If Macron was intereted in becoming the next Napoleon, he'd be licking the Americans' boots. The Americans roll the nickels in Europe.

Instead, he went against the "unprovoked aggression" narrative - which is utter nonsense - and suggested that maybe 15 years of the Russians saying they perceived NATO expansion as a threat wasn't a "clever ruse" to revive the Russian empire.

I dislike the little wannabe dictator, but at least he's got this right. He probably realizes that his head will be on the chopping block too if he simply let the Americans sacrifice Ukraine and Europe like a pawn, without any form of protest.

The irony is, had the European leaders understood the need to take into account Russia's security concerns earlier, in say, 2021, this entire war could have been avoided.

I purposefully say 'European', because the American leaders have eagerly steered Eastern Europe towards this war for 15 years without pause. The Europeans went along with it, mostly guided by ignorance and blind obedience to Uncle Sam.

If this conflict wasn't outright caused on purpose (can't have the Europeans and the Russians cozying up too much - Heartland theory and all that. Also, awful convenient, all those gas exports the Americans are currently enjoying), at the very least it was a risk the Americans were willing to take, and Ukraine a sacrifice they were willing to make.

My take on it is that the European leaders are starting to see where the war in Ukraine is headed - protracted, possibly escalated war - and want out.

This comes only a few days after Ursula's supposed "slip of the tongue", which I believe was intentional - a signal that the EU will not support the war in Ukraine if it means deceiving the public about the course of the war.

Recently, French president Macron came out with a statement saying that a new security architecture needs to be reached in which Russia's security concerns are taken into consideration.

Source: Macron Says New Security Architecture Should Give Guarantees For Russia

It's funny you should use the example of racism.

The types of overt racist opinions you're referring to can't be found anywhere in the public sphere. I have no doubt that such opinions wouldn't survive the crucible of free ideas for very long either, should they be ever be reintroduced.

Yet the modern "anti-racist" crowd is one that exemplifies exactly what I am talking about - an allergy to criticism. They're bullshit peddlers and they know it, so they are hostile to criticism.

As if the reason I don't want racist speech on Twitter is because I'm secretly fearful that the racists are correct. — Hanover

Well, apparently you're fearful about something.

Like I said, I've no doubt that such ideas wouldn't survive the crucible of free ideas, so if ignorant people feel like burning their fingers then they can have at it. I don't know what you're scared of.

Maybe is right.

It does sound like you don't trust the average person with the freedom to be introduced to ideas, which testifies of a very dark image of man indeed.

The next question should be, given such an image of man, why trust people with power at all? Those in power are almost by definition the worst of the lot.

I say criticism, and you immediately think of racism?

That may very well be, but the question was whether Ukraine could come out of this war sovereign, neutral, independent, etc.

But it's good that you yourselves seem to have realized this is not an option either.

Countries don't cede sovereignty to NATO as a result of signing the charter, but as a result of neglecting their armed forces to the point that the United States is the only nation presenting a credible deterrent.

And countries definitely do cede sovereignty to the European Union by becoming a member state.

Depends on what you mean by acceptable.

As I said, I believe free speech is about the expression of genuinely-held ideas. It would be exceedingly difficult to prove someone espouses ideas that they do not genuinely hold and that's a rabbit hole I would not enter.

So if you're asking if I believe it should be legally punishable, then no. Besides, I don't think there's anything in the track record of states that suggests they're remotely capable of wielding such power responsibly, especially not the current political elite. Quite the opposite in fact.


The only cure for propaganda is free and open discourse.

The telltale sign of unhealthy public discourse is an aversion to criticism, exactly like the one we see today.

Aversions to criticism are only held by people who know their ideas are flawed. At the same time it reveals a deep personal (ego) investment into those faulty ideas - this is the element of ideological possession also seen in totalitarian societies. Debate is feared and is by definition personal, so it is avoided and dissonant voices are silenced.

I wonder if this deep investment into political ideas could also be witnessed in the '30s and '40s.

"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state." — The Baden

Overly simplistic, and I don't need to tell you that.

Ideology plays a key role in totalitarian regimes.

These regimes operate through terror, however that terror is exercised in large parts by the ideologically possessed masses, without which the state would have but a fraction of its power and would look more like a classical dictatorship (authoritarian, but with very limited influence over citizens' private lives).

How does this relate to Twitter; anyone who expressed "dangerous" opinions (read: dangerous to the preferred narrative) gets cancelled, and possibly ruined.

There's your ideologically possessed 'cancel crowd' operating through plain terror. We call it 'political correctness' for crying out loud.

And now we're given hard proof that the political elite are purposefully instrumentalizing it.

Keep in mind that the operative part of the term totalitarianism is "total" not "little bit". — The Baden

Totalitarianism refers to the belief that one ideology possesses the complete truth - this being by definition wrong makes every totalitarian system revolve around lies to keep the ideology intact. Propaganda, censorship, withholding of information, etc. are all instrumental to protecting the government ideology - we call them 'narratives' these days. And that's exactly what we're seeing today.

Clearly, and thankfully, I have more to eat than the government's shit pie.

As far as I'm concerned the people who are eating the government's shit pie, and trying to convince themselves they're enjoying it, are those defending the actions of Goebbels's slightly more sleazy bastard children.

Also, why would I move anywhere?

You can stop avoiding the point now, namely that a little bit of shit in your pie ruins your pie, and a little bit of totalitarianism in your state ruins your state.

I'm living in a lying, censoring state, obviously. I don't see how that helps your argument.

When a food contains vitamin C, we are well within the realm of an orange. But the food might also be a kiwi or even a potato. — The Baden

When I'm eating a pie and find bits of shit in it, I'm going to stop eating the pie, regardless of whether it's a cherry pie or an apple pie.

And you'll understand that when the chef comes around and protests, saying there were only a few bits of shit in my pie, that's not going to motivate me to continue eating.

If Musk uses Twitter to spread Aryan supremecy, is that speech prohibited propoganda only if he associates with an established political movement, but not if he's just speaking his individual mind? — Hanover

I haven't said anything about prohibiting speech.

I'd say when it's instrumentalized for political gain we are well within the realm of totalitarianism.

Lets put it differently.

There are few practices as closely linked to totalitarianism as propaganda.

When political entities spread lies, censor and withhold information they're mimicing totalitarian regimes. The fact that they don't show it proudly on their banners makes them closet totalitarians.

We wouldn't want nazis controlling our government under the excuse they're only nazis when they're not in office.

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

Who we are is not a static thing - we are constantly changing, becoming something we are not, whether we like it or not.

It wasn't the government. It was the opposition party. — Hanover

In a system where there are only two parties that swap seats every few years that's a meaningless distinction. The same people who bought Twitter to censor and withhold information from the public and spread misinformation are the people in power now. Ironically some of them are the loudest complainers about "misinformation".

Like I said, the US system, and by extension the entire western system is irreparably broken.

The key here of course is not Twitter's behavior - it's the government's / the political elite's behavior.

Not surprising, no. Just more proof that governments shouldn't be trusted, especially not with the power to limit free speech.

So called "disinformation" is rife among topics that aren't to be discussed publically. It's the censorship itself that creates the atmosphere.

Where do we have disinformation? To name a few topics:
- Covid
- Ukraine
- US elections

Just so happens to be the topics in which there are certain opinions we're not allowed to have. That last one of course being very relevant to this topic.

Propaganda can only exist in an environment of censorship, and not in one of free discourse. I see your point, but the cure is not less free speech or more censorship.

And the fact that the only institution who could be appointed to wield such power is the one we have just agreed is utterly and irredeemably corrupt makes it even less of an appealing option.

I know the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very popular trope among censorship enthousiasts, but you're quoting someone who sought to silence opposition to the draft during World War I. A nice concrete example of the slippery slope down which that argument leads.

Free speech is about the freedom to share any genuinely-held belief in the context of a civil discussion. It was never about yelling fire in crowded theaters, freedom to slander, lie and deceive, or to threaten and incite violence, etc.

To pretend that it was reveals a keenness for limiting free speech.


I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but the collusion between government and big tech that Musk has exposed via his takeover of Twitter is hard proof of the complete failure of the entire western governmental structure (which is by and large based on and led by the United States's governmental structure).

Of course it simply proved what most already suspected, but to have it out there like that - quite confronting. It's great that it happened. Thank god for 'free speech absolutist' Elon Musk. With outright denial out of the way, the only flavors that are left are to take strong opposition to this unholy alliance between government and big tech or to defend evil.

I wonder which the denizens of this forum will choose.

Article 2(1)

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

:roll:

Really? — ssu

Doesn't then being a member of the United Nations mean a lack of sovereignty? — ssu

The United Nations is completely different from NATO or the EU. Nations do not give up any sovereignty to the UN. It's basically a public forum for states.

At least for me joining a club voluntarily or some goon forcing by violence to join a club are two different things. And so are the terms just what I give up in joining those clubs, obviously. Besides, Russia is annexing parts of Ukraine, so that is totally different than just joining the CSTO, for example. — ssu

The suggestion was given that there was any way that Ukraine would come out of this conflict neutral, sovereign, independent, free, etc.

To that I said, it is practically impossible, since it must accept overlordship from either Washington or Moscow. Whether it accepts overlordship voluntarily or by force doesn't matter to the final state of affairs.

An independent, neutral Ukraine is a fantasy now, except for the unlikely case in which the US and Russia agree on reinstating Ukraine as a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia. This would be the ideal outcome to the conflict, but alas a fantasy.

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty.

Russia cannot possibly use nukes just to stop a nation from freely joining a trade group like the EU, but moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response. — Olivier5

Russian doctrine is clear, attacks on the motherland will illicit a nuclear response. This wouldn't qualify. — Benkei

Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO has been to invade Ukraine and annex parts of land. I would not be so certain that Russia wouldn't use nuclear weapons to defend the parts of land it now occupies. So it does seem at least plausible that Russia is willing to resort to nuclear weapons in this conflict.

In a new interview John Mearsheimer actually argues that the chance of nuclear war is non-trivial, and that the bar for Russia to use nuclear weapons is lower than we think because, A. the Ukrainians cannot retaliate, and B. the US/NATO would likely not risk general nuclear war over Ukraine.

Mearsheimer even theorizes that nuclear weapons use by the Russians would end the war. I'll leave it up to you whether you agree with that assessment.

It wasn't the reason for this war because Ukraine had zero chance of joining NATO before Feb 2022. — Olivier5

Zero chance?

The US and NATO have been holding joint military exercises almost every year with the Ukrainian military. They were a NATO/US ally in all but name.

- 2015, Fearless Guardian
- 2017, Rapid Trident
- 2018, Sea Breeze
- 2018, Clear Sky
- 2019, Rapid Trident
- 2020, Rapid Trident
- 2021, Rapid Trident

Name me one other country that the US military has joint military exercises with every year, that is not a US ally.

The purpose of the Ukrainian resistance is precisely to tell the Russians to mind their own busines. — Olivier5

How's that been working out?

That countries have voluntarily chosen to join these institutions makes it different. — ssu

It exactly doesn't make it different. Countries that join NATO or the EU voluntarily give up a great deal of sovereignty, and they give up even more by neglecting their defense, thus making themselves completely dependent on the USA.

When Bush invaded Iraq, many NATO countries starting with France and Germany didn't participate.

When Obama wanted to attack Syria, his NATO allies said no. — ssu

Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria all featured a great deal of NATO participation. Those conflicts weren't remotely related to the NATO mission statement, nor did many of these countries have any type of stake in those conflicts. That should tell you enough about the considerable sway the Americans have.

NATO countries that do not participate in America's wars, even if those wars aren't related to their own defensive situation, get no say in what happens within NATO. However, by participating in America's wars NATO countries can buy their influence.

↑ this is propaganda'ish'esque, hyperbolic spin (on one page alone, like on a mission) — jorndoe

You got me, I'm a Kremlin propagandist. :rofl:

No, but in all seriousness, people in this thread need to understand the actual situation instead of this fantasy in which the United States is some spreader of peace and love, and the foolish notion that countries in the EU and NATO are sovereign.

They are not. When the US says jump, they jump. They have no choice. There's not a country in Europe that has a military capable of defending itself, and people should have no illusions about what that means for the power relation between the US and its "allies" (vassals).

Illusions sometimes need to be dispelled using harsh words.

.. , but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship ... — ssu

I never said they were similar. I said one shouldn't harbor illusions about Ukraine being a sovereign, independent state if it enters the EU or NATO, like none of the member states of those institutions are.

If you want to make the case that American overlordship is preferable that's fine.

It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later.

That's rather theoretical. — Olivier5

It's essentially the mission statement of the EU. The fact that the entire EU trips over Hungary and Orban says enough.

The US controls NATO. NATO countries are vassals of the US, because they rely completely on the US to keep them safe.

The EU demands an even greater sacrifice of autonomy, because it also gets legislative power inside EU countries. It's purpose is/was to become a "United States of Europe", essentially, of course still completely dependent on the United States for protection.

So lets not harbor illusions about countries in NATO or the EU being sovereign. They are lapdogs of the United States (or Brussels, which is again a lapdog of the United States), just like Belarus is Russia's lapdog.

That one may prefer the US over Russia is fine. I never said their overlordship would be the same, but that the choice Ukraine has now is overlordship either by the US or Russia.

From the EU's own website:

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political union between 27 European countries.

[...]

What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning many different policy areas – from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration.

Source: https://op.europa.eu/webpub/com/eu-what-it-is/en/

The paradox is that censoring holocaust denial actually lends credibility to holocaust denial in the minds of some people.

Instead let such discussion take place in the open, where ridiculous ideas can openly be shot down and ridiculed.

That's the power of free speech.

As a matter of financial gain? (Russia and the UK blame each other) — jorndoe

If the UK did it, they clearly didn't do so on their own initiative. They wouldn't take a dump on their own initiative. Likely the US orchestrated it, and the UK carried it out.

The case for Russia doing it themselves seems unlikely.

EU membership should be fine. — Olivier5

Maybe? I'm not sure what the Russian stance is on EU membership. Their gripe seems mostly with NATO membership.

"I'll nuke you if you join the wrong trading group" sounds rather absurd. — Olivier5

The EU is not just a trading group. Countries give up a lot of autonomy to Brussels.

My comment was specifically directed at stating that where a conspiracy theory has been alleged and there is not sufficient evidence that the underlying act occurred, it is appropriate to call out the the theory as a conspiracy theory in order to undermine the credibility of the speaker. — Hanover

And my point was that this practice of stigmatization is being weaponized by those in power to silence critical voices.

Such is a conspiracy theory in itself. — Hanover

That's not a conspiracy theory where I live. That's proven fact.

We have a government actively trying to deplatform and intimidate critical voices.

I assume you live in the United States, so are you unaware of what for example the CIA gets up to? Those things are all publicly available.

Isn't it common practice in the United States to threaten dissidents and whistleblowers to such an extent they have to find amnesty in another country? What do you think that is?

Ok, but both of those would probably be unacceptable to Russia.

Whatever the solution is going to be, it's going to have to appease both big players in this game: the USA and Russia.

I don't know how else a future-proof solution could ever be reached. Even if one side manages to defeat the other and simply impose a new status quo, it's going to be a flashpoint for decades in the future.