@Hobbamok, oh I'm accustomed to it! The silent downvotes show I've hit them where it hurts.

@ItalianPhilosopher, it sounds like the Russians were glad to be shut of Poroshenko more than anything, and welcomed Zelensky's compromising rhetoric. The spokesmen were also remarking after the election, where there may often be a tendency to gild the lily a little.

@ItalianPhilosopher, I'm sure it's bona fide, I just can't find any information on it, and I've never heard the point before. What I can find so far suggests Zelensky's competitors in the election characterised him as pro-Russia, whilst he adopted a conciliatory tone on various Russia-related issues. But I can't find anything saying Russia actually tipped him as their "preferred alternative" (which presumably would have unhelpfully confirmed his competitors' accusations?).

@ItalianPhilosopher, interesting point, is there any more info available about that?

You mean removing their own extreme opponents, and keeping up appearances? I accept they don't want Ukrainian Nazis running the gaff, especially if they are characteristically anti-liberal and too ideological to be corrupted. That's why they install someone like Zelensky at the top. But they were nevertheless happy to use the Ukrainian Nazis as cannon fodder, having nurtured them at the grassroots for a while.

@Questioner, as I say, I'm not saying the liberal prefers fascism to liberalism. I'm saying when they can't have liberalism, they back fascism. Many of them have certainly treated Trump like an existential threat whilst trying to win the election - but now they are beaten, they seek accomodation with the supposed existential threat instead, the co-option to which I refer. Liberals are a political force, not a centralised organisation or a mechanical horse, and different liberals are capable of making different judgments and engaging in different behaviours at different times.

"They could use communists as well but that does not seem to happen these days." - too much risk of blowback I suppose. What they ideally need is a series of warring groups, each willing to act as the instrument of destruction for the prior, then the last of which dies off in the cold every winter.

@JackAidley, the eligible age range for the Vietnam draft was 18-26, and the modal age of death was in the lower range of 18-20 - some of the dead however would not have been drafted, I assume there were volunteers. I think the mean average for Vietnam is pushed up by much older volunteer/career soldier deaths. I don't know where musician Paul Hardcastle got his statistics, but the thrust of the song was basically correct that very young men were drafted. In WW2 the figures were quite a few years older, and crucially Ukraine is drafting only above the higher limit for the Vietnam draft.

@Allure, point is, it could do with a bit more meat on the bone, about why the obvious sacrifices necessary to fight a national war of survival are "unpopular". Why, even, is the regime unable to coerce younger people and simply carry out what is unpopular? What constraints are they facing?

Interesting how it shows the liberals in Germany ban anything they consider a real political threat, but they let groups they regard as impotent remain in the picture, so that the banning mechanism is not seen to exist as frequently as it otherwise would be seen.

It's a bit of a stretch to say it is thereby "explained". One can accept the draft may be "unpopular", but why exactly would the draft target certain ages to begin then not target younger men when more troops are needed?

@JochenGlueck, well as I mention, Turkey's membership of NATO was key to the US's ability to menace the Soviets - and the threat of violence in return from the Soviets was the only language the US were capable of understanding. In terms of the Finns and Swedes, last I heard they'd given undertakings not to station NATO weaponry.

@ItalianPhilosopher, I imagine they just don't define the Claymore as a landmine, because that is not its exclusive configuration. I was just emphasising to you that it can be used in that configuration, and it differs from a landmine only in the sense it is not generally deposited in soil, not in the sense that it must be manned. It's functionally a landmine designed for the urban environment rather than the open countryside.

@ItalianPhilosopher, the principle for that distinction isn't clear. Claymores can certainly be set on tripwires or pressure pads, and concealed (for example, behind thin panels in the structure of the built environment) - they are just, in a sense, "above-ground, cross-blasting" landmines. Whether the trigger is manned or not is completely discretionary.

The question itself finished on a bit of a damp squib - I walked straight through without encountering a single question mark! It seems to be "has any Western government explicitly approved or disparaged the US sending landmines to Ukraine?" I can't find any evidence of commentary myself - I doubt any US-allied government perceives an advantage in commenting now it's an accomplished fact.

@ItalianPhilosopher, surely that is grounds for imposing a higher standard on the answers, rather than closing the question? The concern seems to be that the question may cause the expression of opinions, perhaps in a conclusory way and with fiery disagreement, but I'm very surprised to find that "is major politician X a Yist?" are inherently unanswerable, even if it is only to answer denying that "Yism" has an agreed definition. I mean otherwise we'd be in the absurd position that nobody could ask whether Stalin was a Stalinist.