Out of interest, what is your definition of murder? I think therein may lie the problem / confusion.

It has quite a specific definition, which I think you may not have grasped.

all im saying is either they should both be condemned or they should both be condoned. stones in glass houses and all that.

well if the first kid didn't get punished and got to kept whatever he stole and then suddenly he's condemning other people for stealing its known as 'hypocrisy'.

i have nothing against ukraine and wish them all the best.
russia has certainly lost some battles and will likely experience more setbacks but i still believe they will ultimately "win" the war.

That's no longer the case, most were removed about two decades ago, the last one in 2014. And it would have taken quite a bit more than just the push of a button, the necessary fuses were stored separate.
In the sense of homicide. Maybe my Swiss German is interfering here.

Even if they win more territories they will still lose this war.

You can't make Ukrainians go back to before, when they were sister countries and part of the same misery. Too much has happened.

Russia could have chosen to develop and be a partner and gain influence in some other ways, but they didn't, because they have Putin and an entire clique/class with a stalinist mentality. They brainwashed the "simpletons" and think this will last.

We are repeating ourselves here over and over, sorry, believe what you want.

A new military strategy "to level the front line "

Yes, I think so. Murder is by definition, unlawful. There may ways to kill someone legally (self defense, state execution, etc) but you can never murder someone legally (unless you're OJ).

That doesn't affect my point though, it just served as an illustration of the fact that morals isn't what states go by.

Nobody gets sentenced on the immorality of their behaviour, the measure is il/legality. The same principle applies internationally, though it's often not as clearcut (because usually neither has a monopoly of power beyond its own borders and can force its view on the other).

Before the "partial mobilization" the war was somewhere out there. Now it's at your door.

Define "win".

Britain's impoverishment and loss of perceived strength while winning 2 world wars contributed to the end of British Empire.

So, winning Ukraine while losing what? Kaliningrad? St. Petersburg? Chechnya? Siberia? Hungary?

Lol, nice one

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...pWrPxRCjJY6bLg

Watch it if you enjoy statements like "holy war" and "God expects you to die, so why don't you want to do it?".
This kind of thinking sounds really medievalistic, therefore it would be fair IMHO if Ukraine gets medieval on Russia's ass.

But seriously, if someone in Russia is buying sth like that, I'm speechless.

I think you keep making the mistake of assuming what everyone else thinks of certain topics. I haven't heard anyone saying the West is some sort of nuns congregation, especially USA and Western countries like Germany, France and all the other ex-colonial powers. The war is not at their direct borders anyway. It happens somewhere afar.
Or that they help Ukraine only from the kindness of their heart and no ulterior reasons are involved (access to resources, new markets, etc etc) but look, I personally don't live in lalala land. They are pragmatic. It's in their cultural DNA. It's high time that Russia and the likes learn to be pragmatic too. What they do to their own people is un****ingbelievable.

If you care about Ukrainians you should want this war to end, and that before Ukraine is totally devastated. Pedalling on the resentments card and vindictiveness for alleged past offences and insults is not going to help the Russians to accept this defeat and stand up against this regime. Putin and the others before him brought them here.

I'm not. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Today's OPEC announcement to cut production is a gut-punch to allied efforts again Russia, so you have to wonder whose side the Saudis are on. My guess is OPEC move is more to influence the US mid-terms than to help Russia. (Trumpists are more sympathetic to fossil fuels and religious repression).

The war is proving to have a greater potential to upturn geo-political and economic landscape, rather than the geographical one.

As for Pootin: The Russian population are definitely scared to speak out, but now that the war is reaching the educated and the rich in Moscow and St.Petersburg, I think his greatest danger is now from within.

__________________
So sayeth the 'Speed
* I do look like my avatar

MBS openly murdered Khashoggi and a few years later and Biden is still pandering to this scummy regime

He didn't want to, but it was a choice of the "lesser of two evils". Having said that, the Saudis have definitely endangered a long-standing relationship with the US in this move.(at least amongst Dems).

On a second though, I wonder what would Lenin say about these guys. Any words about a class-conscious proletariat fully aware of its own strength to change the world?

Nothing here is related to morals, contrary to your recent burst of emotional outrage.

It's good to see that you're starting to use your brains.

It's sad that you haven't started using yours.

If emotions and morals are so irrelevant, then try to not use them at all instead of sticking only to the negative ones. Otherwise you'll end up just like another cliched grumpy person.