...
I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...
How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:
NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.
NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.
On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.
Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.
And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing
[...]
I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda.
As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution?
On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical.
We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right?
They have a limited say, but an attack on any member is an attack on all. If that is not honoured, NATO would cease to exist. US and other members would take a"proportional response" as it is the standard in diplomacy and war. The choice of means and targets could vary - but certainly the nuclear response is not the first choice to respond to a non-nuclear aggression.
...
Realistic case: US sells out Ukraine with some backhanded deal with Russia. Covered in such a way so everyone saves face
Biden has already enough trouble with his popularity and chances of re-election to do that. He needs something he can sell as a successful peace and there is no way he can do so giving away Ukraine. Also, that would be a huge strategic error for the future and US analysts know that it would leave a less safe - thus more expensive - world behind.
...
Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head:
-Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence
-US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing
-EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter
-Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba.
-China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another
Marshall Plan for Europe.
...
I think that it is very clear which side I am on: best case for Europe and Ukraine. US & China are only getting stronger with this and Putin's Tzardom, insofar as most of their population seem to be quite apathic about how they are governed, is not of my concern other than their ability to cause problems to others.
Certainly, not a war with WMD would fit a desirable solution to any party, which is the point of my post.
Again, I think that my position on this is very clear, but if I have to make it even more clear: a solution that causes a low number of civilian casualties, something the parties can live with given the damage inflicted to both sides, something that can be politically accepted for the relevant stakeholders, and, above all, a solution that does not encourage or that makes economically unfeasible any further conflict in the future.
On regards to your comments on EU, of course, ideally Europe wants this gone ASAP. While short term Germany chose to interlink with Russia, I think their leaders have gotten the message quite clear and the strategic exposure to Russia, while unchangeable short term, can and will be changed during the next five years. You cannot feed the bear no mater how nice he looks when asleep.
On your comment on Ukraine, people all over the world want to progress and "live better" in the ample sense. They know that this is not happening if they are part of the Tzardom. Also, people tend to like feeling free, even if freedom is never perfect something that, again, does not happen under a despotic foreign power's direct control.
..
As said many times, if you go back in time enough you would have to give it all to the Mongols. Whatever historically happened to a territory is not the base of who and how should hold the legitimate right to govern - that is simply medieval philosophy and justifying ruling and submission "by the grace of God" or on "historical rights of conquest".
In the world today, that right belongs
only to the people who actually live in there.I understand that you being a Kremlin Troll cannot grasp the concept of people choosing their own leaders and governments.