You asked a question and I answered it. Now you seem very upset to have had it pointed out that your preferred murderers and rapists are nice enough to leave you alone. — Streetlight

I answered it too. But the argument was about Finland and Sweden seeking security. I don't give a fuck about your whataboutism. If I point out the brutality of Russia and your argument is to just "but the US though", disregarding everything else being said, then I pointed out that you are comparing 20 years of a multination complex conflict that involves a lot of shit that the US absolutely should be criticized for... to systemic brutality comparable in numbers over the course of just three months. Scale that up to 20 years. Scale that up to multiple nations invaded by Russia. That's what we seek security against.

But I guess you cannot understand the reasons we have to seek such security, because it's easier to strawman our entire region to fit your narrative.

The only reason to prefer a US alliance over a Russian alliance is because the US is our thug. — Benkei

Nato alliance is an alliance of 30 nations, 32 with Finland and Sweden. It's you people who conclude it to be led by the US only, because that fits your narrative better. And you can also just say that we prefer that alliance because Russia are brutal and unpredictable. That we seek such alliances because Russia is an actual threat, compared to the US. Who the fuck wants to be friends with Russia?

Yeah because you benefit from them doing so elsewhere. — Streetlight

What the fuck are you talking about? We're seeking security against Russia because they're actually breaking our borders, conducting cyber-attacks, and are an active threat. You know nothing of our situation and make stupid arguments like that as some kind of counterargument to why we seek security against Russia. The brutality of Russia is there, there's no denying it, so why is the US act in any shape or form as a counterargument to why we seek security?

You simply don't understand what systemic brutality means.

So Olivier5's simplistic argument that because Russia has killed people in Busha it is a threat to Finland is nonsensical. — Isaac

You are the simplistic one to argue that this is the only reason. You don't know shit about our situation but you act as though you do.

Yes. At one point — Streetlight

By a few, over the course of 20 years. Russia is systematically brutal over the course of as little as three months, coming close to numbers for a 20-year conflict. And what does any of that have to do with Finland and Sweden seeking security against Russian brutality? There's no counterargument there, it's just whataboutism to brush Russia's acts under the rug. We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. Russia has proven to be systemic about such acts.

Look at what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan — Isaac

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? And on top of that, you are referring to close to 20 years of conflict. If the rate of the atrocities Russia conducts were to be continued over the same time period, what do you think their numbers would be? The US bombed blindly resulting in this, they should be criticized for it. But what Russia is doing are the most brutal forms of war crimes, brutal acts of terror that's the worst you can think of. It's not even comparable in the way you're trying to do it.

And it's also the same kind of bullshit whataboutism that has no relevance to the actual argument you are trying to counter. Russia conducts these war crimes, these acts of terror, and Finland and Sweden find security in joining Nato to not let such things happen to us. The US won't kill us, Russia could, that's why we seek security. Get that through your skull.

Ought to do? From an ethical standpoint, or from a geopolitical, strategic planning standpoint? Let's assume the latter, as ethical considerations have limited applicability in politics.

From a strategic standpoint, the Russian attempted invasion of Ukraine and the extent of war crimes committed there by their troops is an objective reminder that Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore.

If this is agreeable, then the question becomes: is joining NATO likely to improve Finland's security from the obviously significant risk of a potential Russian military operation, or not?

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

There seems to be a cognitive dissonance among Russian apologists in which they want to point out that Russia is an independent nation that is acting out of defense against things like Nato. At the same time, they cannot grasp or accept that nations like Sweden and Finland are looking for security against Russian aggressions, unquestionably and brutally proven by the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes they have committed. The fact is that Russia is the invader and the risk to the baltic region, Finland and Sweden is quite real, proven by the constant aggressions on our borders, the constant cyberattacks, and propaganda against us. These things are not new, they've been going on for years, long before Sweden and Finland even considered joining Nato, which has never been a thing really, instead, it has been something both Sweden and Finland were against in the past.

But since Russia has shown to be brutally moral degenerates on the battlefield, it's not only a risk of military battles but also of brutal attacks on civilians, meaning Russia could attack civilian populations and not just concentrate on military targets. This means that the security measures required to defend against Russia need to be much larger than both Finland and Sweden can muster, even with the now increased defense budgets. Especially in Sweden, where these risks have been downplayed by the apathy of supposed neutrality we've had for 200 years.

But now, both Finland and Sweden are seriously looking at joining Nato for the specific reason of increasing our security against the brutality of Russia. Anyone saying that this act is pushed by the US or that we are puppets of the US or any dumb shit like that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. They don't know how the national discussion is going, what the ethical debate is, or what Russia is doing every day to our nations. They simply need to shut the fuck up and stop trying to think they understand something they clearly don't. It's laughable to hear people from other nations trying to speak down on the efforts to join Nato as some kind of slave behavior under the US. For all the talk of viewing the complexity of this conflict and criticizing anyone for being too black and white because they view Russia as "bad", it's remarkable how stupid their analysis of Finland- and Sweden's will to join Nato is, or the history of our nations. It's proof that they don't have any real insight or knowledge of what they're talking about and therefore they're just talking out of their asses.

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

IQ has a fluid range. The base IQ is set by the genetic makeup of the brain while training cognitive challenging tasks can increase the IQ by a few points. Not doing any cognitively challenging tasks will lower it by a few points. Tasks also need to be varied, someone playing chess two hours a day will not get any positive effects after, let's say, a year doing so. General IQ improvements require more than just video games. The most positive effect on children has been 3D spatial visualization improvements and reaction times on recognition, but further outside of that requires a heavy load of in-game puzzles that are varied, but even then there's a limit to what video games can provide. A kid playing games their entire childhood but skipping other activities will develop good skills in certain areas, but be extremely lacking in others. A broad increase in IQ and cognitive functions requires varied inputs and activities, which video games alone won't be enough for.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

A web of neurological maps formed by genetics and experience.

The problem with our perception of ourselves is that we are like a mirror trying to reflect ourselves in another mirror. This feedback loop of thought makes us perceive the very act of thinking about our entity to be so mysterious that we believe it to be more magical than it really is.

We are a complex biological machine that is more advanced than we can perceive and not yet completely understood in science so our perceptions have no comfort in thought.

This is why we invent religion or mystical ideas about existence instead of embracing more rational and logical conclusions based on the science we know so far.

Your "core values", whatever those are, and whatever definition you attach to that expression, wouldn't play a role in a situation in which you find yourself in possession of power and opportunity that you could exploit. (Please keep track of the nuances here). While not all in power would usurp it, when some do, that core values would have nothing to do with it. That's why cybersecurity, surveillance, and monitoring are effective means of combating corruption. They (the people in charge of tracking) would give zero credits to your wholesome goodness. — L'éléphant

Core values are values unknown to most people. Most learn what to think and believe, not necessarily what they truly agree with. Only those with core values that are absolutely essential for their identity won't corrupt them if given power. As you say,

"not all in power would usurp it"

those who wouldn't are defined by their core values, someone expressing it every day, every moment, someone who lives by their values won't abandon them if given power, merely empower those values as they are an integral part of their identity.

The problem for many is that they have no idea what values are actually true to them, or have no concept of how their values are shaped, changed, or connect to themselves. So when given power, they have no guidance for themselves, they only have instincts and emotions driving that power. They have no reason to evolve their values since they didn't have any to begin with. They weaponize the values that were forced upon them or they rebel against them without any substitute.

And the worst of this is once again as you say, "not all would usurp it". The number of people who can handle power when given it is a small minority. This is because self-reflection and being critical of your own morality and values (which helps shape actual core values into existence) isn't common practice in the world. Most people might start doing that late in their life, if at all, and then it's too late.

A child learns how the world works, and how to be an adult, but the adult doesn't know how to fully be "value-independent" before actively choosing to go down that path. And nothing in society values that process as part of the development of a human being. So the only ones who understand their own core values to the point they won't abandon them are the ones who understood it early on or understood to pursue it. Any power to people who never understood this will create emotionally driven people who don't have any guidelines for that power. And most people are like this.

Muchas gracias señor/señorita for the suggestion.

Would you like to discuss hyperreality? I've come across the idea in connection with the use of psychedelics. It's been described by people who were tripping as "realer than real". That makes it possible that this world we experience as normal people not under the influence of mind-bending drugs is a simulation/illusion; in a sense, with mind-altering drugs, we wake up and catch a glimpse of the real world!

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

I see no rational deduction coming out of that interpretation of reality so I don't really agree with that idea. When it comes to Hyperreal and Baudrillard it's mainly about how the simulation and reality are impossible to differentiate between. It's about more than just a cartesian analysis of reality and has to do with more stuff like how we invent concepts of reality on top of the actual reality we experience, and through that we lose touch with the actual reality and cannot know which is what. His philosophy is more advanced than describing it in short segments but I recommend Simulacra & Simulation if you want to know more.

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion. — Agent Smith

Hyperreality...

Maybe you should read some Baudrillard?

What would happen to a nuclear missile that got shot down? — Metaphysician Undercover

It either won't activate and dud out, maybe create radioactive contamination at the very location, but very local compared to the spread of fallout if it went off, or if it would activate and blow up, it would blow up at a remote location far from any highly populated areas. The natural counter to this would be a military operation. If everyone can counter nuclear weapons, then it won't be a counter with nuclear weapons, but instead, the act of a first strike would trigger a global initiative to invade the guilty nation and remove the people who took that decision. Bottom line, there will be an opening to remove the leaders who wanted to kill millions of civilians in other nations. For instance, if Russia were to do this and their missiles were shot down at their borders, then a global offense would most likely invade and remove the government in Russia. It would be considered a third world war, but not in a destructive way like a nuclear war would be and Russia wouldn't have the manpower, tech or military power to defend against a global offensive against them. If the US would, for some reason, do the same, then it would most likely trigger an exclusion from Nato in which all the rest of the nations in that alliance would ally with other nations of the world to remove US leaders. It would be a much different battlefield and more destructive. It would, however, trigger civil war as well since it's impossible to ignore how diverse the US population is. At least half would probably ally with the remaining Nato members and the US might even be split up just like how the Soviet Union broke apart when it fell.

But all of this is speculative of a scenario that really doesn't make sense. No one would fire off nukes if they know it's impossible to penetrate defense systems, it would be total stupidity of the most moronic kind. Not even the most stupid leaders of today would make that call since the backfire of such an action would be only severe to the nation making that decision. This is why such a defense system would be the most "peaceful" deterrent until the next world-ending weapon is developed.

Interesting that the first fire up of James Webb for observing the biggest objects in reality, coincides with the startup of the improved CERN Large Hydron Collider to observe the smallest objects in reality.

No, the lack of agreeing with you is remarkable. again, unless you're claiming yourself to be infallible, then disagreeing with you is not the same as lacking understanding. — Isaac

Did you even understand what I wrote? Probably not, or decided not to in order not to have to answer properly.

So you didn't choose the experts you cite? Remarkable! who did choose them then? — Isaac

You apologists have used the same sources over and over. I choose closer to the consensus and form my own analysis of the situation based on it. You know, actually doing philosophy on a philosophy forum. Though, since moderators allow this thread to be low on quality I can't do much when the bar is set low.

Which fringe departments would those be? — Isaac

Ideological opinions pieces and blogs used as factual sources.

Again, unless your claim is that you are infallible, people disagreeing with you about the fallout is not the same as then naively disregarding it. — Isaac

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you incapable of understanding the social consequences of the dynamic between Russia and Ukraine after the atrocities that Russia has committed? Whatever the outcome of the war, Ukraine and Russia will not be "friends" anymore, if Russia occupies Ukraine or make it a puppet state, there will be insurgencies and revenge acts. If Russia is pushed out, there will be no diplomacy between the two, closer to how North and South Korea's relationship.

If you want some daddy blogger to tell you this simple fact as a source that's your problem, I can actually use my head and analyze the fallout of what is going on. Unless you simply ignore what has actually been going on in Ukraine.

Yes. Successful negotiation does not rely on the lack of lies (thank God!) otherwise no negotiation would ever take place and the world would be at constant war. All politicians lie. — Isaac

Putin and Russia aren't just lying, they use lies and manipulation as a weapon. They've lied about evacuation corridors only to massacre civilians when they're out in the open.

There's no diplomacy to be made with lies on this level, but you are unable to understand this. If you think Russia, Putin, and his minions are on the same level as other politicians when it comes to "lies" you are simply delusional or intentionally apologetic. The truth is in the pudding, and the Russian pudding is rotten as hell.

Once more. Disagreeing with you about the difference is not the same as being unable to spot it, unless you are infallible. — Isaac

Again, what the fuck are you talking about, are you unable to understand what I actually write? I cannot discuss with someone that's mentally impaired to understand the point.

OK, so there are 41 million Ukrainians. By what means did you come to your conclusion about what they all want? Did you ask all of them? What about future Ukrainians, do they get considered, and if so, by whom? — Isaac

If you cannot conclude based on reported Ukrainian public opinion about what they think of the invasion and Russia, then you are fucking ignorant or intentionally apologetic of Russia. Seriously, maybe you should talk to some Ukrainians like I have, maybe talk to people working down in Ukraine, maybe listen to interviews and dig into all of that... well, no of course not, you just use the "how can you even know what every single one of them wants?" as some kind of argument. Give me a fucking break, that kind of counterargument is so weak and stupid that it's impossible to discuss this with any kind of intellectual quality.

You simply ignore stuff that is inconvenient for your opinion and make these stupid counterarguments.

That would confirm that there was a brutal war going on. In what way would that confirm which was the best solution to stop it? — Isaac

Oh, you mean that the war crimes, the mutilations by the torture of civilians, the rapes and executions of civilian women, and the mass graves are normal signs of a brutal war? Are you for real? There are independent investigators confirming all of this in Ukraine, there's no propaganda to this thing, these are facts and you just to brush it all under a rug.

Your dismissal of these things disgusts me and your inability to understand why these things matter for how to judge the sides of this war is beyond stupid.

Ah yes, the famous 'consensus'. How was it you measured this again? — Isaac

By having more experts saying the same thing compared to you and the other apologists using almost the same links to the same pieces over and over. It's not rocket science to follow this war and expert analysis of it, you just have to listen to more than your favorites.

And why would you go with the consensus? Explain to me the mechanism by which a more popular idea is rendered more likely to be right. — Isaac

Because it's not consensus by stupid people not educated in the matter, but by people researching the matter. But how would you know, you don't even think education is needed so I guess you are incapable of understanding any of this.

And you measure people's capacities in that respect how, exactly? Let me guess...is it the extent to which they agree with you? — Isaac

By how logical their conclusions and arguments are. By how consistent they predict future events. And by how much they incorporate new facts into their arguments. Like, you ignoring the impact of war crimes to how you position what Ukraine and Russia should do to stop this conflict. It's a head in the sand moment for you. Ignorant, disgustingly dismissive of the atrocities' impact.

No. I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). — Isaac

Do you even understand what you wrote here? Who's really throwing Ukrainians under the tanks? :shade: The lack of insight or understanding of the consequences of this statement is remarkable.

No. I can't get that into my skull because I disagree. Again, something many experts in the field also do. — Isaac

Experts of your choice, the cherry-picked ones from fringe departments who naively disregard any kind of consequential analysis of the fallout from the atrocities Russia commits or what Ukraine would face under the rule of Putin. Also the blatant disregard of what the Ukrainians actually want. The blind arguments from experts who smelled their own farts for too long and who forgot the reality of a superpower conducting these kinds of war crimes.

If you restrict solutions only to those which currently exist, how do you suppose society evolves? — Isaac

By doing what can be done in the moment and examining the events post an actual solution. Your idea of "solutions" is like trying to come up with some moronic way of dealing with Hitler in the midst of World War II, instead of you know, winning the war and then organizing society by philosophizing about the events in order to not let such things happen again. Your way of thinking would have led to the world losing to Hitler because it's naive and a fantasy and a total waste of time. Want to write fan fiction about some utopian solution to an ongoing conflict while Ukrainian women gets raped, children are murdered and whole villages are executed, go ahead, but no one cares about such naivety.

You're simply assuming a negotiated settlement would result in Putin having complete control over Ukraine. There's no ground for you to assume that's the only possible outcome. — Isaac

You are assuming that you can trust Putin. Doesn't the constant broken promises from Russia during this war kind of inform you that they're not trustworthy to follow through on any kind of negotiation? They're constantly killing civilians who're supposed to be let through corridors out of war-torn regions. They're lying through their teeth and you think any kind of negotiation will result in anything other than Putin and Russia doing whatever the fuck they want. Seriously, you are so fucking naive and blind to the actual behavior of Putin and his minions.

You see why it's difficult to take you seriously? Everything you think is black and white is assumed, without question, to be so, yet you accuse others of black-and-white thinking without even a hint of humility about the hypocrisy inherent there. — Isaac

Stop acting like a moron. Are you able to spot the difference between a literal two-sided issue and issues that are nuanced? Like, what do you think are the options for Ukraine and its people? You naively think that Russia would grant them any kind of freedom if they surrender? Give me a fucking break. Get your head out of that fantasy utopian Russian apologetic ideal. Russia would only settle for total power over them, a true puppet state. The Ukrainians don't want this, so maybe you should fucking listen to what the Ukrainians actually want and stop speaking for them. Because for them, there is NO other choice, if you had any intention of actually caring for their voice in this conflict you would understand why this part only has that side to it.

A perfect summary. Do you actually know what 'nuance' means in this context? You're claiming the 'nuance' - the subtle and complex effects and implications that are not immediately apparent - is the simple, uncomplicated reality you see in front of you. — Isaac

The nuance to see reality for what it is, good and bad, pragmatically choose a solution that is good for the people, not ideal for the personal ego of the person making the argument. And if "good for the people" is only about saving lives and not caring for what life people will have after survival, then that's not nuanced, that's blind naive morality. And the nuance I spoke about was about Nato. There's no need to be nuanced about Russia, they are pretty obvious in what they're doing. But Nato is a more complex issue. You however seem to be unable to understand where nuance exists and where reality stares you in the fucking face. Maybe you should go and watch the mutilated bodies of civilians and children in Ukraine and you might let go of that "nuance" about Russia that you advocate for.

In any situation in which experts disagree, laymen must, at the very least, agree that it is possible to rationally hold one of the viewpoints held by any of the disagreeing experts. — Isaac

Or just go with the consensus. If you cherry-pick you don't take any epistemic responsibility in the matter, you pick and choose what already fits your own personal opinion and narrative. And you know, it's also possible if you are actually educated yourself to analyze and philosophize from the facts and reports that exist openly, but you don't believe in education so there's that.

You only have your opinion, you don't do any kind of evaluation of reality to arrive at any truth, you pick and choose to fit your own personal opinion. This is proven by you ignoring and blatantly disregarding what Ukrainian themselves actually want and naively believe Russia, contrary to how they've acted throughout this war in diplomacy, to arrive at peaceful respect towards the Ukrainian people. It's an extremely naive and stupid perspective of actual events.

Ha! No, unfortunately not. Apparently advocating any strategy other than throwing more Ukrainians under Putin's tanks so we can gloat when he loses, is literally working for the FSB. I've been assured that this is "nuance" (↪Christoffer ). — Isaac

"How to strawman", an anti-philosophy paper by mr Professor.

This is exactly why you are impossible and pointless to have a discussion with. And also, Ukrainians don't seem to be thrown under Russian tanks, Russian troops and officers seem very capable of doing that to themselves instead. And I didn't say anything about you being FSB, so again, cut the bullshit.

The point you never fucking understand is that Ukrainians fight for their survival as an independent state and the world support that defense and will to exist. You advocate for them to surrender to a dictator who wants to rule over them and pull all their freedoms under his power. What's the purpose of saving lives if those lives lose what they feel is a life worth living?

That you oppose this pushback against Russia in order to keep Ukraine free from being ruled over by Putin is the very point that makes you an apologist of Russia's actions and agendas. Being apologetic of their actions doesn't mean you are them, it means you basically apologize for their actions, war crimes, and acts of invasion, something any rational person right now can't do.

And the nuance that I describe is that things like Sweden and Finland wanting to join Nato in order to safeguard against the brutality and degeneracy of Russia and its irresponsible actions does not mean we love Nato. It only means that it's the best security we have against Russia. But you can't get that into your skull, because you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. You cannot grasp a fight for survival, a will for security, and a condemnation of a nation for its crimes, while this stage is set within the already existing alliances and diplomacy.

THIS is the problem with you apologists; you live in a utopian dream where there is some kind of fantasy solution outside of the current players of the world. You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist or that blindly are about saving lives with total disregard for what the consequences of that would be. Like, even if Ukraine surrendered and Russia came to power in Ukraine and it saved lives in the short run, how the fuck do you think life would be like in Ukraine after that? Especially after the torture, executions, and rapings of civilians by Russians. What do you think such life would be like going forward under the rule of Putin? It would be a bloody insurgency and revenge for decades, all that hate set within the boundaries of Putin's new empire while the FSB and Russian state terrorize the civilians living with the memories of Russia's vile acts during the war. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to fight back and push Russia out of Ukraine. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to build some guarantee of this kind of invasion to never happen again. It's a fight for the survival and soul of their nation and the rest of the world understands this. Sending weapons and supporting their fight is to support their chance to live free of the Putin regime as well as a message to Putin and Russia that this kind of act is not tolerated.

This is what I have been saying, that people today are so apathetic and have forgotten what a fight to survive actually is. Have forgotten the risk of war in Europe. This is what is going on right now, all the talk of Sweden and Finland joining Nato etc. is all about the realization that Russia is in fact a real threat from a superpower nation. It's existential for everyone, especially us living so close to their borders and we cannot give a fuck about the downsides of Nato at this time because Russia is a much more serious threat and problem than how to define Nato as a player. And apologists seem to be unable to grasp any of this, sitting in their armchairs trying to justify Russia's acts, criticizing Sweden and Finland for being "puppets of the US" for wanting to join Nato, downplaying the Ukrainian's will to fight for their freedom; it becomes parody, satire, and a disgusting line of arguments. So yeah, the nuance I'm speaking about has to do with the pragmatic reality of all of this. A reality that doesn't seem to exist within the set rules of your arguments; which is supposed to be an ideal world based on your personal opinions about education, society, morale etc. etc. Who gives a fuck about your fantasies?

But Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron. — Olivier5

He's a self-proclaimed professor who does not believe in education, or he lies about that and is a liar and unreliable interlocutor. Either way, his treatment of knowledge and facts is so bad that there's no point arguing anything with him. Boethius is so apologetic that it's a parody, Apollodorus follows Russia's "Sweden and Finland are Nazis" narrative so he's part of that delusion, confusion or agenda as well. Bottom line is that any interaction is just pointless, answer one thing, and a whole mouthful of apologetic bullshit spews out, next to "touch Nato and you are monsters". Takes energy to not be sucked into the black hole of such intellectual collapse.

The problem isn't the nukes, the problem is if someone gets into power who just doesn't care about obliteration. Rational states use Nukes as a deadlock for deterrent use, but just as we see people conduct acts of destruction with little intention of safety for themselves or others, the problem is with such people. If they reach levels of power that can initiate nuclear attacks then they are the threat to the world.

Since disarmament of nuclear weapons globally is a utopian dream that will never come to pass, the solution is to develop advanced defensive weapons that can automatically spot, track, and disarm/shoot down any nuclear weapon missiles. Such technology would be a safeguard for everyone, if any nation with nuclear weapons has these defenses, then the deadlock is fixed and there's no point in shooting anything since everything gets shot down.

Also I will never stop laughing at Christoffer's insistence that everything is 'really nuanced and subtle', which apparently means: NATO and the US are entirely blameless — Streetlight

It doesn't "apparently mean" anything like that other than you corrupting what I say in order to get a laugh. You know that it's entirely possible that we in Sweden and Finland need the security of Nato and at the same time can criticize its way of conduct. We can point out that being a member means having influence and since Sweden has a long history of diplomacy, being on the inside of Nato could help tame the more war-mongering nations part of it.

And what I refer to as the Putin trolls are people who, right when Russia conducts propaganda painting national figures of Sweden to be pure Nazis, these trolls begin painting Sweden and Finland as nazis as well. They act like clockwork.

Your strawman of what I write is the only thing stupid here. You have no idea of what the national debate is surrounding Nato, you have no idea of the actual nuances that are being discussed here as part of the process of determining if we're going to join or not. You don't know anything about the moral and philosophical discussion in process here in Sweden about all of this. All you do is strawman in order to laugh. That is stupid.

I've no interest in determining who is 'most' to blame, nor have I any interest in declaring my judgement on that, nor have any interest in whether it is possible to construct narratives supporting or opposing any given policy. I'm interested in exploring the extent to which my country (and it's allies) is to blame, and in whether my preferred narrative remains plausible. — Isaac

I don't care what you are interested in or want, no one is here to follow your interests but you argue in a way that requires everyone else to agree with you first and then discuss. The point is that what you are arguing has nothing to do with what I wrote since it's about what you are interested in.

The fact is that if we are discussing this from a moral perspective it is entirely necessary to determine guilt and if everyone can be blamed for something, then it's necessary to pinpoint the context.

You are only interested in your own set narrative, which means discussing with you is pointless, as has been stated plenty of times. Especially since you are dishonest and say just about anything to make a point. I have no interest in discussing your interests, you can play around with that on your own.

It's not impossible, just not something some of us have any interest in doing. — Isaac

And this is the reason why it's impossible to discuss with people like you since you live by dogma and not reason or rationality. The world is complex to the point where something can be good and bad and the moral decisions rather reflect the most good or least bad rather than blind idealism ignoring reality. If your "interest" gets in the way of rational thought then why are you even on a philosophy board? Truth doesn't care about your interests, you're just an evangelist for your own personal opinions.

And if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. — Baden

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. For me, I despise Russia, want Sweden and Finland to join Nato, and at the same time criticize Nato for past conduct. It's entirely possible to have complexity in all of this, but not for some it seems.

That I and SSU want our nations to join Nato in order to have a guaranteed defense against possible aggression from the east equals we are Nazis because Russia conducts that bullshit propaganda with peaceful figures like Astrid Lindgren, is a narrative that is so fucking moronic that it becomes satire. Are the Russian trolls and apologists really this desperate to push their agenda? :shade:

HAHAA!!!!

At least the Forum's Putin troll works like Clock-Work! Just as anticipated months ago, out comes the nazi card when Finland (& Sweden) will make their application. — ssu

Yeah, right when Putin and his minions start doing anti-Sweden and anti-Finland propaganda to the gullible Russian morons we start to see that narrative in here as well. It's disgusting really.

What you seem to be saying is that if someone doesn't want to submit to your EU-NATO Empire, they should be destroyed. Sounds Nazi enough to me. And a bit unhinged, to be honest. — Apollodorus

Russia is executing civilians, killing children, raping women and terrorizing the population of Ukraine while the Russian people, outside of the very few opposing the war and Putin, support this war, all while Putin himself has sent the Wagner group to Ukraine, a group that's literally neo-nazi. There are enough reasons to condemn and be hard against Russia and none of that has anything to do with Nato.

Russia has no right to decide on anything outside its borders, so that's literally what I meant, let them do whatever they want within Russia. The rest of the world does not have to do anything to them or adhere to any of their demands. As long as we are safe from their nukes, they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's basically giving them what they want, the freedom to be their own empire and feel pride for themselves being different from the west and the rest of the world.

The will of Russia is to be their own, so let them. Should the rest of the world also be under their rule? If they want to be left alone, then we leave them alone, that's it.

But none of this is possible for you to understand. You are clearly a Russian apologist who keeps defending Russia and Putin in every possible way. Why don't you move there and you can build the anti-western home you always wanted? It seems you admire the Russian empire and must criticize Nato in every possible way just so the "Russia is bad" doesn't solidify itself.

The problem for you is that Russia is in fact fucking bad, what they do in Ukraine is systematic killing of civilians and that warrants us to say that Russia can fuck off. There's been enough pages of apologists who keep doing whataboutery at every report of Russian war crimes and actions against the Ukraine people. But at this time its clear that the Russian army is filled with despicable aswipes under the rule of morally depleted men with masculinity problems.

To call us Nazis for being hard on Russia for what they are actually doing is such bad taste that you can fuck off yourself.

Want to make a bet? When Finland and Sweden announce they are seeking membership in NATO, the aerospace of either or both countries will be infringed by Russian aircraft. — ssu

Most definitely. I almost hope that they fuck something up and crash or misfire something so that the diplomatic fallout against Russia gets even worse. Wouldn't surprise me if they did, since their stupidity keeps trying to reach a new level.

They really amped up the Bond villain vibes — Count Timothy von Icarus

And people in here back in the early days of the invasion called me a moron for describing Putin's and Russia's actions in a way that sounded like that. Oh, the irony that they now almost go beyond what I wrote back then. :ok:

Putins regime already starting to demonize Sweden for it's own people and convince them that prominent Swedes are (were) evil nazis. It surely will do the same for my country, but it started with the Swedish "nazis". Perhaps as Russians don't hate enough Swedes. — ssu

They point out that Astrid Lindgren is a nazi and Russians are falling for it. They are making it very hard not to view the entire nation of Russia as fucking stupid. From this to their stupid war strategies to how they now say Israel supports nazis because they support Zelenskyy, who's a nazi according to Russia. :rofl:

It's downright pathetic to the point it becomes comedy. I would laugh hard if it weren't for all the children being killed or the torture and executions of civilians by Russian forces. Russia can go and fuck themselves, hard. Let all the critics of the war and Putin out of Russia and let the rest sit there in their own pool of bullshit. Let them rot in their own stupidity until there's nothing but a Mad Max wasteland with a delusional billionaire king. All of these Russians want to be free from Western influence, so be it, let them do whatever they want. Let us put up anti-air defense weapons around their borders so no nukes will fly out whenever someone has dementia and then let them be alone, isolated from the "western nazis". Let's stop all the trade and every interaction with them, they don't want to be part of the western world anyway, so fuck'em. Let them play empire for themselves until they realize just how stupid they are.

I had hopes the Russian people would get angrier toward Putin and the people in power, I guess I was wrong.

A North Korea with vast oil reserves, though. It makes an important difference. It's also a much larger country than NK, and can't be isolated the same way as small NK. My take is that Russia will remain an important country in this world no matter what happens. — Olivier5

At the same time, the reports of climate change show a much worse outlook than previously thought, so the need to move away from oil needs to happen sooner. This war might even be good for the work against rapid climate change since it rips the band-aid off politicians with too much crap for brains. Now there's an incentive to actually move away from oil that's not about that climate change that's too complicated for their tiny capitalist brains, and instead, they will see it as a prosperous economic change for the better when cutting oil ties with Russia.

This extreme cut from oil supplies and increase in oil prices is exactly what is needed to push the climate solutions, that needed a push, into fruition.

Regardless, Russia will not be able to survive on oil alone and they have little else of value except for some minerals that could be found elsewhere if needed. At least, that would be a diplomatic card to pull in the future, if Russia goes down into the cutter economically, the world can demand them to remove their stupid leaders, dismantle nukes, and only then they will give them transactions for their minerals. This would, however, demand that Russia really tanks its economy, far beyond what we've seen recently.

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th. Even if some sanctions are lifted, Russia has created a bad taste in the mouth of everyone who previously did business with Russia. Even if sanctions are lifted, many will not want to do business with them. And what about Facebook and websites deemed "extremist" in Russia, that will probably stick.

I see little opening for Russia to be anything other than a new North Korea, even if the war ends. I wonder how long it will take before the population has had enough. Even the pro-Putin soviet-hags and old farts who see their boys come home in coffins seem to be on the critical side against Kremlin. While the young in the major cities seem to hope that the end of the war will make things return to normal, only to realize that nope, there's no such thing as normal anymore, which might lead them to leave as the last highly educated people to do so since there's no real academic or engineering future in a nation like Russia, as long as it's not about making future war crime weapons, which they might not be able to do as there's little import of tech that can support it compared to tech that could counter it being developed outside of Russia.

Russia will be a mess, all thanks to Putin and his minion's bullshit. Hopefully, the Russian people will wake up to that reality soon and do something about it.

We shall see... IMO, this talk about nukes is just blah, designed to scare opponents and placate supporters. — Olivier5

Obviously, they want to scare off any further help for Ukraine because they are losing. All military-strategic experts pointed out that they needed to create a corridor as soon as possible between Russia and Crimea and push out Ukrainian soldiers from cutting off that line and that Russia could easily do that with regular mechanical warfare... but they still haven't so either they don't have the means to do it or they just demonstrate the same level of incompetence and stupidity that they've shown so far in their strategic efforts.

By population that amounts to just over half the world abstaining. Funny how readily you forget the grossly disproportionate power Western countries have in the UN. — Isaac

But population means nothing as a pure number without any context and 141 nations voted for the resolution, 35 abstained, and 5 against. Only the five nations that voted against can really be positioned to be fully against. The abstainers could have voted because they weren't fully on board with the consequences and fallout of this war or the actions against Russia.

But I guess you would stretch things to fit your narrative of things, that's what you keep mr doing professor expert. Just because you don't believe in democracy or education and such things doesn't mean the world shapes around your opinions.

In other news:

Ukrainian Astronomers Discover ‘Exocomets’ around Another Star
By Briley Lewis on April 14, 2022

Astronomers from the Main Astronomical Observatory (MAO) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv recently published a discovery of five new exocomets—comets orbiting a star other than the sun—in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, using data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also independently confirmed a handful of exocomets that were previously detected by other researchers. — Olivier5

I thought Ukraine "was being destroyed"? How on earth can they do this while being destroyed? :sweat:

and he is not the suicidal type. — Olivier5

That's up for debate though... never doubt a lunatic.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO. — boethius

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything.

However the outcome of this conflict may be, there will be no way for Russia to "heal" even if the war ends as long as the top people, including Putin stays in power. As long as they are there, Russia will be isolated. The only way back for Russia would be to conduct a total reform of government, to show the world that they're not the crazy asswipes they are now. They brought this on themselves.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point. — boethius

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home.

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO. — boethius

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons.

But the problem is that their regular efforts have been pathetically bad so far. Even when all the experts said that the battle for the eastern region would be more conventional mechanical warfare in open areas and that Russia has the advantage, we haven't even seen that yet.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. This kind of stupidity is obviously more widespread than just those soldiers and leaders in Chornobyl. And they can't use air superiority because of their inability to use high-tech GPS missiles, so the pilots need to drop down under 5000 meters in order to strike at visible range, which is dangerous because of ground troop MANPADS.

So all they have is maybe bunker busters and large long-range missiles that do massive damage. But that could lead to such devastation that Ukraine needs to retaliate in order to stop it, meaning firing at a much larger scale into Russian territory, especially to take out those launch sites.

The thing is that the conventional military options from Russia should have been seen by now, but they aren't, because it would risk diluting the entire Russian army to the point where the nation is seriously undefended. The Russian army is stupid, low on morale have worn out old tech (some drones found were fueled by a DIY water bottle because they didn't have the actual tanks), they are pretty pathetic and there's little for them to do but just brute force try with what they have.

The only thing that is a large risk is that they blow Kyiv up with a nuke right before May 9th to spin some bullshit story that they "had to". But if they do, the rest of the world will do everything in their power to destroy Russia, and rightfully so (not talking about nukes, but about other means, including extreme isolated economical means).

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers. — boethius

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here.

If anyone in the world were to nuke a city today, that nation would be in such serious trouble that they might as well nuke themselves in the process. Russia won't care, of course, but it would solidify their isolation to the point where I think not even China would feel comfortable dealing with them. Russia would become persona non grata everywhere and that's all fine and good in their opinion... until it isn't.

People forget that the reason such consequences didn't happen for the US was that there were no protocols, no modern international law or any such things in place as we have them today. The world changed for the better after world war II to prevent such acts to happen again with the US very much at the helm of such preventative acts. The reason they still have nukes is for the same reason anyone has them, as a deterrent.

Russia on the other hand doesn't talk about nukes in the same way, they have them as actual military options. So it's an ocean between how Russia handles nukes and how the US handles nukes, regardless of the US being the only nation who previously used them before. The argument that "because they used them before, everyone else is innocent and the US is always the guilty one", in this context, is a ridiculous logic that has nothing to do with Russia's actions right now.

The use of nukes post the use in Hiroshima/Nagasaki is an extremely different matter than in a world that had never seen those consequences. The disregard of such historical context makes it impossible to discuss these things in a modern context and it becomes a ridiculous circle jerk of changing perspectives based on a "pick and choose" historical reference rhetoric. The fact is that no one in their right mind would use nukes today, the US would never use nukes as an offensive measure because the consequences would be so extreme that even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, the political fallout would be suicide for the US if they did and they absolutely know it. Russia however, does not have the same mindset as they have nuclear arms as actual military options, not just as a deterrent, its part of their war machine in another way.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress.

The Russian people will care when their nation is in the gutter, at least the people will care when they realize what they could have had if not for the fat and rich elite in the Kremlin fucking their nation up so hard. This is how revolutions happen and if things go down this route, there will be civil war in Russia.

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it"). — boethius

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against

The way you describe what "the rest of the world" feels are your own feelings not reflected in the real world. And the risks to Europe is there because we live next door to Russia so it's fully reasonable that a nation on the other side of the world won't care, but so far the global condemning of Russia's actions are very consistent anyway.

And if they use nukes they're done. There will be harsh diplomatic consequences for nations who support Russia if they nuked a major city. Even if they just use tactical nukes on military objectives, it would be a diplomatic nightmare for nations turning to Russia.

And who would want to? They have nothing but oil really, look at their export variety. When the world moves on from oil dependency, what would Russia really have? I mean, we're talking about decades of economical progress, it took this long for Russia to get on their feet after the soviet union fell and the sanctions and economic collapse they see now has thrown them back 30 years. If the sanctions keep in place and no one wants to work there as a career choice, and people in Russia rather move out of the country if they want to work in anything other than farming, then the coming 30 years won't see an economic heal that we've seen previously since the early 90s. That will also happen during 30 years of progress in the west.

Russia will be a shithole if things stay in place and any nuke from them would be the nail in the coffin. If they aren't aware of this, that's their stupid hubris talking, the same hubris that put them in the embarrassing position they're in right now.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that. — Olivier5

Lavrov is now threatening the world with a third world war involving nukes and he's blaming Ukraine for it :lol:

Russia has nothing left but this. It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. When they realize the world is laughing at their pathetic army and pathetic attempts at fooling anyone but the hardcore Putiners in Russia and internationally with their propaganda, they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country.

Could be, but we don't know what the result will be of new weapon tech coming into Ukraine. And if they get more planes in the air, that can have a tremendous counter to stationary troops. And the kamikaze drones are especially deadly for small squads to attack with, they could also be used in city warfare where artillery could be too damaging.

Ukraine also has to think about offense rather than defense. The risk of a long period of war is greater if a smaller region has concentrated battles and the rest of the nation is spared. Russia can maintain battles if the entire military isn't diluted to just this one war and therefore can keep rotating its military. But if Ukraine gets more offensively aggressive and tries to take back regions and cities now that the Russian army is at its lowest point in terms of morale, resources as well as the sanctions keeping their war chest down, then Ukraine has a good chance to push back Russia even further, making it almost impossible for them to win the coastal region corridor to Crimea, which seems to be the point Russia aims for as the end of this war. If Ukraine does this before May 9th, then there's very little "win" that Putin can show off and it would be an extreme failure on his part. It could save Ukraine and even dismantle the Russian elite, throwing Russia into internal chaos that will require more attention from Russia than any war, effectively ending the war completely. These new weapons need to be used for offensive efforts to kill off supply lines and groups of Russian troops. If they could even fire at the Russian-controlled border regions to the very east, it would seriously damage any movement within the most densely Russian-controlled parts. But most effectively, if they could create bombardments, drone runs, and artillery into Russian-controlled areas at random, they would tank the morale even further as no Russians would be safe from the risk of getting killed. The Russian troops aren't broken by low morale, it's when the morale is low that you break them.

This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine — Baden

But it is routine. Those missiles would show up on defense systems and it would create a Defcon problem and raise tensions unnecessarily if not communicated as a test. There's no "collaboration" between Nato and Russia in such a sense, it's routine to inform about events so that there's no unintentional retaliation that could escalate to full conflict.

From learning, reading, researching, philosophizing? Never.