Pick one: Russia is running on fumes, or Russia should have won a year ago.

The coherent opinion here is that it’s a slow, grinding war and the side that has lost more and more territory as it continued will continue to do so.

This has been the narrative since shortly after the war began. All that’s happened since is Russia has slowly advanced.

Taking everything you say at face value, the options for Ukraine are:

1. Take a deal that maybe you can’t trust, but it at least gives you time to breathe.
2. Keep fighting, and with the war going how it is eventually lose more than what you’ve already lost.
3. Attempt to draw other states into the conflict so that you have a shot at what might be considered a victory, likely years more down the road under the best of circumstances.

There is no justification for 2, and 3 is highly unlikely – if other states haven’t entered the war already, they’re not going to do so now.

This isn’t capitulation, this is cutting your losses while you have something left to hold onto.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

:smuglord: “you’re from Hexbear” isn’t an argument

Even assuming Russian shells are lower quality (and you have absolutely zero evidence of that), a shitload of weapons that are lower quality can still beat you.

Since taking office in 2021, Biden has yet to meet the Dalai Lama. As a candidate in 2020, Biden criticised Donald Trump for being the only US president in three decades who had neither met nor spoken to the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It’s the top bureaucrats of Russia

Jesus Christ, you were wrong. If you can’t acknowledge that reality, I’m not wasting any more time with you.

Stated policy means stated policy, not “a bunch of bureaucrats were assigned the same book once.”

they are sourcing a Duma member on Russian state television

Fair enough. It’s still a far cry from anyone in a position to actually use nukes saying anything like that, though. Here’s the stated policy of Russia on the topic:

Putin reiterated Russia’s formal position on the use of nuclear weapons in a statement to the Russian HRC on December 7 with no noteworthy changes. Putin claimed that the threat of nuclear war is growing, but that Russia will not be the first to employ nuclear weapons. Putin added, however, that if Russia is not the first to initiate the first use of nuclear weapons, it will also not be the second to do so, because the “possibility of using [a nuclear weapon] in the event of a nuclear strike on [Russian] territory are very limited.” Putin reiterated that Russian nuclear doctrine is premised on self-defense and stated that any Russian nuclear use would be retaliatory… Putin’s statements support ISW’s previous assessment that while Russian officials may engage in forms of nuclear saber-rattling as part of an information operation meant to undermine Western support for Ukraine, Russian officials have no intention of actually using them on the battlefield.

Why does some random Duma member’s offhand comments mean more than this?

Ukrainian separatists in Russian “little green men” uniforms

So your theory is that Russia intentionally shot down a civilian airliner, targeting the Netherlands specifically… why, exactly? Do you think they’re mustache-twirling villains who do evil stuff because evil is fun?

Proportional retaliation for their aggressive actions.

Ok, what proportional retaliation does the U.S. deserve for Iraq?

Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam.

Show me a source. Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,” then when you went to find a source it turned out it was not.

Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner

Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon. I’m not aware of any evidence that anyone intentionally targeted it, either, much less intentionally targeted it because it had Dutch citizens. Non-Russians mistaking an airliner for a military target is not the same as Russia targeting you.

I didn’t say that I support US policy

OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse? Do you apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, or not? That’s what I’m getting at – you do not apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, only countries you’ve already decided are Bad Countries. This isn’t deflecting, it’s showing that you are not being honest when you say “aggressive countries should see military retaliation.”

the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam

Who is saying this? Russia sure isn’t. You keep making up threats.

And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?

If you actually believe that aggressive, militaristic countries should face retaliation to get them to back down – if you actually hold that as a principle – you would apply it to all such countries, and the #1 example of that is the U.S.

You don’t apply it to the U.S., which shows you don’t actually believe it. You only apply it to countries you’ve already deemed enemies.

You keep saying Russia is your enemy because they’re threatening you, but all you’ve mentioned are invented threats, not anything Russia has actually said or did towards your country.

So “Finalndization” (again, whatever you think that means) is not in fact “the stated goal of Russia.” You claim (without sourcing) it’s from a Russian academic and then acknowledge there’s room to speculate how much impact that academic’s work has on the Russian government.

The US is not an immediate military threat for Europe.

You’re changing the subject. I said:

1. You do not apply your “retaliation against warmongers” logic against the most aggressive country on the planet. This is because you do not actually believe it; you’re just using it to justify fighting an enemy you already wanted to fight.
2. Retaliation against the most aggressive country on the planet has not deterred it from further warmongering, so your logic is largely disproven, anyway.

I mean what do you have sex with

the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.

Would love a source for whatever you think this means

A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.

The U.S., by far, is the most aggressive country on the planet. You certainly don’t apply this logic to it, and there has not been a single time retaliation against the U.S. has deterred it from future aggression.

Retaliation is the opposite of hawkish? Are you listening to yourself?

No politician ever in their lives did anything in good faith

“My country has broken hundreds of treaties and wipes its ass with international law, but it’s actually OK because it’s impossible for anyone to operate differently”

Lmao what a cop out. At bare minimum Ukraine should have stopped allowing fascist paramilitary groups to shell civilians in the east, an act that was illegal a half a dozen other ways, too. And Angela Merkel admitted the agreements were not an attempt to actually resolve that issue or the issue of the west installing a hostile foreign government via coup, but to give Ukraine time to arm up to fight Russia:

In an interview published in Germany’s Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its defences.

https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-russia-may-have-make-ukraine-deal-one-day-partners-cheated-past-2022-12-09/

Make it way worse quicker, so more people become friendly to the revolution.

Why would people join a movement that is making things worse right now? Why would you want to race towards increased state repression when your movement is small? Accelerationism isn’t a good idea in this situation, and it’s hard to think of a successful leftist movement that employed it ever.

The reason democrats don’t like shooting fascists is because they are have bought their own lies about the current system working

Agreed. I’d say this makes Democrats useless at best (at least with respect to the “uh so what about all this fascism we have going?” question) and enablers at worst.

You’re not really engaging seriously here, but “if voting doesn’t work, what is to be done?” is actually the first (and too often last) political thought most people have outside of our mostly useless sham democracy. And you’re right that fascists deserve to be shot (though you aren’t yet asking why Democrats’ don’t seem to believe that), so it’s understandable your thoughts would go straight to shooting them.

What you’re missing is that this whole conversation has happened countless times before, to the point where there’s an established name for “well why don’t you just go shoot the bad guy?”: adventurism. A bunch of anarchists tried it against high-level state actors 100+ years ago and it accomplished nothing of note, and the consensus among communists is that it’s a bad strategy. It lacks “stable or serious principles, programme, tactics, organisation, and… roots among the masses,” so it doesn’t develop into any systemic change (and makes your organization vulnerable to bad actors). Turns out you can’t take a shortcut around building a mass movement.

Building that movement is the logical conclusion you’re looking for, not random outbursts of violence.

One of the principle contradictions of capitalism is that any capitalist who thinks of heading off long-term problems gets replaced by one who can juice up the numbers in the immediate future. Who cares about sustaining a great position when you can make a shitload of money next quarter?