I don't want the war to continue. This is not about me. — Olivier5

Of course it's about you. The only matter of possible interest here is our reasons. Yours, mine, everyone else's. That you have some insane notion of us sitting in our armchairs rationally working out global geopolitics by logical debate is your own problem.

This offer you mentioned dates from early March and was the basis for the talks in Antalya, Turkey during the month of March, talks during which some progress was reportedly achieved. Then the Bucha massacre came to light and the Ukrainian position stiffened while the Russians were denying it all. — Olivier5

So?

stopping now would strategically be stupid when they're on the cusps of nullifying any gains the Russians made. — Benkei

I think that depends if there's a notion to push through to Crimea and/or to try and regain more control over Donbas than before February. Personally, if we're talking about disputed territory, I think it's unjustifiable to use war as a means of either obtaining or regaining it. Exactly the same logic which applies to the injustice of obtaining territory by war applies to regaining it. It's not as if the territory 'belongs' to Ukraine in any meaningful sense.

I think one of the fundamental divide that this conflict has revealed is between those who are pro-borders because of some misplaced notion of 'nation' and those who are pro-borders simply as a means to avoid war. The former group now want Ukraine to 're-take' Donbas and Crimea, the latter group see the same principle applying to both.

As far as repelling Russia from gains outside of those contested regions, I think it's a moot point. If a peace settlement included a full withdrawal from those regions, I don't see why that should be accomplished militarily, even if it could be done at a great strategic advantage. There will still be great loss of life.

Overall, though the situation has changed insofar as the original decision was whether to sacrifice economic independence for political independence. The latter is easier to sell, so it was an obvious (though wrong) choice. That now done, they have the weapons to achieve what was previously not possible. There's no undoing the damage and the debts thus incurred, so I suppose they might as well. If you've irreversibly remortgaged the house to buy a yacht, you might as well have the yacht.

How else to explain this delirious disinformation campaign on Twitter? — SophistiCat

Literally any other of fucking hundreds of alternatives... but sure, it's everyone else who are choosing an interpretation...

simply because it validated their favorite narratives — SophistiCat

Not you... definitely not the guy who's picking a couple of random Twitter posts and using them to divine the mindset of the entire Russian leadership.

However, "in the long term", a peace deal will need to be found. — Olivier5

There's no "however" in the speeches. Absolutely key difference.

No one but the Americans and their warmongering allies are trying to actively avoid peace negotiations until after a Ukrainian win. That would be absurd... unless your whole economy and foreign policy is based on perpetual war.

either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out — Olivier5

The very deal you've been spitting your vitriol at for the last 200 pages. The one on the table since the beginning...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-invasion-end-ukraine-war-four-conditions-1685492

Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue?

They didn't say: "peace now and no matter what". They said 1) Ukraine decides when and what they want to negotiate; 2) Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now; 3) but ultimately, once this is achieved (if possible) then a peace deal will need to be found — Olivier5

Nowhere in those quoted speeches did either politician say "Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now". Draghi didn't mention it and Macron qualified it with 'at least before February 24th'.

Neither politician even referenced the idea of peace negotiations only following a Ukrainian win.

More of your usual bullshit.

When did Putin make any precise demand, and what are these terms, pray tell? — Olivier5

I'm not just repeating the same discussion again. It was thoroughly discussed. You and the other warmongers dismissed it as 'giving in'.

That's what I am saying too. — Olivier5

You haven't once mentioned the problem of the US refusing to take part in serious negotiations.

You've disagreed with me about the value of reducing the force of Putin's propaganda.

You've mentioned nothing about grassroots investment but have instead championed the exact opposite in the form of increasing IMF and European debt.

Can you propose an alternative — Olivier5

What do you think we've been discussing all this time? The primary objective should be to end the war. Putin is not (yet) demanding anything which was not de facto the case already and so Ukraine could save thousands of lives at very little cost by agreeing to those terms.

We ought lobby our governments to take negotiations seriously, reduce the rhetorical force of Putin's propaganda, and invest in grass roots development in both Ukraine and Russia to tackle the root causes of the extremism on both sides which have opened the door to this conflict.

Russia should be sanctioned (properly - meaning oil exports, not sporting events and medicine).

Putin would be in a far worse situation internationally if he proposed terms which he then broke, plus he'd have a face-saving way out.

The trouble is, people like you are more concerned with not allowing Putin to save face than you are about dead Ukrainians.

or are you pathetic too? — Olivier5

What was pathetic was your attempt to make your poor argument sound like it was @Benkei's slowness. The point was simple and clearly made, it revealed quite well what was obvious from the start - that your primary concern is some hollywood style denunement, not welfare.

In my reasoning, 3) follows logically from 1) and 2). So it is a logical necessity — Olivier5

Pathetic.

One way to do that is — Olivier5

Let's try again, slower. — Olivier5

I can assure you, the only one failing to follow the exchange at normal speed is you. @Benkei asked you what your solution was. You gave your answer (listed at 3 in your recent reply)...

3) One way to do that is simply to repel the Russian army back into Russia. If Ukraine can achieve this, then it will have proven that it can ensure its own security. And Russia likely won't try to invade them again for a few decades. — Olivier5

...and @Benkei asked (rhetorically) why you'd chosen the most high risk, high damage option there. You replied that you'd chosen it because you want to see Putin's aggression punished, which is a) stupid - Putin is not in Ukraine, so he won't be punished, and b) callous - thousands will die in the pursuit of your schadenfreude.

The question here - the only one that's really been relevant despite all the avoidance of it - is whether your (3) is the only choice, the least harmful choice, the most ethical choice etc. No one is remotely confused about why we're faced with such a choice.

Yeah imagine taking into account foreign powers when conducting uh, foreign policy. — Streetlight

I blame Top Gun

No, taxation is not a secret. When you accept a job, do you agree to the gross or net wage? — NOS4A2

Both. Unless taxation is a secret, both parties are fully aware of the legal implications of providing a gross wage in terms of taxation and resulting net income.

You’re using an example of voluntary exchanges as analogies for compulsory taxation — NOS4A2

Taxation is voluntary. If you don't want the services and products offered, stop using them. Move.

thought we were talking about why I am entitled to the gross wage, now it’s offers to escape from prison. — NOS4A2

Yes. The argument you gave was that your reward was agreed on by some other party, therefore you deserve it, if you provide no further factors, then whatever reward is agreed on is deserved. So the prisoner deserves to escape because that's what was agreed on.

when your military is fighting a war in another place, then you obviously have to use different methods. Or is that too daring of a conclusion to make? — ssu

Again, your conclusion is not in the least question. Not too daring, well informed, and now fully cited. Well done.

What's in question (and remains uncited) is the notion that the alternative is 'nonsense'.

That would be to conduct foreign policy by the whim of one’s adversary. — Punshhh

No, it would be to conduct foreign policy taking into account the whim of one's adversary... you know, like strategists actually do in the real world, the one outside of whatever LARPing fantasy you live in.

It could be possible you and your employer agree to net pay where you live, which might explain my confusion—but then your agreed-upon wage would be subject to shifts in taxation, going down should your taxes go up and vice versa, thereby violating the wage you both agreed upon. It just doesn't make sense to me. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that taxation is a secret where you live?

I have not agreed to any terms, figuratively or literally, implicitly or explicitly. I’ve never shook anyone's hand or bowed or signed anything. "Remaining" isn't a gesture of agreement in any language. — NOS4A2

I literally gave you the example in the fucking quote you're replying to, if would be hard to get more disingenuous. If you board a train you agree to pay the price of whatever journey you took. If you have a bar tab you agree to pay the cost of however many drinks you accumulate by the time the tab is due.

At no point in either arrangement did you shake anyone's hand or bow or sign anything. Remaining on a train definitely constitutes an agreement to pay for the excess journey.

I deserve payment because that is what we agreed to — NOS4A2

You've not linked agreeing with deserving. If a prison guard agrees to help a prisoner escape, do they thereby deserve to escape?

What I have referred to nonsense is you saying I have said that Russia will invade Finland. — ssu

I didn't.

A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable. — ssu

...is a classic example of the falsehood of...

As usual, we do quote or make references to sources. — ssu

We'd be lucky if one claim in twenty is sourced.

Why so aggressive all the time? Why can't you just agree to disagree in a cool headed manner? Keep some sense of humour; try and understand others.

Why so pissed?

What is it to you if people talk about NATO a lot? Would it peel some skin off your nose? What do you care for their political opinions?

keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. — Olivier5

Claiming to be 'misunderstood' is a fallback of edgy artists and adolescents going through their goth phase.

If you want to avoid misunderstanding, perhaps focus more on clear articulation and less on bizarre insults, shitposting cartoons, and discussion of Hungarian bathhouses...?

...

It's so much easier to misunderstand and keep your narrative than to understand and challenge yourself. It's a bias that most people do and it's what philosophy aims to bypass. — Christoffer

his thread should be better curated than others, not abandoned by the mods as it is now. — Olivier5

This is priceless. In consecutive comments we've got @Christoffer complaining about people dogmatically keeping their narrative, and @Olivier5 complaining about thread quality...

The same people who, respectively, haven't changed a single iota of their narrative despite 200 pages of multi-partisan commentary, and who thought it would be funny to do a little skit about anal rape.

Do you two even have mirrors? Do you read what you write, or are really so self-absorbed you can't see how you're perpetrating the exact crimes you're accusing everyone else of? Is it the pace of commentary that's the problem, the emotional nature of it...?

perhaps — ssu

I guess — ssu

And yet apparently thinking "military repercussions" might mean an attack is

typical nonsense — ssu

The hubris is unbelievable. You come up with a load of armchair speculation ranging from the motives of leaders, the military tactics of armies, political strategies, economic repercussions... And then have the shameless ego to assume literally any other such guesswork is "nonsense". It just beggars belief.

You've created this post hoc narrative where Russia's capabilities and intentions fit exactly the course of action you've already decided you prefer (and no other), and you don't even seem to see how ridiculous that sounds in an environment of widely disagreeing expert opinion.

It's fascinating to be part of, I have to say.

serious military and political repercussions" doesn't mean Russia will attack Finland. — ssu

So what would the military repercussions be then?

That is a moral problem — schopenhauer1

You can make anything a moral problem by having bizarre morals, its not interesting other than to a curator of the bizarre.

If I had a moral rule that it is immoral to wear hats on a Thursday then it would become a 'moral problem' that people did so, but I can't see why that would make it in the least bit interesting for anyone not of that view.

The overwhelming majority of people are of the opinion that it's morally fine to impose on someone for the greater good, especially if you've done everything you can to minimise the burden of that imposition. We simply assume others are moral beings too and so would want to help.

As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO. — Punshhh

But that's the very matter in polarised debate among the experts. You can't reasonably claim it is justification enough. It very clearly isn't.

The question is whether an expanding NATO will act as deterrent or provocation for the aforementioned autocrat. If you answer 'yes' then joining NATO is a reckless and self-defeating move. If you answer 'no', then it's either sensible, or pointless (depending on your assessment of non-nato related risks).

In no case is it simply a settled matter that joining is justified because Putin's an autocrat with nuclear weapons.

It’s the same thing for corporate taxes. — Xtrix

Absolutely, yes. If anything it's worse for corporate taxes because they not only used those services, but made a profit from them.

It’s no business of the other party whether I pay my taxes or not, and it matters not one bit what he implicitly expects me to do with my payment. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it was his business. Your claim was that he consented. He did not. The amount was negotiated under an expectation.

If a client expects me to spend his payment on food or rent it makes little sense to say I am violating his consent if I flush it all down the toilet. — NOS4A2

Of course it does. That's exactly what you're violating. If I give you my bike on the condition you don't sell it, and you sell it, you're violating my consent.

It is all mine because I earned it and did not agree to pay for any of things you mention. There is no voluntary and consensual agreement between both parties — NOS4A2

When you board a train, or stay on a train past your station, you are agreeing to buy a ticket, you're using a service. Lots of agreements and contracts are made this way. Your phone, your electricity, your tab at the bar. You use the service, then pay.

By remaining in the country, you're agreeing to the terms under which your use of that country is offered. You had 18 years to decide. If you don't agree to those terms, stop using the service.

You can't claim you didn't know what the terms were, they're quite publicly available.

You can't claim you didn't agree to those terms. You did, by continuing to use the service, just like a train ride, a bar tab, a phone call.

It's theft to use a service and not pay for it.

I use "just" in the common sense to describe behavior that is fair and equitable between all parties involved in any one interaction. — NOS4A2

Yet you've given nothing in support of the assertion that you gross pay is either fair or equitable. The only argument you've offered so far is the entirely tautologous one that your gross pay is your gross pay.

What it is defending against is all possible risks — Punshhh

Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO — Punshhh

Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.

You claimed it was a lie and then claimed the government is implicitly entitled to a portion even if there is no explicit mention of it. — NOS4A2

I claimed no such thing. You said your gross wage was agreed as yours by consent. That's a lie. You employer has full knowledge and expectation that you will give the taxable portion to the government. He never consented for you to keep that portion in return for your labour.

Why is it not just? — NOS4A2

Because it is not all yours. Your ability to earn it comes partly from your education, partly from your health, partly from your clean air, water, refuse collection, coworkers, laws, trade deals, security, policing... The taxed portion is you paying for all that. If you take it all you are stealing those benefits which you did not pay for.

If what is 'just' is just what is, then what does the word 'just' even mean? If the 'just' amount of wealth is simply 'all the possible wealth' then there's nothing the addition of the word 'just' is even doing.

I did acquire it through the voluntary consent of all parties involved. Employer offers me a wage, I agree to it. — NOS4A2

You don't just make it so by saying it. If that's all you've got I suggest you get yourself a soapbox, you're in the wrong place.

The expectation that a thief will steal an unlocked bike is not enough to make the thief's appropriation of that bike a just transaction. — NOS4A2

the fact that it dictates that it has the right to my income and that they get to use it as they see fit doesn't make the transaction just. — NOS4A2

These are two objections to the claim that your taxes are thus rendered just, but that's not the claim. The claim I'm asking you to justify is that your full, untaxed wage is just. Why is it just for you to keep that money? Why is the amount you negotiated with your employer a just amount for you to keep?

Yeah, America's history in South America is a disgrace. Quite something else to have first (or second) hand experience though.

Interesting to see what happens in Brazil if Lula comes to power.

Does being a brutal dictatorship apply to America too? — Olivier5

Brutal does. America is without doubt responsible for more death and immiseration than any other nation.

As for dictatorship, no, but America has been at war for almost the entirety of the last 200 years, so it's hard to see how being a democracy is the deciding factor in which country one is most likely to be invaded by.

Which factor, pray tell? — Olivier5

I don't know. You're the one claiming it's so obvious. I think it's just politically expedient because Russia are the bad guys and NATO are the good guys. You score votes if you snub the bad guys and join the good guys.

You (and @Christoffer and @ssu) are the ones saying that they have this glaringly obvious reason, but nothing you're providing makes sense because it all applies to America too.

That's just whataboutism. Nothing to see with Finland's and Sweden's reasons to fear Russian. Either you take the issue seriously, or you don't. — Olivier5

I'm trying to extract the reason why Finland and Sweden fear attack by Russia. So far I've been given...

Russia attacked another county (no good, since the US have done that too and they don't fear attack by them).

Russia will attack them if they're not in NATO (Russia have literally said the exact opposite).

Russia invaded their airspace (as @Benkei has said, this happens all the time)

Russia have raped, executed and tortured their victims (so have the US, but no one's fearing attack by them)

Sweden and Finland have objective reasons to fear Russia. It'd be nice if posters wouldn't deny the glaringly obvious needs of fellow human beings. — Olivier5

It's nothing to do with denying anything. I haven't (yet) denied that they have objective reasons to fear Russia. Its just that you haven't yet supplied any such reason that wouldn't also apply to America, so there's clearly some factor you're still missing.


Oh, and if you can't tell the difference between what's 'glaringly obvious' to you and what's glaringly obvious to anyone, then what you're after is a blog. This is a discussion platform.

The Russians have flown four military jets in Swedish air space early March. Two of those were reportedly equipped with nuclear weapons, although this was not confirmed officially. A Russian army helicopter violated Finland's airspace today. — Olivier5

Uh Oh. War in South America on the horizon...

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-says-us-military-plane-violated-its-airspace-2021-07-23/

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

It's here

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

Yes you do need security against America when you are in their crosseye. — Olivier5

Right. So the question is not whether Russia has invaded other countries, it's whether Finland are in their 'crosseye'. No one has, as yet, given the slightest evidence that they are.

It means that the Russians could potentially try and invade (or try to otherwise damage militarily) some of their other neighbours. They've just did it to Ukraine so they can do it to others. It's not beyond them. — Olivier5

On the same grounds. The US invaded a foreign nation hundreds of miles away in Iraq, so they can do it to others.

So do you need security against America? Or is it, just possibly, more than mere willingness to invade which determines which country is a security risk to whom?

This is like you saying a construction worker who mismanaged and fucked up his responsibilities which resulted in a building collapsing and killing innocents is the same as that construction worker intentionally going into the building, raping, torturing, and executing those civilians for no reason. — Christoffer

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

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


No, by the systematic nature of it. — Christoffer

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

why can't you fucking understand how Nato works for once in this thread? Why do we have to explain this to you over and over? — Christoffer

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

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


No, that's in your head. — Christoffer

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

This is a matter of life and death, probably not the best topic for some uninformed, lazy rambling by a non-specialist... — Olivier5

Yes, perhaps you should call it a day.

...like Chomsky — Olivier5

Oh, I see. Amateur. Your qualifications are?

I worked for that money and acquired it through the voluntary consent of all parties involved. The government did not work for that money nor did it acquire that money through the voluntary consent of all parties involved. — NOS4A2

And?

There's no argument in there linking to justice. Why is it just that you should keep all of the wealth you have the potential to acquire?

Notwithstanding the fact that it's a lie. You did not acquire it with the voluntary consent of all parties involved. Did your employer specifically say that the taxed portion was yours to keep, or did the employer have an implicit understanding that part of your wage would be paid to the government in taxes? Unless you have something to the contrary in writing it'll be the latter. So you keeping the taxed portion is most likely against the will of the parties involved, who fully (and rightfully) expected it to end up in the hands of the government at the time they negotiated the terms of your employment.

Had the terms of your employment been negotiated in a state where the government did not pay for healthcare, unemployment benefit, roads, waste collection, education etc, your employer would have to pay for those things instead and he would therefore offer you a lower wage. You keeping it, against his wishes, is theft.

These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. — Christoffer

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

US does not seek to “defeat” Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong. — George Friedman - Stratfor

Your sycophancy is not an argument.

It's you people who argue with numbers comparing 20 years of a multinational conflict with three months of Russian troops in a small number of cities and villages that's systemic in nature. It's you who require a number to value the atrocities. — Christoffer

No. The US has raped and executed civilians. So has Russia. You're drawing a distinction between the two on the grounds of the numbers. Russia, you say, has done it more. Unless you're arguing that the US soldiers accidentally raped the victims in Columbia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/us-army-colombia-rapes-investigation

Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place. — Christoffer

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

You ignoring the blatant evidence of how the Russian military actually acts is not sufficient or logical to conclude it not be just as reckless in invading Finland or Sweden. — Christoffer

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

Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them. — Christoffer

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

Invading before that would however be exactly like Ukraine as there's no guarantee for us to get help from other nations. Therefore we seek security. — Christoffer

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

“Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.”
If Finland were in NATO this would be less likely to happen in Finland. — Punshhh

So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?

I doubt at the moment that Finland is under threat from a Russian invasion in the current circumstances. But that is not necessarily why they want to join NATO. — Punshhh

I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.

I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. — Olivier5

Yes, and I was pointing out that being a bad neighbour to Ukraine is not sufficient ground for such action. Invading Ukraine does not alone mean they'll invade everywhere. Just as the US invading Iraq doesn't mean they'll invade everywhere. Countries have strategic reasons for, and strategic obstacles to, invading places. The balance of reasons and obstacles is what motivates a decision. Their invasions here are being used as an example of another country frequently invading places but one which no European countries consider a threat - demonstrating the mere willingness to invade is not sufficient ground for everyone to consider them a threat. That you have some kind of allergic reaction to mentions of the US is not my problem.

That’s right. Little prigs like yourself would authorize stealing so you can give it to people you want. — NOS4A2

No, stealing is taking something which doesn't rightfully belong to you, you've yet to establish that the taxed part of your wage doesn't rightfully belong to the government. It's not sufficient to just say that you don't like it, this is a discussion forum, not a blog, we're not interested in your idle opinion.

To argue against government intervention on grounds of injustice you need to say why it is 'just' for you to retain your gross wage and unjust for the government to take it's taxes. The simple fact that it resides for any period of time in your bank account is not a measure of justice.