About war in Ukraine

[robinzig]

It's important to give criticism where criticism is due. As a proud citizen of the USA, I feel it's important to give out the FACTS. This situation could have easily been avoided if any common sense had been used.

Maybe, but the current Russian leader is devoid of common sense. As are your own posts.

NATO is trying to portray themselves as the "good guys" by giving more weapons to the Ukrainians. All this does is add more fuel to the fire. NATO's decision to continue arming the Ukrainians only ensures the destruction of the country. Russia is NOT another Afghanistan. THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The further this war gets pushed, the closer we get to armageddon.

This is exactly what Russia wants you to think. Sure, they have nukes, and this is indeed horrifying for the rest of us if they seriously intend to use them. And that is the huge unknown here.

But are you seriously saying the response of Ukraine and the West should be "ah right, the game's up, they've got nukes, we'd better 'negotiate' and give them what they want"? While it is true that up until (and including) WW2, all wars ended with a "negotiation" which was basically done over a barrel with the losers knowing they had to make huge concessions or be destroyed, the situation has changed since a few nations have acquired enough nuclear weapons to easily destroy whichever other country they choose. Respect for another country's sovereignty and territory is the cornerstone of the world order and if we allow autocracies like modern Russia to just walk in and say "I don't think Ukraine is a real country, I fancy a piece of it" and succeed, then before we know it the whole world will be controlled by the "bad guys", with only the nuclear-armed states able to resist. Is that really the world we want?

Say what you like about the ill-judged US campaigns in Afghanistan and (particularly) Iraq, neither the US nor anyone else unilaterally declared that part of that country was now part of the USA.

The West MUST help Ukraine to defend itself, not because Ukraine is some sort of "pawn" in a power play by the West (it would be MUCH easier to do as you say and leave then to their fate to be made part of "greater Russia" by force, but this would be morally reprehensible), but because the consequences for "smaller" countries all over the world would be horrific if Russia is seen to succeed.

And never forget that Ukraine itself (by which I mean the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people) is the one desperately asking for more weapons with which to defend itself. They are *not* taking your view of that arming them is "ensuring their destruction". It is precisely *not* arming them that will do this. Even if it ultimately doesn't prevent Russian victory, it will at the very least make Putin, or Xi in China, or other dictators elsewhere, realise they can't just waltz into another country and do what they like with no resistance. (Remember Putin initially thought he could take over Kyiv in about 2-3 days.)

Ukraine has sadly been used as a pawn by NATO to weaken Russia.

Says who? Only Russian propaganda. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. NATO has no interest whatsoever in "weakening" Russia (at least not until it proved itself to be a threat to a democracy on its border). Until last year Ukraine was just another Eastern European country with a long history of subjugation by Russia which was slowly reforming itself and trying to become a genuine democracy - something we should all encourage. (And note the strong contrast with Iraq and Afghanistan where, it could be argued, the US tried to "make" them into democracies by force, with disastrous consequences because arguably neither country was ready for it. Ukraine by contrast has had no military or other interventions from the West and was trying to forge a democracy itself, again much like many other former dictatorships in Eastern Europe.)

The best way out of this mess is for Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiation table.

Of course. But negotiation only makes sense for Ukraine when they have, with Western help, forced the Russian invaders out of their country (ideally including Crimea too but I accept that in reality that may be a step too far even though the Ukrainians themselves understandably don't see it that way) so they can meet the Russians on something like equal terms without being forced to hand over significant chunks of their territory.

[Col Rosenberg]

So why do we have to pick a side? Stalin and Hitler were at war, and I would've picked neither. Sadam and the Ayatola AS$hola were at war and I hoped they would bleed both their countries dry. Let's not pretend about Zelinsky. He has many authoritarian instincts.

We don't even gety news about the war that is isn't filtered by the government. When was the last time there was a war where we don't even get reporting by imbedded journalist. You don't find it strange that all the news out of Ukraine supports Zelinski's and the official narrative? No Ukraine abuses: even from the Azov Ukrainians who are committing atrocities all over the Donbas?

Last month General Miley chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that a long war in Ukraine was in neither side's interest . No one wins a long war there . He suggested that Ukraine was in a position of strength so now was the time to seize the initiative to begin negotiations to settle the war. He spoke of the tragedy of human suffering when the sides in WWI failed to negotiate a settlement when the war stalemated .

The war is less than a year old and already it has taken a heavy toll on Ukraine .More than 6 million Ukrainians are refugees .There is virtually no Ukraine economy left . The infrastructure destruction is going to lead to even more human tragedy this winter .

Yet Zelensky argues for complete victory that includes pushing Russia completely out of Ukraine . That is not achievably without continued draining of NATOs military capacity and probably direct NATO involvement. Such an escalation is unthinkable and risks world war.

Best scenario I see ,even with massive NATO weaponry ,is Ukraine pushing Russia back to status quo ante which would mean Russia still occupying areas in Eastern Ukraine that are culturally Russian . The Russians in that case would retrench and regroup and bide their time.

Despite setbacks ;Russia is performing as Russia always performs. It gets a bloody nose ;regroups and outlasts it's opponent (the exception being when Russia retreated in Afghanistan right before the end of the Soviet Union) . Eventually General Winter sides with them.

Sanctions designed to cripple their war making capacity have failed . The Russian economy has survived and may have fared better than the West's. Russia has found new markets for it's energy and new partners to supply their war machine. They acheived that before a partial mobilization will deliver fresh troops . There are no more fresh Ukraine troops. Their yourh are being bled without replacement .

A majority of Russians continue to support the Russian government and are not ready to accept defeat. They remember the lawlessness under Yeltsin. They remember that Putin restored order. They consider Crimea and the Russian port at Sevastopol as Russian territory worth fighting for. They do not believe the west's narrative that Russia is a terrorist state. There is no indication of dissent .The Russians have rallied around the flag. They believe that this war is about NATO threatening Russia.


In the West support for the war waivers as winter arrives. Across Europe there are strikes as the population begins to question why they need to make these sacrifices.

There is no military solution.There is only a political solution achieved though a negotiated settlement .The sooner it begins the better. WWI they waited too long; they punished Germany . That led to WWII .

The West needs to rethink the flawed Russian policies it adopted since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia wanted to be included in the West under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The West under the guidance of the New World Order rejected that and instead began the process of pushing NATO (who's objective was achieved after the fall of the Soviet Union and should've been dissolved ) to the borders of Russia . That was unacceptable to the Russians as it would've been for us had the circumstances been reversed .

A political solution would be a process of accepting Russia in the West while giving Ukraine credible security assurances.(Not like the Budapest Memorandum that exposed Ukraine to invasion ) . The idea that Russian will be defeated and neutralized is a non-starter . So Zelinsky will need to end his bravado .

Gorbachev’s vision of “a common European home” is the model that should be pursued and adopted. Moscow and Kiev must be persuaded to begin the process. Hoping for Putin's downfall is not a plan.

[Dar 1111]

Gorbachev is the same criminal as putin and he is responsible for many killed civils. At that moment he was just "a bit better option" to the west..
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_E ... Lithuania)

The problem with russia is that each "leader" behind this "country" try conquer or "maintain" other countries by force in a similar way hitler did...
And unfortunallity russians support that. So we cannot say that this is "only putins war".

Collective responsibility!

[robinzig]

So why do we have to pick a side? Stalin and Hitler were at war, and I would've picked neither. Sadam and the Ayatola AS$hola were at war and I hoped they would bleed both their countries dry.

No time for a detailed reply here, but this is an obvious straw man. I wouldn't have picked Hitler or Stalin either (although notably the Western Allies on WW2 were in exactly that situation and picked Stalin - not because they thought he was a good man or were fans of communism, but because in an existential situation like that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", anyway I digress.)

I'm sure Zelensky isn't perfect, but he is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine (and elected in something at least approaching free and fair elections, not the sham versions they have in Russia) and most importantly, Ukraine is the country whose citizens have been attacked, killed, maimed, raped, you name it - had their lives turned upside down, and for no reason other than they happen to live in a country that the leader of Russia doesn't want to exist except as part of Russia.

THAT is the fundamental difference here. The West, and the US in particular, has many flaws and has committed many historical wrongs, but on this occasion it's a simple matter of defending those who have been irrationally attacked, and no-one should listen to enough pro-Russian propaganda that they forget or minimise this very simple and absolutely crucial difference.

[Col Rosenberg]

I'm sure Zelensky isn't perfect

Our country is just swooning over Zelinsky the new object of virtue..... and as you know American's love to virtue signal. Oh they all had a collective orgasm when he walked into Congress in a Fidel Castro costume. I'm surprised he did not put on Che Guevera hat .That could've gotten him the promise of nuclear tipped rockets from our arsenal .

[Leonid Brezhnev]

I appreciate a lot about your stance regarding this war. However, I can't in good conscience continue to use BGA while it still allows access by citizens of the Russian Federation.

[Aedilred]

This may have been suggested before, but would it not be possible to introduce some "alternative" flag for Russian/Belorussian players who don't want to be associated with their governments' actions? Whether the white-blue-white flag of the Russian antiwar movement (or the white-red-white flag of the Belarus opposition), a standard national flag with a green ribbon, a neutral flag like that used at sporting events which have banned Russia but permit its citizens to compete, or just an "international" flag/identity like that used on, say, *?

That way, Russian/Belorussian players who don't support the war can still get to play, and the rest of us are free to decline games against those still using the national flags guilt-free.

*moderator edit: please remember that mentioning other gaming websites directly is not permitted

[Silene]

This may have been suggested before, but would it not be possible to introduce some "alternative" flag for Russian/Belorussian players who don't want to be associated with their governments' actions? Whether the white-blue-white flag of the Russian antiwar movement (or the white-red-white flag of the Belarus opposition), a standard national flag with a green ribbon, a neutral flag like that used at sporting events which have banned Russia but permit its citizens to compete, or just an "international" flag/identity like that used on, say, *?

That way, Russian/Belorussian players who don't support the war can still get to play, and the rest of us are free to decline games against those still using the national flags guilt-free.

You can set your country to unknown if you don't want to fill the information of where you're from.

However I don't mind russians filling in the info that they are russian. In most cases they can't change it and I don't see it necessary to hide that fact. Filling in your country doesn't equal "proudly waving a flag" like some people here seem to try to make you believe. If russians however would put a russian-flag-picture into their avatar these days - that would be a whole different story. Just truthfully filling out your country is not a political statement imo.

[Pelleban]

This may have been suggested before, but would it not be possible to introduce some "alternative" flag for Russian/Belorussian players who don't want to be associated with their governments' actions? Whether the white-blue-white flag of the Russian antiwar movement (or the white-red-white flag of the Belarus opposition), a standard national flag with a green ribbon, a neutral flag like that used at sporting events which have banned Russia but permit its citizens to compete, or just an "international" flag/identity like that used on, say, *?

That way, Russian/Belorussian players who don't support the war can still get to play, and the rest of us are free to decline games against those still using the national flags guilt-free.

You can set your country to unknown if you don't want to fill the information of where you're from.

However I don't mind russians filling in the info that they are russian. In most cases they can't change it and I don't see it necessary to hide that fact. Filling in your country doesn't equal "proudly waving a flag" like some people here seem to try to make you believe. If russians however would put a russian-flag-picture into their avatar these days - that would be a whole different story. Just truthfully filling out your country is not a political statement imo.

True that, but the issue with the Russian flag I have is not with the Russian people. Many of them feel sorry abut the war and can't help the bombing and murdering of civilians in Ukraine. They are also mislead by TV-propaganda. However it would be nice if BGG could take at least a little stand and remove the flag and replace with like a peace sign, maybe for both Ukraine and Russia? Russia wants to destroy Ukraine, Ukraine wants peace and the boarders set to what they were before the non-acknowledged sham referendums.

I don't hate Russian, but their country has been disgraced by Putin and the regime and treating Russian flag with respect is a bit harsh. It needs to be burned, publically and by the Russian people themselves. The Russian federation is in disrespect of the entire world except a few countries at most and the flag is provocating to countless Ukrainians who lost loved ones in senseless attacks on civilian buildings and infrastructure. My anger lies with BGG using the flag, not with the Russians. They are just a mislead people by a crazy dictator who won't allow the people to protest against the war.

[player1772]

The real question is this: How far is NATO willing to go and risk nuclear war? It's true that Russia's military is a joke, but their nuclear warheads certainly are not. Personally, I don't believe Putin will ever use nuclear warheads unless he has to, because he knows he's finished if he does. War simulations estimate that 90% of Russia's population would be wiped out in a nuclear war.

Zelenskyy and Putin were ready to negotiate for peace last year, but NATO stepped in and put a stop to that. I understand that people want Russia to pay for their war crimes, but this war needs to come to an end. Think of all the additional people who lost their lives because NATO was unwilling to draw up peace agreements. I honestly cannot view NATO as the "good guys" in this war. NATO is more concerned about bleeding Russia than saving Ukrainian lives. Leaders with any sense of decency would be more concerned about saving lives rather than using them as cannon fodder to achieve a military objective.