You say you're "interpreting" government actions ... like "leaked intel" which are still government statements, just nominally supposed to be kept secret as it's intelligence during a war and potential nuclear escalation. — boethius

:shade:

No, you basically seem to not understand what I'm saying. Or intentionally since otherwise it would undermine your argument.

Let's break it down for you so it becomes easier for you.

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government
This means that interpreting the events that have unfolded previously has nothing to do with what governments are literally saying, i.e their info is not the validating factor.

it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.
This means interpreting the interplay between acts by governments involved in this conflict.

So, Russia releases a statement that others accuse of being propaganda, false and lies (example: "we will not invade Ukraine). The west releases intel regarded by outside analysis to be purposeful leaked intel (this intel cannot be verified as true at the time it is released, example: Russia will do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). At this point, it's word against word and disregarding years of confirmed disinformation from Russia we'll just go with the events here. Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. Russia then initiates a full-scale invasion. This validates the leaked intel of full-scale invasion.
These are initial acts from the west by leaking intel that is later confirmed by actions made by Russia.

This interplay points to how events might play out going forward.

So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events.

This is what I've proposed. A likely scenario based on previous events. Because it's more likely that events play out as I've described compared to the fiction and conspiracy interpretations other people try to play against it. I have the events that have happened, a chain of causality that is likely to continue, the interplay between the west and Russia as the foundation, while you use Putin's propaganda, a vague interpretation of a vague answer to a question and a conspiracy narrative that was debunked, or a misunderstanding of what types of labs there are in the world. Nothing confirming bioweapons, nothing confirming a link to anything about Russia's chemical weapons, only the using the link provided by Putin and his propaganda machine.

So if you continue to do your circular reasoning by saying that I say the intel is 100% you are either intentionally misinterpreting what I write or you don't actually understand what I write.

So, you "interpret" leaked intel as being 100% credible. — boethius

Oh for fuck sake, are you illiterate, can you please READ what I wrote here AGAIN and see if you can understand it before continuing?

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

I've found that there's no point in discussing further without getting a good validation that what I've written has been interpreted correctly first. I have no interest in circle jerk behaviors.

And you base this "strategy" of objective truth telling openness ... on what? — boethius

Read what I wrote again...

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

valid question to ask. — FreeEmotion

When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer. — FreeEmotion

You already made up your mind, you just try to find stuff that supports it.

yet "leaked intel" you find more credibly objective, true and no possible ulterior motives. — boethius

Because the strategy has been in the open over the course of this entire war. It is true because leaked information has been validated by how it relates to Russian propaganda and acts in the war. So concluding it to be more plausible is based on the actual events of leaked intel undermining Russian narratives before their acts. This is why it's more credible, not that we trust the government more, but how the act of leaking intel that is actually linked to acts Russia is doing. So if intel is leaked about Russia possibly using chemical weapons, it can be plausible they will do so, especially when they at the same time try to start a narrative about Ukrainian labs. Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/595916-us-employs-unusual-intel-strategy-to-counter-putin

The tactic didn’t prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, but experts credit it with scrambling and defanging some of the Russian plots to create a false justification for an invasion, as well as preparing the world to react quickly.

You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption — Isaac

A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory — Isaac

I rest my case

It's basically impossible to have any intelligible discussion with this level of denial.

The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them. — boethius

The question is raised by Russia. Intel leaked (as intel leaked before that was confirmed by Russian acts) points to possible chemical attack by Russia.

You listen to Russias narrative, you have that in mind when interpreting statements not mentioning anything like that. You interpret according to the planted ideas of bioweapons and weapons of mass destruction.

You have no evidence, there's nothing but an old conspiracy theory and propaganda narrative originated from Russia. But you still entertain the though as valid, without anything concrete to support it.

This is why I think all of this is stupid. It's basically how conspiracy theories work. Confusing facts with being on the same level as questions raised concluding in conjecture without any real connected dots.

Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. If you want to elevate that to what you are talking about, then you need further support for that.

You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, — FreeEmotion

By Fox news and Tucker who's consistently using everything possible to smudge democratic administrations. And what the fuck does it even mean to validate anything through the idea that you "can't dispute a question". Like, how are you all even arriving at valid rational conclusions if you treat "raised questions" as almost equal to facts?

This is literally witness testimony. Nuland obviously knows about these labs — boethius

It's not evidence of any bioweapon research. A lab doesn't mean anything. If Russia uses the idea of a "dangerous lab" as a scapegoat reason to hide chemical attacks, that doesn't mean there is a bioweapon facility because of your vague interpretation of her statement. "She clearly knows about..." doesn't mean shit. And if you think that's "witness testimony", try use that in a court with a straight face. None of this is evidence, jeez

You're saying US has leaked intel (are you saying this is "evidence" or more government statements that aren't evidence of anything?) ... in no way to try to control the narrative themselves? Just concerned truth seekers out to give the world an objective view of the situation on the ground? — boethius

I'm saying that the inductive conclusion to what has been going on in this war points to what I said. You are using conspiracy narratives and valuing Russian propaganda as valid perspectives as support for yours. We know that Pentagon leaked intel about the invasion, about the acts Russia were going to take and then Russia did exactly so. This undermined their attempt at justifying the invasion and helped undermine the propaganda both in Russia and internationally. This happened, it's literally what happened at the start of the war. So leaking intel about chemical weapons COULD be in line with this strategy, which has proven to be highly effective. It's the inductive conclusion based on what we know.

What legitimate research purposes? You're saying that there's legitimate purpose for Ukraine (a defacto ally of the US) to being doing it's own "defensive" bio-weapons research in multiple secret labs? — boethius

There's no evidence for bioweapon research. Research on dangerous pathogens don't need to be weaponized in order to be dangerous. Read what I write.

There is literally zero possible "legitimate research" defense of Nuland's statements. — boethius

That is a final conclusion if I've ever seen one. So there's no other possibility than there being a bioweapon facility? There are no problems with such a final conclusion, such a final definitive fact that you conclude out of that statement? If this is how you arrive at your conclusions, no wonder they're all over the place.

And even so how does that have anything to do with the possibility of a Russian chemical attack?

You don't seem to be following the conversation. — boethius

Well, if people keep spamming you will start confusing yourself as well.

The evidence is what Isaac just literally transcribed. We can assume Nuland knows the whatever these labs are about, otherwise it's unlikely she'd improvise, and from her statement we can pretty safely conclude there is a military purpose for these research labs. — boethius

That's not evidence for fuck sake. That's an answer that you interpret as being questionable.

If you want to say she's making it up as she has zero knowledge of the situation or actually wants the whole world to believe the Ukraine has bio weapons labs (WMD's) the US knows about / funds directly or indirectly ... then that's a possibility too. — boethius

Still no evidence for BIOWEAPON RESEARCH. Get it into your skull already.

She could very well be talking about Ebola strains which are not bioweapons. A specific Ebola strain in a high tier research facility could be vastly more infectious and dangerous than what we've seen in outbreaks since research labs do this to test out variants for treatments and that is totally legal and important in order to combat pathogens like it.

That's exactly what the US (and their British Poodle) are doing, too. They establish a narrative and then they act: — Apollodorus

Of course, but not with the level of state control Russia has and not with the blatant stupidity of thinking people outside of Russia falls for it. The scrutiny in the US and UK is much better since media is more free and it's easier for people to review and question such propaganda. If you do that in Russia you get sent to prison. It's not even comparable.

unless you live on a different planet (called Finland) — Apollodorus

Here's an example of you not ever reading what I'm writing because you think I live in Finland, so clearly you aren't paying attention to what I'm actually writing over the course of this thread.

All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble. — Apollodorus

Are you still blaming Ukraine for this invasion? Like... you are unable to understand page after page of counter arguments to this? Ignoring how almost everyone points to Putin wanting to restore the Russian empire which has nothing to do with Nato except that if Ukraine joins Nato it becomes harder for him to invade and claim Ukraine? Promising not to join Nato does not mean that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia, that's his goal. Nato stands in his way, that's all, that's the whole connection to Nato. He fears that further expansion of Nato will block his attempts to restore the empire borders. Why can't you understand this?

And stop blaming Ukraine for the invasion, it's disgusting.

that sounds like they might be bio weapons. — Isaac

Not evidence

Later...

You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own — Isaac

Based on previous behaviors during this war. In some way you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. I never said they WILL use chemical weapons, I said they MIGHT.

There's also an inductive argument to be made. What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly.
- So, the likely conclusion based on repeating events points to Russia aiming to use chemical weapons and will use the idea of a bioweapon facility in Ukraine having "leaks" in order to control the narrative so that the world blames Ukraine and not Russia if chemical weapons on civilians leaks to the world press. Pentagon leaking this intel falls in-line with how they've leaked previous intel in order to undermine Russian propaganda.

Since we can't deduct and only induct in this, we must go with most likely. A vague interpretation of a statement that might hint at a facility with dangerous pathogens co-funded by the US does not even remotely induce a conclusion of the Russian narrative. And even if there is a facility in Ukraine working on bioweapons, it would still not change the fact that Russia would use it as a scapegoat for their own attacks.

The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them. — Isaac

Of course the tier level has a point. You are all making conclusions based on interpreting Nulands statement but her statement would also work if the tier was top level. Just as I said it can have variants of pathogens for research purposes that if released by bombardments could potentially be catastrophic for the entire world.

And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? Even if they had labs with such weapons, it's still a narrative from Russia to scapegoat Ukraine and the US if they attack with chemical weapons.

You guys seem to always do a flip in this. When the risk is that Russia might use chemical weapons it gets turned into "but the US should be blamed because there might be a lab in Ukraine", or "Ukraine should be blamed because Nato".

If Russia attacks with chemical weapons they are the guilty one of using chemical weapons. Period.
My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. Don't fucking tell me that if we start to see civilians killed by chemical attacks you're all gonna confirm that as Ukraine's labs being the cause of it :shade:

They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab. — Isaac

And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing.

Evidence for the claim you made, obviously. — Isaac

I was asking for evidence of bioweapon labs in Ukraine funded by the US for bioweapon research. What evidence exist? Questions by Tucker on Fox news aren't evidence.

Government statements represent the fact the government made that statement, and give rise to legitimate questions about those statements. — boethius

Yes, but questions does not equal counter-evidence or counter-arguments.

but the logic that this material (that a CIA chief admitting to building a bunch of "Bio Research Labs"--that were obviously secret as otherwise we'd already know about them as just normal university or hospital labs — boethius

Both Isaac and I have already commented that normal biol labs in universities, hospitals and private companies aren't really a concern if they "fall into enemy hands". — boethius

You do know that research labs on extreme contagious viruses are considered secret in practice and location so that criminal groups, terrorists or foreign agents won't attack, steal or infiltrate them? Many of these labs are government funded. This does not equal them being bioweapon facilities.

What evidence do you have that any of these are bioweapon facilities? It's important to have clear facts.

Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world, facilities being funded from many different companies or even governments based on what they're working on. A bioweapon facility, on the other hand, is something else. And in true Fox news fashion they report on how it's been debunked that Ukraine has bioweapon facilities but turn it towards the Biden administration as a "well, so asking questions about it means we are just Russian propaganda so that means it's all untrue *wink wink*"

Or are you immune from the need for evidence? — Isaac

What evidence?

Facts need to be sourced, but just literally showing government statements is a valid source of the fact of those statements. — boethius

Government statements aren't facts. And Russian statements right now have such a low validity that anyone even seriously listening to it does not have the capacity of rational thinking. Tucker is a fucking joke, he was a Putin apologist before the invasion and his word means jack shit. Fox is a propaganda channel through and through.

If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence and people need to realize how Putin and Russia conducts this war. The propaganda machine is their biggest tool. They establish a narrative and then they act, in order to confuse people or validate for their own people why they're doing what they're doing.

The thing is that when they do this with actual UN meetings, they know that if they can't control the narrative with the rest of the world that isn't as gullible as the Russian people, it's gonna be hard for them to use those types of weapons. So they're desperately trying to fool the world that the results we're gonna see "came from an Ukraine lab leak" instead of their intentional attacks.

It's quite clear what the plan is here and it's only fooling them who don't know how to sift through the propaganda BS.

Stop using FOX news as any kind of valid source. :shade:
Verify with anything other than Fox please. It's the official media closest to conspiracy vloggers out there outside of pure state owned propaganda. Since Trump went into power, Fox has been sinking even lower than it already was and now it's impossible to use as a source.

Seriously, the media knowledge in this thread... :shade:

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons by calling for a UN meeting where they will try and create a narrative that the US and Ukraine had a bioweapon lab in Kiev, thinking the world is gullible enough to fall for such bullshit as reasons to why we might see the result of bioweapons soon.

Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists.

Russia is obviously in a stronger strategic position, with its developed arms industry, much larger population, much larger military, much larger reserves, much larger economy — Count Timothy von Icarus

Stronger position, not stronger strategic position. Brute force does not mean high strategic capability. Ukrainians have shown to have much better strategies, since they are able to hold against the invasion with less numbers and less technology. This is the problem with Russia, they have the most power but the least brain.

But they're still able to bomb a children's hospital. — frank

The cannon fodder doesn't bomb the hospitals or maternity facilities. The cannon fodder are young conscripts at the front not knowing what they're doing, the real military competence in the Russian force stays behind and use missiles and other long range attacks. Or, they are fundamentally incompetent because they can't aim. Either way, the Russian army looks pretty stupid. At the start of the invasion I said that Russia has power, but not much else. They have the most powerful bombs, the most tanks, the most everything, but they have the least strategic ability or intelligence. All the reports of troops getting blind drunk on vodka close to the date of invasion speaks for itself on what type of soldiers these are. The reports of looting and the calls they've made while doing so also shows that these soldiers are far from being battle ready, well trained operatives capable of logical and strategical thinking. Russia can only win by brute force, just push regardless of losses until they've conquered by numbers, but that would lead to extreme losses on the Russian side that will be very hard for Putin to cover up.

That's why democracies don't ever seem to be able to proceed with real change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Real change or fast change? Fast change does not equal positive change and fast change rarely equals long lasting change. In a democracy, the change requires examination and execution by the people. When a majority, close to all people agree (I mean a majority of people that does not exclude minorities or one group over another), that's when change solidifies itself into cultural and political change. Some people just want change for the sake of it or for their individual or small group collective to gain something over others. Which is why we see war, conflict, terror and pain. Little of that leads to long lasting positive change, instead risk triggering a cycle of violence that is even hard to get rid of, even within a peaceful democracy. Look at systemic racism for example, so ingrained in the system that even when whole communities agree that it's a problem, it is still hard to get rid of.

Change for a whole system or people takes time and often need to take time. When people enter their 30s they start to lock themselves into ideologies and values. It becomes harder to change the older they get. So even if change happens in a democracy, they will hold on to older values like an anchor holding society back. This is why cultural change happens quicker when booming generations start to disappear or younger people in a booming generation get into power.

The clash in Russia right now is primarily between the young generation who grew up in the post-Soviet era and the older generation stuck in those old values while the people in power, mainly Putin, tries desperately to hold onto the old empire ideals. The collapse of Russia won't just be economical, the collapse is cultural. The rift between the old and new is so vast that revolution might be a real scenario. When the fear of being shot in the street by a fascist police becomes less than the fear of a dark future for the nation, that's when people will overthrow the government. A small group of people demonstrating will not do that, but a million young Russians, even turning some of the police to their side, will.

In that regard a fast change can happen even with a positive outcome. But it's rare that a violent act create a positive outcome. Maybe blocking democracy's ability to change through peaceful processes leads to the only time democracy creates change fast, i.e revolution. Since by definition, it becomes a democratic act when it requires a majority of people to be able to overthrow the power of a nation.

they're conscripts. Lost, wretched souls brought up in an environment of extreme bullying and violence. — Changeling

To add to that...

Be aware that this is of course used as propaganda by Ukraine, but if verified, well... speaks for itself.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1501635351965798402

they're conscripts. Lost, wretched souls brought up in an environment of bullying and violence. — Changeling

Yeah, and they're not gonna be better after killing old disabled people. Fucking hate Russia's treatment of kids like this, it produces a large generation of broken people who might never do anything good in this world. Just violence against themselves, against others, until they die. It's sickening.

Yeah, the nihilistic Russian spirit shows itself wonderfully in that clip. All while Ukraine is urgently calling for a ceasefire in the Chernobyl region in order to repair the power plant, but so far they get nothing. Either the Russian troops are extremely uneducated, extremely stupid, or are so nihilistic that they act out like angry little children with severely lacking upbringing. Or a combination of all.

We should probably ban oil and gas from everyone. Go green. — frank

Yeah, but it will take a few years even if the push for this is at a maximum level now. But I do think plenty start to back up and look at the whole picture now. When we already have a movement towards green, I think there are plenty who earlier was a little apathetic against fast change, who are now changing their minds to push for a change faster. I think that government spending and private sectors will now be much more committed to green solutions for everything, and that is a good thing. This is why I've said earlier in this thread that even if we go back to how Russia exported oil before, there will come a time when Russia has no export because there are no nations willing to spend money on oil anymore. Germany has just changed gears 180 into spending on green solution infrastructure in order to try and get rid of the dependency on Russian gas. Nordstream will be gone in a few years, even if Russias export starts up again.

Everything about this invasion has shaken up the global resource- and energy economy to the point where people are trying to move away from dependency on authoritarian nations for natural resources and other trade. No one wants to find their economy and infrastructure being under the power of another nation anymore.

What's a bit worrisome about this is that most of the world's peace relies on trade and if nations start to block trade towards authoritarian nations, they want to have power in some other way, maybe even military solutions.

But all of this will push money into green solution science and that is unquestionably a good thing.

FAUX News is a lie machine, a dumbing-down machine. Watching them will make you stupid. — Olivier5

Yeah, if people don't even know what Fox news is or how biased it is, then no wonder so many have a hard time understanding how to decypher both propaganda and what sources to use for rational and logical arguments. Everything starts with media knowledge, fact-checking, research methods that produce logical conclusions and an ability to form all that into a coherent structure as an argument. The blatant cherry-picking to fit the narrative, the Putin is right or wrong depending on the argument, or news outlets that support the narrative or research papers with no connection to the actual premises being presented just form a maelstrom of BS. It all starts with an inability to understand how media works and what to trust and what not to trust. Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media deciphering" or whatever the correct translation would be.

The Jewish-led (i.e., evil for them) Ukrainian Neo-Nazi (a good thing for them) government is leading Ukrainians, who are actually just the same ethnicity as Russians, to ethically cleanse their fellow Russians for being Russians. The Jewish led Neo-Nazis are doing this with the help of their now pro-Nazi radical Woke BLM trans rights activist funders in the West. They are also backed by pro-Jewish radical Islamist jihadis (this las line comes from a handful of unconfirmed reports of small numbers of Central Asian mujahideen coming to fight for Ukraine, but makes sense in the context of "ISIS being funded by the Clintons," etc.)

Putin, often referred to only half ironically as "based Putin, savior of the White race," is saving and liberating the Ukrainians, who are actually Russians, but who have been killing Russians for not being Ukrainian.

He is doing so with the help of Chechen shock troops known for war crimes, and now, apparently Syrian irregulars. Thus, he is saving Europe from the ongoing Muslim migrant murder mayhem invasion of the West by sending the first Muslim army to invade Europe north of the Balkans in centuries.

Europe needs to learn to be strong and resist invasions (migration). Ukraine needs to stop resisting this invasion, it's going to get people hurt.

Putin's righteous denazificafation (denazificafation is bad) efforts to defeat "Globalhomo" (yes, this is really the new popular term for the evil elite kabal that runs the world...) won't be hurt by Western sanctions because he has the support of the Chinese Communist Party, who are helping him save the world. Plus, the whole time the invasion was actually about Fauci's bioweapons labs in Ukraine and evidence of Biden's pedophilia, which are in Kyiv. The God Emperor (based Trump himself) was impeached over his efforts to get Zelensky to turn these over.

At a certain point, the contradictions, liberal backed Jewish Neo-Nazis, an ethnicity ethnically cleansing itself, etc. collapse under their own weight. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is one of the most hilarious mental meltdowns I've ever seen :lol:

----------

But on a serious note, there's some serious Nazi-like fascist iconography being pushed in Russia that just feels like Nazi cosplay with a new logo, especially when it's being pushed from official propaganda sources. And calling Putin a new kind of Hitler was considered "extreme"? Will he put a gun to his temple and denazify Russia now?

Then you will have to define 'defeated'. — FreeEmotion

It's in your own quote

The sixty remaining French divisions and the two British divisions in France made a determined stand on the Somme and Aisne but were defeated by the German combination of air superiority and armoured mobility. — Wikipedia

I am curious as to how you view the Battle of France. — FreeEmotion

How do you continue to fight when you are defeated? Ukraine isn't defeated yet.

You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO. — Isaac

There was no evidence for a full-scale invasion either. But I guess you trust the Russians more.

If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst. — Isaac

Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight.

No, they won't. They'll get better.

See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously. — Isaac

Speculation or analysis based on current events? How many quotations refer to the current events and the possible repercussions of it going forward? Or are the current events irrelevant to a statistic that is made before the current events? Yeah, where did you pull that logic out of?

Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure. — Isaac

Based on previous data. Are you unable to change a conclusion when new data gets added? I sure am. All it takes is an ability to actually use information up to date for up-to-date conclusions.

It's like you pull out a paper on a theory disputing the Higgs boson particle AFTER it was discovered in CERN and then scream about how many quotations it has and therefore you are right. That's not how things work. This war is new data, the situation for both the Russian and Belarus people has changed.

There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK. — Isaac

You just pulled a statistical analysis of people's lives in Belarus and you are now saying that it's impossible to conclude anything from the sample sizes of what we've so far heard from the people of Ukraine? What's it gonna be?

And it's not just specific voices for the defensive actions by the Ukrainian people, it's also the LACK of voices speaking against Zelenskyy and the authority of Ukraine. Right now there are over two million refugees and so far I've yet to hear reports of demonstrations against Zelenskyy or any such acts that inform of a great dislike of Zelenskyy campaign to defend Ukraine from Russia.

Can you find any single sign of anything other than the overwhelming support and unity among the Ukrainian population? Where are the witnesses, the outcries, the demonstrations, the refugees crying over Zelenskyy's bad decisions? Where the fuck is it?

Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it. — Isaac

You literally make an argument against the people of Ukraine supporting the cause to defend against Russia. In an attempt to prove a point that the people of Ukraine and Zelenskyy should lay down weapons and stop the defense in order to save lives, when they actually don't want to do that. Do you want me to quote pages after page of your writing arriving at those conclusion? Stop try to spin your words. :shade:

Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war. — Isaac

Social media is one part of the information flow. There's more data to draw conclusions from the hundreds of global media outlets and social media accounts from within Ukraine than any of the support you claim to have for your conclusion.

Stop trying to speak for the Ukrainian people with your delusional ideas! They don't care about you or what you think is best. Your arrogant dismissal of all the people reporting out of Ukraine, all the people speaking from within Ukraine is fucking sickening.

No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts. — Isaac

And Russia won't stop shelling civilians while they try to do that. You know, you have to keep defending yourself while peace talks are happening. And Zelenskyy has asked for talks with Putin over and over and he just returns with silence.

So your method is not working, it is not realistic by evidence of how things have gone so far. Fucking get that already.

Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative. — Isaac

So civilians ASKING for weapons to defend themselves is a war crime. Are you seriously speaking of war crimes while Russia is actually conducting war crimes? Why don't you report it to The Hague court then? Oh, yes, they're busy actually investigating Russia right now. You know, because if the aggressor doesn't conduct war in a way that is considered by international standards, then you as the defense, as the people defending yourself can't follow those rules either.

Stop blaming the Ukrainians for how this war is going.

At every fucking turn you spin things towards the west, towards the Ukrainians, and away from the Russians. It's actually sickening to read. The blatant arrogance of you speaking for what Ukraine "should" do while they defend themselves against a low-IQ force of Russians firing at nuclear power plants and shelling civilians in evacuation corridors.

Can anyone become more disgusting than you in this thread? I'm done answering your bullshit now, you are delusional.

But yes, let's spend 30 more pages discussing whether Putin's war propaganda has a grain of truth in it. That is obviously the most important question now. — SophistiCat

No, please don't, I'm tired of fighting that fight against people unable to rationally understand simple authoritarian politics.

No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent. — Isaac

And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine?

No — Isaac

Should be enough as an answer.

measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed — Isaac

How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? It happens in Russia, why not in Crimea? And why does that matter anyway? You take a bite into Ukraine, install puppets and people are "happy". And Belarus is also not trustworthy, it has a dictator that's a puppet to Russia, you don't think that Belarus has the same kind of information flow? Ukraine is the only true democracy out of these nations. You can jump back in time all you want but that's where Ukraine is now and was improving. You seem to not include progression into your calculation. Where is Russia heading? Where is Belarus heading? You think things will be better for their own people going forward? People are fleeing Russia as we speak because Russia is becoming a totalitarian state. You don't think Belarus will be affected by that, as well as Crimea and the new "bites" Russia took?

No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state. — Isaac

That has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with corruption. And as mentioned numerous times, Ukraine has been fighting against corruption for a long time, they were actively moving away from that kind of post-Soviet "lifestyle". Democracy is part of being able to fight corruption and as corruption gets lowered, so does democracy's ability to improve life. I'm of course speaking of well-working democracy, that enforces laws of freedom of speech, which is needed to be able to fight corruption. You can't use indexes of how things are in nations that have JUST enforced the results of their corruptions. Do you think those indexes will show the same after 2022 is over? If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. Your comparisons are so flawed and your blatant strawman of the concept of democracy is extremely naive. To what point? What point are you trying to make here? That you "can be authoritarian and also have a happy population"? Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes?

No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate. — Isaac

The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? Also, look at the actions of the Ukrainian people, what do they do? Do they conduct demonstrations against Zelenskyy and the people in power? There are NO reports on this, nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy and the authorities' actions to defend against Russia. Everything points to Ukrainians being overwhelmingly united against Russia. So what in the world are you basing your conclusion on?

You're grasping at straws just to support your conclusion that Ukrainians should accept the boot, give Russia their land, give up freedom and just give in to Putin's demands because people are dying. You are unable to understand the Ukrainians because you don't actually listen to them, you just want to win an argument, whatever apologistic idea it would demand. Listen to them instead of your own words.

From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying? — Isaac

Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. There's basically an overwhelming 24/7 global coverage about the war, interviews being done over and over from a vast amount of sources globally. If you are unable to assess the actual situation through the collective result of that coverage, then you are unable to actually make rational conclusions in this matter. Give me any kind of source that points to anything other than overwhelming support for Zelenskyy and this fight, in and outside of Ukraine.

The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method. — Isaac

Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. You have zero solutions that the Ukrainians would agree with, based on everything we've seen from the people of Ukraine, outside and inside, so why are you suggesting some method that have no documented support?

Is the method of defense against invading killers a bad method? What should we do instead? Thoughts and prayers? :shade:

One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'. — Isaac

You are unable to understand Putin's propaganda machine, that's for sure. The west supports Ukraine because the people ask for our help against a violent killing invader. There's little evidence to show that Putin would back down through peace talks or the west putting pressure on him to do so, therefore, defense measures for Ukraine are needed in order for them to survive against a powerful invader. That is the support from the west and beyond. That was the answer to your remarks of "support" for Ukraine. What Putin says is irrelevant, he's the aggressor, he conducts propaganda, silences his own people, do whatever it takes to control the narrative. Anyone taking him seriously have no idea how to rationally deduct valid conclusions in this.

f they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely... — Isaac

And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves?

What the hell are you smoking? The Ukrainians would tell you to shut up if you expressed this directly to them. But this isn't about actual Ukrainians, this is about you trying to win the argument, what is true about their wants and needs is irrelevant to the point that you portray them as unable to make their own decisions or understand the decisions they've made after being encouraged.

To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly.

And...

Parties to an armed conflict must "at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives". — Isaac

It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. You have so little knowledge of what's actually going on in Ukraine that it becomes impossible to discuss these things.

And Putin's forces are the ones who actively shoot at civilians so how can Ukrainians defend themselves against an enemy who doesn't care if they're shooting civilians or not? Then it doesn't matter for the civilians who want to fight that they don't have the necessary gear. You don't seem to understand what a fight for survival is. You're just grasping whatever your think fits your argument without actually doing the rational work to make sense of it.

Listen to the Ukrainian people instead of speaking for them like you are an expert on what they need to do. They choose to fight for their freedom and their nation, they choose it with such overwhelming majority and collective spirit and morale that your argument that they should put down their guns just sounds like Putin apologist bullshit.

What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed? — Isaac

Because this is what they've done since 2014. Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? At what point would you fight back?

I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism. — Isaac

Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? The latest acts of the Russian regime against its own people just show exactly how authoritarian it actually is. And democracy, as it is normally being used as a term, is about more than just elections, it's about freedom of speech, independent media, freedom of movement etc. Neither exist in Russia and especially now, there's nothing of that. You also ignore all the work Ukraine has been doing to fight back against national corruption, compared to Russia not doing much at all to fight theirs.

What exactly is your argument here? That "because democracy doesn't mean everything is good, there's really not that different from living in an authoritarian regime without freedom of speech?" How is this in any shape or form a rational argument?

We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance? — Isaac

You argue for giving into a dictator's demands to stop the current bloodshed. What about the blood under the boot of a regime? Would you have argued the same in the rise of Nazy Germany? "Give in to Hitler's demand, just stop the bloodshed for now, it's not worth your freedom. Give them your freedom so you can live". That turned out great.

Can you name any authoritarian regime that treated people well after they forced them to surrender or be killed?

You still don't understand what the Ukrainians themselves fight for, you seem to be unable to understand what fighting for freedom actually means.

It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice. — Isaac

You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? So if the people want to fight for their freedom, defend their nation against an aggressor killing their people and threatening their independence, the authorities shouldn't represent their people's will and fight?

Maybe you want to be under the boot but they don't. That's what they're fighting for. And blaming Ukrainian authorities or the people of Ukraine for any of the civilians getting killed is fucking moronic. Russia is the aggressor, Russia holds the blame here. You cannot blame Ukraine for not stopping the war by giving in to the demands of their invaders. That's as backwards as thinking about this can possibly get.

Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first. — Isaac

You still ignore what the Ukrainians want themselves. Stop thinking for them for a moment, stop speaking for them in your internet armchair and listen to what they are actually saying, what they want with their life and nation. No one is cheering for bloodshed, no one is supporting it, what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation.

It's kinda disgusting that you speak "for them" in the way you do. That you know what's best for them and how they should act. You continue to criticize how the west influences the world, how the US is bad, how NATO is bad, but when the east (Russia) demands and wants to control you're like "LET THEM!" and when I say you should listen to what Ukrainians want with their own life and nation and what they feel about the situation, you ignore that and point out "what they should do", just like any other figure from the west that you complain shouldn't interfere in others business.

So what's it gonna be? Should the west tell Ukrainians what they should do? Should Russia tell them what they should do? Should they be able to decide for themselves? And if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? Isn't that exactly how it should be done?

No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians — Isaac

So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault?

Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine — Isaac

No it's not, Israel killing civilians, especially using phosphorus bombs, is a war crime. Anyone thinking that's a complex issue doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Where's the call for sanctions against Israel? — Isaac

You don't think there are sanctions? Or that people don't care? I live in one of the only countries in the world that actually acknowledges Palestine as its own state. So whatever the fuck others do I don't care. It doesn't however have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine and if you think you can use that as a sort of rhetorical trap in an idea to show some hypocritical perspective in which people support Isreal in one case and Ukraine in another, that's not gonna fly with me since I criticize Isreal in the same way I do Russia when it comes to aggressions. Isreal is long overdue for a Hague court trial.

So don't use other conflicts to back up your ill-conceived arguments about what Ukraine should do. They want freedom, independence and not what Russia and Putin stand for. They fight to protect that freedom. A fight that for some can be worth more than the lives lost since it will inform the rest of that nation's existence and the lives of everyone living in that nation for decades or centuries to come. But you seem unable to understand such things or to actually listen to Ukrainians and what they want. If Ukrainians want the war to end, they're not pleading to the authorities to give into Putin's demands, they're pleading to Russia to stop the aggression, to stop the invasion.

Stop being confused as to who's the bad apple here. Stop blaming the Ukrainians for being invaded and killed, it's a preposterous perspective.

but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. — Isaac

By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the people living in those places not being able to be the Ukrainians they want to be, but that doesn't matter to you I guess? Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? I mean, this is literally the second invasion, even though it's bigger.

What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently — Isaac

How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this?

so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me. — Isaac

No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. Maybe it's easy to take freedom and independence for granted if you live in a nation where everyone takes it for granted, but for people who's just begun to feel free of the previous Soviet regime, looking to a brighter future for themselves, they might just rather die than give up that freedom to another dictator.

And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia, which means you argue for giving in to demands by someone killing civilians. Why do you think police forces like SWAT don't give in to demands by a perpetrator holding people hostage? Because it tells perpetrators that it works for getting them what they want. If killing civilians gets Russia what they want, they'll will keep doing it. The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia for doing so. That killing civilians leads to worse outcomes for Russia. It also informs Russia that any future conflict where they do the same would lead to the same bad outcomes for themselves. Imagine if they invaded another nation in the future and since they got what they wanted with Ukraine they use the same strategy of bombing civilians until they get what they want.

Avoiding bloodshed has more dimensions than just doing anything to avoid it. It's not that simple and it also doesn't mean people cheer for it.

Yes. If need be.

Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index — Isaac

Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about.

How on earth are you reading...

they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states.

...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"? — Isaac

Independent... like Belarus you mean?

Better late than never I guess?
Did sanctions have an effect of sorts? Ukrainians cause difficulties?
Anyway, seems the Nazi story fell out of favor. — jorndoe

But it's still not "we're leaving", it's "we're leaving, so long you put down your weapons first, and then we'll do it", except we'll keep some parts of Ukraine. It's arrogant to say the least, like a child who's crying over losing and wants to have a little cookie at least.

It's interesting that the "War Lord" Vladimir Zhoga, who was recently killed, was a neo-nazi criminal and that this is was supposed to be the elite who Putin sent in to "denazify" Ukraine. Now, Ukraine denazified part of the Russian army by killing him. Oh the irony :ok: :clap:

What makes you think that? — Isaac

Because it nurtures the lie that muddies the waters of what is propaganda and what is not. Maybe not among people in here, but media and lots of people who never talk philosophy or politics etc. keep mentioning the grain of truth as if it validates anything of what Putin is doing.

I doubt the assault on Odessa goes well, that's when the Ukrainians will pull out the Neptunes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Probably why Russia wants to end the conflict by telling them to give parts of Ukraine to Russia and lay down arms. Problem is that what's gonna happen to the people who don't want to live in Russia, are they gonna relocate to other places in Ukraine? The demands are a sham, a way to win something out of this. Russia has no rights to anything, they should just leave and go back home. Especially since Russia will have a hard time coming back from any of this, they need to rebuild things back home and just leave Ukraine alone. We're also now waiting for some word from the Hague court and there's not much telling any other narrative there than that Russia is conducting serious war crimes, which might lead to repercussions even if the war ends.

Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere — Isaac

A grain of sand does not make a beach, so a grain in itself is irrelevant when defining a whole beach.

A grain of truth is also one of the most important parts of making the propaganda machine work. Build the lie on a small truth and you will make those who seek the truth have to work harder to prove that truth. And it's with small sentences like "...has a grain of truth somewhere" that propaganda thrives on.

There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. — FreeEmotion

They're more or less like in most other nations of Europe that have a large problem with Neo-nazi groups. But nothing of that has any real relevance to Putin's reasons of denazification. As I've described, the most effective propaganda uses a small truth and bloats it up to a big problem so that any criticism of the propaganda can be met with "but... there are groups in Ukraine that are...". Any validation like that, even if recognizing the propaganda as propaganda, will just help that propaganda to get more validation.

It's pretty clear what the Russians believed going into Ukraine. It wasn't some neo-nazi groups, there weren't some "small groups of nazis somewhere", it was blatant propaganda of painting the entire nation as a Nazi regime, with the top leaders and Zelinskyy as being Nazis and them conducting genocide on the civilian population.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal? — boethius

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet.