What's there to "misunderstand"? — Apollodorus

What I am saying.

The number of true atheists in this world is extremely low and that is a testament to how irrational the human being really is. To be truly free of the influence of our stupid side requires an extreme ability of observational capacity; to see the irrationality in others and one self and truly reject it. — Christoffer

Why should reason be superior to, say, love?

And does your "strategic thinking" entail planning to invade Russia because it might decide to "destroy Finland" in "50 years from now"?! :grin: — Apollodorus

You are good at misunderstanding, when you want to misunderstand. And I could also pretend to misunderstand you, but life is short. So by all means, do keep telling the Finns what they ought to do, for all they care.

. It still doesn't follow that Putin wants to "destroy Finland". — Apollodorus

Strategic thinking is not about what will happen tomorrow, but what may happen 10, 20 or 50 years from now. Putin is temporary. He will soon be dead, but Finland will forever be located next to Russia.

The Nazis were uneducated fuckers who picked and chose whatever they felt was cool looking. — Christoffer

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. As an atheist, I think it is tempting to just throw off our Christian tradition, like he tried to do, now that we don't believe in gods anymore, but what do we replace it with? The cult of the leader? Some übermensch delirium?

Christianity had the advantage of protecting the poor and powerless, somewhat. I think that's why it was so popular. To 'come back' to pre-christian paganism would mean very little and would deny this advantage. We absolutely need to keep this aspect of Christianity -- compassion -- as we move on to other creeds.

There were other offshoots, way beyond the national (Swedish) tale of origins. E.g. the Normands were offered a solid chunk of France which became Normandie, and from there, with a little help from the French they invaded England, and later Sicily...

I am ambivalent about the idea of a pagan revival. The Nazis had this fascination for Siegfried and shit, and look where that led them.

We only have a few pagan traditions left, mostly without anyone knowing where they came from. — Christoffer

Well then, watch Vikings. I believe it's quite well done from a ethnographic standpoint. Of course it's entertainment and not a history book but there's a brave attempt at reconstructing a pagan, nordic worldview in that show. It's based on the sagas about Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons.

No offense, but that was a long time ago.

BTW, I really enjoyed the series Vikings, as well as the Last Kingdom, which is more pro-Brit while Vikings evidently focuses more on the Viking side of things.

To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic. — Christoffer

The assumption from some here is apparently that, if you're not anglo-saxon, you have no agency whatsoever.

Anna Politkovskaya: 'Putin doesn't like people. We are a means for him'

The journalist from Novaya Gazeta, Russia's last independent newspaper, published her book 'Putin's Russia' in 2004, two years before she was assassinated on October 7th, 2006, the day of Putin's birthday.

Today, everything that she warned the world about 18 years ago – tragedy, bloody violence, the war that Putin was leading to – has happened... Here, we present an extract from her book.


https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/11/anna-politkovskaya-putin-doesn-t-like-people-he-believes-we-are-a-means-for-him_5983066_4.html

Indeed, if China ever tries to invade Australia, I won't care much, and you probably won't care much either.

Hey Chris, be aware that people living in very secure conditions often don't care about the risks others are incurring. So take a guy like @Streetlight. He lives in Australia. The Ukrainian resistance to Russia may mean a number of things to him, e.g.: 1) high oil prices; and 2) a risk of nuclear war. So from his very secure viewpoint, the Ukrainian resistance is a bad thing, because it may endanger his own security. And Sweden's joining NATO would also be bad for him, for the same reasons.

From his POV, if only those damn Europeans could stop their ridiculous fighting, so that the security of Australians is not endangered and oil prices could go down, now that'd be nice.

He doesn't give a flying rat's ass for what is good for Sweden. In fact, what is good for Sweden might be bad for him.

we're talking about the extent to which they kill civilians in wars, not what colour their flag is, — Isaac

No. We are talking about Finland's and Sweden's reasons for trying to join NATO. And I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. Then you wrote something irrelevant about the US.

There's no comparison between the US and Russia. Russia is a brutal militaristic fascist regime, the US is just a somewhat imperfect (sick) democracy. How many folks are fleeing the US to go live in Russia nowadays? Not very many, but quite a few are fleeing Russia right now to go pretty much wherever they can afford to go.

What exactly is the military threat to Finland? — Isaac

Look at what the Russians did in Busha. Who in his right mind would want the same thing for their people?

why hasn't every country in the world joined NATO? More specifically Finland and Sweden. If there are no downsides and only an increased security, then what's stopped them up to now? — Isaac

Because they were afraid of Russia's reaction. But Russia is now tied up in Ukraine so there's a window of opportunity right now.

I was actually talking ethically — Isaac

Read Macchiaveli already.

the actual discussion about what the Finns ought to do, not what they will do. — Isaac

Ought to do? From an ethical standpoint, or from a geopolitical, strategic planning standpoint? Let's assume the latter, as ethical considerations have limited applicability in politics.

From a strategic standpoint, the Russian attempted invasion of Ukraine and the extent of war crimes committed there by their troops is an objective reminder that Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore.

If this is agreeable, then the question becomes: is joining NATO likely to improve Finland's security from the obviously significant risk of a potential Russian military operation, or not?

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security.

Well, here's an issue you would actually be somewhat competent to speak of: do lobby for the UK to leave NATO asap. But once again, what the Finns do will depend on what the Finns want. The opinions of Australian kangaroo buggers and retarded UK behaviorists are totally irrelevant to it.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat — Isaac

What I want to know is why oh why the UK remains in NATO, since there are no credible external threats to the security of Great Britain that I can see... Internally, the self-determination of Northern Ireland and Scotland may become an issue, but NATO won't help you on that.

Hey! How is Skippy doing?

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. Right at the top of Putin's agenda. — Apollodorus

Easy to say when you live in a country either far away from Russia, or protected by NATO. People have a right to take steps to defend themselves. What the Finns do will depend on how the Finns feel, not on how you feel or how Chomsky feels about the threat they face.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate. — Manuel

Nowadays, it doesn't matter where the missiles are launched from.

Russia cannot 'control' Finland (or Sweden) but it could still destroy it. I think joining NATO is a logical step, under the circumstances.

Interesting. I think there might be a simple solution to the 'contradiction' Chomsky keeps pointing at, between on the one hand the representation of the Russian army as a paper tiger and on the other hand the present apparent change of mind of Sweden and Finland re. joining NATO. He is asking in essence: Why join NATO now, if the Russian army is so weak?

Maybe now is a good time to join NATO precisely because the Russian army is unlikely to present an immediate threat, because Russia is having its army tied up in Ukraine right now, and is therefore less able than before (and after) the war to retaliate against Finland and Sweden, were they to join NATO.

For Finland and Sweden, it may be now or never.

Irrespective of their poor performance in the first month of the war, and of the continued capacity of the Ukrainians to rebut them, the Russians can still pack a big punch. They can and have learnt. They also have a lot of nukes. So they are no paper tiger, and it is quite natural to fear them.

I think Chomsky fears them as well, from what he says, but he fears NATO too.

Life and death of a Russian tank (David Attenborough spoof)

:fire:

And what about the competition in your “beauty contest”? “Ugly Germany and Russia”? — Apollodorus

Why yes, ugly Germany (for the allies) at the time, of course. Something like this:

IMO, it isn’t the people, but governments (or sections of the ruling classes) that are ugly when they turn into predatory entities that promote colonialism, slavery, and genocide.

Indeed, although there are always many willing accomplices in the wider population. It's not always clear-cut.

I think the US surely could have prevented the invasion, by submitting to Russia's demands, and pressuring Ukraine, and all NATO countries to submit to Russia's demands. But we do not know the full scope of Russia's demands. — Metaphysician Undercover

Useful to keep in mind that, prior to Feb 24, the Russians were not threatening to invade Ukraine. They were just doing exercises, if you believed them. And thus they did not lay out precisely their demands for not invading Ukraine. Therefore the whole idea that NATO could have prevented the invasion by answering to such demands is baloney.

We know now that the US intelligence cartel had clear vision into Russia's plans to launch this invasion, which means they also knew how to prevent it. A few low-cost maneuvers like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO as well as promising Zelensky that the US would protect him and his government from the violent fascist factions who were threatening to kill him if he honored the Minsk agreements and made peace with Russia as Ukrainians elected him to do. That's all it would have taken.

This is the premise of the whole article and it is blatantly false. The US could not have stopped the invasion. Just because you know something is brewing, doesn't mean you can stop it.

Come to think of it, was the painting approved by Churchill’s propaganda bureau? — Apollodorus

The Seignac painting dates back to 1914. It's an allegory about WW1 and the rape of Belgium.

I find it interesting because it depicts fear, unlike many propaganda pieces that tend to glorify such representation of the motherland, as powerful and martial. Here we have something different: an original work of art showing three Western European nations afraid of a peril coming from the East, and bounding together in renewed solidarity.

IOW, this is still a political piece saying that France, the UK etc have just cause at the onset of WW1, although more subtle than most similar pieces.

In actual fact, we know that Poincaré lobbied for the war all the way to Moscow.

I posted it partly because it seemed to resonate, and partly to troll people who have a negative image of either Belgium, the UK or France... :-) Because representing them as three beautiful ladies is still a way of glorifying / beautifying these three nations of course, though not a traditional one.

I think Seignac got Belgium right, but is he trying to say that France is the heiress of Rome? And why is England a redhead? Is that supposed to be an insult to Churchill's "Anglo-Saxons", or is it a sneaky allusion to Britain’s Celtic and, therefore, “Gallic” heritage? — Apollodorus

Two ladies have crowns on their heads as they represent the kingdoms of Belgium and UK. The French girl wears a laurel wreath instead, probably in reference to the Roman republic.

Yes, the red hair may be an allusion to the Celts, who were however not all 'Gallic'. There were and still are many different Celtic nations.

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. — Isaac

"NATO caca" is not really an insult. Rather it's an apt summary for many posts here.

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

You guys don't pay attention. You're here to shout at folks.

The people cheerleading Ukrainians to fight to the last, either as a fanatical gesture or bravery or then useful proxy to US power, which definitely seems your position, — boethius

Absolutely not. I am a big fan of Zelensky's proposals for direct talks with Putin, and for self-determination referendums in Crimea and Dombass. When the Russians realize they can't win, maybe they will become more realistic and listen to him.

You also could try and pay better attention to what I am saying, if you were not a paid-for propagandist.

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia! — Apollodorus

None of that has anything to do with NATO's mission.

2. NATO did intervene in Serbia who wasn't threatening any NATO members. — Apollodorus

As I said, they make exceptions every now and then.

3. NATO members are intervening in Ukraine by supplying arms, training, intelligence, propaganda, etc. even though the conflict is no threat to NATO.

Some NATO members do, some don't. I don't think the organization itself is formally involved.

4. If NATO sees Russia as a "threat", Russia can see NATO as a "threat".

Sure. They do as a matter of fact.

Whatever. At least you think you made a point. That's what matters.

You are not doing a very good job at it. What falsehood?

It is true that NATO's mission is not to act as some savior of all people in need. It is meant and conceived only as a defensive military alliance. Once in a while they make an exception, as in Libya, but to expect NATO to invade Turkey so to free it from Erdogan is absurd.

NATO makes no effort to punish Turkey for its crimes, not even for invading and occupying parts of Cyprus and Kurdish territories. Says it all really .... — Apollodorus

All it says is that NATO is a defensive alliance not concerned with internal politics of its members. If we French start to bomb Corsica to dust, NATO will not intervene to stop us. It's not its role.

Why cheer on from a distance when you can partake directly of the cup of the glory of Ukraine? — boethius

Take your own advice: stop cheering the Russians and enlist on their side. Then you get to rape and torture innocent folks yourself rather than vicariously.

Guillaume Seignac - Belgium, France, and England Before the German Invasion

From your examples, eg tenant/landlord, perhaps a better question would be: Who are we to one another, in this or that context? Or along the same line, another question, perhaps closer to the OP, is: Who are we to ourselves? Of course the short answer is: we are ourselves, ie identity. But sometimes it can be said that we are not exactly ourselves: when we dream ourselves, or we (re)invent ourselves. When we do something that surprises even ourselves.