Now, let me point out again -- as anti-hand gun and anti-assault weapons as I am -- a very small percent of gun owners shoot people. Those who do shoot other people almost always use hand guns. [Of course, mass murders with rifles or assault weapons are an egregious exception.] A large share of hand gun deaths are among young minority males, generally in urban areas, who often are at least relatively poor, may be involved in the drug trade, and may be involved in gangs. — Bitter Crank

I think actually the only statistic that is easy to point out to be a direct and obvious consequence of the huge amount of weapons among people are the gun accident statistics. Not surprisingly, the US leads the charts by all accounts in gun related accidents. So many people that anywhere else wouldn't have a gun and aren't at all interested in guns have guns that are loaded in their drawer. And above all, the gun is intended for protection if someone invades the home, not for hunting. The fact is that the small handgun is far more dangerous and accident prone than a rifle or a machine gun: you don't easily accidental point at yourself or another person a machine gun (if you had one).

Also, is the murder rate uniform over the US? It's a humongous country. — RolandTyme

Compare Chicago's or New Orleans murder rate to other cities or places.



...or a place with a Narco-War like Mexico:

Of course not, but I think some people, including active service members, might think that those things are indeed indicative of pervasive wokeness in the military that needs to be fought and eliminated. And I think people like Milley give those people ammunition by saying that "white rage" caused the January 6th insurrection, for example - which I think it was just a bunch of idiotic Trump supporters being idiots; as far as I can tell it wasn't racially motivated. — ToothyMaw

(Actually I agree with the latter)

Yet what can one say? Only that there are these juicy narratives that people want to use and fit everything into. If the narrative is that "The Democrats are making the military woke...and thus the combat capability of the military is in danger", then you will try to find every small detail that you can use for that narrative, be it maternity flight suits or whatever.

Of course the "normal" answer would be that the military is part of the society and hence everything that happens in the society in general will typically show also in the military. When there was segregation in the US, then the US military was segregated. When it stopped, so did it in the military too. The armed forces aren't so detached from the overall society as some people assume. And likely there is a law or regulation that demands pregnant workforce has the right to have fitting clothes in their work.

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states". — Apollodorus

Yes, those sovereign states are the member states. It's totally logical. Now the US formed various similar Treaty organizations, NATO, SEATO and CENTO and only NATO is still working. The idea of it being just a tool of the US isn't the whole picture. It is that European countries are happy with the arrangement of NATO that ought to be mentioned also. the organization had so much elan that it didn't dissolve once the Soviet Union went away. CENTO basically dissolved because of revolutions, and SEATO member countries just didn't see it as relevant. Once the other countries don't want to play, then the organization goes to the dustbin of history whatever the US would want. I'm sure the US would be all happy if there would be a SEATO nowdays. Now it has to stick with bilateral aggreements and AUKUS.

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders? — Apollodorus

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe.

If I remember correctly, you were of the view that NATO enlargement, just as EU enlargement has been driven by the motives Rockefeller and similar. The issue I just point out is that one should add to that the actual countries joining NATO or EU have had their own motivations for joining in. Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US?

As couple of answers have pointed out, intelligence isn't the same as cognitive skills. I think we just adjust and optimize for our environment and that's it. The skills we have to have in the modern world are simply different from those the hunter gatherers had to have.

If our environment isn't so filled with problems and just to survive isn't a challenge, then the outcome that our brains aren't so focused on problems of survival is logical.

Besides, advance language and written text has expanded vastly our abilities to communicate and solve problems. Just think about, look at the threads in this forum. Now what would it look like to people let's say in the 19th Century? They would awe how much the members (who all aren't academic professionals) know about literature or the data about a subject. Of course, they should be explained that we can use search engines and "google" things.

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO? — Apollodorus

Well, having the biggest nuclear arsenal in the World should deter that.

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it. — Apollodorus

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO. :smile:

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it. — Apollodorus

And it's preposterous to think that the oil price is what it is because of the Ukraine crisis. There's many other things at play here. And just a while ago the future oil price was negative. In fact, the money is made from those fluctuations.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”. — Apollodorus

If the West is just hyping a Russian attack, then there is a perfect answer to this: not to do anything. That's how the issue then goes away.

And it's totally possible, perhaps the likeliest outcome of this. The issue just is forgotten, news things capture the focus of the media and life goes on as it has.

Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans — Apollodorus

Finland pays roughly over 700 million euros more to the EU that what it gets back in subsidies and other payments. Finland, just like Sweden, Denmark or Germany, has been a net contributor (not big, but still a net contributor) to the union during it's time in the union.

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. — Apollodorus

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be.

However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy. — Apollodorus

And how about taken into considerations the foreign policies of European countries as we are talking about European countries? The US is just one player here, not the only player. Russia is a country where the oil industry is a servant of the state.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia — Apollodorus

Do you think all Russians are happy with having a President for life? In truth, Russian are even more skeptical about their government than Americans are of theirs.

I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation .... — Apollodorus

That's why we have these debates on this Forum, don't we?

Then maybe I'm an idiot. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that will float to me, quite frankly. — ToothyMaw

So you really would think that the Biden administration would think that maternity flight suits are more important than the threat of Chinese hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy US aircraft carriers?

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans. — StreetlightX

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low. EU countries close to Ukraine have higher minimum wages than in Ukraine (220 USD per month) and the average salary there is a bit over 800 dollars. In Poland average salary is 1800 dollars (in the US close to 6000).

Yet do notice the absence of any enthusiasm from the EU for Ukraine to join the union. Or any talk about it. Even the whole 2014 mess was about only a trade deal between EU and Ukraine.

And do notice that Turkey has SINCE 1987 applied to join the EU and still is viewed as a candidate country even if this is quite remote now and time has truly passed. Other candidate countries are Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Potential candidates are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (Iceland has requested not to be regarded as a candidate country, so I guess it has opted to join the exclusive club of European non-EU countries).

In fact, especially after 2014, but even before that Ukraine not joining NATO could have been avoided as all NATO members have together agree on the membership. Some members could have simply dragged their feet, just like with Turkey's EU bid, and Putin would have been a respected leader in European eyes. But that's not an option anymore.

Unless you can relate it to the growing noise about supposed wokeness in our military. I feel like these people are testing the waters to see if it will *float. Hopefully it won't. — ToothyMaw

One is an idiot, if someone thinks the below argument will float:

Perino’s Fox News colleague Tucker Carlson brought the issue of wokeness in the military to the forefront when he mocked President Joe Biden for prioritizing things like maternity flight suits and hairstyle regulations for female service members while China was focusing on developing masculinity, building new islands and developing hypersonic missile technology.

But then again, the senile Fox viewers... :roll:

And then there is the reality:

(CNN, Jan 29th, 2022) The Pentagon is preparing to push the CEOs of America's largest defense companies to accelerate hypersonic weapons development by hosting a high-level meeting next week with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The purpose is to "light a fire underneath the entire hypersonic industry" and "encourage industry to pick up the pace," according to two executives at two defense companies who've been invited to attend the meeting which is scheduled for Thursday.

The United States has "a lot of catching up to do very quickly," according to US Space Force Gen. David Thompson, after recent hypersonic weapons tests by China and Russia surprised US national security officials and indicated the US is falling behind their main geopolitical rivals.

Yes. A lot of tax payer money (and new debt) going to the military-industrial establishment. Nothing is more lucrative than government demands for acceleration of a weapons program. Or establish an entire new industry.

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. - I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. — Apollodorus

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. The Ukrainians, or those protesting Belarussians (that are forgotten now) obviously could see how joining the EU has made the Baltic States and Eastern Europe far more prosperous. From the name Euromaidan this should be obvious. Their demands for democracy weren't some CIA covert operation and in Ukraine we have seen how the Ukrainians have voted in new political parties in elections hoping for improvement. But for some reason, for them, and of course for the Russians, the firm grip of a president for life seems to be the "rational", obvious and acceptable choice. Contrary to being part of the West, which would be so bad.

At least I remember that @the Opposite here has been quite consistent in keeping up the discussion about Hong Kong protests or the protests in Belarus earlier. I would suppose that kind of thinking would prevail in a Philosophy Forum, not acceptance and understanding of the views of a President-for-life who leads a kleptocracy made up of KGB spooks and spies.

Wasn't NATO more like a response to the second world war? So it's purpose is to deter any rogue state from becoming too aggressive. Therefore it has no particular enemy, as its mandate is to prevent the arising of an enemy. So if there becomes a particular enemy it has failed in its mandate. — Metaphysician Undercover

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about:

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.

Now you might ask, what's the point if we have such organizations as OSCE? Well, do notice that NATO puts the militaries to work together. They train together, they make their plans together, they simply know each other. That's a huge thing when you consider how hostile nations can be in the end to each other. For example, with the case of Greece and Turkey it's obvious that NATO membership has refrained these two countries from going to war. Once you have such alliance, the countries militaries won't be making war plans for hypothetical wars between them, just like the US had warplans to fight the United Kingdom after WW1 (War Plan Red).

It really should be hammered in that NATO is the security policy option for West European countries. Just to look at NATO as a tool of the US isn't the total picture. It's not similar to the Warsaw Pact: NATO isn't going into it's own member states to crush popular uprisings.

In the West, NATO enlargement wasn't done because of Russia. Russia was...past, an old story. People selectively forget how NATO was looking for a new mission, that article 5 wasn't so important and how there was talk about Russia joining NATO. The above articles (1 and 2) were really thought to be the important thing for the countries emerging from behind the Iron Curtain not to go the path Armenia and Azerbaijan have gone (actually even under the last moments of the Soviet Union). At least until now, NATO members haven't gone to war with each other.

Article 5 only came important after the annexation of Crimea. But then, you might believe Vladimir Putin, who tells a different story.

Ready-made identities suit us perfectly. We don’t need to consider a person on his own when we need only apply an identity and be done with it. Of course, this is to misidentify rather than identify, but who cares at this point? — NOS4A2

Yep. That's the name of the game.

You wouldn't people interact as citizens, would you?

Now that there is a collective identity some seem to hate.

I guess I agree with some of that. But why not model our government after what we know works and results in the most happiness (social democracy)? — ToothyMaw

Most happiness with social democracy?

Actually, I think the best policies are those when the opposite side of the political aisle takes on the agenda of the other. Also this is the perfect way to go through with some smart policies: the majority of the supporters of a party are just happy that their party is in power and don't actually notice that the actual politicies are quite in line with what the opposition wanted. Take example of Republicans with George Dubya Bush with Medicare (or was it Medicaid) or the economic policies of the UK Labour party after Thatcher (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).

This is the way things become to be "a norm". I think the UK Conservative Party has understood this and this is why they got in the last elections a lot of previously labor-voters to vote for them (and smartly Johnson understood this and was humble about it). The GOP on the other hand... Well, it's in crazy Trump-land.

Quit playing identity politics. It is just as superstitious and divisive as when the right uses it, and for the same reasons. — NOS4A2

Wishful thinking from you, NOS.

Both sides just looove identity politics. Oh they won't let go of the issue they so dearly love. It's like Germans and Hitler (Germany allways has these Hitler-Welle things happening in their public debate). Remember, the objective is to keep the tribes separate, you know. Best thing is to have the voters be angry at each other, that they don't notice they have much common in their resentment about those who rule them. What better way to refer to the color of skin or whatever difference they come up with, you privileged white cis-gender male living in Canada (or something like that).

Ok, I got it.

I would argue that this is how modern political parties who depend on the outrage factor to get people to vote for them operate. Now I don't want to be trite, but this is the way political parties do it: getting your supporters to be angry about the other political side is crucial, especially when you don't have much actually to give your voters. And yes, you can say it is a great way to distract public discourse from bigger issues. It's basically populism 1.0.

Remember Colin Caepernick?

He actually started his protest by sitting on the bench and it took two weeks for the media to notice this. Then a veteran Green Beret advised him to take a knee as obviously just sitting on a bench can be interpreted as rude ignorance or indifference, not as if you would be protesting something. But then Trump picked the issue in a very Trumpian way with demanding that the players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired and encouraged fans to walk out. And media limelight was focused on the issue creating a media frenzy. And Trump got what he wanted.

Perhaps political experts have a name for this, but basically it's about capturing the public discourse and to get your voters closer to you using values. It's designed so that the other side simply has to take the other side of the argument, like with freedom of speech in this case. George Bush senior did a similar operation with demanding that burning the US flag would be a criminal act.

And lastly, it's easy talk. It really doesn't have much to do with the budget or with government instititutions, it's this kind of talk that keeps people interested. It's the kind of meaningless value-talk that doesn't really change how the government and the political machine works. The military going all neo-marxist or woke will capture some interest as it is such a bizarre accusation. Or something similar.

I think that that is wrong. People don't need to be wrapped up in critical race studies debates, for instance, to be incentivized to vote in their own self-interest. — ToothyMaw

Do notice that many Americans don't know how terribly expensive their health care system is (compared to any other system in the World) and assume that everything the government does, will end it up in an even more fucked up system. So better to have the present system, at least.

Socialism is a swearword, as you know. Single payer system is socialism, as the American view goes. So it has to be bad. Just like neo-marxism.

So he is now caught in a situation where he doesn’t want to launch the invasion but also doesn’t want to be seen to back down. — Wayfarer

It wouldn't actually be so hard. A victorious speech in front of Russian soldiers and an Iskander-missile launch vehicle behind him and he can declare that NATO has backed down. Because, let's think about this, would Biden or especially the Germans have the stomach to focus on Ukraine when trainloads of soldiers and equipment is withdrawn from the border? Nope. They would sigh relief, pat themselves on the back of job well done and forget more quickly the issue than we would forget this thread.

Besides, let's remember that the first troop surge of forces happened early last year. A lot of the equipment has been parked on the border for a year. Now it's just an issue of organization, that you permanently rotate troops to the Ukrainian border and train them there. It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger.

The ~13,000-odd casualties of the already-existing Ukraine conflict ought not to be forgotten. My understanding is that this conflict is wholly and solely a consequence of Russia’s territorial incursions - would I be wrong in thinking that? — Wayfarer

Oh but they are forgotten. Or it's a statistic that doesn't bother people. Putin can use the deep and longstanding skepticism in the West about the Western (US) intentions and objectives. Hence as you said, the idea that Putin and Russia is the victim and NATO basically the aggressor here can be easily accepted. Let's say even I understood a lot more Russia's argumentation when the Kosovo War happened, when actually the US-Russian relationship first soured. But annexing Crimea, that is quite different.

That's on the to do -list at number 22 if Putin would annex Ukraine.

Is he just doing it to keep the West on its toes, as some say? But this is too dangerous and too costly an adventure for such a modest payout. And what would be his end-game? After all these hysterics and military escalation he can't just back down or settle on a reasonable compromise. He is spoiling for a fight. This is the scariest aspect of the whole thing. — SophistiCat

The idea that Putin put over 100 000 Russian soldiers on the border of Ukraine just to get attention and have a conversation with Biden doesn't make any sense. But who knows what Presidents-for-life think.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian government accused last November that Russia was plotting a coup attempt in Ukraine. And now also stockpiles of ammunition and field hospitals, the logistical tail needed for a major offensive, are deployed to the border. It's really an enormous effort just to get the attention of the US. It does also look like Putin has gone through many options.

If he guesses that the US, post pandemic, has zero will to fight a war, he's right. So this is his opportunity. — frank

The US is not going to fight, that is totally clear. After all, the war is already been fought (which many here seem to forget).

The US will only make sanctions that won't hurt itself and send weapons to Ukraine. The dying will be done by Russians and Ukrainians, if it comes to that.

Should we better then avoid talking about "materialism" --since it can easily produce confusion and misunderstandings in a discussion-- and use the term "physicalism" instead? — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

If that is the issue we want to discuss.

No really, what on Earth are you trying to say?

People aren't getting your point. So that I'm so stupid.

I'd say sometimes there are these excesses of cancel culture or political correctness or whatever.

One hardly should think these show a real genuine culture change has happened in such large hierarchial organizations as the armed forces. Or in how university and academics work. Yes, those well reported excesses do show aspects of the present public discourse and views held especially in the media.

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, and I don't understand why I'm being misrepresented.

Same goes for you, ↪ssu — ToothyMaw

I'm not accusing you of anything.

So what was your real question?

Hey, It's OK.

You didn't get banned, so be happy! :grin:

What is going on in the military that you find wrong? What is the evidence for this? Why do you think this attempt in the military will fail? — Philosophim

It's basically a very old political spin both parties actually use:

In the GOP view the basic issue is that: "Look what the Democrats are doing to the US armed forces!!! OMG!""

The democrat versions is to cry out: "Look at how right-wing the US armed forces are! OMG!"

And this happens, or has happened when:

- When blacks started to serve in all military units.
- Women were allowed to combat positions in the military.
- The military changed it's stance on sexual minorities. (Don't ask, don't tell)
- some in the military have been openly for Trump. (Then naturally it was the democrats who cried foul).

You might get the drift. Any political hot potato that the military has to reflect on and there is this rhetoric that commentators can go to.

(US Navy Seals being political in Kentucky in 2017. They were punished for showing political credentials. But I guess these aren't the neo-marxists that Gorka talks about.)


Basically it's a way to suck in the military to the cultural war discourse and to try to show that the other political party is politicizing the military and in the way making it less capable. That's where it basically comes to.

Please do note that this is a Philosophy Forum, so people do take marxism actually seriously, not just as a colorful swearword and totally replaceable with maoism, trotskyism, cultural-marxism or whatever. It absolutely doesn't matter what -ism it is in this type of talk, just that it hears like being bad. But it does on a Philosophy Forum. And also:

- You should be aware when people accuse the US military of marxism.

- You should be aware that Sebastian Gorka is one of looniest Trump advisors, a deputy-assistant to Trump, that there ever were. He served the Trump White House for six months (only because Stephen Bannon wanted him there). He is basically a Hungarian born television commentator who has had from the start of his career problems to get security clearance. This guy lives only in Trump world and is no kind of expert (other than that). But he pops up in the right-wing media to comment issues.

After taking that into consideration, that this is the crazy type Trump polemic that you can find there, the by all means listen what they say. Just remember the above.

But as all sides knew even before this brouhaha started, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon, if ever. — SophistiCat

Exactly. Ukrainian NATO membership was like the potential EU membership of Turkey. And if it wasn't for the invasion into Ukraine, the situation would be totally different. Yet Putin making demands NATO simply couldn't meet is what makes it so sinister. In fact, Russia's demands go against Article 10 of NATO, that goes by the following:

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Some even seriously thought in the 1990's (before the Kosovo war) about Russia joining NATO, which basically would make it an organization which would be for Article 1, not Article 5.

However smart Putin has otherwise been, the temptation to annex Crimea when Ukraine down on it's knees during the Maidan revolution was too great. This had enormous effects. You see, Georgia (and the Russo-Georgian war of 2008) would have been de facto tolerated. Just remember all the attempts to "reset" the relations. And if Russia uses force in Central Asia and sends troops to Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, it's a non-issue. Just like the US sending troops into Haiti. Good if people even notice it. Ukraine was different.

A country that is continually being bled by its hybrid war with Russia, including a low-intensity armed conflict on a large part of its territory, has no chance of being admitted to NATO or to EU. — SophistiCat

And for that reason both Sweden and Finland cannot write off the possibility, however small, that Russia could stoke a problem in either in the Swedish island of Gotland or the in the Finnish Åland Islands.

My real worry is if Putin sees the situation with Ukraine as "closing window of opportunity": that Ukraine is still beatable, but the further time will go Ukraine will strengthen militarily that would put military victory into serious doubt. Who knows what he is thinking. But then on the other hand, Russia attacking Ukraine doesn't make any sense logically.

Those troops might be positioned close to the border for a long time.

The relevant difference is between a naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated, unstructured listening to music and with it, a naive liking; and on the other hand, a systematic, educated, structured listening, which, arguably, provides a more meaningful and profound music experience. — baker

What's wrong with "naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated" listening to music? How many know how to play an electronic guitar? How many know the history of pop-music or rock? How are those people who don't know all that about pop or rock music so different in their liking of the music from those who do?

Sorry, but it's really not a relevant difference. Yeah, if you know how to play the guitar, you might really appreciate more some virtuoso, yet is that really relevant?

I think more relevant is the hostility we take towards some music that isn't "for us". Hostility to classical music is actually quite similar to the hostility towards country music or the music "ordinary people" listen to. The music that the peasant, the redneck, the yokel, listens to in their shabby bars and gatherings. Why is that music so bad? Take away the social or class construct around it, a lot of music is quite interesting to listen to.

Is your life any better now? — baker

Mmh...long time I heard that. :up:

Yeah I wonder if Lockheed Martin built the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. — Wayfarer

It was actually shown to be a Russian BUK-M1 missile. They used an equivalent missile given by the Finnish armed forces (as Finland had the same system) and found that the blast marks and the shrapnel were similar. And even found parts of the missile matching the Russian missile. The missile is produced by Almaz-Antey in Russia. The Dutch did they work well.


(And accidents happen in wars...)

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine. — baker

Actually, Russia can do whatever it wants with it's tanks inside it's own borders. But usually camping over 100 000 men on the border of another country is extremely rare and extremely suspicious. Just like if your neighbor would come and stand on his side next to your backyard armed with a shotgun staring at you and your house. Not typical behavior, but the neighbor can argue that he has the right to do that...

As if Ukraine would constitute a threat for Russia.

Russia's covert online ops teams are also active in propogating false narratives about Western democracies through social media, and amplifying memes like the likely imminent collapse of American democracy and 'America the real aggressor' and so on, which people echo.

Here's a (rather reassuring) analysis in today's NYT by journo with long experience in covering Putin. — Wayfarer

In 2014 the information campaign succeeded and went through well. To tell the truth, if Putin hadn't admitted that "the little green men" were Russian paratroops, but had insisted that they were "Crimean citizen volunteers who had taken up arms" as was the first Russian reply, some idiots would still insist on them not being Russian soldiers. I think this time people are more ready for this. But still, a lot of people will be fooled by total fabrications and outright lies.

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it. — baker

Well, what do you call then all those times that the US has wanted to "reset" the relations? Or how the US helped Boris Jeltsin when he asked for help (for instance in the elections). Just like with China, the US has had a lot of hopes for Russia, hope it would democratize and become more like the West, hopes that had then turned out to be a wishful thinking. And only then things turn sour.



There is consistency in the Russia view, but just compare the diffefence how Russia handled Central Asia (and the US involvement there). Compared to the brute bullying and open hostility against Ukraine and Georgia Russia had a different stance in Central Asia. It even had military bases in the same country with the US (in Tajikistan). Russia kept silent when the US built bases all around in Central Asia. It simply swept back and had it's "sphere of influence" when the US withdrew and now can say simply "No" to any US requests now. As I mentioned before, well before 2014 Putin was very popular in Ukraine. Not anymore. Russia could have prevented NATO far more successfully by simply NOT DOING ANYTHING AGGRESSIVE. The Western powers would have continued to weaken their militaries and NATO would have been focused on the War-on-Terror and other outside operations.

Of course then it wouldn't have Crimea. Which looks like to be what Putin is around for: to make Russia great again. Physically greater.

I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone — I like sushi

So are you saying that demanding that independent countries have no right to make decisions on their own security policy is diplomatic?

One can say those things without ranting as Putin does. But they are threats.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West. — I like sushi

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'?

Is Canada a 'buffer state' of the US?

After the war of 1812, when the British kicked the asses of the young upstart US, the US hasn't had claims for Canadian territory or had ideas that Canada ought to be part of the US. If the US still had such aspirations, I can guarantee US-Canadian relations wouldn't be so warm and friendly. With Ukraine, the present Russian leadership has quite different and in fact hostile ideas, starting from the idea of them being the same people. (Putin won't have Russia to join Ukraine, you know...)

And seems one has to remind that a de facto state of war already exists between Ukraine and Russia. So it's ludicrous to assume that Russia wouldn't be here the aggressor, but it somehow is the US and NATO. The sad fact is that prior to all this, prior to the annexation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine.

He isn't anymore.

yes, in the case of a potentially infinite sequence of numbers — sime

That what is generally depicted with 2,4,8,...
Not that it ends sometimes, which would be 2,4,8,.....,a.

it is meaningless to consider any particular function, let alone algorithm, as being descriptive of the sequence unless and until the sequence comes to an end. — sime

?

if the sequence is for example N, then the correct algorithm is "list all natural numbers". And natural numbers don't come to an end.

Either there is the correct description or their isn't. Those are your choices, they aren't meaningless.

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. — I like sushi

Would do you think so?

Did the US put over 100 000 troops on a border of Ukraine?

Did the US annex territory of Ukraine?

Has the US expressed doubts of the sovereignty of Ukraine?

A bit illogical.

Is math powerless without =? — Cornwell1

Basically, yes.

Math is all about =.

You see, math has emerged from a need to picture reality around us.

Calculation, addition and substraction has been something that we need for practical uses. Math hasn't developed from some existential philosophical interest, but how to solve practical problems. Even animals can count: if a bird sees three men going to a barn and two of them later come out, the bird can count that one of the men is still inside the barn. And calculation, computation, is all about something is equivalent to another.

Now people might think that < or > would be different, but basically it's applying the same logic. The real opposite to this is the non-computable.

And what does and can mathematics say about the non-computable?

Only that it exists. That there exists mathematical entities that are non-computable. And that's it.

And what do we do when we face a problem that is non-computable?

Well, we surely don't use math to solve it. In fact, we likely don't approach the problem as if there would be one certain true solution for it and that one can deduct it somehow. And to describe it we don't make any mathematical models or formulas, but for example use narrative.

Now, let's take your numerical example:
From a 2, 4, 8 sequence we could interpret all kinds of pattern (rule) that this sequence follows - but as it has been established, our interpretation of the rule has nothing to do wether we're obeying it or not.

But what exactly is our rule then? Where does it come from? How can we confirm it?
The rule, in the case of such a sequence, is determined by the author. — Hermeticus

I find this confusing.

If there genuinely is a pattern with 2,4,8,... then that pattern will describe the number chain or series to infinitum or otherwise it's a wrong pattern or the series of numbers is basically without a pattern, patternless. Here to talk about rules it would be better to talk about algorithms in the general sense. And either you have an algorithm that correctly tells you how the series 2,4,8,... goes or either you have the wrong algorithm or the series is non-algorithmic.

Nothing to do with the author, the subject. Our understanding or incorrect understanding about the series doesn't brake this logic.

did you live through the Cuban missile crisis? — The Opposite

Nope, I've been born in the early 1970's.

But this is a time for clear-headed, measured, assiduous communication between all sides involved. Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin (something about taunting certain people about not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does), however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere. Just a microcosm of the overall discussion, but worth noting. — The Opposite

I think there's nobody here who is genuinely backing Putin, but many of course are very critical about US foreign policy and the West in general. This can then make people to actually mouth the views of what Putin is saying.

Yet one should really think twice just how "aggressive" the West is here. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from that rubble didn't genuinely want be part of any Russian-lead union and the idea of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) was a non-starter. Ukraine, which was as wealthy as Poland when the Iron Curtain fell, has seen the East European countries and the Baltic States become far more prosperous countries while it hasn't basically gone anywhere economically. The desire to join the West is real among the people of Ukraine, it isn't some astroturf movement concocted by the US using George Soros as a front.

(How Polish and Ukrainian economies have been on totally different tracks, with one being a member of the EU and one not.)


This is the issue that those "understanding" the Putin line of NATO expansion forget: that a) these are independent countries have wanted to join NATO and b) Russia's actions, especially it's now several annexations of parts of it's neighbors, has just reinforced the reasoning why to do this. Putin's Russia obviously wants to have the power that the Soviet Empire once had. The denial that Russia lost it's empire is the crucial issue here.

To say that Russia has a right for a "sphere of influence" is basically an imperialist argument that Russia deserves somehow to have it's old empire. It doesn't and it surely hasn't tried to be friends with it's new neighbors. It has lost it just like Austria has and should face reality. And as it has been a real bully, it hasn't had the success that the UK has had with the British Commonwealth with CIS.

Ok, so the conflict is at the point that here in PF it got a dedicated thread!

Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue.

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin. Hussein accused Kuwait of drilling into Iraqi oil fields and demanded OPEC countries to stick to their quotas in order to get the oil price up. This got several countries to support his actions...until he invaded the small neighboring country that had actually assisted it during the Iran-Iraq war (another war he started). Making demands you know the other side won't accept at start seems very, very worrying.

Now many might argue that this is a negotiating tactic, that Putin will now milk concessions from the West. Might be, but then, this is a guy who started his political career with war, has relied on wars and hasn't avoided using military force. And has actually sinister views about Ukraine, especially on the validity of the country's sovereignty. And above all, what's to stop a nuclear armed power doing whatever it wants, when the other side has already said it will only respond with economic sanctions.

As Neil Ferguson said, the chances for an enlarged war is 50/50. I agree, it's very worrisome.

Maybe not Austria, but the Hungarian rightist government still thinks it should be granted its 'greater' pre-WWI borders. This is the gut feeling Putin has for Ukraine and many Ukrainians are sympathetic to Russia. — magritte

And this just shows that there is truth to what they say about EU and NATO: that these organizations make members to be team players, or at least not to have open military hostilities with each other. Greece and Turkey, two NATO countries with the worse bilateral relations, have barely avoided war. Yet without them being NATO members, they would surely have had a war or two between the two armed forces since WW2.

What are the options? The end of democracy in America in 2024 or another world war. — magritte

Oh yes.If Trump would win in 2024 and if the US and the West would be at that time even deeper mired to an Ukrainian bog (assuming if Putin would make large scale attack into Ukraine), that would be a really, really confusing time.

The elite have different cultural and practical predispositions than the lower class, so it only makes sense that they experience things differently. — baker

Money or influence doesn't make you hear things differently.

On the other hand, it's understandable that people don't have as a sport hobby polo as horses are expensive. But listening to classical music isn't.

Yeah, a man always pressing fake news is probably himself spreading it. I heard that he wants to go for president again. Will the people still buy that? Or are they truly blinded? — Raymond

They are not blind. And yes, as you said, a person always calling everyone else a liar is the usually the biggest liar. You see, these persons usually genuinely believe all people to be liars so the person thinks that lying is just the way the World works. For Trump lying is totally normal. It's the way he works and how he thinks the world works. After all, he has gotten to be President, he has been able to create this picture of being a billionaire when nearly bankrupt, so everything he has done reinforces his own twisted worldview. Objective truth is for idiots and losers.

With Trump supporters it's just like with the case of conspiracy theorists. Naively you would assume that a conspiracy theorist would want truth, honesty and objectivity upholded. Bullshit. Nothing is farther from them. You see, they promote willingly the most obvious propaganda as ever, because they assume everything they hear on the evil mainstream media to be propaganda. Everything. It's not a world where a journalist might get something right and something wrong and may have some bias. It's all and everything. So to counter this evil propaganda, you have your own propaganda. Everything is just propaganda. You counter the other sides propaganda with your own and with propaganda truth doesn't matter, but that you win the argument and support your side.

Hence it doesn't matter what crimes Trump is accused of, it's all simply propaganda. No need to hear it, no need to take it into consideration as only the people who are against you promote it.

I only need to remember my music teacher and my literature teacher from elementary school! And then some teachers from college, and the general attitude among the academics and the intelligents.

In their view, people like me are not able to "genuinely" like the music. I mean, there are essays and other texts written on how people from lesser socio-economic classes (ie. "peasants") can have only a shallow and sentimental understanding of art. — baker

Well, if you wrap yourself around old social structures, you'll find awfully many instances of how it is said that the peasants/ the rednecks/ the white trash don't appreciate the higher things in life. Or understand them. You see, to uphold a class society in things like art, culture or sport, you not only have to have those that think it's their thing, you also have to have the others who think that it's not for them, but only for those other people who they don't belong to. At worst, the thinking goes, if someone likes for example the music of "the other class", they are just trying to be someone who they aren't. Phonies.

Basically it comes to this: if you cannot laugh at haughty people, it's more of a problem of yours. Because those people who say they can like "genuinely" more music than others are simply very silly, haughty people.

Liking music isn't the same as understanding everything about quantum mechanics or molecular biology.

Now you might disagree with me, fine, but please understand that I was brought up in a society that isn't so class conscious in every way as the US or UK are.

But whence this idea that Russia wants to invade Ukraine?? — baker

Uumm...because they have already done that? You see, there already is a war going on in the Donbas. Or that they had made demand the West cannot accept (based on Westphalian sovereignty). It's hard to deny something that has already happened, as you are saying.

This is pure provocation on the part of the US and their EU allies. — baker

Really?

Just who has put 100 000 troops on it's border to a neighboring country? And furthermore, please note how Putin views Ukraine. As I said 6 days ago, I urge really to read what Putin himself has said about Ukraine and Russia, if one dares to venture to the official site of the Kremlin:

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

Yes, it's a lengthy historical text, but do notice the open hostility towards the current independent Ukrainian administration is clearly evident. Even the independence of Ukraine as an sovereign state is put into question. I already had a long debate earlier with @StreetlightX about just how "nazi" the current administration in Ukraine is. Yes, Ukraine has a small fringe of the extreme right, neonazis, of whom many volunteered for the fight against Russia in 2014, but president Zelensky or his centrist party are not nazis.

They've been treating Russia as if it was a rebellious teenager who needs to be put in place. They've been pretty much telling Russia words to the effect of "You're bad, and you're doubly bad because you don't admit that you're bad". — baker

I only hope that you would also look at how Russia has been behaving here towards it's neighbors as it's actions, it's wars and annexations of parts from two neighboring countries is the reason for all this.

And if you really argue that Russia has a right to do this, please think twice what you are saying. The Soviet Union collapsed. Period. It went into the garbage bin of history just like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But now it would be as if Austria would demand "a sphere of influence" over Hungary and the Czechs and Slovaks.