Mariupol's devastation: AP journalists document war's toll

They are not in Ukraine participating in combat in the current conflict.

> There is basically no escalation from Russia. [...]. It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media).

Maybe it's time to be extra aware of your own biases against Russia, NATO, mainstream media...

You can replace "enforce a no-fly zone" with "declare actual war on Russia". A no-fly zone either involves striking targets in Russia and Belarus, or hands the initiative to Russia if/when an air war starts. It is a very bad idea, to put it mildly.

There's a reason there were endless proxy wars, guerrilla trainings, and secret arms supplying back then. Neither side would risk a direct conflict with the other, so they did all that instead.

You'll notice that's the exact same toolbox they're drawing on now. They didn't invent this shit for putin.

I'd step out on a limb and say maybe the best move is to let the aggressors take whatever they want, nobody really knows.

My point here isn't that russia will be proven right in the future. Its that war always sounds like a good solution, or even the only solution to avoid something worse. But we have to avoid getting into that same cycle over and over again, Especially when we are in a nuclear world.

By the way, the comparison with 1939 Germany is completely spurious imo. Germany did not attack Poland because it was a democracy, had already purged it's own Jewish population, had started gassing the disabled and mentally ill, had already eaten 2 medium-sized countries in a year, was in an offensive pact with italy, openly planned to engage in ethnic cleansing...

If you think that is comparable to the current situation then all nuance has been lost and all wars are comparable to ww2. That ww2 was morally unambiguous makes it very convenient to use and project ourselves as the equivalent of the allies in 1939 and call for military action while the opposite is true for the first war. But the comparison is still baseless beyond the war rhetoric

That's .... the point.

I get your point (that ethics and law matter -- including basic principles of law where international law is not codified), and on a certain level this is valid.

But historically speaking, once things ratchet up to a certain level and scope of barbarity (as we are seeing unfold in real time) -- it's just not realistic to sit and wait for a "fair" solution to emerge (in the near term or ever). People are going to be hurt (and treated unfairly) one way or another. It's just a question of who is going to take the hit, and in what form. So if it's at least arguably plausible that measures that inconvenience a few individuals in the top .1 percent net-worth-wise might bring this insane situation to a close sooner rather than later -- I can go with that.

And there's no reason we can't "rub" a bit of due process into the situation -- by saying "OK sure, you can file an appeal, and have a shot at getting your toys and baubles back -- after Russia returns to its borders, and Putin has been decisively removed from power."

Or you're going to honor the border I guess? Are they free to bomb civilians as long as it launches from their side? Even the best planes will get shot down if you give the other side enough chances, is nato going to allow that? Anyway where even is the border at 50k feet? How many conflicts have started because a pilot accidentally entered another country's airspace? Or at least that the other country claimed they had.

The US finally said no to the specific plan, and put forth the general rationale for the more general no when it did so.

(OTOH, the tolerance for acts that might be seen as provocation by Russia among NATO countries—at least those on the Eastern flank—is going up rapidly, with Estonia and Lithuania calling for a NATO-enforces No Fly Zone, and Poland hold-my-beering them and calling for a NATO peacekeeping force in Ukraine.)

/1 Of the declared $800mil Anti armor launchers account for ~$400mil, then the other $400mil pays for some small arms, personal armor, ammo and 100 drones? Its pure mil complex walfare program.

It wasn't seen as too likely to effect the conflict, but as the conflict drags out it becomes a greater irritant. Russia is recently openly threatening to attack “supply lines” of those arms if they continue; since anything in Ukraine is already clearly subject to attack this at least implicitly is a threat to potentially attack convoys and logistics points outside of Ukraine.