Self defence is a moral act and is enshrined in the concept of a Just War.
It is a logical fallacy to use comparison to justify conclusion.

Define "West" and "moral blunders" and you will get a longer and more nuanced answer.

Which in the end shall result in the same as what Lone stated.

When the shooting starts....everyone picks a side....most stay on that side until the shooting stops....not so a few of notable European Countries that did some flip flops during the shooting. That is politics as well......of which War itself is a part.

Meanwhile in Ukraine the latest Russian MBT in theatre isn't that resistant after all. The T90M is the latest version of the tank with first units delivered to forces just 2020. It was supposed to be almost invulnerable with new turret, latest reactive armour with active components etc.
Apparently these were taken to Ukraine just a few days ago. Now this ones a smoking wreck. Says it all really.

FWIW, as I read the political rhetoric coming out of Moscow, their move into Eastern Ukraine was (in part) justified within the broader self defense principle for those Russians in (Donbas, etc) who were in conflict with the government (depicted in the rhetoric as Nazis) in Kiev. If you look at the "we must help oppressed minorities/peoples/populations" justifications used in the last 40 years, you see in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Somalia, in Kuwait (just to name a few) that same style of justification. (Granted, each case has its own nuances and details).

That fell apart when they raped, robbed and murdered the same Russians they came to subjag liberate… I would imagine those same Russians now hate Russia as much as the Ukrainian population.

The T-90 is also a tank sold to India. I think that the M model (or a variant of it, MS?) has been around for a few years. I suspect that the Indian Army, as well as the Pakistani Army and Airforce, will take a keen interest in the performance of this model and see what applies to their own situations. ;)
You seem to be confusing justification (why does one do this?) with operations (what transpires once one does this?) which renders your response irrelevant to the point I was making. It certainly harms local support for, or incites local opposition to, the "liberating" forces but does not change the political justification (how ever substantive or thin) for why they were sent there.

While I would have hoped that this kind of behavior by the troops would result in disciplinary action / charges, I am not confident that this will come about from the RU side, but more likely will play out like how Milosevic got called to account (ultimately) in The Hague.

I think a quick check of the accepted history would show that after Russia / Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1938, a matter of days later Russia and Germany signed an amended clause, complete with a who-gets-to-annex-what after the war (see the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty) plus the rather significant act of the joint operation to invade Poland.

If anyone clings to the idea of the first Molotov-Ribbenstrop Pact was just as honourable as that publicly tabled in August 1938, well why not - you can have those few days.

What is clear is that it was amended outside of public gaze just days later. Amazingly both Germany and Russia were logistically and militarily ready to start major invasions just a few days after the first Molotov-Ribbenstrop Pact and simultaneous with its first amendment. They must have teleported everyone in... we should have looked for those teleport scientists, rather than the rocket kind.

Yes, it has been around for a couple of years. The russkies seem to be very good at destroying their own military gear market.

They justified the reasons they were going in, then promptly attacked and raped those they used as the justification, yes it may have been operational but in doing that they destroyed any semblance of a justification and any credibility they may have had. That was the point I was trying to get across.

That's true and the Russian Orthodox Church (unlike the western tradition) justifies war to defend a neighbour. Hence the Patriach's blessing of the troops.

BBC UKR News reporting that MLRS/HIMARS has not only been received but is now deployed in country with a 300Km range.

I appreciate the difference and the fact that they have taken twice the casulaties already confirms that. However, surely the number of casualties cannot be kept from the public indefinitely, especially as they rise, and there must come a point where the question will be asked, "Is the product worth the price" and there will be pressure to stop fighting. It is not a war for existence from the Russian perspective no matter how hard they sell it.
At this stage, I am not sure the victory conditions will be and I suspect neither are the parties involved. It may be that the price of combat will eventually force both sides the settle for "second best" and then sell it to their respective populations as a victory. I wonder what the red lines will be?
One thing is fairly certain though, Russia will now have great difficulty achieving the "de-nazification" of Ukraine as stated at the outset.

Yep and in the end Russia pays for that ......

Yep, and the fortunate aspect is, there are many waiting to "follow-up" Putin. And, they will fight internal Russia, so no more time for Russia to be nasty abroad. Problem solved......

I think, you don't get it.

Let me explain: The moment Russia starts a (kind of) civil war after the end of the Putin rein, they are focused internally combatting each-other and won't have time or energy to be nasty towards their neighboring countries.

And, it'll show the Russian population that power should not be tied to one person, since when that person perishes, hell breaks loose.

Oh, don't drink, when you write, your texts are full of alcohol spots and unsteady phrases.

Absolutely correct. Article 37 is about internal jurisdiction, the magistrates in 1562 when England was under foreign threat, were concerned with local defence, not prosecuting foreign aggression.
Perhaps it should be clear, self defence (as organised by the Royally appointed magistrates)

Because the suppression moves from a military stronghold to social suppression and propaganda. Just like it is done in Russia itself.

Add to that, that probably large parts of the civilians are moved elsewhere in Russia as already being enforced in Donetsk/Luhansk (and later on replaced by natural Russian "Rebuilding the country !!!"), and it is not that difficult.

Put aside your Western mindset, when determining whether something like this is possible or not. Be creative like the Russians are with these things, and realizing control becomes much easier (though also very nasty for all involved, except the "leaders").

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3e80383b1a.jpg

From Telegram:

"In Mariupol, Ukrainian road signs are being removed and signs in Russian are being attached. In principle, this was expected. But look how fast they did it. The signs are clearly drawn in advance. The main question is, who are these people in orange vests, local Mariupol residents or visitors?"

I have a clearer understanding than you, mate, and I do not indulge in your fantasies.
We have already seen one case of what can happen (when the Wall fell): a civil war, and the break up of the Soviet Union. This iteration (if / when Putin falls from power) doesn't have that (USSR break up) as a relief valve, and so the outcome of that internal struggle is unclear. Heck, who the players are - those positioned and eligible to step into the power vacuum - is likely to change in the near to mid term.

You are the one who asserted that (some unnamed) Western nations ought to roll to Moscow. That's a fantasy.

Yes, while they sort out their internal problems they'll be less of a problem for their neighbors, I never said otherwise.

For you to presume that "the Russian population" needs to be shown {something that you dream up} only amplifies your need to clean the fog off of your glasses. Whatever solution comes in Russia, after Tsar Vladimir is unseated (be that death via a knife, long life, disease, or mishap) needs to be organic to Russia in order to be lasting - it needs to grow from the ground up.

And on a more humorous note, given today's date, lighten the heck up. ;)

Well, maybe. On point 0, I think that as time goes on that it will be harder to hide. On point 1 there are doubtless a body of folks who are already asking that question, but whether or not their concerns get acted on remains an open question. On point 2, that would go hand in hand with points 0 and 1, and those reports of fires/vandalism(??) may indicate some internal push back already.
As to point 3, while we see it differently from the outside (I have posted elsewhere an opinion that this war wasn't necessary) I am not sure how it is seen from within and by how many.
I suspect that point 3 is directly linked to points 0 through 2, so as those go so may the message (being pushed up hill) perhaps get stronger. But the choke point becomes this: do the ruling class listen to voices from way down the hill? It's hard enough to get heard in more open societies sometimes, isn't it?


Yeah, own goal there on Putin's part.
Your other points certainly raise some hard questions: what will the people who have the power to make a settlement after a cease fire settle for? For example, if during the next month Ukraine is able to mount a counter offensive and take back some (more) of their lost territory, does that not put them in a stronger negotiating position once a cease fire is agreed to? But from the other side, what if the Russians complete that land bridge to Crimea? Does that strengthen their hand, or does that just mean that Ukraine never comes to a table for talks?