Kieselguhr

"My poor 31-year-old baby boy got kidnapped from his Douglas A-4 Skyhawk when he was dropping bombs on people on the other side of the world"

I remember a lib seething at me when I called John McCain a war criminal (when he was clearly involved in bombing North Vietnam), demanding proof that John McCain himself personally have ever dropped bombs on civilians

You are arguing in bad faith. Disengage.

Nah, this is a 100% pure shitlib take:

You clearly support Russia's pointless territorial grab in the Ukraine.

While I vehemently disagree with the soft pro Ukraine takes he has,I won't shed tears over them losing some bombers.

1. Well apparently those bombers are part of the nuclear arsenal, so this is actually a nuclear level escalation, which makes me, an Earth-dwelling human, very concerned

2. They've also hit civilian infrastructure

Yeah just to be clear, I'm not saying he said this, I just did some philological excavation.

All in all, if Russia gave it her 100% military power even excluding nukes they could've ended it in 2 weeks even in 2022, simply by doing decapitation strikes and bombing every bridge airport and power station

This NYT article is the source, I think

“That is not the question,” Mr. Barroso said Mr. Putin told him. He continued, referring to the Ukrainian capital, “But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks.”

So Barroso said Putin said this (in 2014)

It is truly amazing how biased they are that they don't turn the very same arguments around to talk about Ukraine:

It's also entirely possible that Ukraine has a few more surprises in store for Russia.

Russia has waaaay more capabilities to "surprise" (escalate) further. It actually shows restraint that they haven’t bombed every bridge and power station in Western Ukraine (that's what the US would do)

the Russians are keen on perpetuating the illusion that they're open to compromise and genuinely seek peace.

As opposed to Ukraine's sincerity? Are you serious?!?! Conducting a large drone attack hours before demanding ceasefire? I shoot at you then shout "ceasefire"! Is this sincere?

attempts to achieve through diplomacy what they haven't been able to on the battlefield.

Literally what Ukraine is doing in trying to get back territory through negotiation they've lost years ago

The Russians, on the other hand, presented their proposals only in Istanbul

Did the Russians change their demands? Lavrov has been quite open about it for years at this point.

an excerpt:

It's also entirely possible that Ukraine has a few more surprises in store for Russia. The unpredictable element here is when the Russian economic elite, for whom this war is hardly a favorite undertaking, will finally lose patience. What movements that might trigger within the halls of power is anyone's guess. The consequences are just as uncertain.

As for the recent talks, there doesn't seem to be any clear roadmap for what comes next, at least not publicly. It's essentially a continuation of the same process, largely because the Russians are keen on perpetuating the illusion that they're open to compromise and genuinely seek peace.

Of course, the rhetoric coming from state-affiliated media outlets paints a different picture. Their message is clear: if their baseline conditions aren't met, the war will continue. It's a decidedly bellicose stance, especially when coupled with attempts to achieve through diplomacy what they haven't been able to on the battlefield.

Negotiations will undoubtedly continue. The hour-long meeting on Monday simply wasn't enough time to delve into the complexities. The Ukrainian side publicly released its memorandum outlining the preconditions for a ceasefire, handing it over to the Russian delegation. The Russians, on the other hand, presented their proposals only in Istanbul. In other words, and I have to say, from Ukraine's perspective, it's the kind of proposal you could reject on gut instinct alone. Moreover, the limited time for review doesn't help matters. It was almost a given that the Monday meeting wouldn't yield a breakthrough. However, it does allow them to say that a third meeting will take place.

It feels like they need to strike a delicate balance in praising Ukraine, but also not praising them too much that people would think they don't need Western aid

All of this is of course very far from actual materialist or even realist analysis

I've decided to check in with the libs and endured half an hour of a shitlib news podcast on Ukraine (2x speed though)

The expert (basically just a journalist) said:

• The war is a stalemate, since the Russians said they'd win in a couple of weeks, so they are quite humiliated, especially because of the recent attacks

• Despite the stalemate the Russians are unwilling to compromise on their demands

• One of their demands is the lifting of sanctions, which signals that the sanctions do hurt the Russians

• Yeah it turns out the Russian economy did not collapse in a few months after the first round of sanctions, but who knows what will happen, they are very strained

• It might be true that there's some fatigue in the Ukrainian populace, but the drone strike boosts morale

• In Ukraine, human resources (mobilization) are the main challenge, especially in the absence of spectacular successes (like in the autumn of 2022)

• Trump courts Putin and criticizes Ukraine, which reinforces the "proxy war" narrative for Russia and makes them less willing to compromise

• Ukraine was very smart to do Operation Spiderweb completely independently, it shows that they are capable

• This allowed Ukraine to signal its capability to carry out independent operations for which Russia may not have a ready countermeasure. This implies they are not in such a dire position that they are forced to accept all Russian conditions and, in essence, surrender

And so on and so forth, it truly feels like a parallel universe, but some facts start to seep in, but very very slowly (he mentioned that 6 million Ukrainians fled the country in the first year of the war)

It's quite telling that the ~~stenographer~~ journalist didn't push back on this blatant bullshit.

In almost every major conflict, including conflicts prosecuted by democracies, you will see individual members of the military commit war crimes. The way you judge a democracy is whether they hold those people accountable.

Yes like how the UK prosecuted Tony Blair and co after the Chilcot report, or how the Afghanistan Papers started a giant wave of prosecutions related to the war in Afghanistan