I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. There is no point in meeting Putin's demand when the demand is only for Putin to control Russians' perspective on the war. Putin doesn't give a shit about international relations and any idea that peace talks about this nazi narrative would yield peaceful results is downright stupidity. All while the extreme focus in this thread to talk about the actual neo-nazis in Ukraine as something important just enforce the propaganda narrative without people understanding that this is what's happening. Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. To meet Putin on this point, to even consider it as a foundation for peace talks just validates the propaganda and enforces Putin's reasoning. If the west starts talking this narrative as something real, we've just made Putin's propaganda real and that is a trap. The denazification narrative that Putin pushes should be shot down, period. Don't even engage with that bullshit, don't validate the propaganda by linking this war to that narrative in any way. So once again, this is how the propaganda works and why engaging in this narrative just helps Putin.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? — Isaac

Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? If he pushes this propaganda everywhere, then people will keep talking about it, even outside Russia and it validates the narrative to anyone who seeks further information from independent sources.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CawUFRHFzYB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

And you are repeating your posts like a parrot not even understanding the answers you get. It's pointless trying to discuss something like this with someone who ignores anything said that challenges your point of view while just answering every minor point with the same argument over and over.

You simply don't understand how Putin's propaganda narrative works. It doesn't matter how any of us try to explain it, you keep ignoring and keep repeating.

It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me. — Isaac

And you are a Putin apologist as far as I can see it. Or just so naive that you don't understand how you're a part of the propaganda machine. It's brilliant really, you are living proof of how Putin's propaganda can work even when someone acknowledges that it's propaganda.

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac

Exactly this. Get it already.

Let's focus on the nazis of Ukraine. Putin will retreat their troops, they will put down the guns and hug the Ukrainians in a big warm celebration that the war is over, as long as the peace talks give up the nazis. :shade:

Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else? — Isaac

So what are you comparing it to? There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups.

What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine? — Isaac

There isn't a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine that is greater than in other nations. So why do you even talk about this in the way you do? Nothing of this has to do with the war other than you buying into Putin's propaganda. It becomes even less of an issue when you weigh in the fact that Putin's connection to such groups makes him more dangerous in terms of neo-nazi movements than anything in Ukraine.

Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics. — Isaac

"All politicians lie" is not the same as how Putin uses propaganda, which goes beyond lies. It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. So you can't use a part of the false narrative and try to navigate it when the entire construct is formed to control it. That's what gullible diplomats do and then gets puppet strings pulled by Putin himself.

It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever. — Isaac

I'm just gonna quote my own breakdown of how this works, since you clearly are naive when it comes to how this propaganda works.

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff. — Isaac

What intelligence? You have already bought into the narrative that Putin provided, but you have nothing to give them, you have no leverage in the peace talks because of the fact that it is an impossible demand to be met, especially at a time when the entire nation is war-torn.

Relates to my questions above... — Isaac

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac

Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons while making it a "never-ending battle" to denazify so that even if he levels the entire nation of Ukraine he can still spin it as "the only option we had to destroy the nazis".

I cannot believe how naive you are on this subject. You buy into it in the exact way I described:

since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer

Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem. — Isaac

Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. Since everyone knows he's a strategist, it's kind of logical that he helps push far-right movements in other nations in order to then say there's a neo-nazi problem he's fighting.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk. — Isaac

There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. "The problem" that Putin help you bloat up does not exist right now since it's a problem to fix in a country that does not have war. When there's civilians lying in the streets after a bombing leveled several blocks, it doesn't really matter that one of those houses had a gathering of neo-nazis before the war.

It's like sitting in a house after it burned down saying: "Just because it is like it is doesn't mean we can ignore the plumbing problem we had before the fire."

What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down. — Isaac

There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue.

It's like your mouth speaks of his reasons not being true, but your mind seems to have bought the propaganda anyway. How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? It's not the general public that's in those meetings, they all know it's bullshit. Putin uses these reasons as a way to never answer to his real reasons, it's a mantra whenever he gets criticized.

But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. How do you establish that the "neo-nazis" are gone? Do you show him the dismantled bodies of children in a block bombed to rubble and say: "your neo-nazi problem is gone now, you bombed them to bits"?

Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win. — Isaac

Putin doesn't give a shit. While you're writing here, there's been agreed upon humanitarian corridors that were supposed to help civilians flee cities currently being under siege. But Russian troops keep firing at the civilians. They agree on a ceasefire until the civilians are gone, then instantly starts shooting at them.

It's like you don't see what's going on here, like you are blind to the brutality of Putin and the unreliability of dealing with him diplomatically. He doesn't fucking care, and it's proven by what is directly happening between the diplomacy and events in Ukraine.

He's conducting war in the same way as dictators did before the age of internet. Making sham diplomacy meetings and peace talk while bombing civilians to pieces. This worked in the past since it kept the international public in the dark while trying to achieve the real objectives in the war. Only after a war had ended did human rights violations and war crimes become known and then the objective of the war was either failed or gained while proving the aggressor guilty became harder since most evidence was gone. Right now, when it's so easy for information to get out of Ukraine, it becomes much harder to conduct these sham diplomacy strategies and I think this is the failure for Putin.

He didn't calculate how information spreads today and this is why he's now so dedicated to shutting down everything in Russia in order to control the flow of information at least in a place he has control over. Otherwise, we would have seen him shutting down Facebook and information outlets in Russia right at the start of the invasion in order to control the flow. He didn't do that and only did it after protests and criticism appeared, something he might have thought would be something to deal with later.

In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means. — Isaac

Putin doesn't care about any of that. If you think you can sit down in a peace talk with his delegation and use his propaganda reasons as "leverage" he would just laugh behind your back. It's gullible and naive to think you can meet his bullshit as foundations for a ceasefire like that. Just look at how he fell back to his "standard" propaganda whenever people like Macron called him and tried to talk sense into him. He doesn't care, he just states the reasons and never discusses it as any valid point.

Because he knows he could keep using that reason as it's an extremely vague point that can never be proven "solved". He could keep using the neo-nazi angle at every corner of this war because there will never be a point when anyone can say "now that the house of nazis has been leveled, the neo-nazis are gone and the denazification is complete".

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda.

You can see this everywhere. People who are unable to see past the propaganda, who are unable to see how that propaganda works, are used and who even think they understand that Putin uses propaganda, but still fall for it, just as it seems in your case.

You can't use bullshit reasons as a foundation for peace talks, and you can't meet unquantifiable demands as leverage for a ceasefire, and you can't enter a ceasefire if the aggressor keeps breaking it killing civilians.

Forget it. It's like talking to children. Can you seriously not get your heads round the idea of diplomatically taking account of the stated grievances of one party without agreeing with them?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between working out what we could do (or could have done) to fix this and deciding who's to blame? — Isaac

How did that in any shape or form relate to what I wrote? Putin pushes a propaganda narrative to justify his actions, there's no reality to that narrative. Why can't people understand this?

Yep. So is it not a problem that there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or is there no problem because there's no Neo-Nazis? It's not clear which is your claim. — Isaac

Who cares at this moment? There are neo-nazis everywhere, especially in nations that have free speech, there will always exist a number of outliers and yes, all of these bad groups should be dealt with. But nothing of this has anything to do with the war. The neo-nazi liberation narrative is Putin propaganda, nothing else. To even consider that perspective as valid is falling for that propaganda as valid reasoning when discussing the war. People should be more rational than doing so. Putin lies all the time but people seem to use that as valid perspectives or counterpoints. :shade:

How do we stop wars? — Isaac

Not by debating whether the west is to blame through ill-conceived arguments about Nato, that's for sure. Stopping a war requires action on the part of people in power. As far as I can see I think the west is actually doing good in this regard. Sanctions are hard, help gets to Ukraine, pressure on Putin is everywhere. We see hints in Russia of support for the war dropping.

How else do you stop a war without starting a bigger one? There are only two options really. Either fight or help without fighting.

Yet one never should underestimate just how much perseverance Russians have. If their economy will falter, then they stand in line for bread. The sanctions won't stop Putin, that's for sure. If the people survived the collapse of the Soviet economy, they surely can survive sanctions too. — ssu

Questionable though, since the fall of Soviet and the following recession still had open doors towards the west with trade and business, which were a part in restoring the economy. The sanctions right now have basically blocked Russia from being part of the technology- and business practices that are essential to modern economic vitality.

Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. — ssu

But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage.

If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces — ssu

But they have performed attacks on it. The biggest reason they haven't mounted a full attack is A) their airforce have been seriously taken out and a flyby would risk the few planes they have left, while B) their anti-tank/anti-vehicle capability has been draining dry. It's only just now that the Swedish anti-tank weapons have arrived in Ukraine so we might see a mounted attack soon.

The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery. — ssu

Problem is that Putin has little left to spin the truth. The only way for him to win is to kill Zelenskyy, kill everyone who opposes Putin, and by force take over Ukraine and install more Russian citizens so the general public is fewer Ukrainians and more Russians. That's the only way he can "win" this and that scenario is so far-fetched that I don't think even he thinks it's a possibility.

I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, use that footage to spin the narrative that "the "neo-nazi drug addicts" destroyed beautiful Ukraine and such barbarism couldn't save the nation, it is a wasteland that I and proud Russians tried to save from the west, now lost to the brutal enemies. As we mourn the fallen, we will build a better Russia for those that survived" etc. blah blah blah new world order blah.

I think his strategy right now is to attack in a way so that he could build a propaganda narrative on it and then turn focus somewhere else, probably building relations with China who really don't want this mess on their hands. They want Russia to stop and be a partner in a way that doesn't taint their own nation, so they can only start doing that when Russia ends the war. And the west will probably be gullible and stupid once again after this war: opening trade, removing sanctions and believing Putin and Russia will be peaceful now.

I think sanctions should be kept even after the war ends. Otherwise, what's with all the talk of Putin not getting away from the crimes he's done? Sanctions should be kept until the people of Russia goes into revolution mode. We're already seeing a lot of such movements now and it might just be a matter of time before the police switch sides. When that happens there's no real stopping them flushing Putin out of power without a civil war happening, which will not help Putin further.

Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different. — ssu

https://www.consultancy.eu/news/7433/research-ukraine-war-costs-russian-military-20-billion-per-day

€20 billion a day means that it has so far has cost Russia €220 billion.

Add to that all sanctions and the worthless Rubel and it's just a matter of time before Putin starts to take money from the oligarchs to try and finish this mess. There's no way Putin can win any of this. Imagine if this war goes on for another month, that's €840 billion, then imagine if it goes on far longer than that, like 6 months, that's €3940 billion.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it. — ssu

No, but Russian troops shooting at a power plant risking a 5x Chernobyl as they did last night could be a reason to break everything said about not helping Ukraine with military forces and go in and help Ukraine get rid of the stupid ones firing at fucking power plants.

That action is so stupid that it could warrant a force to stop things like that from happening. I mean, if they blow a power plant and the winds go east, then Putin would totally fuck up Russia in a way I don't think he thought about.

Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. — ssu

Yeah, makes sense. But we're not in an actual cold war again, even if it looks like that's gonna be our future now.

And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions. — ssu

Well, the Cuban crisis was one of the worst during the Cold War. It could very well end up being something similar happening in the future.

The big problem though, is that information about such events could be hidden easier back then. Current stream of information makes it harder to keep things under wraps.

It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden. — ssu

Yeah, and our third-largest party (the extreme right-wing fuckheads Sverige Demokraterna) might swing around in this matter from against to positive for NATO and that would mean a majority in our parliament. UK also announced through NATO that they would assist Sweden if we were ever to be attacked by Russia. Of course, that doesn't mean much, could only be empty promises, but sure is a bit of a relief. I wouldn't mind having some SAS forces on Gotland. With the "quality" of Russian troops in Ukraine, they wouldn't stand a chance against SAS forces.

I am curious what people think of the extent all the economic sanctions by the West were an acceptable consequence to the Kremlin? As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"? — boethius

He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. Remember, Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China. — boethius

But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them.

There's also intel showing that a lot of the higher-ups in China are critical of Xi Jinping's anti-corporation attitudes, that most others want more open relations to western companies, not closing those doors. And Xi Jinping is up for his vote for lifetime mandate this fall, where many believe that he might be voted out because of his unpopularity among the others in power. If that happens, then the deal with Russia could be broken in an instance. This is a huge risk for Putin that I'm not sure he's really aware of, since he has miscalculated so many other things during this invasion.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished with via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective. Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism. — boethius

But the oligarchs have close ties to Putin. Most likely it's how he can influence in the west without direct connections. It's part of his power. Many also speculate that most of Putin's wealth is hidden within the oligarch's wealth. Hidden from the Russian people. From the outside, it looks like Putin has as much income as our prime minister in Sweden, which isn't at all a luxury sum compared to many leaders in the world. But underneath he most likely has a large wealth hidden from the public and many speculate the oligarchs to be the holders of that.

Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience). — boethius

Yeah, this is a problem, we really don't know Russia's operation is going. There are many many sources that point to it going bad, but Putin is a brutal strategist. He might just have thrown young conscripts into Ukraine as cannon fodder to make believe that Ukraine is winning while mounting a whole other attack as the main one. We really don't know until the backlash in Russia becomes real.

In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals. — boethius

To a point. If the war chest is locked down or the entire economy collapses it matters little if they have savings they could use towards China when the end result would be military material without any money left for the citizens of Russia.

My take is that much of the Rubel's floating around in Russia have been converted to crypto, since we've seen a surge in crypto right when the sanctions kicked in hard. But that's unverified.

Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed. — boethius

This is probably what's gonna happen with Russia long-term. Even if sanctions ease up, no one wants to deal with Russia anymore. But the problem is that modern nations can barely make it without good global trade. This is why China is one of the largest trade nations in the world, they realized that is where modern superpower is. Russia has oil, gas, and wheat. With climate change pushing the world further from these natural resources, the less Russia will be able to export it, even to China. Wheat will be the only thing they could export while they don't have any high industry of tech or other functions that low natural resource nations have as trade. Look at North Korea. All reports from within point to massive poverty and only surface level imagery of wealth among the top people. Compare that to China who's the largest trading nation in the world.

If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west.

So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.? — boethius

I think it's a door opening for the west to get rid of Russia. They weren't a big trading partner compared to others to begin with, and there are too many risks dealing with them for anyone smart enough to see through Putin's big leader attitudes. Germany was the only one really opening their arms to them and look how they got fucked by the instability he created. No one will dare making deals with them anymore. Even oil that is still being exported from Russia is being turned down because people don't want to deal with Russia anymore.

I think it's an acceptable risk because Russia doesn't really influence the west as much as people think. There will be hits to the global economy, yes, but no way near what would happen if a nation like the US or China got disrupted. Russia, as a global economic partner, is not really that important compared to other superpowers.

So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had.

For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that. — boethius

China relies too much on international trade, so it will grow out of its hardcore authoritarian system just through political evolutionary movements. For them, growing their economy through trade and through having deep investments in other nations will demand them to loosen themselves more and become more like the US. Because they do business just like the US, buying themselves into other nations in the world, making heavy trade deals, and increasing global power through all of it. Russia might be something they view as rational in the short term, but if Russian economy is in the gutter and there's not much viable trade with them, they will just shrug it off and move on.

Russia has much more to lose than China if their agreement breaks... and I think China knows it. I think they are much better at world chess than Putin and the rest of Russia.

I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise? — boethius

That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today.

Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken.

Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations... — ssu

Yes, but that was before a full-scale war. I mean at the moment, while Russia has shown actual aggressive warfare, the act of breaking borders into NATO airspace would be much more severe than the normal tensions earlier. We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different.

Russian troops must be the most stupid people in the world after shelling the biggest power plant in Europe so that it’s now burning and fire fighters can’t get to it because they’re fired upon when they try.

If the winds go east, then Putin might fuck Russia up in more ways than he had imagined.

Seriously, this is the most stupid thing I’ve seen. :shade:

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries. — baker

Then they need to focus on other aspects, like forming a tech industry with engineering educations and similar. Maybe even semiconductor facilities etc.

It is possible to build first-world standards even without a geographical area high in natural resources. But you need more time than 30 years of instability. It's like, they've just gone into a form of stability, or working to stabilize the nation, and then Putin bombs the shit out of them.

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia. — baker

Why is Ukraine being neutral important to them if they don't want to control Ukraine? Russia can say whatever they want about what they want with Ukraine, but in the end, they want control over them. Either by them being part of Russia or as a puppet state.

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

Yes, agreed. But that point also counters your point about Ukraine not having anything to warrant higher living standards. Why would Russia force itself into a nation that doesn't really have anything of value? Other than an obsession with redrawing borders?

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

But this point hasn't really come to pass yet. There are enough resources still in this world to sustain it a while longer, for many nations.

But it WILL be the conflict of the future. When climate change has created unsustainable living conditions in some places of the world, we will have a refugee crisis that is unprecedented in history. At that time, we will have a shortage of resources... and that will be the source of an extreme world conflict, possibly the true world war 3.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker

Maybe they just don't want to be ruled by an authoritarian leader? Maybe they've been fighting their own corruption for a while now and don't want to flip that on its head? Maybe they felt like they wanted something else? I mean, maybe they wanted to form a society based on western standards more? Maybe the principles of staying independent and forming their own future were so strong that it's worth it to defend against Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency. — baker

But is this the case though? A nation that is finding its own path and hasn't been doing it for more than 30 years might need more time to solidify its modern core culture and values?

It's like if Norway, after the breakup with Sweden, were invaded by us 30 years later with the argument: "look at them, they can't make it, they're barely a functioning nation, we shall fix them with stability". But Norway grew to surpass us in their economy, mainly through their oil, but still, we don't view them as "us", we view them as brothers, just like many do between Russia and Ukraine. And this might be why I have such a hard time seeing the need for Putin's actions here. Sweden and Norway have an extremely good relationship, with a trade that's almost better than within the EU, even though they're not part of the EU. Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".

All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen. — ssu

MUST (Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service) also came out and said that the behavior of those fighter jets was not normal. They flew directly in line with our borders and at the time of passing Gotland, they did a deliberate steer into our borders close to Gotland before turning away after our response fighters caught up and took pictures of them.

It was deemed by MUST to be a clear deliberate act of aggression, as a message to Sweden. Probably because we might join NATO and also for helping Ukraine.

If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. If they don't want us to join NATO, they shouldn't be this stupid, now they're probably just sealing the deal for us.

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression? — frank

No, not a global depression. It will give everyone dependent on gas and oil, and in some ways wheat a huge problem, but at the same time, it will boost the need for renewables to be developed. But even that will take years if the decision is that they need to do it now. But an example is Germany who's now beginning to change course, thinking of steering away from Nordstream altogether. If we're gonna weigh global warming as a factor of a future massive global problem, to this, then the sanctions might sting the world hard in the short run, but may also push for a faster change that the world would have to do anyway.

Actually, this is a bigger problem for Russia overall. They rely so heavily on exporting oil and gas that whenever the world has turned away from that they have nothing but wheat, and we don't know how climate change will affect Russian farms for that either so they might lose that as well.

They have to become a nation that relies on trade and has other global functions than resources. They would have to focus on things like tech development. But that requires a much more open society that works as a global hub of such knowledge. To reach that kind of society in the future, they have to let go of corruption, propaganda, and old empire dreams. It's impossible to function with the current standards.

So if the sanctions hit hard now, the future will hit harder on Russia.

Btw as I said to Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner. — ssu

Today our government had closed talks about the military strategy going forward. Many mentioned how we need to speed up to reach the 2% of GDP which I'm not sure is needed but at least recommended by NATO in order to become a member. I think however that in the current situation, NATO need to drop that number in order to let Finland and Sweden in fast, so what I think is going on right now is that there might be an agreement already "signed", but not official with the promise that Sweden will eventually reach 2% in 2024 or 2025. This way Sweden can show the numbers to NATO as a planned expansion in order to be let in earlier than a proper 2% reach.

But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO."

Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon. — ssu

He can be angry, but at least we're no sitting ducks anymore. He brought this on himself by invading Ukraine. He turned me into a pro-NATO person. That's a failure in itself on his part.

Sadly, that is to be expected. Not everybody cares as much as you do. — Olivier5

Yeah, I might rage off, but that may be because I care a lot about stopping a tyrant, some seem to care more about winning an argument.

To stop something, the actual truth is more important than holding an ideological ground. I was against NATO before all of this, I didn't think Sweden should join. But Putin changed the game 180.

So for instance, the exposure of someone living in Australia to the Ukraine war is minimal and implies from Australians a certain detachement. — Olivier5

Well, according to nuclear war predictions, the least fallout would be in Australia, or New Zealand with an average of -35 degrees celsius. So a cozy atomic winter future for anyone who would even survive the worst outcome. So no wonder you could be detached down under. :sweat:

Thank you. But I recommend actually reading them, or rather that the ones I discuss with do it since it sometimes seems like people read one sentence and then don't care before answering. My answer to Joseph Zbigniewski above is an example of what I'm criticizing, I've been saying the same things many times before, but that's a better run through.

I'm asking for substance, just as you seek in mine. And all the frustrating posts from me may be from the frustration of never getting that substance when I ask for it. So I just post my argument again and again trying to explain what I mean in the context of someone's ill-explained argument. I just think that asking for a logical and evidence-based argument about NATO is crucial before posting some opinions about NATO and Russia. Most things I read in here read as conspiracy theories... but I get the blame for lacking substance?

No one flagged this (or any of your other outbursts) and I didn't mod you because it's politics. — Baden

I flagged all his posts that didn't follow the rules of this forum. I guess my example of authoritarianism paid off if those flags were removed by him. And I'm fine with cursing, I do it all the time. But only cursing out insults as the entirety of a post without anything else is what I'm turning against. A spam of posts without any substance other than a fuck you to me.

So, stop being a hypocrite please. If you can dish it out, you're going to have to take it. — Baden

Oh, how you put that out of context. A wonderful way to spin the narrative. You could expand those to show the entire sentence instead, especially the one about "bending down", here's the actual text:

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though.
— StreetlightX

So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.

I guess the lack of question mark was an error on my part. I guess that it meant no one could understand that I was referring to "not poking the fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye" as "So bend down and get fucked?"

If you look closely you can see what I mean there.

Anyway, whatever, what's the point in explaining myself.

What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. — Joseph Zbigniewski

For which we have no real evidence I presume? No witnesses? No leaked documents? No whistleblowers? If nothing of that, how is this a valid premise?

It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. — Joseph Zbigniewski

You have two slopes or valleys with two big rocks at the bottom. How do you prove that both rocks rolled down the same mountain and not from two mountains opposite to each other?

What I mean by that is that just because you see a correlation between NATO and the US, doesn't mean it is controlled by the US. It can also mean that after WWII, much of the interest of each nation in Europe, west of the wall primarily, had similar interests due to the consequences of the war and following cold war. The collaboration between the initial nations fell in line with each other, i.e they fell from different mountains into the same valley. The following expanse of NATO also naturally follows different nations that are closer to the majority of those nation's political and cultural forms.

So, each nation is a different mountain in the same mountain region, but the valley is the same. Most nations who want to join NATO wouldn't do it if the majority of the nations in NATO had vastly different political aspirations. The stability comes from all member nations having similar political philosophies.

Just because NATO and the US seem to correlate with each other, doesn't mean that US controls NATO. It more or less means that the US and the member states of NATO, A) had it easier to find agreements with each other due to similar political philosophies and B) New members had it easier to join because they had similar political philosophies.

If 30 nations are members and most of them share similar political philosophies, i.e they are similar to the US, does that mean that the US controls NATO, or that NATO as a whole consists of nations with similar concerns as the US?

Just seeing a correlation isn't evidence without looking at the details of such a correlation.

Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! — Joseph Zbigniewski

Since the previous premies above aren't conclusive in logic, then pinpointing corrupt politicians in the US does not follow. Yes, there's corruption, no, the US hasn't been proven to control NATO, it is 1 of 30 members.

I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of. — Joseph Zbigniewski

NATO does not act in defense of a nation that isn't a member state is a more possible explanation, since the US has not been proven to control NATO.

Again, I ask for actual support, evidence, deduction that the US is in direct control of NATO. That 29 nations in NATO have no say and just do as the US tells them to do.

I have yet to hear any such things. I only hear the same thing as numerous times before "we all know..." or "All of the evidence is behind closed doors..."
That doesn't sound like evidence to me, that sounds like conspiracy theories.

Give me some actual logic and evidence here.

nor NATO, which takes dictation therefrom — Joseph Zbigniewski

The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy — Joseph Zbigniewski

So, how in practice does this work? If all nations who have joined NATO have a vote, equal say, how does the US control NATO? Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. And since many of my arguments depend on the notion that NATO is in fact an alliance and not controlled by a single nation, i.e the US, I am asking for clarification on this point. Since there's much talk of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, will we then be controlled by the US? Which would be the result of NATO being controlled by the US.

Can someone clarify this in some actual logic and evidence? I am genuinely asking here.

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Do things change over time? Can you prove that something has stayed exactly the same over time?
Look at a map of NATO in 1949. The US has lots of influence. Look at a map of NATO in 2022. The US has less influence. All countries have a vote, the less nations, the more your vote is worth. So, yes, NATO is not the same today and NATO is not the US, whatever people think about it.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. — Benkei

Way to strawman my arguments. And also totally miss the points I've been making. But it's ok, I have realized that you don't care so there's no point in trying to explain my points.

But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise. — Benkei

Are we playing chicken with people's lives when they not only want survival but also freedom? You ok with them living under the boot? Maybe listen to what the Ukrainians say themselves instead of speaking for them like if you were appointed speaker to their needs.

Maybe you are just frustrated that there's another perspective in all of this that doesn't comply with your own. Maybe this is because I live in a totally other security situation where Russian planes are actually breaking our airspace as we speak. So maybe you don't know as much as you believe.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical. — Benkei

More strawmanning. And more cursing. And more attitude problems.

Who made you a mod? Seriously, who signed off on that?

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues. — Benkei

And I can't have civil disagreements with people who are neither civil nor care for anyone else perspective other than their own.

The problem is that I've asked so many times for clarifications on subjects and counter-arguments and whatever, but I never get them, I never get a logical deduction when I ask for it, I never get anything that sticks together rationally. All I get from you and others are ill-conceived loosely put together opinions (just as ideological as you blame others for) and when I continue to explain myself in detail after detail while asking for more from others, I just have to stand getting called childish, ideologue and whatever other bullshit you can come up with.

And since you are a mod, there's no point in flagging your posts. It's almost a kind of exercise in authoritarian politics trying to.

Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not.

Thanks for explaining. — Joseph Zbigniewski

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis.

And no, that's not NATO today.

Just watch the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Baghdad. Did you support the bombing of civilians? I didn't.

Nice to know there were no women and children killed in these explosions. — FreeEmotion

Valid point.

?!?

Ummm...

www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-photos-before-after

The examination of premises is essential to making good arguments. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Today... that's the argument.

Would they act in that way today? I argued that because they are the only ones who've used nukes in history, that could also be a thing that makes them more careful with choosing that solution in any future conflict. There is a national guilt because of this in the US, it's not an act they're proud of and they know the political and humanitarian ramifications of such an act.

With Putin not even letting civilians out of cities that they're now bombing (while surrounding), I am not so sure he cares about the humanitarian aspect. And since he doesn't seem to care about the political ramifications of this invasion, why would he care about that if using a nuke?

Makes sense or not?

I have neither the time nor inclination to take your apparent fragile ego into consideration when clarifying the kindergarten level of your thinking. — Benkei

People speaking like this are probably the ones with an actual fragile ego. I'm surprised you are a mod in here. Show don't tell

Either write better posts or stick to reddit. Bye. — Benkei

Look at Cuthbert here, he actually engages with the question in a way I find more civil. You know, it is possible to do that.

I couldn't answer this question. I tried finding the one I trust less and then picking the other one but I couldn't do it that way round either. Maybe Biden. America is a civilised country. America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Russians are easily contented with a ready supply of vodka, animal fur, football teams and mansions in Knightsbridge. Making war would be the last thing on their minds. I give up. — Cuthbert

Yes, it is a very hard question actually. I think the only ones who would use nukes are the ones who just don't care if this world ends. I don't think the US want that and I don't think Russia want that. I can only hope that there are people under Putin who just say no to his order if he orders it, because I'm not so sure he cares about the world if it doesn't exist as he wants it to. But people around him don't want Russia to be a radioactive parking lot, so I don't think they would let him fire them off. But I have a hard time trusting a shorter chain of command.

There is, by every info available, probably less red tape involved in firing off a nuke in Russia than there is in the US. So maybe we don't have to value who to trust, we can just mathematically answer it. The longer the red tape is, the more likely that someone in the line of command personnel says no. And maybe that's the answer?

The reason I won’t participate more in this thread is because of these kinds of replies.

My reply was directed at a particular point about a particular conversation.

I was careful with my words and the overall point was to look into the nuance of the situation and steer away over simplifying and casting good against evil. I was in agreed about looking for a resolution rather what I would frame as finger pointing and division for the sake of division. — I like sushi

Well, sorry if my post seems over-simplified, but I'm not sure there is a possible resolution to this conflict that is peaceful or de-escalating. Putin just said to Macron that he will not stop fighting.

I'm not promoting division for the sake of it. I just think that people analyze this situation with a normal measuring tape when Putin's actions are nowhere close to normal. Even people who research eastern politics and Putin say that something's happened to him the last two years, that he acts in a way that isn't the cold calculating KGB man he was before.

And what I see there is a threat of someone with a lot of power starting to act irrationally. This is very dangerous, especially since I cannot see any way out of it when he ignores everyone, including the UNs requests. He won't even open a humanitarian tunnel from the cities he's bombing, which means he doesn't care that civilians are trapped in there while he's bombing them.

There's very little nuance to be made in this and I'm not sure that is an over-simplification?

Again, what's up with the fucking childish questions? I question the US narrative and your reply is, who do you trust more? Seriously?I don't trust either, especially considering the US is the only country that ever used nukes. Twice.

The only relevant difference here is, it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands. — Benkei

You can question both, but who do you trust more in handling nukes? Why is that a childish question? And I also explained how the act of having used a nuke could have created much more care in how to handle the question of using nukes. A nation without that experience doesn't have the national guilt of it.

Do you mean to say that the US would attack nations as long as they're far away from western borders? Do you really think that would happen? How so? With everyone knowing they are the only nation who previously used them and with the knowledge of the extreme political fallout that would create? Do you mean that this is just as likely as a nation with an authoritarian dictator who silences his people, speaks of his empire, and actually threatens others with nuclear weapons? Are you seriously saying that you trust the US and Russia (Putin) on an equal level? I trust fucking China and even North Korea more than Russia, since Russia is the only nation actually showing aggressive behavior with their nukes.

Let go of your childish outbursts and either engage in the discussion or ignore what I write. Getting really fed up with everyone, even the mods, acting like this forum is fucking reddit.

So I guess if we're to look for a reason why your own posts are such garbage, we have to look at something aside from bias? — jamalrob

If you brand everything I write as garbage, then I guess you have no bias at all, right? I would like to add logic and rational deduction to that as well, since there seems to be a rather lacking area in here.

I also wonder why you, as a moderator, write such a post as the one you just did? Just blatantly dismissing everything I write is garbage. Are you seriously saying this, or just because you don't agree with me? I guess this forum changed its rules. I've at least tried to form rational reasoning arguments, requested for it, requested a logical deduction from others, but yeah... doesn't matter it seems.

I don't always agree with George Monbiot but I think he's right here. Pilger really is just a tankie these days, soft on anything that positions itself against the US.

Among the worst disseminators of Kremlin propaganda in the UK are people with whom I have, in the past, shared platforms and made alliances. The grim truth is that, for years, a segment of the “anti-imperialist” left has been recycling and amplifying Putin’s falsehoods. This segment is by no means representative: many other leftists have staunchly and consistently denounced Russian imperialism, just as they rightly denounce the imperialism of the US and UK. But it is, I think, an important one. — jamalrob

I think people who fall too far into their ideological bias tend to just agree with anything that follows the same rhetoric as themselves. So if Putin start having similar rhetoric, even if he lies in order to reach some strategic end goal, people who would usually be strongly opposed to him start to embrace his words.

This is why the act of trying to prevent as much of your own biases and fallacies as possible when arguing is the only way to speak as truthfully as possible for a human being.

Both the US and Russia seek to expand an empire. But personally, I prefer the US clinical approach as a lesser bad (even if it still ends up killing people), than the Putin-led bombardment of civilians and nations to force them to be ruled over. There's a reason that one type prevailed over the other through the 20th century. At least we in the west can shout and talk about the US imperialism, even right to the leader's faces without being killed or imprisoned. There is a clear less bad and overwhelmingly bad in all of this, even if the usual suspects of anti-imperialists think everything is equally bad in a black and white way.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces.
— ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really. — Benkei

Do you trust Biden or Putin more with nuclear weapons? Do you trust the chain of command in the US more than Putin's? Everyone can argue that the US also has nukes and they're the only nation who actually used them, but all of that just smells over-simplification from the regular "the US is to blame for everything"-people. It can also be that because they are the only ones who used nukes, they know the consequences, the national guilt, the terror that it implies. There are reasons for the miles-long red tape before even touching the keys of the "football", it's because it should be extremely problematic to fire a nuke.

The question is really: do you trust Putin more than the US when it comes to who would initiate total annihilation?

Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad intel could be the same as people misinterpreting surveillence information. On top of that, this info going up the chain from the analysts at CIA to Bush and him only getting the info that there are weapons of mass destruction there. That can absolutely happen and give reason to invade, however stupid or lack of judgment that is. We still don't know if it was bad intel or intentional play of words to justify it.
If intelligence agencies were to only act on 100% proven intel, we would have had a lot of shit happening in the world because almost nothing was prevented. We can criticize and blame these agencies all over the world for many things, but... and I have actual sources for this... there are things happening all the time that gets prevented by them. If they only act on 100% verified information, it could slip through a lot of bad things happening.

But the intel about weapons of mass destruction was, as said, either intentional play with words, or just one of the worst fuckups of intel gathering and processing we've seen.

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the leaked documents, the sources and intel from within Kreml so on and so forth do not point towards such a conclusion? I guess it's easy to dismiss anything by arguing like that, but what is most likely? What everything points towards (not only what he says, but everything else as well), or someone speculating about Putin as if he was a cardboard cutout standard world leader figure with predictable methods? That he is a strategist does not mean that everything people have dug up on him and his mindset is wrong. You can't exist as a world leader for over 20 years without information slipping away.

For the first time (like there), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically. — ssu

It's the same in Sweden, polls have shifted. It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever). So I can understand how our prime minister has an extremely hard choice to make. If WWIII breaks out, without us in NATO, we could do the same as before, just chilling out and then have one of the best economies in the world when everyone else is in rubble. But if we join NATO, we would be forced to fight in any conflict NATO ends up in.

But I think it's worth it. Russia, or rather Putin, is such a manchild that it's too unpredictable to stay out. And if WWIII involves nukes, it doesn't matter if everyone else around us gets hit, the fallout will still kill us and everyone else. So for regular warfare, it would be rational to be part of NATO. But another thing is that if Finland joins, we might be well off anyway. I'm not sure it's very strategic for Russia to invade Sweden when it's pretty much encircled with NATO members. It's a very unstrategic place to invade and the only fallback is the Baltic sea.

So I don't know what's the best course of action for Sweden. I generally think NATO is the best choice, it creates a large border towards Russia that Russia will never be able to attack other than with nukes, but that's endgame anyway so it doesn't matter who you are.

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. — ssu

I think it was a misinterpretation of when Russia threatened us. Russia never said "invade", they just threatened. It could mean firing missiles or something, who knows, some retaliation because we sent weapons to Ukraine.

At this time, it has become pretty clear that Russia is just threatening, with nukes, with forces or whatever. They're desperate. If they were to ever attack, they would have two fronts, one in Ukraine and one in the north, diluting their military. With the economy crashing and war chest being in trouble, it's close to impossible for them to do something like that. And if they attack any NATO member, it's gonna be like having a swarm of bees attacking Russia. It's gonna flatten the entire nation. Putin would be hunted down, probably into the same fate as Hitler, offing himself in a bunker. The only viable option for them would then be nukes, but that would end everything, which, because I feel like Putin is just a crazy mentally challenged manchild, whatever credit other people like to give him, is a real risk. If he's cornered into his bunker and everyone wants him dead, then he might as well fire off everything. And this is why he is in my opinion the biggest risk of total annihilation we have. It's why I have no moral problem with offing him.

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. If the intel had been correct, it might actually have been warranted, otherwise, the nation might have become another North Korea, but in a far more dangerous place so close to Europe. Even if it's questionable if an invasion would have been necessary anyway, it would at least have had an intention that far outweighs anything of what actually happened.

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". This was never the long-term intention with Iraq, regardless of initial intentions for the invasion. And the focus was on the leader and change in the political system. Of course everything of that failed in the long term, as it usually does when the US tries it. But it's easy to also forget all the people who were actually killed and terrorized by Saddam in Iraq and who welcomed the invasion and removal of him. What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq is in no way comparable to either the intentions or methods in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is a massive attack on a free nation with the intent of claiming it and reforming it into the Russian empire with Putin as their leader.

They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. — FreeEmotion

How did THEY pick the opponent? Does the country being invaded get to pick who's invading them?

I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time. — FreeEmotion

NATO cannot fight in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance only for its member states. They don't attack or go into a non-member nation to help out. I don't understand why people find this hard to understand? NATO only initiate combat if one of their member-nations are attacked and they can't do anything in Ukraine since they're not members. Doesn't matter if they plea for help.

Ask any military strategist (not politician) what the best thing to do in the situation. I am sure it will be to agree to a ceasefire. If not, then I will just accept that. — FreeEmotion

So they should just roll over and be fucked by Putin then? You don't understand people fighting for their lives and freedom? This is Putin's crime, he has no right whatsoever, he breaks international law, almost the entire UN condemns the invasion and any I find it horrifying that people even consider letting Putin just take Ukraine in order to ceasefire.

Haven't we learned what happens when we give a narcissistic authoritarian dictator what he wants? Haven't the 20th century shown us just what happens if we just give him free reign? If this goes on, then Putin will be on a hit list. The entire world will hunt him and his minions down. Russia will probably become a closed nation with extreme totalitarian standards. When I propose attacking Putin and his minions himself, it's not just to help Ukraine, it's also to free Russia. People in Russia need to be free of Putin. Just look at how many oppose the war, oppose Putin, even risking their own life and freedom doing it.

Why are people still making the mistake of appeasement against people who rise to dangerous levels of power? And only when that power and terror has reached too far do people do anything. Enough is enough, there's only one way to fix this situation, even if it's extremely hard and complex.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all. — I like sushi

Putin will not back down like that. This is not how Putin's regime works. They're closer to how any other authoritarian regime worked during the 20th century than any modern democratic one. Putin is closer to Hitler in this regard, having his trusted inner circle, an extreme protective machine around him, total control over the news (and now even more when they've shut down any independent news stations), and killing or imprisoning people who oppose him. Do you really think that Putin would "step down"?

And Russia has no right to demand a free nation not to join NATO. They can ask them not to in a diplomatic fashion, but they can't demand anything. Just like Russia can't demand Sweden or Finland not to join NATO. Because of the latest fighter jet incident here in Sweden, I'm thinking that joining NATO isn't just good for security, it would also be a big fuck you to Putin and his minions.