With Ukraine we have seen something that usually has been extremely rare, especially in this Milennium. That is that all males between 18 to 60 are barred to leave the country. This is about, I don't know, perhaps 7 to 10 million men, which simply cannot be put into the military. There's absolutely no way or desire to field such a force and a huge part of people simply have to work sustaining the society itself (just think of the agricultural sector, which employed 14% of Ukrainians, which is a huge number).

The example clearly shows the pros and cons about conscription. Your manpower problems are solved, but then you get a lot of other problems starting from the motivation of the conscripts and the huge effort in training that you have to do. The conscript/reservist army has to have the training, the ability and the motivation to fight. Then it can perform well. Otherwise you might a have a paper tiger of a forces, which a highly trained enemy can go like knife through melted butter.

Larger countries simply don't need universal conscription or even partial conscription. United States or India doesn't need reservists in such number. Hence today only the minority countries have conscription and even fewer with universal conscription. Roughly 70-85 nations or so have compulsory service of the 195 countries.

Looks like Russia is taking a breather. Simply to stack on supplies and some brigades that have endured losses have been withdrawn.

Here's an interesting map showing also NATO forces in NATO countries. And refugees. Also the higher military units, like the 1st GTA (1st Guards Tank Army).



Quite similar to the Finnish Defense University's map, so that's two different references portraying a similar situation:

Both the acceptance and the effectiveness of conscription starts from things like this...


Not sure the percentages are correct, but something like that it might be. There are huge differences.

The reason to focus on EU / NATO and US policy is because:

A. They have the most leverage with Russia currently. — boethius

Actually, the most leverage on Russia has now China.

Russia is now dependent on Chinese imports, while for China exports from Russia aren't so important. That Russia now wants to get arms from China is a historical first. If true, it's a major change as before it has been all the time the other way around. To ask arms from China also shows that there have been true losses on the Russian side. And there's a multitude of those pictures of destroyed armour.

What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation — Benkei

At least I have tried to say where the US and the West has made errors, with the crucial one being promising to Ukraine and Georgia something that they wouldn't keep and hence putting both countries in a perilous state.

Yet it should be noted that totally disregarding the role of Putin and Russia is not only biased but simply wrong. Also to totally disregard the third parties as mere puppets is wrong. There aren't any monocausal issues in history and just blaming the West and stating that "I don't care" about Putin's actions isn't perhaps the smartest thing to do.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. — Benkei

One shouldn't then take for granted what Russia says either. There's so many blatant lies it is similar to picking up the truths in what Trump says. So going with the narrative that the Kremlin promotes is after a point a bit dubious. Likely the US can tell the truth when it fits their agenda. Similarly would Russia behave.

He seems like a chill dude, doing well, under tremendous pressure. — StreetlightX

Not to forget that this is like instead of Churchill (or basically Chamberlain), the British would have voted Charlie Chaplin to head their country in the war against Hitler. Perhaps Chaplin would have succeeded in that role perfectly, he surely was against fascism and Hitler right from the start and likely could have acted in a very serious role.

The victory of Zelenskyy (and his new party) just shows how fed up Ukrainians were in the corruption of it's political system. He has made errors, like not mobilizing the reserve basically only after Putin had launched the invasion. And I think that how his party has turned from supporting pure libertarianism to a more centrist approach shows that they were learning about the realities in the World also.

Now the crucial thing is not to overplay the Ukrainian hand in the negotiations or to give too quickly to Putin.

Do you think conscription is fair, moral/ ethical and or appropriate? — Benj96

Yes.

If there is a credible threat to the country. If there isn't, if let's say your neighbors are as peaceful as Canada, why then bother? The threat and the need for deterrence is absolutely crucial. A country that isn't threatened by anyone doesn't need an army. And situations can change: had Switzerland not had a huge militia based army, it's totally logical that someone would have occupied them during WW1 and WW2 or at worst, had become a battlefield for the opposing armies.

My country has conscription. It works. If we would have a volunteer force, the tiny army wouldn't simply have any deterrence. In fact, the war in Ukraine is just showing that a well trained reservist army does have it's advantages. Those who deplore conscription usually tactically forget Israel, which has among the best professional armies in the World and depends on reservists.

Then if basically the only reason the army exists is to control the own people, then it would be far proper to have some Gendarmerie. For example Costa Rica doesn't have any army, yet the country lives in a very rough neighborhood. The country has stayed peaceful. Then compare the history to Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala.

I choose the side of those who'd rather avoid all the bloodshed and horror of war than act out their Star Wars fantasies with a population of innocent civilians. — Isaac

Do they have a name? A leader? A phone number perhaps?

Which REAL, identifiable side do you support? — Olivier5

Isn't it obvious? There's no side he is willing to take. He'll invent this "innocent people" group, who are totally separate of the actions. I think those 2,5 million Ukrainians or those Russians fleeing Russia because of the developments in the country do have opinions about which side is at fault and which isn't.

Because there is an aggressor fighting a war of conquest and there is a defender, that is supported by the US, @Isaac will surely not pick either of them. Because @Isaac doesn't want to give any credibility to the US as being here in the role of being a "Knight in white shining armour", hence he cannot back up the Ukrainians.

Oh the horror of supporting here the Ukrainians fighting Putin! As if one then couldn't be critical of US actions in let's say in Yemen and the Middle East.

And I really, really hope Zelensky survives. I expect the worst but I will definitely shed a lot of tears if those bastards take him out. — Wayfarer

I do also. And I hope that the Ukrainian casualties stay low, because there's a chance that they could be truly hideous. Yet that's the price to pay for independence and surely if there was any doubt of an Ukrainian identity when the Soviet Union collapsed, it is forged in steel right now, every day...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1503024136523767814

According to rumors on the street, a couple Ukrainian mayors have already been napped and replaced by Russian puppets. — jorndoe

There have been plans to create more Donetsk / Luhansk type puppet states. Which will now be even more grotesque Stalinist theatre as when the People's Republics were formed in 2014 because of the footage of Ukrainians openly demonstrating against the Russians in the occupied cities.

I'm sure Putin has Victor Yanukovich somewhere ready to be implemented as President of Ukraine if he wants to follow the Stalinist playbook.

On 2 March, Ukrayinska Pravda reported that Ukrainian intelligence sources believed that Yanukovych was currently in Minsk, Belarus and that it was Russia's intention to declare Yanukovych as President of Ukraine in the event of Russian forces gaining control of Kyiv.

Other possible puppets do exist. The Terijoki Government or the Finnish Democratic Republic was such a huge success... for four months!

I believed Putin would not invade. I was wrong. — FreeEmotion

For me war totally obvious with the television speech that Putin made on the 22nd of February, two days before the invasion. This was never a dress rehearsal, a training exercise to get the US to talk. And I had agreed with the historian Nial Ferguson's comment from January that the probability of war was 50/50, which is a really high probability. For example @Amity understood well the reality before the attack commenced. Others too.

Some insisted that everything was an American propaganda scare tactic, that all this has happened because of the US, well, they are still quite active. Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia."

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank

You have to ask from the person directly.

But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist.

If there was a mistake that the US did, it was to promise "in the future" membership of NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. That the Baltic States could get into NATO is a real blessing. But just as I'm discussing with @Christoffer the possibility of NATO membership of our countries, it would be quite dangerous to apply for membership and then get an answer "You will get in sometime in the future". I guess they have learned that now.

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really. — Christoffer

Ending a 200 year old policy that has been so successful that Sweden avoided two World Wars is naturally a big decision for any prime minister. But the fact is that the decision has already been taken. Every shred of neutrality has already basically gone. NATO trains in Sweden and Sweden has participated in NATO operations like in Afghanistan and Libya. Sweden isn't neutral and even Swedes should understand that. Just like we should do ourselves. It's not like during the Cold War when some secret guarantee was done between Sweden and the US.

The thing is that Magdalena is wrong. NATO membership wouldn't destabilize this area. The area has already been destabilized and without NATO membership or bilateral defense treaty, there is a huge opening for Russia to destabilize the situation with both Finland and Sweden. Just consider the possibilities:

a) hybrid attacks: already happening here. Problems with GPS interference in the eastern border and cyberattacks for example against organizations sending aid to Ukraine.

b) hybrid attack II: Sudden flow of refugees to the border like Belarus did with Poland. Was practiced already on the border with Norway and Sweden.

c) Sanctions: Finland could be easily squeezed by oil sanctions. Russian oil is about third to one quarter of Swedish oil imports. To anticipate the effects of an oil embargo from Russia and to get the security of supply to cope with this possibility is needed. Yet this option is declining as both countries are already cutting their ties to Russia.

d) Military actions. Perhaps an naval blockade (like in Ukraine) wouldn't be noticed as an act of war. Perhaps would go down into the category of "special military operations". Or then just sink Finnish / Swedish ships and blame it was done by the Americans as a false flag operation (many would believe that nonsense). Or then the classic invasions of the Gotland and/or Åland Islands. A bit difficult now at the present as everything is in the Black Sea.

The problem is one can throw all kinds of possibilities around what would be the reaction of Russia, but the real fact is that all those options, the most ugly ones, will simply persist and be totally possible with minimal risk for Russia, if our countries just stick our heads into the sand and believe that saying that they are neutral gives them security.

I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. — Isaac

As @Olivier5 said, it's up to the Ukrainian government to decide what to accept as terms for armistice or for peace. How Ukrainians perform in the defense of their country will guide what options the government will have. If they accept a deal with Putin, that hopefully should be made from a position of strength: that continuing the war after rebuilding the army, isn't a valid option for Putin. They know far better their situation. Ukrainians have every just reason to defend their country from an hostile invasion. And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread.

And anyway, since you rely far more on the disinformation of Putin, perhaps in your attempt to be "objective", this is quite meaningless.

:up:

Slippery slopes?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe — jorndoe

At least the sliding has been noticed.

Thus, if the Western liberal democracies—out of an understandable abundance of prudence—declare a priori that they will not engage in a forceful way with military means in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, then there will not be adequate restraint for most authoritarian and autocratic leaders with ambitions of empire. And that applies to more than Russia’s President Putin.

"Propaganda" and "agenda" are words that aren't used by the government or nation or state -- only the critics used them. Because they are politically negative charged ideas. — L'éléphant

They aren't either used by political pressure groups or by lobbyists. Due to similar reasons. It's been a long time since "Propaganda" was replaced just with "Information" or "Public Relations".

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. — Christoffer

When we both send arms to Ukraine and have already NATO troops training in our country (and B-52s training to mine potential invasion beaches), I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. Huge portion of Finnish members of Parliament are afraid to yet to say anything about their own view about joining NATO.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse.

But you've yet to address the fact that people in Russia are all much happier than people in Ukraine.

... See what we can do when we just make shit up! — Isaac

Jesus. You are really are out of ammo. As if the reasons why I have said that Ukrainians want to join the West is something that I've yet not addressed.

Why do you think the Ukrainians had the Maidan, the Revolution of Dignity?
Why do you think they have had earlier the "Orange Revolution"?
Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections?

The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, but you seem not to get it. I have said over and over again that the Ukrainians have been fed up with the corruption and the poor state of the economy, and this is the reason why they have looked at joining the West. Because the other possibility is to accept Putin's imperialism. It hasn't been some astro-turf operation conducted by the US.

I'll repeat again. The politicians leading Poland or other EU member states have not stolen billions of dollars of their nations wealth and then continue as if nothing. A reason why they have had so much hopes for the EU.

Enough with your bullshit.

The whole criticism about capitalism is that it leads to corruption of the democratic process. That's the whole point. — boethius

Yet authoritarianism protects that corruption from the safety valves of a democracy... like people getting fed up with their corrupt leaders then voting somebody else to lead the country.

For example voting as a president a comedian that has played in a sitcom where an ordinary person accidentally becomes a president. :wink:

Democracy can fight corruption, not always but still, while authoritarianism basically just protects it.

And, based on my own military experience, there is simply no way to win the sort of conventional warfare Russia is waging without armor and the heavy logistical supply lines armor requires. — boethius

We'll see. Similar war as now we haven't seen. So there can be surprises. The fact that Putin is willing to talk with the "neo-nazis" does tell something.

Finland is praised as the archetype resistance to Russian imperialism ... yet Finland was literally part of the Russian empire for a century, and owned by Sweden before that. — boethius

I remember an interesting quote which a historian of Finnish 19th Century gave me. During the war of 1809, when Sweden lost finally Finland, a Russian general was asked asked if he needed more troops to pacify the Finns. He responded: "I don't need troops, I need more medals!" Medals to give the Finns. And Finnish history clearly tells how this all is seen: Finland was given autonomy, it was raised from the position of being just the Eastern provinces to a Grand Dutchy, that wasn't technically part of Russia. It was granted to have it's own Swedish laws and it's own institutions, even a small military for some time. The rumblings among the Finns started only when Russia started to take these away.

This example shows just how you successfully can annex land. Yet in the case of Ukraine, Putin has done everything the wrong way. Before it bullied the Ukrainians, the annexed Crimea, tried to instill a civil war in 8 provinces and succeeded in two in the Donbass. Then he has called the whole country artificial and the current administration neo-nazis that have to denazified. Then he made the obvious error of thinking that Ukraine would fall easily with a rapid stroke and that the West would be as dumbfounded as they were in 2014. Nothing could unite better the Ukrainians as the actions that Putin has done now.

The inability for Russia to succeed has always been a source of joy for the United States and the most glorious moment was the destruction of the USSR. The ability for China to succeed, however is a problem that has only one solution: when you are losing the race, push your challenger off the road, like it is done in Formula 1 sometimes, allegedly. — FreeEmotion

Actually, the US had similar hopes with both China and Russia. It hoped that economic growth would create a striving middle class that then would "naturally" lead these countries to join West. WIth China there's a multitude of examples where American officials hope that the integration to the World community and economic growth will lead to democratization. In the case of Russia, they pinned their hopes on Yeltsin.

Well, The Chinese communists...stayed as communists.

And after Yeltsin, they got Putin and the siloviks to lead Russia.

This is a discussion ... Putin's not in this discussion — boethius

Yet to understand this war of conquest one shouldn't forget the culprit.

if Ukraine simply can't win. — boethius

Your so sure the Ukrainians cannot force Putin to the negotiating table? Putin is already talking to the "neo-nazis", so I think his denazification attempt hit some bumps on the way in just two weeks.

The more-or-less official position from actual Western officials (who do have lot's of intelligence and so can base their statements on something) is that Ukraine can wage an insurgency ... but that assumes losing the conventional war. — boethius

Ukrainians have already surprised them. Kyiv was estimated to fall in 90 hours, that's less than in 4 days.

If you can't talk Putin out of the war effort for just "moral reasons" and no concessions from anyone, then it's basically like just talking to a big rock that's blocking your road. — boethius

Then you simply fight the war. And see how long Putin is willing to fight it and what are the peace terms. Or look how much the Ukrainians are willing to suffer before accepting Putin's demands. Or do we basically have in the end an armstice and no peace agreement, just like in the Korean war.

Many things are open.

So you finally start complaining about no one actually helping you. — boethius

17000 antitank weapons in less than a week is actually help. You can already see Ukrainian troops with British/Swedish weapons (NLAW), German weapons (Panzerfaust 3) and American weapons (AT-3, Javelin). They did however mess up with the Polish MiG-29s. And what Ukraine would need is medium range surface-to-air missiles. The aid isn't just talk. The US Congress passed just two days ago a bill of 13,6 billion USD to Ukraine of which 6,5 billion USD is military aid. Just to put even this into perspective, Ukrainian defense expenditure was from 1993 to 2020 was somewhere like 2,3 billion USD and last figures put it at 6 billion USD in 2020. So just two days ago, just one country (the US) doubled that. Then there is the military aid from all other countries, which include United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. And the European Union.

And then there are about 20 000 volunteers going to help and fight in Ukraine, which isn't so crucial, but shows how people have reacted to the conflict. Yet it is the Ukrainians themselves that have to defend their country from this attack.

Let's say that the inevitable victory of Putin hasn't been declared yet.

:grin:

There are even kinds of infinity. Not every infinity is the same. — EugeneW

Oh don't let me get started.

And there's a lot that we don't still know about infinity. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be things like the Continuum hypothesis yet still unanswered (or even the question so problematic for our logic to handle). It is totally possible that sometime in the future we will know more and the schoolbooks will teach about infinity in a totally new way.

Finding new things in math hasn't stopped yet!

Your blind faith in capitalism is noted, but the charge involved impoverishment, not a failure to get richer. — Isaac

The inability to Russia to create a modern vibrant economy similar at least to it's former Satellite states in Europe and similar to the Baltic states shows how Putin has failed in economic terms. Or put in another more stark form: how many of the politicians that have lead the these states in Eastern Europe or the Baltics have become multi-billionaires when in offices or afterwards?

None, I guess. The closest to steal billions is the Yanukovich, the Pro-Putin ex-leader of Ukraine, whose ouster played a major part in the events in 2014. The whole reason for Ukraine desperately wanting to join the West is that they can see with their own eyes that joining the West has been a better option of those ex-Soviet countries that have had the ability to do that.

Corruption is a cancer and deeply institutionalized corruption in the form of a Kleptocracy, which Putin's Russia is, has been quite detrimental to the country. Basically only high oil prices has saved the Russian economy. And a dictator that focuses on wars of conquest and building up his military won't solve it.

It's whimsical you then start to defend the largest robber baron of our times.

Hey, when a country invades another, u would expect that common people would support the defending country and castise the invading one. This doesnt seem to be the case here. — Pussycat

Of course not!

The people here are fond of philosophy!

Hence it seems they have to be critical of the US and the West because... they come from the US and the West! Because it's good to be against everything bad the US has done. Like to enlarge NATO and "force" Russia to invade a third country. For them it's meaningless to ponder about what Russia has done. But engaging the discourse that Russia promotes is great, because Russia is against the US and the West.

So some opt to be a Полезный идиот!

Is infinity necessary?

Hell yes for mathematics!!!

Just think about. The Natural numbers go from 1,2,3,... to number TT (Tired Thinker), when they end. And no bigger natural numbers exist than TT. Just think about that would do to the logic of mathematics.

Hence yes.

We do need infinity.

At least as an axiom, since we yet haven't understood the mathematical logic behind infinity.

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood? — I like sushi

If it's frequently used by nation states, we should understand that anybody spreading ideas, information, or a rumor for the purpose of helping (or injuring) someone is making propaganda. What's crucial to understand that there is an agenda, and objective to be reached with the actions.

We have to understand that the act of propaganda is used by a multitude of actors.

The claim was about Putin fucking over his countrymen. Indices of overall poverty aren't relevant to that claim. — Isaac

Putin is fucking his countrymen and stealing the wealth from the Russian nation. Are you really denying that and becoming a true Putin apologist or what? I thought you were critical of the West's and US actions.



The Yeltsin-Putin kleptocracy has ruined Russia. That's the fact. The ex-Soviet countries that chose the West and the EU (and thankfully some could!) have prospered far better than Russia.

You don't get prosperity by starting wars. You get prosperity by trade.

Seriously? You want to put some figures to that? — Isaac

Sure. Median wealth:

USA: $121,700
Russia : $871 — frank

And going down for Russia. But some other indicators, that actually tell something on this issue:

Life expectancy:
USA: 76.3 years
Russia: 68.2 years

Absolute povetry. Percent of people living on less than 5,5 dollars per day:

USA: 1,7%
Russia: 3,7%

Kleptocracy. Corruption perception index (the lower, the more corrupt):

USA: 67 (27th least corrupt country)
Russia: 29 (on 136th place least corrupt country)

And those stats aren't actually great at all to the US.

And btw, Ukraine covers both the US and Russia on the income inequality scale measured by the gini-coefficient, it being at 25. And as there is a war (which this thread is actually about), income inequality is going down. Hurray!!! :zip:

What lower income inequality looks like:


The oligarchs aren't surely making a buck here... if they aren't in the weapons business.

An interview with Zelenskyy done by Vice, Worth watching. (9 min)

It was a piece of social commentary about today's mercurial, shallow emotional flag-waiving. — Isaac

For you, perhaps. For us, it might seem so. Not for Ukrainians.

Do not, under any circumstances accidentally use last month's entries (check Facebook for details), and avoid at all costs generalities like...

1. The obscenely rich and powerful
2. Fucking over the poor
3. The poor — Isaac

Uhh... this is a thread about the Ukraine Crisis. :roll:

But of course we could talk about one if not the most obscenely rich and powerful, Vladimir Putin. One opposition leader remarked that the expensive wristwatch he has weared was more than what Putin officials declares to be owning. Pictures from his 1 billion palace.

The really stark example of the rich fucking over the poor: institutionalized kleptocracy.

(A kleptocracy whose leader starts wars btw...)

This bioweapons story is Pizzagate-level insanity. And yet adult people of adequate intelligence take it seriously, pour over Nulland Q&A for vague hints of confirmation... The mind boggles. But then we've seen it before: QAnon, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. — SophistiCat

When it's reported by the news (Fox News), there has to be at least something true, right? In Pizzagate I think Clinton's election team sometimes ordered pizza, perhaps from Comet Ping Pong or at least somewhere else. Of course, everything else is total and utter lunacy. But does it matter?

Even that it's denounced, that there is no basement in the pizzeria, it doesn't actually matter. If the other has to react and say "This isn't true", they are already talking about it. However crazy and unimportant it might be. That's enough. The discussion can move next week to something else and people will forget it.

This pretty much sums up the useful idiot position. US - bad. Therefore, any anti-US propaganda should be given extra credence, any US ally should be viewed with extra suspicion, and any US adversary - with extra deference.

So when Russian MOD claims that American biolabs in Ukraine have been developing bioweapons capable of selectively targeting Slavic ethnic groups, and that they have been studying bats, tics and birds as possible vectors of transmission of lethal diseases across the border, such claims ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and at the highest level. — SophistiCat

Noam Chomsky first political book's name tells it all: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". The thinking goes that in order to improve our Western World, we have to be critical of it's actions. Here's the "The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin" explaining his argument quite clearly:



Yet as usual, people get lost with this argument, lose the narrative just on which side they are and start believing baseless propaganda of very nasty regimes and become the "useful idiots" in the information war. Or then start to fear if they take side with any issue with the US, they might give credence and justification to everything the US does.

And then at the same time forget to condemn the attackers, talk anything about the attrocities that happen and give any support for those that are fighting for their freedom and for their right to exist.

Now, if EU put this sort of diplomatic pressure, publicly criticizing Russia for refusing the EU or some neutral country to evacuate the civilians, then, certainly, you can blame the Russian blockade. — boethius

Diplomatic pressure?

After all the sanctions what the EU has imposed? After sending weapons to Ukraine? Then apply diplomatic pressure? Of what? What kind of pressure are we talking about here now? EU delegates manhandling Lavrov down to the ground and sitting on him... that kind of pressure?

The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin, Noam Chomsky — boethius

:roll: ..... :smirk: ..... :snicker:

@boethius, this is a philosophy forum. Notice what you say...

You noticed the point!

Give a reply to my comment that you won't never give in this forum.

Are there those comments that @Agent Smith doesn't give in this forum? Of course. Can you give them or utter them as @Agent Smith? Of course not! You are who you are.

The power of negative self reference.

Yes, but if you're trying to encircle the enemy, the priority is the salients and the rest of the front doesn't — boethius

:roll: Ok, then use the word salients. There are a lot of salients for the Russians.

And for example encircling a huge city isn't so easy. Here the example of Grozny is telling. For Russians, it took then months. And it was a smaller city with fewer defenders. Without any outside help flowing in.

By October 1999, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ordered the complete takeover of the Chechen capital of Grozny. From December 1999 to February 2000, the Russian military laid siege to Grozny. Putin vowed that the military would not stop bombing Grozny until Russian troops quote 'fulfilled their task to the end.' They finished in February 2000, when the BBC's Andrew Harding stepped foot into Grozny, a place the U.N. declared the most destroyed city on Earth.

It's a fucking port city, EU could easily negotiate evacuating civilians by boat. And, the "non-boat" way would mean traversing 1000 km of disrupted logistics and potential battle zone. — boethius

No, it can't.

There basically is an unannounced blockade done by the Russians. Note that an Estonian (EU member) ship has already been sunk in the Black Sea.

A cargo ship has sunk in the Black Sea off the Ukrainian port of Odessa after an explosion, the vessel’s manager has said.

The Estonian-owned cargo ship Helt sunk on Thursday as Russian forces continued their invasion of Ukraine, which has seen increasing military activity in the Black Sea.

Besides, the EU isn't neutral in this conflict. It's arming one side in large quantities. And Russians have already declared about those "humanitarian corridors" leading to Russia.

Something to think about:

The ports along the Black Sea (southwest) and Sea of Azov (southeast) account for about 85 percent of Ukraine’s grain exports. Ukraine supplies 13 percent of the world’s corn and a similar share of its wheat—meaning that disruptions to trade along Ukraine’s coast could reverberate in food markets around the world. Ukraine’s seaports also account for about 80 percent of its ferrous metallurgical exports.

The major port cities that Russian forces have yet to occupy are Mariupol on the Sea of Azov and Odessa on the Black Sea. The former is under blockade, and the latter may come under attack any day. And the de facto blockade of Ukrainian ports by the Russian Navy began even before the recent land and air operations.

The assault on Ukraine’s Black Sea ports should be understood as economic warfare by the Russians. Not only will the interruption of normal trade deprive Ukraine of the resources it needs to sustain a war effort, but it will also impose costs on almost every country in the world, either directly or indirectly, for not helping Russia swallow its neighbor.

Prepare for higher food prices all around the World. 15 million tons is a lot.

I think it is time to re-consider this 'imperialist' categorization of Putin. — FreeEmotion

Why, when looking at the actions of annexing territories and then noticing what Putin has said for example of Ukraine and it's historical connection to Russia and the artificiality of the Ukraine as a sovereign country, it is really classical imperialism. Not just neo-imperialism. When you have Russians hoping to create Novorossiya, it is imperialism at the most obvious. Russian irredentism is totally clear.

Actually it might help with the logistics and offset some of the costs of sanctions. — FreeEmotion

That soldiers have to look for food tells the grim truth that the logistics to support the army simply isn't working. Or that they run out of gas, yet haven't made a huge strides into enemy territory tells it also. The units might be put on the field, but they cannot be supported properly in the field. It simply shows poor planning and the limited resources.

It's the usual thing that happens when usually some authoritarian leadership decides to invade a country or territory. Iraq had difficulties when invading Kuwait. The Argentinian army that invaded the Falklands had many not knowing where they are and going hungry also as supporting 13 000 troops on islands far away from Argentina proved to be a difficult task for Argentina. (Btw that was a war where civilians weren't abused and both sides abode well to the laws of war.)

As long as we are in a military strategy discussion, why didn't Russia simply do this with cruise missiles to destroy military targets? — FreeEmotion

Why not simply threaten to invade? — FreeEmotion

Russia and Ukraine had been already at war since 2014. They had already annexed Crimea. So a bit late for threats.

Why not simply threaten to use Nukes in the first place? — FreeEmotion

Just casually? Even that would a bit too much for the Russians.

But Putin does have in his options the crazy tactic of "escalate to de-escalate". Russian military exercises have many times ended with the use of the nuclear weapon to "de-escalate" the situation and halt the fighting.

I've seen at least two negative self-referential paradoxes: the liar sentence and Curry's paradox.

Your point? — Agent Smith

Usually the mathematical paradoxes/logical paradoxes are structured this way.

Do notice, with the same structure is also made theorems like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem or Turings answer to the Halting Problem.