After influencing a deal “Yats” did indeed become leader — NOS4A2

Can you explain what deal was reached?

You're sounding a little unhinged, to be honest. There's ample horrific activity coming from the US. You don't need to make stuff up.

You said this:

"For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US."
— Isaac

It's not true and the articles you posted confirm that it's not true. What is the problem with admitting that you misspoke?

The US backed democracy adcocate groups and McCain stood beside somebody. That's your basis for saying the US put a nazi in power in Ukraine?

Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire (as opposed to just fight back against Western expansion) because — Isaac

Putin entertained the possibility of joining NATO and the EU. He might have driven Russia in that direction, but Russia was rejected by both.

I said "regional power.". That's in line with what Satwa described, although he didn't use that phrase. The way he put it was in terms of vertical and horizontal. Putin wants a vertical relationship with the UN (although I think he'd probably feel better about that if the US didn't treat the UN as if it's meaningless). He wants a horizontal relationship with China and the US.

The reason it would be apt to talk about the old Russian Empire is that Putin is incredibly conservative. It reminds me of the Southeastern part of the US after the American Civil War. There is an elite that has an absolute lockdown on society. No change is allowed. I think it's a reaction to an identity crisis. If you know anything about Russia, you'll know that identity has long been a confusing issue for Russia.

What is you're seeing or reading that's got you convinced? — Isaac

I'm in the process of trying to understand the situation. I'm not trying to shove a scenario down your throat. But it's an interesting question. What I do is collect information and construct a hypothesis that makes sense to me. Then I keep collecting info, testing whether the hypothesis needs to change. My only interest in talking to you is that that you might be able to steer me in the right direction. So far, I think you're over estimating the importance of the US in Putin's plans.

Now Putin's put nuclear forces on "high alert". — Manuel

You should hide under your desk.

not the conversation-ending coup de grâce you treated it as. — Isaac

You asked me for a source. I gave it.

Putin's vision for Russia is as an independent regional power. He wants Russia to be a peer of America and China, under the umbrella of the UN. That's what he's steering his country toward.

He arrived at that vision after being rejected by both NATO and the EU. Under his rule, Russia has prospered by privatizing industry. A white collar middle class has emerged. But they're now heading into stagnation because they haven't been investing in future growth.

It's not clear how they'll navigate out of the present situation and on top of that, Putin has an odd legitimacy problem. His power supposedly rests on the fact that he was elected, but at this point the elections are very overtly rigged. The Russian system allows the president to control the constitution, so Putin has basically made himself a dictator for life. He hasn't cultivated a successor, but one assumes he eventually will.

As things evolve in Russia with some degree of uncertainty, the US stands opposed to them for various reasons. Some of it is just historic tension, some of it is that the neoliberal organism is always hungry for someone to exploit, and some of it is that a dictator is always going to show up as a monster in the American culture.

Nevertheless, the US is not as focused on Europe now as they once were. They're more interested in China. Though Biden may place importance on what Russia is doing, some commentators expect the animosity to drop off after Biden leaves office. He's from the Cold War, so I guess we can expect him to act like that's still where we are.

What is it about a request for a book summary you find to be flaming? — Isaac

And now gas lighting. Look back in the thread, I already gave a summary. If you have specific questions, ask.

The whole book? I don't suppose you'd be willing to present any of here... Otherwise "what I'm saying is true...it's in a book" isn't awfully helpful. Do you think there aren't books blaming it all on American imperialism? — Isaac

Is there some reason you can't discuss this without flaming?

:100:

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side? — jamalrob

I have a thing about recognizing victims. I don't know why, I just need them recognized. They don't show up in what we've been calling the "objective" view as anything but powerless debris.

Compare this to the thread on systemic racism in the US. Any attempt to try to understand white people as if they're truly our brothers and sisters is met with accusations of Uncle Tomism. Why? It's a philosophy forum, why can't we explore it objectively?

It comes down to what you're willing to accept about the world and about yourself. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a psychic problem if looking at something morally irritates you, but it might.

that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine.
— frank

...which was in response to previous NATO expansion...

...and so on back to the cold war. — Isaac

Right. And before that Britain's Great Game. But your points about American foreign policy disasters are well taken, so calm down, dammit.

Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future.
— frank

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...? — Isaac

It's from a book by a guy named Sakwa. This is his third book on Putin, called the Putin Paradox.

.. by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

You're saying that providing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Ukraine was stupid, and it invited Russian aggression.

But that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

I think you're missing a bigger picture. Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future. It's not the response of a cornered rat.

If a black woman takes a seat on the SCOTUS, she shouldn't be voting with the specific aim of helping black women. The notion that she might is really cynical. She should be interpretating the constitution per her theory of interpretation.

If whites only voted for white interests, there'd be no 14th Amendment, and we wouldn't have had the voter rights act that broke down Jim Crow.

Having a black woman on the SCOTUS would be a powerful symbol. Advocates of it are saying we need that symbol in prominence right now (after 4 years of Trump's pandering to white supremacists).

There has to be a tension inside Russia between the oligarchs and the politicians behind this war, which can't be Putin alone, other top ranking officials very likely agreed to this in discussion — Manuel

Putin's policies are a little erratic per Sakwa which reflects his wrangling with Russian elite entities, but they're usually focused on reinforcing the status quo in a systemic way.

I think that means he needed the buy-in of at least some of the elite to invade Ukraine.

I made the point that the US should not be treated as saviours because they are willing to support no less unscrupulous a party if it serves their economic interests. — Isaac

Ok. Nobody is treating the US as a savior. And you did say the US installed a nazi, which was wrong.

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either — Manuel

Right. NATO encroachment isn't really a significant thing, and I don't think he's morphing into the next Hitler. I think he's just stabilizing his border.

If Ukraine represents a way that Russia is being pulled toward the west, it's not because of western aggression, it's just western markets.

No need to worry about nukes. The US and Russia have navigated through much more treacherous waters than this without falling into war.

Check out The Putin Paradox by Richard Sakwa. It has a different take on the history of NATO and Russia.

In the 1990s, NATO members didn't want Russia as a member because it was believed that this would dilute US dominance of NATO. Likewise, the EU didn't want Russia, which was in the post-USSR depression. There was distrust due to violence in Chechnya.

Yeltsin and Putin were at a fork in the road. Down one path, they could try to transform into something the west would accept, or they could set out on their own path.

In 2012, Putin set out a foreign policy that respected the UN, but was committed to challenging the US led liberal order. Likewise, he rejected Chinese hegemony, but sought alliance with China.

At the heart of this approach is Russian nationalism. Like Czars before him, Putin is a faction manager. He plays oligarchs against one another and keeps any of them from gaining significant power.

So yes, mainly by way of Hillary Clinton, the west has attempted interference in Russian affairs, but it hasn't been some relentless seige. Putin's anti western stance is just part of his over arching nationalistic agenda.

Putin is not the champion of anti-Americans. He's a champion of an independent Russia.

Yes. Similar to Erdogan it seems and perhaps Duterte. Very much a "family values" type. — Manuel

Yep. Anti-feminist, anti-LGBT, anti-social reform of any kind.

That was a fascinating article, especially about their crisis of legitimacy. So Putin is basically a right wing populist.

@Apollodorus

Hackers are coming to Ukraine’s aid in an effort to target Russian government websites and officials with disruptive counterattacks, according to six people involved in the activity.

The CIA does that. They blew up a Russian pipeline once by hacking the pipeline software and turning off the cooling system.

It was in retaliation for something the Russians had done.

See you don't have to make stuff up as you've been doing. The US and Russia are both giant assholes. There are plenty of facts to back that up.

Daring to look at both sides of what has been a complex ongoing issue for years? — Baden

But while wearing the objectivity hat, you can't condemn either side. If the US was enthusiastic about neoliberalizing and democratizing the area, it's because there was a power vacuum. Pure physics.

It's also a clear sign of his "madness" that he's been warning the world for years that if NATO keeps expanding, he will respond aggressively — StreetlightX

He has? I thought it just started in December (as he was moving troops to the border.)

How relevant are these? Is this more serious than was previously expected (the sanctions), or is it more or less "normal"? — Manuel

The sanctions won't be as tough as the US would like because Europe can't live with that. There will just be elevated tension and the US will supply arms to Ukrainian rebels, which is kind of heart breaking. More death.

No nuclear war, tho. That's good, right?

I think we could finally get the world straightened out if we just learned what all the country's names mean and set up governments accordingly.

What does Figi mean?

I think what you're wanting to say is that hinge propositions aren't truth apt? I think fdrake said they aren't necessarily propositions. They can be ways we behave to which propositions are secondary.

But where they really are propositions (the content of the utterance of a sentence), whether they're truth apt depends on your theory of truth.

If you had a theory that says fiat statements can't be truth apt because they can't be verified, or they don't correspond to anything in the world, or they're only true relative to a particular game, and not true elsewhere, then you could say that by that theory, they aren't truth apt.

Per the folk theory of truth that we can attach to common uses of "true" they are truth apt. They're declared true by the playing of the game. Or the playing consecrates them, something like that.

:up: I think ssu was saying that neither of them wanted to be in NATO anyway.

Most of those reasons don't work today because they get shut down pretty fast through pretty strong alliances, — Christoffer

Well, Putin is getting away with it. And I'm guessing he'll gain in stature for it. He'll seem strong.

So Finland is next?
— frank

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

Good.

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. — Baden

But over time, I've come to suspect that a lot of big decisions come down to stuff that's pretty childish.

In the background of this is that what Putin is doing has been business as usual for at least 5000 years. Augustine said it: if you build a city, someone is going to come and try to take it, or corruption from within will break out in riots and destruction. Cities and deadly conflict go hand in hand.

We go to war because we love it.

He wants to reconstruct the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. He sees the Russian Revolution as an interruption of that project. — jamalrob

So Finland is next?

Dictators don't come to power in a vacuum. — Isaac

You really don't know much about Russia, Isaac.

Following are some quotes from a couple of the original documents mentioned in the above article — jamalrob

:cheer:

With what trade routes? — Christoffer

There are no roads between China and Russia?

:lol:

That's the goal, destabilize Russia from within through isolation of Russia. — Christoffer

I'd say there is a zero percent chance that destabilizing Russia is anybody's goal. Russia will turn to China for trade.

I'm talking about the upcoming sanctions. If the parameters of those sanctions are true, those are not something easily normalized in the long term. — Christoffer

They can't go too far with sanctions because Russia owes Europe, particularly France, a lot of money. They have to give Russia access to European banks so they can pay their debt.

The most likely thing is that Russia will try and occupy Ukraine and over the long term the Russian forces will be terrorized by Ukrainian groups while Russia suffocates under the upcoming sanctions. — Christoffer

I don't think so. I think this will become normalized in a year or two.

As he has stated, his objective is to destroy the Ukrainian military. — ssu

Out of the "volcano of lies" that is Putin, one or two statements might actually be true.

. I wouldn't be surprised if they attack Gotland and Finland sometime. Hopefully Putin gets a bullet before that. — Christoffer

The US government says he doesn't have the ability to occupy Ukraine. It's a logistics problem.

He can attack and make changes, leave a Russian military presence, but that's it.

Putin isn't going to take over Europe.