorly defined

just take the course

Here's one:

Assertion 1: A pizza costs $10.
Assertion 2: I only have $8

Conclusion: I cannot afford to buy a pizza

The problem is that I'm not good at counting and actually have $11. My conclusion that I can't afford a pizza is perfectly logical based on the assertions, but assertion 2 is wrong, so I came to the wrong conclusion.

But self-assessment will correct that you say? Well, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I think I'm the best counter in the world, so I'm not going to recount the money and find out the mistake.

Yes, but one of the most practical uses of propositional logic is in interpreting the meaning of other people's statements, and other people are going to use ill-defined statements constantly.

I did a university course in logic (and it was one of the ones I actually attended), so does that count?

I mean, do we really need to even discuss Russia when we all basically agree (except Picollo who has a history of trolling whether intentionally or not) that Russia invaded a sovereign nation, and magically changed its "Reasons" multiple times after the fact including naazziis which, while real, aren't remotely 1) in control of the nation or 2) a reason to invade a country.

The simple reason is this: Putin is getting old, and his d_ck doesn't work anymore so he's trying to re-live his cold war nostalgia and prove that he's still a 'man' before he dies.

If you actually like Russia and Putin, you should still be pissed because they've failed for over 100 days at taking over a country with no sizable modern army and no world influence. "But they've been armed by the outside" and? Arming the government didn't help Afghanistan from being steamrolled in 3 days by the Taliban. Imagine your entire country's army being more inept than the Taliban. If you're "pro Russia" you should be pissed that they're losing to naazis.

Back on topic...

Some videos to get an understanding of the geo-political situation:

1. Why Russia is attacking Ukraine. It's not a single-issue war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE; the follow-on videos are pretty good too. E.g. the oil & gas problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo6w5R6Uo8Y

2. More details on geopolitics of Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwPMtmuuVNw. More from Zeihan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-nPyPlBdw

3. Realist view of the conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6MWNRtTc3A

🇺🇦

When I talk to my friends in Mexico, they hardly know that there is a war going on.

Here in the Netherlands, the war is hard to ignore. I mean, daily life goes on as normal, but there are signs everywhere.

• No flour in the supermarkets for weeks. Sunflower oil was also running low.

• Gas prices way up. Everybody wants to insulate their home at the same time. Energy policy is a daily topic on the news.

• Everybody is involved in donation drives. I donated an old laptop to a Ukrainian family that had to leave everything behind.

• My colleague drove all the way to the Polish border to pick up refugees and hand out emergency aid.

@LennyLen self-assessment after the negative outcome will have to double check your counting since you aware of its poor reliability.
the logic on your counting algorithm need to be refined you are defining $8 as a CONSTANT something that you know is true. you are facing a ITL data governance issue.

not a very good example i might add

interpreting the meaning of other people's statements mean that you need to understand the context you need to questions your source so that you fully understand and verify the scope/context of the statements that resolve in to variables and clauses

university course in logic means nothing i took logic in university too however this you tube cause is far more effective in teaching the core concepts and who they work together as a whole

William Spaniel from
Game Theory is a very good teacher and if you need a refresher things will click for you very fast once you start watching the simple 5 min videos

he even has some video logically breaking down things about the same war
similarly structured to what Bob posed

https://www.youtube.com/c/Gametheory101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjAyrX7wms&list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51on

his words on why you need to learn logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjAyrX7wms&t=403s

piccolo - your truth tables do nothing to prove why you support a murderer like Putin.

Slava do Ukrayiny

Glory to Ukraine

Thank you for the links, Bob.

I've found this guy's tweets interesting. It's mostly about Russian cultural background relating to the war.

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711

Nothing I could do to falsify or verify his claims, though.

Yeah I saw that thread too.

He wrote that a few days after the start of the invasion, and he was certainly right about Ukraine not (immediately) losing the war.

But now the conflict is dragging on, and the nature of it is going to change again, more endurance than tactics. Over time, all parties will lose, and lose more as it keeps going. We can only hope for a swift resolution.

Well, mostly as I had been expecting.. Very one sided. And the other side is very misrepresented

First of all a little background/disclaimer: I vastly suffered from the war, as I didn't believe it would happen. One of my main arguments was that there needs to be roughly 1m standing army to swiftly take Ukraine, and Russia had some 150k ready for deployment.

I correctly assessed the rotation of money from Tech(growth) to value, but the top value I've seen - was Russia.. I still possess my stocks, as I'm a Russian resident.. But in October my main account was worth 280m rub(it's 4m USD), now it's worth is 26m rub. Lowest point was 14m. I was leveraged in illiquid already underpriced assets when the market collapsed 50% in national currency in a day. It is unprecedented in Russia, US or wherever.. Not sure if there was a kind of this shit during great depression, but then it was fucking gold standard.

I also have some loans.. Though some cash outside of this as well, bitcoin has truly helped me. Oh well, I'm bombed years back. I really made a fortune after COVID, and it's not likely I'll repeat it any time soon.

And loss of life en masse IS a terrible thing, but certainly I'm more touched by personal material ruin. Especially since my son was born on 24.03(exactly one month after, the day the stock market reopened), and well.. I'm no longer rich.

***

Now to the point of the war. Only true reason to justify the war, could be certainty of its inevitability, that is - Ukraine attacking, if Russia not doing it. And although we have no way to figure this out, such a claim does sound rather fairly legit to me.

Long story short - there was a coup in Ukraine, the western provinces of Ukraine liked it, the eastern didn't. The coup wasn't without US participation(you can openly read about it on the English wiki), then Russia just grabbed 90% Russian populated Crimea, but didn't dare to do the same with DOnbass where the war is now raging, the separatist Donetsk & Luhansk. Yeah, they became so eager to war not without Russian help, but nevertheless.. They don't wanna be part of Ukraine, and Ukraine doesn't respect the will of the people.

In 2014 or 2015, there was the Minsk agreement, where these two regions were promised autonomy by Ukraine, with participation of France & Germany. The autonomy was never implemented, however the countries who were part of the agreement were openly supporting Ukraine's military buildup. As we can now see - they did so rather effectively.

So instead of following the signed agreement, to which Ukraine, France, Germany & Russia were a part of, Ukraine & the west were openly ignoring it, while arming Ukraine. The west was certain Russia would swallow it. Odds are, at some point in time Ukraine would move on with an attack on Donbass(the separatist regions). Perhaps not this year, most likely after Putin would be gone, during some political turmoil in Russia. In case of success - Crimea would be next. And a nuclear umbrella is only good if there's a leader with the will to hit the button.

And the people of both areas are pretty much Russians. Most were born in the USSR, speak Russian.. And suddenly find themself in a west looking Ukraine banning Russian books.

I tried as hard as I can to be unbiased(although my position is obvious, but it only makes the whole thread neutral), not touching the nazi topic, but then.. A bit I must. Read this. Just the title will do. Example of the depth of bias of western propaganda. So the Azov changes its neo nazi symbol because of evil Russian propaganda. Not a word about the fact they're actually Nazi. Or, how did they get to be using this symbol in the first place?! Nah, evil Russian propaganda. Besides they changed the symbol now, so they're good guys.

It's just an example of how badly the story is biased against Russia. And it has been this way all the way since 2014.. Democracy is representation for all people. So the coup in western Ukraine is legal(although illegal in accordance with the constitution of Ukraine, you can also read on the wiki page why), but it's technical little details, when the change is "pro western" and "anti Russian", but then when the east wants to separate - it's illegal.

***

Now about the operation itself. It's certain Russia was hoping Ukraine would surrender quickly, they failed to take Kyiv, because Ukraine chose to fight. They'd succeed in 2014, but then western sanctions would crush Russia.. Now there's gonna be a mild recession, and a record USD value of exported goods in 2022 despite the sanctions. Good timing for Russia economically.

It's awful, what happened in Bucha - I'm certain Ukraine staged SOME of it, as they're literally getting billions thanks to the show. I'm certain there are war crimes committed by both sides, most likely more by the Russian, as the war is raging on UA soil.

It's disgusting how the west was discussing UA victories, & how much land was liberated: Russian forces failed to take Kyiv, it became evident taking a large city will only be possible if its razed to the ground, which is I HOPE unacceptable, but also there's not enough resources to do so, unless Russia mobilizes for war. & well, it's peace here in Russia. You no longer have Ikea, but iPhones became cheaper because of stronger Ruble. 13 Pro Max was 110k+ RUB before the story, now it's about 80k. Inflation is raging nevertheless, you don't eat iPhones for breakfast. Also air travel is being destroyed, flights are much more expensive now.

Back to UA victories: after Kyiv offensive had failed, it was obvious for me Russia would retreat from there, I was discussing it with a friend perhaps a week before it had happened. Now what I was truly scared for, was Russian forces being surrounded there. It'd be a major victory for Ukraine, and I'm unsure if it was an unrealistic scenario. I was really afraid it might happen, though I was hoping the air force would prevent it from happening, I guess it did. And the lands? Quickly taken, quickly given up.

***

Who'll "win"? Well, certainly the US. Everyone else loses, including China.. At least economically. They buy Russian stuff at discount, but other energy imports became more expensive.. Well, also countries like Australia, Arabs, and all commodity exporters win. Except for Russia.

Who'll win the war? So far, I'm certain Russia has the advantage. Yet certainly, given the difference in the size of Russian army/economy, and NATO - it's about the will of western powers to provide UA with weapons. I'm certain it's bullshit Russian army outnumbers that of UA: a while back there were numbers UA conscripts(have you guys in Europe seen many young males in exile in Europe? No? Well, they can't leave, unless they bribe someone). And being in total war- I've little doubt the UA can have millions strong standing army, given its supplied by the west.

However: there's no endgame in Russian defeat. I mean before it happens, there's likely a nuclear ultimatum to stop supplying arms to Ukraine. Or rather conventional strikes against Poland, with tactical nukes in case of conventional strikes against Russian soil, and the apocalypse in case of tactical nukes against Russia.
And we're not talking about fair, we're talking about "what's next". And Putin might actually find support for this in Russia, if he makes it he's fighting America, and not Ukraine. And well, he's partially right.

So what we need is peace legalized by the UN. How do we get there? Donbass(all of it), and Crimea- minimum. I'm quite sure Herson too. If western supply effort doesn't increase dramatically - probably more than this. If it does - we get bad risks.

What's the western play here? Well, U.S. can surely war until the last Ukrainian standing. Russians killing Russians is fun. It's almost as if U.S. was warring Canada during the cold war. Now the legitimate thesis is to levy such a cost on Russia it doesn't dare do it again. It worked in 2014 - Russian involvement was minimal, but it let the current war happen, in 2014 it'd be almost bloodless compared to this shit. But sanctions would be destroying Russian econ, and causing unrest.

What do these costs bring Russia to? They make it develop stuff like this and make every Russian live worse, blaming the U.S. for it. I mean, if it wasn't for the U.S, Russia would do what it wants almost without blood, and there would be peace. It wouldn't be fair in the eyes of an average Ukrainian(unless he was brainwashed with propaganda at least), but the standard of living of ALL parties involved would be higher.

Now my line of thoughts jumps. What will we have unless the west doesn't DRAMATICALLY increase weapon supplies? Russia wins. Might take a year, or two. Yup. But the logistics and artillery advantage will do its job. What happens if the west actually gives Ukraine what it takes to win, ignoring Russia? We get risks you don't price in the stock market. And given it's direct risks to lives of the western decision makers - I see little chance for this to happen. So the play for the west is to make it expensive for Russia, but letting Putin save his face. While saving their own.  

Oh sure. Some would call it a democratically validated choice to shift alignment to the west. Some would call it a coup. I guess we can't know, I haven't personally tallied the opinion of every Ukrainian, and neither have you.

Let's take a step back. The problem here is that Russia is a middling economy (somewhere between Italy and Spain) that feels entitled to world power status. Oh yes, and it has nukes. Great way to get on good terms with your neighbors.

In the past 70 years, the international community has built up a way to compromise and cooperate in a set of institutions (like UN, International Court, WTO, EU, etc. etc.). Russia prefers to play the victim. The problem is Putin's delusions of grandeur, feeling entitled to an empire. It's old fashioned colonialism. Putin in his mind lives in 1914.

Was Russia feeling threatened by NATO? NATO is a defensive pact. There are several countries completely surrounded by NATO (Switzerland, Austria). Why aren't they feeling threatened? You have to wonder what makes Russia different.

The point isn't that the west is always right, or that there isn't hypocrisy. The point is that Russia has a choice: be a part of the international community with advantages of trade and economic growth (and for you: a growing stock portfolio). Or try to restore an empire long gone, make an enemy out of your neighbors, and wonder why everybody is always so mean to you.

Play with fire and you're bound to get burned. Stocks are no different.

Volodomyr Zelensky is a Jew, why would he fight for Nazis?

Is that the only reason you think Russia should have invaded Ukraine? You say the Eastern half of Ukraine is Russian. Let them govern themselves. They moved out of Russia for a reason.

The war in Ukraine is nothing more than a failed power grab. I hope Russia utterly falls on its butt for starting an unprovoked war and destroying Ukraine. Ukraine has my support 100%.

When has Ukraine wanted to attack Russia proper? No one was or is threatening to attack Russia.

This whole "we are attacked by the West" thing is an old propaganda legend to legitimize Kremlin rule.
It reminds me of a story I heard from a former (Communist) East German soldier: what shocked him the most after German reunification was the moment when he learned the West German soldiers had always been at home on the weekends. He had to remain near his tank, because of "imminent" Western attack.

There was a constitutional change introducing autonomy for the Donbass in 2015. Separatists (mainly) continued to breach the truce. While there certainly were failures from both sides, I'd say the separatists (and Russia Kremlin) are to blame here.

Note that there is a pattern to this: Russia grabbed territory from other ex-Soviet Union states and maintained "frozen conflicts" there. For example, in Moldova and Georgia.

So it seems safe to assume that they were not really interested in a peaceful resolution here either. As proven by the full-scale invasion.

Certainly, Russia was sending (heavy) weapons to Donbass and supporting the buildup in the "republics". Evidence is the (in)famous BUK system which these morons used to shoot down a civilian plane.

From the perspective of Ukraine, it was wise to build up the Ukrainian army, because, well, there was a (partly covert) invasion from another country that had already snatched part of its territory.

The role of the West in this phase is, however, exaggerated. Ukraine started into the 2022 conflict with mostly old Soviet material. If at all before February, the West mostly sent anti-tank and anti-air weapons unsuitable for a large-scale attack. Western states began sending heavy armor (way) after Feb 24 and Ukrainians still need to be trained how to use this material.

Even regarding training, it's mostly Ukrainians themselves who "upgraded" their army. There are reports by US military officers who said that, partly, they learned more from Ukrainians (which rotated staff to the Donbass front fighting a real war) than Ukrainians learned from them. Unfortunately, I'm currently not able to find the links anymore. They also said that Ukrainians joined programs / meetings that would also have been open to Russians, however, they would not attend such events.

Well, mainly, Russia was gambling the West would look the other way while arming the separatists, building up forces at the borders, and finally full-scale invading.

Everyone, including Russia, agreed on Ukraine's borders pre 2014. Russia even signed a treaty to respect the independence and integrity of Ukraine in 1997, the Budapest memorandum.

However, the Kremlin thinks it can violate treaties and borders as they please and lie to everyone (remember the days before Feb 24 as they said they are not going to invade)? That's why no one is believing anything they say anymore.

Well, that seems to be the key issue here. Let me give you an analogy: Austrians are "pretty much" Germans. That's why Hitler invaded Austria in 1938. Also there were some Germans in Czechoslovakia, so he invaded Czechoslovakia, too. And then... we know how that ended. There is a difference though: Austrians had had their own empire before 1918 and they mostly welcomed Hitler.

It's not uncommon in Europe to have people of another country speaking similar or the same language of neighboring countries. See Switzerland (Italy, France, Germany), Austria (Germany), Belgium (Netherlands, France), Ireland (UK), ... there are probably more.
So no pretext for invasion there.

For the Soviet Union: Russia had (only - when taking into account its area) about 51 % of the Soviet Union's population (see Republics of the Soviet Union.
So Russia has a right to rule over the other 49 % for ever?

The key issue here is that Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Russia Kremlin (otherwise, they wouldn't fight) and that's all what counts. However similar or "pretty much Russian" they may be perceived by Russians.

Note that this applies for much of the Eastern regions, too, since 2014. It is the manner the "republics" are governed that led Russian-speaking Ukrainians to support Ukraine. Now think about that. It's the very interference of Russia that turned away people who were looking favorably to Russia before. - Why is it that Russia Kremlin cannot offer something attractive?

Apart from that, Ukraine has a long history of its own, independent from Russia. In fact, Kiev is the origin of Eastern Slavic civilization, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27.

I view those guys very skeptically, too, but from what I've read, these units were originally radical but somehow diluted in / after 2014 since many non-Nazis willing to fight joined. This is since these militias had meritocratic structures and were effective contrary to the Ukrainian army with their old corrupt ways. So yes, but no.

There's some truth to that. However, the word "coup" evokes images of military, generals taking power and imposing martial law. The opposite happened, it was more a kind of revolution. Foreign involvement aside, a revolution / coup is something internal to Ukraine, while Russian military intervention and snatching of territory is not. In any case, that's probably many times more against the constitution of Ukraine and less democratic than the decisions taken by the interim government. So even if it was a pro Western coup (although even then, it can't be denied there was considerable support for it), that simply does not justify invasion which is less constitutional and apart from - probably many - others also breaching the abovementioned Budapest Memorandum.

Well, their country was attacked, they are at war. Apart from that, I've heard some 10.000s bright young Russians have left Russia.

That would be immensely stupid. But the invasion has been, too. So we don't expect anything too bright from the Kremlin, I guess.

Anything else you want?
Why should Russia have a right to territory taken by force? Just tell me why anyone should legalize this given Ukraine does not agree? This is breaching every legal treaty since 1945.

Ukrainians are not Russians.

Stupid world where there are other actors spoiling the fun.
But no! It's the Ukrainians that genuinely do not want to be ruled by Russia. They have been illegally invaded. Stop blaming the US for it.
Frankly, that appears ridiculous and childish to me.

No, it would be lower. Just look at the "republics". And then look at the countries that have become more "Western" since 1990. Today, even Romania has a higher GDP per capita than Russia.

The West could well do without this war. It's a dilemma for the West. They cannot allow Ukrainians to lose because they are measured according to democracy and rule of law and would betray everything they stand for if they allow that to happen. Would not be the first time, though.
On the other hand, it's expensive and no one wants war with Russia.
So the whole thing depends on how far the Kremlin is willing to go to pursue its agenda. They could call it off in a day and present it as a victory on their state propaganda channels.
The West has to stick to reality a bit more because there is more freedom for citizens.

Putin is just like Saddam Hussein except on a larger scale. There's never been a Russian leader whose done anything so stupid. He'll go down that way in history written by Russians. He's incapable of making decisions which are in his and Russians self-interest.

How about directly assassinating 700,000 of your own people, and starving to death another 5 million?

Autocracy is about power and control. Seems to be a different kind of thinking compared to Western democracies. Basically you prevent people from gaining positions from which they could challenge the ruling elite. Independent wealth is dangerous. Competence is dangerous. Military leaders are very dangerous.
From this kind of thinking, purging the elites makes sense.

Reportedly, even pro-Kremlin protests that are not organized by state would not be allowed because no one is supposed to do something public independently.

Besides, oil and gas riches mean the local population is not as important for the elites because taxing prospering companies is not so relevant.

Sanctions were announced, Kremlin made conscious decision against economic welfare of ordinary Russians. You know, if they become too middle-class, they might one day challenge autocracy...

@Polybios
The funny thing is, this rings true for what is happening in the US today, even for what is happening here in Norway.

Yes, Chris, of course I'm wrong. Assinating 700,000 of your own people and starving to death another 5 million is of different order of magnitude of stupidity. I guess it takes more than a beer to get a clear perspective on what's going on. I was quoting what someone else said in a newspaper and he said disastrous not stupid.

I have not been here in the forums for years, so hey there

I want to give you a google-translated citation from Ludwig Feuerbach:

"Nobody judges more sharply than the uneducated. He knows neither reasons nor counter-reasons and always believes he is right." - Ludwig Feuerbach

What I also found interesting was that when Donald Trump became president, someone asked Putin what he thinks about it (in a sense implicitly stating this was a catastrophe), and Putin answered someone something like: "You know, I doesn't really matter. Elections everywhere in the world is for a show, and when the show is over and the cameras turn off, people in black suits of which you have never heard come up to you and dictate what to say and what to do."

So think about it for a second. Putin was asked for Trump, but silently admitted that neither he or any "leader" somewhere else in the world is holding true power, but rather there is a whole lot of powerful men with economical interests holding the power.

I honestly think hat the characterization of "Putin being the aggressor" is an overly simplified narrative I would almost classify a propaganda. The simple masses need simple answers, and a lot of people are cheering in. What really happens here is a discharge of failure of politicians tieing together economical interests. Everyone else around is playing the role he/she has to play. A war of this scale is not pulled off by a single crazy dictator, the situation was building up over years until it escalated to a war by those people who truly hold the power.

All the emotive aspects are just part of a game (except for the sad fact that real people are killed, lives/futures destroyed!) and the more you buy the show, the more you are an economical victim of those who destroy and afterwards steal your money to buy more weapons. Please take a look at all the other wars that have taken place. In some cases rebels are supported with weapons as freedom fighers when it suits, and afterwards the same people are fought as evil dictators when it doesn't anymore. War is a business, get that. Not a single war has been fought for stupid things like freedom or food. It always was and will be for power/influence, fought by the poorest with the least of choice for the price of their blood.

Having that said: Who should I be angry at?

@Mordredd spot on.

i also find that those that don't know much about something are more emotional about that thing.

when someone knows something they are less emotional i feel because they have enough information to formulated a logical cause and effect giving them greater ability to formulate a logical solution if required.

be angry at no one because they both have good intentions one is just misguided and dose not have the ability to self correct.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It did not provoke a war. Fact. Russia invaded and is currently destroying systematically the eastern provinces of Ukraine. 3 million refugees, a million children all pushed off their land by a war they did not start. Tell me who's in the right here. The whole world disagreed with Russia and sanctioned it fully.

There's no way to justify the Russian invasion. Putin will totally obliterate the entire country if he has the means. After (if) the Russians are eventually repelled then you Russian sympathizers can lecture us on what wrongs led Putin to attack. But in the now, it's pretty bad timing. Nobody is going to "win" as a result of this. He has made the world an even worse place to live in.

Exactly.

About that Putin quote:

Of course Putin says that. He's not an objective source. Kremlin agenda has been to undermine Western democracy (and unity) since the 1950s. It's all propaganda.

Make no mistake, the KGB is ruling there now. Confrontation with the West and spreading the notion of constantly being attacked is the natural way of operation for the KGB. They feel "at home" now. ^^

Kremlin likes Western disunity and weakness. If West does not believe in its democracy anymore, it is weak and will, among other things, cease to counter Russian imperialism. Such statements (conspiracy theory) undermine belief in Western democracy. Good for the Kremlin.

We can see several ways of Kremlin supporting right-wing populists in Europe, e.g. credits for the Front National in France.

In Russia, Putin is a kind of KGB-tsar, leading a state-run fossil fuel export business. He is the very boss of the black suits he alleges. The Soviet Union's way of exercising power was less personalized (after Stalin) than Putin's rule is now. They had serious discussions in the politburo. From what we see and know, we can conclude that this is not the case now. So his statement is in fact very cynical (as we would expect).

While there are deep flaws in Western democracies, it's not the same as Russia.
Take, for example, a look at the corruption perception index. Note that Ukraine is some ranks above Russia. Now compare Norway to Russia, torhu.

Western kids are so spoiled they cannot imagine the amount of corruption, diminished freedoms, and sheer brutal authoritarian rule in other countries anymore. Make no mistake, it's very different. Kremlin wants us to believe it's all the same and corrupt. That's wrong.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-currently-at-war

What it always comes down to is most people just believe what they're told.

I lived in the U.S. for a long time. I've spent time in Russia. My wife is Russian (and has been jailed for fighting corruption in Russia) with most of her family still living there. I'm currently living in Poland with a family of Ukranian refugees. Across the street there is a large refugee camp. Down the street there is another. This is not to say I have any unique insight, only perhaps that I have fewer degrees of separation in which to color my opinions.

Media control really goes a long way. In the US, when I look out my window and see non-violent (do nothing) marches, oppositional media sources will find some instance of violence and call all the protesters terrorists. In Russia, when you can see the police beating protesters outside your window, the news will glorify Russia and try to stir up nationalism. You would never know if you didn't see it. At least the former doesn't deny the existence of unrest. It may not be much, but over time, the lies just keep getting bolder.

Most people just believe what their told. Have all my sympathy though. The world is too big and too complex for anything else. Very few have the time or the money or the ability for anything else.

All that said, Russia is ruled by a despot and has been on a downward slide for years. Anyone there with the means should get out if they still can while they still can.

Just found a website set up by the EU to counter "disinformation".

It currently has 5368 entries about Ukraine. Obviously the EU is not neutral, but it's funny to think that some poor guys had/have to compile all of that.

Edit:
They also have a nice site summarizing some key points about the war in Ukraine (dated March):
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/a-guide-to-deciphering-pro-kremlin-disinformation-around-putins-war/

Edit2:
I think it is done quite nicely.

Edit3:
This seems to be a more recent follow up article to my first edit:

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/reality-built-on-lies-100-days-of-russias-war-of-aggression-in-ukraine/

The style could be a bit more neutral, but... if your job is to sift through this propaganda all day, maybe it has an effect on you.

Nice quote:

C/\ABA YKPAÏHI

This is just silly. According to this, Mexico is at war but Ukraine isn't?

The Russia Ukraine war is prominently mentioned on the first page. Don't know what you're looking at.

I was looking at the map. The countries at war are supposedly marked blue.

About the Russian language in Ukraine: this is the result of a long history of "Russification". So to justify a war with that only shows that it's a continuation of Russian imperialism.

In countries like Russia the cameras do go out after the appointment but in democracies, after an election the cameras don't go out, not even colleagues cameras. Just look at how much scrutiny the British government's been under for last year or two.

Does this mean what the title says it means?

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/vtkw0o/banner_in_russia_which_says_alaska_is_ours/