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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shall I quote them for you? — Isaac

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

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

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

A revolution happened. — ssu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny you should say :lol:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are they secret? — Isaac

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I did not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your sycophancy is not an argument. — Isaac

Your whataboutism isn't either.

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

No, by the systematic nature of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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