you are pushing back in opposite directions.

nope. it's coherent, you're just not following it properly

ukraine want to get the most concessions/best deal they can from any meeting

if you don't message strongly to your own forces the summit can and will be spun as surrender

ukraines forces believing that could become disheartened/abandon positions/whatever

this would weaken ukraines position in negotiations

this would stop them from getting the most beneficial deal in any negotiation

I'm not going to have a discussion about fucking tone policing with you mate, deal with it

it's important to show a brave face to your own population and your own armed forces.

if you go into a negotiation presenting anything but bare faced, insane confidence it'll be instantly spun as surrender. people don't tend to like carrying on fighting when they think their government is going to surrender at any moment.

this doesn't make them stronger in the eyes of russia in negotiations and at no point have I said it did, that's your miscomprehension.

it's a prerequisite, a thing you just have to do going into negotiations to not weaken your position.

I'm not tone policing anything, I think the way this war is being comprehended on here is getting worse and worse so I'm pushing back at things I think are wrong.

you can say what you want and I'll say what I want.

good

we're not talking about a legit NATO/russia total war scenario though, I think everyone would assume that this would lead to mutual destruction

I completely disagree that it's not for their own citizens, that's the main audience.

it's not madness, it's not madness when russia threaten nuclear attack when they have no plans to use them either.

it's gone well beyond sabre rattling, nobody's worried about escalating shit through words, they're in a full war.

if you think this obviously over the top media soundbite is going to be received as anything other than pablum by the russians you're wrong. it's totally irrelevant to the negotiations. imagine being in a full war for three days and then getting upset because your enemy did a press release where they exaggerated their status.

liverpool were singing YNWA through it which they always do (good lads) and the chelsea lot (awful removed) were booing liverpool for not saving the queen

they weren't at peace talks when the statement was released, if they sit down at the table and come out with this shit they're daft.

releasing it the the media beforehand is propaganda - really obvious propaganda. projecting strength going into the negotiations.

people on here are acting like like they've gone mad, writing about absurd Jokers who don't want peace and believe in the coming miraculous domination of their enemies.

part of spotting propaganda is knowing that the people saying it usually don't really believe it either, or are massively exaggerating a belief.

this is just totally standard doctrinaire shit for negotiating.

they always have them at the finals. I remember millwall fans got in trouble for throwing coins at soldiers in 04.

millwall are scum but you've got to say that's pretty funny.

someone I know who knows more about this than me said making nuclear threats is standard operating procedure even in local wars in russian military doctrine. they say it's posturing.

hope theyre right like

do you think they should enter the talks saying "we're getting our arses whipped and lay ourselves on the mercy of the russian federation?"

you obviously bluff as hard as you can get away with going into negotiations. literally everyone in the world would do that.

Total war was declared when he chose to arm civilians and politicians.

no it wasn't. if america invaded korea or somewhere and the koreans armed civilians you wouldn't in a million years suggest that korea had declared total war. and you'd be right. it's a very grim thing to do but it's not within a thousand miles of that.

as front-line troops surrender peacefully.

I mean this is a total mis-characterisation of the war that's happening now. the ukraine forces are clearly fighting, losing but fighting.

if civilians start seeing major casualties, the russians start rolling through cities and it turns into insurgency war and he doesn't basically fall on his sword and surrender then I'll agree he's a total ghoul. not seen it yet and the amount of stuff on here that's acting as though it's already happened seems weird to me.

it's okay saying he should have just surrendered but even if he wanted to I don't believe for a second that this liberal jewish bloke is going to go to the army head brass and say "just let them in" and survive the night. just not realistic.

fuck that don't think any early surrender was ever realistic.

I think it's very unlikely that he could have done that and not been couped by the americans

I don't think him specifically or the Ukrainian government more broadly have a great deal of agency in it

I think and hope that the pressganging of civilians was almost entirely a front, like a 'look how serious we are' move. I don't expect them to fight in any serious way. could well be wrong.

he hasn't declared total war, he's reacting to a war that has been launched by russia, I think it's completely rational to think that putin wants to take the country in its totatility, I don't know if it's true but I think it's rational to believe it.

yeah I said I disagree with it, it's fucking grim. but people seem to be giving russia much more benefit of the doubt on very grim realpolitik actions than ukraine, who are fighting a defensive war.

they haven't lost yet, civilians haven't seen any major action yet as far as I know. they probably will lose, I hope civilians don't see major action. treating this as though it is a total war puts ukraine in a stronger position to negotiate if and when it comes to that.

a lot of the reaction on here has been that they hope ukraine surrenders as quickly as possible. I don't think this was ever likely and that probably colours how I see this compared to the rest of you.

what's the charge sheet for that stance on zelensky? seen a lot of people on here hating on him but not much substance tbh.

like stuff beyond him being a lib politician, or having worse people in his national constituency

I disagree with him arming civilians and stopping them from fleeing, but at the same time that's a pretty rational thing to do if you believe youre in a total war, so idk.

I have absolutely no time for this line of thought being applied to an ongoing war where there is no likelihood of a positive outcome.

it's deeply strange.

none of us can sit at the end of time and decide whether the history we're living through was 'for the best'.

this line of thinking can be used to justify almost anything. COVID? great! it's killing loads of people and destroying the economies of Imperial nations!

it's mad. having a big old war is unequivocally bad. this is going to ruin the lives of millions of people and make life appreciably worse for hundreds of millions.

fair enough you're right there

I'd never heard of him

some random bloke the BBC interviewed

you know that's not zelensky right