• How Real is the Problem of Bed Bugs and How May it be Tackled?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    My ex-girlfriend’s apartment in South Carolina had bed bugs. We googled it and a Orkin was gonna charge a ridiculous amount per room, so we got a bunch of sprays instead. It seemed to be contained to the bedroom. We successfully got rid of them.

    First we vacuumed and cleaned everything. We very carefully washed all the clothing and bedding (the heat from the dryer killers any eggs). Then I sprayed every part of the room and covered the mattress. I think we waited a day or so before using it again. But we never had any issues.

    I think the biggest thing is being very thorough, because the eggs can be anywhere.

    It’s a really sucky problem to have and I’m sorry to hear it. I’m dealing with my own issues with bats, and that sucks too— but I’d take bats over bed bugs.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Climate science: the one domain where a layperson's normal humility goes completely out the window.

    You wouldn't find the average person, with no formal (or even informal) training or education walking into a physics or engineering department and lecturing the teachers -- based on a few news articles they've read, or the 30 minutes they've taken to "think critically and skeptically" about the issue, supposedly finding mistakes that all the world's experts have missed.

    You wouldn't see this in any other field -- that hasn't been politicized, of course. If something has been manufactured as "controversial," then these ridiculous claims can be made. Suddenly they're "skeptics" just "asking questions." Yeah, sure.

    Thus, we have nonsense claims about building structures from 9/11 "truthers," bogus claims about vaccines from anti-vaxxers, laughable statements about geology from creationists, and god knows what from flat-earthers.

    You would think these imbeciles would hesitate when it comes to science. Especially science that is so overwhelmingly supported. But it doesn't stop them. They simply must embarrass themselves over and over.

    When I was a child, I did the same thing -- it was my way of learning, in the end. Rather than ask questions, I pretended I knew what I was talking about regarding biochemistry. But I grew out of that. It would be nice if climate deniers did the same -- but since it's not about evidence anyway, I won't hold my breath.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    in exactly the same way, then it would be fine. — FreeEmotion

    No. That’s not the argument, and it wouldn’t be fine.

    True, justifications and pretexts are always given. They’re given by everyone from Hamas to the Nazis to the IDF to the Pentagon.

    But what it comes down to is usually predictable: when they do it, it’s terrorism. When we do it, it’s counter-terrorism.
  • What is a successful state?
    What would be realistic criteria for a state to be considered successful? — Vera Mont

    Where people can determine how to organize, what to produce, how to produce it, how to distribute what’s produced, and meaningfully participate in communal decisions. Whether a nation-state is needed is questionable. I don’t think it is.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So let’s condemn the brutality of Hamas and then turn around and do the same things. All perfectly fine, however, because all Palestinian children killed are killed defensively and accidentally— i.e., with good intentions. Not like the savage, “animal” members of the other team.

    To pretend there’s any parity between a US-backed settler-colonial state and the actions coming out of an illegally occupied territory is absurd.

    The least we should be asking for is a ceasefire.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". — Agree-to-Disagree

    So it’s the “younger generation” that posted that shallow commentary from Michael Deacon? Damn those younglings.

    But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison. — unenlightened

    :up:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Cohan put it better than I have (from 2010):

    NATO expansion is not over for the Russians. It’s a reality. NATO is sitting on its borders. It’s not about future NATO expansion; it’s about current.

    NATO expansion represents the following to Russia: It represents a profoundly broken promise to Russia, made by the first Bush, that in return for a united Germany in NATO, NATO would not expand eastward. This is beyond any dispute.

    People say they never signed a treaty. But a deal is a deal. If the United States gives its word—unless we’re shysters, and if you don’t get it in writing, we’ll cheat you—we broke our word. When both Putin and Medvedev say publicly, to Madeleine Albright and others, “We, Russia, feel deceived and betrayed,” that’s what they are talking about.

    So NATO represents on the part of Russia a lack of trust: You break your words to us. To what extent can we trust you?

    Secondly, it represents military encirclement. If you sit in the Kremlin and you look out at where NATO is and where they want to go, it’s everywhere. It’s everywhere on Russia’s borders.

    But there’s something even more profound that is a taboo in the United States. NATO expansion represents for the Russians American hypocrisy and a dual standard. They see it this way, and I can’t think of any way to deny their argument.

    The expansion of NATO is the expansion of the American sphere of influence, plain and simple. Where NATO goes, our military force goes. Where NATO goes, our arms munitions go, because they have to buy American weapons. Where NATO goes, Western soldiers go, who date their women, who bring along their habits, and all the other things. It’s clearly, undebatably, indisputably an expansion of America’s sphere of influence.

    So there has been a tremendous expansion of America’s sphere of influence since the mid-1990s, right plunk on Russia’s borders, with all the while, every American administration saying to Russia, including the Obama Administration, “You cannot have a sphere of influence because that’s old thinking.”

    The Russians may be cruel, but they’re not stupid. In other words, what they say [America is saying] is, “We can now have the biggest sphere of influence the world has ever seen, and you don’t get any, not even on your own border. In fact, we’re taking what used to be your traditional sphere of influence, along with the energy and all the rest. It’s ours now”—again, this idea of a winner-take-all policy.

    This is the enormous resentment in Russia. The relationship will never become a stable, cooperative relationship until we deal with this problem.

    Does it mean Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence? I don’t want to think for Jack Matlock, but Jack thinks yes, depending on what you mean by “sphere of influence.” They can’t occupy countries. We had a Monroe Doctrine. But the point is that until this is worked out, the relationship will never truly be post-Cold War.

    The problem is, it’s taboo in America to talk about this issue of who has a sphere of influence, who is entitled to it. I think there are solutions, but you can’t even get the question asked.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=mciLyG9iexE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fmronline.org%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Again: I was asking for evidence that the US controls the membership of the EU. Instead you just give your assertions again. — Jabberwock

    Because it’s so obvious to me I feel that a) you’re being disingenuous or b) are so unaware of US power that explaining it in detail is a diversion. But as quickly as possible: no, there US doesn’t directly control membership in the EU. Europe does rely, however, on the US for their defense. That alone is a pretty big deal, to say nothing of economic leverage.

    The exact words you have used were: 'But there wouldn’t have been invasion'. You seem to think that if you do enough backtracking, your previous statements should be erased: no, that is not the way it works. — Jabberwock

    As I said earlier: yes, you got me. I am indeed backtracking on that statement. I cannot be 100% certain that Russia wouldn’t have invaded anyway, even if NATO didn’t exist or there was no US involvement whatsoever. True. I don’t have a time machine.

    So you acknowledge that the main support of your argument: Ukraine's military arming and training with NATO countries between 2014 and 2021 is not the US doing, but reaction to Russia's invasion. We are making a progress then. — Jabberwock

    What I’ve been trying to emphasize is the Russian perspective, right or wrong. That means whether the Ukrainians support NATO membership or not, whether the US is simply giving them what they want, whether the US is justified in arming Ukraine, etc. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, maybe it’s opportunistic — a good pretext for fighting a proxy war it wanted all along. I have my opinion on all of that. But that wasn’t the topic.

    Right or wrong, I think the evidence — from our own government, from statements from the Kremlin, from scholarship — shows that US involvement was all over this conflict, and that Putin has been a very reactive leader.

    The threat was not imminent, but it was definitely there, — Jabberwock

    Of what? Not of what’s only retroactively claimed now, of Russian imperialist ambitions.

    You’re doing a lot of assuming. But there’s no evidence suggesting Russia was planning on conquering Ukraine or annexing parts of Ukraine prior to 2008. Making the push of NATO expansion rather odd. But we know why: the US had explicit plans for Eastern Europe. The goal was to make it a Western-style democracy.

    The claim you’re making is that Russia would have invaded anyway, regardless of US influence. Well, we won’t ever know, will we? But it’s a nice, unfalsiable story to tell to justify US imperialism. “Hey, they would have done it anyway, so might as well go ahead with it despite dire warnings.”

    You acknowledge yourself that NATO was only one of the causes of Russia's aggression.     — Jabberwock

    Yes. The main cause in 2022— a secondary cause in 2014. These things are interconnected, as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.

    So your nice story that Russia would not invade if not for the US influence is even more unfalsifiable. — Jabberwock

    True, as I mentioned above. I’ll retract that statement, given I don’t have a time machine— nor do you. But I do consider it unlikely to have happened without the US meddling.

    If Taiwan entered a military alliance, and started training troops and getting supplies, it would be the Taiwan's decision, not the US, just like it was Ukraine's decision after 2004, which you have acknowledged yourself. — Jabberwock

    And once again you completely miss the point.

    How would China react to this, based on what we know?

    I’m not arguing whether Taiwan is right or wrong in their decisions.

    You’ve provided nothing equivalent prior to Bucharest.
    — Mikie

    That is an obvious and blatant lie, there is no putting it differently. I have given you about half a dozen of quotes and excerpts from the document which have shown that Ukraine was preparing to join NATO since 2002.     — Jabberwock

    They applied for MAP in Bucharest, 2008. That’s very serious, for reasons articulated by Burns and others. I don’t see anything equivalent to that prior to Bucharest. However much you want to pretend 2008 was nothing different. It was different.

    Russian internal politics — Jabberwock

    To take a broader view for a second. Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why the US cares so much about Ukraine, to the tune of billions of dollars? Would it be fighting such a proxy war in Sudan?

    Ukraine is strategically important to the US, as it is for Russia. Despite your dismissals, this is indeed a fight between two powers. Ukraine is caught in the middle, and wouldn’t survive a week without US military aid (or training). This bigger picture shouldn’t be overlooked.

    We can go on believing in US benevolence and love of democracy, and that Washington really cares about the Ukrainian people. Or we can take the less comfortable path and take seriously what Russia says, and has said all along, about NATO’s actions and US influence. I see a lot of truth in it, despite my being against Russian aggression.

    (The same is true of the current war in Israel, incidentally. It’s worth listening to the Palestinian people. Or we can take the easier route and claim there’s simply evil, similar to the story about Russia.)

    You come back, over and over, to Russian “internal politics.” Let’s see what that means exactly, and get some evidence. Because otherwise it’s yet another vague claim.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong. — Echarmion

    Appreciate it.

    It further proves, in my view, the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine. That means even more NATO training, drills, weapons, etc. All right along the Russian border. And recommitting to Ukrainian membership.

    More a mess than before, you mean? But then why the full scale invasion? With vague goals and plenty of rhetoric that clearly suggests a major annexation? — Echarmion

    I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine.

    That rather than being a miscalculation and a weird aberration, the 2022 invasion is actually the core of Putin's strategy. That all the previous steps were merely expedient holding actions until the main event could be launched. — Echarmion

    But the evidence for that isn’t convincing.

    There were warnings for months prior to the invasion. Whether it was foregone, I don’t know. But it seems interesting that nearly every time the US escalates, Russia reacts. I don’t think it’s coincidence or some cover story for Russia. I also don’t buy those who try to pretend like there was no escalation, or who dismiss Russian claims.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    AFAIK no one has ever suggested Ukraine could possibly join NATO with an active Russian army on its soil. — Echarmion

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

    I don’t think the official stamp was necessary, given that NATO was all over Ukraine anyway. I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So your position is that, if Ukrainian NATO membership had not been confirmed in 2008, there would have been no 2022 invasion. — Echarmion

    But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — Mikie

    Let me rephrase, since it’s apparently confusing: there would (likely) be no invasion. True, I assumed we all agree I don’t have a Time Machine so can’t be 100% certain. You got me.

    My question then is: what was the goal of the 2022 invasion? To prevent NATO membership? — Echarmion

    Yes, which it did. But it was stupid, in my view. It’s driven Finland and others right into the hands of the US, and has “lost” Western Ukraine for generations, who will obviously not forget this aggression.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    No, it was not the same position. — Jabberwock

    No, it is not useless — Jabberwock

    No, you have not. — Jabberwock

    Fantastic arguments. “No, opposite.” How tedious.

    Can you provide any evidence that the US decides who joins the EU? — Jabberwock

    The European countries — from Britain to Germany to France, have basically taken orders from Washington for years.

    It’s like asking if the US “controls” the UN.

    That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war. — Jabberwock

    Except that was never said. I realize that’s what your mind has created, yes.

    If Russia sees Ukraine's independence as a threat, how is that Ukraine's fault, not to mention the US? Your argument has now devolved to the point that if Ukraine joined trade cooperation with the EU, then it would still be the US fault. It is simply absurd. — Jabberwock

    Except I don’t say that. I’m not talking about “fault,” I’m discussing what Russian’s have stated over and over again, and which you ignore.

    Did the US did that as well? — Jabberwock

    No— Crimea did that.

    On the other hand, if they have expected that Russia would escalate the ongoing conflict anyway, then such attitude would be quite reasonable — Jabberwock

    And so we’re back to the beginning. What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None.

    The claim you’re making is that Russia would have invaded anyway, regardless of US influence. Well, we won’t ever know, will we? But it’s a nice, unfalsiable story to tell to justify US imperialism. “Hey, they would have done it anyway, so might as well go ahead with it despite dire warnings.”

    Perhaps the US should talk about including Taiwan as part of a military alliance, start training troops, offering supplies, etc. China has been clear about where it stands, but we should go ahead with it regardless, since China would probably start a war anyway.

    Of course, you are still unable to tell what it was exactly that the US did in 2008 — Jabberwock

    “Ukraine will be a member of NATO”. This is at the NATO summit. Plans were set to be put in motion. It’s true that they weren’t, yes. But that set the stage for where we are today.

    You’ve provided nothing equivalent prior to Bucharest.

    See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say.
    — Mikie

    So now you say that Russia began a war in 2022 over the exact same positions which both the US and Russia held since 1991. Right... Yet somehow I remember you writing 'prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began'... This gets funnier with every post...     — Jabberwock

    I don’t see how this is confusing. The Russian position on NATO was very clear — for years. So yes, a reaction to a renewed intent (even referring to the 2008 summit) to have Ukraine join NATO, as communicated in 2021, shouldn’t be a shocker. Quite consistent, in fact.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And yes, the change was somewhat fast, — Jabberwock

    It wasn’t fast — it was the same position all along. It was the same position in the 90s, in 2002, in 2004, and in 2008. As I’ve shown multiple times now.

    What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?
    — Mikie

    As I have already written, he was opposed to it     — Jabberwock

    Okay, so your quote from 2002 is useless. He was opposed then, he was opposed in 2008. Did the harshness of the rhetoric change? Of course— as situations change. The position remained exactly the same.

    Again, asserting the existence of evidence is not evidence. If it is 'abundant', you should have no problem with providing it. Yet somehow you do not. — Jabberwock

    I have, again and again. You simply wave your hand and say I haven’t— or that it doesn’t count. Too bad.

    Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”
    — Mikie

    I have SPECIFICALLY written that the process was shelved between 2008 and 2014, and I did it several times, so what 2021 has to do with it? Sometimes it seems you do not even read what you respond to.     — Jabberwock

    And it seems you don’t even read what you write:

    So you got it completely backwards, if there was a 'someday' declaration, then it was the one from Bucharest. Which is further confirmed by the following events: after 2008 the integration efforts have slowed down and the path toward Ukraine's neutrality has been followed. — Jabberwock

    The US position has not changed a bit since then, the Russian position did, which prompted the reaction of Germany and France (and the internal support in Ukraine), as shown in the documents. Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock

    No mention of 2014. If you want to be clear, then state “it was shelved UNTIL 2014,” not “has been,” which implies up to the present.

    And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation.
    — Mikie

    Oh, so now the EU cooperation is also the US fault. Is that your 'understanding of the situation'?     — Jabberwock

    I hate to be the one to tell you, but theUS has a massive influence in the world, including the EU.

    No, the EU cooperation (not expansion, you are confused again) was not a 'Trojan horse' and it was not a separate 'threat' from NATO, as you believe. — Jabberwock

    I said the complete opposite, in fact. It was not a completely separate threat from NATO— it was related, in fact. From the Russian point of view.

    But how nice it must be to save your hand in complete disregard for that perspective, and declare “no, sorry, you’re not threatened— because it’s simply not a threat.” Cool.

    It was a threat, and was stated as such. Your dismissals are as worthless as your judgments of evidence.

    These are (as I have already written many times) just aspects of the same root cause of the conflict, i.e. the Ukrainian drive toward independence from Russia. — Jabberwock

    Yes, true. “Independence from Russia,” and into the sphere of US influence. Which according to you was opposed by Russia, but not a threat— that part they were just lying about or using as pretext.

    So yes, he clearly disapproves, but says it should not affect the relations — Jabberwock

    Yes, exactly. “I strongly oppose Ukraine joining NATO, but that opposition shouldn’t mean we stop talking.”

    It doesn’t mean “Hey, I strongly disapprove of this— but if it happens, no big deal, and shouldn’t affect relations.” You’re just misreading it, in an attempt to support a strange narrative.

    The US always wanted Ukraine and any other Eastern European nation in NATO (true, “push” is an ambiguous term here) — but pressed for it at various strengths at various times. Russian opposition was always there as well, very consistent— but it’s rhetoric differed in tone at various times.

    You want to point to different years, context free, in an attempt to show inconsistencies. The reality is that the US plan for Eastern Europe since 1991 and Russia’s position on those plans have been very stable indeed. All the smoke that’s been blown notwithstanding.

    They literally write that 'In the YEARS that followed, Putin GREW INCREASINGLY outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe', so if that was supposed to show that Putin's position did not change, you have picked just the quote that says the exact opposite. It confirms what I have written many times: over the years Putin's disapproval grew from rather mild to quite strong. — Jabberwock

    See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Echarmion


    Not angry, but thank you for attempting to read minds.

    I hardly consider my conversation with Jabberwock a “shouting match.” But thank you for your input.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just like you ignore all the evidence that the Russian reaction has more to do with their internal politics and perceived strength than with the concrete state of NATO membership. — Echarmion

    :roll:

    Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point.

    But thanks for interjecting with claims about strawmaning and motivated reasoning while you demonstrate exactly that.
  • Pacifism and the future of humanity
    ↪Pantagruel


    Good OP.

    Given that nihilistic greed and wealth inequality that rivals the pharaohs is the status quo, under the cover of “capitalism,” it’s safe to say we’ve gone the way of irrationality/unreasonableness.

    I don’t think we chose it though.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So your claim that 'Bucharest was much more threatening' is pure assertion, not based on any evidence. — Jabberwock

    Except Russia’s own statements, Burns’ memo to Rice, Germany and France’s statements, etc. All of which you dismiss. So your judgment of what constitutes “evidence” is worthless to me.

    Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession. — Jabberwock

    Seems to contradict your prior statements.

    I give you direct quote from Putin, yet you insist he thought then something else. — Jabberwock

    Funny— I too have quotes from Putin. Several and, more relevant, from 2008. In fact I also give quotes from the US ambassador, and can provide statements from Germany and France leaders at the time as well. Yet you “insist [they] thought something else.” In fact you just ignore all of it, since it’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative of a sudden “irrational” change.

    On the other band, you give one statement from six years prior, which is both irrelevant and which I have addressed several times— as a reminder, it also contains the following:

    But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged.

    What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?

    I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact.
    — Mikie

    Except there was no particular push, as you are obviously unable to provide any evidence for it.     — Jabberwock

    There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless.

    Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock

    Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”

    Your story just isn’t serious.

    If what you said was true, then at that time Russia should not care much about what happened in Ukraine, as the main threat, in your opinion, has been removed. But we know that is not what happened - Russia has seen the EU integration at least as an equal threat and decided to derail that process — Jabberwock

    Maybe you’re just playing games at this point.

    I’ll repeat once again: NATO is one threat. Not the only threat. Can’t get much clearer.

    And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation.

    But that does not suit your narrative that the US somehow changed its policy and 'did' something in 2008 to which Russians only reacted at that time (for which, it should be again noted, you have given no evidence — Jabberwock

    Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession.

    Ask the Russians what the issue was if you don’t believe me. The US was pushing for NATO forever, and Russia’s position has been the same forever— since 91. The difference, however, is that it looked like it was truly going to happen, and soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia.

    It doesn’t matter if you can’t get your head around the reaction. It doesn’t matter if you dismiss or discount their very real warnings because they “changed their minds” in 2004/2005 (Putin in 2004: “'Russia's position toward the enlargement of NATO is well known and has not changed”). It doesn’t matter if you consider it irrational. This was the Russian position.

    Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

    […]

    In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that “it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” In the summer following NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

    https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine

    Is there CFR a Russian propaganda outlet? They too get the story completely wrong, according to an internet guy.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased)[…]So yes, the people. — Jabberwock

    Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient.

    Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, — Jabberwock

    And I think you’re underestimating it.

    As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — Jabberwock

    And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.
    — Mikie

    Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it     — Jabberwock

    I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort.

    which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over? — Jabberwock

    Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time.

    Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades. — Jabberwock

    Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

    Your inability to see why Russia would consider this threatening is in keeping with your general dismissal of their concerns, since you’ve convinced yourself that it’s mostly nonsense. But that prevents you from seeing what our own ambassador saw:

    In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

    […]

    Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    And what Putin said at Bucharest:

    if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7

    Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this.

    I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact.

    Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
    — Mikie

    I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it?     — Jabberwock

    The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. — Jabberwock

    Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people.

    I will not argue about that — Jabberwock

    Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.

    The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so.

    Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it.
    — President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006

    Is he joking or is he pushing?     — Jabberwock

    And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.

    Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. — Jabberwock

    It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008.

    So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one — Jabberwock

    No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.

    Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
    — Mikie

    Not exactly, the two are not even simliar.     — Jabberwock

    Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else.

    Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd — Jabberwock

    Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse.

    signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. — Jabberwock

    The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify clearly Ukraine’s strategic objectives and priorities in pursuit of its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and to provide a strategic framework for existing and future NATO-Ukraine cooperation under the Charter. In this context it will be periodically reviewed.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm

    Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock


    Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.

    Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?

    Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one. — Jabberwock

    Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.

    You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that. — Benkei

    :up: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Once again, international law, as well as morality and decency, go completely out the window when a major power gets hit by a weaker power. Same occurred after 9/11.

    You can’t claim you care about children and civilians and then turn around and kill them yourself.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest we may have crossed a tipping point. — unenlightened

    I too hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re correct. The Amazon and Arctic aren’t far behind.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that. — Jabberwock

    I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.

    Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.

    The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years.

    But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, — Jabberwock

    Alright, so what is US involvement if not imperialism? Diplomacy and good will?

    Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. Or that it wished to conquer Mexico and this was the proof.

    Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal isn’t conquest or re-forming the USSR.

    If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different.

    I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change in favor of NATO.

    I don’t like Russia or what Russia is doing. But I’m a US citizen, and I don’t like what we’ve done — and are doing— either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. — Jabberwock

    No, he was ousted by an uprising with plenty of social engineering and funding from the US — which had been happening for years, in fact. To the tune of billions of dollars (with a B).

    You can blame Russia for this — fine. I don’t care to squabble. I’m happy to blame Russia. But again, if we’re interested in their perspective — in what they consider threats, in reasoning for their actions, etc — it’s good to know the full story. Turns out there’s some truth to it.

    In any case, whether it was solely Russia’s fault for the uprising is irrelevant— maybe they did push too far, etc. Doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we’re discussing here. Yanukovych’s overthrow was not something Russia wanted or liked, and they considered this a time when they could lose Ukraine completely to Western influence— the EU, NATO, etc. So they invaded Crimea. Shouldn’t have been a surprise.

    Now it’s true a story has been fabricated since then, about Russian imperialism and Putin’s ambitions and so forth— wanting to take over all the old Soviet territories, etc. But that’s only been the official Western-propagated story since 2014, and ignores a great deal of history. It wasn’t the story in 2008, when they pushed for NATO membership and started the ball rolling with our current situation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality? — Jabberwock

    When Yanukovych was in office, no. When he was thrown out? More so, of course— but still not the main driver.

    Still hardly non-existent or irrelevant, as you’ve claimed.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament? — Jabberwock

    But that’s not what happened. Crimea occurred after the coup, not before and not during. Once it was known that Yanukovych was gone and replaced by a pro-Western leader — yes, they had reason to annex Crimea at that point.

    I’m not saying their reasons are “good” reasons or that I agree with them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Well, I have evidence why it would not be very relevant - Ukraine has pledged neutrality and Russia did not mention NATO when it has invaded Crimea. On the other hand, you say NATO was definitely a factor, because you say so. See the difference? — Jabberwock

    Except that’s complete nonsense:

    Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this. — Putin, 2014

    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Address_by_President_of_the_Russian_Federation_on_the_reunification_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea_and_the_city_of_Sevastopol_with_Russia

    So yes, it was very much a factor. EU expansion was also a factor. US-backed coups was also a factor. Add it up, and US influence is all over these events.

    But we’re supposed to believe Russia shouldn’t have been worried, that their fears were completely unwarranted, and that NATO was irrelevant — because you say so.

    Sorry, no.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You have given no support why we should think Russia would not attack — Jabberwock

    This is again a strange request.

    I do have support: it didn’t happen. What did happen is attacks during a period of US involvement.

    So as long as we’re asking for ridiculous things: you’ve given no support that Russia would have attacked WITHOUT US influences.

    No, Russia attacked after it has messed up, because its meddling has sparkled a popular uprising. — Jabberwock

    A US-backed/funded uprising, yes.

    Without Russian meddling Yushchenko would remain in power and Ukraine would be militarily neutral, just as it was decided by the parliament. — Jabberwock

    Without US meddling, you mean.

    However, given that you have acknowledged that it was not the main factor for the agression, that is all I need to reject your argument: given that NATO expansion was not the main factor in starting the conflict, all we have to do is to consider whether that main factors have ceased to exist before the further escalation of the conflict (which has never ceased, contrary to your claims). And the answer is, of course, no - Russia still had the same reasons, so it started the full-scale war. — Jabberwock

    It was certainly the main factor in 2022.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    NATO is one line of US influence, and an important one. There are others. Why does the US want to expand NATO, support overthrowing a president, etc.? It's part of a very clear strategy for eastern Europe.
    — Mikie

    Sure, that is the US strategy, but that does not mean the US is the main cause of the processes. That is what you got completely wrong.     — Jabberwock

    My claim is that NATO membership, after years of training, arms supply, and drills, was the main cause of the invasion. There are others, of course. The US has many reasons for its actions in Eastern Europe, as do the Russians.

    France has supported the American Revolution, provided weapons and even troops to Americans, because it suited France's interests in the conflict with the British. Yet if I wrote that France has organized the American Revolution, therefore should be blamed for it, nobody would take me seriously. — Jabberwock

    A better analogy would be: were the British responsible for the revolution, given its actions leading up to it? I’d say yes.

    Mikie: 'Russia would not attack if Ukraine did not want to join NATO!'
    Jabberwock: 'Russia has attacked Ukraine in 2014 precisely when it has abandoned its NATO aspirations.'
    Mikie: 'Let us talk about something else! How about 2022?'     — Jabberwock

    Russia attacked in 2014 after the US-back coup, yes. NATO did not abandon its plans after 2014. In fact it increased its involvement— now under the invented “imperialist ambitions” cover.

    Your thesis that Ukraine abandoned its NATO ambitions in 2014 is proof that Russia would attack Ukraine no matter what, and that NATO was just the latest cover story, confuses two things: 1), US influence, and 2) one such influence: NATO. You also ignore the fact that the NATO threat was in the background since 2008. It did not disappear as a threat simply because one leader was against it. But when that leader is removed, with US support, in favor of the pro-EU and pro-NATO, US-approved Poroshenko — yes, I’d say NATO is still a factor in Russian decisions.

    Again, the actions of Russia took place AFTER the coup, not before— so I’m really not seeing your point that NATO couldn’t possibly factor into Russian aggression in Crimea. Sure, it wasn’t the main factor in this case— and I never said it was — but it was not irrelevant either.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I keep seeing the Hamas attack described as "unprovoked," as if Israel has not been occupying, dispossessing, blockading, and besieging a population. The attack is morally wrong but let's be honest about what its causes are. — Nathan Robinson
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    I don’t think this gets to the problem with Crash, which is utterly consistent. — Jamal

    Okay, but something still stands out. Is it really some generalized tone, or certain parts?

    My issue is the boring description. I can see something unenjoyable staying with you, but not something boring.

    Can something initially boring become interesting? I think so. I felt that way about 2001: A Space Odyssey. So maybe you’ve reassessed what you saw, or enough time had passed to make it interesting.

    But maybe I’m losing the plot. You didn’t say “uninteresting,” after all.
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    But notice that my metaphor (which I disagreed with) was pizza vs. turnip soup. The latter is good for you, but hardly a gourmet meal. — Jamal

    Right, so good for you but unenjoyable. Like plain broccoli.

    Again I think it’s best to think of artworks in terms of parts. Maybe most of it is boring, but certain parts stand out or stick with you. Certain scenes in a movie, certain chapters in a book, certain melodies in music, whatever.

    Perhaps that’s a way to square this circle.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪unenlightened


    20,000 children displaced per day.

    But it’s okay, because Bjorn Lomborg says it’s not a huge deal.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    For the satirically-challenged, I emphasise that this post is intended to be humorous, provocative, and tongue-in-cheek, and has no philosophical value whatsoever. It should not be taken to reflect the views of the forum moderators, supposing that they are sufficiently intellectually developed to have any, and may or may not reflect my own views, to the extent that I am capable of consistently holding any for five minutes together.

    I am not a US national and I do not live in the USA. I am an outsider looking in. Considering his record of non-achievement, I am at a loss to understand why Trump appeals to so many American voters. Can somebody explain this to me? He had four years in office, but just look at some of his big-ticket promises, and consider how many he failed to deliver:

    - Did the miners go back to work? No.
    - Did the wall get built? No.
    - Was the swamp drained? No.
    - Did the USA win the trade war with China? No.
    - Did the US economy boom? No.
    - Did his peace plan bring peace to the Middle East? No.
    - Did he resolve the Iran question? No.
    - Did the US get an infrastructure renewal program? No.
    - Did North Korea de-nuclearise? No. (In the aftermath of Trump's "negotiations", they actually accelerated their strategic weapons development program).
    - Did the US get a new health-care program? No. (For four years he promised "we'll have something for you in the next few weeks" and, after four years, nothing. Squat).

    Mind you, there were some positive achievements:

    - Did moving the embassy to Jerusalem increase tensions in the ME? YES!
    - Did his trade wars against China and the EU increase consumer prices in the US? YES!
    - Did his trade wars against China and the EU reduce US export trade? YES!
    - Did his abandonment of the Iran treaty grant Iran a de-facto license to resume nuclear development? YES!

    So it isn't all negative.

    With a CV like that, how can he NOT be re-elected in 2024? Well, of course, we all know that it will be down to electoral FRAUD ON A MASSIVE SCALE!! The Swamp, the Deep State, the Black Transgender Marxists, are using JEWISH SPACE LASERS to RE-PROGRAM OUR PATRIOTIC ELECTORAL MACHINES!!!!!

    Of course, it's always possible that in two hundred years' time, the received historical wisdom will say that Trump was just another Washington suit, with a snake-oil formula, who mouthed and gesticulated, while the real machinery of government - the civil service - worked around him as best it could.

    Nobody can deny that, for sheer entertainment value, US politics is the gift that keeps on giving. We are witnessing a Titanic contest: the last of the dinosaurs, faithful to the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, committed to dignity, honesty, courtesy, integrity in government, and at least a token commitment to the values preached by Jesus Christ, versus the modern generation of reality-TV, win-at-any-cost, screw tradition, and utterly amoral...

    @alan1000
  • Ukraine Crisis
    War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians. — Tzeentch

    And running drills, and “reaffirming” the commitment to Bucharest in 2021, etc.

    Funny that it’s so difficult to understand the reaction from Russia when US responses in a similar scenario would go unquestioned.

    “Putin evil” doesn’t allow it, I guess.
  • The Mind-Created World
    The subject-object relationship is a fact of life, even in simple life-forms. — Wayfarer

    It’s a conceptualization. I don’t think of myself as a subject or the world as an object when a I’m cooking dinner. I don’t see how any microorganisms are seeing the world that way either.

    But I think I’m digressing from your main point, so I’ll leave it at that.
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    Were you aware that Cronenberg made a film adaptation of the book? I wasn't aware that it even was a book — Moliere

    I’ll jump in here just to take it a step further: I didn’t even know who JG Ballard was, and had to Wikipedia him. There, I said it.

    But I’ve enjoyed this thread nonetheless. Challenges some beliefs I’ve had for probably too long about “art” and “entertainment.” I confess it’s something like the gourmet meal vs. McDonalds view that @Jamal mentions (I’m paraphrasing), so it’s worth re-examining.

    I’m struggling to come up with any example whatever of something I’ve watched or read that I found utterly boring that also stuck with me in some way. I feel that’s almost contradictory. Maybe certain parts of a book or a film that is otherwise a bore will stay with me, or get me to question things, etc— but I’d say those are just that: interesting parts of a generally boring work.

    :chin:
Home » Mikie