It seems inevitable that the only ending to this war can be great disaster - either great disaster for Putin, or great disaster for the whole world. — Wayfarer

Wishful thinking. — Isaac

No. The point was that your definition becomes pointless by being too inclusive. If Russia is 'imperialist' in your sense, then it's nothing to worry about. — Isaac

You want 'imperialism' to mean something so much more sinister. — Isaac

Why would it be impossible for a nation to seek to acquire territory in pursuit of a national security goal? — Tzeentch

Then what fucking country isn't imperialist? — Isaac

June 9 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin paid tribute on Thursday to Tsar Peter the Great on the 350th anniversary of his birth, drawing a parallel between what he portrayed as their twin historic quests to win back Russian lands.

"Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned (what was Russia's)," Putin said after a visiting an exhibition dedicated to the tsar.

In televised comments on day 106 of his war in Ukraine, he compared Peter's campaign with the task facing Russia today.

"Apparently, it also fell to us to return (what is Russia's) and strengthen (the country). And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face."

Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas, often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).

Easily thwarted? What makes you say that? — Tzeentch

I've said there is no evidence for it, and you have yet to present any. — Tzeentch

You've been claiming Ukrainian NATO membership was not the reason the Russians invaded. — Tzeentch

With a significant number of heavy tanks from the West now heading for Ukraine, including the Leopard tanks from Germany. Things just escalated! Much bigger booms coming or Russian bust? — universeness

And as for Mearsheimer and his points regarding alledged "Russian imperialism", for which again there is no evidence whatsoever: — Tzeentch

The United States clearly decides what happens in NATO, and even if NATO member states stop NATO membership, nothing stops and nothing did stop the United States from turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, which it did. The Europeans had no say. — Tzeentch

f you're not interested in the views of experts — Tzeentch

The production, deliberate lacing with addictive substances and aggressive advertising of "snacks" turns a necessary, healthy and pleasurable activity, eating, into the harmful consumption of junk. So does the commodification and vulgar packaging of sex turn it into trash. — Vera Mont

Truth is really the only counter to falsity in every case. For this we need more information, more data, more debate, more education, more transparency, not less of it. The more and more people rely on a group of people to tell them what is true or false, like a government or corporation or church, the less and less they become able to figure it out for themselves, only compounding the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

You're grossly overstating the importance of countries who have no real power to speak of. — Tzeentch

A nice theory, but there's no evidence to support it — Tzeentch

- a point which Mearsheimer makes repeatedly. — Tzeentch

What we were talking about back in February was whether or not he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine, occupying it, and then integrating into a greater Russia. And I do not think he’s interested in doing that now. What he is interested in doing now that he was not interested in doing when we talked is integrating those four oblasts in the eastern part of Ukraine into Russia. I think there’s no question that his goals have escalated since the war started on February 24th, but not to the point where he’s interested in conquering all of Ukraine. But he is interested for sure in conquering a part of Ukraine and incorporating that part into Russia.

I was also thinking about the best comedy movies: That's probably another at least top ten:
It's a mad mad mad mad mad mad world
Duck Soup
Are two of my favourites. — universeness

Westerns — T Clark

And damn, I Jjust remembered The Thin Red Line. Has to be top ten. — Bradskii

Of course it does. That's why the US decided in 2008 that Ukraine would become part of NATO even though that was against the will of Germany at the time. — Tzeentch

You're just missing the point. Clearly had Ukrainian ties with the United States threatened to become like those of Israel, we'd be in the exact same position, with Russia invading before such a defense pact could be sealed. — Tzeentch

- it's all fine and good, but when the end result stays the same it was all for naught. — Tzeentch

Nice list. And where is Ukraine now? On a course to defeat. — Tzeentch

and that it somehow proves that NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't the driver behind this conflict — Tzeentch

And what I'm arguing is that what the other NATO countries thought about NATO membership for Ukraine is completely irrelevant, — Tzeentch

This answer shows how little understanding of NATO you have.

It's a defense pact between members states which all have to accept new members. It's not just a sock-puppet of the US President as you think it is. Just look at how many times the US has gone to war without NATO and how many times US Presidents have been angry about the whole organization. And we should remember that it's sister organizations CENTO and SEATO have already sidenotes on history pages.
— Tzeentch

because the policy that the United States pursued made Ukraine a de facto member of NATO anyway, whether the other member states liked it or not. — Tzeentch

Coming back to my point, the Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict. — Tzeentch

Then how do you explain this: — Tzeentch

Also, why do you only respond to half my post? — Tzeentch

What do you think such a statement really means, when the United States is already training and supplying Ukraine like its gearing up for another Vietnam? You need to get a sense of reality. — Tzeentch

When I say commit, I mean commit to a Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground. — Tzeentch

At the onset of the Russian invasion Ukraine was already a NATO member in all but name. — Tzeentch

Statements by Germany at this point aren't worth anything, since Ukraine entering the US sphere of influence was a de facto reality. — Tzeentch

The United States can not and will not commit itself to a Ukrainian defense, because getting involved in a protracted land war with Russia would basically cede world hegemony to China without a fight. — Tzeentch

The Germans know this, and they are none to keen on getting thrown the hot potatoe of taking leadership in that protracted land war instead of the United States. — Tzeentch

Thank God the Germans have some sense of how this game works. Merkel understood it too, that's why she blocked the American efforts to stir up a conflict in Germany's backyard. — Tzeentch

This Russian propaganda has been amplified and endorsed by an unusual assortment of people in the United States, including the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. The propaganda absolves Russia, blames the United States for the war, and has four main tenets: first, that a long-standing American effort to bring Ukraine into NATO poses a grave threat to Russian security. Second, that American shipments of weapons to Ukraine have prolonged the fighting and caused needless suffering among civilians. Third, that American support for Ukraine is just a pretext for seeking the destruction of Russia. And, finally, that American policies could soon prove responsible for causing an all-out nuclear war.

Those arguments are based on lies. They are being spread to justify Russia’s unprecedented use of nuclear blackmail to seize territory from a neighboring state.

A Russian defeat in Ukraine would strengthen the nonproliferation treaty. Ukrainian success on the battlefield has been achieved with conventional weapons aimed at military targets—not with nuclear weapons causing mass civilian casualties. If the nation possessing the most nuclear weapons in the world is unable to gain victory, the importance of having nuclear weapons will be greatly diminished.

If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine, Russia may use them to coerce other states. Tactics once considered immoral and unthinkable might become commonplace. Nuclear weapons would no longer be regarded solely as a deterrent of last resort; the nine countries that possess them would gain even greater influence; countries that lack them would seek to obtain them; and the global risk of devastating wars would increase exponentially.

Key to a more charitable consideration of Simons is to keep his overriding concern in mind: that an inconvertible fiat money system and the corporate form of the private business organization are inconsistent with classical liberal or libertarian premises. According to Simons, it is the combination of these two institutions which is mainly responsible for some of the more significant negative side effects of modern capitalist practice, like undue cyclical instability and excessive inequality of income and wealth.

While management is the agent for shareholders in the sense of being ultimately appointed by and accountable to them, it is also the agent for the corporation itself.
After all, in order to manage the corporation’s assets, management must legally represent the corporation as the titleholder to these assets. And because the corporation is an impersonal legal entity, agency for the corporation lends a significant degree of autonomy to the position of management, which is precisely why it has proved so difficult to make shareholder control over management more effective, despite the many legislative measures aimed at enhancing management accountability to shareholders.

For-profit corporations are the problem due to limited liability and perpetual nature. — Benkei

Still, we are likely going to see primitivization of their weapons production, just as we are already seeing primitivization of civilian production (car manufacture, etc.) — SophistiCat

We had an industrial revolution based on partnerships. — Benkei

his critique of capitalism is very good. — Benkei

The only potential issue for Russia is the depletion of its stocks of long-range munitions at a much faster rate than the industry can produce. But they are already supplementing their dwindling stocks with hundreds of cheap Iranian strike drones, and according to Western intelligence, they are also negotiating to buy Iranian ballistic missiles. — SophistiCat

Where it differs most from normal investments is that you can pay directly with crypto, whereas with a 'normal' investment you would first have to liquidize your investment before you can pay with it. — Tzeentch

Good, so we're agreed then that keeping borders where they are is neither a guarantor of peace, nor necessary to ensure it. — Isaac

In terms of large corporations, this seems to be the case. — Mikie

If this is truly the state of things, the question becomes: is it just? Has it always been this way? — Mikie

There's a lot of incestuous lending going around in the background which creates all sorts of counterparty risk without any level of transparancy or oversight. — Benkei

I personally think that cryptos still lack of security, transparency and effectiveness. — javi2541997