Talks of nuke use are rhetorical. — Olivier5

So far, yes.

If Russia were to start losing the war, I believe they no longer would be.

Given that the Russians likely achieved their primary strategic objectives during the opening stages of the war (Donbas and landbridge to Crimea - limited objectives that correlate to the low number of troops the Russians deployed) it is highly unlikely that initiating a nuclear attack has even seriously been considered, but if you want to believe that I suppose I can't stop you.

That's not what I mean. The United States has been pursuing NATO membership for Ukraine for over a decade, to expand its sphere of influence and to limit Russia's.

That's great power politics.

Other NATO/EU nations have no such interests. Whether they win or lose in Ukraine, it doesn't matter. Only to the United States it matters, and the Ukrainians of course.

If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, the whole Russian army in Ukraine and in the Black Sea will be annihilated by NATO strikes, thus ending the war quickly and neatly. — Olivier5

If NATO could end this war "quickly and neatly" they would have already done so.

So you think then Russians or Putin will just ignore warnings as fake? — ssu

The Americans ignored Russian warnings as fake for 15 years.

It's entirely possible they will ignore warnings if A: the stakes are high enough and B: they expect the Americans are bluffing.

What if you then after using tactical nukes the Ukrainians won't budge, China gets angry and suddenly the rest of your Black Seas fleet gets attacked and sunk? — ssu

Who knows?

It's unlikely the Chinese will alter their stance towards Russia much, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. Their shared rivalry with the United States is likely what will determine their relations for the coming decades, and by provoking conflict in Eastern Europe the Americans pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese even further.

Also, it is not "my" Black Sea fleet. Don't start again with trying to frame me as partisan.

A response to Russia using nukes is something that the Western leaders and NATO have had to think now. — ssu

I highly doubt that Western leaders are willing to enter a protracted land war in Eastern Europe and/or nuclear conflict just to save face for the Americans after they overplayed their hand in Ukraine.

I think that Ukraine turning into a nuclear conflict would make NATO involvement a lot less likely, actually. And Mearsheimer has made that point aswell.

The only country in NATO that is invested in Ukraine is the United States, and even they aren't invested to such a degree that they're willing to risk a protracted land war or even a nuclear conflict.

The core of belief is that we cannot be certain. We can't be certain that there is such a thing as God, nor can we be certain that there isn't.

If we choose to believe either despite our ignorance, it begs the question why. And the answer is usually that we believe to fool ourselves into thinking we are certain, because we prefer to feign certainty than to accept uncertainty.

Agnosticism or apathy is a more logical and honest way of approaching things we cannot be certain of.

- I don't know, so I choose not to believe either.
- I don't know, and it doesn't affect me, so I choose not to form opinions. (I choose "not to care")

See how nice? — frank

How is not having stuff nice?

Then who would make your stuff? It's all made in countries that pollute and have bad working conditions.

The US just outsourced child labour to third world countries, though.

Countries are unable to wield power responsibly, even when they are not hampered by great power politics as they are today, like the United States during the unipolar moment. What makes you think more centralized power would do the trick?

Centralized governments? You mean like China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc.?

True, but it is Russia and not the United States or NATO that are saying they face an existential threat.

I agree, though. We simply don't know. When experts say that the chance for nuclear weapons use is non-trivial, that's saying something.

It's unlikely NATO would enter into the conflict after Russia has used nuclear weapons, simply because of the risk involved.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia on NATO troops is also not off the table. Mearsheimer makes the argument that during the Cold War NATO planned for limited nuclear weapons use in case of a Russian invasion of Europe, so clearly they believed MAD would not go into effect immediately.

Prof. John Mearsheimer recently gave a lecture in Hungary, During the Q&A session (timestamp: 1:13:40) the question about MAD comes up.

Mearsheimer concludes that it is not obvious that the MAD principle applies for various reasons. The most important one being that, as pointed out, Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, and it is unclear whether the Americans would be prepared to enter a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Most likely not.

When a nuclear strike would be launched against American soldiers in Ukraine (if the US would involve itself further to the points of "boots on the ground") it's a more dangerous situation, since the Americans would likely retaliate in some way, thus there'd be a serious risk of nuclear escalation.

Being alarmed is the modern equivalent of buying an indulgence.

So apparently Qatar, a muslim fundamentalist country, has been lobbying and influencing economic and political decisions in the European Parliament.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-police-raid-gulf-lobbying-eu-parliament/

At this point I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the dumpster fire that is the European Union.

Preaching egalitarianism and progressivism on the one hand, and taking bribes from a country where adultery is punished by death with the other. :vomit:

I guess, by your take, humans best go extinct, or at least be markedly decimated. — jorndoe

By Covid? Get with the times, buddy. That hysteria ended last year already.

Of course, that didn't stop closet tyrants like Macron from blatantly threatening people for exercising a human right.

I'll stop derailing the thread now.

No.

A source for what? Macron threatening the French people?

Here it is: Macron Says He Wants To Piss Off France's Unvaccinated

Could've been a quote from Germany in the '30s.


If you want a discussion, discuss. Stop with this passive aggressive nonsense.


Also, where do you get the idea I live in Eindhoven? It's actually a bit creepy that you're trying to guess (or trying to find actual information) about where I live. Sounds like something a hacker kid in their mother's basement would do. :chin:

racism — Olivier5

:rofl:

Macron is easy to dislike, but he is not a wannabe dictator. — Olivier5

He threatened the people of France for exercising their human right to bodily autonomy. "Dictator" is being kind. Absolute scum of the Earth, better? The fiery pit is too good for that man.

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.