Friday's rant

[ronk]

The Torys need a safe pair of hands to navigate them through this crisis knowing that most the electorate will move on.

They've lost the faith of markets (and the electorate) that they're financially competent. We all now know that the pension funds are vulnerable to a panic, there's a careful line to be walked between stabilising there and holding people above water in the cost of living crisis.

See, the thing is IMHO, the entire reason they left the EU is so they could go about mucking up their economy to the benefit of the money men who run the party. They give zero fox about the ordinary working family who have a family to raise and a home to pay for.

That Liz Trust mini budget stinks of a group of wealthy charlatans shorting the market for their own benefit and f%~k the rest of them…

Sure. Our policies will give us a 5% greater share of wealth but cost the country 2% in growth, they're still up.

But that only counts for so much. If you obliterate the career politicians or wipe out the wealthy backers with a massive recession then its no good.

Brexit was they could still walk along with a minor limp. It's preventable, but this could put them on their knees.They need pragmatism, not strong ideology and crazy promises.

[paddyor]

Leinster players were recorded singing Celtic Symphony (the same song the Irish soccer team were singing) three years ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dublin ... 35270.ampl

There’s no up their arse/up the ra in that though. Which shows that long time male pros have better social media awareness than their largely amateur female counterparts. As we learned when the womens rugby team launched into a social media tirade against the coaching/mgt a few months ago.

The one that got the guy they didn't like sacked, a huge apology and reforms that included an extra million a year?

I don't think the spreading slurry tweet was clever and I don't think it's what got them change. I'd credit the letter with the 40+ signatures

[ronk]

It wasn't one thing, it was a whole campaign that made the IRFU look sexist. It alienated important backers, forced the minister to intervene and compel the IRFU to surrender.

[leinsterforever]

Clare Daly and Mick Wallace – a pair of Quisling f*cks. Two stooges for Putin who are a disgrace to Ireland.

Speak for yourself. I fully support their stance.

so, exactly which piece of their stance do you fully support?

All of it. They recognise that America sending arms has nothing to do with liberating Ukraine for Ukraine's sake. The US has no problem with countries annexing land, as evidenced by their support of Israel. It's a squabble between America and Russia for control. The fact that it's happening in a country bordering Russia tells us who really has the most influence in the world.

Ukraine in NATO has been a red line issue for the Russians for decades, much like Soviet missiles in Cuba was a red line issue for the Americans. They see it as an existential threat. The Russians can read the tea leaves and see what was coming. Ukraine was slowly being pulled into the West's orbit. I'd imagine they wish they'd acted sooner, before Trump supplied the Ukrainians with 'lethal aid'.

The demonising of the leader of the enemy is war propaganda 101. Making out that Putin is some sort of megalomaniac going off on a solo run is pure propaganda. He is representing Russian interests. Opposition to NATO expansion is a widely held stance in Russia, and well thought of foreign policy people from the West also had grave concerns. George Kennan viewed NATO expansion as a "tragic mistake" that would only inflame tensions.

There has to be compromise. It strikes me as complete common sense that Ukraine would arrange security agreements with other, non-NATO countries. Daly and Wallace are pushing for the EU to be in favour of negotiations instead of just doing America's bidding. Of the clips I've heard of them in the EU parliament I can't disagree with any of it.

[ronk]

They’re pretending to be neutral and in favour of peace while supporting the aggressor, they’re quislings. Russia is no friend to peace.

I think you have a lot of this backwards. Russia and Belarus are attacking Ukraine, not the other way around. If America really wanted Ukraine in NATO they’d have tried some time ago. And it still wouldn’t justify preemptive invasion and/or so so many war crimes. Even NATO in Ukraine would have next to no impact on first strike capability.

Russia has no reason to think that America wants to expand into its territory. It’s outright colonial aggression and its been freely admitted by Putin in his use of historical allegory.

Propaganda, eh? Like pretending it’s defending oppressed Russians being attacked by Nazis. How come it’s American propaganda that’s being discussed. It’s pretty clear regardless of that anyone might say otherwise that other European states adjacent to Russia are alarmed and are increasing preparations to defend themselves too. A Ukrainian collapse would have caused a panic.

Russian invasion in 2014 didn’t provoke this response because it was along the border with Russia and limited in scale. The 2022 invasion (do you call it that?) threatened to change the borders with other countries. It’s a huge escalation. NATO has had a limited response that primarily involved defensive capabilities. If Russia wanted to be closer allies with Ukraine they could have done that a lot more easily before starting a war in 2014. It’s Russia that doesn’t want a free Ukraine, they wanted to isolate them to make it easier to dominate them.

Whatever about the argument earlier in the war that Russia was interested in defence or peace, especially a negotiated peace; it should be pretty clear by now that their conduct has been inconsistent with that goal. Bucha was fairly early, and part of a wider pattern. Ukraine is attacking military targets, the Russians are concentrating on terrorising civilian populations. Right now they’re trying to freeze civilians hundreds of miles from the front. Allowing Ukraine to collapse would cause a humanitarian disaster and result in many more people killed.

We all want peace, Ukraine most of all. If Russia was really defending itself then negotiations would have been simple and resolved before the sack of Mariupol.

[Ruckedtobits]

What chance that a further NI Assemble Election could result in Unionists becoming so dis-enchanted with lack of progress that they just don't turn out for another election?

Turnout last time, in May, was 63% with support for DUP down 6.3% and for UUP down 1.6%. Alliance showed largest growth, but from a low base. But could Unionists voters really get so p%ssed off with Westminister apparent disinterest in NI that they decide not to turn out?

Someway must be found out of the impasse but nothing new is on the horizon. Maybe the Alliance Party could rescue the Province.

[ronk]

What chance that a further NI Assemble Election could result in Unionists becoming so dis-enchanted with lack of progress that they just don't turn out for another election?

Turnout last time, in May, was 63% with support for DUP down 6.3% and for UUP down 1.6%. Alliance showed largest growth, but from a low base. But could Unionists voters really get so p%ssed off with Westminister apparent disinterest in NI that they decide not to turn out?

Someway must be found out of the impasse but nothing new is on the horizon. Maybe the Alliance Party could rescue the Province.

A major drop in turnout would mean a boycott. Which would threaten the Agreement.

A switch from the DUP to another party that would join the Assembly would mean a change in mood of the electorate.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Speak for yourself. I fully support their stance.

so, exactly which piece of their stance do you fully support?

All of it. They recognise that America sending arms has nothing to do with liberating Ukraine for Ukraine's sake. The US has no problem with countries annexing land, as evidenced by their support of Israel. It's a squabble between America and Russia for control. The fact that it's happening in a country bordering Russia tells us who really has the most influence in the world.

Ukraine in NATO has been a red line issue for the Russians for decades, much like Soviet missiles in Cuba was a red line issue for the Americans. They see it as an existential threat. The Russians can read the tea leaves and see what was coming. Ukraine was slowly being pulled into the West's orbit. I'd imagine they wish they'd acted sooner, before Trump supplied the Ukrainians with 'lethal aid'.

The demonising of the leader of the enemy is war propaganda 101. Making out that Putin is some sort of megalomaniac going off on a solo run is pure propaganda. He is representing Russian interests. Opposition to NATO expansion is a widely held stance in Russia, and well thought of foreign policy people from the West also had grave concerns. George Kennan viewed NATO expansion as a "tragic mistake" that would only inflame tensions.

There has to be compromise. It strikes me as complete common sense that Ukraine would arrange security agreements with other, non-NATO countries. Daly and Wallace are pushing for the EU to be in favour of negotiations instead of just doing America's bidding. Of the clips I've heard of them in the EU parliament I can't disagree with any of it.

Wow, turns out that Elon Musk is a Leinsterfan

[the spoofer]

so, exactly which piece of their stance do you fully support?

All of it. They recognise that America sending arms has nothing to do with liberating Ukraine for Ukraine's sake. The US has no problem with countries annexing land, as evidenced by their support of Israel. It's a squabble between America and Russia for control. The fact that it's happening in a country bordering Russia tells us who really has the most influence in the world.

Ukraine in NATO has been a red line issue for the Russians for decades, much like Soviet missiles in Cuba was a red line issue for the Americans. They see it as an existential threat. The Russians can read the tea leaves and see what was coming. Ukraine was slowly being pulled into the West's orbit. I'd imagine they wish they'd acted sooner, before Trump supplied the Ukrainians with 'lethal aid'.

The demonising of the leader of the enemy is war propaganda 101. Making out that Putin is some sort of megalomaniac going off on a solo run is pure propaganda. He is representing Russian interests. Opposition to NATO expansion is a widely held stance in Russia, and well thought of foreign policy people from the West also had grave concerns. George Kennan viewed NATO expansion as a "tragic mistake" that would only inflame tensions.

There has to be compromise. It strikes me as complete common sense that Ukraine would arrange security agreements with other, non-NATO countries. Daly and Wallace are pushing for the EU to be in favour of negotiations instead of just doing America's bidding. Of the clips I've heard of them in the EU parliament I can't disagree with any of it.

Wow, turns out that Elon Musk is a Leinsterfan

We really should have a recall mechanism for elections. We have sent the worst of us to Europe in the form of Wallace, Daly, Ming and that idiotic Shinner.

[Oldschoolsocks]

All of it. They recognise that America sending arms has nothing to do with liberating Ukraine for Ukraine's sake. The US has no problem with countries annexing land, as evidenced by their support of Israel. It's a squabble between America and Russia for control. The fact that it's happening in a country bordering Russia tells us who really has the most influence in the world.

Ukraine in NATO has been a red line issue for the Russians for decades, much like Soviet missiles in Cuba was a red line issue for the Americans. They see it as an existential threat. The Russians can read the tea leaves and see what was coming. Ukraine was slowly being pulled into the West's orbit. I'd imagine they wish they'd acted sooner, before Trump supplied the Ukrainians with 'lethal aid'.

The demonising of the leader of the enemy is war propaganda 101. Making out that Putin is some sort of megalomaniac going off on a solo run is pure propaganda. He is representing Russian interests. Opposition to NATO expansion is a widely held stance in Russia, and well thought of foreign policy people from the West also had grave concerns. George Kennan viewed NATO expansion as a "tragic mistake" that would only inflame tensions.

There has to be compromise. It strikes me as complete common sense that Ukraine would arrange security agreements with other, non-NATO countries. Daly and Wallace are pushing for the EU to be in favour of negotiations instead of just doing America's bidding. Of the clips I've heard of them in the EU parliament I can't disagree with any of it.

Wow, turns out that Elon Musk is a Leinsterfan

We really should have a recall mechanism for elections. We have sent the worst of us to Europe in the form of Wallace, Daly, Ming and that idiotic Shinner.

Lets not forget Dana Rosemary Scallon. Some say they
actually abolished her constituency because that’s how worried they were that she’d be back

[leinsterforever]

They’re pretending to be neutral and in favour of peace while supporting the aggressor, they’re quislings. Russia is no friend to peace.

To me it looks overwhelmingly likely that their main motivation is opposition to American militarism, coupled with cynicism about the West always being well-intentioned.

I think you have a lot of this backwards. Russia and Belarus are attacking Ukraine, not the other way around. If America really wanted Ukraine in NATO they’d have tried some time ago. And it still wouldn’t justify preemptive invasion and/or so so many war crimes. Even NATO in Ukraine would have next to no impact on first strike capability.

I'm not saying Ukraine is attacking Russia. It's self-evident that it's the other way round.

Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then? That would have gone a long way in calming tensions. The West aren't interested in defusing the situation. Their aim is to hurt Russia as much as possible.

There is debate about how effective missile defence systems would be in the event of a nuclear exchange. Some say they could be confused by launching many other dummy missiles at the same time. Others such as Chomsky argue that these systems are effectively first-strike weapons - as they wouldn't stop a first strike from the other side, but could conceivably prevent or limit retaliation. I think a lot of it is just posturing and not wanting to back down and lose face but the fact remains that the US installing these systems is a hugely contentious issue for the Russians.

Russia has no reason to think that America wants to expand into its territory. It’s outright colonial aggression and its been freely admitted by Putin in his use of historical allegory.

There doesn't have to be a threat of expansion into Russian territory. The threat of expansion up to the border is enough. What do you think the US would make of a hostile military alliance moving in to Mexico, say? NATO has expanded from West Germany right up to the Russian border since the end of the Cold War. Bush said in 2008 (?) that Georgia and Ukraine were next. A big frustration for the Russians is the US can't be relied upon to keep the same stances long term. One administration could be cold towards NATO, and another could be in favour of pushing for expansion.

Propaganda, eh? Like pretending it’s defending oppressed Russians being attacked by Nazis. How come it’s American propaganda that’s being discussed. It’s pretty clear regardless of that anyone might say otherwise that other European states adjacent to Russia are alarmed and are increasing preparations to defend themselves too. A Ukrainian collapse would have caused a panic.

Russian invasion in 2014 didn’t provoke this response because it was along the border with Russia and limited in scale. The 2022 invasion (do you call it that?) threatened to change the borders with other countries. It’s a huge escalation. NATO has had a limited response that primarily involved defensive capabilities. If Russia wanted to be closer allies with Ukraine they could have done that a lot more easily before starting a war in 2014.

The Russian perspective is that a US-backed coup removed a President who was favourable towards them. Yanukovych had turned more towards Russia, turning down signing an EU treaty. When there was unrest Yanukovych committed to bringing elections forward. Stephen F. Cohen said that Putin contacted Obama to see would he agree to and back this arrangement. Obama said 'yes' but then shortly afterwards the government is overthrown and the US backs it. What are the Russians supposed to think?

It’s Russia that doesn’t want a free Ukraine, they wanted to isolate them to make it easier to dominate them.

Well, duh.

Whatever about the argument earlier in the war that Russia was interested in defence or peace, especially a negotiated peace; it should be pretty clear by now that their conduct has been inconsistent with that goal. Bucha was fairly early, and part of a wider pattern. Ukraine is attacking military targets, the Russians are concentrating on terrorising civilian populations. Right now they’re trying to freeze civilians hundreds of miles from the front. Allowing Ukraine to collapse would cause a humanitarian disaster and result in many more people killed.

Has there ever been a war fought where there weren't atrocities committed on both sides? Just recently there was a story that Azeri forces executed Armenian soldiers who had surrendered. That didn't stop the EU signing an oil agreement with them. It's all politics. I'm afraid it's naive to think the West is in this for the right reasons. And yes, it's a propaganda war of massive proportions on both sides. If you look at the Journal.ie, say, they will report on all Russian attacks where civilians were killed as if the civilians were the target, but stay silent on Ukrainian attacks which result in civilian deaths or say the civilians weren't the target.

Russia is interested in Russia's interests. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be brought to the negotiating table by listening to their concerns rather than dismissing them. What would be so bad about giving them an assurance that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO?

We all want peace, Ukraine most of all. If Russia was really defending itself then negotiations would have been simple and resolved before the sack of Mariupol.

This is naive in the extreme, and flat out wrong. If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.

[FLIP]

Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then?

Because it would be Ukraine's democratic right to choose for themselves.

Others such as Chomsky argue that these systems are effectively first-strike weapons.

Chomsky is a Linguistics expert and a genocide denier with a bent to anti Western rhetoric and will back any tyrant or dictator who stands against the West.

If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.

If peace was a goal for Russia their war of rape, pillage and genocide wouldn't be happening in the first place.

Your position is either hopelessly naive or willingly fascist. I hope for your sake it's the first.

[leinsterforever]

Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then?

Because it would be Ukraine's democratic right to choose for themselves.

Others such as Chomsky argue that these systems are effectively first-strike weapons.

Chomsky is a Linguistics expert and a genocide denier with a bent to anti Western rhetoric and will back any tyrant or dictator who stands against the West.

If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.

If peace was a goal for Russia their war of rape, pillage and genocide wouldn't be happening in the first place.

Your position is either hopelessly naive or willingly fascist. I hope for your sake it's the first.

Yes, the same as it was Cuba's right under international law to place Soviet missiles in their territory in 1962. When it's powerful nations with massive nuclear arsenals involved and events they see as existential threats are unfolding there has to be compromise.

Otherwise you're looking at escalation, escalation, escalation...

Is Ukraine's right to join NATO something you're prepared to risk nuclear war over? It isn't for me.

[FLIP]

Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then?

Because it would be Ukraine's democratic right to choose for themselves.

Others such as Chomsky argue that these systems are effectively first-strike weapons.

Chomsky is a Linguistics expert and a genocide denier with a bent to anti Western rhetoric and will back any tyrant or dictator who stands against the West.

If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.

If peace was a goal for Russia their war of rape, pillage and genocide wouldn't be happening in the first place.

Your position is either hopelessly naive or willingly fascist. I hope for your sake it's the first.

Yes, the same as it was Cuba's right under international law to place Soviet missiles in their territory in 1962. When it's powerful nations with massive nuclear arsenals involved and events they see as existential threats are unfolding there has to be compromise.

Otherwise you're looking at escalation, escalation, escalation...

Is Ukraine's right to join NATO something you're prepared to risk nuclear war over? It isn't for me.

There's a big difference between the placing of nuclear attack missles and joining a defensive pact, and saying so otherwise is weasel words.

Would you have not risked war for Irelands independence? Would you have bowed down to the British if they had demanded that Ireland not join the UN or EU? No, so why should Ukraine be denied their own democratic self governance?

Why are you so against that, and for a fascist nation intent on raping and murdering Ukrainians, stealing their land and property, and taking their children away to be "reeducated" in the far reaches of Russia?

[leinsterforever]

Because it would be Ukraine's democratic right to choose for themselves.



Chomsky is a Linguistics expert and a genocide denier with a bent to anti Western rhetoric and will back any tyrant or dictator who stands against the West.



If peace was a goal for Russia their war of rape, pillage and genocide wouldn't be happening in the first place.

Your position is either hopelessly naive or willingly fascist. I hope for your sake it's the first.

Yes, the same as it was Cuba's right under international law to place Soviet missiles in their territory in 1962. When it's powerful nations with massive nuclear arsenals involved and events they see as existential threats are unfolding there has to be compromise.

Otherwise you're looking at escalation, escalation, escalation...

Is Ukraine's right to join NATO something you're prepared to risk nuclear war over? It isn't for me.

There's a big difference between the placing of nuclear attack missles and joining a defensive pact, and saying so otherwise is weasel words.

Would you have not risked war for Irelands independence? Would you have bowed down to the British if they had demanded that Ireland not join the UN or EU? No, so why should Ukraine be denied their own democratic self governance?

Why are you so against that, and for a fascist nation intent on raping and murdering Ukrainians, stealing their land and property, and taking their children away to be "reeducated" in the far reaches of Russia?

If Ukraine was in NATO the US could place whatever missiles they liked there and Russia would have no recourse. Might is right in these situations.

Why would you not recognise Cuba's right to do something legal under international law if you're so big on rights?

Calling NATO a defensive pact after their operations in Serbia and Libya is laughable, frankly.

[paddyor]

All of it. They recognise that America sending arms has nothing to do with liberating Ukraine for Ukraine's sake. The US has no problem with countries annexing land, as evidenced by their support of Israel. It's a squabble between America and Russia for control. The fact that it's happening in a country bordering Russia tells us who really has the most influence in the world.

So the Ukrainians have no agency in this then? The biggest hawks here are the eastern europeans, the ones who escaped the Warsaw pact. All Putin, in particular maybe not Russia on the whole, has to offer them is a decrepit corrupt authoritarism

Ukraine in NATO has been a red line issue for the Russians for decades, much like Soviet missiles in Cuba was a red line issue for the Americans. They see it as an existential threat. The Russians can read the tea leaves and see what was coming. Ukraine was slowly being pulled into the West's orbit. I'd imagine they wish they'd acted sooner, before Trump supplied the Ukrainians with 'lethal aid'.

That's been completely disproven by events like Sweden and Finland joining NATO. As soon as it was agreed Russia withdrew all it's troops from it's borders with those countries. The requirement for a member to have fixed unconflicted borders meant he already had a veto over an Ukrainian assession(see also Georgia and Moldova). What they really didn't like was Ukraine turning to the EU(the start of the war coincided with the Ukrainians getting connected to the EU electricity grid) which is what started the Maidan protests. Not the first time Russia had frustrated the widely popular policy of EU accession.

The demonising of the leader of the enemy is war propaganda 101. Making out that Putin is some sort of megalomaniac going off on a solo run is pure propaganda. He is representing Russian interests. Opposition to NATO expansion is a widely held stance in Russia, and well thought of foreign policy people fr/om the West also had grave concerns. George Kennan viewed NATO expansion as a "tragic mistake" that would only inflame tensions.

Putin is the chief architect of his public image. He's worked hard to make him self big and scary like his pre war speech and increasingly just sounds wimpy and desperate.

There has to be compromise. It strikes me as complete common sense that Ukraine would arrange security agreements with other, non-NATO countries. Daly and Wallace are pushing for the EU to be in favour of negotiations instead of just doing America's bidding. Of the clips I've heard of them in the EU parliament I can't disagree with any of it.

The talk of peace is dumb because neither side is ready to negotiate yet. The older parts of the EU have wanted a deal since the start but they're not in a position to force on the Ukraine what they're not willing to take. And you have to remember the old eastern block are 100% in favour pof stopping the Russians in Ukraine rather than the Swalicki gap or in Poland.

[paddyor]

If Ukraine was in NATO the US could place whatever missiles they liked there and Russia would have no recourse. Might is right in these situations.

Why would you not recognise Cuba's right to do something legal under international law if you're so big on rights?

Calling NATO a defensive pact after their operations in Serbia and Libya is laughable, frankly.

Reversing the huge mistake of the Budapest memorandum would be a good start.

[FLIP]

If Ukraine was in NATO the US could place whatever missiles they liked there and Russia would have no recourse. Might is right in these situations.

Why would you not recognise Cuba's right to do something legal under international law if you're so big on rights?

Calling NATO a defensive pact after their operations in Serbia and Libya is laughable, frankly.

Reversing the huge mistake of the Budapest memorandum would be a good start.

Yeah, if Russia wanted to keep nukes out of Ukraine.. they should have not broken the terms of the Budapest memorandum which prevented such weapons being in Ukraine in exchange for protection.

If Russia want to not have NATO on their borders, maybe they shouldn't invade their neighbours?

[ronk]

To me it looks overwhelmingly likely that their main motivation is opposition to American militarism, coupled with cynicism about the West always being well-intentioned.

Lots of people are cynical about Western intentions, I am. This is a weak straw man argument. Even if it were true that the Americans had an agenda their actions can be viewed in isolation.

Questioning motivation works both ways.

Other than anachronistic American animosity to the USSR what some long term plan to threaten Moscow with missile bases it doesn't need what is the USA's motivation supposed to be.

I'm not saying Ukraine is attacking Russia. It's self-evident that it's the other way round.

Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then? That would have gone a long way in calming tensions. The West aren't interested in defusing the situation. Their aim is to hurt Russia as much as possible.

This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The US could have sent war planes, longer range missiles and other offensive weaponry any time they wanted to escalate. This war has been immensely damaging to the US economy and politically damaging to their leaders.

A promise that America would not come to the aid of Ukraine (or Taiwan) would only encourage aggression, obviously.

There doesn't have to be a threat of expansion into Russian territory. The threat of expansion up to the border is enough. What do you think the US would make of a hostile military alliance moving in to Mexico, say?

This level of hawkishness is at odds with dovish tones elsewhere. Justifying extremely brutal aggression by Russia while attacking moderate assistance by America seriously undermines credibility. Quisling f%~k is a succinct expression for the distrust that critical thinkers may well show. For reference I don't think that America should annex Mexico.

The Russian perspective is that a US-backed coup removed a President who was favourable towards them. Yanukovych had turned more towards Russia, turning down signing an EU treaty. When there was unrest Yanukovych committed to bringing elections forward. Stephen F. Cohen said that Putin contacted Obama to see would he agree to and back this arrangement. Obama said 'yes' but then shortly afterwards the government is overthrown and the US backs it. What are the Russians supposed to think?

Plan B

It’s Russia that doesn’t want a free Ukraine, they wanted to isolate them to make it easier to dominate them.

Well, duh.

And you defend them for some reason...

Has there ever been a war fought where there weren't atrocities committed on both sides?

All's fair in love and war. LOL.
Accepting this argument would invalidate the concept of war crimes and excuse all behaviour.

This is naive in the extreme, and flat out wrong. If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.

No it isn't. Having siezed significant early territory Putin could easily have offered to withdraw with a promise of a legally binding deal not to join NATO and UN Peacekeepers to prevent the neo-Nazi atrocities that were part of the pretext for invasion. The Ukrainians would have bitten their hands off for that deal while the tanks were still sitting outside Kiev and probably for some time afterwards. It'd be a good deal now, and would coincide with their war aims. They just want the Russians to go home.

It's Putin who doesn't want that. Putin wants territory, he wants offshore gas fields and black sea ports and valuable farm land and industrial prizes like the largest steel works in Europe and millions of people and to be the head of a Russian Empire.

[ronk]

The orange maniac is back