Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Ludicus]

It's easier on Russia's collective ego to pretend that they are being defeated by America/NATO and not Ukrainians.

Obviously, there is a war going on between NATO, the EU, and Russia.It is hard to deny the evidence. Some "military experts" and commentators are saying that Ukraine will conquer Crimea in December.

For those who are familiar with military affairs, (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense of the US) the probability of a Ukrainian victory is almost impossible, right now.
Mark Milley, a few days ago said categorically that the chance of a Ukrainian victory is very low, and an outright military victory is out of reach. He must know better than politicians what is happening on the battlefield.
” It’s a good time for negotiations”, he said. So, what happened then? CNN tells us that our western politicians were upset by his statements,

…comments that ruffled some allies and members of his own administration. Speaking in New York last Wednesday, Milley said both Russia and Ukraine will have to realize that military victory is impossible to achieve and that a negotiated end to the conflict would end the suffering of war.
“When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” Milley said at the time.

The "West" through politicians in the US and the EU, not too long ago, classified the Ukrainian regime as a sham democracy run by one of the most corrupt oligarchs on the planet. But the importance of Ukraine's strategic location, on the border with Russia, to the dominance of Euroasia has changed this claim of offending the principles of political administration in force in the West, and the Ukrainian regime has transubstantiated its essence: it’s now a “vibrant democracy”. “We are all Ukraine!”. Money is flowing, arms deals, and private armies are booming, there is already talk of contracts to rebuild infrastructure, to supply new weapons. Not a word about peace.Fight until the last Ukrainian!
Poor Mark Milley, he must learn to be a politician.

How more neutral states can mediate peace talks in Ukraine

The G20 Summit this week showed that many countries don’t want to take sides, and some can be enticed to help end the war.
This year’s G20 Summit reaffirmed two concepts many Western policymakers continue to deny: non-Western countries do not wish to isolate Russia and that they prefer immediate peace talks to end the fighting in Ukraine.
While the Biden administration is reportedly taking more action on the diplomatic front, the West and its allies — merely 14 percent of the world’s population — remain steadfastly committed to economic warfare but have failed to play a constructive role in ending actual warfare.
Meanwhile, other world leaders have positioned themselves in neutral positions that enable them to function as mediators between Russia and Ukraine as well as, more crucially, between Russia and the West.
Turkey’s active engagement, starting before the Russian invasion in February, has reduced the risk of a global famine thanks to a grain deal it helped realize. Meanwhile, the West has not merely just failed to offer Ankara any rewards for this achievement but in effect continued to punish it.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed shock at Israel’s unwillingness to provide Ukraine with Iron Dome but it’s entirely logical from Tel Aviv’s point of view. The Israeli security state has an incentive to see a militarily robust Russia, which has the capacity to restrain Iranian influence in Syria.
Arguably the countries with the most potential influence, namely China and India — both of which support a ceasefire and negotiations — have been given few reasons to get involved. Continued U.S. antagonism of China on the issue of Taiwan and a stubborn refusal to accept India’s pursuit of an independent policy has resulted in neither country wanting to be caught on the wrong side of Western sanctions while at the same time refusing to adopt their own.
For both countries, diplomatic involvement runs the risk of potentially alienating both Russia and the United States/West with little direct benefit. Without guarantees of short or medium-term benefits, neither country is likely to budge.
Some G20 governments may be able to play complementary roles. Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has advanced and hosted talks to resolve the Venezuelan crisis and recently launched a peace initiative for Ukraine.
Brazil’s reelected Lula da Silva balanced friendly relations with both the United States and Iran as an interlocutor and can potentially do the same for the United States and Russia.
Mediation contributions can enhance both countries’ aspiration for middle power status, transcending their regional positions.
Instead of obsessing with the preservation of hemispherical hegemony, Washington should encourage bold initiatives that enhance the prestige of such states.
American sanctions are rarely temporary. The Kremlin likely assumes that Western sanctions on Russia are permanent, regardless of the conflict’s outcome. Washington’s desire to incapacitate Russia means Moscow sees little economic value in negotiations beyond the financial cost of military expenditure.
According to chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, “there’s an opportunity to negotiate” that should be seized. Now may be the moment to do so.

Brussels fumes and cries: blackmail! Hungary will not support EU aid plan to Ukraine, Orban says
Over the last years I have always condemned the Hungarian regime, for several reasons, but in this case Orban is right. Furthermore, Hungary is a vibrant democracy, if you compare it with Ukraine. But it has its European funds blocked because it has a democratic deficit.

Hungary creates public poll to gauge support of EU sanctions

Results: December 9.

--

A modest account is 13,000 killed in Ukraine's war in Donbas.

Around that. Recommended book: DONBASS, LA GUERRA FANTASMA NEL CUORE D'EUROPA
Recommended documentary,
Anne-Laure Bonnel - «Donbass» (2016) English subtlitles
Watch,

[PointOfViewGun]

Open question; in his defense of Russia's raping of Ukraine, did Ludicus touch upon Russia's recent indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in Ukrainian cities, correct?

[Coughdrop addict]

Obviously, there is a war going on between NATO, the EU, and Russia.It is hard to deny the evidence.

You can't honestly believe that. With the crippling problems and abyssal performance of Russia in this war even you have to admit that if NATO and the EU were at war with Russia they would be at the gates of Moscow in a week at most.

Some "military experts" and commentators are saying that Ukraine will conquer Crimea in December.

And if they do are you going to be angry that the Ukrainians have kicked out the imperialists? Are imperialism and colonialism still wrong when done by Russia?

Honest question. Say you look out your window one day to see Russian forces rolling in to occupy your town. Do you see your life improving under these circumstances? How do you imagine they will treat you?

Fact checkers  ye nah...cool story Brah 

It's not mishkin or fact checkers' fault your news sources are deceiving you. Every word he said is true.

[Ludicus]

You can't honestly believe that.

1)Without massive military and financial aid from NATO and the EU, Ukraine would have lost this war many months ago. It is a fact, its easy to understand.
2)There is a conflict that is beyond Ukraine, that involves other players: the US/NATO, the EU and Russia.

--
I have read a lot about this subject, but I had never read a very interesting op-ed published during the Cuba crisis ("Cuba in Perspective”), quoted in this article published two days ago,
“when the shoe was on the other foot” NATO expansion and the origins of Russia's invasion of Ukraine-Responsible Statecraft

(…) It’s not agreeing with Moscow’s invasion to imagine the bad reaction all this might spark, particularly from a militaristic state nursing a wounded national pride. American commentators well understood this when the shoe was on the other foot during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the New York Times’s James Reston chided Soviet leaders for “not understanding the limitations of political debate in America,” where most politicians were likely to react hawkishly to news of an adversary’s nuclear weapons being placed off the Florida coast. Or as one op-ed put it before the missiles were even publicly revealed:

“Let those who are leaning over backwards to find justification for Cuba ask themselves what would happen if the United States suddenly began sending great quantities of arms and “technicians” to a country like Finland right up against Russia itself and hitherto acknowledged as being within the sphere of Soviet influence as Cuba once was within the American. There would be a real parallel to Cuba. Even our most fanatic rightists … would have to admit that such a thing would be an unwarranted provocation of the Russians and a serious tampering with the precarious balance on which world peace rests”.

--

Open question; in his defense of Russia's raping of Ukraine, did Ludicus touch upon Russia's recent indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in Ukrainian cities, correct?

"in his defense of Russia's raping of Ukraine" is a provocation.
Number of civilian casualties in Ukraine during Russia's invasion verified by OHCHR as of November 13, 2022: 6,557. The population of some major Ukrainian cities has been relatively spared: Kiev, Odessa, Lviv. Not a single civilian should have died in Ukraine, nor in the Donbas bombed by the Ukrainians from 2014 to 2022, where 13,000 or more died. But if you want to know the number of civilians massacred by the American Army in Cambodia, when Nixon told Kissinger that he had "no intention of losing Cambodia", all I have to say is that it was a genocide.

[Cyclops]

Open question; in his defense of Russia's raping of Ukraine, did Ludicus touch upon Russia's recent indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in Ukrainian cities, correct?

"Its not happening, they deserve it and the US did worse in Afghanistan (why are you so racist?" is the standard line here.

Once a poster becomes a parody i put them on ignore, dont have patience for people that act like bots.

A dog only gets to bite people so many times before it is put down. I think Putins number is coming up. If we hand him Ukraine it doesnt stop.

[PointOfViewGun]

"in his defense of Russia's raping of Ukraine" is a provocation.
Number of civilian casualties in Ukraine during Russia's invasion verified by OHCHR as of November 13, 2022: 6,557. The population of some major Ukrainian cities has been relatively spared: Kiev, Odessa, Lviv. Not a single civilian should have died in Ukraine, nor in the Donbas bombed by the Ukrainians from 2014 to 2022, where 13,000 or more died. But if you want to know the number of civilians massacred by the American Army in Cambodia, when Nixon told Kissinger that he had "no intention of losing Cambodia", all I have to say is that it was a genocide.

It's not a provocation. It's a statement of fact. You have been defending Russia's raping of Ukraine as you try to shift focus on any little detail you can twist negatively against Ukriane. You have been doing that in the most deceptive manner possible. This post of yours is a good example. You talk about civilian deaths in the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine that spanned 9 months so far which is overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, at the hands of Russian fighters and then talk about civilian deaths in Donbas that spanned almost 8 years which is not exclusively, or even overwhelmingly, at the hands of Ukrainian government. Then you talk about USA troops in Cambodia from 1970. You can try to defend Russia's raping all you want. With such arguments with no intelligence whatsoever it merely disgusts people.

[antaeus]

To be fair, I have always considered Ludicus' position in this thread to be more of a misguided defence of pacifism or non-combatism or diplomacy over violence or some such, rather than a direct defence of the Russian invasion. Ludicus has a number of times stated that it is wrong.

The question I take away from this staunch but misguided defence, is whether it is OK as a pacifist to hit the bully back if the bully hits you. And to take the help of the bully's bully, if it is offered in your aid. In this case, I think Ludicus is so imbedded in the USA = bad position that any aid the US gives must be questioned.

But for me it always comes back to the same question... where would Ukraine be now if it weren't for the Maidan. Would they be like Belarus? Would I be happy living under that? Even as a pacifist? And that leads on to the follow up... where would they be now if it wasn't for their current resistance to Russian invasion? That second question leads to shivers.

[Cyclops]

To be fair, I have always considered Ludicus' position in this thread to be more of a misguided defence of pacifism or non-combatism or diplomacy over violence or some such, rather than a direct defence of the Russian invasion. Ludicus has a number of times stated that it is wrong.

The question I take away from this staunch but misguided defence, is whether it is OK as a pacifist to hit the bully back if the bully hits you. And to take the help of the bully's bully, if it is offered in your aid. In this case, I think Ludicus is so imbedded in the USA = bad position that any aid the US gives must be questioned.

I was in the same spot as Ludi initially, but the facts didn't fit that narrative. The reality gap has only widened but the quacking has stayed the same, and if it quacks like a duck...

But for me it always comes back to the same question... where would Ukraine be now if it weren't for the Maidan. Would they be like Belarus? Would I be happy living under that? Even as a pacifist? And that leads on to the follow up... where would they be now if it wasn't for their current resistance to Russian invasion? That second question leads to shivers.

Thats a very interesting point. Possibly Ukraine as a whole would be too large for Russia to digest, but it wouldn't be better than Belarus. Worst case is Ukraine would be a springboard for Putin's next round of invasions. If they had gone under in 2014 that next round would have already begun, maybe Transnistria and bits of the Baltic States?

[antaeus]

Thats a very interesting point. Possibly Ukraine as a whole would be too large for Russia to digest, but it wouldn't be better than Belarus. Worst case is Ukraine would be a springboard for Putin's next round of invasions. If they had gone under in 2014 that next round would have already begun, maybe Transnistria and bits of the Baltic States?

I'm not sure that any further invasions would have been necessary. If Ukraine had stayed inside Putin's oligarchy structure, Russia wouldn't have needed to act. I think for Putin, national boundaries are the same as corporate boundaries. The actual borders are irrelevant if the management is within the authority structure. Belarus is very much within the authority structure, and Ukraine has been at times. But that leaves them with relatively similar status to say Gazprom. Another bit part of the oligarchy.

One has to ask the additional question following from that... there is, and has always been a movement within Belarus, Ukraine and Russia for more open and liberal society. Do those of us who have the privilege of having been born into open liberal societies without having had to fight for them, have the right to question or challenge or play-down the rights of others who seek to join us? I would suggest that any concession to a dictatorial or authoritarian or totalitarian society is always going to equate to a small chipping away at the legitimacy of our own more open societies.

How we reconcile that with non-violence is a matter of born-privilege. I didn't fight for my rights. They were given to me. But someone fought for them 300 or 400 years ago when my society beheaded its kings and withheld their privileges. How does one born to privilege reconcile that it was granted through violence?

[PointOfViewGun]

To be fair, I have always considered Ludicus' position in this thread to be more of a misguided defence of pacifism or non-combatism or diplomacy over violence or some such, rather than a direct defence of the Russian invasion. Ludicus has a number of times stated that it is wrong.

Calling it wrong dryly a few times while boastingly blaming Ukraine for everything in 5000 word dissertation posts every single page doesn't really paint a misguided defense of pacifism to me. He is explicitly utilizing the "but she wore a short skirt" argument for the case at hand.

[Ludicus]

"For the case in hand",

Mark Milley: Ukraine winning over Russia is not possible.

Zelensky/Kiev: The West's attempts to persuade Ukraine to negotiate with Moscow are bizarre. When you have the initiative on the battlefield, it's slightly bizarre to receive proposals like: “you will not be able to do everything by military means anyway, you need to negotiate”

Conclusion: Biden needs to get rid of him. Mark Milley should be stripped of rank then fired.

Meanwhile, Shelling of Zaporizhzhia is playing with fire, says UN nuclear
According to Zelensky, Russia continues to bomb the nuclear power plant it controls. Remember, for Russia, nuclear plants are nuclear bombs. And if their soldiers are the first to be radioactively poisoned, so be it.

…And Ukrainian officials refute US estimates on number of killed, injured soldiers

Last week, the U.S. chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, said around 100,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed or injured.

Fire Mark Milley, please.

Conservative groups lobby against lame-duck Ukraine aid

A coalition of more than a dozen powerful conservative groups is pressing lawmakers to delay consideration of any additional aid to Ukraine until the new Congress is sworn in next year,
the erosion in support from lawmakers correlates with a growing sentiment against aid among Republican voters in opinion polls.

is whether it is OK as a pacifist to hit the bully back if the bully hits you

but the quacking has stayed the same, and if it quacks like a duck.

Russia is an autocracy, just as corrupt as Ukraine, but I say again that it is a simplistic explanation to reduce everything to an aggressor and a victim. The causes of the invasion also count. As for Zelensky, Ukraine could have a slightly more honest leader. That is what is well explained in my previous posts and links.And this is what you people don't like to hear.
When arguments are lacking, the appeal to personal attacks begin:three in a row.

where would Ukraine be now if it weren't for the Maidan

It's presented as having been a "revolution" instead of a coup, to overthrow the Ukrainian government.I think the Nuland sandwiches helped, but only in a banana republic would you see this.

[antaeus]

"For the case in hand",

Mark Milley: Ukraine winning over Russia is not possible.

Milley's considerations are also Geo-strategic US considerations.

The US may not want to completely defeat Russia in this war. It is likely, given the impact GMLRS has made on Russian logistics, that ATACMS might make the war untenable to continue for Russia, either that or freeing up of any number of other sophisticated systems (e.g. modern tanks, aircraft) might render Russian attacks pointless. And that a Russian collapse might follow. However the US doesn't want to give Ukraine that which might allow them to force a Russian withdrawal: 1. ATACMS systems (for example) to fall into Russian (or Chinese) hands - if one fails to detonate (now that it clear how much of an edge HIMARs provides the US over potential adversaries) and 2. A general collapse of Russian forces leading to existential instability in Russia and the chaos that might follow.

I would take Miley's comments to read that Ukraine can't make Russia stop it's invasion. Battlefield defeats might lead to a withdrawal to the 2021 border, or even the 2013 border. But that doesn't stop the war until Russia wants it stopped. Russia could still sit there and lob rockets and destroy Ukraine's infrastructure so long as it can keep making them.

In that sense, Ukraine can't unilaterally stop fighting, because the war is now existential for them. But they also can't defeat Russia. Ever. Until Russia decides to quit, of it's own volition. And even that might just be a pause to rearm before making another, better informed go of it in 5 or 10 years. All the US can do in the meantime is make the war so painful, and to be so clear about it's messaging that continued war on Ukraine is fruitless for Russia, to encourage Putin to call a halt.

The inability to make Russia stop it's invasion doesn't automatically suggest that the zero-sum opposite action be the best outcome. I.e. We shouldn't just sit back and say "It's OK Putin, you can coerce your will onto neighbouring countries, or invade and absorb them whenever you want"

What ever settlement comes of this, and Miley is right, there must be a settlement. It must contain an end to Russia's attempts to keep countries as client states within Putin's oligarchic system, against the will of their peoples.

[Ludicus]

Milley's considerations are also Geo-strategic US considerations.
I would take Miley's comments to read that Ukraine can't make Russia stop it's invasion.In that sense, Ukraine can't unilaterally stop fighting, because the war is now existential for them. But they also can't defeat Russia. Ever. Until Russia decides to quit, of it's own volition..

Good post. There are indications that Russia wants Ukraine's neutrality,-not its destruction or loss of independence- the Russian Donbas, and Crimea, of course. What they certainly don't want is NATO troops 300 kilometers from Moscow.From then on, Ukraine may even join the EU (according to Putin).

----
For my part, it is painful to see Europe committing suicide by supporting the US sanctions on Russia. Btw, why is that the coalition of powerful conservative groups is pressing lawmakers to delay consideration of any additional aid to Ukraine until the new Congress is sworn in next year? According to Biden today’s Republicans “have no sense of American foreign policy.”

“These guys don’t get it. It’s a lot bigger than Ukraine. It’s NATO!”

Of course. It’s the above all, the battle for Eurasia. That's my point of view.

[antaeus]

The issue there is that the act of trying to coerce neutrality in effect provides enough evidence to remove the possibility of neutrality.

Putin saying "I want you to be officially neutral, oh and by the way that means its easier for me to coerce you to follow my will, and I'm going to shoot you until you become neutral" is the strongest possible reason for a nation bordering Putin's Russia to not want to be neutral, and to actively seek out protections.

NATO doesn't expand. It enlarges. Semantic yes. But a close look at all of the countries that have joined over the past 20 years shows that universally, all have evidenced historic (and at times within living memory) coercive violence by a regime led from Moscow.

To a certain extent, I wonder if it is possible to be non-violent without overwhelming capacity to defend. NATO made mistakes when it got involved in Libya and it probably wasn't appropriately called to Afghanistan either. But it seems clear to me that so long as there is an absolutist regime in Moscow, the only thing that prevents Moscow exercising coercive force on a Central or Eastern European country is a mutual defence pact.

In this sense, European powers must support Ukraine, or else it undermines the legitimacy of their own multilateralism and makes it more likely that Russia, the largest country in Europe attempts again to be hegemonic over other countries that have freed themselves.

The only alternative being, waiting and hoping for Russians to find their own way out from under the heels of dictators. Fingers crossed because the oligarchy is strong.

[Kyriakos]

You act as if Russia is the only country to invade someone since forever. Meanwhile, there are a few ongoing (=> concurrent) other invasions, and nato is fine with them - some even are run by nato members.

[Ludicus]

Indeed, Kyriakos.
---
I missed this,

you.. talk about civilian deaths in Donbas that spanned almost 8 years which is not exclusively, or even overwhelmingly, at the hands of Ukrainian government.

At the hand of Ukrainian fighters. They haven't died from boredom.

You talk about civilian deaths in the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine that spanned 9 months

Yes. As of November 13, 2022: 6,557. That's because you can't talk about one thing and forget the other. That is why it is good to see the French documentary about the war in the Donbas from 2014 until now.
Furthermore, the number of civilian deaths in the Russia war on Ukraine is a relatively low number for a brutal war that has lasted for more than 8 months, by comparison with other wars. There are occasions when hundreds of soldiers die in a single day, from both sides. 82 missiles fired by Russia a few days ago cost 721 million Euros. It would be a waste of money if missiles were thrown on purpose at a building with civilians. Right now, Russia is selectively attacking energy infrastructures.

. Then you talk about USA troops in Cambodia from 1970

Yes. I could also have drawn your attention to other wars .We are talking about numbers, the number of civilian deaths. it is always good to compare, to have a fair perspective.

[antaeus]

You act as if Russia is the only country to invade someone since forever. Meanwhile, there are a few ongoing (=> concurrent) other invasions, and nato is fine with them - some even are run by nato members.

A few things.

Firstly I directly reference NATO involvement in other places (Libya and Afghanistan) as examples of where NATO has likely gone out of it's scope.

Secondly, Whataboutism isn't an argument. It doesn't matter what is going on elsewhere, we're discussing Russia. "Other countries do bad things" is not a justification to do bad things.

However, to address your "but what about"... NATO is a collective defence agreement. It isn't there to prevent it's members from conducting their own actions. Although it is being used as a shield by Turkey, and has in the past been used as a shield by the US and other countries. So if I were to be in a position to tweak NATO's articles, I'd like to add in a clause that states that while members can use military force where sanctioned to do so by the UN, they should lose protections if they act on their own.

Now that the tangent has been addressed. Feel free to start a new thread about NATO membership, what it means, and what it should mean (although let's see you do it without it turning into a stupid Greco-Turkish mud slinging match). So back to the topic if you will?

The issue there is that the act of trying to coerce neutrality in effect provides enough evidence to remove the possibility of neutrality.

Putin saying "I want you to be officially neutral, oh and by the way that means its easier for me to coerce you to follow my will, and I'm going to shoot you until you become neutral" is the strongest possible reason for a nation bordering Putin's Russia to not want to be neutral, and to actively seek out protections.

NATO doesn't expand. It enlarges. Semantic yes. But a close look at all of the countries that have joined over the past 20 years shows that universally, all have evidenced historic (and at times within living memory) coercive violence by a regime led from Moscow.

To a certain extent, I wonder if it is possible to be non-violent without overwhelming capacity to defend. NATO made mistakes when it got involved in Libya and it probably wasn't appropriately called to Afghanistan either. But it seems clear to me that so long as there is an absolutist regime in Moscow, the only thing that prevents Moscow exercising coercive force on a Central or Eastern European country is a mutual defence pact.

In this sense, European powers must support Ukraine, or else it undermines the legitimacy of their own multilateralism and makes it more likely that Russia, the largest country in Europe attempts again to be hegemonic over other countries that have freed themselves.

The only alternative being, waiting and hoping for Russians to find their own way out from under the heels of dictators. Fingers crossed because the oligarchy is strong.

Right now, Russia is selectively attacking energy infrastructures.

You're entering murky waters here Ludicus. Russia is certainly deliberately attacking water and electricity infrastructure. In a country that experiences severe near Arctic winters, and doing it in late autumn with the direct result of threatening the lives of millions, to coerce a favourable outcome to an armed conflict. While Putin rarely comments on the individual campaigns, his known mouthpieces have stated varying arguments that justify this action as directly affecting civilians, on purpose, to force a military outcome. This is a war crime.

[Stario]

"Its not happening, they deserve it and the US did worse in Afghanistan (why are you so racist?" is the standard line here.

In actuality, "the standard line here" is that Zelenskyy, Putin regimes; lets also add WEF and the woke left movement into the equation, are all (and I want to put it politely as I dont want to offend), "not good" and should have no place in this world. Let's hope they all collapse sooner than later.

Once a poster becomes a parody i put them on ignore, dont have patience for people that act like bots.

So you can't handle debating in good faith!?

[Cyclops]

...
You're entering murky waters here Ludicus. Russia is certainly deliberately attacking water and electricity infrastructure. In a country that experiences severe near Arctic winters, and doing it in late autumn with the direct result of threatening the lives of millions, to coerce a favourable outcome to an armed conflict. While Putin rarely comments on the individual campaigns, his known mouthpieces have stated varying arguments that justify this action as directly affecting civilians, on purpose, to force a military outcome. This is a war crime.

Did he really offer "selecting civilian targets" as a moral defence of Putin's attacks? FMD.

Can I pedantically note war crimes occur during a war. According to Putin this is not a war, which makes attacks on civilian targets to achieve his outcomes international terrorism.

[Coughdrop addict]

Did he really offer "selecting civilian targets" as a moral defence of Putin's attacks? FMD.

Can I pedantically note war crimes occur during a war. According to Putin this is not a war, which makes attacks on civilian targets to achieve his outcomes international terrorism.

Yes he did. Didn't you hear? Russia is desatanizing Ukraine in it's holy war against woke.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-pol...hatred-1760897

Russian strikes against Ukraine are an expression of "holy hatred," a Russian politician has said on state television.
In a clip shared on Twitter by Julia Davis, the creator of the Russian Media Monitor, State Duma member Boris Chernyshov is seen suggesting that those who support Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should "freeze and rot."
"These retaliatory strikes—and they are retaliatory... it's an expression of our hatred, our holy hatred," he said.
Ukrainians, he added, will "be sitting without gas, without light and without everything else. If the Kyiv regime chose the path of war criminals, they have to freeze and rot over there."

He added that "regular people have to take to the streets and put an end to Zelensky's Nazi regime."
Chernyshov's comments came as Kherson, a city in southern Ukraine, has come under intense Russian bombardment after it was liberated from an eight-month occupation by Russian forces, in yet another blow to the Kremlin. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky walked the streets of the city on Monday, hailing it as "the beginning of the end of the war."
But on Russian state television, commentators questioned why Ukrainians had not already risen up against their leader when they are "basically oppressed."

In essence they offer the same argument their apologists do. Everything is Ukraine's fault for not surrendering immediately, Russia has a divine right to rule Ukraine, and any who would resist Russia are terrorists.

By the way, note that Babayan said that the strikes against civilians are an attempt to terrorize them into compliance and the only negotiations they are interested in end with Ukraine's "capitulation". This flies in the face of the apologists' argument that Russia is being forced to keep fighting against it's will because Ukraine won't negotiate.