And you were able to deduce all this from your armchair? — boethius

No, I did not.

But you can believe whatever the fuck you want from your armchair.

When do you expect Russia will be invading Sweden? — boethius

Now they won't. Without Nato perhaps as a flank position for missile and weapon placement on Gotland when their military has been built up again, but now that we're about to join Nato they won't, which is the point.

I think Christoffer should write the next Star Wars. A++ imagination. — Streetlight

I think you should shut the fuck up. You're not even on the same side of the globe so you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to criticize alliances you should criticize your Aukus involvement more than commenting on us joining Nato.

Sweden shouldn't be a problem with their excellent weapons manufacturing. Not sure what the Fins bring. :razz: — Benkei

Don't know what @ssu would strategize, but as a swede what I see Finland excelling at is being prepared for conflict. They have massive and well cared for underground shelters and a much larger part of the population enrolled as military reserves. Sweden's shelters are shit, we have a lot of them, around 60 000, but the tech is from the freakin 50s. It was even brought to attention recently in a Swedish TV show focusing on simulating a crisis; the reporter just picked up the phone supposed to be used by the leader in each bunker and it almost fell apart in her hands. So it's not very cared for. On top of that, my opinion about the Swedish population is that when it comes to national defense and the will to fight for our freedom, there are a lot of lazy people who just don't care. The greatest risk is that we don't have enough reserves and that people just don't give a fuck.

But combining Finland and Sweden's efforts it becomes a bit different. Finland will be much better at defending the actual border, they've done so before with a humiliating effect on the Soviet Union. Combining that strength with Sweden's speedy mechanical warfare (our mechanized strategies are many times faster than Russia, moving troops across terrain at high speed), as well as air and sea superiority (we beat both Nato and the US alone in Baltic exercises using only one of our u-boats), means that it would be impossible for Russia to gain presence at sea while being forced to focus on the borders to the Baltic nations and Finland. That's four Nato nations (five if counting in Poland) spreading their strength against invading troops and Finland also has such a harsh easter terrain that the pathetic Russian tank columns would get stuck before even entering the nation. All while Sweden totally blocks the baltic sea flank.

I think that if Russia would invade Nato in the north, that would lead to heavy counterattacks as well. Both Kaliningrad and St Petersburg can be cut off from Russia with heavy air attacks by the Swedish air force. Which would really tank the ability to hold the line for Russian ground troops. With Sweden and Finland part of Nato, it's basically game over in the north for Russia. The only way for them to expand anywhere would be east and southeast, but they might not be able to except by putting aged weapons in the hands of a large portion of their population. Hence why security increases so much for us being part of Nato, the collaboration for military defenses would be guaranteed, not just false promises that Ukraine experienced and had to overcome on their own.

The likeliest response from Russia, that "military-technical response" it has promised, will be a restructuring of defensive and offensive assets inside Kaliningrad and Russia proper. Which actually is quite understandable and naturally Russia can do that. I'm not sure what some hybrid attack would do, actually. Already some assumptions have been proven false. — ssu

They will probably do something to show aggression in some way before the membership is finalized. Something that won't trigger any alliance response, like cyberattacks, border breaking, heavy military presence close to the border.

But at the moment they won't have any military strength to do so. Putting too much of the military close to Finland's border means a lot of staff away from Ukraine. Finland's border is huge and Russia can't really cover it without stretching its military thin.

So I doubt much will happen until they're done in Ukraine. Which is why now is the best time for us to join.

For me and @ssu it's a big thing at the moment since we've just got word from the Swedish government that we're applying for Nato. This means that if a speedy transition will happen, we will very rapidly be member states. Most important for us at the moment is that Russia will conduct different types of attacks outside of military ones, except maybe breaking airspace to "show muscles". Other than that we will have a lot of unstable infrastructure with hacking attempts. But it's still a sigh of relief that we're transitioning into real security instead of false promises and sham diplomacies and it's a big loss for Putin and his fuckers if any of their reasons for this invasion were to keep Nato away. Like, what the fuck did they think was gonna happen? Stupid asswipes :shade:

Then the possibility of a civil war loomed in the background. — ssu

The tensions and internal battles during the collapse of the Soviet Union was close to starting a civil war. If there's a collapse of Russia happening due to the current war, then the outcome might not be as good as it was back then, it could very well escalate to a full civil war. This is what I meant with revolution, it could lead to it because the Soviet Union's internal conflict had much more to do with the different nations breaking off from Russia while now, the possible internal conflict has no borders to break. So it could lead to a massive overhaul of the entire nation.

Of course speculative, but it only requires part of the military to be fed up with Putin and his minions to escalate it into a deadly divided nation and we've already seen a lot of Russian soldiers who deserted turning their backs on Russia.

Maybe he just thought taking over Ukraine would be worth it. — ssu

And this is why I think he's a delusional despot with stupid minions under him. To think that the world, with all the alliances it has from WWII and forward would just sit idle while they murder Ukrainians is a delusion that only someone far up their own asses would do. The cost is so high for Russia that it's close to proven that they are stupid regardless of whether they taking over the entire Ukraine or not.

We don't give enough credit how well the last leaders of the Soviet Union did handle the collapse of Union. — ssu

Because they were mostly educated people. Indoctrinated, but educated and intelligent as to how to handle that collapse and they did it in a group, not through a bloated self-absorbed despot. Russian people today seem to have lost a few points of IQ for some reason, maybe due to long-time exposure to the Chornobyl downfall or something.



Russia needs an overhaul, it's rotten to the core with deadly corruption and degeneracy. Since most decent people seek to leave the nation, there will only be these degenerate criminals left.

Your argument for "rightful owners" of a piece of geographical land is just plain stupid. It's an argument that can be stretched to such extreme length that it becomes irrational as any kind of solution for any nation of the world. Just listen to people a bit more intelligent than you who reflect on the Ukraine conflict with the perspective of their own geopolitical perspective:



The world can argue back and forth about where to draw borders, but a peaceful world can be achieved by everyone accepting the status quo of borders as a reset for geographical conflicts and any shift to be through peaceful processes, not force.

Your argument for "rightful owners" is warmongering because it gives the right to anyone to take any point in history and claim their right to invade other nations because of it. It's the same stupidity that we condemn Russia for in view of the current invasion of Ukraine. By your concept, Sweden should invade Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Russia and take back a large chunk of all of it because we owned it at one point in time. It's a stupid way of trying to justify invasions today and it falls flat.

keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. I guess it stems from 'the will to be dumb', the desire for obscurity and doubt, the fear of clarity. What he calls 'hubris' is exactly that: clarity of thought, and he's pissed when you clarify things. — Olivier5

It's so much easier to misunderstand and keep your narrative than to understand and challenge yourself. It's a bias that most people do and it's what philosophy aims to bypass. But clearly, there's no philosophy in this thread, the setting is set to "common internet forum mode".

I guess the obvious thing would be to reinforce the air defenses in the Leningrad area and basically put more troops on the border. — ssu

It will also stretch the Russian army thin, they will put more of their GDP into military development, which in turn will strain society. The positive outcome of this might be that the population suffers and rally against the government. Much of the pressure before the Soviet Union fell came from the mothers of deceased soldiers who earlier were strong supporters of that regime, the same can happen with this conflict and if not with this conflict then with the upcoming economy stretching thin as Russia tries to squeeze as much as they can into the military. As I've been saying, a Russian revolution would be better for the world and for Russia itself. Maybe it could be the last breath of old imperial thinking in Russia moving into a much more balanced and functioning society. But that's just too much optimism. Russia will probably just be like North Korea, maybe even best buddies with them, as have been hinted by their communication with each other. I don't think China will dare to touch Russia after this. They have collaborations with North Korea, but they treat it very hush-hush so as to not complicate things with their relation to the rest of the world.

We shall see, now that Finland has applied. — Olivier5

I suspect nothing since we know Russia lies through their teeth and uses propaganda and information as tools of war. The medium is the message. It's not what they say that is important it's how its used. To threaten Finland and Sweden of action if we join Nato is not to say that they will attack if we join Nato, but to deter us from joining in order to win against us with a pure propaganda game. But they will probably don't do anything if we join because it is just as suicidal as attacking any other Nato member. However, when their military power is built up again and if we don't join, they have an opening to attack because they know they can't just use the propaganda game to deter us from joining.

This is why joining right now is the only option, because Russia is weakened and sitting around waiting for some other ideal time to join would be downright stupid. And if Finland joins but Sweden doesn't, annexing Gotland would be an extremely important strategic point for Russia, especially to place nukes on. It would flank most regions of northern Nato members. So, that's why I said we have little choice but to join now. Russia is too dangerous to wait for them to recover before trying to join any kind of security.

Well, that's exactly the question. Dawkins, quite ignorantly, says the purpose of life is to pass on genes or memes, which is just a dogmatic belief. — Hillary

I'm not Dawkins and I'm saying there's no purpose in that either. It's part of the web of life that evolved by probability. There's no more purpose to passing on our genes than for a fungus to spread interconnected nerves through a forest. We attribute divine meaning to something meaningless because we can't stand the notion that there's no meaning at all. Instead of giving it a sense of meaning rationally connected to its existence as it is. Dawkins might just say those things about purpose to make an argument for the believers, because believers can't grasp the concept of no given purpose or meaning.

Now it's true that life has evolved in a long process starting at the big bang, but who says all universal life would not have evolved into the same beings if the initial state were different? — Hillary

The problem with theistic philosophy is that when breaking down the concepts, the theists end up with a vague notion that something kickstarted everything and any kind of actual divine meaning and purpose becomes just as meaningless as if there was no divine entity at all. And changing the initial state is no different than some random fluke letting the Nazis win the war instead of the allied nations. Today would look different if the universe had another start, but not so different that it would flip the concept of meaning and purpose in favor of some divinity. It's also quite irrelevant to any meaning or purpose for individuals. The problem with theism is that every philosophical discussion around God, belief, and religion ends up in a first cause argument totally dislocated from the actual initial argument of the discussion. Theism has become a warm blanket of pseudo-intellectualism as the last stance against rationality. The last line of defense for the religious to feel there's hope for their personal conviction to survive.

I'm saying, just let go, embrace things for what they are, and find meaning and purpose untouched by the corruption of thought that is an irrational belief.

But science and religion can go hand in hand. Science lacks the explanation of where the basic ingredients of the universe come from, and gods can offer a reason for why it appeared. It's a totally different reason than the scientific take. Gods are not needed to fill gaps (science can work it out to the fundaments), but to give reason for a gapless state of matter in the first place. — Hillary

Things like this have been said since the renaissance started to seriously separate church and knowledge for our modern world. For every discovery and scientific breakthrough, the theistic goal posts gets shifted further and further away into places of obscurity. But research has always pushed this back. We're constantly moving closer to things like a unified theory, we are constantly knowing more and more about the universe. What happens when science explains all of what you said? Would you move the goalposts further, like theists and religious people have done so many times in the last 500 years? It all becomes a parody of theism, the person pointing to the mystery and as the mystery gets explained they point somewhere else and says it's a mystery. It's close to what doomsday cults are doing, placing a date for the end of the world, and then it doesn't happen they just brush it off and choose a new date for it. It's fundamentally irrational.

And we still know so much today that the notion of something divine being there, just beyond the reach of understanding becomes a concept so vague that the idea of something divine becomes irrelevant.

I hope you are familiar with the parable of the invisible gardener?

So, the mindless reason that science gives for existence (reducing it to coincidental combinations of lifeless particles) is replaced by a reasonable creation act with a purpose, endowing existence with a wonder science has taken away. — Hillary

So? It's still just fantasy created to soothe those who can't accept that there's no divine meaning or purpose. It's circular reasoning where you have to accept the conclusion before making the argument. It's philosophical garbage, which is what theism really is. Theism feels like a philosophical playground where the rules of conduct don't apply and theists don't have to reach the same level of scrutiny as the rest of the philosophical community. So they create this bubble in which they can discuss philosophy under the comfort blanket of an already decided truth about the universe; the decision that the divine exists and we shouldn't question that but can question everything else. It's just as irrational as religion itself and theists are unable to discuss it with proper philosophers because they get stuck in those decided truths and can only boil down to conclusions like "I think what you say is bullshit".

Children in a playground, playing with the invisible gardener. While the adults know it's just playful fantasy for the comfort of their minds.

BS, if you don't mind me saying. The "more rational and logical conclusions based on science" offer no solace, as gods are not invented but exist to resist exactly the scientific explanations. Science can't answer the reason for existence. Only gods supply us with pure ratio and reasin, and scientific explanations, useful as the are in the material domain, are the most irrational means for answering the question of the meaning of life. — Hillary

What is "BS" is how you presume that belief or gods are required for feeling solace. If all you ever knew were those answers, then it becomes almost impossible for you to see past them. "Meaning of life" is a pointless idea if that idea points to a meaning or purpose existing before your life come into existence because there's no point to our life, we're the outcome of a billions year old (maybe more) probability game and the complexity we feel is a result of that, which deludes people into believing there's some meaning to it because they arrogantly think their human intelligence is of divine influence. You don't have any meaning or purpose and that becomes the point when dismantling the illusions of belief and religion because it enables people to seek meaning and purpose in their life instead of settling in for some meaning already there. It's an apathy out of religion, tailored to be very easy for people in power to take advantage of since if meaning and purpose is already there "by God", then people stop introspection and self-reflection, people stop examining their lived life since there's no point in some "grand plan".

Religion is the sugar-coated diabetes-inducing candy with unhealthy substances not written out on the package. Viewing the universe as it is, to the best of knowledge that exists is the healthy meal.

I feel wonder and excitement and meaning and purpose in accepting the world, nature, and universe for what it is. I feel awe in the wake of things like the James Webb telescope looking deep into the hidden truths of the universe.

All those things that you think are missing in a life without religion or belief, do indeed exist there. But a religious person, a person of belief cannot understand or see any of that because they are blinded by the arrogance of their belief. That's why they say "bullshit" to such explanations because anything other than God, belief, and religion is beneath them. Unfortunately, history and historians of religion has enough examples and explanations of how religion gets "invented", the psychology behind it and most importantly... how destructive it can be. Just because you can't or don't know anyone who has found solace and peace without God, religion, and belief doesn't mean that it is impossible. Only if you strawman it by saying stuff like "research doesn't give meaning" disregarding every further notion of expansion of this concept can you make it true for yourself. But thinking that there aren't people in the world feeling just as fulfilled by life without the fantasies cooked up by people throughout history to explain the unexplainable, is just arrogant and proves my point that very few really understand any of this, even among those calling themselves athetists.

It's here

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — Isaac

What Russia says, threatens, and put in propaganda is not the same as what they actually do. Just like they said they wouldn't invade Ukraine for months before actually invading Ukraine. How can you be this fucking stupid to not see what @ssu meant with that statement?

They threaten us because they think we will bend to their will, because that is what they want us to do. If you think they will attack us when we are Nato members you are seriously delusional.

So you are making the argument that those women were accidentally raped in Columbia? I didn't think your bootlicking would really descend that disgustingly low, but apparently I was wrong. — Isaac

I didn't think your inability to understand what the fuck is being said could be so bad. Instead, you keep going with the loaded question fallacies just because you can't grasp the differences I presented.

You've given no account of anything systematic other than some unspecified number of alleged rapes. — Isaac

By the reports of the investigators in Ukraine. You want to keep play the numbers game instead of actually listening to the conclusions of the investigations. You can find them yourself if you cared to actually do any type of research that doesn't confirm your already existing opinions.

Do you even have a concept of disagreement? Is everything either agreeing or misunderstanding? — Isaac

Facts about how Nato works don't care about your fucking opinion of how it works. You live in a fantasy that supports your opinion and make shit up trying to argue for it. It's hollow.

No, ssu's head. It was his post I got it from. — Isaac

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, @ssu?

It might be important for your evangelical condemnation, but I doubt the families of the 22,000 dead are much consoled by some apologist's theorising that they didn't mean to. — Isaac

That is not a counter-argument. I could say the same to you, you ignore what Russia has done in Ukraine and shift focus away from it instead. This is like you saying a construction worker who mismanaged and fucked up his responsibilities which resulted in a building collapsing and killing innocents is the same as that construction worker intentionally going into the building, raping, torturing, and executing those civilians for no reason. If you can't spot the differences between the two then you're just plain stupid.

Your sycophancy is not an argument. — Isaac

Your whataboutism isn't either.

You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. — Isaac

No, by the systematic nature of it.

The intention isn't in question. The solution is. Neutrality can be a defence against attack as well as a risk. — Isaac

Oh, why didn't you tell that to the Ukrainians, maybe that would have kept Russia from invading? :shade:
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you speak about Finland and Sweden. Your argument is fucking naive.

No one's ignoring the brutality of the Russian attack, it's just that the brutality alone in Ukraine isn't evidence that it will do the same to every neighbouring country, nor that joining NATO will prevent it. — Isaac

Why wouldn't they? It's systematic, that's why. And joining Nato means Russia won't dare attack, why can't you fucking understand how Nato works for once in this thread? Why do we have to explain this to you over and over? The key here is that you just ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your worldview. Russia won't attack a Nato member because that would mean annihilation of Russia, period.

Except it literally the one thing that has a credible threat of attack premised on it. — Isaac

No, that's in your head. I don't understand how you conclude something like this when the reality is that Russia won't dare attack a Nato member. Stop making shit up to fit your narrative it's embarrassing to witness.

Right. So the decision is based on whether declaring an intention to join NATO increases that risk in the intervening time, or increases the scale of the threat if Russia feel backed into a corner. — Isaac

Russia can feel whatever the fuck they want. Nato is the only thing that creates an existential threat to them. They can have a fantasy of Nato invading them but that won't happen because it's a fucking defensive alliance with a democratic function for action. The US could say they want to attack Russia but 29 other nations can vote them down. What Russia delusionally believe is fucking irrelevant, the fact is that because Nato is too powerful for Russia to face, they cannot dare attack Sweden and Finland if we join... that is the fucking point. Sick and tired of you making shit up and believing you understand the situation of Finland and Sweden. You have some utopian ideal of neutrality keeping the Russian bear away, but Russia showed the world just who they are when they invaded Ukraine so we don't give a fuck about Russia, we want to be secure from their brutality and toxic stupidity. Whatever fantasy you think is an alternative, we don't have any alternatives for security, fucking understand already.

No reason for it. My question was about the choice of rationality as a overarching criterion — Olivier5

Rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy are four areas as a base. Love is a concept that's too flimsy as a factor to determine how to live. Most people don't even understand what love is, how it's formed and art has been created to try and "understand it". If we are to find guidance as human beings, we can find it through those areas. Love and emotion can exist regardless but keeping the brain behind the steering wheel is essential for a society of irrational beings.

But communism or Nazism are rational, far more rational than any humanism. — Olivier5

They are rational as concepts defining other invented concepts. Humanism has less bogged down with poorly invented concepts and generally focus on the basic core need of humans. But Nazism isn't rational, it's based on bad science, and false ideas. Communism, as we've seen it in the 20th century, is a corruption of ideas that were logical during the 19th century, but not so much today.

IOW, rationality alone is a recipe for disaster. — Olivier5

That's why I said rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy, not just rationality.

Why should reason be superior to say, love? — Olivier5

Why would love be something exclusive to religion?

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. As an atheist, I think it is tempting to just throw off our Christian tradition, like he tried to do, now that we don't believe in gods anymore, but what do we replace it with? The cult of the leader? Some übermensch delirium?

Christianity had the advantage of protecting the poor and powerless, somewhat. I think that's why it was so popular. To 'come back' to pre-christian paganism would mean very little and would deny this advantage. We absolutely need to keep this aspect of Christianity -- compassion -- as we move on to other creeds. — Olivier5

I think you give Christianity too much credit. I'd say any religion is a root cause for the destructive. Nietzsche wasn't the root of Nazism, it was his sisters stupid version of his teachings that she presented directly to Hitler that became the root cause when Hitler combined it with Eugenics and his teenage-like fascination with Nordic religions.

Rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy can replace religion since all religions have been the substitute to that during an era of human civilization where no clear guidelines for how to rationally think about the world existed. I have no problems being in awe of how the universe is, as it is, without spiritual or supernatural elements being added. The dreaded nihilism that Nietzsche was worried about only appears in people who just think they're free from religious and spiritual driving forces while people truly disconnected from such outdated world views have no problems arriving at balanced morals and a sense of harmony with existence. When I see atheists around me I mostly see people denying their own faith and struggling with actually being free of such faith. All it takes is a nudge to push them into whatever belief that is given to them. The number of true atheists in this world is extremely low and that is a testament to how irrational the human being really is. To be truly free of the influence of our stupid side requires an extreme ability of observational capacity; to see the irrationality in others and one self and truly reject it.

I am ambivalent about the idea of a pagan revival. The Nazis had this fascination for Siegfried and shit, and look where that led them. — Olivier5

The Nazis were uneducated fuckers who picked and chose whatever they felt was cool looking. Like teenagers scrambling together some metal band trying to find cool-looking symbols and mythology. A truly pagan revival excluding the blood rituals and such would focus more on a symbiosis with nature. Vikings were farmers and traders far more than conquerors and invaders. It's just that media... and the Nazis, blew those proportions up because it's "cooler" with warriors and valkyries than someone in harmony with their crops and wildlife.

You just failed your language comprehension test :D — I like sushi

One says that there's no conclusive evidence for neither positive nor negative, the other that there's evidence for the positive. I'd say those are contradictory. If it's inconclusive there's nothing pointing to the positive over the negative, but you say that it leans towards the positive.

I'd say you can write it more clearly: The studies have shown it to be more positive than negative, but more studies need to be conducted for it to be conclusive enough. That's more clear rhetoric.

But, I'd say there are enough studies to conclude the positive effects. Just not to extent that some argue for.

Well then, watch Vikings. I believe it's quite well done from a ethnographic standpoint. Of course it's entertainment and not a history book but there's a brave attempt at reconstructing a pagan, nordic worldview in that show. It's based on the sagas about Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons. — Olivier5

Yes, I've seen it. It's a good representation of the subjective view of the culture, but it's inaccurate from many historical perspectives. It also takes place before Vikings ruled much of Great Britain and the end of the Viking age was mostly a slow death of Viking culture replaced by Christianity. In Sweden, the most notable "end" was when all the Jarls decided on the first Swedish king, Eric the Victorious. That's where Swedish history as a Christian nation really began and the Viking age was definitely over.

No offense, but that was a long time ago.

BTW, I really enjoyed the series Vikings, as well as the Last Kingdom, which is more pro-Brit while Vikings evidently focuses more on the Viking side of things. — Olivier5

Yes, but what I mean is that most people in Britain today who's been pretty much native since those days have relatives from over here, so that's the irony of it.

Outside of that, while Vikings influenced the culture of Britain, Christianity and Britain killed the entire culture of Vikings so there's that. We only have a few pagan traditions left, mostly without anyone knowing where they came from.

The assumption from some here is apparently that, if you're not anglo-saxon, you have no agency whatsoever. — Olivier5

Except we pretty much ruled over Great Britain back in those days so we have more agency than them it seems, we formed them.

Sweden/Finland joining NATO might even have a positive influence on NATO. — jorndoe

Yes, since the Russian apologists here seem to be totally ignorant of the democratic factor within Nato and the level of diplomatic power that Sweden has had for over two centuries, we can actually contribute to cooling down the more war-mongering nations within Nato. To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic.

Again, you seem to be simply assuming some kind of threshold. Why is the number of children starving to death acceptable, but the number of children bombed not? — Isaac

Because of the intention of the act. If the intention by the US was to directly kill and starve children that is totally different from carpet bombing an area with civilian casualties. The Russian troops actively and systematically raped, looted, tortured, and executed civilians in masses, including fucking shooting children execution-style. These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. They've been reported in different regions which means it's systemic. But you can't understand these differences. You cannot seem to understand that while both should be criticized, one is sloppy, irresponsible, and careless while the other is intentionally brutal, cruel and vile.

So it seems to be a numbers game for you, yet lacking in actual numbers. — Isaac

For me? It's you people who argue with numbers comparing 20 years of a multinational conflict with three months of Russian troops in a small number of cities and villages that's systemic in nature. It's you who require a number to value the atrocities.

Exactly what I've been arguing. The intention matters. So the mere fact that Russia have brutally invaded Ukraine is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of brutally invading Finland. — Isaac

You talk just like people talked before they invaded Ukraine "they would never" was the argument. Your argument is insufficient ground for it not to happen. Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place.

We're not flipping a fucking coin because of your amateur analysis of our situation. That's fucking laughable.

Just as the fact that the US 'recklessly' (to use your judgement) invaded Iraq is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of 'recklessly' invading Finland. — Isaac

The troops' actions are systemic since it's not happening in isolated cases. The brutality is fucking obvious and the recklessness is fucking proven by how they acted around both Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia.

You ignoring the blatant evidence of how the Russian military actually acts is not sufficient or logical to conclude it not be just as reckless in invading Finland or Sweden.

All we have by way of intention is that Russia intends to carry out a military response if Finland join NATO. So using intention as your guide, the one thing to avoid would be joining NATO. — Isaac

We have no guarantee they will not invade anyway. Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them.

You simply don't understand how these things work. They can't invade if we're part of Nato, that would be suicide for them. Invading before that would however be exactly like Ukraine as there's no guarantee for us to get help from other nations. Therefore we seek security.

Your uneducated and simplistic analysis of our security situation is fucking hilarious. You have no clue what you're arguing about when it comes to our nations.

There is, if anything, better evidence for the opposite effect. — I like sushi

That's not what you said though

As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

I don't disagree with there being a positive effect, that's my point, the positive effect has been shown. I'm expanding on that positive effect with the point about general IQ not being affected much since it relates to more areas than just the ones you get positive effects on by playing video games. I.e you get a positive effect, but you need everything else combined with playing video games to get the necessary amplified effect. In basic terms, IQ is nothing without the practical application verifying to your brain what the training was for. You can push IQ, but solidifying it requires a combination of behaviors and thought processes as a whole.

Like the Aukus partnership. Why are they poking the Chinese dragon? :shade:

Hey Chris, be aware that people living in very secure conditions often don't care about the risks others are incurring. So take a guy like Streetlight. He lives in Australia. The Ukrainian resistance to Russia may mean a number of things to him, e.g.: 1) high oil prices; and 2) a risk of nuclear war. So from his very secure viewpoint, the Ukrainian resistance is a bad thing, because it may endanger his own security. And Sweden's joining NATO would also be bad for him, for the same reasons.

From his POV, if only those damn Europeans could stop their ridiculous fighting, so that the security of Australians is not endangered and oil prices could go down, now that'd be nice. — Olivier5

Yes, we should remember that if ever China or North Korea starts waging war in the pacific. Then we'll see just how moral the rhetoric is from our side to their existential arguments.

No. We are talking about Finland's and Sweden's reasons for trying to join NATO. And I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. Then you wrote something irrelevant about the US. — Olivier5

Exactly. You can mention that there's a nice restaurant in Berlin and people in here start arguing that it depends on if it's on the west or east side because of such and such behavior of the US in the past and therefore just look at how bad the US is and... nothing really concrete to do with the goodness of the restaurant you mentioned.

Last I checked the Russians were bogged down fighting a fifth-rate power, with GPSs duct taped to the dashboard of their planes, — Streetlight

Exactly... why do you think getting into a security alliance is important to be done now and not after Russia rebuilt its military capability? Even if China is careful not to support Russia now, whenever this conflict is over, Russia will be deep in bed with China and be able to rebuild through such technological collaborations.

And also, if you stretch time long enough, no one is free from having blood on their hands. The only thing people can do through time is to show what consequences such blood has, and what guilt that surfaces. Do you think Russia cares about what war crimes their troops did? You seem to have missed the mountain of backlash the US got, the cultural shame and criticism against the perpetrators of those acts. If all have historical blood on their hands, there's nothing no one can do to be actually morally good, because there's little morally good choice to be made in the world today. What I define as being less bad than bad are the ones actually reflecting on past sins. Those who ignore such acts and don't care about atrocities being made are the ones truly being the worst.

If you think you can be morally clean in anything you argue you are delusional. It's impossible to combine this grey area with your black and white worldview. It's impossible for you to balance any morality on a scale of bad and less bad. Therefore you will never understand the debate going on in Sweden and Finland and only view these things through the illusion of your uncorrupted morality.

Joining a club of war criminals whose actions percipitated a deadly war seems like a bad waybto defend yourself. — Streetlight

What should we do then? In this black and white world of yours, what action should we take to guarantee our security?

Oh go have a sop about it cry baby.

You're the advocating the acceleration of Russian antagonism while wearing the hat of 'security'. — Streetlight

I'm not advocating anything other than our right to defend our nations. You argue we have no such right.

From the "mind your manners" to swearing and ad hominems. Well done. — Benkei

I'm just putting myself on the level of this cesspool thread since that's the only language you people seem to understand. The one where you call us Swedes and Finns stupid and morons and being slaves under the US. There's no wonder there's mostly just you people left in here.

I obviously know more than you do which is why you get aggressive without offering any type of argument. — Benkei

Oh, please enlighten me on the politics and cultural discussion within Finland and Sweden, please enlighten me about what we who live here don't understand or know about what is going on here.

Or I could like, not. There is every reason to disrespect a bunch of morons — Streetlight

You know you speak of two nations and their people right now? Independent nations who seek security for themselves. So you call us morons for doing so. You can go and fuck yourself.

You don't give a fuck because you don't want to accept the choice you're making is between two evils. — Benkei

Wow, and I'm being called simplistic and black and white. Seriously.

It is and you'd be better off not joining NATO and lobby for an independent EU military alliance in which all EU members and their citizens would have a democratic say. — Benkei

Shit, you really do know nothing about our situation. And you really do not understand how slow the EU is. You really do not understand why the act to seek security needs to happen now and not in a few months or years.

And of course it's a great argument for security to think: Russia invaded because of concerns of NATO expansion. In respose, we should expand NATO more. — Streetlight

Or, you can just respect Finland and Sweden's will to seek security against Russia. This is the problem with you people, you don't know shit about us or how the discussion is going here. You don't know the ethical debate, you just strawman two entire nation's to fit your simplistic narrative about Nato vs Russia.

You underestimate to what extent the US sets NATO's agenda. — Benkei

And you ignore the reasons Finland and Sweden seek security in Nato.

And breach of air space is something that has been going on for decades. The US does it too. Both countries test response times of fighter jets and radar range. — Benkei

I don't give a fuck about the US, I'm talking about what Russia is doing to us and what we seek security against. This constant "but the US" kind of argument to just steer everything away from Russia like this as some kind of counter-argument to why we seek security against Russia is just stupid.

Around 4,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first few days of the US invasion, so if we're doing a like-for-like, they beat Russia hands down. — Isaac

You can't seem to understand what's compared here. Bombings should be criticized, everything the US did should be criticized, but it's not comparable to multiple Russian troops systematically raping and executing civilians from village to village, town to town. The difference here is the intention, what they actually do, systematically in Ukraine.