Ukraine War Watch Thread

[ibm9000]

A textbook example of whataboutism.

Could you give me a textbook example of "hypocrisy"?

[caltrek]

A textbook example of whataboutism.

Could you give me a textbook example of "hypocrisy"?

In the 1750 to 1850 era, Whig aristocrats in England boasted of their special benevolence for the common people. They claimed to be guiding and counseling reform initiatives to prevent the outbreaks of popular discontent that caused instability and revolution across Europe. However Tory and radical critics accused the Whigs of hypocrisy—alleging they were deliberately using the slogans of reform and democracy to boost themselves into power while preserving their precious aristocratic exclusiveness.

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

[caltrek]

Who Was the Most Narcissistic President? Self-Absorbed Leaders Linked to Prolonged Wars
September , 2022

Introduction:

(IFL Science ) The more narcissistic the US president, the more prolonged their wars tend to be, according to a new study. In sum, the eight US leaders who scored above average for narcissism spent an average of 613 days at war, while the 11 least narcissistic presidents were at war for just 136 days.

Study author John P Harden, a political scientist at Ripon College, studied 19 US presidents who served between 1897 and 2009, then looked at what percentage of their presidency was spent at war. The results were reported in the Journal of Conflict Resolution.

“More narcissistic presidents tend to only exit wars if they can say they won, and they will extend wars to find a way to declare some kind of victory,” Harden said in a statement.

“They want to look heroic and strong and competent – even if it means fighting the war beyond what is reasonable,” he added.
Who were the most narcissistic US presidents?

Harden looked at a dataset from 2000 that assessed US presidents using a Big Five personality test. He then closely examined facets of the test linked to grandiose narcissism, such as high levels of assertiveness, excitement-seeking behavior, low levels of modesty, and a tendency to not comply with others.

Read more here: https://www.iflscience.com/who-was-the ... ars-65334

caltrek’s comment: Is Putin, or is he not, behaving in a classically narcissistic way? As for the Ukraine, is it not acting in self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack ordered by Putin?

Please don’t deflect from my questions with yet another what-aboutism.

[joe00uk]

Is Putin, or is he not, behaving in a classically narcissistic way? As for the Ukraine, is it not acting in self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack ordered by Putin?

Please don’t deflect from my questions with yet another what-aboutism.

If that were so, wouldn't Putin choose to declare mobilisation, unleashing much more of the Russian military on Ukraine, and bringing his victory forward? I'm not sure how useful this sort of political psychoanalysis is anyway when there are more tangible things like geopolitics to examine. The Ukrainian government is acting in self-defence, sure, but the fact that the current regime in Kiev is in power at all is largely due to the meddling of foreign powers. Undesirable as Yanukovych's government was, had it stayed in power, there would be no war in Ukraine today.

There can't be an understanding of the Russian decision to invade without understanding their motive to remove a large and extremely hostile regime on their borders - and one with the looming threat of joining NATO, having already received increasing support from them year after year. Justified or not, I don't think it can be reduced to the cartoon villainy of an "unprovoked attack" against some peaceful democracy - which exists only in fiction. You can consider it an imperial project, and such a conclusion contains a lot of truth, but the existence since 2014 of a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-Western government in Ukraine is itself the result of an equally unjustified Western imperial project.

[caltrek]

Is Putin, or is he not, behaving in a classically narcissistic way? As for the Ukraine, is it not acting in self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack ordered by Putin?

Please don’t deflect from my questions with yet another what-aboutism.

If that were so, wouldn't Putin choose to declare mobilisation, unleashing much more of the Russian military on Ukraine, and bringing his victory forward?

Even Putin must recognize that there are limits to what he can and cannot order. That he is a narcissist does not mean that he is stupid.

I'm not sure how useful this sort of political psychoanalysis is anyway when there are more tangible things like geopolitics to examine.

Or domestic political considerations. (See also above.)

The Ukrainian government is acting in self-defence, sure, but the fact that the current regime in Kiev is in power at all is largely due to the meddling of foreign powers. Undesirable as Yanukovych's government was, had it stayed in power, there would be no war in Ukraine today.

True, if Ukraine had submitted itself as serfs to a tyrant with totalitarian ambitions, there might not be a war today. If the moon were made of green cheese...

There can't be an understanding of the Russian decision to invade without understanding their motive to remove a large and extremely hostile regime on their borders - and one with the looming threat of joining NATO, having already received increasing support from them year after year.

The most threatening thing about the Ukraine to a fellow like Putin is that it was starting to function as a democracy.

Justified or not, I don't think it can be reduced to the cartoon villainy of an "unprovoked attack" against some peaceful democracy - which exists only in fiction.

Only in the sense that any statement composed of words can be thought of as being "fiction."

"You can consider it an imperial project, and such a conclusion contains a lot of truth,

Thank you.

but the existence since 2014 of a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-Western government in Ukraine is itself a result of an unjustified Western imperial project.

Leaving out Ukrainians having any say in the matter what-so-ever.

[joe00uk]

Even Putin must recognize that there are limits to what he can and cannot order. That he is a narcissist does not mean that he is stupid.

That just makes it meaningless to diagnose Putin with narcissism. You could just call any leader anywhere you like a "narcissist" if you qualify that with the political limitations they have to deal with. Unless you know Putin personally, I wouldn't bother trying to psychoanalyse him, as popular a pastime as that is.

Or domestic political considerations.

Indeed.

True, if Ukraine had submitted itself as serfs to a tyrant with totalitarian ambitions, there might not be a war today. If the moon were made of green cheese...

That just makes the words you're using meaningless. With that logic, I could call any number of Western leaders "tyrants with totalitarian ambitions", regardless of how true it was.

The most threatening thing about the Ukraine to a fellow like Putin is that it was starting to function as a democracy.

So the pro-NATO military dimension just doesn't register at all with you? Interesting...

But as for Ukraine functioning as a democracy, that's not true. Even agencies like Freedom House struggle to find anything more positive than "hybrid regime" to say of Ukraine. Corruption and authoritarianism persist just as strongly under the new regime as under the old. That's actually one of my main criticisms of launching the invasion to begin with. I think Russia could easily have bided its time with appropriate sanctions and waited for the Kiev regime to dig its own grave.

Only in the sense that any statement composed of words can be thought of as being "fiction."

Not at all. See above. The narrative of Ukrainian democracy (and peacefulness, for that matter) just isn't borne out by the facts.

Leaving out Ukrainians having any say in the matter what-so-ever.

Most Ukrainians didn't have any say in the matter. That's the case in most countries when massive political changes sweep over society. Revolutions and coups are never orchestrated by more than a relatively small handful of people. It just so happens that in Ukraine's case in 2014, a lot of the support given came from Western countries with their own agendas.

[caltrek]

Even Putin must recognize that there are limits to what he can and cannot order. That he is a narcissist does not mean that he is stupid.

That just makes it meaningless to diagnose Putin with narcissism. You could just call any leader anywhere you like a "narcissist" if you qualify that with the political limitations they have to deal with. Unless you know Putin personally, I wouldn't bother trying to psychoanalyse him, as popular a pastime as that is.

Yes, I could lie about a lot of things.

Or domestic political considerations.

Indeed.

That just makes the words you're using meaningless. With that logic, I could call any number of Western leaders "tyrants with totalitarian ambitions", regardless of how true it was.

Again, I could lie about a lot of things.

So the pro-NATO military dimension just doesn't register at all with you? Interesting...

NATO functions primarily as a defensive organization. Thus, frustrating to a fellow with imperialistic designs on member countries.

But as for Ukraine functioning as a democracy, that's not true.

As opposed to the organized crime methods of Putin?

Yes, it was an imperfect democracy.

Even agencies like Freedom House struggle to find anything more positive than "hybrid regime" to say of Ukraine.

Hybrid is normally a term of praise, as in "combining the positive traits of different parents".

Corruption and authoritarianism persist just as strongly under the new regime as under the old.

That is a problem for Ukrianian to work out. Not a problem to be shoved down their throats by a thug by way of excusing extreme military actions.

That's actually one of my main criticisms of launching the invasion to begin with. I think Russia could easily have bided its time with appropriate sanctions and waited for the Kiev regime to dig its own grave.

A fairly resonable conclusion given your premise.

Not at all. See above. The narrative of Ukrainian democracy (and peacefulness, for that matter) just isn't borne out by the facts.

In your narrative, but not necessarily in the minds of Ukrainians.

Most Ukrainians didn't have any say in the matter. That's the case in most countries when massive political changes sweep over society. Revolutions and coups are never orchestrated by more than a relatively small handful of people. It just so happens that in Ukraine's case in 2014, a lot of the support given came from Western countries with their own agendas.

Which of course explains why they have taken such a passive approach to the circumstances that they find themselves in. /sarcasm

[caltrek]

Speaking of "geopolitics to examine."

Putin Thanks China’s Xi for his ‘Balanced’ Stand on Ukraine
September 16, 2022

Introduction:

(AP via Asahi Shimbun) SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan--Russian President Vladimir Putin thanked Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday for his “balanced” approach to the Ukrainian crisis and blasted Washington's “ugly" policies at a meeting that followed a major setback for Moscow on the battlefield.

Speaking at the start of talks with Xi in Uzbekistan, Putin said he was ready to discuss unspecified “concerns” by China about Ukraine.

“We highly appreciate the well-balanced position of our Chinese friends in connection with the Ukrainian crisis,” Putin said, facing Xi across a long table.

“We understand your questions and your concerns in this regard, and we certainly will offer a detailed explanation of our stand on this issue during today's meeting, even though we already talked about it earlier,” he added.

Putin's rare mention of Chinese worries comes as Beijing has been anxious about the impact of volatile oil prices and economic uncertainty due to the war in Ukraine that has dragged on for nearly seven months.

Read more here: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14720050

[caltrek]

But as for Ukraine functioning as a democracy, that's not true.

I thought this warranted a little more discussion.

The 2019 Ukrainian presidential election was held on 31 March and 21 April in a two-round system.

There were 39 candidates for the election on the ballot. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of parts of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast prevented around 12% of eligible voters from participating in the election. As no candidate received an absolute majority of the vote, a second round was held between the top two candidates, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian who portrayed a fictional president of Ukraine in the comedy television series Servant of the People, and the incumbent president, Petro Poroshenko, on 21 April 2019. According to the Central Election Commission, Zelenskyy won the second round with 73.22% of the votes...

A total of 2,369 international observers from 17 countries and 19 organizations were officially registered to monitor the elections... A record number of 139 non-governmental Ukrainian organizations were registered as observers....

On 8 March, the CEC (Central Election Commission) approved the final list of candidates. There were a total of 39 candidates for the first round of the election....

During the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election, various Ukrainian television channels supported a candidate for President of Ukraine.

Five groups supported Poroshenko.
....
Three TV groups were very critical of Poroshenko.
...
With a voter turnout of 62.8%, about 18.9 million people voted in the first round of elections on 31 March. Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the Servant of the People and the incumbent President Petro Poroshenko both advanced to the second round of elections on 21 April. In the first round, Zelenskyy earned 30% of the votes compared to Poroshenko's 16%.

...
Exit polls during the second round of voting predicted that Zelenskyy would win with more than 70% of the votes...With only 3% of the votes counted, the CEC confirmed similar preliminary results. Poroshenko conceded the results of the election in a speech soon after the polls closed and exit-poll data was released. He wrote on Twitter: "We succeeded to ensure free, fair, democratic and competitive elections... I will accept the will of Ukrainian people."


Results of the second round by total voters number

According to the CEC, preliminary results with about 99.27% of the votes counted indicates that Zelenskyy received about 73.19% of the votes to the incumbent president's 24.48%. The final results for both second round candidates were 73.23% and 24.46%.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukra ... l_election

[caltrek]

More on the 2019 election from an assessment that appeared that year:

Key Things to Know About Ukraine’s Presidential Election
by Steven Pifer
April 15, 2019

Introduction:

(Brookings) Ukraine is halfway through a presidential election: The first round took place on March 31, and the run-off is coming up on April 21. At the annual Kyiv Security Forum and in other conversations in Kyiv last week, I had the opportunity to catch up on the latest developments in Ukraine, and came away with five key observations.

UKRAINE AGAIN SCORES A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION

Ukraine pulled off the March 31 election with no major hitch. Voting and ballot-counting proceeded smoothly. The Central Election Commission’s vote tallies corresponded with exit poll results and a non-governmental parallel count. The International Election Observer Mission (IEOM) released a preliminary assessment that noted some problems but termed the election competitive, reported that candidates campaigned freely, and said that the electorate had a broad choice.

The fact that Ukraine held a free, competitive presidential election should come as no surprise. The previous four presidential votes—the third round of the 2004 election (after the Supreme Court ordered a rerun of the run-off following the Orange Revolution), the general and run-off rounds of the 2010 election, and the 2014 election after the Maidan Revolution—all earned free, fair, and competitive assessments. Another indicator of a free and fair election: While he made it to the run-off, incumbent President Petro Poroshenko came in a distant second.

Sadly, Ukraine’s democratic experience remains a relative rarity in the post-Soviet space. Showing no sense of irony, Russian media cherry-picked criticisms from the IEOM’s assessment to disparage the overall election, yet that election contrasted markedly with the Russian presidential election in 2018. Indeed, in early March, few Ukrainians could say with certainty which two candidates would make it to the run-off; most Russians could have said with certainty who would win their 2018 presidential election as early as 2013.

Read more here: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-f ... election/

[ibm9000]

A textbook example of whataboutism.

Could you give me a textbook example of "hypocrisy"?

Because it seems that the invasion of Iraq was an example of our higher moral standards.
(That we apply to everybody else but ourselves).

[wjfox]

Ukraine liberated two villages in the Donetsk Region:

[caltrek]

A textbook example of whataboutism.

Could you give me a textbook example of "hypocrisy"?

Because it seems that the invasion of Iraq was an example of our higher moral standards.
(That we apply to everybody else but ourselves).

So, because the United States was in error in Iraq, should we therefore lower the bar for any and every other nation on the planet in any and every other instance of aggression?

The net result of your argument is a lowering of the bar which we expect leaders to clear. The precise opposite of what a humanist or a pacifist should want.

In addition, this leaves out what Ukrainians want and desire. Did they support the invasion of Iraq? Was that even an issue in their country, much less one central to their collective future?

If not, then why the obsession with transgressions of the United State in Iraq?

Not that I actually expect you to answer my questions as you are returning to the old habit of ignoring questions such as that I have repeated below.

caltrek’s comment: Is Putin, or is he not, behaving in a classically narcissistic way? As for the Ukraine, is it not acting in self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack ordered by Putin?

Please don’t deflect from my questions with yet another what-aboutism.

Please demonstrate to me that you know how to do more than parrot a what-about-ism line.

[caltrek]

How Ukraine Got the Upper Hand Against Russia
by Sam Ellis
September 16, 2022

Introduction:

(Vox) In the spring and summer of 2022, the war between Ukraine and Russia settled into a stalemate. The first phase of the war had been a rapid invasion that drew new battle lines across Ukraine; the next phase saw those battle lines harden and change very little over a long period of fighting. But in September, that chapter came to an end. For the first time in several months, Ukraine scored a major victory and won back significant territory from Russia.

Ukraine pulled off this victory by taking advantage of a surprising weakness in the Russian army: the difficulty it has had maintaining its ranks of skilled soldiers, especially compared to the training and resources Ukraine’s army has received from its allies. Reports suggest that Russia’s army has suffered catastrophic losses in the war and that it has attempted to replace those more highly trained forces with large numbers of mercenaries, prisoners, and men over 40. It’s an army that was stretched thin and vulnerable to the multi-pronged attack Ukraine launched in September.

Russia still controls a large amount of territory in southern Ukraine, including two major cities. But Ukraine’s victory outside of Kharkiv signals a new chapter in the war — one where, remarkably, Ukraine seems to have a shot at driving out the Russians completely.

Watch the video to learn more about why this attack worked and why it matters so much.

Source: https://www.vox.com/videos/2022/9/16/2 ... offensive

[joe00uk]

NATO functions primarily as a defensive organization. Thus, frustrating to a fellow with imperialistic designs on member countries.

Supposedly, but then why would a defensive organisation continue to expand immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Russia hadn't yet become a resurgent threat in the 1990s, but NATO still added more and more nations in Eastern Europe to its membership. Who were they defending themselves against?

As opposed to the organized crime methods of Putin?

When did I call Russia democratic? The absence of democracy in Russia doesn't automatically mean it thrives in Ukraine.

Yes, it was an imperfect democracy.

Imperfect indeed... a little bit like how Russia could be called an "imperfect democracy"...

Hybrid is normally a term of praise, as in "combining the positive traits of different parents".

That's not how the word 'hybrid' is used in terms of measuring democracy among nations. 'Hybrid' in this context translates to 'partially authoritarian' or being only 'partly free'. Freedom House gives countries a score out of 100 for democracy (where 0 is the most authoritarian and 100 is the most democratic) and they gave Ukraine 39/100. Not the worst country in the world by any means, but certainly not democratic in any meaningful sense.

That is a problem for Ukrianian to work out. Not a problem to be shoved down their throats by a thug by way of excusing extreme military actions.

If only Western powers held this attitude in 2014!

In your narrative, but not necessarily in the minds of Ukrainians.

I'm not sure the average Ukrainian is naïve enough to believe their country is a functioning democracy, but of course they defend their country anyway for nationalist reasons, which is completely understandable.

Which of course explains why they have taken such a passive approach to the circumstances that they find themselves in. /sarcasm

I'm not sure how relevant that is, but in 2013-14, most Ukrainians actually were very passive in regards to the situation they found themselves in. Even right now, most Ukrainians aren't directly involved in the war effort, however much they morally support it.

[caltrek]

I will try to answer Joe’s questions and comments in a bit, but first I wanted to post this article. It relates to some earlier discussions that included Joe.

Even Putin Allies are Starting to Speak Out About the War
by Miles Bryan
September 16, 2022

Extract:

(Vox) While it’s too early to say whether this breakthrough represents a turning point in the war, it does appear that it’s made some of Putin’s supporters skeptical of whether his “special operation” is actually winnable. Some have advocated for a more aggressive Russian response, even pushing for general mobilization and the use of weapons bought from North Korea. As (Washington Post Russia reporter Mary) Ilyushina says, the typically “unanimous choir of pro-Kremlin and state propagandist voices” was in disarray.
…
Sean Rameswaram

How embarrassing is all this for Vladimir Putin?

Mary Ilyushina

It is pretty embarrassing because his main brand, and the one that he’s been building for the past 20 years, is that he knows what he’s doing….In this case, we see even people who are extremely pro-Kremlin, extremely pro- this invasion, saying that they don’t like the way Russia has gone about this. We’ve heard from people like the leader of the Russian Communist Party saying that Russia is not really fighting anymore in a “special operation” and this is an actual war. And the very use of the word “war” to describe this mission has been essentially banned by Russia.
…
In terms of general mobilization, the problem with that is that it would be really unpopular because a lot of Russians are trying to tune this out. They’re trying to live their life as normal. Putting the whole country [under a draft notice] would mean not only drafting all the eligible men, it would mean resetting the whole economy and turning the whole country into this war machine that only works for the advancement of the front line. And that would have a lot of repercussions because what Putin has been promising Russians for a long time is this concept of stability. “As long as you stay out of politics, you can have your house, your job, you can, you know, live a normal life.” That’s something a lot of Russians sort of cling on to. And it would be a pretty huge political decision to change all that and take that away. So Putin has been resisting that, and instead he has been seeking really alternative and creative ways to draft people.

Read more here: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2022/9/16 ... offensive

[caltrek]

NATO functions primarily as a defensive organization. Thus, frustrating to a fellow with imperialistic designs on member countries.

Supposedly, but then why would a defensive organisation continue to expand immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Russia hadn't yet become a resurgent threat in the 1990s, but NATO still added more and more nations in Eastern Europe to its membership. Who were they defending themselves against?

Being a defensive alliance does not preclude accepting new members into that alliance. In the case of Ukraine, that country expressed interest of its own volition. Why would they expand after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Partly because Russia had not disappeared from the map or from continuing to have a military presence. NATO might very well have expanded to eventually include Russia, but there would have had to have been a series of trust building measures before that could occur. Putin’s actions vitiated any short term hope of the development of such trust measures.

As opposed to the organized crime methods of Putin?

When did I call Russia democratic? The absence of democracy in Russia doesn't automatically mean it thrives in Ukraine.

True, but it is Russian that attacked Ukraine.

Yes, it was an imperfect democracy.

Imperfect indeed... a little bit like how Russia could be called an "imperfect democracy"...

Well, there is a matter of degree. At any rate, remember that Russia was the aggressor here.

Hybrid is normally a term of praise, as in "combining the positive traits of different parents".

That's not how the word 'hybrid' is used in terms of measuring democracy among nations. 'Hybrid' in this context translates to 'partially authoritarian' or being only 'partly free'. Freedom House gives countries a score out of 100 for democracy (where 0 is the most authoritarian and 100 is the most democratic) and they gave Ukraine 39/100. Not the worst country in the world by any means, but certainly not democratic in any meaningful sense.

In 2021, Freedom House gave Ukraine a score of 60 out of a possible 100. Reasons for not having a higher score included:

in October, the Constitutional Court annulled multiple anticorruption laws that required the public declaration of government officials’ and representatives’ assets and mandated criminal punishments for not doing so. Multiple judges who published their financial holdings had been under investigation because of these laws…

In October 2020, multiple reports claimed that Constitutional Court Chief Justice Oleksandr Tupytsky allegedly had illegally obtained and owned land in Russia-occupied Crimea, omitted recording his luxurious real estate in Kyiv among his assets, and had ties to a prominent case of judicial fraud. Tupytsky denied any wrongdoing. The State Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal investigation alleging that Tupytsky had committed treason by owning land in Russian-occupied Crimea.

In October 2020, President Zelenskyy attempted to dissolve the Constitutional Court after it annulled laws aimed at fighting corruption; multiple Constitutional Court judges had been under investigation because of those laws. Shortly thereafter, the State Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal case against several Constitutional Court judges for allegedly attempting to seize state power. Though he was unable to dissolve the body, Zelenskyy ordered by presidential decree in December the suspension of Constitutional Court Chief Justice Oleksandr Tupytsky, who was also being investigated for bribery and witness tampering. The court claimed that Tupytsky’s suspension was unconstitutional, though it then opened an inquiry into removing him from his position. The crisis was unresolved at year’s end.

Source: https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukrai ... orld/2021

So, part of the problem of corruption stems from the corrupting influence of Russia, as in apparent financial transactions of Chief Justice Tupytsky.
Concerning the invasion, this was part of Freedom House’s conclusion:

The invasion of Ukraine is an attack on democracy: Vladimir Putin cannot tolerate Ukrainians’ aspirations to build a democracy on Russia’s borders and has launched a war of aggression to prevent this from happening.

Source: https://freedomhouse.org/ukraine

That is a problem for Ukrianian to work out. Not a problem to be shoved down their throats by a thug by way of excusing extreme military actions.

If only Western powers held this attitude in 2014!

Western powers did not invade Ukraine in 2014.

In your narrative, but not necessarily in the minds of Ukrainians.

I'm not sure the average Ukrainian is naïve enough to believe their country is a functioning democracy, but of course they defend their country anyway for nationalist reasons, which is completely understandable.

Well, at least you have acknowledged that self-defense is one of their goals.

Which of course explains why they have taken such a passive approach to the circumstances that they find themselves in. /sarcasm

I'm not sure how relevant that is, but in 2013-14, most Ukrainians actually were very passive in regards to the situation they found themselves in. Even right now, most Ukrainians aren't directly involved in the war effort, however much they morally support it.

Well, in 2019 they were involved in an election there. As you say, at a minimum they now “morally support” the war of defense against Russian invasion efforts.

[weatheriscool]

Putin vows to press attack on Ukraine; courts India, China
Source: AP

SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed Friday to press his attack on Ukraine despite Ukraine’s latest counteroffensive and warned that Moscow could ramp up its strikes on the country’s vital infrastructure if Ukrainian forces target facilities in Russia.

Speaking to reporters Friday after attending a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Uzbekistan, Putin said the “liberation” of Ukraine’s entire eastern Donbas region remained Russia’s main military goal and that he sees no need to revise it.

“We aren’t in a rush,” the Russian leader said, adding that Moscow has only deployed volunteer soldiers to fight in Ukraine. Some hard-line politicians and military bloggers have urged the Kremlin to follow Ukraine’s example and order a broad mobilization to beef up the ranks, lamenting Russia’s manpower shortage.

Russia was forced to pull back its forces from large swaths of northeastern Ukraine last week after a swift Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine’s move to reclaim control of several Russian-occupied cities and villages marked the largest military setback for Moscow since its forces had to retreat from areas near the capital early in the war.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 0388c47019

[caltrek]

Ukraine’s Rapid Advance Against Russia Shows Mastery of Three Essential Skills for Success in Modern Warfare
by Benjamin Jensen
September 16, 2022

Introduction:

(The Conversation) Ukrainian forces, aided by Western firepower, have upset traditional military logic once again.

Advancing deep into Ukrainian territory seized by Moscow earlier in its invasion, a counteroffensive launched in September 2022, has forced back the invading Russian army. In the process Kyiv has recaptured over 2,000 square miles of land in the country’s northeast and left Moscow’s prized units like the 1st Tank Guards Army in disarray.

The success of the counteroffensive has shown that what is known in military circles as “operational art” – the creative use of time, space and forces to achieve a position of advantage – can be more important than relative combat power and simply counting the tanks and artillery possessed by either side in conflict.

And while this latest operational turning point in Ukraine is not the end of the conflict, as a defense strategist with more than 19 years of military experience, I see three key insights about modern warfare in the recent Ukrainian success.

1. Deception is still possible in conflict
2. Precision strikes facilitate depth and produces cascading effects
3. War remains a continuation of politics

Read more of each of these three points, as well as a conclusion regarding the future of the war, here: https://theconversation.com/ukraines-r ... re-190704

[ibm9000]

So, because the United States.. lower the bar for any and every other nation...

Missing the point again... The bar is that low, why should you raise it for any nation?

The net result of your argument...

Curiously enough, I think that is the result of your argument: We keep the bar that low, we, who are expected (I don't expect any Western Democracy to do it, nor any other government, ever in History) to act according to higher moral standards.

In addition, this leaves out what Ukrainians...

This makes no sense at all. The Iraqi people were ever "in"?

If not, then why the obsession with transgressions of the United State in Iraq?

It is an example, a recent and well known example of what civilized nations do.

...an unprovoked attack ordered by Putin?

"The Iraqi people, known in the media as "the insurgents," are engaged in lawful resistance to the illegal invasion, regime change, and occupation of their country by U.S. and U.K. forces. Bush’s war in Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition,” according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam."
(I think this is from a report about the 3rd battle of Fallujah).

Please demonstrate to me...

"Demonstrate", my lord?. or should I call you "God"?
This is exactly what I am saying. We give opinions here, are you asking everybody to demonstrate everything? You apply certain standards to "some" people.
Do you have a textbook definition for that?

To be honest, I rather be a "parrot" than somebody who condones the murder of one woman in a terrorist attack because you fancy to call her 'fascist'. On the other hand, Putin and Bush would agree with you, just changing the 'word', probably.

Bush admitted in his 2003 State of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of suspected terrorists.

I have an idea, let's accuse Putin of war crimes, let's accuse him.