I think here what is notable is the change to his earlier speeches and texts. Yet a lot is quite the same, actually. Perhaps Vlad doesn't try to be nice to people, but shows what he feels. — ssu

I suppose (though I have no way of knowing) the way he presents himself is calculated; and appearing angry or unhinged in conjunction with the invasion is a further attempt to intimidate and appear unpredictable. The guy has a nuclear button at his disposal, so the effect of all this is likely to be his adversaries do everything they can to get out of this without risking escalation (while trying to appear tough). Hence, he probably gets what he wants. And that seems to be the way it's playing out so far.

I wouldn't want to underwrite any form of credibility that Putin has. — Wayfarer

Sounds like you don't want to give a fully objective analysis because Putin is a bad guy.

Russia clearly will prevail militarily but I believe that it's a political disaster on all fronts and that in the end he and Russia will loose through having done it. — Wayfarer

What are your criteria for him 'winning' and for him 'losing'. He's set out his goals clearly enough, chief among them a guarantee Ukraine doesn't join NATO. So, if he achieves that goal and sanctions are eventually dropped, how does he lose?

True.

Oh, and this...

BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state. — Apollodorus

Let's analyze the name of your country to decide whether or not we can invade it and subjugate you. :chin: Comical.

kindergarten-level analysis... — Isaac

:point:

IMO all the signs are pointing to Britain intending to engineer some "incident" in Eastern Europe or the Baltic as a pretext for war on Russia. — Apollodorus

I don't think so. Not at least in the same way. — ssu

@frank

Still...

"A spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry has warned that the accession of either Finland or Sweden to the defence alliance Nato would spark a serious response from Moscow.

Speaking during a news briefing in Moscow, Maria Zakharova threatened if either Nordic country sought to join the security alliance it "would have serious military and political consequences that would require our country to take reciprocal steps", BBC reported quoting Russian news agencies.

"We regard the Finnish government's commitment to a military non-alignment policy as an important factor in ensuring security and stability in northern Europe," Zakharova said."

https://www.tbsnews.net/world/finland-or-sweden-joining-nato-would-spark-russian-response-russia-warns-376246

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. Putin comes across as "mad" in some ways but then maybe that's what he wants us to think and, in the end, what does it matter? What matters, ultimately, is whether he's succeeding in advancing Russia's national interests because as Russia's leader that's surely the relevant criteria for judging him. If being "mad" helps with that, then the word loses its pejorative sense. So, yes, I agree we can describe it better but I don't think there's much to be gained in going that route until he does something truly self-destructive. Then we should be worried.

"Our" side has fucked this up and just how badly is becoming more and more apparent. — Baden

Except we're all (most?) consumers, campaigners and voters in countries on one side of this. We can join in a futile war cry at our enemies, who don't give a shit, or we can implore our side to do better. — Isaac

Agree with this too. "Our" side has fucked this up and just how badly is becoming more and more apparent.

By the way, you would think that Zelensky being basically ready to surrender and give Russia what they want would be being more widely reported in the western media.

Is Putin Mad? — Wayfarer

Is Saddam Hussein mad?
Is George Bush mad?
Is Donald Trump mad?
Is Boris Johnson mad?
...
Is The Guardian mad?

One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad". Good way to sell newspapers; bad way to analyse events. If you take the Russian nationalist perspective, Putin would have been mad to have risked his country being further surrounded by the most powerful military alliance in history. He would have been mad not to have made demands of NATO, and mad not to have enforced these demands, considering that the only penalty for doing so was most likely temporary and fairly toothless sanctions. Now that Zelensky, with tanks on his doorstep, is reportedly ready to back down, that NATO are doing zilch, and the EU and the US are trying to look tough while having no cards to play, who looks mad? And if it all could have been avoided by not trying to call the bluff of an apparent "madman", why call his bluff?

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda. — ssu

It can be answered seriously, but it's an intellectually lazy, boring, and counterproductive line to take, especially when there are obviously identifiable reasons for what's going on. If you look at the situation in terms of pure power politics, Putin may well come out on top. If you make the mistake of searching for some moral element, then you shouldn't be analyzing politics at all because it will all look mad.

And actually, Volodymyr Zelenskyi is jewish. — ssu

Cross posted. :up:

He also claims he's invading to "de-Nazify" the Ukraine. Never mind that their President is Jewish. :lol: Maybe you're just a complete naïf. Hard to tell.

There is no evidence because it's pure propaganda. You inserting it here as if it's somehow a matter of reasonable debate is part of a pattern of you repeating such propaganda. And I'll call you out every single time you try that. Prove me wrong by not mentioning the word again until YOU find some evidence that there's anything to it.

@NOS4A2 shows up with the sole aim of spreading an utterly baseless "genocide" narrative. Show one iota of evidence for this or we can just presume you're up to your old tricks of spreading Russian propaganda again. Waiting...

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense. — ssu

for some strange reason you keep blabbering on about "Russian empire" — Apollodorus

You obviously don't understand the term "empire". — Apollodorus

....

Putin ... clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do. — Apollodorus

Presented without comment.

Absolutely. :up:

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well because my perspective seems so natural to myself. I'll come back to it later.

He's saying that Russia is partially justified, and NATO is partially responsible. — frank

No, I'm not. "Justified" suggests a positive moral element, which I've repeatedly negated. Both sides are morally culpable for the current situation. To put it another way, because your enemy is morally culpable doesn't necessarily grant your response moral justification. Also, because an action is predictable or inevitable doesn't make it justified. I don't support Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty in any way. On the contrary, I condemn it. I can consistently do that while also condeming NATO's attempts to integrate Ukraine as provocative and destabilizing.

I've characterized Putin as a rat, which gives you an indication of how I judge his moral standing, so I'm not cutting him any slack there. But both NATO and Russia are seeking to expand their influence. So, I'm observing that there's a power struggle going on that's unfolding predictably if you assume neither side is acting in Ukraine's interests. Russia telegraphed its intentions very clearly and NATO gave them no plausible way out. Hence, war. There are no good guys here. The fact that the victim identifies with one side isn't going to help it much when it finds itself abandoned (again).

If you back a rat into a corner and it bites, do you blame the rat for biting or you for being an idiot?

I understand that. But don't you agree that at this time, NATO has no desire to destabilize or threaten Russia in any way? — frank

Do you agree that NATO has primarily sought to limit Russian expansion? Or do you really think NATO wants to somehow undermine the health of the Russian state? — frank

Their intentions are almost irrelevant seeing as integrating Ukraine shifts the balance of power in the region in their favour and effectively increases the threat against Russia seeing as they are its primary military adversary.

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Absolutely. I get that. So Ukraine just gets to be a pawn. — frank

That sums it up for me, essentially

And maybe invasion is the only way to draw a line in the sand.

But the irony is that if Russia hurts its own economy by drawing this line, it doesn't really win in the end. — frank

There is no win win here. It's a matter of priorities and Russia (in its eyes) prioritizing security over economic concerns.

Can you expand more on this, or where I might find more information, thanks. — Amity

I'm not drawing from any speciific sources here, but if I find something good I'll send it your way. There are plenty of helpful links in this thread too. @jamalrob and @StreetlightX are likely better versed than me anyway.

Immediate conflict and invasion have direct and dire consequences to the wellbeing of Ukrainians than any potential transformation has. Right now, civilians will have to flee, fight or be killed.
I'm not seeing how it even compares...

Putin's aggressive actions and belligerent behaviour are about as far from reasonable as you can get. NATO's role I thought more defensive...and protective? — Amity

Even if NATO's nominal role is protective (and almost every military force in the world styles itself this way, falling under the auspices of "defence" departments etc), its expansion around the borders of an adversary is aggressive. Russia's perspective here is no different than the perspective of the US with regard to unfriendly states, with the major difference being the US considers its sphere of influence to be much wider. So, yes, the direct consequences of invasion are more dire than a mere threat but knowing the likely results of the threat, why does NATO insist on it? The assignation of blame isn't all that straightforward.

It’s an abject failure if the American system that Trump isn’t in jail already for sedition. — Wayfarer

If it counts as sedition over there now to state that Putin is smart (compared to your leaders, not a very high bar) then the American system certainly has failed.

Both sides are defending a narrow set of interests. NATO is defending its “right” to expansion up to Russia’s borders and Russia is defending its “right” to a sphere of influence or buffer zone around its borders. Both sides can apply ostensibly reasonable arguments to support their positions. NATO can point to Ukrainian autonomy and its right to set its own security and defence policy and Russia can point to NATO’s broken promises re expansion to the east and a need to set a red line on further encroachment. Russia portrays NATO's maneuvers as an attempt to weaken it in relative terms and NATO portrays Russia's maneuvers as imperialistic. But regardless of who fires the first shot (and war has been going on by proxy in the Ukraine’s eastern regions for years), both sides taking an aggressive posture and neither backing down is the ethical failure here. That Russia’s not backing down manifests more obviously in open conflict and the eventual subjugation of Ukraine, whereas NATO's not backing down would manifest in the full transformation of Ukraine into a western client state is not the primary issue, but the short-sighted lack of mutual engagement. Russian subjugation of Ukraine and NATO integration are the respective worst case scenarios for each belligerent here (and for the rest of us imo), and the inability to allow for alternatives is blameworthy.

Saw that today. :pray: :victory:

Enough of your trolling. — ssu

If I was getting responses this stupid (especially see above), I would just give up.

Though it may be different with people from the Finnish outback where imagination apparently serves as substitute for knowledge .... :grin: — Apollodorus

Friendly banter is one thing but considering your general adversarial tone towards ssu, this seems more like part of a pattern of ad-homs. So, stop it, please.

It's a probabilities game but all I see is a repeat of Crimea and Putin winning again while the west flails around trying not to look helpless.

Russia can now say it upheld its commitment not to invade Ukraine when it invades and occupies the "independent" territories it just invented. Neat. And no, NATO won't do anything and no-one will even be talking about it in six months.

So desperate to virtue signal.. — emancipate

It's not virtue signalling to object to some of the comments in this thread. Whether any of them break the rules is another issue and something we're looking into.

Isn't the right wing's fave slogan "No taxation without representation"? But when attempts are made to give minority demographics' representation, they fight it tooth and nail, mostly with strawmen and red herrings. Just to make it clear, this is not about giving a judge a job because of their demographic (the judge gets the appointment proximately because they are considered qualified) and it's not about a different application of the law because of a demographic (minority judges may be of any ideological persuasion). It's about achieving more equal representation of a demographic. It's that simple. If you object to the appointment, that is what you are objecting to. Nothing else. Own it.

There's no disadvantage to hiring a black woman to the supreme court, so why shouldn't Biden do that seeing as it will help to more accurately reflect the country's demographics and (very slightly) reduce the absolute stranglehood one minority (white men) have on power in the judicial, legislative and executive branches. No downside, some upside. But even that minor dent in white male supremacy will be resisted by perfidious right wingers crying about "discrimination". The argument seems to be that though this demographic has cheated its way to the top for hundreds of years, it should get to keep absolute power because any incursion into that power is... cheating. But, of course, they can't say that directly, so will try to obfuscate by declaring it prejudice to even recognize any of the demographics that were cheated. And, bingo, the crime and any possible redress disappears. Absolutely specious positioning that deserves zero respect.

They probably deserve each other, but it's just a business decision. (Moved this to the lounge by the way as it's more of a casual conversational type OP than anything of substance).

I didn't find anything particularly harsh there. Let's not derail things any further. Either of you can send a PM if you're not happy.

Stay on topic, please.

Seems like what's being argued actually relates to a specific and limited set of cognitive skills rather than intelligence in general or intelligence as it's generally understood. And there's not even a clearly articulated alternative theory of what intelligence should be. It could be an interesting subject but it deserves a much more nuanced approach. E.g. Recent evolutionary studies pose questions for how we measure intelligence, or X cognitive skills are on the decline in modern humans (+this is bad because...)

Just had a look too in the change log, nothing there from you for the past week at least.

Edit: It's fairly harmless really, I guess. Like I said, I hope you're OK.

Yeah, and I'm Frank Sinatra. This is amusing but please stop taking the piss, @Shawn.