It seems unlikely that ECOWAS will successfully restore democracy. — BC

I think the probability of military intervention into Niger is low, but still exists.

The ECOWAS is divided about any intervention into one of their member states. And it should be remembered that both Mali and Burkina Faso are part of the organization. So it seems that ECOWAS is similar to the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), where the members have been close to outright war also.

the ECOWAS Parliament is divided over the use of military might to force the junta, which overthrew President Mohamed Bazoum on July 26, out of power and to reinstate the Nigerien President.

The Nigerian military high command, it was gathered, had directed the service chiefs to compile and submit war requirements such as the number of personnel, equipment, logistics and financial costs to the Chief of Defence Staff. One of our correspondents gathered on Friday that this was the preliminary stage in the planning process of amassing human and material resources required for the planned military intervention in Niger.

A leaked memo indicated that about two battalions would be required to prosecute the war against the junta in Niger Republic.

Niger: DHQ directs service chiefs to compile war items, ECOWAS lawmakers divided

Famine, certainly. What desertification doesn't do, bad politics probably will. There were efforts being undertaken to slow the advance of the desert southward; the last time I read about that was years ago. — BC

There has been this large effort of the Great Green Wall initiative, which does have seen millions of trees planted.



Unfortunately the Sahel countries don't have the resources of China, which has tackled it's own desertification problem with a similar project. So it's a bit of a problem when the people use wood for heating and cooking.

Capitalism is a recent example, the more I learned, the more I realised, this is an umbrella term and no comprehensive understanding is appropriate, more specificity is needed. — Judaka

The problem is when a term means totally different things to different people. There usually is a consensus about the actual definition of the term, but there ends the agreement on anything.

If you ask a Marxist and a classic liberal "What is typical for a capitalist society?", you will get totally different answers starting from totally different premises, viewpoints and theories. Still the Marxist and the classic liberal can agree that capitalism has something to do with just who owns stuff.

but for those of you who agree or partially agree, feel free to share any thoughts on the topic. — Judaka

Well, you simply will disagree with smart, educated and informed people with no "Leibnizian" way to "compute" a correct solution that will solve your differences once and for all.

That's simply a part of philosophy, politics and life.

How does Boko Haram fit into this? Are they one of the Al Queda/IS franchises you mentioned? — T Clark

It has played a part, yes. Boko Haram was for a while working with the IS.

The Franchises have actually older roots than 9/11 and Osama's successful terrorist strike. AQIM, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, was formerly know as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, had links to the Algerian Civil war and there the GIA.

Under the command of Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram rebranded itself as Islamic State – West Africa Province. Yet then after internal disagreements the ISWAP and Boko Haram separated again and Khekau continued to lead the Boko Haram... until he seems to have died in a battle between Boko Haram and ISWAP in june 2021. It's estimated that ISWAP had something like 4 000 to 5 000 fighters last year and the operate basically in the northeast corner of Nigeria next to Chad and Cameroon. (Basically Northern Nigeria is Muslim and was only later years of the British Colony annexed, while the south is Christian / animist.)

(the former Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, who gained international media attention after kidnapping hundreds of young girls)


Here's a map of the IS franchise in Africa:



The jihadists fighting each other isn't actually rare and there's really room for conspiracy theories.

The best example is GIA in Algeria, which basically started killing Algerian civilians and the actual "moderate" Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) leaders (who basically had won the elections and then the Algerian military staged a coup and the civil war started), but not so much the Algerian army. There are many allegations that the Algerian government worked with GIA, didn't do much to stop the massacres done by GIA and allegations that governments forces operated as being GIA terrorists. When the FIS wanted France to be a peacebroker between the Algerian government, it was GIA who staged terrorist attacks in France. France then wouldn't start negotiations, but backed the Algerian government. And finally the FIS (now aligned with a new movement AIS) basically surrendered to the government forces after getting amnesty. After this the GIA quickly evaporated. But the remnants later found themselves across the border in Mali.

To argue that GIA was fabricated by the Algerian government would be a crazy conspiracy (just like the idea that the US/Israel were behind the IS), but that a government would first go for the "moderate" insurgents (that actually had won democratic elections) before the fringe movement is quite a rational and logical choice.

I pointed out Niger was a French colony and you countered by saying they were allies. — Jack Rogozhin

Allies in the war on Terror. Belarus is an ally of Russia. But Belarus has also been a part of Russia. And Russia influences Belarus a lot. Has a lot of forces in Belarus.

Please see the other thread about Niger.

I remember a meteorologist I knew was asked by a reporter that as he believed that a new ice age was coming and then there global warming (called that then), wouldn't they counter each other? His response: New ice age comes in the next 50 000 years, climate change happening now.

But that was decades ago.

Poland putting 10 000 troops on it's border.

The Polish Defense Minister, Mariusz Blaszczak, told public radio that while 10,000 soldiers will be on the border, 4,000 will directly support the border guard and the remaining 6,000 will be in reserve.

Lukashenko joking about Wagner troops on the Polish border.

Earlier on Tuesday, Lukashenko mockingly told Poland it should thank him for keeping in check Wagner mercenaries now stationed in Belarus after an abortive mutiny against the Kremlin last month.

Sabre rattling...

The fact you are still denying they were coloinies of France, and are still being treated as such by France is bizarre. — Jack Rogozhin

I absolutely didn't say that. Actually, the Sahel is worth a thread of it's own so I started one here. Especially what is happening with Niger.

I think I've made my point there.

And no, Russia's corruption wasn't worse — Jack Rogozhin

By that list I quoted it is.

LOL...Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were colonies (not allies) of France — Jack Rogozhin

The African countries have been allies in the War on Terror (that curious war that started with 9/11, you remember). Operation Serval was widely appraised... and then things turned south (as usual they do). But back in 2013:

Operation Serval received a great deal of support, both nationally – even Captain Sanogo immediately approved it – and internationally. Mahamadou Issoufou, President of Niger, argued that the operation in Mali was “the most popular of all French interventions in Africa”.

With Operation Barkhane things went something like in Afghanistan and France ended the operation last year. In the vacuum, the countries seem to hope for Russia to be solution.

And Belarussia was a part of the Russian Empire and then part of the Soviet Union. Just like Kazakhstan etc. Heck, my country was a colony of Russia for a brief time.

Ukraine's corruption level was terrible way before the invasion — Jack Rogozhin

And corruption was worse in Russia, yet I think the damage the war has done to the economy is worse.

You said it, not me — Jack Rogozhin

Really? :smirk:

Because the economy is in war mode. Russia is spending a lot of money to make new weapons, ammunition etc. Therefore its industrial output is steady, there is no unemployment (in fact, there are drastic labor shortages), wages in some sectors are steadily increasing etc. So on paper there is no recession. The catch is that this industrial output mostly goes up in smoke - it does not contribute to the development of the economy as a whole, in fact it drains other sectors of labor force and support, so it is not prime pumping, just the opposite. — Jabberwock

This is a very good point to make. Economists rarely want to take into consideration of their models when countries are in wartime economy: the statistics just look so great. Never mind that people are worse off, production figures are usually off the charts. Conscription of hundreds of thousands do have an effect on labour. The only negative aspect is if your enemy is destroying your factories and infrastructure and you have millions of refugees ...like Ukraine is experiencing now.

No, this is a terrible analogy. Belarus and Russia are allies with shared ethnic groups — Jack Rogozhin

Lol.

Just as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso were allies with France ...until a change in leadership! And the huge protests against Lukashenko earlier (until Russia sent help) and that some Belarussians are fighting for Ukraine show that all is not fine and dandy in Belarus. Many Belarussian commentators have been worried that Russia will take over their country for a long time.

Thinking the US doesn't control NATO is just naive. — Jack Rogozhin

What is naive is totally dismissing how the organization actually works.

Again, you think you know Putin's motivations; I don't get that. — Jack Rogozhin

Again, you should give reasons just why you ignore the reasons Putin has given for his annexations of territory. I don't get that.

Putin's Russia has not regressed, their economy is going strong, Brics is going well, and it looks like they're getting the Donbass...and they're now China's number one pal. Ukraine hasn't progressed. They've had civil war and strife since the Maidan coup, they've been consistently listed among the most corrupt countries in Europe, they've lost hundreds of thousands of their citizens--and probably the Donbass--and NATO and US are losing patient with them. — Jack Rogozhin

Glorious Russia going from triumph to triumph!!! Hail Putin!!!

(Corruption Perceptions Index)
Ukraine: 116th
Russia: 137th

I wonder if Russia making a large scale attack on Ukraine has had an effect on just why Ukraine has it so bad now...

They almost all do, or at least act as if they have that right. Look what's going on in Niger; France and USA are threatening and terrorizing it as if its their country. — Jack Rogozhin

France and it's former colonies should have another thread, but France isn't annexing it's former colonies back!

The perfect example in this case is Belarus compared to Ukraine. Russia has (also) aspirations for Belarus, it has troops in the country, close ties yet it hasn't annexed territories of Belarus or questioned it's sovereignty. And nobody is openly complaining about this, because Belarus a sovereign state.

Russia has usually used proxy forces, which it has backed up with it's armed forces if (or when) the proxies have gotten into trouble. This has happened in Transnistria, Georgia and in Ukraine with the so-called "frozen conflicts". And this kind of warfare by Russia was tolerated by Western Europe for long. Yet the annexations of large parts of Ukraine simply went over the line.

This isn't an issue of imperialism at this point. It is a security and territorial dispute. — Jack Rogozhin

Nonsense.

Russian imperialism has been, all the time in history, about security and territory. Yeah, there's no large oceans separating Russia from what isn't Russia, but in their place Russia just has a huge steppe. Hence Russian imperialism has always been about going as far as possible you can go, no matter how un-Russian these Asian or European territories have been. It is the version of Russian imperialism and colonialism. After all, Russia is genuinely an empire, not a nation state, even now. Catherine the Great put it quite aptly when she said: "“I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

That is in the heart of Russian imperialism.

Do you actually think Putin, or any somewhat functional world leader, tells us their exact motivations? — Jack Rogozhin

Not their exact motivations, but do you then totally dismiss what they state for their reasons for the actions they do? If you do so, you should explain why. Because what Putin says about Ukraine does matter. Just as important as is his opposition to NATO.

NATO missiles. — Jack Rogozhin

Again, what "NATO missiles" in Ukraine are you talking about?

It is fact the US refused to take Ukraine membership off the table; — Jack Rogozhin

And the fact is that NATO is an international organization where the US doesn't decide everything and new members have to be accepted by all members. Just look at how difficult the road for Sweden has been. Hungary openly opposes NATO membership of Ukraine (see here) and there's not much the US can do. Remember how many times the US and it's presidents have been disappointed in NATO.

It's cliche by now, but remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. Was Kennedy wrong to feel threatened — Jack Rogozhin

Notice that this thread started before February 24th 2022. Hence the name of the thread is Ukraine crisis, not Ukraine war. And we aren't talking about the US invasion of Cuba or the US-Cuban war.

Hence if Putin would have just staged a huge exercise and gotten the promises that NATO wouldn't enlarge to Ukraine (which it did get from Germany), then that would be similar to Cuban Missile Crisis.

And this just shows how weak the argument is that it was all about NATO expansion that made him do it, because obviously when listening to Putin, it wasn't. Sure, NATO was one perfect reason especially for the anti-US propaganda, but forgetting other reasons (Crimea, Novorossiya) is simply wrong. If Ukraine would have a constitution like Moldova that forbids NATO membership, it's still likely that Putin's Russia would have started this war. Crimea being the best example of this.

Russia rightly doesn't consider Crimea taken land. — Jack Rogozhin

In similar fashion dozens of countries ought to have the "right not to consider" other countries and territories similarly. But once you acknowledge the independence of a country and it's borders, be it Ukraine, Ireland or Finland, you don't make statements of that country being "artificial" or that it's independence was an error or accident. Or that the borders are wrong. The insanity of Russian imperialism would perhaps be more clear to people if some other country would start similar rhetoric about their neighbors. Perhaps Austria should declare it's objective to re-establish the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the UK would declare that it's objective is to get the whole of Ireland back into the Kingdom, because Home Rule etc. was an error. After all, the two countries have language and cultural ties quite as long as Russia and Ukraine share.

But once a country doesn't recognize the borders of it's neighbors, it becomes instantly a genuine threat to it's neighbors. The preferable method would be everything in the neocolonial playbook to influence your neighbors, but annexation of territory goes too far.

This is the reason just why Europe has gotten so against Russia's actions. It is also the reason why NATO has enlarged itself as it has, because Finland and Sweden would have never, ever, joined NATO and would happily have good relations with Russia if it wasn't for the 2022 invasion.

I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist. — Jack Rogozhin

You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given.

I don't think Putin was primarily acting out of his country's interests, but Ukraine and NATO created a legitmate threat against his country and himself when Ukraine refused to remain neutral and NATO refused to not put missiles in Ukraine. — Jack Rogozhin

What missiles are you talking about? Besides, Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member. It wouldn't have been just the countries like Hungary that would have opposed this, it actually would have been Germany. But then February 24th 2022 happened. Ukraine's path to NATO would have been blocked just the way Turkey's EU membership is off and no way happening, but theoretically (hypocritically) possible.

What is the rule here? Are positions only allowed to be said once? — Jack Rogozhin

Well, it's a bit difficult to catch up to a thread that is over 500 pages long, I guess.

Have these Russification programs and kidnapping of children been established? — Jack Rogozhin

If the ICC has made the case against these actions and the numbers are well in the many thousands, including cases where Russia has then released back Ukrainian children who had been taken earlier, the idea of it not happening is absurd.

Issuing Russian passports has been one way to advance Russification:

I know many disagree, but I believe the Donbass--which Russia certainly hasn't captured--was their territorial goal. — Jack Rogozhin

I think you make a separation of what the objectives were prior to the assault and what they have become after a year and a half of fighting. One assumption was that the Ukrainians wouldn't put up a defense and thus the "lightning strike" attempt for example towards Kyiv, which ended badly. It's a bit eary just how close to what Russia tried to get is to what Russian propaganda earlier published as the boundaries of Novorossiya:





Even if securing the land bridge to Crimea was successful, the obvious failure was to reach Odessa and cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea. Yet now it looks like Russians attempt to hold on what they have and not attempt (at least now) to go on the offensive. Building huge defensive lines also limits your own forces.

In such a situation, dropping nukes on Ukraine would stabilise the military situation as Ukraine would have no way to nuclear retaliate. Stabilising from their perspective (the perspective of the people considering nuclear use in a unstable and deteriorating situation). — boethius

I'm not so sure that the US & NATO response of using force in the case of nuclear weapons being used was just a bluff. Or is a bluff.

The response was to be / would be limited: to Russian targets in Ukraine and the Black Sea and likely would have been for a brief period. The Russian Air Force and the Black Sea fleet would have a tough time facing NATO air power over Ukraine.

It's one thing of NATO giving aid to Ukraine, it's another thing for NATO to create that "no-fly zone" over Ukraine that Ukrainians wanted in the first place or use active force. And notice the limited response: not a nuclear response, not striking Russia everywhere in an all out fashion.

Putin's rhetoric just confuses which are the sides here as giving weapons and aid to a country that is fighting the other Superpower was totally normal during the Cold War.

Newcomer here, so tell me if I'm repeating. Is there any other feasible outcome at this point than Russia keeping the Donbass, with all Ukrainians unhappy with that moving West. — Jack Rogozhin

It's quite possible that this war becomes a frozen conflict (as Russia just loves frozen conflicts!) and Russia keeps the Donbass. However Russia giving "unhappy Ukrainians" the option to leave is more remote when you take into account just what Russia has now done in the occupied territories with it's Russification programs and even kidnapping children.

It just doesn't seem like Ukraine can take it back...without getting destroyed in the process...and the Russian Ukrainians of the Donbas want to stay part of Russia — Jack Rogozhin

Wars do end some way or another in the end. And do note that Russia hasn't been able for a long time to conquer new territories and has entrenched itself in a very defensive posture, likely because of necessity.

Another important question: Is it essential that humanity have compassion and empathy towards animals on earth? — chiknsld

As much as humanity has engineered the planet, the answer is of course. The good thing is that compassion and empathy is also something important for our survival and prosperity also. We simply don't understand how we are changing the biosphere through our actions, especially in the long run, hence it's beneficial for us to try to keep a status quo with part of the biosphere and ecology.

It's quite early to say what happens. As history gives reference, a lot can happen in the election in more than a years time.

I yet think that, unfortunately, this thread will be active even then.

China is a major customer of that grain. It looks like a major divergence of interests has developed between partners sworn to never part. — Paine

China isn't poor and there's still a functioning global grain market. Russia will be eager to compensate for any problems the war causes for China. Hence if China doesn't get grain from the Black Sea, then it gets it somewhere else.

The problem is for the poor countries which really suffer from higher prices. The Chinese won't have riots if grain prices are higher, but other countries (especially those who subsidize their grain prices, yet have difficulties in doing so) can be in a tight spot.

Still reckon Trump will never get the Republcan nomination, polling data notwithstanding. — Quixodian

Don't assume the logical with current US politics. And never underestimate how bizarre populist politics and polarization can be.

Trump might not get the Republican nomination, but then go as an independent, which will be absolute poison for the actual Republican nominee. Just like Ross Perot was for Bush.

In any case, Trump running for President will be a bigger red flag and incentive to go to vote for Democrats than Hillary Clinton's run was for Republicans.

I would absolutely defend the claim that Fukuyama has been 100% correct on no major, international rival claimant emerging to challenge liberal democracy, which is itself pretty remarkable given the history from 1780-1980. — Count Timothy von Icarus

China is the one potential counter example. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, you mentioned yourself the big rival. The rise of China from an economy as big as the Netherlands to the second largest economy in thirty years is a truly astonishing feat, even historically. China shows that economic growth isn't limited to only politically liberal states. In a bizarre way, that economic miracle has been done by a leadership that thinks of itself as being Marxists.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to indicate. — Isaac

Link didn't work, but I guess I found what four terms were talked about.

Well, if then Mr Peskov as the spokesperson indicated that Ukraine should acknowledge Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, now those two "independent" states have joined Russia and are an "integral" part of Russia. And not only these two are now officially part of Russia, but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasta. Hence my argument that the situation had changed quite much from what Peskov had suggested.

That's what it means.

And then is the really big issue of what actually the demilitarization of Ukraine would have meant in reality and in what situation this would have put Ukraine. Because it's quite a stretch to think with Ukraine demilitarized Russia would leave things there.

Just like the Baltic States, Soviet Union didn't demand annexation right from the start, it only demanded military bases and got them in September - October 1939 from the Baltic States. Only in June 1940 Stalin gave ultimatums to the Baltic States and annexed the countries in August 1940.

Yes, China's involvement I think would be incredibly useful. — Isaac

I'm not so optimistic for this to happen. China will win little with it: perhaps by being an active diplomat in the war, this would work to normalize the relations with European countries and China as the action obviously would warm the now cool relations. But the US wouldn't budge.

And likely China doesn't want to be viewed in Russia (or by Putin) as giving a "Dolchstoss", stab in the back, at Russia in it's moment of danger. The only thing actually that China has done is that it has declared it won't tolerate the use of nuclear weapons. At least that's positive.

Thus, Fukuyama appears to be looking in the wrong place for a new movement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or looked in the wrong place. Fukuyama was a neocon and then, afterwards, distanced himself from the Bush era neocons and wrote an apology of a book about it in 2006 (After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads).

In a way I would talk about a distinct certain short period in history as the "Fukuyaman moment" when such preposterous arguments could be made in all seriousness. It was the time when the Soviet Union had collapsed, the US had gotten the easy quick victory from Iraq and 9/11 hadn't happened, which turned the media to look at Samuel Huntington and his Clash of Civilations as the trendy new World explanation. Hence Fukuyama has been the milestone that a multitude of authors have argued against his view. Seldom if ever have I stumbled upon someone agreeing and defending Francis Fukuyama.

Well, now there has been the Congressional hearings about the issue with David Grusch giving testimony (referring to what started his OP) alongside two Navy pilots. Interesting hearing. I have to say that it made me a lot more of an UFO/UAP tinfoil hatter than I had been earlier. I'm not so sceptical I used to be.

The hearings:



In the hearings Grusch refers many times to this interview he made:



Thinking about this conspiracy from the political dimension:

If there would be a huge secret US government reverse-engineering and recovery program on UFOs, would the government be able to keep it hidden?

No, there would be at least the occasional whistleblower and obviously many who would want the information to be public. Likely there would be a disinformation campaign and likely this would be partly successful, as the idea is so incredible. Yet new people would sporadically come up through the decades and tell about it.

Would there be reasons for keeping it secret?

Of course: fear of a huge legal scandal, an angry Congress that has been sidelined (again), an even more distrustful population and naturally people getting frightened about the fact there being aliens etc. Also the possibility for the US and defense contractors getting a technological edge from the project if the reverse engineering is successful is a primary reason to keep it a secret even if the reverse engineering part hasn't (yet) gone anywhere.

Could the lid be kept on the program for many decades?

Yes, especially if the tech isn't easy to be reverse engineered. The conspiracy can easily be a "myth" for long. Once that reverse engineering is possible, then the lure to use the tech is obvious. The fear of the tech going into the "wrong hands" is an obvious reason not to have the scientific community openly research anything about tech that is more advanced than our existing science. Those in the know would have many reasons to keep it a secret as before.

Something like, well, in reality it could be?

Anyway, a nice summer topic to follow with popcorn. :blush:

Mearsheimer is good when he sticks to a small scale. It's his attempts at big picture theorizing that really go off the rails. I appreciate that you have to "go big" to move the ball along on theory, even if it means getting a lot wrong, but the problems in "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics'" Offensive Realism are such that I think it's worth questioning if it was worth publishing. It makes the realist camp in IR look like a caricature, and got basically every prediction about the post-Cold War era wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The irony here is that the thing Mearsheimer got right (in the 1990's) was that Russia would attack Ukraine if Ukraine would give up it's nuclear deterrence. :smirk:

Mearsheimer's real weakness is that he doesn't care about domestic politics at all. He has openly acknowledged this in his talks and really goes on with the focus on his theory. Yet foreign & security policy isn't only a game between the Great Powers where all moves are made to thwart the opposing Great Power. Russia's annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine have a lot to do with Putin's own domestic politics and views on just what is (or should) Russia be, irrelevant of there being a NATO or not.

This may be hard for Americans to understand, as their foreign establishment (sometimes called "The Blob") is quite separated from domestic politics and can really engage the World with one focus mind: earlier to fight the Soviet Union and communism during the Cold War and later engage in a War on Terror after 9/11. In that kind of environment (where foreign policy means little to the average citizen) a Mearsheimeresque approach can be how some genuinely approach the World. Yet if the question would be if Texas should be part of the US or not, part of Mexico or should be an independent country, a lot of Americans would have an opinion on that irrelevant of what Mexico or China does.

But anyway, Mearsheimer is picked up as "an alternative" voice and likely has his niché audience in this which gives him speaking opportunities and income. In a way he then comes out as an motivational speaker, just like Peter Zeihan is for a crowd of Americans who want to hear that their country is still the best and others have even larger problems.

Considering Prigozhin seems still alive and seems to have even met with Putin in person, I find it really difficult to believe this was a genuine coup attempt.

Has it disbanded?
— ssu

It's effectively disbanded, ordered to either join the regular military, go to Belarus or go home. — boethius

If the term "coup" is too much, then use the word mutiny. Yet I'm not so convinced about the disbandment of the Wagner group as you are. Just yesterday Prigozhin met a representative from the Central African Republic in St. Petersbugh at the Russia-Africa summit. Wagner provides the regime of CAR crucial support and has I think gold mines there, which brings a lot of income to Prigozhin/Wagner.



The mutiny wasn't a fake, those aircraft were shot down and their crew did die. The mutiny happened and this was not some "4D chess" on behalf of Putin.



What happened was basically a revolt of a separate military faction that a weak central leadership could only negotiate with. Having the aspirations of taking prisoner the highest military leadership of the country and even driving to the capital makes some of us use the term "coup attempt" as this goes far beyond of simply not following orders (which itself done by a larger military group is called a mutiny). And the mutineer can now meet crucial people to him at a high level summit. It is as bad as it sounds.

Sorry, been a bit sick, so I respond only now, well later of the discussion:

I get your point. It's a valid one. Holding a different one doesn't make one uniformed, biased, nor a putin-supporter. We all want an end to this war we just have a difference of opinion as to how.

what was the likelyhood of Russia to negotiate a peace when it was still wanting to denazify Ukraine, when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv and war enthusiasm was very high?
— ssu

I don't know, it's not my area of expertise. Obviously people better informed than me thought it possible so that's good enough for me to consider it a reasonable option. Obviously, if possible, its the better one. — Isaac

Having the conflict and the killing halt somehow obviously would be a good thing. And it's now obvious that Russia doesn't have the ability to destroy the Ukrainian military, hence some kind of settlement between both sides has to be reached by both sides. Yet this depends on the military situation. If war is a continuation of politics by other means, then surely a political settlement of a war depends on the military situation on the ground.

And let's remember that in the first month of the war the stalemate of the current wasn't at all so obvious. The Russian southern forces (the famous "Z") had made and were making significant gains and things around Kyiv and other places didn't look yet so bad as the battle of Kyiv was still going on. And we know that the Ukrainian leadership didn't falter then and Zelenskyi didn't fly away from Ukraine. In these kind of situation it's difficult to see the reasons just why a settled peace would have been possible.

On the table, I believe, was a neutral Donbas, and, non-NATO Ukraine. Russia believes it has a right to a 'sphere of influence' in the region. — Isaac

Please give a reference to this or the source. What does neutral Donbas mean? Luhansk and Donetsk Republics in what kind of state towards Russia and Ukraine?

And do notice that both Republics are now part of Russia and Russia has annexed even more oblasts from Ukraine. I would think that anybody declaring that there was a chance for a political settlement of the war after one month of fighting in this war likely wants to shine his own image (as likely the person saying this would be linked to the negotiations).

The real possible interlocutor would be China in this case, but it doesn't feel the urge to commit everything to find a solution.

The argument was that the US somehow stopped peacetalks while the re-invasion of Ukraine was not even a month old.

- Now the war is over one year old and much has happened then. That was my point.

- And you haven’t answered that what was the likelyhood of Russia to negotiate a peace when it was still wanting to denazify Ukraine, when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv and war enthusiasm was very high?

- What would have been the peace deal then?

Please answer these questions and we are on the right track.

I’ve noticed, actually in other threads also, that the most frail, most weakest arguments rely on advocating the expertize of the person who is quoted and whose opinion the PF member supports. The actual points aren’t then open for discussion…because the quote is from an ”expert” and as members aren’t ”experts”, how dare they have opposing views! And if soneone else is quoted who is against this ”expert”, well, likely he or she is from the wrong camp. The personalization of the views and opinions is the distorinting problem.

This reasoning just unintentionally shows how either limited the knowledge of the person using this argument or that the person suffer of some kind of inferiority complex because the simple fact is that politics, international relations and conflicts actually aren’t some quantum physics people don’t understand. We can discuss the opinions, the viewpoints themselves quite easily.

Again and again several people have given sensible and well thought refutations on just why they disagree with your opinion and have showed the bias of people like mr Sachs. Some have put questions to you that you have not answered.

For others there’s a multitude of various people to quote or refer to, but for a few here there’s Sachs & Mearsheimer, perhaps Scott Ritter etc and not much else.

So perhaps we are not worthy.

So are you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs. Which is it? — Isaac

Ahhh!!! The deep insightful wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer & co.

We are not worthy!

Why don't they sneak in and attach bombs to the columns? Boom! — frank

Perhaps the sneaking in part isn’t so easy?

My guess is that the missiles or rockets they use simply don’t pack the punch to demolish such large structures. Yes, it would need demolition charges at precise points to get part of the bridge to splash into the water.

I've often wished math and science were taught with more of an eye to history. — Srap Tasmaner

Great point! Unfortunately in the school and even in the university science and especially math isn’t taught like this: how not only the mathematician/scientist came to the conclusion, but how the scientific community accepted the result. There simply isn’t the time. Hence you are taught the theory, the proof, the conclusions. And that’s it, then forward. Not much if anything on how it was done, what were the objections, possible earlier errors etc.

Knowing the history, the older ideas, the now ancient technology and methods used makes it all far more clear. It’s not just that you simply learn by heart to use the science/math like an algorithm to answer a certain question.

Is it a good thing that "prostitution" (under any name) is stigmatized? — BC

An interesting an multifaceted question. I think the total acceptance and normalization isn’t beneficial. Going to brothel shouldn’t be as normal as going to the gym (where you pay for doing physical exercise that you could basically do without the charge).

Obviously sex is a natural part of human relationship. However making the sex trade totally illegal will have it’s negative consequences.

It seems that a permissive society where sex isn’t confined to marriage is what really decreases prostitution. Which I think has been an improvement.

Seems that the Ukrainians attacked the Kerch bridge again.

Your right. It isn’t odd.

And if we would be discussing war that was in Afghanistan or the war still continuing in Yemen etc, suddenly we would have a lot to agree with.

Jeffrey Sachs is an economist, actually. And has written about povetry. And now is rather famous for his pro-Russian and pro-Chinese views.

And the reality is that the war has gone forward from Feb-March 2022 and so has the situation on the ground. Hence then to take the stance that early on ”the US stopped the peace negitiations” is basically pro-Russian propaganda because a lot has happened after and I just showed there’s a lot more to this question than just what discussiions mr Sachs has had. Things like Russia annexing even more land to itself from Ukraine was very important here.

And furthermore, you or Tzeentch have not answered my question on just what terms would have then Russia negotiated a peace deal when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv, advancing in the south and Russians were jubilantly showing the ”Z”-sign for supporting the war.

I thnk there’s a lot of good answers here of just why it is odd to cling on to these kind of fringe ideas about why the war is still going on.

The Russians and the Ukrainians were ready for peace. — Tzeentch

And on what terms were they (the Russians) negotiating with the neonazis they were meant to denazify back then?

Apart from the anti-US stance where everything revolves around the US, the reality looks a bit different:

But what really ended efforts to bring about peace – which had continued since the 24 February invasion – was the proclaimed annexation of the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Cherson. Since his election in 2019, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly called on Putin to agree to a personal meeting, even in the first weeks of this year’s Russian invasion. But on 4 October 2022, in response to the actions of the Russian side, he signed a decree rejecting direct talks. Ever since the beginning of the Russian aggression in 2014, and all the more so since 24 February 2022, the course of Ukrainian-Russian negotiations has been highly dependent on the situation in the battlefield and the broader political context.

In fact, things like the mess that the Russian army is in after the Prigozhin debacle and their inability to go on the offensive can lead to peace talks/armstice in the future.

How far should the situation in Ukraine deterioriate before we can agree the peace accords that were on the table in March / April 2022, scarcely a month into the war, should have been carried out instead of blocked by the US?

Those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego. — Tzeentch

Scarcely a month into the war Russia was speaking of denazification of Ukraine and on the offensive, so your argument that it was Washington’s ego that blocked peace talks is hilarious. (Or actually, very typical to you…)

Seems like Sweden is finally getting into NATO.

All of this wouldn’t have been possible without Putin.

Lukashenko says Prigozhin is in St Petersburg.

I think this mutiny hasn’t reached it’s conclusion yet.