But to suggest that those who disagree with your perspective like Russia or Putin, is misleading at best. — Manuel

Like Russia or Putin?

Well, that I don't think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th Century. But Putin does.

And obviously through his actions, he is trying to form the empire back. Not perhaps with the Marxist-Leninist ideology, but with traditional imperialism. And I disagree with that.

So what's misleading about that?

The thread was about this specific internet culture of promoting misogyny. — Vera Mont

Not if you actually look at the OP, actually. :roll:

Hence the incel movement should, as you take, be more about internet culture.

There is no comparison to environmentalists — Vera Mont

There ought not to be comparison with environmentalists and terrorists either, as I said.

Put shortly, no matter what someones reasons are, violence towards other people shouldn't be tolerated.

We're not just picking on some poor lonely boys here. — Vera Mont

Then I guess the definition "a person (usually a man) who regards himself or herself as being involuntarily celibate" isn't so important as there obviously are a lot more those than who are part of an online-community hate group and are willing to use violence.

Just like people who are environmentalists and those willing to use violence to promote their view of environmentalism, the so-called eco-terrorists, aren't pooled together. Or are only by some fringe right-wing people.

I'm not rooting for any team. — Tzeentch

Well, I just don't like when countries invade others.

I didn't like it when Bush invaded Iraq or Afghanistan either. Or when Saudi-Arabia attacked Yemen. And Ukraine even didn't have an dictator that attacked it's neighbors like Iraq (which still wasn't a reason to invade it).

But I guess for some this kind of choosing sides is unacceptable.

What is different now? — Jamal

What is different is that you can state that you are an incel far more easily. No wonder that "incels" became a thing in the net. All those hours in front of a screen. Besides, being unsuccessful with women wasn't something accepted in the old male culture. Or to be more precise: you simply didn't talk about these things or refer to some group as you can find now, hence it wasn't just "male" culture.

Now you have discussion groups. Like if you like philosophy. :razz:

At the time I did not have many friends, let alone female friends. — Jamal

Well, being lonely is the issue. Usually it isn't so that a man with a lot of male friends and the ability to get friends then suddenly would have a problem with women. But now we have this habit of compartmentalization. Which in my view, has become ridiculous.

If your shy and lonely and simply have accepted your state, suddenly you are deemed to be an incel. And then the woke idiots go after these incles " misogyny, misanthropy" and make paint these guys as part of a hate group and the usual stuff.

Perhaps it's communicated implicitly through popular culture, which floods the young with artificial imagery of what success looks like. — Tzeentch

More like social media that does it.

Seems a lot of excitement with Bakhmut falling from the usual commentators. Masterful "soviet" propaganda schemes to appear weak... (Comes to my mind the way Trumpists promoted the idea that Trump was always playing 3D chess, that we simply couldn't follow, when fumbling in office.) :smirk:

It will be interesting to see who made the "Kremlin drone strike", but at least the idea of a false flag seems to be very doubtful (and illogical) and what Ilya Ponomarev stated that it would be dissident groups wanting to curtail the victory parade (but not wanting put people in harms way) seems rather plausible.

Now with the attack on a border town in Russia by the "Freedom of Russia Legion", it's obvious that these little groups aren't fake news, even if the actions are limited. But it tells how in a country where protests are forbidden what the next level of opposition will be.



Ukraine can try to distance from the group as much it can, but the March 10th 2022 formed group has been part of the Ukrainian International Legion. Yet it is obvious that Putin has an opposition in his country.

In the long run, it is totally possible for Russia to have it's next civil war (or times of trouble). The myriad of armed groups and actors is already there. In fact, before Putin rose to power, some of the intelligence networks came to blows at each other and it's a real possibility that after Putin the power struggle can be fought with arms.

I don’t know if the above two posts reflect awareness of the specific problem regarding raising the debt limit. — Wayfarer

As I referred to "the political theatre event played in the Congress", I'm quite aware of this.

The real problem is this: this is a long term structural economic problem, not just a political one. Yet (unfortunately) it's just treated as a part of the political discourse and nothing else. The whole debt ceiling theater simply hides this, as it is just a way to grab attention and milk something out of the current administration. Let's just remember: as punctually as a clock that has stopped shows precisely twice in a day the correct time, so precisely the GOP will raise the debt issue as a problem when there in opposition and not talk about it when it's their administration in power. Just as the GOP's solution is to cut down 'liberal welfare' expenditure, but not to shrink the Superpower military (especially when China hasn't dissolved itself like the Soviet Union did).

That above could be stated nearly as a fact. It is perhaps totally inescapable that people will fall into their political camps on the subject and look at this only from the political viewpoint. Yet the facts remain obvious:

a) This is a long term problem, something that yet hasn't been a problem and since the last time the US defaulted (yes, cutting the last remnants to a gold standard was basically a default) was back in the 1970's, hence nobody will care. Since nothing has happened for many decades, people can easily presume that nothing will happen during the next election cycle, at least.

b) Neither the GOP or the Democrats will do anything about it before a crisis erupts. Cutting expenditure will create a downturn that will instantly create pain and the benefits will be seen only years after, which will help the opposition, that likely has gotten into power then. Hence only a crisis will make the leaders do something about this. Naomi Klein made partly a good point in her "Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism".

c) As this a long term problem and can in the crisis can happen in the 2030's, 2040's or 2050's, it is problematic to raise the alarms about this. People will end up only with a permabear label with a following of preppers that are waiting for Armageddon, which won't happen.

A friend that works in the local Central Bank (and thus basically in the ECB) said a year ago that the US Federal Reserve has been already between a rock and a hard place and simply cannot move on this.

US debt problem, the nation spending recklessly well over it's income (and not the political theatre event played in the Congress) is like inflation.

Remember how inflation was discussed about early when we didn't have it?

It doesn't matter, it's no problem and won't be a problem. Bringing up the whole issue is a typical nonstarter discussion that the opposition uses as scare tactics...

Until in the end it is a problem.

But first, as we remember from inflation, that was going to be transitory. A non-issue. A freak event because of this and that and something that will last only for few months. :wink:

Things that can be a possible problem, but haven't been for many decades, don't make them being possible and real problems. In the end.

You are just going to be the lucky person that during whose life the shit reaches the fan. And it's going to happen: only after a crisis hits, will something will be done. It's really, unavoidable.

(I presume people are rather young here)

the critique of step five highlights the pessimism inherent in Michels’ view. — Banno

Let's take just this part of the paper into debate.

Thomas Diefenbach here uses frequently conditinionals (might) and simply makes quite a weak case here.

But, again, the question is not whether or not this can happen (surely it can) but whether it is unavoidable. There is quite some empirical evidence supporting the theoretical argument that it can be avoided. For example, Lipset (1952/2010, p. 17), presenting the first findings and analysis of his famous case on ‘The internal politics of the International Typographical Union’ (Lipset, Trow, & Coleman, 1956), showed that ‘the rank and file’ can indeed ‘keep very much on the alert’; they stayed suspicious of their officials and rejected outright some of their proposals to change policies.

Let's think this out: being suspicious about the higher ups and rejecting some proposals simply cannot be a refutation of the main idea here at stake. Saying "no" is easy. The bigger more difficult issue is then to find just what policy is used.

Diefenbach continues with another quote:

Jaumier (2017) found that members of a French co-operative sheet-metal factory regularly criticised members of the executive board, mainly as one of several means to limit the board’s power and to show its members that they should not go beyond their mandate.

I think that even in other enterprises than co-operatives employees can criticize the executive board, especially if they go beyond their mandate. Again this isn't a refutation at all. Diefenbach sums up the following:

Thus, there is a good chance in democratic organisations that discipline and strict observance of hierarchical rules might not become the prevailing behaviour of, or even a necessity for, subordinates. Most members can, and probably will, show a non-obedient mindset (free and sovereign personality; critical mind; distrust of leaders but loyalty to institutions; open challenges of policies and disagreement with others;

There certainly is a "good chance" that organizations work this way. I can notice such behavior even my own military (!) as the organization promotes independent thinking and people taking the initiative. Orders aren't slavishly followed: if you are given an order that goes against the law, it's your job not to follow it. And above all: slavishly just following orders from above and doing nothing else can be extremely deadly if (or when) that command link is broken on the battlefield. Hence simply urging people to a) think with their own head and b) take the initiative when required, will disrupt a hierarchial organization and create the "good chance" what Diefenbach is talking about. Also in organizations that cannot be defined to be 'democratic'.

Diefenbach does give credit Michels and understands that his conclusions have importance. He also makes quite astute observations. So what is the problem here? The answer is: ideology overriding rationality and logic. This ideology is shown well in Diefenbach's conclusion:

The danger of oligarchy is always there – but, luckily, it does not always materialise. I therefore think that it is more appropriate to call Michels’ theory not the iron law but the iron threat of oligarchy.

By talking about the 'danger' and 'threat' of oligarchy that "luckily will not materialize", Diefenbach clearly shows what he thinks about oligarchy. And this is the trap many fall into: they see the structures of organizations as ideological or ideologically constructed and morally good or bad, and spend little if any thought on the logical and rational grounds on just why organizations have evolved to what they are now.

Perhaps "The Iron Law of oligarchy" is the wrong way to look at this phenomenon. Perhaps it would be better to call it "The fundamental limitations of collective decision making". Collective decision making takes time, people think inherently differently, will disagree and will make different choices. The only answer to this is to try to seek some sort of consensus. Also, specialization of roles in an organization is natural in creating efficiency. Hence the outcome and the effect will be that some people will have pivotal roles in the function of an organization. And hence, you will have "the oligarchy" in some way or another. That "oligarch" might then be the secretary of the council, an employee of the firm like a CEO or an wealthy financier of various enterprises. At this general level, there isn't so much use for this law. That few people will have power over others in any organization should be obvious and insisting that you can eradicate "oligarchy" at this general level is just a thought that hasn't much to do with reality.

Hence the mistake is think about the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" from an ideological viewpoint. Or to give too much ideological value to what basically is a logical or rational outcome of a complex issue.

I didn’t mean they favor oligarchy, but that their organization necessarily tends in that direction, no matter what type of organization they prefer. — NOS4A2

When you have a centralized state, oligarchy in some form will evidently happen. Perhaps we should define oligarchy and oligarchs better as let's say the Russian oligarch of the 1990's is different from a Soviet Politbyro member, who obviously would be an oligarch in the broader sense.

In other words, oligarchy and the oligarchs are quite different if you have an plutarchy, corporatocracy or a kleptocracy or then an autocracy / dictatorship. One really has to define just what an oligarch is as there are quite different kinds of oligarchs, especially many who don't see them at all as oligarchs.

Yet I think the Iron Law of Oligarchy comes more from the enlarged powers and abilities of control created by the modern states themselves. Central bureaucracy, the legal system and highly controlled commerce and society simply leads to this "Iron Law", as Michels put it. I think this is quite obvious. Central bureaucracy is always a top down organization, which leads always the few having power, be they elected or promoted to the position.

Ancient Rome might have had emperors that have all the power, yet that power was limited by simply not having the technology and organization and thus not having the ability to control everything. If the Romans would have invented the optical telegraph (perhaps quite possible before the 18th Century), then one big obstacle would have shrunk in size. Add an industrial revolution and an scientific revolution, then you got those abilities.

If Athens stands out as one model for democracy, even with the minority (the few free men) participating in the democractic rule of the city-state with slavery, we shouldn't forget how awful choices that democracy did. Like deciding to go on a warpath to colonize parts of the Italian Peninsula that ended so badly that it took a long time for Athens to get the news that their army had been totally destroyed. Or then we have the fate of one philosopher to remember. Hence nothing is ever perfect. The best functioning state will have a plethora of voices smartly showing how bad and inept the system is.

Democracy is basically just a safety valve in my view, it shouldn't be glorified too much, even if it is better than other systems when the population of the state reaches millions of people. And if there are even safety valves on the representatives of the voting citizenship, it's even better (as in a Republic).

Yet what you said above, one thing sounded a bit wrong to me:

Socialist, fascist, communist, democratic, liberal, conservative—even anarchist!—and whether government, party, corporation, or trade union, the very structure of their organizations forbids democracy in favor of oligarchy. — NOS4A2

I'm not so sure that they all favor oligarchy, they just cannot avoid that somebody actually has to make the day-to-day decisions. The people can firmly believe that their system will work (perhaps in the future with a new breed of people) and won't be an oligarchy. Never underestimate the denial people can live in.

A system that regards itself as fighting a revolution and has this mentality of a struggle makes those that are against it (or even just viewed as possibly being against it) enemies of it. Thus consensus seeking and voting that one has in an democracy are obstacles and out of the question for totalitarian movements. All that consensus and voting is actually for them the root of all evil. This totalitarianism leads to dictatorship: a system lead in the end by one. And those around the dictator are a small clique, totally dependent on the dictator accepting them as not being potential rivals, but 100% obedient lackeys and yes-men. People who compete in being the most dedicated yes-man don't actually represent an oligarchy as we usually know it.

Prigozhin isn't acting like a military leader, but basically a warlord playing the role of a politician getting ready for the internal violent for power.

Yep (@ssu), no particular proof. Some evidence, though. — jorndoe

Yes, unlike some who are extremely confident on the culprit. :smirk:

More evidence on the possibility of Russia being the culprit for Nordstream pipeline bombings.
Still the question is open...

(Financial Times) Several Russian military ships were observed close to the Nord Stream pipelines in the days before the gas links between Russia and Europe were blown up last year.

A Russian tugboat SB-123 capable of launching and rescuing mini-submarines was seen near the pipelines on September 21 and 22, shortly before the explosions on September 26, according to an investigation by four Nordic state broadcasters based on intercepted radio messages.

Denmark’s overall military command authority confirmed to the Financial Times that it had taken 26 pictures of the special Russian ship SS-750, which had a rescue mini-submarine on board, on September 22 to the east of the Danish island of Bornholm, close to where the sabotage of the twin pipelines took place.

Investigators in Denmark, Sweden and Germany as well as western intelligence agencies are still trying to establish who was behind the pipeline attacks.

In reality, I think Putin enlarging the conflict would be illogical, thus unlikely.

Well, I think the reaction of the people when Ukrainian forces Russian occupied cities like Kherson tells it all. But noted, there were (and are) those places in Donbas were the Russia and the idea of Novorossiya was (and is?) admired.

Something that is worthwhile to note is that in any city the Russians held and then left, mostly the pro-Russian population would immigrate to Russia.

According to this UNHCR data sheet (https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine), some 2 874 806 Ukrainians have refugee status in Russia. — boethius

Evidently the belief in the new Novorossiya isn't at the ground level the same as in the propaganda. This was happening already before February 24th of last year, actually. The People's Republics weren't the most pleasant, organized and secure places to live in.

Great job guys getting him here! If still room for a question, here's mine:

Professor Chomsky, your first political book was The Responsibility of Intellectuals published in 1967 and you have been a long time critic of US foreign policy. After over five decades participating in the public debate, how would you describe how the role of intellectuals, academic or otherwise, in the public debate and decision making? How has the public debate about foreign policy has evolved in your view?

I think in basic military terms it's certainly possible, as even if lines collapse in Donbas, Ukraine has lot's of fall back positions including a giant river. — boethius

One possible outcome is that the border will be at the Dniepr river. This basically would mean a Russian victory as then they have obtained from this a secure landbridge to Crimea. This also would be quite devastating for Ukraine: there would be the possibility that the war could erupt again, hence nobody would invest in the country afterwards.

Russia would need another go at Kiev for a chance at all out victory, which certainly doesn't feel likely but who knows. — boethius

At least what is certain that they wouldn't try it as they did last year.

If it's policy, then my best guess is that it was calculated that Ukraine simply cannot sustain their operation beyond a certain date (in terms of casualties and all sorts of other supplies such as AA missiles) and there was therefore no use in increasing production of shells. — boethius

Lack of equipment or ammo means just one thing: no large operations, but the WW1 trench stalemate continues.

This has been evident from the fact that the Russian push has basically been centered around Bakhmut. It's actually resembling more the Iran-Iraq war in the case that there also both countries didn't have the ability for large scale maneuver warfare all the time. The last time we saw similar maneuver warfare was in the Gulf War, but then the US (and it's allies) just had all the stuff and the manpower built up for the Cold War still at hand to use.

This whole running low of ammunition is honestly a confusing part of the situation. It doesn't seem possible as an oversight, and that it's industrially impossible for the entire West to produce more shells seems implausible, and if it's a deliberate decision then it's difficult to make sense of. — boethius

The military-industrial complex has adapted to World where the focus has been fighting terrorists or dirt poor insurgents in the mountains and making very expensive, limited production weapon systems and materiel. These intended for quick limited wars. Nobody has had the idea of building up huge stockpiles of ammo for a long, big conventional war. And once when you have downsized, it's not easy increase production, especially when your country isn't at war. Best example of this is Germany: the Bundeschancellor promised huge increases in military spending, but the German military industrial complex, even if it does make nice high end products, simply cannot change instantly.

Most importantly, Western policy is to drip feed weapons into Ukraine enough to prop up the Ukrainian military but remotely not enough to threaten Russian defeat in Ukraine, much less on Russian soil. — boethius

This is something I have to degree with. The objective seems to prevent Russia from gaining an all out victory, but Ukraine not having the ability to defeat the Russians. And likely after this year, it will be far harder for Ukraine to succeed as Russia will likely get it's wartime manufacturing running.

This war is simply a conventional war and the Western military industry isn't geared up or willing to commit to a war. It's been optimized to fight basically "colonial wars" with very costly weapon systems with low production quantities. Not to increase production on a huge scale. The only huge commitments we have seen are investments in the energy sector to replace the Russian exports. There actually for example Germany could act rather quickly.

For, at the start of the war, no one wanted to escalate into a full scale war we have now where tanks and planes and so on need to be poured into Ukraine, so it was essential to believe that Javelins and other man portable arms (and the "pluckiness" Isaac definitely found the right word for) could somehow defeat Russia in military terms ... — boethius

Actually, nobody in the West believed that Ukraine could defend itself as well it has. Likely outcome that was seen was that Ukraine has to fight with insurgency, hence that it's not capable of stopping Russian attacks towards the capital.

There are few, if any, examples of the proxy force simply winning in direct military terms, and in the case of the larger force leaving (Soviets in Afghanistan or US in Vietnam ... or US in Afghanistan) usually terrain and logistics favour guerrilla and insurgency tactics and the value of the land to the larger power is relatively low, quickly becoming a pride thing rather than making any military sense to continue fighting, none of which is the case in Ukraine. — boethius

The fact is that Soviet Union lost the Afghan war, just as the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan. That they withdrew (with Soviet Union in a less humiliating way than the US from Afghanistan) doesn't change the reality. Neither Moscow or Washington DC were in peril.

If you would consider the Arab-Israeli conflict also a proxy war, there's the example of winning in direct military terms. But then both sides could be argued as being proxies.

Again the similar ludicrous (and apologist) view that if Ukraine is under Russian control or independent, part of the West (and hence under the oppression of the US), is actually similar.

Or then let's talk about how some land grabs are relatively harmless. :roll:

Non-sequitur. It's not about living in the UK/US or Russia. — Isaac

Lol.

I think for Ukrainians it genuinely is about living in Putin's Russia or not.

Something a person like you living in the UK can obviously easily dismiss.

The US is 'helping' in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq... Are those utopias compared to Crimea? would people rather live in those places than in Crimea? Or Belarus? — Isaac

The "help" that Russia gave to Ukraine last year February 24th is something comparable only to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And even so, Ukraine differs from both that there wasn't an internal insurgency being fought before Russia intervened in 2014. For all it's problems, it had far less than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia made the Crimean territorial acquisition with very little bloodshed. Grabbing territory is not always as massively destructive as the Ukraine campaign is. — Isaac

And women can be more easily raped when they are passed out.

Now the situation in Ukraine was different, which was rather unnoticed before by the attackers.

The choice we have to to invoke the US's version of power to fight of Russia's version of power and the US's version is demonstrably the worse. — Isaac

I think people would opt to live in your country than in Belarus, Isaac.

Note though, some wealth is by inheritance (all kinds of details).
Both leaders in the Russia → Ukraine war are among the top 15. — jorndoe

Umm.. I think that is more of selected countries, not the top ranking. Such countries like Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States are missing from that list, which would change it.

Estonia is actually a very interesting example as it had so much experience of inept socialism under the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, that it might be one of countries that most happily enforced capitalism and free market in Europe. And that has paid off as it didn't fall into the pit of crony capitalism. That means that when a global recession has hit, it has been hit hard, but then has very quickly recovered. It has been the most successful ex-Soviet republic:



And what is noteworthy is that Estonian population has decreased during this time substantially. No easy task for a country to grow economically while losing a lot of it's population.

He specifies that this 'community' is not necessarily bound by borders. The Hungarian state remains interested in the interests of 'Hungarians' in other countries: Ukraine, for example, enforced the teaching of 'Hungarian' children (and the children of Russian speakers, for instance) in the Ukrainian language in 2017 and provoked inter-state disagreement. — mcdoodle

This is classic nationalism.

Something that actually Vladimir Putin has been also very concerned about: the Russians now "stranded" in other countries and hence Russia has declared itself as a defender of those Russians everywhere.

This notion of Orbán's is of course shared by many other countries with different ideologies, from Xi's China, or Modi's India, to the US or Britain and their beliefs in 'American interests' or 'British interests'.

Orbán's views tap into 'blue-collar conservatism' that many countries are experiencing. There is a sense of loss, a need for community, and a view/feeling that metropolitan liberalism is profoundly hypocritical. — mcdoodle

Nationalism is shared in many countries. And then there's the obvious populism also in Orbán's rhetoric as he's against the international elites that try to hinder Hungary. Typical to his rhetoric is to attack the EU elites in Brussels. No surprise the strained relationship that Hungary has with the EU.

This isn't actually something totally normal to conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have to be populist or militant, but it can be as can also leftist parties be. It is more about a political party tapping into the discontent of the population with populist rhetoric. And then there's the fact that Fidesz has a 54% majority in the Hungarian Parliament. It doesn't have to work with a coalition.

Usually conservative parties aren't populist, just like with European Social Democrat parties. The simple fact is that when you are the dominant party in the nations politics, you cannot portray yourself as against the elites and on the side of the ordinary people as populists do.

Subjectivity is a problem for us as our scientific method tries always to give an objective answer or model about reality. Hence it simply doesn't care actually of two separate people having different kind of perceptions or headaches. It could look at them on an aggregate, it could just concentrate on the chemical / physical reactions that one can observe. How me or you or somebody experiences something is like a wrong meaningless question. With trying to be objective, it shouldn't be a surprise that the subjective is left out.

I also believe academic trends have had a destructive effect on society. When they are not criticised and if they become the overarching paradigm and silence critiques. — Andrew4Handel

Or basically when their limitations aren't understood and just taken at face value in the most simple terms. Perfect example is economics (or political economy). Politicians can announce to be following one economic school or ideology, yet actually do usually everything else. But that understandably gives a bad rap to the school of thought as micromanagement of the economy usually (if not allways) fails.

What are "conservative values"? What kind of society do they envisage and how do they believe it can be brought about? — Vera Mont

Obviously "conservative values" depend on the society and history where the conservative party exists. Conservatives in an islamic country or in an non-permissive Western country are quite different. Even Social democracy is more uniform.

So you're talking about an entirely hypothetical approach to foreign policy not shown by any nation on earth? — Isaac

No.

Just to give one example, actually this "soft power" is something that Russia has used successfully in Central Asia. Remember that the US after it's invasion to Afghanistan had many bases there... including one in Tajikistan where Russia had a base. Now there's nothing. And Russia quickly dismissed any US proposals to have any there. The US was of, the former Soviet republics now held military exercises with Russia and one nation even using Russian help to quell protests.

That isn't anything hypothetical, that is the fact how "soft" imperialism is used: without territorial annexations. Influencing others without open war. But when your objective is to regain your former Empire as in the case of the war in Ukraine, it's a bit different.

Coming from a country where the authorities have planned and also constructed shelters for nuclear attacks in cities, the first question here is just how many people are left without a shelter?

Then I noted that in the question there was the fact that I was "important to the town" and so I had gotten a ticket. That role is actually very important. I do have some role after the disaster, hence I should think of that also.

Now as the positions are picked on "importance" to the town, I guess the obvious nepotism of choosing my mom could raise some frustrations from those that would have survived and had their families and friends left to die while being "not important" to the city. And yes, there would be those. Yet if I choose to leave behind my mother and choose the younger person, any idiot who accuses me and those of us that averted death by being in the shelter of just "saving our own asses and those that we love", I can say to them that I truly put the benefit of the people before my personal feelings.

And the obvious question here is, why should I make the choice? This would have to be something likely to be discussed with my mom and the 20-year old. Let them, my mom and the 20-year old, themselves carry the burden that someone else has died for them. It would be more likely that 80-year old mom would give her seat to a younger person.

Even if with this dilemma we want to approach moral/ethical and philosophical questions, we should remember that people actually are very logical. In fact, I would question the total asshole who in the first place that had this wonderful idea of the "important to the town"-people then picking up some seats of their own choosing. Fuck that guy! Put him or her on a place where the asshole has 0% of surviving the disaster. Besides, if everybody outside the shelter has zero chance of surviving, likely the people in the shelter have just a bit longer death waiting for them in the shelter turned into a coffin as nobody is around to dig them up from the rubble.

* * *

The classic event of having "children and women be rescued first" from a sinking ship is quite real: assuming if there is the time for people to organize an evacuation, that would be still the way. Helping the weakest person first is the most logical issue in a disaster. It is something that total strangers can understand and obey. Not so when the ship goes beneath the ways quickly: then it's about the just who can climb the quickest the maze where the walls have become the new walkways and freezing water is pouring in and make it to a life raft.

Aha!

So now we see the true colours of PF. Green.

Wonder when we will have flaming red.

Or black.

Whether the EU is safe, or whether you're happy are not the question. You claimed soft imperialism was 'better'. — Isaac

With the meaning by "soft imperialism" I referred to a situation where countries have the influence over others (political and economic) without territorial annexations or war. It is possible, but far more difficult. Hence US actions in the Middle East or Central Asia (Afghanistan) aren't examples of this.

You support the US and Europe involving itself in this dispute in the way it has because that benefits you, and yours, and it's harming others is not your concern. — Isaac

Lol.

Of course! Assisting the one side that has been attacked and was no threat to the attacker hell bent on regaining it's former empire is shameful and "harming others".

Your concern over Putin is well noted.

Last Tuesday I went to a local cafe down the street. People sitting in one table had put a little NATO flag on the table. Basically people had been informed the day before that Finland will be accepted, so the timing came as a surprise. Once Erdogan was going to accept Finnish membership, Hungary acted very quickly the same way as not to be the last country standing out. Hence at least now it ought to be a different matter if Russia makes threats to Finland.

Of course Sweden is still out, which basically just shows that NATO is an international organization, not something that the US can dictate on itself (as history has shown well). I consider it more of an awkward issue for NATO than a genuine threat for Sweden, because the US among others have already. I think that it Finland could had waited for Sweden to be ratified too, but I guess that would have made the ratification process more dramatic as it actually is. Countries simply haggle in international organizations, hence Turkey's and Hungary's actions aren't totally out of context.

Btw, Finnish foreign minister gave in the signing ceremony immediately Finland's ratification of Swedish membership. One of my friends mentioned that this was an mistake: Finland ought to have asked Sweden for consultations in order that Finland could accept them into NATO. Obvious issue would have been Juha Mieto losing the gold medal to Swedish Thomas Wassberg in Lake Placid Olympics by one hundredths of a second. Hence Sweden should nullify Wassberg's performance. :grin:

The argument is directly and entirely related to the war in Ukraine - the topic of this thread. It is that promoting Europe's and the US's systems of soft imperialism as a solution to this war - the current war, the one this thread is about — Isaac

Yeah, there you go...

Well, EU has kept EU members from fighting each other. And btw, NATO members have also done that, thus the member states have followed Article 1 of the organization.

I'm just happy that I'm not living in an expendable buffer state anymore.

Collectivism of the national sort does compel one to conform, and conformity does work well towards “social cohesion”. Many embrace it as it can give one a sense of belonging in an otherwise alienating world. — NOS4A2

That sense of belonging and social cohesion is important in an otherwise alienating world, especially when we inherently have different ideas of how things should be and we actually might not share much in common with others.

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person. — NOS4A2

Invariably?

One could argue that invariably every idea considered moral or just can be abused. Yet that doesn't give us much.

One need not adopt another collective myth to find affinity with other others, especially one that is exclusive to a vast majority of human beings. — NOS4A2

And what would be that kumbayah-thing? I don't think "my-myself-and-I" would be that.

Oh, I see ... what's happening in Afghanistan right now is the Afghanis fault? — boethius

If you know about Afghan history, you will know just how difficult it has been for the country to modernize, even without the European powers trying to conquer it. Hence even if the country would have been left alone, likely would have a lot of problems.

We (NATO) had our hearts in the right place and did all we could but just, — boethius

Did we? What I gather was the US reason was that the forces had to be there to prevent the country becoming a terrorist safe haven. And the US was from the start exiting the place ...and was there for the longest time.

Let that absurdity just sink in. Because compared to this thinking, the "Domino theory" was quite logical.

No, You're talking about Europe in order to avoid talking about the misery their policies have caused other nations in the developing world. I'm talking about humanity and the effect certain approaches to foreign policy have on them as a whole. — Isaac

Lol. Really? I'm talking about Ukraine and Europe to avoid talking about other issues???

This is a thread about the war in Ukraine... hence, it is about the war in Ukraine. It's a silly argument to make then that I'm talking about the war in Ukraine in order to avoid something else.

A far better thread to talk about it would be the various US threads, btw.

I think that is a good point. What’s missing from both is the morality. It would be nice if we didn’t need both, either state-enforced cooperation or private interest, to tackle social ills such as poverty and redistribution. — NOS4A2

You can argue that both are forced upon the individual, but I think a lot of it isn't forced upon us.

Citizenship of a country and the idea of nation-state does create social cohesion were there wouldn't otherwise be much if any. It can unite the rich and the poor and with it we overcome our ethnic and racial differences. It's not something that was invented in the 19th Century, the idea of being "Roman" being something else than just having been born in one city is the obvious historical example of this. In fact, before the 19th Century when various people in the Balkans got their independence, a lot of them had still referred themselves as being Romans, even if having lived under the Ottoman Empire and East-Rome having died a long time ago. The idea of a nation, and citizens making the nation, is quite a successful one. Yes, some young people are surprised when they understand the fact that it's all a made up thing, but often they then don't understand just how important as a "made up thing" this is. A lot of things similarly "made up" by people are essential. The World of "post"-everything hasn't arrived yet and actually will never arrive.

The existence of an eternal afterlife is proven definitively. It’s a place of unimaginable bliss, fulfillment, wonder etc and is governed by a generic, deistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God. Every person that dies goes to this afterlife regardless of their virtue or immorality while alive. — Captain Homicide

Just a question: how would eternal life would be so nice? I guess the first few billion years could be nice, but then?

(Oh right, you said it would be unimaginable)

So? In what way does that make it any better? — Isaac

We are talking about Europe... and especially Ukraine. As I've said, other developments in other continents deserve and have gotten their threads.

Part of the problem here is that the 'peace and prosperity' enjoyed by the West is bought at the expense of exploitation elsewhere. — Isaac

Just like the rich stealing the wealth from the poor?

Sorry, but especially "peace and prosperity" isn't a zero-sum game. It hasn't been stolen from others. In fact, you can see that for Spain and Portugal their colonial posessions didn't create that prosperity compared to other countries without colonies (like Switzerland and Sweden etc.). The prosperity of a country usually comes through trade.

There's still the very real question boethius raise above as to whether Ukraine is sufficiently 'Western' for America to treat it as being 'part of the club'. — Isaac

Was Poland? Were the Baltic States? I think you have to make the argument why Ukraine cannot be what the people want it to be. (Russia won't allow it, yes, that's one argument.)

Bluster. Does it even cross your mind what you're suggesting the world should tolerate on the basis of you're speculation here? — Isaac

Ukraine has resources, it has an educated people. The problems aren't so great as they are in let's say Afghanistan. That's not bluster.

So yes, opinions so far.

Here's another...

https://jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky

One year after Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is backsliding away from democratic freedoms and liberal pluralism. — Isaac

Of course, Ukraine is in a state of war... :roll: But the cases are worrying.

If there would be peace and then similar things would happen, then by all means that would be a real problem. And that's what I agree, if Ukraine really wants to be part of the West, then it has to be a justice state with the same norms as other Western countries have. I wouldn't just overrule the possibility that Ukrainians can change their political system. Political systems have changed, there are good examples of this in history.

A fundamental problem in this thinking is to assume that the government just gives out services, which are paid in taxes. Services that we "the people" could buy from private entities. Behind those two wide oceans Americans can think that this is what governments and nations exist for.

Yet being a citizen and being a consumer aren't synonyms.

Why would it be different in Ukraine? — boethius

Yeah. There's actually many differences between Ukraine and Afghanistan, if you haven't noticed. You can see from the examples of the Baltic states and East Europe that these countries can get their act up after the disasterous Marxism-Leninism they had to endure. Ukrainians have that chance too.

Is the mere possibility worth any cost to Ukrainian lives and welfare in the meantime. — boethius

Their other option is Putin's rule. Which actually many in the east now have to suffer. The Ukrainians are defending themselves and fighting this war. You would want them to stop?

And this question ignores entirely the possibility of Ukraine losing the war and we don't even get to the part your talking about. — boethius

Of course Ukraine can lose the war. So then the aggressor would be victorious. Then we have a huge diaspora of Ukrainians living in the West, the country in shambles and a very tense situation in Europe.

they can't "vote with their feet" — boethius

Wrong.

They can. Just like the Afghan National Army voted with it's feet when the Taliban launched their final offensive. The Ukrainians didn't react as they did to the occupation of Crimea. That is a fact you cannot deny.