Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "Sooner or later Russians will have to confront what their
country has done."

Most of the people of the US, my country, have never confronted what the US did in Vietnam, and I doubt they ever will. I don't think the Russian people are different. The German people have had to confront what the Nazis and others did during the war because they lost the war and were occupied.

Dear David,

On the whole great powers don't often admit their mistakes.
Be it the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or the behaviour of
Ben Roberts-Smith in Afghanistan (still under investigation),
or Russia's behaviour in Ukraine.

However, not only has Ukraine withstood Putin's assault but it has
managed to rally massive international support and keep military
aid coming. An unprecedented barrage of sanctions has turned
Russia into an international pariah.

Authoritarian leaders such as Putin always have to worry
about civil uprisings and will go to great lengths to
communicate that all is well and that they are super-competent
leaders.

That's part and parcel of how they stay in power and demonize
any opposition into believing resistance is futile.

If we stop and think about the authoritarian need to signal
invulnerability, Putin's myriad efforts to communicate
his feats of strength make sense.

Whatever risks an American President faces in acknowledging a
mistake, these risks increase by an order of magnitude in
Putin's world.

Which is why we'll probably be waiting a long, long, time
before the Russian President will ever admit he messed up
or allow any of the Russian people to tell him he did.

But one can live, and hope and pray that the Russian people
will wake up and demand change.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote:

"But one can live, and hope and pray that the Russian people
will wake up and demand change."

Change can come, but it will require more than demands from the Russian people. There is no mechanism by which they can peacefully express their demands. It requires violence, and violence is more dangerous when there are nuclear weapons available.

Zelensky apparently told Zaluzhnyi that he's got till November to make military gains, and then he has to negotiate. If so, maybe that's when western weapon supply will dry up completely and a year prior to the US presidential elections.

mhaze,
"But it does show your propensity to be led down the garden path."
No I don't think so, as I told you earlier I didn't get the info from Lavrov in 2022. Alternative news sources reported on it back in 2014.
I just used Lavrov's statement in 2022 to put some backing to what I'd already heard myself years prior.

"In other words, everything the Russians say is true unless proven false....everything the Ukrainians say is false unless proven true. This is not the path to understanding."

You're probably not wrong there, however it's not without merit.
Ukrainians claims seem to be far less reliable than Russian ones.

"AC, you might notice that I make no predictions about the war or the final outcome. I, of course, follow the threads of the battles and the strategy, but I've studied more than enough history over the last 50 years to know that outside observers can never hope to pierce the fog of war. Both sides are lying."

Well, 'All things being equal' I guess...
- but only if they ARE equal, right?
I wouldn't disagree that 'The first casualty of war is the truth'

Foxy,
"Hopefully the Russian people will eventually rise up
and get rid of the tyrant who's also causing them so
much harm."

Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
It's as if you think the Russian people quietly despise their president and that there's a Russian secret police agent quietly holding a gun to the back of everyone's heads.

Putins approval rating (from May 2023) is 82%
http://www.statista.com/chart/28383/putin-approval/

In contrast, Albanese's approval rating is 36%
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-27/australians-begin-to-turn-on-albanese-as-inflation-rates-bite#xj4y7vzkg

Fester,
"The decision to prosecute a war in Ukraine is Putin's choice alone"
- Just as the decision to encourage protests, back opposition groups, manipulate foreign elections, overthrow elected leaders and install puppet rulers is the United States choice alone?

"Ukrainian President Zelensky decided to appeal to the
Russian people in their native language on television."

It might interest you to know that Russian is also shoe shine boy Zelenskys native language too Foxy.

mhaze,
"You've made moral judgements about Russia's right to determine policy for its neighbours - deciding who can and can't join others for mutual defence. I make a different moral judgement. In my view, Russia, under the current leadership, has shown itself to be expansionist and avarice."

What in Georgia and Ukraine, after the US involved itself in these nations domestic politics?

- Key point 'US intervened first' for the sole purpose of ring fencing Russia? Why we not act?
The US certainly wouldn't if China or Russia involved themselves in Canada Mexico or Cuba, hell the US would say Pakistan or even Antarctica is a part of their national security interests.

"Therefore nations like Ukraine, the Baltics and Finland have the right to defend themselves against that."
- The US itself built up the Ukrainian military after the coup in 2014.

"If, as you claim, Putin just wants to stop NATO from reaching his doorstep, then he's already lost. NATO is already there. I've driven from St Peterburg to the Finish boarder. Its about 100 miles. Stopping Ukraine from joining NATO is now superfluous as regards Putin's war aims if those were his war aims."
- That's a valid argument I guess, but they will pay a price for it.
2% of GDP to NATO and a need to now spend an extra few billion a year stationing troops on the border to counter the ones Russia placed there to counter their new NATO status.

Money that could've been spend on schools and hospitals etc.
I guess the citizens always have to pay a price for what idiot politicians do hey...

They will regret it in a few years if NATO crumbles.

US promised Zelensky they could defend Ukraine, and that they would be there 'as long as it takes'.
Zelensky was going to negotiate a settlement in Istanbul in April last year, initial documents had already been signed.
Until Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and talked him out of it, convinced him the West had his back for as long as it takes.
Well it seems 'as long as it takes' is until November, then Ukraine is being cut loose.
Told you no-one was coming to help them, maybe Lithuania and the Poles might send some troops in, who knows.
Biden's got investigations to deal with at home and can't afford to lose the election or he'll be in big trouble.

What Russia will offer Zelensky now if he negotiates will be a whole lot less that if he had've done so last April;
- Minus half a million dead and wounded Ukrainians.

Russia stated that many times, and they have lost people too.
But what concessions will Russia be willing to offer now?
Not much, they don't want a frozen conflict, like in Korea.
They have set goals and security interests they intend to reach.

And all of this, it's not just military and political, there's also an economic component as well.
- Ukrainian gas fields.
The plan was to cut Russian gas from Europe (hurting Russia economically) and replacing it with gas from Ukrainian gas fields.
For that reason I wouldn't be surprised if Putin takes Kharkiv before the year is out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_in_Ukraine
http://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/t22zkc/map_detailing_the_largely_untapped_gas_and_oil/
(It's always about oil and gas and pipelines)

UN asks Putin to extend Black Sea grain deal in return for SWIFT access
http://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/un-chief-sends-putin-proposal-keep-black-sea-grain-deal-alive-2023-07-12/
- So much for the sanctions, who needs who?
And btw, Russia doesn't want payment in the dollar anymore.