Yeah, don't they just hate it...



...only a few countries left to go, then they'll have the full set.

Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that? — frank

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich

Why would they be pushing it then?

The point was that corporate profits have done virtually nothing but rise at an increasingly large margin above nominal GDP. Inflation, no inflation, crash, no crash, crisis, no crisis... none of it's had the slightest impact on the overall trend.

Talking to automated bots. But I don't think the objective is to have a discussion. Just to express their views and dominate the thread and ad hominem others. — ssu

You too?

"These people are like automated bots who just want to dominate the thread, so there's no substance to their arguments"

"They just engage in ad hominem arguments"

ad hominem argument
noun

A type of fallacious argument in which the attempt is made to refute a theory or belief by discrediting the person(s) who advocate that theory or belief.

Did your irony meter just break?

Nope. It decreases return on investment. — frank

You guys don't pay attention. — Olivier5

Oh, did I miss something? I said...

Your entire contribution to this thread consists of debasing insults to anyone critical of the West — Isaac

...and your very next post was...

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again. — Olivier5

Was there some hidden text in there? Some cipher maybe? Because it looks (to those of us so attentionally challenged) as if it contained absolutely nothing but an insult to those critical of the west.

So do explain the other insightful contribution hidden in there.

questioning how passively paying a tax or promoting this or that government service could be considered ethical. — NOS4A2

It's not passive. As has pointed out. Just as you can change corporations if you don't like their service, you can change countries if you don't like their deal. The government of the country are the legal owners of the legal entity and they offer a deal to anyone born into (or moving into) their country. If you don't like the deal, move out of their country.

Any hand-wave that excuses the appropriation of wealth through taxation is incredibly obsequious. — NOS4A2

I'm not excusing it. I've just given a perfectly clear argument justifying it using foundational principles you and I have just agreed on. We agreed on the need to manage common resources and we agreed that the current crop of humanity (for whatever reason) cannot be trusted to manage those resources voluntarily.

If you want to go back and dispute one of those points then do so.

there are genuine incentives for the West to have a peace deal in this war (or at least an armstice) starting from the 11 milloin refugees Ukraine has now. Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding. — ssu

This is just naive fawning. Look at the US's actual investment in a peace deal

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/09/is-the-us-hindering-much-needed-diplomatic-efforts/0p

there are several lines of evidence that suggest that the U.S. is inhibiting a diplomatic solution in Ukraine.

Ambassador Chas Freeman, who served 30 years as a U.S. diplomat, told me that “it is the opposite of statecraft and diplomacy that the U.S. is not involved in any negotiations.”

“At best,” he said, “the U.S. has been absent and, at worst, implicitly opposed.”

And...

Biden officials told the Post that they don’t see a “clear end to the military phase of this conflict,” meaning the US expects a long, bloody insurgency in Ukraine, and is willing to support it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-says-ready-support-kyiv-war-against-russia-that-could-last-years-2022-04-28/

"We need to be prepared for the long term," Stoltenberg told a youth summit in Brussels. "There is absolutely the possibility that this war will drag on and last for months and years."

Assault on Ukraine is quite similar to the assault on my country in 1939 by the Soviet Union. Unprovoked and not well thought. — ssu

Your persistent resort to whataboutism has been noted already. The argument was about whether 'The West' represented anything ideological to fight for, not whether Russia represented anything negative to fight against.

You also could try and pay better attention to what I am saying — Olivier5

Your entire contribution to this thread consists of debasing insults to anyone critical of the West and posting news articles without any opinion or commentary. How's anyone supposed to derive a position from that?

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker: — ssu

I literally said in the same post...

the matter for us laymen is which narrative to pick in the absence of overwhelming evidence. — Isaac

I even put it in bold for you. Do you read my posts at all?

The question is about how we make decisions in uncertainty. It's not "Russians are bad therefore we'll believe everything the US says because they're the other option". We can believe neither. We can apply strategies for making decisions in the absence of evidence.

Or then you could listen to what the UN Secretary-General says: — ssu

I could, yes, but I don't see how that's relevant.

The issues I'm raising (the ones being opposed) are;

The extent to which NATO, Europe and the US took actions which were unnecessary and foreseeably increased the chances of war.

And

The extent to which further military support, as opposed to diplomatic support, is not going to be in the best interests of the Ukrainian people (and the rest of the world)

I don't see anything in what the UN Secretary-General says that supports your opposition to those two positions. Perhaps you could point out what it is in that speech you think supports your position.

Several US generals have commented that... — ssu

US weapons manufacturers are deeply entwined with both US government and US military. We agree on that, right?

US weapons manufacturers benefit in the billions from continued war. We agree on that, right?

US government officials do lie, at least from time-to-time to further their interests. We can agree on that too, right?

So how does any statement starting with "US [generals/officials/intelligence] says..." and ending with "... so we ought to continue arms shipments", not get met with immediate and damning scepticism?

It's about as useful as "Cigarettes are good for you", says major tobacco manufacturer.

If we're going to even attempt any real assessment of what's going in, we're going to need to do better than taking the intelligence of either the Ukrainians (with a massive security incentive to lie), or the US (with a massive financial incentive to lie), as our basis.

But I don't think that's the point. Such analysis is interesting, but ultimately a job for experts. I know we have a handful of historians here and a couple of people with military backgrounds whose analysis is great to read, but really, the matter for us laymen is which narrative to pick in the absence of overwhelming evidence.

That question has nothing to do with the mere existence of an argument for either case. That's taken as given. It's to do with the more political questions of trust, narratives, power plays, and worldviews. It's also about the more philosophical (small 'p') questions of decision making in uncertainty, erring on the side of caution, etc.

Are you really serious?

How about that he annexed Crimea. How about the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk Republics? — ssu

So is the UK secretly planning to take over Ireland? When Greece moves into Turkish waters in the Aegean they're planning to take over Turkey?

I'm truly shocked to hear that Japan's true motives over the Senkaku and Diaoyu Islands is to occupy China.

And to think that we'd missed the simmering world domination plans of Pakistan which they covered up by simply claiming Kashmir, when what they really want is to occupy the whole of India.

And the danger we've been overlooking all this time in Morocco's secret ambition to take over the whole continent of Africa which our diplomats and foreign policy experts had previously been duped into thinking was a mere land grab for the disputed Western Sahara...

And Israel... oh, I'd forgotten, when Israel annex territory it's an unfortunate misunderstanding between two nations with a difficult and complex history and needs an endless stream of peace envoys to carefully unpick the situation...

the many times he has referred Ukraine to be an artificial country? — ssu

Exactly. But you ignore the many time he referred to the current invasion as 'denazifying'. You've already decided what you think his motives are before listening to what he says because you already have a narrative by which you judge some of his speech as lies and some as a true measure of his intentions.

If your objective would be only regime change (denazification) or preventing NATO membership, you don't do all above. And that's my point which you seem not to understand. — ssu

I understand your point perfectly well. I even think it's a perfectly legitimate and reasonable possibility.

What I object to is risking world war three on the strength of it.

There's a difference between you interpreting what Putin says as indicating he wants to occupy Ukraine (a completely reasonable interpretation), and you saying that all other interpretations are ridiculous and we can safely bring the world to the brink of annihilation on the strength of your guesswork.

Let's not try to stop that. — jorndoe

"Let's". Short for 'let us' right? Are you Russian? because I'm not. So pointing to Putin's failures in respect of negotiation efforts has absolutely nothing to do with us. We are responsible for our efforts, not Putin's. If we haven't done all we can then we need to do more. It's no good pointing to the bad man over there and saying 'well we're not as bad as him'. Since when has that been a respectable moral argument?

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war. — ssu

Yeah. Here's how it goes:

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so
- But how can you tell, he also said he only wants to de-nazify it?
You can tell by his actions, he's tried to take Kyiv
- But how do you know he was trying to take Kyiv and not just occupy Ukraine's forces to better have a chance of occupying Donbas?
Because he wants to take over the whole of Ukraine
- How can you tell that?
Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so...

(Return to 'Start')

these ideas might not be actually truthful, but surely they do guide the people believing in them. — ssu

Right. So where does that leave your arguments exculpating America?

So far you've admitted that America does indeed have a significant influence over NATO policy, you've admitted that NATO sometimes acts non-defensively, you've admitted that what Putin believes is important in determining how he acts, and you've admitted that it was foreseeable that Putin might believe NATO would act against his interests.

Leaves your argument that America was not a significant provocation a little thin.

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. — ssu

I agree. Putin said he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis, so that is very important in understanding his motives...

...oh sorry, that's not important, is it? Because you've decided that some of the things he says are lies and some are true. Some things are irrelevant to his motives and some aren't.

As I said, if you're going to ignore the things Putin says which don't fit your narrative, then all you have is a self-immunised narrative.

The lack of insight or understanding of the consequences of this statement is remarkable. — Christoffer

No, the lack of agreeing with you is remarkable. again, unless you're claiming yourself to be infallible, then disagreeing with you is not the same as lacking understanding.

Experts of your choice, — Christoffer

So you didn't choose the experts you cite? Remarkable! who did choose them then?

cherry-picked ones from fringe departments — Christoffer

Which fringe departments would those be?

who naively disregard any kind of consequential analysis of the fallout from the atrocities Russia commits or what Ukraine would face under the rule of Putin. — Christoffer

Again, unless your claim is that you are infallible, people disagreeing with you about the fallout is not the same as then naively disregarding it.

You are assuming that you can trust Putin. Doesn't the constant broken promises from Russia during this war kind of inform you that they're not trustworthy to follow through on any kind of negotiation? — Christoffer

Putin's trustworthiness and Putin's intentions are two different matters. If Putin can't be trusted it means that he may not act in the way he promised. The claim you're making is a prediction about how he will act instead, not merely a claim that such actions might be contrary to any promises made. It doesn't require that I trust Putin to predict what actions he will and will not take in response to attempts at negotiation.

you think any kind of negotiation will result in anything other than Putin and Russia doing whatever the fuck they want. — Christoffer

Yes. Successful negotiation does not rely on the lack of lies (thank God!) otherwise no negotiation would ever take place and the world would be at constant war. All politicians lie.

Are you able to spot the difference between a literal two-sided issue and issues that are nuanced? — Christoffer

Once more. Disagreeing with you about the difference is not the same as being unable to spot it, unless you are infallible.

The Ukrainians don't want this, so maybe you should fucking listen to what the Ukrainians actually want and stop speaking for them. — Christoffer

OK, so there are 41 million Ukrainians. By what means did you come to your conclusion about what they all want? Did you ask all of them? What about future Ukrainians, do they get considered, and if so, by whom?

Maybe you should go and watch the mutilated bodies of civilians and children in Ukraine — Christoffer

That would confirm that there was a brutal war going on. In what way would that confirm which was the best solution to stop it?

Or just go with the consensus. — Christoffer

Ah yes, the famous 'consensus'. How was it you measured this again? Was it a properly stratified poll, or a meta-analysis of journal articles? It surely wasn't just a 'feeling' based on the opinion pieces you just happen to have read, that would be a ridiculous basis on which to claim a consensus.

And why would you go with the consensus? Explain to me the mechanism by which a more popular idea is rendered more likely to be right. What truth-enhancing process has the more popular theory been subjected to here?

it's also possible if you are actually educated yourself to analyze and philosophize from the facts and reports that exist openly — Christoffer

And you measure people's capacities in that respect how, exactly? Let me guess...is it the extent to which they agree with you?

The point you never fucking understand is that Ukrainians fight for their survival as an independent state and the world support that defense and will to exist. — Christoffer

Not agreeing with someone is not the same as not understanding. To conflate the two, you'd have to assume you were infallible, otherwise it may, alternatively, be simply that your assessment is wrong, not misunderstood.

You advocate for them to surrender to a dictator who wants to rule over them and pull all their freedoms under his power. — Christoffer

No. I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). Again, your personal assessment of the situation is not a fact, its an opinion, one with which I, and many experts in the field, disagree.

It only means that it's the best security we have against Russia. But you can't get that into your skull, because you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. — Christoffer

No. I can't get that into my skull because I disagree. Again, something many experts in the field also do. This is what makes you so interesting to discuss with. You can't seem to come to terms with the idea of rational people disagreeing with each other. It's like the moment you think something it becomes a fact and anyone disagreeing must simply have misunderstood.

You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist — Christoffer

If you restrict solutions only to those which currently exist, how do you suppose society evolves?

if Ukraine surrendered and Russia came to power in Ukraine and it saved lives in the short run, what the fuck do you think life would be like in Ukraine after that? Especially after the torture, executions, and rapings of civilians by Russians. What do you think such life would be like going forward under the rule of Putin — Christoffer

You're simply assuming a negotiated settlement would result in Putin having complete control over Ukraine. There's no ground for you to assume that's the only possible outcome.

The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to fight back and push Russia out of Ukraine. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to build some guarantee of this kind of invasion never happen again. — Christoffer

As you said...

you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. — Christoffer

...and...

You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist or that blindly are about saving lives with total disregard for what the consequences of that would be. — Christoffer

You see why it's difficult to take you seriously? Everything you think is black and white is assumed, without question, to be so, yet you accuse others of black-and-white thinking without even a hint of humility about the hypocrisy inherent there.

the nuance I'm speaking about has to do with the pragmatic reality of all of this. — Christoffer

A perfect summary. Do you actually know what 'nuance' means in this context? You're claiming the 'nuance' - the subtle and complex effects and implications that are not immediately apparent - is the simple, uncomplicated reality you see in front of you.

...

In any situation in which experts disagree, laymen must, at the very least, agree that it is possible to rationally hold one of the viewpoints held by any of the disagreeing experts. We could be at each other's throats about the politics driving our choices over which experts we've chosen, but to try and argue that a choice is not rational on no ground other than that it disagrees with yours is simply delusional.

... are we ... are we the peace mongers? — boethius

Ha! No, unfortunately not. Apparently advocating any strategy other than throwing more Ukrainians under Putin's tanks so we can gloat when he loses, is literally working for the FSB. I've been assured that this is "nuance" ( ).

Do you genuinely think that if Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? Of course not! — ssu

Do I genuinely think NATO and America were completely powerless to stop Russia by any non-military means? No. And "Of course not!" hardly constitutes a counter-argument.

Just think about what it means when Putin says that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Just stop for a moment and think what that means. Just think how Russia has approached other ex-Soviet states. — ssu

You keep reverting to this tactic. Putin said that he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. We can point to all sorts of things Putin said. If you're just going to assume the ones that support your narrative are true and the ones which oppose it are lies then obviously your narrative is going to come out looking well supported.

somehow, Russia is given this right to "naturally" be a bully as if it would have the right for a "sphere of influence". — ssu

Russia is not 'given' anything. Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson'. We hope that mature nations don't act like parents from a 1950s soap opera.

You wouldn't get it it's too sophisticated for you. — Streetlight

Yep, just here flailing around among the sea of intellectual giants.

I don't think that NATO now has any desires of "out of the area" operations in Asia or Africa. — ssu

Yes, but what you think isn't relevant is it? The argument is that America ought to have known that it's sabre-rattling might provoke Russia into something like this. That you personally are unconvinced of any non-defensive intention of NATO is not the point (unless you're thinking of invading somewhere?). Te argument only requires that Russia might plausibly have reached a different conclusion and that America ought to have acted on the possibility.

I think there's two major reason why the US has such a dominant position in the World — ssu

The reason is immaterial. If you accept that America does have a dominant position then your counter-argument against the Mearsheimer/Kennan position is weak, at best. Clearly it is relevant.

That's the problem. It considers something and acts as it retake it's Empire and have a sphere of influence, even if countries aren't willing to go with it. (Authoritarian Belarus didn't have that trouble) — ssu

Again, no-one is still in the dark as to what Russia have done wrong here. The point of contention is the culpability of America and Europe. All we get in response is this tiresome repetition that Russia are the aggressors. We all know that. The question on which we are disagreeing is whether America, knowing how volatile Russia was becoming, should have acted differently to best maintain peace in the region.

Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument. — Isaac

Is it???

I think it's quite relevant. My country is in a position that it has to decide which sphere to take. — ssu

Yes. Which is probably why I said it was "irrelevant to the argument", not just irrelevant in general. It is irrelevant to the argument about the culpability of America and Europe.

What does this mean? One ought to give concessions when force is threatened. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sometimes, of course. Surely this doesn't need explaining.

you are arguing has nothing to do with what I wrote since it's about what you are interested in. — Christoffer

You wrote...

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. — Christoffer

...in response to...

if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. — Baden

A comment about someone's level of criticisms of NATO in "the thread" was met with a comment that "some" cannot criticize NATO and condemn Russia.

So "what you wrote" is directly about "some" people being unable to criticise Russia in addition to NATO. What I'm arguing is directly countering that critique. We are not 'unable' we choose not to because we have other interests in posting. That counterargument does not require you to care about what my interests are. You brought it up. It's your usual apostasy to now feign disinterest. If you weren't interested in my (and other's) approach, then I suggest you don't keep bringing it up.

if we are discussing this from a moral perspective it is entirely necessary to determine guilt — Christoffer

I don't see why. If party X has behaved immorally, that in itself is a moral discussion. There's no requirement to discuss the moral culpability of co-conspirators. I'm not attempting to adjudicate a competition - again, you have your hobbies, don't expect everyone else to join in.

Lula also wants to break free from US dollar hegemony, which is of course the exact rational response to the American abuse of power:

https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/04/brazil-lula-latin-america-currency-us-dollar/

Which means of course, that there will be a coup attempt backed by the US relatively soon after he wins power, if he does. — Streetlight

Yeah, I give him a week before there's a "spontaneous" uprising. They'll have to ship the Nazis in from overseas though, this time. I think Brazil's a bit short.

this follows China's recent meeting to look into how to detach from the USD as well: — Streetlight

Yep, and the Saudi's are now considering accepting Yaun for oil sales to China. Having a read of the right-wing press having a temper tantrum over it makes for an entertaining evening's reading though.

I will never stop laughing at Christoffer's insistence that everything is 'really nuanced and subtle', which apparently means: NATO and the US are entirely blameless and the only agent which must be punished is Russia and literally anything else means you are an agent of Putin. — Streetlight

Yes, I'm now thinking Star Wars might have gone right over my head if "It's all Putin's fault" is "nuanced". The Emperor was the bad guy, right?

I think you noticed it too Isaac: — Cuthbert

Indeed.

when the state are the most powerful weapon around, the rich use them to further their goals. If the state were not around, the rich would simply use the next most powerful weapon available ( — Isaac

That much of our oppressive system has been installed and maintained by the state is an irrelevance unless one can show that they did so uncoerced and against the will of all of the remaining population. Otherwise they are merely the tool de jour, not the cause.

And this is the reason why it's impossible to discuss with people like you since you live by dogma and not reason or rationality. — Christoffer

Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it. One can 'reasonably and rationally' discuss the extent to which one's own country is at fault, or one can 'reasonably and rationally' discuss which country is most at fault. The reasonableness of the conversation is not the distinguishing factor, the topic is.

I've no interest in determining who is 'most' to blame, nor have I any interest in declaring my judgement on that, nor have any interest in whether it is possible to construct narratives supporting or opposing any given policy. I'm interested in exploring the extent to which my country (and it's allies) is to blame, and in whether my preferred narrative remains plausible.

None of those interests (or lack thereof) have any bearing on the rationality or complexity with which those interests are pursued.

If you want to declare your Damoclesean judgement to the world at large, you crack on, but don't expect the rest of us to share your hobbies.

If we are free, then we are free to exploit and enslave and also free to share and support one another without coercion. — Cuthbert

Absolutely. So any meritorious discussion of the topic must begin with the matter of how to prevent the former and encourage the latter.

Any discussion which begins with "I don't want to pay taxes" (paraphrasing) is deeply suspect in its integrity.

no mechanism — NOS4A2

Herein lies the problem. NOS appears to want to retain some mechanisms - the one's by which he's recompensed for his labour, the ones by which he continues to own his property, the ones by which he can continue to make free use of communal resources like the air and water... whilst doing away with others. That's not "idealised" anything, it's just bog-standard right-wing politics wrapped up in new bow.

Well, at least Brazil will be completely out of the mainstream press for a few months now...

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Russia never should have invaded Ukraine, but he believes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is as much to blame for the war as Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Lula said it is irresponsible for Western leaders to celebrate Zelenskiy because they are encouraging war instead of focusing on closed-door negotiations to stop the fighting.

"I see the President of Ukraine, speaking on television, being applauded, getting a standing ovation by all the European parliamentarians," he told Time.

"This guy is as responsible as Putin for the war. Because in the war, there's not just one person guilty," he added.

Lula said Biden and European Union leaders failed to do enough to negotiate with Russia in the run-up to its invasion of Ukraine in February.

"The United States has a lot of political clout. And Biden could have avoided war, not incited it," he said. "Biden could have taken a plane to Moscow to talk to Putin. This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."

The United States and European Union could have avoided the invasion by stating that Ukraine would not join NATO, he said.

"Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. But it's not just Putin who is guilty. The U.S. and the EU are also guilty," Lula said. — https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-says-zelenskiy-as-responsible-putin-ukraine-war-2022-05-04/

..the chattering classes will be tongue-tied. Do they support Lula against Bolsonaro and appear off-message about Ukraine, or support Bolsonaro against Lula and appear off-message on Covid. Their poor little heads...

I'm not clear how either of these replies addresses the issue.

You say that the articles, as written, are defensive and inclusive - but we've just established that NATO does not always act in accordance with those written articles, so that seems irrelevant.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too.

Then you say that there's a difference between being in America's sphere of influence and Russia's. I agree (though we may disagree about how much of a difference). But again, what relevance this has to the argument about Western culpability is lost on me. That Russia considers itself to have a sphere of influence and will protect it militarily if provoked is all that is necessary to accept that NATO expansion into that sphere acts as provocation. Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument.

it's odd to be so disinterested in the truth. — Olivier5

You really do say the oddest things. I realise this may come as a shock to the Twitter generation, but what I discuss in online forums is not the sum total of all that I'm interested in.

It's true that Russia is East of Europe - do I take your failure to mention this truth each time we mention Russia as an indication that you're not interested in truth?

What do you got to lose if you say the truth? — Olivier5

Why would I have anything to lose? I've nothing to lose from a game of tennis either, it doesn't mean I've any interest in playing one.

It's true that there's mist in the fields this morning - I'm no more obliged to announce it to the world by its veracity.

I think a military organization ought to stick to it's founding rules: that NATO is a) a pact where the members won't use military force against each other and b) have a common defense... When NATO has ventured off from this, as it has done, starts the criticism. — ssu

Exactly.

So the argument that NATO expansion was not provocation because NATO is merely a defensive organisation doesn't hold water does it? You've just admitted that it has, on occasion, "ventured off" from that principle. How then do you now support the counter-argument given against the Mearsheimer/Kennan/Burns narrative of a Russia provoked by NATO expansion. Your only counter in the past has been that a) NATO is not imperialist (even if America might be) and b) NATO is purely defensive. Both those positions you seem now to be admitting are weak. NATO is clearly not at all times defensive (certainly not from the perspective of those it opposes), and NATO clearly is more heavily influenced by America's agenda than it would like to publicise.

All of this without mentioning that NATO's green-lighting of US foreign wars is as much an issue for the US's enemies as would be its actual military support. In terms of Ukraine, Russia has as much to fear from a Ukraine aligned to an organisation prepared to stand by and allow America free-reign as it does from one prepared to do America's bidding.

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. — Christoffer

It's not impossible, just not something some of us have any interest in doing. That you have to go around wearing your heart on your sleeve is endearing but it's not for you to start dictating that others must too.

A lynchpin of the argument exculpating NATO is that it is merely a defensive organisation with no significant role in America's imperialistic agenda. I was merely pointing out that even you don't believe that, it's just a convenient narrative in your continued efforts to ensure discussion of America's culpability is sufficiently diluted as to be rendered useless.

Oh look, here it is again...

The inability to be critical about both sides when they deserve it is telling. — ssu

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Putin is probably not reading this thread. Nor, I doubt, are many in his inner circle, or even many Russians at all. So being critical of 'that side' when they deserve it would achieve what, exactly?

to convince Americans that these people joining NATO are scum, closet nazis, and not worth wile to defend. — ssu

Nice Freudian slip. I thought NATO was totally independent and not at all America's lapdog. So what good would it do convincing "Americans" that Sweden and Finland are not worth defending? Surely the opinion of Americans would be nothing more than a barely significant single voice in the communal sharing, Hare Krishna inspired group hugging session that is NATO's decision-making body?

They didn't close the accounts. In fact the issue is now solved, according to Consortium News' Twitter feed.

It's a non-issue. — Olivier5

Weird. It's like I'm speaking another language. Do you know what the word 'ought' means?

Paypal is like a bank, and you can't force a bank to fund your operation if they don't like it. — Olivier5

Interesting. I've only just had the same trouble with @frank. There must be something going round.

If I want information on the legal freedoms of PayPal, I should probably consult an expert in corporate law. The only conversation worth having on a lay forum is on what they ought to do, not what they legally can or cannot do. The question is whether they ought have closed those accounts (if for that reason), not whether they legally could.

Key word: allegedly. — Olivier5

Sure. I'm sure the fact that...

Consortium, founded by the late investigative reporter Robert Parry, has been critical of NATO and the Pentagon and a consistent source of skeptical reporting about Russiagate, as well as one of just a few outlets to regularly cover the Julian Assange case with any sympathy for the accused. Ironically, one of the site’s primary themes involves exploring disinformation emanating from the intelligence community. The site has had content disrupted by platforms like Facebook before, but now its pockets are being picked in addition. — https://taibbi.substack.com/p/paypals-indymedia-wipeout?s=r

...and...

... the thread connecting the recent affected accounts — which include the former RT contributor Caleb Maupin and the host of the Geopolitics and Empire podcast Hrvoje Morić, among others — is that they’re all generally antiwar voices, who’ve been critical either of NATO or of official messaging with regard to the Ukraine conflict. — https://taibbi.substack.com/p/paypals-indymedia-wipeout?s=r

...are just astonishing coincidences.