A self policing government sounds pretty cool, but, isn't that called fascism? — Shawn

Uh, no. I'm referring when in various countries a so-called "Police Departments" emerged I think in the 17th Century. Of course a similar role as now we have for police could be found in ancient Babylon etc, but in your question of limited government / libertarianism / role of police, I think looking at countries pre-17th Century starts to be a bit difficult. The whole question that libertarians apply is for modern societies, not so useful for medieval or tribal societies.

Is it true that for the majority of homo sapiens existence, we got along without having police officers or laws governing our behavior? — Shawn

Sure.

Homo sapiens has existed for 200 000 years. Advanced societies have been around only for a tiny part of time of that. As @180 Proof already noted.

Perhaps better question would to ask of a modern police force integrated to a central government?

The moral claim that “It is wrong to risk the lives of innocents over a border dispute” is not enough compelling because it could be also wrong to risk lives and freedoms of innocents by surrendering to the demands of a genocidal regime. — neomac

:up: :100:

Especially if people making this flawed argument then do make moral claims for taking up arms etc. if there's another state as the attacker.

* * *

I think there's few if any here that would support the Saudi-led intervention into Yemen and the fact is that nothing has happened after Afghanistan became again an Emirate making the argument of the invasion extremely dubious in the first place. The "preventing a safe Haven for terrorists"-argument for the continuation of the Afghan war was in my view false and actually far worse even than the domino-theory of Vietnam war (which also was in error). Would many women opt to work outside their home in Afghanistan and would many Afghans opt for a Western-oriented Afghanistan? Yes, but that wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan.

Could in 2014 the war in the Donbas be called a civil war or insurgency? Partly yes, but even then the active participation and central role of Russia was obvious. Has the war changed? Obviously after February 24th 2022.

...is patently false. — Isaac

No need to reply as Christoffer said it already:

But I guess since you need to fire in every direction that's even remotely criticizing your viewpoints, you will fall to the level of criticizing semantics when there's nothing else. Big yawn — Christoffer

The question was — Isaac

about countries fighting wars. Obviously there are other kinds of wars too, but see above. As I said, there can be civil wars. And insurgencies and terrorism acted by groups and individuals etc.

Let's say only a handful of people own the property. I'm not assuming everyone is equal, I'm asking how distribution of profits is decided -- and by whom. — Mikie

Likely those people who own the property and/or basically who have gotten the 100 people together for the project make a suggestion on how the profits are going to be divided and then the rest 100 or so either accept it or say no thanks.

If somebody makes a suggestion that people aren't excited with, then time for another proposal. When there are so many people involved, then some kind of rather simple arrangement is likely done. If the enterprise is small and short timed likely it's divided by some equal basis, because nobody has the time for every 100 to haggle their share individually. And of course it can be a cooperative or then stock is issued: those who buy the stock then decide what to do with the profits. Or then the profits go to the members of the cooperative equally.

And lastly, someone will just want a fixed payment for his or her work and doesn't care if there are potential huge profits or not. This person participates in the enterprise, but isn't part of it, just someone contracted to it.

Basically the question goes to the theory of a business or company: companies are only complex agreements between people, but simply perform the same task when you buy a service from someone. After all, you can either own a company or then simply buy the work you want from other people separately.

You can instantly observe how difficult and disorganized would be you buying every day the work from either other companies and individual people the work. Hence the need for longer contracts.

How's that working out for the citizens of Iraq? Libya? I suppose the ethnic violence in Rwanda was just a bit of high jinx. Somalia? Sudan? Myanmar? Literally any civil war ever... — Isaac

Yes, Isaac, there can be civil wars.

So the Ingushetia region of Chechnya should have remained part of Russia? Kosovo should have stayed in the remnants of Yugoslavia?

You do say the daftest things sometimes... — Isaac

Daft like you arguing that Ingushetia is a part of Checnnya and Chechnya has somehow broken away from Russia?

You're really funny.

It's a textbook example of a military that was left to atrophy after the Cold War ended. — Tzeentch

I would disagree. This isn't the late 90's or the '00s as then you would have a point. And that just shows how willing European countries were to embrace a normal Russia into the community.

As @Christoffer pointed out, Sweden has done a lot. A Country capable of producing modern fighter jets and submarines (and of the latter one "sank" in an exercise an American carrier) and has the potential to create nuclear weapons (as it earlier had a nuclear weapons program), I wouldn't regard as an example of atrophy. Not anymore and especially if you make then the difference with Poland. Hence NATO is actually happy to get Sweden and Finland into the organization as the countries increase the strength of the alliance. Besides, countries that base their defence on total defence.

In short, you can ridicule and belittle West Europe's rearmament perhaps starting from Germany itself. No European country is armed to the teeth and willing to use force like Israel. Only perhaps France comes in close with both capability and willingness. And yes, the German armed forces are a mess, but one really shouldn't underestimate Europeans. Things actually have changed in the last years. And February 24th did have effects like 9/11.

Classic. — Isaac

You have peace when countries accept the present drawn borders. From history you can always find different borders. Longing for justice, that the present borders are wrong, is the usual way tyrants start wars.

You were misrepresenting history to promote the foreign policy of a country which openly profits from war. — Isaac

Wrong.

UK doesn't have any imperial aspirations towards Ireland... except naturally the part of the Island that it has. And that was the issue. Have you heard any politician arguing that Great Britain should take the whole island of Ireland back? I don't think so.

That's why Russia is so different.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so. — Tzeentch

Really? Haven't taken any measures?

Let's take the example of Sweden:

So Sweden has introduced back conscription, has deployed troops on Gotland island (where earlier there were none) and increased military funding. And has a lot more exercises with NATO forces. From 10th of March last year:

Sweden’s government has announced plans for a significant boost in military spending to two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) “as soon as possible”, citing the security threat from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“The war in Europe is going to affect the Swedish people. We need to continue to strengthen the Sweden defence capability,” Andersson said.

“The security situation in Sweden’s vicinity has deteriorated over time. The Russian attack on Ukraine further exacerbates that,” she said.

Andersson also warned that the number of young people called up to do mandatory military service – which was reintroduced in 2017 – would increase.

The right-wing opposition is expected to approve the plan in parliament.

And I can say from my own country that the local armed forces have increased their level of readiness substantially. Key reservists could spend a month or more in military exercises last year, which was unheard of earlier. Naturally the administration has opted publicly to be very low key about it. The Kremlin gets the message.

Seriously? Are you that uneducated, or just so caught up in this media narrative?

You just said that Ireland does not have bellicose neighbours who challenge their rights over territory. — Isaac

Many countries can have border disputes and tense relations. Worst in Europe are perhaps Greece and Turkey, who likely have avoided a full-blown war because both are members of NATO (and thus honor NATO's article 1.) But these tensions aren't as high as the probability for war is very, very low.

But of course, things could have gone differently even not so long time ago with UK and Ireland:

Europe isn't worried about their security. — Tzeentch

REALLY???

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe?

I beg to differ here.

That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair — Tzeentch

And that obviously would have continued if Russia hadn't annexed Crimea and started this war in 2014. And NATO would have been happy in it's new role of international operations, not going back to it's old role of collective defense.

To have a country that basically ran down it's military and focused on international operations (because the Cold War was over, remember?) make a hasty 180 degree turn and opt to join NATO after 200 years of non-alignment tells that some countries are worried about their security. So yes, they are worried about Russia.

Yeah, Ireland and Portugal aren't worried about their security when it comes to Russia. They don't have bellicose neighbors. Especially when UK and/or Spain aren't declaring that they (Ireland or Portugal) are artificial countries and basically they belong to be part of their nations again. If the case would be so, that the dissolution of Spain-Portugal or Ireland not being part of Great Britain would be viewed in London and Madrid as the greatest accident or tragedy that has happened, they would be uneasy and commit to national defense on a totally different level.

Quite insufficient information. (Perhaps on purpose.)

Who has made the investment? All 100 equally? The equipment, the capital, is owned equally by the 100?

Whose idea was the enterprise? Do all 100 have equal share on the property rights, if there were any?

Do all really contribute the same amount to the production? Nobody is let's say an accountant on the team or a cleaner while another person is a highly important specialist crucial to the whole production who would eagerly be hired by other companies.

Before making this an ethical question on the grounds that some person gets more than he or she should and others get less, such above should be taken into consideration. These issues aren't solved in a vacuum, there's the outside world out there.

The easiest answer would be that if 100 people get together to produce something, the first obvious issue is what it costs for them to be in the project. Because there's always the option for them to be doing something else. And if they make more money somewhere else, which is equally gratifying work, then they opt out. So you won't get a corporate lawyer to solve international legal issues for 1$ per hour (assuming it's not for charity). That's where you could start: how much the 100 people have to get that they are willing to contribute to the enterprise?

I mean afterwards. When WWII ended. Nobody cared about Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc...

France and UK declared the war, yes. But we should recall some facts: the British royal family's connection with Nazis (The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Nazi Germany)
The resistance of Charles de Gaulle fighting against the Nazis, while France controlled (and continued to control...) all African possessions. — javi2541997

Picking up details and individuals, or the fact that the countries were colonial powers, doesn't make us to recall the fact that UK and France went actually to war with Germany.

And afterwards, well, there was the Cold War.

What I want to mean: hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests and I don't understand why the Western world is caring that much about Ukraine. I feel I am not seeing something. — javi2541997

And one if not the most important interest is their own security, their survival. Russia has had wars now with two of it's neighboring countries, has forces in all that aren't in NATO (or applying to) except China. If it would be just that, it would be one thing. But it isn't. The basic insecurity arises from that Russia makes territorial claims and has annexed parts from other countries and has made it clear by the words of Putin that it doesn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty, but sees it as an artificial construct.

Russia's actions basically has made the security threat quite real. Without the territorial annexations and claims it really would be different.

Let's be honest, nobody cared about Polish destruction and chaos. — javi2541997

Really?

I remember that both France and the UK declared war on Germany.

I think that doesn't sound like "nobody cared". The simple fact that these countries were too weak to do anything, but to start the "phoney war". And France got overrun in the next year.

Not all the Ukranians are opposed to Russia. The more closer you go to Russian border you would see that their citizens root for Russia instead of Western world or NATO. This is a complex issue and it is not about all Ukrainians are against the invasion. Probably, the citizens of Kiev are nationalists but I doubt if the citizens from Jerson or Crimea have the same feelings. — javi2541997

This was obvious in 2014. The creation of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics obviously show that there were those in support of them, yet important cities like Kharkov (or Odessa) didn't follow the pattern.

But even then, it has been said that for example if an actual referendum, not a staged one, would have been for Crimea to join Russia, there would have been a large minority supporting this, but not a majority.

And before 2014 the ties to Russia were totally different. But the simple obvious truth is that Putin had ambitions over Ukrainian territories. Annexing territories and bombing people make people change their minds, obviously. So things are different in 2023 than they were in 2021 or prior to 2014.

Did Poland act as Ukraine is now acting? I think not... — javi2541997

?

The obvious answer is yes, they did fight also, but didn't get the needed aid to continue the fight. Poland was overrun and divided by Hitler and Stalin (the latter who invaded Poland 16 days after Hitler).

Nearly every fifth Pole died in WW2. That is the highest casualty rate of any country during WW2.

And Polish fighters, who could get away from the country fought in various theaters of WW2 and the Polish underground resistance made the famous Warsaw uprising, wrongly thinking that Stalin would come to their help. Only in that uprising over 15 000 resistance fighters were killed and about 150 000 to 200 000 civilians were killed.

So bit confused on what you are trying to say here...

As I stated earlier, Putins (hence Russia's) position is quite opportunist. If ideologically imperialist Russia is close to ultra-conservatism and the far right, naturally the left/extreme left in it's hatred of US hegemony aligns perfectly with Russia. So with the left, it's more of a "working relationship" on a shared enemy, not ideological partnership.

And again, the real leftist "Putinistas" can be found in the People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. Where the two-headed eagle of Russia is in harmony next to the hammer and sickle.

Al Jazeera puts it well, with the example of Brazil:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to an unexpected convergence in the political arena. Indeed, all over the world left-wing parties, activists and even prominent leftist politicians are joining the far right in voicing their support for – or at least excusing – the Kremlin’s brutal, imperialist aggression against a much smaller sovereign nation.

This strange phenomenon is perhaps most visible in Brazil, where supporters of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and his left-wing rival, former president Lula da Silva, are both working hard to demonstrate why Russia should not be blamed for the devastation we are witnessing in Ukraine today.

Just like their counterparts on the right, left-wing supporters of the Kremlin insist that it was NATO that “provoked” the war and that Russia is simply “defending itself” (they, of course, refuse to explain how this so-called act of “defence” is different from the West’s past “pre-emptive” strikes against countries of the Global South that they vehemently condemned). They are also dismissing credible reports of war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide coming from Ukraine as Western “distortions” and “NATO propaganda” funded by George Soros (ironically also the bogeyman of the anti-Semitic far right), in defence of Ukrainian “Nazis” trying to destroy Russia.

Lula has said that Zelenskiy is "as responsible as Putin for the war".

True— which is why the workers need to cause a crisis. Through strikes in key industries. Only then will concessions be made. — Mikie

Well, with these kind of union participation percentages, I doubt it. And I think these low participation rates are the reason just why employers in the US can be so aggressive against unions. Have a large majority of the workforce unionized and it's politically totally different.

Look at the discussion earlier discussion to get the hang of it. And who has gotten money from Putin.



And notice that many times it is as @SophistiCat said, very strange bed fellows on just what and who Russia has supported. For example, Russia could support UKIP and also The Scottish National Party, even if these are quite apart from each other. Of course, the support for UKIP was for Brexit and for SNP for Scotland to exit from the UK. So there's a logic of simple opportunism.

And to add here, I'm not saying either the UKIP or the SNP are Putinistas. Even if someone (especially in UKIP has had a nice word for Putin earlier).

They most certainly can, and I just went through how. Giving less than 90% of corporate profits to rich people, taxing corporations and wealthy Americans at a rate that was common in the 50s and 60s, and not spending 800 billion dollars annually on defense contractors — isn’t a crisis. The characterization that these actions would lead to a “crisis” is nonsense. — Mikie

My emphasis is on what the actual political system can deliver. Not what it could theoretically deliver. Yes, the US could simply copy the smartest most successful policies from other countries, but that's not going to happen. The sectors that prosper from the existing situation have too much lobbying power.

Just to give just one example, the US puts the most money per capita on health care than any other country, even more than Norway, but the system is quite lousy and with health stats the US is quite average.

And with taxation? Remember that actual money gotten from taxes, tax revenue, doesn't go up hand in hand with tax rates. Hence if you double the tax rates you will be increasing your tax revenues yes, but you won't be doubling the tax revenue. Not close. And making a gap of one fifth of your income is a problem.



Nothing will change until there's a crisis. And usually then the culprit will anybody else than the actual culprits.

So where are these people in sufficiently represented in America and Europe to make the quoted claim? — Isaac

Referring here to ?

Actually he is totally correct that many share parts of the ideology that you can call them allies as @SophistiCat said. In short, leftist and right-wing populism enjoy a common ground if actual policy implications are left out. Populist conspiracy theories are their main course. Right wing and left-wing populism share a lot. The other one just puts a lot more "bankers" being "Jewish bankers".

We had a little discussion about this, Putins new supporters, on this forum ...six years ago. See here.

"Europe and America". Not "Russia". — Isaac

Still doesn't make a difference: A true Putinista is obviously someone or a movement/group who supports and works for Putin's objectives and agenda.

Not as you say, everybody that is critical of current US policy.

And fun fact, the Europeans that are Putinistas, are obedient workers for Putin. Here's a Finnish Putinista (holding the Finnish flag) alongside others. He actually moved to the "liberated" Donbas some time ago.

It's a good sign that debate on this thread has diminished.

Hopefully it won't pick up.

Eventually something will break— and again, probably has already. — Mikie

It's already been broken. For a long time.

The basic problem is that the US simply cannot change course without a financial crisis. And that actually includes others, like the EU as they are doing exactly the same. Increasing the debt level is now basically a structural, unavoidable part of the system. This creates a limit on just high the interest rates can go, or are let to go. Positive real interest rates would simply mean far too large interest rate payments, hence inflation is here to stay on the long run.

In FY 2022, the federal government spent $6.27 trillion and collected $4.90 trillion in revenue, resulting in a deficit of 1,38 billion.

Simply put it: when the deficit spending constitutes over a fifth of the budget, there's no way the political system can stop the growth of the debt without some kind of a crisis. Why a crisis? Well, this system has gone a long time without a crisis, hence politicians can hope that it goes on another year. And then another year...

I think the ugly deserves to be the focus of art too. And it can be well done with talent also.

But of course, art can give us more than just beauty. It can question us, make a statement, express a lot more.

On what evidence? What actions determine one is a 'Putinista'? — Isaac

They have been shown and discussed even on this thread. A true Putinista is obviously someone or a movement/group who supports and works for Putin's objectives and agenda.

Like the Ruskii Obraz. Which Russian government supports as part of "managed nationalism" and has used the neonazis for example against Navalnyi:

In 2008-09, the Kremlin was threatened by Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny’s efforts to build an anti-Putin coalition of democrats and radical nationalists in Russia. In response, the Kremlin began to work with Russkii Obraz (“Russian Image”, or “RO” for short), a hardcore neo-Nazi group best known for its slick journal and its band, Hook from the Right.

With the assistance of Kremlin supervisors, RO attacked nationalists who were abandoning the skinhead subculture for Navalny’s anti-Putin coalition. In return, RO was granted privileged access to public space and the media.

Or the Black Hundreds, a reborn movement out of the ultra-conservative historical movement from the Russian Empire (which supported the Czar's autocratic rule and was fervently against any liberalization or modernization of the Russian Imperial system). And promotes the Russian nationalism that Putin favours and even sent volunteers to fight in the Donbas in the early stages of the conflict.

Or how about the Night Wolves?



But of course, these groups and their ideology, agenda and their ties to the Kremlin can be ignored, because according to someone here...

What identifies the 'Putinista' in this laughable theory is simply that they don't support current US policy. — Isaac

Which is hilarious.

Yeah, fascists and tankies often make cozy bedfellows, even as they try to make bogeymen out of each other. — SophistiCat

Listen actually to what they say and notice how their world view is actually very close, especially when they depict what they are against. It's not an accident that it was national socialism that was the most ugly combination of an ideology.

And I think there actually isn't anymore the similar ideologies present as in the 20th Century, but typically neither the radical right-winger or the radical leftist has such historical knowledge of the past of their movements. Both extremes (left and right) are experts on rebranding themselves.

In the post-Soviet Russia the relationships between various flavors of communist/socialist and far-right nationalist/neo-fascist groups have been so incestuous that they are sometimes collectively referred to as the Red-Browns (after brownshirts). Unsurprisingly, in Europe and America both the far-right and the far-left are Putin's closest allies. — SophistiCat

Actually in the 1990's the "extreme left" and "extreme right" in Russian politics was the other way around than here.

There's something very sinister when people start to march with many different kinds of flags around. It's a sign of the political system collapsing and fringe groups taking power.

Which makes all this "denazification" rhetoric all the more insane on its face. Timothy Snyder characterizes Putin's regime as schizo-fascism. — SophistiCat

Well, it all starts with having the largest conventional war since WW2 in Europe being forbidden to be called as a war, but having to be called a "special military operation".

The basic problem is that Putin simply loves the insane rhetoric. Why, the Soviet Union was built on that. We called it here "the Lithurgy": meaningless talk just to prove you are obedient to the system.

Experts disagree. If experts disagree, you are not qualified to determine which experts are right and which are wrong, you can only choose which you believe. — Isaac

Hilarious argument. And quite high a pedestal you again put experts. And especially we are talking of here and now and the future, not 19th Century history, where indeed an expert (called a historian) could show his expertise on domestic politics of various countries. But this isn't a discussion of history.

Go on. In what way does the power of the nation state over-rule that of the corporation? — Isaac

Start with sanctions. Start with how Western Corporations have withdrawn from Russia, for starters. It's a bit backwards (but typical from you) to assume a war started by Putin and a small cabal around him, has actually happened because of the Western military industrial complex. An industry, which actually isn't at all developed to arm this kind of conventional war and basically has, just as the American political elite, focused on China.

When was the last post in which you registered anything but unwavering support for the US? — Isaac

Unwavering support for the US? Lol.

I've posted quite many times about the American policy of constantly trying to reboot the US-Russian relations without really thinking how this did increase Russia's appetite. And for example, earlier when Russia kidnapped an Estonian intelligence officer, which in case even then Finland and Sweden condemned, the Obama administration stayed mute. So could the US have done something to prevent February 24th 2022? Likely a stronger response after the annexation of Crimea could have prevented this enlargement of the war.

I can't think of a single post. So you are ignoring US-issues (relating to Ukraine). — Isaac

Well, you're ignoring a lot. Really, ignoring Ukrainians in a discussion about war in Ukraine is a bit hilarious. :smirk:

Yes. I'm ignoring (largely) the role of the Nordic countries, the Eastern European nations and the Ukrainians. Not because they don't have a role, but because it's not radically different to the US's. Big industry lobbyists push political agendas which serve their interests. they do so in the US, Europe, Sweden and Ukraine. Influence over media agendas manipulates a proletariat, the support of which is then used to justify the original objective. There's little point in discussing which flag they operate under, especially considering most are multi-national companies. — Isaac

If you think "the proletariat" in these countries are so high on the opium of media agendas, I would beg to differ.

First and foremost, on a thread about the war in Ukraine to ignore the Ukrainians is something I would think being an mistake as they themselves surprised the West ...and of course Putin too.

Then for example the change in Sweden and Finland, where any discussion of joining NATO wasn't going anywhere before, suddenly a huge reversal from a small minority to a huge majority happened basically overnight left the politicians to desperately to change their stances and react. (For example after 24th February our social democrat prime minister first proposed that NATO membership should be discussed in the social democrat party meeting in the summer, then had to backtrack and had to start immediate negotiations with her party's members of Parliament and with other parties.)

Or then we could go and discuss just how unprepared the "military-industrial complex" was with the events. Prime example would be Germany, with it's huge problems in rearming even if it wanted to do it.

Yet, if you ignore all above and other issues just because "their role isn't radically different to the US", then that just doesn't give an accurate answers to what is happening.

But I guess that doesn't interest you, because it seems to be the typical tankist view. And all other talk is just pro-US propaganda.

The notion of independent nation states with their own culture and unique objectives belongs to a colonial era of World Wars and imperialism. — Isaac

Sorry, but we aren't as post-nationalist / post-nation state as you think (or hope) we are. Try not to think of other people as being like you. (And weren't you from the UK? Didn't you have Brexit some time ago?)

And Russia is the example of classic imperialism in this case, btw. The world is far more similar to the 20th and 19th Century you imagine.

I think the problem is that you make a juxtaposition between pro-American and anti-American. And there's not anything else.

You simply don't see that Nordic or Eastern European people would (or could) have ideas of their own in this case. And to simply forget the role of the Ukrainians in this war is, well, condescending. Because this war is a matter especially between Ukrainians and Russians, not the West Europeans and the Americans.

We could pretend to be experts, analysing the data as if we knew better than those who've already done that work...but short of a ego-stroking LARPing game I don't much see the point. — Isaac

Likely for you the issue is so distant that it's some kind of LARPin game. And of course, the war might be something that absolutely doesn't affect your life.

I can take my car now, drive 20 kilometers to the Russian border and see the closed shopping mall where my family could go shopping high end products and eat, but now has gone bankrupt thanks to absence of Russian tourists because of the war. The border crossing is now even more empty than it was during when there was the Soviet Union there. That was thirty years ago.

Can you explain the long term consequences of this war? — frank

Obviously we haven't gone over some tipping point in the war where the outcome would be obvious. Hence the long term consequences are totally up in the air. Countries can have dramatic humiliating losses in war and still continue as if nothing, with no true change of policy or any critical self reflection: just look at how the US has nearly forgotten it's longest war in it's history, that finally ended up in a humiliating withdrawal that caused an immediate collapse.

As long as Russia has it's imperial ambitions and it's leaders see the dissolution of the Soviet Union as an unfortunate accident, basically North and Eastern Europe will see it as a potential threat (some even as an immediate threat) and this will create the tension independent of the outcome in Ukraine.

The British understand that they don't have an empire anymore. Any Brit calling the UK to invade and annex Ireland back to Great Britain would be seen by others to be a crazy person. The Austrians understand it too: nobody is having dreams to bring back the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The French still behave as a colonial power in Africa, but try to hide from their own population and others.

Yet the Russians see still Imperial Russia as what Russia is. That's the basic security problem that Russia creates for Europe.

Well, we are still replying to each other. So that should tell something.

Naturally any lengthy discussion needs different views and opinions. And many have also engaged in other philosophical debates (and joined the forum earlier, not being invited for some reason). However in some cases (as with this one) the arguments are so fantastic, the conspiracy so vast and enormous, it's really not worth to continue the discussion.

I've seen it happen.

The most obvious and clear case (and totally separate from this issue) was many years ago when there was a classic ponzi scheme in my country. Once the scheme was up and they didn't make payments anymore, naturally the criminals had to distance themselves from the upcoming criminal inquiry. Hence some people had a genuine motive for making people to wait before contacting the police, believing that it was only technical glitch that would be restored. And hence normal financial threads went haywire: anyone stating the obvious, that this was a ponzi scheme, got immediately attacked and ridiculed and the first sites that reported the ponzi scheme got a huge amount of shit poured on them. Volume is of a quality of it's own, especially on a discussion forum and in the social media.

What surprised me was just how easily the discussion forums were changed, but then again, there was only a few sites here where economic and financial things were discussed. Hence a few people can do wonders.

The case above was quite obvious. But when you venture into politics, it's different and obviosly many do hold the views, but still the same mechanism can work.

And I for one expected better from this forum than endless obfuscation and lies in defense of a murderous dictatorship, but this is what we get. — Olivier5

One has to remember that there's a war going on. The purpose isn't even to have a discussion, the purpose is just to repeat the position, however delirious it is, again and again. In hope that genuine participants would leave.

. And yes, since those groups you mention provide no evidence, they are just pushing propaganda... — Lambert Strether

UN and Amnesty International? I think that does it for you.

I won't be reading or responding to your nonsense any further — Lambert Strether

I think for a troll like you, that might be very useful for everybody to disregard your nonsense.

I did go through all of them piece by piece and correctly said none of jorndoe's claims were backed up by evidence — Lambert Strether

Hilarious. First, you haven't said anything to show in your 8 remarks on this Forum, and one day being here.

If there's no evidence, then according to you, out of thin air Canada sanctions "Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s children’s rights commissioner, who has been accused by Ukraine of organizing the removal of children from the Luhansk and Donetsk regions".

Or since you think there's no evidence, how about the UN? How do they come to the following conclusion months ago:

UNITED NATIONS

There are “credible allegations of forced transfers of unaccompanied,” Ukrainian children to Russia and Russia-held territories in Ukraine, the UN said Wednesday.

Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ilze Brands expressed concern in her briefing to the Security Council about Russia’s move to grant citizenship to Ukrainian children without parental care which would lead to adoption by Russian families.

The Russian Federation is prohibited from changing the personal status of the children, including nationality, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, she said.

''We are particularly concerned that the announced plans of the Russian authorities to allow the movement of children from Ukraine to families in the Russian Federation do not appear to include steps for family reunification or in other ways ensure respect for the principle of the best interests of the child,'' she said.

see here

But seems like the UN or Amnesty International, as @SophistiCat mentioned, seem to be just promoting fictional anti-Russian propaganda. Or then we can look just what you have contributed here.

Pure classic trolling from you.

Sorry, but if there was actual proof of Russia kidnapping kids, then there would be evidence from the Ukraine side and there isnt'. — Lambert Strether

Before claiming such absurd denials, why don't you go through piece by piece the for example the links that @jorndoe gave are baseless and untrue.

It's one thing to argue that the actions are "genocidal", just how common these actions are, it is totally another thing to claim there is no evidence at all of this as you are saying.

But of course you can argue that the only truthful media outlets is the Russian media (like Tass). I assume there you can find denials about the cases.

(link injected by me)

Despite the all-encompassing crackdown on domestic civil society groups across Russia, curiously the Russian Imperial Movement continues to operate.
— OSCE

... and Rusich ... :/ The invasion wasn't about that stuff anyway. A ruse, an excuse. — jorndoe

Why would you go after those organizations you sponsor?

It fits perfectly the bullshit narrative which Russian propaganda is based on. That the cause is to fight "neonazis" while promoting and supporting neonazis and the far right both in Russia and abroad. I first noticed this absurdity few years ago when Finnish neonazi groups invited Russian far-right groups to "celebrate" Finnish independence. It's as odd as Russian Imperial Movement celebrating Karl XII's memorial day in Sweden. Perhaps they were there celebrating the defeat of Karl XII by Peter the Great? Then of course, the memorial day of the battle of Pultava would be the proper date.