> First of all those countries didn't want to join NATO, but the European Union.

Sorry, but you are clearly American or at least with the same limited knowledge about the world... both were already in EU for many years. since 1995, the NATO is recent (2024) and only happen exactly because of Russia invasion of Ukraine. Sweden and Finland both were neutral by option, but Finland also was afraid that changing that could provoke Russia and for Russia, a neutral country between them and NATO was also a insurance.

Go check the NATO member:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>As for south american countries, if they want to associate with Russia, good for them, they have every right. And they are far enough !!!

Sure, that is why Trump attacked Venezuela and is now (like many other presidents) treating Cuba. Cuba only have economical problems because of the USA embargo and threats to anyone doing trade with Cuba... that doesn't look like "they have every right."

a 200Kg bomb is more expensive than a drone with a 5kg bomb

one can destroy a building, the other can destroy a house/apartment
the first is only accurate if equipped to do so... a drone can't never carry high loads because it needs to grow bigger to cost way more

at least those guns point to a fixed direction... drones, by bugs, jamming, hacked may end anyware

so when Ukraine invaded Russia Sudza region, to try to divert troops from Bakhmut, transform itself in to a invader too and so can be freely bombed?

Of course not, war crimes are still war crimes, there is no justification, that is just a bad way to feel better when doing bad things

like chemical and biological weapons are banned, it is just a matter of doing the same.
those ban work because using them may trigger the other side to also use them and the number of dead skyrocket.

Those weapons were used after ww2 (sadly) mostly against civilians that could not do the same... against military targets, that can escalate quickly. It is basically the same with nuclear. Everyone knows that each superpower have stock of both... just in case the other side tries to use them

>Entire Ukrainian cities have been razed to the ground.
by both sides... fight house by house usually have that effect, even more now with drones targeting each occupied house

> More civilians were killed in Mariupol alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - Ukraine sources: 25k, Russia: 3k ... Uppsala: 27 to 88k (probably the region, not just the city)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - 72,6k

So no

also notice this from the same pages:

>As of February 2023, Russia claimed to have charged 680 Ukrainians with war crimes, including 118 soldiers and Defence Ministry officials

Sadly in war, both sides commit war crimes, for sure the Russia side have more, but don't believe that the Ukrainian side is innocent as the western news try to show

The problem is not actually Zelensky, but some around him and basically all the system (similar to the Russian one, one of the reasons they are at war, power control), like that one that was promoted and a few months later was demoted because it was found it was stealing money for the army.

Both governments are highly corrupt

keep playing "global thermonuclear war" until you learn that it is just a more complex tic-tac-toe

if you are too young to understand, go view the "wargames" movie

> So you'd be okay with Russia completely taking control of Ukraine? And if Putin decides he wants Poland next, then what? Still okay?

"what if?"

Ukraine is extremely important for Russia, namely Crimea, the Azov sea (and so the Dumbass for suporting both) and its access to the Don river, that is the gateway to all river/channel traffic inside European Russia. Poland is not important for Russia, so not in danger. The hate they have for the Russian also make it unpleasant target. In Ukraine, specially in eastern side, many civilians actually do not care if they are Ukrainian or Russian The Baltic countries are more in dangers, for the Kaliningrad enclave and they also have a huge amount of Russian people. But in my opinion, as long they have friendly positions with the Russia and the Russian population inside their borders, should not be a problem... if both side have anything to win, less likely to be problems. They are also already in NATO, so again less likely to have issues there

Anyway, anytime a superpower tries to enter the zone of influence of other superpower, it cause problems... so they shouldn't even try and let them slowly evolve and break the influence

Europe DO want Russia! a EU with Russia would be huge!

But Belaruss, Ukraine, Russia need to first to solve internal problems, mainly the extreme corruption and mafia/oligarchs control over the state. The Baltic states manage to mostly solve that (some better than others) and the first thing is to get true government that thinks for the country and their people to fix the police and justice system. Look to Poland, Hungary and how more radical leaders quickly moved to control the justice system, even with opposition and fines of the EU. Probably those countries should have more shield laws to avoid this and a more relaxed rules came to bit us all years after

that is for both sides!

Imagine that Mexico turn to Russia side, just like Venezuela and Cuba! Trying to joint the new Russia and friends defense pact... how would the USA respond?
Cuba is small, Venezuela was far enough and still was attacked... how about Mexico!, right to the USA border! Now Russia wants to place anti-missile system there, just like NATO was doing in eastern Europe and planned to do in Ukraine... The Cuba crisis was nukes, this one is anti-nukes missiles.

NATO was trying to surround Russia, Russia attack end doing worse, as Sweden and Finland join NATO... but Belaruss and Ukraine are totally under Russian influence and trying to change is enough to cause problems. Yes, all central and most South America is also under USA influence.

Not saying that is correct, but it is the reality! Changes on those countries must be done slowly and mostly via democracy and economics (both subject to external influence, sure, but not always, Chaves won in Venezuela in a clean way the first time at least) , not by military positions or pacts

> Russia deliberately targetting train stations, hospitals, maternity hospitals, schools, apartment blocks, churches, and a whole host of civilian sites is perfectly good.
Again, with 100-300 drones every day, being jammed, shot down and/or hitting their targets, how can you have sure that all those attacks are deliberated. It is known that Russia wants to target electric distribution centers (they don't actually want to hit nuclear centrals), but being those targets defended, you have many drones and missiles hitting random targets. Ukraine drones also do this, while much less (and usually have bigger targets, refineries are huge).
Again, why waste a drone or a missile on a hospitals, maternity hospitals, Churches when they can target fuel station, train station, electric distribution centers, bridges, etc! Those have strategic importance! Finally, any intel on a school, apartment block being used by military or ammo/drone production also get to be strategic targets... Russia is still producing their ammo/drones in normal places, Ukraine is doing that hidden. If they are hit, of course they will say it was civilian target, they will not report that a strategic place was hit (that is actually forbidden, it is treason). So we get the survivor syndrome, we only know about one kind of samples

>You think the Allies didn't bomb German factories, oil depots, railheads, or other such targets

yes, they did, those are strategic targets, while civilian...they support the military. Hitting civilians around those targets while bad, is not intentional

Now the bombing of cities, we know today that did very little to help the war itself, it just cause death (mostly civilians, but also the planes crew), was extremely expensive. It was questioned by many as being a war crime and most people today agree it was.

If Germany kept bombing the airfields, UK may have fallen... but they diverted to bomb the cities, it gave time and resources for UK to keep fighting in the air.
The ally bombing of major german cities were better used if they bombed production centers, railroad and bridges
The USA bombing of Tokyo with incendiary bombs, razed the city, didn't altered the war... only the nuclear bomb did some effect, but mostly thanks to the Japanese emperor assuming the power (that he actually didn't had) and called the surrender. The military looked to both bombed cities as just another bombing and wanted to keep fighting. Luckily the respect all Japanese have for their emperor made that almost everyone obeyed. Go visit Hiroshima and see the bomb effects and you can't stop thinking that was a mistake (true that at that time, the bomb side effects were little known by those in command)

Russia is not in the international court of justice (as also isn't the USA), so it is also normal that they don't submit anything to it... and in Bucha, there was still a known chain of command that made it easier to point fingers, not only to soldiers but also officers. Right now in the frontline, chain of command is changing every day, it is much harder to point fingers.

On the other hand, Russia will kills all drone pilots directly, they don't take those as prisoners, because drones pilots also keep killing wounded solders (even those that can't even move). So crimes create hate and hate create crimes in a cycle that is hard to stop

As for civilian targets, in my point of view, both side target civil buildings if they have any intel on them, ammunition are expensive for both sides. target unimportant buildings is just a waste. Bridges, fuel and power stations are civilian, but they are strategically important. And then you also have the jammed or hit drones/missiles... those have to "land" in some place... so if Russia sends 100-300 drones every day and they are jammed or shot down , of course at least some will end hitting civilian places, specially over cities

Drones hitting civilians is a different story and is again Bucha, a crime. We have mostly info of Russia doing this, i rarely see any news about Ukraine doing this... but if Zaporozhye nuclear central is hit by drones (and it is a nuclear central) , i suspect at least some Ukrainian drone pilots also do it

>Ukrainians on the whole think it's a better option than not fighting and becoming part of Russia.

I know some Ukrainians... most of them think the war is a political war, they don't really care if they are Ukrainian or Russian... they report that both are extremely corrupt and the common civilian only wants to survive. True that the ones that do not want to be Russian are mostly western Ukrainian and those that do not really care are more eastern Ukrainians. Probably also related to western Ukrainians are lot more pro-EU than eastern. All of them are happy from being far from Ukraine.
There are civilian support for the Ukrainian side, but not as high as western press tries to imply... but those that do want to fight Russia are really radicals, they can kill anyone that do not show support for their cause. On the Russia side, it is probably the same, while we have less info on that side

>Russia should never have started the war. It didn't "just start" all by itself.
no, but don't fool yourself, Russia also didn't wake up one day and say "lets invade Ukraine"... Crimea is a problem, the azov sea is a problem, Ukraine being in the NATO is a problem, the cease-fire in Donbass not being respected with the out of control "nazi groups killing communists" (go check pre-war western journal reports on that) and Ukraine stealing gas heading to Europe via their pipelines and refuse to pay. Russia should never start the war, but Ukraine also did very little to avoid it. When people want peace, they accept talking and solve issues, one by one, not keeping using bluff as either side may risk it and show their cards

>>and while both sides think they are winning, it will sadly continue.
>I don't know if Ukraine believe they are winning but they probably do believe correctly that they're stopping Russia taking all of Ukraine. Should they just stop?

they are making it hard, sure... but that is not winning, it is bleeding humans on both sides. And this happen because Europe and USA are paying the costs... without it, Ukraine would already be defeated... war is expensive, both in money and human lives... Russia have more of both
But by winning i'm saying that both sides think they will get all their objectives and the other side get none... Ukraine is to return to the old borders, make Russia pay the costs of war, join NATO. Perfect for Ukraine, grab some land from Russia too! For Russia, keep Crimea, Dombass, control over the Azov sea, Ukraine never joining NATO, Ukraine with reduced army and if possible, Perfect for Russia, breaking western/eastern Ukraine, or keeping one Ukraine but under their influence
Neither will get all that but both believe that if they bleed the other "just a little more", they can do it. The French and the English had a 100 year war, this one will for sure not take that longer, but 10, 15 years is high likely