So, you DO get ostracized, after all.

And if someone doesn't think, speak, and act like you, he MUST be a "fucking asshole" because everything YOU say is always right. Isn't that how fascist ideology starts? :rofl: — Apollodorus

No, now you're doing that thing again, the thing people ask you not to do, are you off your pills? The thing where you don't actually read or understand what you read and instead make up your own version of what was being said.

I said

If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. — Christoffer

Now what can I possibly refer to here? Basic moral ideals? What would that mean? Maybe something like shouting racist slurs, misogyny, behaving aggressively, punching people or whatever. You know, things that balance on the edge of illegal but generally just make people exclude you from social connections and get you into trouble at work etc. We can go on and on about the philosophy surrounding this, but if you don't understand the basic concept of this then I'm afraid you either aren't capable of understanding it or you just decided not to in order to hold your line of argument or something. Most probable is that you just try to muddy the waters of the argument and I'm not interested in conducting that kind of discussion. Of course, you might mean "ostracized" in the old Greek version, that doesn't happen, maybe where you're from, but not here.

Wasn't communism a Western ideology? Didn't the Western world erupt into applause when czarist "dictatorship" was replaced by Stalinism? Didn't Western intellectuals call Lenin the best statesman in the world? — Apollodorus

It's easy for the masses to praise something when no historical context exists to discredit it yet. And no, "the west" is not all. Not all praised Hitler either. First many did, then no one did, except the idiots.

Plus, "fascism" isn't necessarily imposed by force of arms. It can be done through education, indoctrination, mass manipulation and control. Say something in your country that deviates from the politically correct "norm" and you'll get ostracized. — Apollodorus

Fascism as I described it was state-controlled actual violence and silencing of anyone criticizing the government. The most literal form of fascism, when the boot is literal.

The other forms you describe can manifest through governments, but most likely through different groups in society. Other than that, you don't get ostracized in Sweden unless you actually conduct hate speech. If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. I never understand how people confuse fascism with that, most likely because they don't know what fascism is.

So the first thing to do, for those hoping of liberation, would be to free one's mind from their BS. And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault. — Olivier5

Exactly. The fault of the perpetrators is not the fault of an entire culture, especially not in a secular and multicultural culture like "the west". "The west" is such an extremely broad perspective and I think most people just think of "the west" as being "the US" and through guilt by association, every western nation is therefore supporting or equally being as bad as "the US". As I've also pointed out long ago, we've lived in an intellectual anti-western criticism for over 30 years now. We can just look at art, literature and other pop culture for that, there's such an introspective uppercut against western ideals of neoliberalism and capitalism from within our western society that people have forgotten that other cultures can also be "bad". But since so many spent over 30 years of criticizing the west they themselves live in, they cannot wrap their heads around someone else acting out as Russia has done now. So instead of accepting Russia's actions as being taken by them, they need to pin this on the west by any means necessary, since they emotionally feel like not doing so would undermine their critique of the west. Instead of just... criticize where it's valid to criticize.

Shouldn't Russia's "ideology" be a matter for Russians to decide?

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you. — Apollodorus

I'm speaking of an ideology or idealism that's very common in Russia. The society in Russia is split, with a lot of people not following this type of idealism. The ones who do, primarily under Putin's enforcement of this idealism, trickle down the military chain of command, down to soldiers on the ground shooting civilians in the back in order to loot and rape. It happens so systematically in so many places that this isn't just an isolated behavior, it's a result of putting an ideal before human well-being. If you go into war with well-being in mind, you don't do anything other than what you have to do on the battlefield. But raising these boys into this behavior comes from somewhere and looking at how Putin and his people talk, behave and the ideology they push, we can see an idealism of heroes leading a united people where the empire, the "thing" is more important than the individual human being.

This is the ideology and idealism I criticized. On one hand, you have Russians who don't agree with it, who speak up against the war because they see through this pipe dream that used to indoctrinate people but have a harder time today due to information flow being more free and uninfluenced by the people in power. And on the other, the conservatives who want to return to this ideal society, this empire where people in power were regarded as deities while the empire aimed for greatness and beyond.

And yes, their ideology is for them to decide unless the result of such ideology spills over into atrocities and horrors for other people in other nations who didn't ask for it. Just like the Nazis, which I made a point about. The behavior of people in power, throwing their own people into other nations as cannon fodder, in order to realize their fascist dreams.

Or we can point out that nothing fundamental about Russian culture has changed since they were the world's heroes for overthrowing communism. — Baden

This is basically my point, the Russian culture hasn't changed, while some Russians have and oppose it due to its destructive consequences. Some Russians want to have a change from that conservative pipe dreams, and they get beaten down by a fascist boot for wanting it. How this is different from Nazi Germany, I don't know.

The problem in your comments as I see it is the overgeneralization. Critiques of culture require nuance and objectivity, which you've lacked. You are not the only one who does that and I wouldn't call it racist, but it's clumsy and unhelpful, just like some of the criticisms of America, the West, and NATO have been. I've been guilty of that myself too at times, and the consistency and intensity of the prejudices on display here remind me why sometimes I just need to keep my hands off the keyboard. — Baden

Thank you for a normal answer. And yes, I wasn't racist in any kind of intention, I wasn't talking about a Russian people in that sense, but an ideology and ideal very common in Russia and extremely common in their politics and military. The clumsiness could be that I'm not native of the English word, so maybe something was lost in translation, I don't know, but if I would have gotten your answer instead of the bullying behavior of the others, then I could have elaborated more and explained better instead of having to defend against low-quality trash. But yeah, I feel less and less like going to this forum. It seems to be a place dedicated for the bullies to feel important rather than focused on good discussions.

Re-writing really needs at least a few pages to go by...

the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. — Christoffer
— Isaac — Isaac

Yes, as you can see, I start with "politics" and focus on the war behavior it spawns. What informs this political perspective? Maybe the hero culture, the masculinity norms and fascist power hierarchies where there has to be a hero leading the people and the people needs to follow this person as almost being godlike.

If anyone thinks this is racist, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. It's about the structure and moral philosophy informing their political behaviors that get spearheaded on the battlefield.

Yes, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. — Isaac

You are. They are there investigating, they are uncovering this, and you call these people liers because the war crimes and atrocities being systematic by the Russian military don't fit with your opinions.

I mean, you have already pointed out that you don't do any research and that you just find things that support your opinion and won't care for anything else.

Scarily similar to some of the early anti-Semitism in 30s Europe though, much of the writing at the time talked about the culture of Jewry rather than the actual genetic Jew. Didn't take long to mutate into pure racism. — Isaac

Oh, so you mean that the Jews culture leads them to war crimes on a battlefield? That's a new one for me, I thought that they criticized Jews like that to paint them as bad when they weren't. Or maybe you're just doing a guilt by association fallacy, trying to connect dots where there aren't any in order to just paint me as a fucking nazi racist? Are you fucking serious right now? Do you have a brain meltdown not understanding what I'm talking about?

Can you imagine? I feel sick typing that. — Streetlight

Except Jews didn't do anything wrong, they didn't push politics that then pushed some military leaders to execute civilians. Do you think I'm just writing this out of context against Russians? Why the fuck do you just intentionally misinterpret everything like this?

Well, no. Seeing as they're being uncovered by the very parties in whose interest it is to exaggerate to maximum effec — Isaac

Do you mean UN and ICJ investigators? Isn't it easy to just dismiss everyone involved as having some ulterior motive and interest? Or maybe you're just wrong and the findings in Ukraine by these independent investigators paint a far worse picture than you want to accept.

Between the racists, the people who cannot read, and the people who play Nazi-PR, the US-hegemony cheerleader squad had assembled quite the front. — Streetlight

You're still rambling and refuse to be specific with your remarks on what I wrote. Get off your high horse little bully.

exaggerated to maximum impact by a country desperate for weapons — Isaac

The number of mass graves and war crimes still being uncovered speaks against exaggeration and against it being a minority group as these sites are located spread out over Ukraine.

Nothing to do with Russians being Russians IMO. It has to do with materialism.

If you think that humans are just meat machines, that human rights are a fiction, that might makes right, then you will find that brutality is the best way to rule those meat machines. — Olivier5

Of course not because they are Russians, but the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. This is the biggest problem with Russia, the foundational destructive form of their traditional identity. An immature philosophy that doesn't care for human lives. Can we conclude that the basic respect for human life and rights is part of a modern philosophy that's considered up to date? I have a hard time arguing for a moral philosophy that goes below that level and I can't help to position it as being an inferior moral philosophy that most of us moved away from long ago. You either put human lives and rights at the top or you put something else at the top under which human lives and rights are inferior, the latter won't judge murdering thousands to reach the peak of humanity and has been the root cause for many religions murdering thousands for a fabricated ideal held above human lives and rights. Can we then conclude this Russian perspective to be morally corrupt at its core? Just like we position capitalism as morally corrupt since it puts capitalist ideals before human well-being.

Why is this type of behavior by Russians so common? Why is the brutality systemic? We can criticize other nations for brutality and war crimes, but it generally happens as isolated cases, mostly under one asshole doing it. But in this, there are so many Russians showing total moral bankruptcy, a systematic level of the behavior. If it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, conservative values of "masculine power", national heroes, to achieve greatness, then they truly are living in the past as I've been saying. No wonder they want to expand the empire, create a new world order and create a massive Russia with a proud people under a strong man. It almost reminds me of...

Russia's response to Finland and Sweden joining NATO clearly shows that actually NATO enlargement was more of an excuse than the real reason for invading Ukraine. — ssu

Precisely, as well as supporting what I've been saying all along, that the only "threat" that Nato pose to Russia is when it tries to grab nations within the geographical interest of Putin. If he and his minions want to rebuild some grand Russian empire, then they can invade and try... as long as that nation isn't a member of Nato. So the only connection there is that Nato threatens the expansion of Russia. Sweden and Finland have never really been part of this "dream". However, the strategic position of Gotland and Sweden being part of Nato is very important as it would close off how submarines can move through Öresund to get to the Atlantic ocean. So there's an interest there.

But I think the downplaying is part of some sort of internal collapse around Putin. It might be that their threats reached a point where they realized that they played the game a little too dangerously.

Sweden has already stated that it doesn't want foreign bases or nuclear weapons on it's soil, and neither Finland has any appetite for them also. And actually NATO has no desire to do this — ssu

Yes, the key interest for Nato is the Baltic sea, and Sweden and Finland defending these waters. If there were ever a situation of a third world war that didn't kick off with total nuclear annihilation, then the Baltic sea would be a place of massive sea and aerial battles.

All this just makes it more clear that Russia was more interested in subjugating and annexing more land from Ukraine than in "countering the NATO threat". This should be obvious to everyone at least now. — ssu

The setbacks of their attempts at Kyiv, as well as their attempts at the assassination of Zelenskyy, seem too much to be just a distraction. As well as replacing key military officials and other internal problems in Russia. I think Putin generally thought of taking control of the entire nation or at least splitting it in half, gaining Kyiv. With the losses they had in the first part of the war, this second one sees the Russian army fighting on their knees. If they had focused on a smaller distraction and put a larger focus on the eastern border from the beginning, then it would be totally different. The key right now seems to be creating a corridor down to Crimea, as well as blocking Ukraine's ability to export through the Black Sea.

Since Chomsky is a common source for everyone who likes to muddy the waters as to who's the aggressor and downplay Ukrainian's right to defend themselves, here's an open letter as a response.

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2022/05/19/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/?fbclid=IwAR0jG9z-7zfHPsUmBZQr2w4vpljnHzwYQSBdwTJGyDAUBxu_gme1Ln2qs70

I've seen that video before, and yes, it is like this, but if you go to 11:20 in that video you get my answer and why I'm always pointing out why there's still no point in saying we shouldn't aim for it. The only way to get things as right as possible is to follow it. As I've argued in other threads, it is possible to train yourself to emulate the rigorous process used in science, in everyday thinking, it just requires training. It is not equal to always being right, but it is far better than relying on our biological biases when trying to make any kind of argument and it is a vital tool for being a more balanced person that can evaluate perspectives better than one who doesn't follow it.

As for what I wrote, what I mean is that if all experts follow their work and ethical praxis, the outcome is far better if the statistical number of experts is higher. Generally the higher number of people looking at an object, the more likely it exists as they describe it. Basically.

...as well as the video coming out in 2016, when at 10:12 he states that "the last 10 years things have started to change for the better", and now we're 6 years after this video was published, so it's important information, but also a thing the scientific world has been working to fix for 16 years now, 6 years after Derek said "it's changing for the better".

Yes, as a statement of fact, I do. — Isaac

It's not a fact just because you say so. :shade:

I have absolutely no reason to believe you. It just sounds like "Oh and my sources are the best, if you don't agree, you disprove it". I don't agree (by default) because it's a very convenient position for your argument. — Isaac

One way to get a hint of the situation: https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2022, but of course I'm mostly referring to the expert guests within these media channels who provide most of the information able to be used to assess any kind of probable overview of the current events.

Which is more than you can provide. And of course, you used your "professor" claim at every point it works best for you, and then not when it doesn't, as well as what I can remember biased bloggers or writers close to your own ideological heart but rarely valid for any kind of unbiased method.

I disagree with the claim that a consensus of experts i more likely to be right that an single, or small group of experts. Qualification and error checking are the factor which make an expert opinion more likely to be right. — Isaac

For a professor that's quite bad English there, had to fill in the gaps and English isn't even my first language. But then you don't make much sense either, like, you don't seem to understand the idea behind consensus, in scientific terms. If you have a set of experts, then the more experts that conclude the same, the better the consensus is because all that error checking and reviewing goes through a larger set of data. So, they all work through an analysis of the information they have access to in order to reach a conclusion with high probability, which can vary based on the information. So the more experts there are, the higher the probability of reaching a truthful conclusion.

The claim you make that a single expert can be more right than a group is only a way for you to justify that your experts are the right ones. That's as epistemically irresponsible as you can get really. A single expert can reach a new perspective and present it, but it's not a fact or close to the truth before that perspective has been tested and checked by others.

There's absolutely nothing about a consensus to say they have greater qualification (in fact they will on average have less), — Isaac

And there's absolutely nothing to say the opposite or that your expert source is better, just that a consensus of many experts has a higher probability to be better as a collective, than a single expert. This is why methods to reduce bias require more people than just one expert.

(again, I think marginally they will have done less than some) — Isaac

More conjecture in order to create the impression that your single sources are better than others.

The expert most likely to right is the one who has the greatest knowledge and has carried out the most thorough error checking. That, by definition, will not be the mass around the mean, but rather one of the extremes. — Isaac

And again, this does not invalidate my sources or make your sources more valid or truthful. The biggest problem was when I bias-checked your sources and found them far more politically biased than what would be considered valid for any good argument to be made from them.

My conclusions are not more factual than yours. I don't know how many times I can say this in different ways that you might understand. — Isaac

You cannot know that. Just because you have an opinion based on nothing more than your emotional reaction to what others write, does not equal me not using the information I have in front of me much more when making an argument. You seem to think that because you don't agree with someone else through pure opinion and emotion, then they are on the same playing field as you, which I know I'm not. The discussion about education was a clear example of our differences and should have made a point of that, but obviously, it didn't for you.

I choose evidence which supports my preferred narrative. The narrative comes first, the evidence second. — Isaac

Yeah, this is why you are generally full of shit. This is wrong and backwards on so many accounts that it proves just why you're pretty irrelevant as a voice in this discussion. Here's a little lesson in how to handle this with epistemic responsibility; you have a claim, hypothesis, or opinion, then you check all the facts to not only verify but also falsify in order to reach an answer as to if it's a probable conclusion or not. Since we're unable to do pure deduction with the available information, it's induction, probability. Only when different conclusions have been made can you create a possible narrative. If you think I'm not making efforts to do any of this, then you are wrong. But the way you tackle things is plain wrong and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion since you make most shit up and cherry-pick whatever fits your narrative, just as I suspected.

The difference between me and you here is that you're still labouring under the delusion that you don't. — Isaac

I'm not. But I guess it's impossible for you to grasp that when you've entangled yourself into such a backwards method of finding out what's probable.

That you somehow start every investigation with a blank slate, unbiasedly selecting your sources, interpreting their conclusions according to some disinterested algorithm, and then just happening, by chance to come up with answers which exactly support your pre-existing political ideals. — Isaac

What the fuck are you ranting on about here? And what political ideals are you referring to?

You, like every other human in the planet, interpret a complex soup of almost infinite data in ways which confirm your pre-existing biases until such time as those narrative become completely unsustainable in the face of evidence to the contrary. You're hard-wired to do this, it's literally how your brain works, from perception, through emotion, right up to grand world-philosophies. — Isaac

This is why there are methods to make sure biases and emotions get suppressed while formulating rational conclusions. Methods you clearly just shown to do backwards and wrong. Just because you don't understand this or think it's impossible or believe that because you can't do it then everyone else can't, doesn't mean that everyone works things out as you do.

Again, this is just your opinion. — Isaac

No, it's not opinion to point out how method trumps appeal to authority.

The people I've cited are all experts in their field. That you personally find them to be 'ideological' is your conclusion. — Isaac

Not when I bias checked the sites you referred to.

Again, whether the points I counter are 'cherry-picked' and 'out of context' are both subjective judgements, I would obviously disagree with that assessment. — Isaac

You already proved you do exactly what I said so case closed.

A recurring problem here is that you cannot seem to understand you things which seem 'logical' to you are not that way to others. It's not as if you're arguing that 2+2=4, these are complex issues. — Isaac

What's logical is that I look at information, facts, and many experts and form a basis of knowledge before formulating any kind of conclusion. While you decide on a truth you like and pick what fits it. This is what you've said yourself to do and if we compare who's following most logic here, I'd say you proved to be on the lower end. It doesn't have to be a math equation to be a logical method of finding out probable answers to complex issues. If you think complex philosophical topics cannot use logical methods to help bypass emotional opinions, then you're really not knowledgeable in this epistemical topic.

I'm simply not going to engage in a full blooded discussion about education in a thread about Ukraine. — Isaac

No, you stopped when the argument became too solid. That's what happened, you had no problem discussing it for many pages and long posts before you dropped it when I provided enough actual papers to support it. Cherry-picking to fit your narrative won't cut it by that time.

The point of it was to see how far you'd take an argument. — Isaac

Yeah, sure :lol:

I was intrigued as to why you didn't just assume I was lying about being a psychology professor (seemingly the easiest option for your argument) but instead assumed that you (presumably unqualified in the field) could 'outargue' someone holding a professorship by looking up a few things on Google. That position simply peaked my interest so I wanted to see how far it went. If you want to start a thread about education I'd be more than happy to contribute, though I'd expect a bit more than a hastily thrown together collection of papers. My views on the matter are not mainstream though. — Isaac

:lol:

The attempts you make to slither yourself out of failing to counter that and change things into some personal study you make in order to sound like you're above it all would be considered arrogant if it wasn't so fucking hilarious. But at least it proves just how you act and work, combined with what you've said now about how you actually just pick what fits your narrative best shows just how lost in the woods you are.

Yep. This is a public forum, not your private blog. — Isaac

It's a public forum focused on higher-level discussion. If you want something more casual, then go to any social media platform of your choosing. And wouldn't spamming answers to everyone, cherry-picking stuff and providing your wild emotional opinions be closer to the idea of a private blog than being on a public forum? No one is trying to censor you, I was just asking you to stop spamming answers to me, but I guess that your idea of a public forum doesn't require people to act civilly and respect such requests. For you, a public forum is more of the wild west, just like, you know... trolls think public forums are.

Yes, that's a fair summary (the vast majority of the time). If I want to learn, I'll read a book. If I want to discuss with experts, I'll track some down (though I grant my personal situation makes this much easier for me than others, I'm not criticising other people in this). — Isaac

And again you believe you are the only one who is able to track down experts :rofl:

I have a very specific interest in this place - seeing how people react to having their views challenged, particularly on view I have strong opinions about (it reveals interesting things about my own psyche too, not that I'm going to share any of them publicly). Unless such a form of interaction is against the rules, I'll carry on. — Isaac

I'd say it makes you a dishonest interlocutor with a motive that no one has any interest in being part of. You can do whatever you want, but you're just proving yourself to be dishonest in the discussion and you have now also proven to not care for reviewing your own opinions and just cherry-pick whatever works best for you when answering others. If this isn't proof enough that you are irrelevant in this discussion I don't know what. Dishonest, sloppy and lazy in creating arguments and basically just interested in anything else but the topic of this very thread. Based on this, your lack of respect towards others here is remarkable.

Why should I give you more of my time then? You're not writing here with honesty, you're just jerking off.

I'm just trying to get you to look at this from the other perspective. From the perspective of someone who disagrees with...

mainstream in Sweden focuses much harder on facts from people who worked with analyzing all of this for many many years.
— Christoffer

...or disagrees with...

made my argument based on somewhat of a consensus in the matter.
— Christoffer — Isaac

So you disagree with media in Sweden being much more factual and unbiased than in many other nations. Care to back up that disagreement with anything?

And you disagree with someone using the consensus of researchers in the matter as most of the sources to form their argument?

What exactly is it that you disagree with here? The process of argument or the arguments themselves? Because all I see is someone triggered by the fact that someone uses the consensus of researchers as a basis for an argument while claiming to have good knowledge of the level of bias for media you don't even have access to.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Because there are not many other ways to interpret what you said there.

These are, again, not just facts of the world, they are opinions of yours and other people disagree with them. — Isaac

If I use the consensus of researchers, both officially cited in Swedish media and my own personal sources from people I know who research these things, that makes my argument an uninformed opinion? What does that leave you? Who usually draws sources from heavily ideological bloggers and single individuals who share the same opinion as you? Why would your sources of information that form your conclusions be of any more factual value than mine? Because you said so? Please

If you think your arguments are soundly based on unbiased consensus, then of course you're going to find opposition to them incoherent (or at least not understand the vitriol), but for those who disagree with that assessment, we might be offended your lack of effort, your lazy preference for the easiest narrative. — Isaac

Yet, I only draw from the sources to form my arguments, I don't recite as you put it, even though I understand it's easier to counter me if you strawman it like that.

And disagreement without a foundation that can balance against such a consensus background is just disagreement noise. Your opinion is valued even lower if you only have a handful of ideological bloggers and individuals that you agree with in the first place.

The problem is that you just don't accept when I say I balance the information I have to find what seems most inductively probable. Because it doesn't fit your narrative and therefore you set out to discredit my arguments instead of actually arguing against them. Hence why you resort to sarcastic mocking rhetoric. You don't counter-argue, you resort to cherry-picking easily countered points pulled out of context, steering things towards a direction that's easier for you to control while dismissing context, the conclusions of points or the full narrative of the other speaker.

If your starting point is that you are being offended by something that's not even close to a hateful worldview and that it rather only doesn't fit with your personal and ideological worldview, you aren't an honest interlocutor if that offense turns into a sarcastic mockery. Then you're just an angry easily triggered person who just wants to shout at people who disagrees with you.

Your arguments have you and your country come out completely blameless and leave absolutely no obligation on you to do anything. They look just too convenient to someone unconvinced as to the unbiased authority of your sources. — Isaac

Yet you have nothing else but "it looks too convenient". All you have is your emotional response to everything here, you have no argumentative quality in your writing but blame others for having less. And you are the one talking about being hypocritical? You make no effort to evaluate the actual logic or rationale of the others' argument, you just compare it to your emotional opinion on the matter and if it doesn't fit, then the other person is a stupid, indoctrinated puppet. And when you get an argument with lots of actual sources you bail out, as you did with the "education" discussion.

You're not an honest interlocutor, you are an emotionally driven, easily triggered person who needs to mock others when you don't agree with them. I have no interest in discussing anything with you because of that, but you persist to spam your unfounded emotional responses to everything said by anyone that has another conclusion than you.

Hence why...

Not much in the habit of writing post that aren't responses to anything — Isaac

Because that's all that you do, react, mock and fight anything that isn't fitting within your narrative. While you blame others for not respecting your views :shade:

Just try, try really hard, to see that this is a subjective judgement of yours, not a fact about the world. If seeing that is too hard, then just imagine it is... — Isaac

You can look for yourself. My first arguments were in good faith of honest discussions, bringing up my perspective. And then look at your own first post. I'm not sure it's subjective to say that your post reeked of sarcastic mocking of others' arguments. So who started that behavior?

Now re-read your take on how things have panned out from the point of view of someone who disagrees with you about that subjective judgement. Someone who sees your arguments as carelessly lazy echoing of mainstream narrative — Isaac

Because mainstream is always bad? Mainstream can also be the voice of those actually working on researching the subject. It can also be different things in different nations. US "mainstream" is downright biased while mainstream in Sweden focuses much harder on facts from people who worked with analyzing all of this for many many years. The anti-mainstream argument is a blanket argument to use when the points to counter aren't easily countered. So the counterargument gets reduced to "mainstream bullshit". That's low quality.

I didn't echo anything like that, I looked at the information that exists and I have access to and made my argument based on somewhat of a consensus in the matter. You, however, especially with your radical nonsense conclusions about formal education and other stuff, just pull whatever cherry-picking necessary to fit your narrative. Then concludes other opinions to be "mainstream echo" and therefore meaningless.

Try to see your arguments from the perspective of someone seeing Ukraine slipping into an endless war, and becoming another horrific tally on America's million plus death toll for its foreign interventions. — Isaac

Yet, Ukraine seems to kind of win this war and they fought for themselves asking for material help. The problem with you people is that you totally ignore the Ukrainian's perspective, their wants, needs, ambitions, and will to exist. You criticize the US to play around with Ukrainian lives, while totally ignoring their opinions, independence, and needs. This is why your arguments come off as so blind and ignorant, because you blatantly ignore the Ukrainian perspective, just as you ignore the Swedish perspective of why we want to join Nato. You are so limited in your perspective that all you see is a chess game with US and Nato on one side and Russia on the other, ignoring anyone else on that field who has their own voice, opinions, and reasons to act.

Your argument becomes a shallow surface level hateful game of focusing all criticism on the US, whatever the cost of intellectual depth.

Your moralizing may well seem genuine and heartfelt to you, its opposition seeming thus beastly by contrast, but there are those who genuinely believe your position does more harm than good, and by several fold. — Isaac

Yet you ignore the Ukrainians and you argue that I argue for something that does more harm? Like, if it ends up as things seem to end up now, with the Ukrainians winning, pushing Russia out, and returning Ukraine to themselves to live as they see fit and not under the boot of a despot, all of this fighting was not in vain, was not a waste, but a defense for the right to exist as they want to exist, without being under the boot of Russia.

So who's actually arguing for more harm? The one who is open to the idea of Ukraine being under the boot of Russia just to end the war, or the one hoping for them to win back their freedom against Russia, even if it comes at the cost of lives? My vote is for fighting to survive, to live free from Russia and you are pretty alone if you feel otherwise.

These are not trivial questions of philosophy. Thousands of actual people's lives are being destroyed by the forces and strategies we're debating the merits of. — Isaac

And how would Ukraine be if no one helped Ukraine? If the US didn't help Ukraine with material and intel? Looking at the war crimes of Russia, the horror and hell that could have happened if they had to succumb to that outcome.

You are blessed to be living in Sweden. A country needs excess resources to be able to give charity to its needy. When our grand orange offered to buy Greenland, its inhabitants retorted that Danish welfare topped our offering. — magritte

We have excess resources because we understand how to handle the economy with care for the people. The irony of this is that we're still a free-market capitalist nation. Like, it seems possible to actually have socialism and capitalism in synthesis and the result is a high living standard, quality of life, and excess to help the poor with little to no demand of anything in return. Imagine if other nations started copying the same formula. This makes it strange to view news in Sweden because the bad things happening here get turned up to such extreme proportions that when compared to bad things in other nations it becomes a parody. Like, we have a real problem with gang violence and shootings right now in Sweden, but compare that to the US and it's like comparing to an outright war zone.

How do we know they're under-informed? Their conclusions are faulty. — Isaac

Just as I pointed to, your arrogant first argument where you mocked others through sarcastic rhetoric ended up being downright wrong the moment Russia invaded Ukraine. No one could hand you scientific peer-reviewed evidence of this going to happen, but we all knew it based on reading the signs of the information coming out, understanding how to sift through the bias of media, and understanding Russia's information war. You've jumped between taking Putin at his words and saying he's lying, whatever fits the argument you're making at the time. Without any context to when and how things are said. So every time someone makes an inductive argument based on the current information you demand proof in big letters, but not when you yourself argue something, then the information quality can shift however you like. The case point was the discussion about education and stuff where my final argument had highly detailed papers in favor of my argument and you dismissed it when we ended up at that point. You play with arguments, you fracture them into pieces and pick and choose to make things easier for you, it's a dishonest way of discussion that makes it impossible to have it honest and in a good tone. And then you strawman or change someone else's argument or conclusion to mock it as a way of taking some higher ground, when in fact it's so obvious I can't take you seriously. If you had any intention of meeting me at some place of actual philosophical discussion you would have done so, but your constant low way of discussing makes it impossible to have a real discussion with you. You've set that bar early on, don't blame others for the result.

Not at all. It's mocking anyone suggesting that a war might 'just happen' and that the most powerful nation on the planet wouldn't have a position on that and be pulling strings as hard as it possibly can in a direction that suits it's agenda best. — Isaac

That wasn't what you wrote, you mocked the idea that the US provided honest intel of a coming invasion because it didn't fit your anti-US narrative. When it turned out it was perfectly honest information and that helped battle the false flag strategies of Russia at the start of the invasion, you changed the narrative again.

The tone of this thread has been that anyone talking about how America might share some blame is either uninformed, heartless, trolling, or actually working for the FSB. — Isaac

It has not, it's you guys who come in here with that argument and argue with such arrogant bully mentality of everyone who has a more grey-ish perspective on these matters. All it takes is a look at what you all are writing, how you write arguments against those who disagree, and see how the tone shifted. Like how @ssu gets constantly bashed for being some "pro"- Nato-loving US puppet when he's owning everyone's ass with his extremely well-researched arguments. If only I had his calm temper to handle all of that, but I don't, I can't stand bullshit. The reason why FSB payroll arguments are made is because of the blatant Russian-apologetic nature of some arguments. When someone writes purely about a Ukraine-Russian dynamic in this conflict, someone whataboutist it into some anti-US argument. It's sickening how any kind of critique against Putin and Russia has been turned to focus entirely on the US or Nato as a culprit. That's why it becomes apologetic because it shifts the focus from the atrocities and crimes of Russia to just talking about the US's role in it.

And this is what happens when people who might spend years criticizing neoliberalism and the US, go into a discussion where Russia is in fact the culprit, however you try to turn it around. Because I can turn what you say around and position that when I argued for possible reasons for Putin's actions and talked about how he aims to expand Russia into the style of the old empire with its larger borders and how Nato would block such attempts just by being in an alliance with independent nations and not from a place of malice, you call me uninformed, puppet, US-loving indoctrinated stupid.

And this is what's actually my point. The "tone" started when you people began to have that attitude, arrogantly talking down on anyone who isn't anti-American and anti-Nato. Even when I've positioned plenty of times that I'm no fan of Nato, but see how it is necessary security for my own nation, the grey nature of such a thing is lost and in you people's eyes I become an indoctrinated puppet of the US for having that conclusion. It's downright stupid.

If you go back and look, I started out with attempts at good arguments, but the disagreement with the conclusions triggered some of you to start mocking my arguments. I and the ones close to my conclusions just ended up using the same rhetoric against you, if we began with you guys calling us Nato and US puppets, it ended up being you all acting as apologetic Russian trolls. You reap what you sow.

Why on Earth would any country be concerned with non-productive people who are an expensive drag to every nation? Being poor is an entirely different issue than countries not giving a shit. Poverty is a consequence of not contributing sufficient monetarily valued services or goods to the local economy. — magritte

Yet, nations like mine (Sweden) contribute to donations with little to no actual return in any kind of neoliberal capitalist sense, whatever so-called experts on Swedish foreign affairs in here say. Sweden has for a very long time been one of the largest contributors of donations to poor nations or nations in need of help. That goes against any idea that a nation must have some ulterior motive, it might just be that people vote for a better world and understand that helping others can be just about helping others. If people stare long enough into the void of the geopolitics of nations not giving a shit, it's easy to do a fallacy of believing every nation in the world follows that example. Just like many in here believe that every nation in the west follows the same neoliberal extremism as the US. I'm not saying Sweden is perfectly innocent in every international deal, but compared to the worst offenders of national egocentric politics, we're not at all what you describe above. The "why" in that question can be answered with "because we can" out of our economy.

My attempts at low-quality generally lead me to longer better-formulated posts. I generally fail at being consistently low-quality.

And harsh language, swears etc. are not ad hominems. I'm guilty of many swears, and that doesn't mean anything more than focusing the text to make the point stronger and more clear on where I stand. Low-quality, however, means making little to no argument, short, sarcastic, down-talking remarks of little value to the discussion but more focused on the ego of the poster. Going back in this thread there's a clear pattern of long arguments being broken apart into strawmanned arrogant hit pieces by people generally not interested in actual discussions but more focused on bragging about their own supposed intellect and pushing their ideas, ideology, and convictions with no regard for actual understanding of other's arguments before replying.

Like, your first post in this thread is a sarcastic mock out of everyone seriously contemplating the risk of Russia invading Ukraine.

What! Governments exaggerating a threat so that powerful industries can benefit. Sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Best just trust what the official experts have to say on the matter...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-latest-today-nato-us-reject-putin-claims-withdrawl/

...so that's settled then. The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists. — Isaac

The tone you set here is perhaps what sparks the quality to go down in a thread like this. I didn't start it, and neither did SSU or many others. Just like the invasion of Ukraine should be blamed on Russia for starting it, maybe soul-searching your own rhetoric would be good practice for you. Did you enter the discussion with respect or just arrogance? Do you think that a strong response to such arrogance is others' fault or your own? If you think it's others' fault, then you just seem to be along for the ride in order to trigger people and that's basically what a troll does.

I'm not innocent of getting down and dirty, but it usually comes as a response to something, while many others in here seem to have a tendency to just initiate a discussion with bad behavior, low-quality arrogant bully mentalities, or whatever. This, for me at least, puts these people, regardless of their knowledge of a subject, in a place where they become irrelevant interlocutors as they degrade the quality of the discussion. This is why I tried to call out to moderators to clean this shit up, but they don't care, possibly since this behavior is also conducted by moderators like Benkei as well.

So this thread is a cesspool that lost its smell of quality when these people went hard into such posts, and like trolls, triggering others until getting a response that they can point at and claim they're innocent of bad behavior. It's tiresome that this thread ended up in mostly only those kinds of back and forths, imagine if the moderators actually moderated this thread from the beginning instead of claiming "it's politics so the bar is higher". :shade:

Shall I quote them for you? — Isaac

You seem to forget that I numerous times asked you and other trolls to stop involving yourself in discussions I had with others, you kept doing it, kept on writing low-quality bullshit, and since mods don't give a shit about this thread I just applied the same level of rhetoric that you people used since it seems it's the only kind of posts you people understand. And when I wrote a long correctly formulated argument against you, you just ignored it as irrelevant since you had nothing left to counter with, and instead tried to steer away from that failure to attack something else. You constantly quote me or refer to me over and over with low-quality shit and then complain about the low level you drag others down to. This is why I'm not active as much in here anymore, because I don't find it productive to discuss with people like you and since mods don't care about quality in here, I'll just counter low quality with the same quality. But you can't seem to get over anything, and you seem to forget your own rhetoric and posts. Maybe I shall do a compilation of both how wrong you've been compared to what has happened in this war, as well as all the times you upheld the low-quality posting and ad hominems you yourself whine about now.

This has been an absolute disaster for Russia and it's becoming more clear as the war goes on. It's the end times for Putin. What he can now basically do is just try to hold on to his power and survive. — ssu

That and nukes. It's the only possible way for him to do anything. So everything hangs on how supportive or indoctrinated his surrounding staff is. If he gets to a point where he just wants the world to burn for all the shit that hit the Russian fan, then we can only hope there are no degenerate idiots carrying out his orders and instead it's the last straw for them to remove him.

A revolution happened. — ssu

Which is why I believe it is a real possibility. Depending on how bad things get for Russia moving on from the current low point, there's definitely a point when the people have had enough and if the people and military/police start to align in their critique of Putin and his minions, instead of being against each other, then that's the point things start to change.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

This is why I said that Nato is the only option for Sweden and Finland. There's no other real guarantee, as we've seen with the support for Ukraine before the invasion and during. Many larger nations will say that they support smaller ones but it's mostly just as empty as people on Facebook putting flags on their profile pictures, it doesn't help at all and is no guarantee of security. And by the time the EU gets together a proper alliance at the level of Nato, Russia would already have forces on the move to stop it. So, it doesn't matter what people think of Sweden and Finland joining Nato, I rather take the lesser evil as security than risk the worse one going postal on us.

Wtf? You're serious aren't you? You're actually going through with the idea that you've got some special insight which us mere mortals can't even question. — Isaac

No, I'm just calling out your bullshit thinking you know even surface-level stuff of what is going on in Sweden and Finland.

Look, for you personally, we're all well aware that you're basically Jack Ryan — Isaac

And you are a professor who fights against the norms by stating education isn't needed, so how on earth can we take you seriously. You are the definition of an armchair guy.

How do you get 24/7 information unfiltered, just by being in Sweden/Finland? I'm in England, I don't get information about English military security, unfiltered. I still get it though the press, open source intelligence, and commentators I read - same as everyone else. I can't just walk up to MI5 and ask, just because I'm a local. Yet all these sources are online, for anyone in the world to access.

What sources of military and security information do Swedes and Finns have unfiltered access to which are not on the internet? — Isaac

All of this is more than just military intel alone. You have researchers, politicians, police, security services, different types of authorities etc. Outside of that, do you know anyone in the military over here, any authorities? The combined flow of information depends on who you know and what the official discussion is in media and online. Just because you're in a bubble of guesswork does not mean everyone is. On top of that, you don't have the information flow that exists here, you do not watch Swedish news, media, or discussions that we have, all you have are from anyone sharing that information, with their interpretation filter and media reporting with the perspective of your nations journalism. It's filter through filter before you can start guessing, which isn't the case for me. On top of that, Sweden and the nordic nations, in general, have one of the lowest biases in media in the world. So it's easier to sift through the information flow compared to a nation like the US which has close to no media outlets not biased in one way or another.

Your point here is that it's either unfiltered raw information from the most secretive halls of the military... or it's just guesswork. Which is just a black and white fallacy... again. You might be doing guesswork, but others, even in the civilian sector, can know more than you, even if you try to make it into some kind of argument against me and SSU knowing anything about our own situation.

Bottom line is that if the information sources you describe are your only sources, then you definitely don't have enough insight to question what I present about our situation in Sweden. I can moderately describe Finland's situation since the nordic nations have so much in common and communicate regularly, but @ssu can describe Finland's point of view better than I.

in what military analysts describe as a victory for Ukraine. — frank

If this sustains and Russia is pushed back even further, then Ukraine won back its freedom and can rebuild. Going forward it's interesting to remember all of those who just argued for Ukraine to surrender and become part of Russia, giving up any future they had based on their Ukrainian identity and surrendering to the ideologies of Russia, erasing all the work against corruption they've speedily been doing to reach a point where they can become members of the EU which would then never be even considered a reality. And with all the atrocities that have happened, such things would probably have just continued and become a dark long period of hell in occupied parts of the nation.

So basically, if all goes right from this moment, resistance and the will to fight for freedom paid off, securing the future for all Ukrainians who want to live free and independent as their own nation.

Oh you're quite right I will continue to point out how wrong you are about everything ever. Except for this one thing! But do continue to tell me how you don't care while caring a great deal. — Streetlight

I don't care at all about you :lol: Do you see me seriously engaging with what you say? I just hate bullies and like to put them in their place, but I don't care about you, sorry if you wanted to be seen by bullying other people.

What your security would be against Russian aggression. Are you suggesting that's something Swedes somehow know more about by virtue of their place of birth? How does this work exactly. If I'm born in Sweden but move away do I still have the magic? — Isaac

I really don't know what you are talking about here. I know more than you about what is going on in my own country, I know more than you about the debates, discussions, social dynamics around the topic of Nato and defense and security against Russia. And as we have closer ties with the rest of the nordic nations, we have much more interactions than many other groups of nations in the world. When it comes to discussions about our military, security and identity as nations, I know more than you since I live within this information 24/7, while you have to filter it through outside reports, translations, cultural interpretations, media etc. And yes, if you move away from Sweden and don't have much interaction with people back home, you start to lose up to date stuff outside of the cultural identity you brought with you and the knowledge born from that. This is just basic logic.

Well, yeah, I should imagine you have James fucking Bond round to dinner and everything... — Isaac

Funny you should say :lol:

You're welcome to ignore me. But you probably won't. — Streetlight

Likewise, I mean, I seem to remember askíng you to stop replying earlier in this thread, so it's rather you who can't contain your need to bully around. You may need to talk to someone, preferably not a kangaroo though, they hit back.

You see that massive blue block on the left? That's not Europe. — Isaac

Canada and Greenland, what did they do wrong to you?

Geo-identity politics. How fun. This Christoffer bloke likes to whine about substance and the employs the most vapid form of ad hom imaginable. I mean there probably is something to the idea of local knowledge but considering this bloke writes better stories than Harry Potter, he doesn't get to keep his geo-idpol card. — Streetlight

Here comes the lecturer on ad hominems by the guy who constantly tries to bully others and add nothing but his egocentric bloatedness to the discussion. You're just acting like a toxic troll, no one seriously cares about your input. :lol:

Are they secret? — Isaac

Yes

Again, why would people living and working in Sweden have any more idea than us about the geopolitical implications of NATO membership? — Isaac

We weren't talking about the geopolitical implications in the sense you mean. I was talking about the Swedish and Finnish situation of joining Nato, how our perspective is on the matter and what our security would be against Russian aggression.

Geopolitical implications are usually discussed by...you know, geopolitical strategists. I don't know about the quality of your pubs over there, but here its mostly farmers and fishermen, it's an odd day on which an international foreign policy scholar turns up to regale us firsthand with his hot-off-the-press analysis of the situation. — Isaac

Maybe my social circle is just more educated than that and has more insight into things. But you know, you don't believe in education so you won't grasp such concepts.

... So when the use of nuclear weapons is inconvenient to your position, then there's simply no risk ... based on Russia's lying word about "existential threat" ... which is up for interpretation anyways.

In short, if Russia keeps its word (about policies it could change anytime anyways), according to you, then there's no risk? — boethius

If someone invades Russia, that's a valid existential risk for them, but no one is invading them. If they use the existential risk as a propaganda lie for a false flag operation with nukes, that obviously brings an existential threat to them due to the risk of counterattacks. It's the whole point of nukes as deterrents. The only risk of nuclear war would be if Russia sank so low on the intelligence charts and promotes a total lunatic who would just push every button possible to annihilate everyone who's not Russian, but that equals nuclear annihilation and then it doesn't matter if you're in Nato or not. Being in Nato helps block any attempt at common military invasion tactics or strikes. Nuclear war would be destructive for everyone regardless of alliances, especially back at Russia.

It doesn't matter if Russia keeps its word or not, an act that could destroy themselves entirely would only be taken by suicidal morons which, outside of the fact they are lunatics, is probably not the length they would go.

Ah ... I get it now, Russian's are stupid right up until the moment it's convenient to believe they aren't "that stupid" the moment that's convenient for you to believe. — boethius

They are delusional morons around their imperial fantasies, but they aren't suicidal, they know what happens if they start bombing the world with nukes. And even if they were, being outside of Nato wouldn't mean much if such a thing happens.

How did it apply to US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or were you dismissively telling the US to "grow up" the whole time, and they finally listened and have "grown up" from their toxic fantasies of controlling middle east resources since retreating from Afghanistan last year? — boethius

We're not talking about the US, but you don't think the US has gotten extreme criticism over the years on how they've handled the middle east? I'm equally critical of US foreign affairs, they did however not use nukes as retaliation for 9/11 which, even if the war was in no way justified for that reason, would probably have been the "existential threat" Russia would have argued as the reason if they were in that position.

the "grow up" theory of international relations is new to me. — boethius

Well, it's basically that we've moved away from imperial mythology. Even if we can argue that the US acts as if they are an empire, they're not really doing it in the way pre-WWII empires did. What I refer to is the invasion and shifting of geographical lines, planting flags and shit. We can criticize a lot of how war and conflicts are fought today, proxy wars and resource-based politics and conflicts, but even with the presence of the US around the globe, they haven't planted a flag and expanded their land as part of their empire. They have a military presence, but the land they're in is ruled by the owner of that land. If they want to kick out US troops, they can, which happened in Afghanistan, regardless of what we think of the Talibans.

The old imperial methods were mostly based on myths, on conquering and ownership of other lands. Since WWII most nations have moved away from such war geopolitics to gain assets. Instead, like China and the US, superpowers have gained influence through more peaceful means (yes, sometimes proxy wars), but mostly through investment and ownership of corporations in other nations. Trade has become the new way to build an empire.

And yes, we can criticize that as well, it's pure capitalism as imperialist might, but the lemonade is that we don't have the horror of hell that is world wars. I much rather prefer something bad than hell, a bad that "can" be improved upon when the old die and the young grow into power. We can criticize globalism for the negative effects it create, but it has also brought different nations and cultures closer to each other and built up a sense of social peace between people. Many young people today have no interest in geopolitical conflicts because they see lesser differences between them and people in other nations. This is the good thing about globalism, the weakening of imperial delusions, of fantasies of the might and power of a nation owning the world. Collaboration becomes more interesting than owning others.

Russia acts with the old imperial ideal and it's so out of date that when the rest of the world "grew up" they tried to play the new game with oligarchs and money flow, but their deep corruption and toxic mythological ideals made it impossible for them to play the game like China successfully did. While Russia failed, China's economy grew to the extreme. Maybe it's not so much that they need to "grow up", but more kill off the old holding the nation back in these outdated ideologies.

As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. — Isaac

Neutrality or non-alliance won't hold against nuclear annihilation either. You can only plan a military defense against common warfare and that is what Sweden and Finland are doing. Nuclear annihilation would annihilate us even if we weren't in Nato.

Unless you're literally walking to these sites in person you're getting your information from — Isaac

Or just have other sources for the information than online ideological bloggers. Outside of that, I don't think someone in Australia would have a clear sense of the discussion, debate, and events going on in Sweden and Finland, however much time they spend online. I don't think he keeps 24/7 information going or has constant social interactions with people living and working or even being in the military here.

So, outside of your continuous black and white fallacies trying to point out that it doesn't make sense because I'm literally not bending over the possible war maps of strategic planning of defense, it makes sense in that I know more about our situation than some random Australian trying to bully himself to earning intellectual respect. :lol:

Even if we weren't part of Nato a nuclear war would annihilate us anyway. We're surrounded by nations that are targets for nuclear strikes, a strike on Germany with a southern wind would down us in fallout.

There's also a deterrent in expanding Nato as a response to Russia's aggression. If they, like most other nations of the world, as referenced in the video of the Kenyan ambassador I linked to, keep their nation within the borders that are set, there won't be any conflicts. Sweden and Finland joining should be, for any rational Russian, a clear point made about how the modern world functions, something they clearly haven't caught up to. Few had any problems with Russia pre-2014 and if they'd kept within their borders they could have been closer to China's success, with great trade and a booming economy. But they bitch about their great empire and live in old outdated fantasies, while the bulk of their wealth went through corrupt oligarchs instead of businesses, and that's "ok", if they keep it within their borders, but the problem is when they invade others to make those fantasies a reality, trying to cosplay something into real casualties.

But if nuclear weapons are only to be used as an option for Russia if they feel an existential risk, then there's no risk. If they attack out of the blue with nuclear weapons then they would have done so anyway. This is the new cold war and as long as Russia keeps to itself there's little risk of anything, especially with the hard iron curtain drawn against Nato.

The only one holding the cards here is Russia, if they want to annihilate themselves that's up to them, but even in their battlefield stupidity and imperial fantasies, they don't seem that stupid. I think they clearly understand the Nato/Russia dynamic but they use propaganda and lies as a weapon trying to control other nations, which this time failed miserably for them. It might even trigger a shift towards better diplomacy when the fallout of the Ukraine conflict starts to happen in Russia. There will be a lot of internal questioning of the information tactics they've been using since it ended up expanding Nato instead of deterring it. The message to Russia is clear, don't invade other nations believing you have any rights to it, because you don't, and the world will punish you for it, whatever delusional justification you present as a lie to "trick" people into supporting your cause, it's blatantly obvious. Stay within your borders and fix your shit, until then we won't be fooled into some surprise attack, we will keep our guns aimed at our borders until you grow up from your toxic fantasies.

Nuclear war is unlikely, it would only be a reality as a suicide action by Russia; "if we can't have the world, then no one will!"

You wrote a three paragraph fantasy novella and I was complementing you. — Streetlight

Were you equally pathetic at bullying people in school? Did they laugh behind your back at those attempts? :lol: If you're not adding anything just fuck off into the outback or something.

Ok ... well then, when were they going to invade before?

And how does this concern for Finland and Sweden square with the idea Russia is losing in Ukraine?

If Russia can't even beat Ukraine, why would Finland and Sweden be in any danger at any point? — boethius

Why would we let Russia ever get to the point of trying? Ukraine might have beaten Russia, but at what cost for the Ukrainians getting systematically executed, tortured, and raped by Russians? Joining Nato blocks any attempts and any attempts are impossible to know about. That's why it's a security strategy to join Nato.

It's also in support of the Baltic nations which are at greater risk than we are.

But your question of "when" could have been asked to Ukraine before they were invaded and arrogantly remarked as something never to happen, but it did.

On top of that, we can mock the pathetic military that Russia has today, but what if they learn and improve after this conflict to have greater success next time that shouldn't be underestimated.

You don't build security out of guesswork, you build it out of the necessary defense against a number of possible scenarios. This is not a board game with dice throws, we build strategies in order to get double sixes every time.

No I think I will criticize anything I want, especially your overactive imagination, thanks. You can continue to cry about it, of course. — Streetlight

You can criticize anything you want, but you add very little to anything in here other than just being an annoying fucker from down under commenting on stuff you clearly know little about compared to us in the middle of it. If all you do is to try and bully around the thread for your own amusement then you're just making a fool out of yourself as an interlocutor and we won't care about anything you say other than as an annoying fly buzzing around. You don't criticize, there's no substance in your criticism, you're just irrelevant noise.