Makes no sense. — boethius

Again you don't understand.

They are perfect for deterrence, but not so great in actual warfare because of the obvious drawbacks and the obvious escalation. Why would Russia use them, if that could get NATO involved. How are things better for the war for Russia if they really will fight also NATO?

THAT doesn't make any sense.

Just in comparison: The Third Reich had a huge amount of chemical weapons (basically WMD's too) in it's arsenal and it never used them. And then when it was all over and the fighting was inside Germany, there simply wasn't effective measures to use them on some level that could change anything.

Yes Isaac. Something like that I meant.

It's not you or I, our friends, our work colleagues, relatives, people who we know that are banned. That's what I meant with very, very rare.

But if some student of Philosophy in Mainland China would participate in this Forum, lets say about the current protests, alarm bells would go off in China. Computer algorithms at work.

And of the examples you gave, well, at least investigative journalist have through history stepped on the "wrong toes". Of course there has been an Overton window even before. It's now just the ease that you can use social media.

A cohesive European defense, on the other hand, preferably including the UK and Ukraine :wink:, might do it. The resources exist, at least. — jorndoe

There simply isn't the will.

With the US committed to Europe, it won't change.

The only thing that would get Europeans and Europe to truly emphasis on defense would be the total departure of the US from Europe. Only then the Germans and others would wake up from their slumber. Or possibly Finlandization would be an option.

It's just simple geography: the Russians are behind Poland. Not in the eastern parts of Germany having the possibility to run through Europe to the Atlantic in few weeks as during the Cold War.

Russia on the other hand hopes that it can engage European countries individually. Then it would be strong and hence the opposition to European integration.

Opening to Russia's anti-NATO security concerns before even having Russia opening to Ukrainian and Western security concerns, along with Macron's position toward Putin since the beginning of this war seem more in line with a political agenda and likely an understanding of NATO's role that neither the US nor other more involved NATO partners are sympathetic with. So not only Macron is far from stating the obvious but he holds no leading position to weigh in. — neomac

Good point.

The truth is that if would want a true solution, not a frozen conflict of some state (like what exists between the two Koreas), Russia simply would have to shed it's bellicose imperial aspirations just like France and the UK have done. The UK isn't eyeing to annex Ireland back to it's Kingdom. Hence Ireland doesn't have to be afraid of that. With Russia neighbors it's different.

True change is possible basically with a huge humiliating defeat, which would throw out the existing leadership. One possibility is that Russia would fall into even smaller parts. The parts in Russia where Muslims are the majority would likely be the first one's to go: Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia.

But if we want that an autocratic Russia will prevail and continue, then appeasement is the correct way, of course.

It only even works on this forum because you guys shut off the inflow of shit-posters and trolls - some of which still get through. — ToothyMaw

s that not what we are doing here? Exchanging ideas about what is the case and what ought to be the case and how we feel about it? — unenlightened

Yes, that is what we're doing here because this site is generally well moderated (censorship is limited to matters of civility). — Isaac

Let's be honest. This is the basically what we are talking about. Not about the limits of the Overton Window. The instances of someone being a victim of some activist cancel culture is very, very rare. Without any moderation and no supervision, I simply wouldn't go to that kind of sites. Why interact on a site where the vast majority are questionable bot pushing viagra or so-called Nigerian bankers making lucrative business proposals?

If Russians have vodka, Americans have drugs. In both cases it isn't outrageous conspiracy theory that alcohol & drugs are used to keep the masses in control. Twice in history has the Russian leadership tried in their stupidity to take the bottle away from the Russian people. Both times the state collapsed. Not that it wasn't a big issue as every fifth Russian male dies due to alcohol related causes. I guess if the American leadership would really take drugs (including prescription medication for pain and mental health) away from the American people, the US would experience similar turmoil. One should not forget that not all drugs are illegal.

Russia has already had a huge demographic problem (and, actually Ukraine too), which has a long tragic history. The real burden of communism and two World Wars fought with little respect for life can be seen in the size of the Russian population. The gruesome fact is that The Russian Empire had a population of 136 million in 1900, but today Russia is barely any larger, at 146 million and it's depopulating. Just to make a comparison, there were 76,3 million Americans compared to now over 330 million, France had a population of 40 million and now 65 million and there were 56 million Germans in 1900, where there is 84 million now.

This has made the demographic pyramid in Russia to oscillate (as those generations that were substantially smaller after WW2 had less children) and then after the Soviet Union collapsed births fell also.



Of course, the demographics of Ukraine is even worse, but now as such a huge portion of the people are refugees, the statistics are quite out of the ordinary.

In what sense does Santa Claus exist?

As an unregistered trademark that execs at Disney have wet dreams about owning the rights to.



Or would more appropriate be the Coca-Cola company?



It sure ain't this saint:

Where does consciousness begin? Without the language parts of our brains are we even conscious? — TiredThinker

I think this is a very good and important question.

First, just to communicate somehow with your own species (and btw also to other species) is absolutely fundamental to animals. Basically it's a necessity to have a method of communication "Danger!" and "I'm here!" and communicating by making sounds is very effective. Hence it's not surprising that we do talk of animal consciousness. And those animals assumed to have a higher level of consciousness do interact by signals or even with a rudimentary simple language, if one would dare to say so.

I assume people agree that there isn't a fixed point just where something is conscious, but there simply are levels of consciousness. Higher levels means that there has to be an advanced language. The huge breakthrough that I guess humans have is to have abstract notions in the language, which just opens up so much. And as we know, a new born infant has to learn to be a human and part of our society. That would be difficult without communication and language is simply so much effective than trying to show everything.

I think you are a bit confused about what independence or sovereignty is in our deeply interconnected and globalized World.

:grin: :100: :cheer:

Sherbakova says the truth. An imperialist Russia won't change: it will continue to threaten it's neighbors and continue to try to dominate them.

Countries don't cede sovereignty to NATO as a result of signing the charter, but as a result of neglecting their armed forces to the point that the United States is the only nation presenting a credible deterrent. — Tzeentch

Yet the US has wanted and still wants them to spend more on armed forces?

And countries definitely do cede sovereignty to the European Union by becoming a member state. — Tzeentch

And Ukrainians have seen how prosperous and stable this has made other countries. Earlier Ukraine enjoyed a higher GDP per capita than for example Poland had. Now it's totally different.



The simple fact is that in a globalized World it is better to seek that cooperation with your neighbors and thus shed some of that sovereignty in decision making than go it all by alone. To somehow hang on to an economically weak and authoritarian neighbor that obviously has desire to annex you is the most ruinous decisions you could do. Apart if you aren't a dictator yourself, like Belarus has.

In fact really.

If you are going to go for the trope NATO members of being vassals to the US and EU members to being vassals (umm...to somebody), then you really should look at the organizations themselves. The UN can use force (and has used force), as it's founders understood quite well just how the previous organization had utterly failed.

NATO is an European security solution. One should just look at it's first articles:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

It's basically also to prevent the Western states to have conflicts among themselves. I'm sure that without NATO there would likely have been several conventional wars between Greece and Turkey. And perhaps territorial disputes between Hungary and Romania, for example. To have the armed forces operate together is quite a way enforce that they won't start to eye each other as potential enemies.

The United Nations is completely different from NATO or the EU. Nations do not give up any sovereignty to the UN. It's basically a public forum for states. — Tzeentch

Really?

First of all, it's not basically a "public forum for states".

Article 4

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

and if the member doesn't comply,

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

And furthermore, "public forums for states" don't have articles in the Charter as the following:

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

So just remember @Tzeentch, that it was the United Nations that went to war with North Korea when the country invaded South Korea. The closest it came to a similar situation was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then neither the Soviet Union or China vetoed the military action in the UN as the invasion was unanimously condemned by all major world powers.

So if you think members of EU or NATO aren't sovereign states, then isn't also the sovereignty of the members of the UN also limited with the charter saying what they can do or not?

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Doesn't then being a member of the United Nations mean a lack of sovereignty?

At least for me joining a club voluntarily or some goon forcing by violence to join a club are two different things. And so are the terms just what I give up in joining those clubs, obviously. Besides, Russia is annexing parts of Ukraine, so that is totally different than just joining the CSTO, for example.

But back to an issue you asked some time ago in this thread:

No one with any thoughts on Scott Ritter's interviews?

I linked this interview a few days ago and I'm curious what the forum thinks of this man. — Tzeentch

When I listed to some interviews that Mr Ritter made just now, going through all the Russian propaganda talking points (of how hard it will be for the Russians to denazify Russia), this question came into my mind.

I think Ritter is a case example of just how Russian propaganda works.

First of all, Ritter was a Marine officer and was a member of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) overseeing the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He has written books including a small booklet where he exposed that there were no WMD program during that time and the UN mission transformed to be used as propaganda. Naturally in the post 9-11 era dominated by the Bush administration he was a persona non grata. But as an truthful whistleblower (as there indeed was no WMD program in Iraq), he naturally had credibility.

So suddenly he appears now as an expert on the Ukraine war? An expert that tows to the point the Russian line: Ritter declared in February that Russia will not invade Ukraine. After the invasion Ritter said Ukraine will fall in a week. Ritter got suspended from Twitter after claiming that the National Police of Ukraine is responsible for the Bucha massacre. Ritter often appears on Russian government channels (Channel 1) and various Facebook pages, his comments being shared by Russian embassies in multiple countries. So why does an earlier self-proclaimed Republican and a former Marine Corps officer tow the line of Russian propaganda?

The most likely answer is that for a repeated sex offender (involving minors) that has done jail-time, you have trouble to get otherwise work. That credibility of being one of those who exposed the WMD lie about Iraq is enough for Russia to pay. And if your focus group is conspiracy theorists, they will likely believe that you were "set up" and sent to prison by the intelligence services...or something.

It exactly doesn't make it different. — Tzeentch

Seriously: joining voluntarily and being attacked is the same thing?

Though to be expected I guess, I'd find the re-culturation/indoctrination attempts a bit ... embarrassing when exposed. — jorndoe

But it's telling about the whole effort. A war that came as a surprise to many in the administration. A mobilization that has mobilized more young men to leave Russia than were put into the army to be stop-gap cannon fodder. A war that sometimes resembles WW1 fought with drones.

It's more doubtful what they can effectively do, though.
What could they do?
(Limit Putin's vacation spots some?) — jorndoe

Just keep supporting Ukraine as they did in spring. Keep on track, stay focused.

They are not. When the US says jump, they jump. They have no choice. — Tzeentch

When Bush invaded Iraq, many NATO countries starting with France and Germany didn't participate.

When Obama wanted to attack Syria, his NATO allies said no.

A continuum of US presidents have been disappointed in their allies. Hence NATO members do have a choice just when to jump.

Yet unlike CENTO or SEATO, which don't exist anymore, NATO continues. It exists because it member states want it to exist. For starters, NATO has kept the countries from having wars between them. Hence it's a genuine security system for Europe. Otherwise it would have gone the way as those former organizations I mentioned. The US could easily make bipartisan defense treaties with European countries, just like it now does in Asia.

I never said they were similar. I said one shouldn't harbor illusions about Ukraine being a sovereign, independent state if it enters the EU or NATO, like none of the member states of those institutions are. — Tzeentch

Then obviously you have an incorrect idea of what is to be a sovereign state. There's an interconnected web of international laws, agreements and international cooperation that limits the sovereignty of the individual state. That simply is the reality in the modern World. And as clearly seen with Brexit, EU has it's advantages just why so many countries have chosen to stick together.

That countries have voluntarily chosen to join these institutions makes it different. It makes all the difference in the World compared to a military invasion an sham referendums.

he US controls NATO. NATO countries are vassals of the US, because they rely completely on the US to keep them safe.

The EU demands an even greater sacrifice of autonomy, because it also gets legislative power inside EU countries. It's purpose is/was to become a "United States of Europe", essentially, of course still completely dependent on the United States for protection.

So lets not harbor illusions about countries in NATO or the EU being sovereign. — Tzeentch

You can utilize what kind of discourse of vassalization whatever about the EU or being in NATO, but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship where speaking of a war as a war can get one long prison sentences... and a country which has either gone to war or created frozen conflicts with three of it's neighbors.

Just to give an example, the vast majority of the people in this country wanted to join NATO and the Parliament heard their calls and voted to join NATO (with far larger majority than EU) as everybody understood that neutrality was meaningless for Russia's ambitions. Countries have joined voluntary both NATO and EU. And the reason seems to be confusing for some here.

The case where the US has imposed it's force, the result has been utter failure (Afghanistan) and extremely bad and tense relations (Iraq). Somehow you don't get friends by bombing the people first.

But don't let such facts hinder your logic of the West being "vassals of the US" and the straightforward comparison then to the empire building with war, violence and annexations as Putin's Russia is doing.

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Think for a while about it.

Is the US annexing parts of Ukraine?
Does the US think Ukraine is an artificial state and should belong to American culture and English be spoken and taught in schools?
Does the US want to demolish Ukraine?
Is the US forcing people to transfer to the US?

And Ukraine would want to join the EU. Wouldn't the EU then "control" Ukraine far more than the US?

The idea of the US being in control in similar fashion than Putin is simply absurd. Ukraine is really fighting for it's existence to be a sovereign state.

A cardinal number is, well, a number. When we talk about finite sets, the cardinal number is a natural number.

And even if this will irritate the mathematicians here, we do use infinity quite a lot, we just don't talk about it as infinity. Just like with limit sequences and limit points etc.

Why ought Ukraine have control over Crimea/Donbas? There's no god-given right to any piece of land, there's no racial-biological link to Ukraine, there's no harm-reduction principle... There's no grounds at all been offered as to why they ought have that land. — Isaac

Why ought Russia have the right to take it from a sovereign state, whose territories it has accepted on several occasions? Why ought violence, aggression and straightforward imperialism justified?

But for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. You just reinforce the stereotype of a typical tankie, for whom US and the West is evil and nothing else matters.

Why not just use a normal investment rather than the cryptocurrency scam? Apparently the standard index funds have an annual return of around 10%. — Michael

Index funds may really not be the great investment now, just as @Benkei noted.

What I think is obvious that they mobilized are used in the classic Russian way as cannon fodder. I remember some Ukrainian soldiers that were interviewed said that the new mobilized troops were used in a way he never imagined troops would be used. Hence there is absolutely far too many incidents reported that this would be propaganda.

The simple fact is that the Russian Army was totally incapable of handling hundreds of thousands of mobilized troops at once. Annually in peace time Russia takes in a quarter of million of conscripts, 100 000+ in two batches. They are then basically trained in the units...that now are deployed in Ukraine. So where do you have the spare people to train suddenly 300 000? Nowhere. It basically will take them years to create an organization to train such huge masses. This is the simple reason why it's such a mess.

Even my country, Finland, would have severe problems after it mobilized the 280 000 war time force. Yes, the country has potentially 700 000 reservists. But once the 280 000 are deployed, there is nobody to train the next batch of conscripts than reservists themselves: all the professional officers are acting as commanders in the fielded army. As the army is fully oriented to being a reservist army and focus on that mission, it could be overcome, but then take Russia, an army that has tried to do away with conscription and didn't have an organization to mobilize hundreds of thousands. This is the simple unavoidable end result.

That those are then shot by the their own troops I would be skeptical, too crazy. Stalin's army with straf battalions? What is obvious that without anything else and without the ability to train the troops, they are used in this way. Perhaps the idea is to go through the winter and have then the next batch of conscripts ready and trained for the spring. After all, now as these parts of Ukraine are part of Russia, you can use the conscripts there.

But that won't change the endemic corruption among the armed forces and the utter lack to train such large forces. Just an example of the theft:

A recent investigation by BBC News Russian showed that, over the last eight years, military courts have issued more than 550 sentences for theft of clothing from army stocks. In total, during the same period, court data revealed that more than 12,000 corruption cases were opened involving the theft of military gear and equipment, with some cases occurring even after Russia invaded Ukraine.

And why is the West's policy to not go into Ukraine, no no-fly-zone, as well as severely limit weapons systems to Ukraine?

Resulting in this situation where Russia has no particular need to use nuclear weapons. — boethius

That is where nuclear weapons work: deterrence. If this would be a non-nuclear armed country attacking Ukraine, it is likely that a no-fly zone would have been enforced.

And it works both ways: Russia doesn't dare to attack the countries supplying arms to Ukraine or training Ukrainian troops.

China may have zero problem with Russia nuking NATO troops in Ukraine — boethius

Wrong.

“The international community should … jointly oppose the use or threats to use nuclear weapons, advocate that nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought, in order to prevent a nuclear crisis in Eurasia,” Xi said.

China has warned Russia against threatening to use nuclear weapons in the conflict in Ukraine, in a rare departure from its usual tacit support for Moscow’s positions.

The warning came during talks on Friday between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Beijing, according to Mr. Scholz and the Chinese state news agency Xinhua.

Messrs. Xi and Scholz agreed to oppose the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Scholz and a report by Xinhua, which normally echoes Beijing’s official positions.

Trade relations with the West are important to China, you know.

... Like Belarus and Kazakstan and Georgia? — boethius

Two of the need a lot of work. Even if Russia did help the regime survive in Kazakhstan, they didn't turn the favour for Putin. Haven't gone along with the annexations and have given refuge to those fleeing the mobilization.

What is the next step of this "rebuild the Soviet Union" plan? — boethius

Not the Soviet Union, just Russia. With Putin you have the closest to a Russian Czar, actually. Only that he doesn't have a son waiting in the sidelines to become the next President.

As some have:

What Putin did next was negotiate Mink I — boethius

Minsk I (not Mink I) came only after Ukraine had fought the insurgents to a standstill (and the Russian army did have to save their asses a few times).

which Ukraine didn't respect — boethius

Which both sides didn't respect.

However, the more important question remains what we can do about it. — boethius

After Russia first declared the puppet regimes independent (in a choreographed meeting which an intelligence chief fumbled and got mixed with the next chapter, annexation) and then annexed not only them, but also more areas of Ukraine (parts of it which Russian forces don't even occupy), the Minsk procedures have been long dead and buried. Conveniently you are forgetting all the annexations that Russia has done.

Let's say Ukrainians form a bridge head over an important river and need to pour in significant resources to consolidate that bridge head ... drop a nuke on said bridge head and not only all those forces are gone, but it become clear that there is basically no way to ford the river in peace.

The idea Nuclear weapons have no military use is just insanely naive. — boethius

Why wouldn't you use a smart bomb, enough conventional missiles or artillery to destroy the bridge? Absolutely no threat of NATO getting involved. Good if the media even would pick it up, but it wouldn't cause any outrage. This is where the stupidity lies in using nuclear weapons. If you really think that it's "naive" not to use nuclear weapons, then just why aren't people using them?

Or you have now become and adherent for tactical nuclear weapons?

It seems, if what you say is true, Russia can suffer some acceptable losses for the privilege of nuking Ukraine.

There would be a "cost of doing business" is what you are saying? — boethius

There are escalatory ladders. But basically yes, there is a "cost of doing business" with nuclear weapons. Russia cannot dismiss the West's response of a conventional attack as a bluff. Of course, it could be a bluff, but I don't think they want to find out.

Again, maybe just explains why the US and NATO aren't actually escalating to "help Ukraine win" which is why Ukraine has so far not won and suffering immensely for the honour of representing Western interests, in some vague way. — boethius

As I said, there are two reasons why Ukraine isn't getting everything it wants:

1) Yes, there can be those who think of it as escalation and worry that for example longer range artillery rockets would be used to attack targets inside Russia proper (which actually Ukraine has done by it's own weapon systems).

2) The arm cache of the West isn't actually so big and new weapons cost much. The world economy is going to a recession and spending on military in Ukraine is costly and doesn't create jobs much if any, actually. The West's arms procurement is made for peace time, not for a long conventional war.

The key question of the recent dialogue is "at what cost to Ukraine?" and is this cost reasonable to ask a proxy to pay.

You and all the other Zelenskyites simply keep dodging the question. — boethius

Oh yes, the Ukrainians as the "proxies" of the evil West. How typical, the victim is the proxy.

Simply keep the same level as now. Keep the course now set. Let's see after next year. As long as Ukrainians are willing to fight, it's their decision. It is them who are actually paying the cost, not us. If they aren't willing to fight, then military aid is useless.

This is the central absurdity of the West's position. It argues right up to its policy line with extreme rhetoric, standing up to Putin, Churchillian "never surrender" type stuff, Putin's a war criminal and the Russians are literally terrorists, and the entire world order is at risk, and basically the greatest moral imperatives you can think of etc. But when it comes to the question of "well, why not do more then, send modern tanks and fighter jets or then go in with our own planes and troops" the exact opposite direction of appeasement is argued that "of course the nukes". Well ... which one is it? Are we "doing what it takes" and fighting on the fields and beaches and and in the air and seas and so on, or are we actually tiptoeing around any actual risk to the Kremlins core goals and making clear we are appeasing with respect to those core goals so no need for any desperate measures? — boethius

Notice the difference with rhetoric and actions on the Russian side too. Russians have basically made the argument that they already are fighting NATO... when they are fighting Ukrainians armed with Western weapons and support.

And notice one limitation here: NATO does also have to upkeep it's own forces. Only the Baltic states have basically given all-out support plus the kitchen sink. Javelins are a good example: a huge portion of all Javelins have been sent to Ukraine means that the US to produce the systems to replace these will take two years I remember.

We have to remember that the armed forces of West European countries are small compared to Ukraine (and Russia). Ukraines army is now estimated to be 500 000 to 750 000. That is a huge army to arm, when by European standards the mobilized Finnish army is huge (less than 300 000).

This is what shouldn't be forgotten: The Ukraine war is a conventional war and because it wasn't a short two week war, it's draining the hell out of everybody. Yes, Russia has had to rely on antiquated tanks and ancient Cold War weapon systems because it doesn't have anything else. Well, don't think the West this would be different. The weapons manufacturing in the West is designed for small wars, small limited operations and procurement of small batches of expensive weapon systems. Not to feed a WW1/WW2 style weapons manufacturing juggernaut needed to provide sufficient materiel to the mouth of Moloch.

Encourage Putin to do what exactly? — boethius

Simple: to continue to undo "the greatest tragedy of the 2oth Century". Russia to claim dominance over it's "near abroad".

And the West has given him this: After annexing Crimea and starting in limited insurgency in the Donbas, what did Putin do? He took take the next step to make a large scale attack on Ukraine. Did then the West and NATO respond as it has now? No, not back in 2014. There's your example from history.

You really think he would be satisfied with Novorossiya and a puppet regime in Kyiv? No. Then there's Moldova. It's so clear and obvious when you read actually what Putin has said. And done.

Radiation isn't all that big a concern when it comes to tactical nuclear weapons. — boethius

Tell that to people. (I have to remember to quote you later.) And btw radiation on the site where a tactical nuke has been used, it is a problem.

The utility of nuclear weapons would be in the scenario where Ukraine is actually advancing a sizeable concentration of force. Dispersed forces are a defensive measure and not an offensive measure. — boethius

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. In the age of drones and instant fire-missions that can rain down in few minutes, artillery poses a threat at any time to any concentration of force. That's why you don't see columns of Ukrainian tanks... or nowdays of Russian armour moving along in long columns also. The unit size is smaller than before (Soviet doctrine was to operate with fronts and armies). This is obvious from the fact that the Russian forces, already before the war started, were deployed as Battalion-combat-teams. You don't operate with larger formation, brigades, divisions as in WW2 or as during the Cold War.

Definitely. However, the question is what escalation the West would do that would be responded to with Nuclear weapons by Russia ... that the West would then not respond with nuclear weapons. — boethius

I think it's obvious from what has been leaked even to the public. A conventional attack on Russian forces in Ukraine and Naval ships operating in the Black Sea. Hence notice the level of escalation: Russian sites in Russia aren't attacked. Then again Russia has an option to escalate: does it enlarge the battlefield to outside Ukraine and the Black Sea.

Let's remember that for example in the Korean war the Soviet Air Force fought the USAF on a limited airspace next to the Chinese border. That indeed the two Superpowers were engaged in fighting was simply kept a secret by both sides not wishing to escalate matters.

But then again, this is the "sabre rattling" to Russia's "sabre rattling" in the first place. What actually NATO would do or not is another thing. Medvedev could be right and NATO wouldn't do anything, but be outraged.

Appeasing the bully will just encourage Putin. The nuclear sabre rattling naturally is taken seriously, but it should be looked just how likely this would be.

- China is against the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
- There's a serious risk of this escalating the war and not cowing the West push for cessation of fighting, but to do the opposite.
- Ukraine is next to Russia, hence radiation can easily travel to Russia by winds.
- Destroying Ukrainian forces with tactical nuclear weapons is difficult: troops on the modern battleground are very dispersed.
- Ukraine is unlikely to surrender or to give in just by using tactical nuclear weapons.
- Forces operating in nuclear fallout areas will need training and equipment Russia doesn't have now: basically you will create a small no-go zone for your troops also.
- After the initial quick-capture strategy went bust (on day one) and created the logistical fiasco, Russia has actually been very risk-averse. The withdrawal from Kherson (and Kyiv) shows this. Suddenly such an escalation would go against the way that Russia has fought the war after the initial push.
- Russia has no interest to initiate World War 3. If the "Escalate to De-escalate" doesn't work, then there is nothing to gain from this kind of escalation. It has suffered severe losses in Ukraine already and the last thing would be to escalate the war to a totally new level.

Furthermore, I was even before this war started very worried about the Russian doctrine to "Escalate to De-escalate", meaning that Russia would use at a time of it's convenience and by using the nuclear weapon to create an environment where there is a overwhelming public desire to stop the fighting at all costs immediately.

Yet this isn't 2014 and Russia has no strategic surprise. It had in 2014 the surprise then as just taking off the flag from their combat fatigues and Putin insisting that the VDV paratroops were not Russian soldiers confused the West and especially it's media totally. The "Escalate to de-escalate" strategy would need the West to be already confused about the war, the Western politicians not having had any thought of a nuclear escalation. Then knee-jerk response "STOP EVERYTHING!"

Now as the nuclear sabre-rattling is many months old, Western generals and Western leaders have had ample time to think about their response which makes it likely that NATO can hold it's line together even if Russia did escalate this way. The shuttle diplomacy behind the scenes of intelligence directors sending the message to Russia has made this pretty clear to the Russian leadership. Don't forget that NATO has it's own nuclear deterrence.

And the basic simple fact is that Russia can lose this war. In fact, because there is no opposition and Putin is firmly in control of the country (at least now), he could be just fine even after a disastrous humiliating defeat. Just like Saddam Hussein after the Iran-Iraq war and Desert Storm. Hence the idea that Putin cannot be humiliated is just pandering the dictator.

Showing a well ordering of the set of rational numbers is not adequate for showing that the set of rational numbers is countable. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Countable, right. Thanks for the correction.

To the layman (as me) this is rather scholastic, but I understand that math is precise. So a question:

When you construct "a denumerable binary sequence not in the range of f", aren't you deriving that contradiction? There's the negative reference to f.

After all, when let's say one asks if the set of natural numbers and rational numbers have the same cardinality, there is a direct proof (the set of rational numbers can be well ordered and Cantor showed this).

What was then his working hypothesis?

The argument being made is that Russia getting its way would be bad, but Russia not getting its way would be bad too (nuclear escalation). Therefore some negotiated compromise between the two positions is the best course of action. — Isaac

This is simply irrational.

Neither side will overcome and defeat totally the other side. Hence there will be a negotiated peace or armstice (like between the Koreas). That's the totally logical.

The illogical or delusional reasoning is that "Russia not getting its way would be bad too (nuclear escalation)". Well, many even nuclear armed powers haven't gotten their way in wars. Their defeats have been smaller or larger, but having nukes hasn't change it. Last example was that the US had to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The continuum hypothesis is that the cardinality of the set of reals is aleph_1. That is equivalent to saying that there is no uncountable subset of the set of reals that is not 1-1 with the set of reals. Of course, no matter the continuum hypothesis, there are cardinals greater than aleph_1. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Cantor proved that you cannot make a bijection between the natural number to the reals, hence the reals aren't aleph_0 like for example rational numbers.

The diagonal argument given by Cantor was not a reductio ad absurdum. — TonesInDeepFreeze

When you first assume that there is a bijection between the natural numbers and reals, then show that there is a real that cannot be in this bijection, that is a reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe Monty Python took residence at Zhitnaya Street 14. — jorndoe

Actually, what Russia would need would be it's own Monty Python.

Monty Python, and it's success shows a crucial great aspect of the English, if not the British: the ability to laugh at and ridicule themselves. Naturally an autocratic regime wouldn't tolerate any of it and would see Monty Python as a symptom of the decadence and impotence that the UK fell into after losing the Empire.

Just as an example, think what the reaction would have been during the times of the British Empire, early 20th Century or late 19th Century of the following Monty Python skit, the Queen Victoria Handicap:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32sd40

Nobody would dare to mock Queen Victoria in such way those times. Empires cannot laugh at themselves. Now it is very funny.

And actually this would come easily from the Russians as they have had totalitarian systems that they have joked about. A traumatic history is one of the best ways people find a fountain from jokes and comedy (just think about Jewish humour).

Yet when in the 21st Century a country has laws where uttering the obvious, that the country is in war when it is in a war, can get you jail time, for me it tells that the situation isn't on solid foundations at all. Such urge to limit simple talk is a sign of weakness and fear. And something that is unsustainable without a North Korean type dictatorship.

For the UK the humbling happened during the Suez Crisis and the Churchillian wing in the British leadership understood the the time of Empire acting by it's own was over...and wouldn't be coming back. Yet Monty Python is something that the British have they can be proud of. It shows that the British have no appetite for reconquering their Empire. A politician calling for the unification of the British Isles under the Union Jack, hence occupation and annexation of Ireland, would simply be called what he is: a lunatic. With the British (and they still are the British) we can know that they are quite independently thinking (Brexit and stuff), but they aren't a threat to the sovereignty of Ireland. And furthermore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK. Something that Russia should understand to do as how to keep it's minorities happy and chugging along.

For Russia to become a normal country and shed it's bellicose aggressive behaviour a humiliating defeat could do it. The Soviet Union came so splendidly and peacefully apart that people like Vladimir Putin understood it as a mistake, something you can and have to fix.

The Putinist empire builders have to become the butt of jokes. Otherwise Russia will pose a threat to it's neighbors. And actually to itself.

I think we are simply talking differently about the subject. But as I'm no mathematician, I acknowledge that my wording might not be rigorous.

Do notice that Cantors system is the sequence of cardinal numbers: aleph_0. aleph_1, aleph_2, aleph_3 and so on. The question is if this hierarchial system holds and if there is a cardinality or not between the naturals or the reals. The continuum hypothesis is that the reals is the next aleph, that there isn't anything else.

Cantor's proof was not by reductio ad absurdum — TonesInDeepFreeze

Your somewhat correct. The first proof in 1874 wasn't. But he did give this in 1891 with the diagonal argument, which I find more simple.

Ukraine does not have allies. Ukraine has arms suppliers.

There's a big difference. Allies would be in Ukraine right now fighting on behalf of their ally. — boethius

Hm.

Comes to mind what a great ally Russia was to Armenia, when it was attacked by the Azeris. Didn't even provide arms, but least after Armenia lost the war held peace talks.

But then for Russia alliances are a way to control and dominate smaller states (hence the Russo-Chinese axis has it's problems).

aleph_1 is the next aleph after aleph_0

is not the continuum hypothesis. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The cardinality of the set of real numbers is aleph_1

is the continuum hypothesis. — TonesInDeepFreeze

As to the other poster, the current question of the continuum hypothesis does not stem from the definition of 'countable'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Well, it's about what can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers and the reductio ad absurdum proof that this cannot be done with the set of reals. Here 'countable' has it's problems, when ordinarily everything that we can map into one-to-one correspondence is countable (a+b=c).

When ZF was meant to do away with the paradoxes, it's obvious that it has problems with infinity. After all, it's just taken as an useful axiom.