If Russia were serious about self-determination of the Dombas and Crimea regions, they'd have first proposed a referendum audited by international observers, and pressured Ukraine diplomatically to accept.

Instead, Russia chose to invade. They started the war, and they can stop it and withdraw at any time they choose. Every death from the Ukraine war is entirely on Russia's head.

It's a fact. A free and fair referendum cannot be held by an occupying force, because their very presence biases the results.

This is true even if the occupiers are honorable. It goes double for a leader like Putin, who imprisons and assassinates his political opponents.

> U.S. invades other countries whenever it likes. > > Why can't Russia do just the same?

In both cases it's wrong. But if you want the realpolitik answer, it's because the US has a competent military.

> If Ukraine feels so lucky as to fight a Goliath - let Zelensky be that David and send as many soldiers to death as he please until the unrest inside his country ends his presidency or the other side's forceful actions lead to the same result. Harsh, but kinda fair. Know your fights. Don't fight with a Goliath alone, if you are a tiny David, and if you are - group up with others and bow to them if the success of your very existence becomes dependent on their help.

David won against Goliath, remember? That's the whole point of the parable. At least find a metaphor that supports your argument.

Besides, isn't finding support exactly what Zelensky's been doing all this time? The US may be withdrawing its support, but European support is increasing. And in terms of population, economy, and military spending, Europe is a lot bigger than Russia.

You say Ukraine should know their fights, but doesn't that apply more to Russia? They expected the war to be over in 3 days, and it's been 3 years. Putin vastly overestimated the strength of his own army, and underestimated the resistance Ukraine would put up.

How much longer can Russia's reserves actually last? Those steadily rising Russian interest rates indicate an economy that's edging ever closer to collapse.

No, facts can't contain undefined properties like "free and fair".

Who should decide whether a referendum is free and fair?

No one.

It's basically the question of whether people of that region agree or disagree with the referendum enough as to defend their position with force.

As you can see - Crimeans are quite content they are part of Russia and not in ruins under a nazi regime.

(That's also an opinion, the fact is that there's just no unrest.)

> But if you want the realpolitik answer, it's because the US has a competent military.

If Russia's military is so incompetent - Zelensky is going to win ~ soon, let's wait.

> David won against Goliath, remember? That's the whole point of the parable. At least find a metaphor that supports your argument.

You missed the point: Zelensky sees himself as a David from the metaphor, but reality is that he is a clown, not a leader, not even a politician, but rather a parody to one.

> And in terms of population, economy, and military spending, Europe is a lot bigger than Russia.

Yep. But Russia is at war and Europe is only cuckoldily fighting right now. Let Europe get into full blown war if they want to participate so much.

> You say Ukraine should know their fights, but doesn't that apply more to Russia? They expected the war to be over in 3 days, and it's been 3 years. Putin vastly overestimated the strength of his own army, and underestimated the resistance Ukraine would put up.

They got Ukraine military in the chokehold at the start of the operation, then Zelensky agreed to proceed with diplomacy and Russia pulled its forces back.

But then Ukraine got some spoken assurances from US and EU of receiving money and military help from them. And then Russia had to start liberation from the border again. It goes quite slow for a few reasons: first of all, Russia isn't in a hurry: it gets really valuable first hand experience in modern warfare, the kind that almost none gets (even US hasn't fought a real war (without bombarding the area to the smithereens first) for quite a long time). Another reason is that Russia successfully mobilized its economy for war time. Just in case it has to go into a bigger war now/later, but it needs time to produce more new weaponry. Another reason for going slow is that Russia isn't really fighting a genocidal war, where everyone on the other side is seen as an enemy, they just demilitarize Ukraine, fighting just its soldiers, trying not to harm civilians, and that's not so simple, actually.

Free and fair are very much defined. It's why in democratic countries we have election observers and secret ballots, to remove or at least reduce possibilities of voter coercion.

> If Russia's military is so incompetent - Zelensky is going to win ~ soon, let's wait.

It remains to be seen whether Russia is incompetent enough to fail completely. They still have 4 times the population as Ukraine.

> You missed the point: Zelensky sees himself as a David from the metaphor, but reality is that he is a clown, not a leader, not even a politician, but rather a parody to one.

He's done remarkably well defending his country for a clown, don't you think?

> Yep. But Russia is at war and Europe is only cuckoldily fighting right now. Let Europe get into full blown war if they want to participate so much.

In that, we agree. Russia's barely making progress in a war with an opponent that, on paper, shouldn't have lasted a week. I'd be very interested to see how they do against a military with 4 times their funding.

> They got Ukraine military in the chokehold at the start of the operation, then Zelensky agreed to proceed with diplomacy and Russia pulled its forces back.

Oh, is that the Kremlin's reason for all those humiliating retreats in the initial months of the war?

> It goes quite slow for a few reasons: first of all, Russia isn't in a hurry: it gets really valuable first hand experience in modern warfare, the kind that almost none gets (even US hasn't fought a real war (without bombarding the area to the smithereens first) for quite a long time).

Ah, I see. So the 700,000 casualties Russia has incurred so far was worth it to get valuable, first-hand experience. Presumably the first lesson is: don't incur 700,000 casualties when fighting against a country a quarter your size.

> Another reason is that Russia successfully mobilized its economy for war time.

A "war time economy" comes at the cost of the civilian economy. Every man sent to Ukraine is one who can't work at home. Every piece of ordinance, every destroyed tank and plane, represents wasted investment that could be used to create civilian goods and services.

You need only look at the steadily rising interest rates to see the signs of an economy that's spending more than it's earning. Russia has poured billions into the Ukraine war; so has Europe, of course, but Europe's economy is 14 times larger. Europe can afford to outspend Russia.

> Another reason for going slow is that Russia isn't really fighting a genocidal war, where everyone on the other side is seen as an enemy, they just demilitarize Ukraine, fighting just its soldiers, trying not to harm civilians, and that's not so simple, actually.

Given the devastation to cities in Ukraine, they're very bad at avoiding civilian infrastructure. I know the Russian army's weapons are outdated and inaccurate, but are they really that inept?

When stopping means the genocide of your people and you personally being tortured and murdered, “stopping” isn’t really an option, is it.