Not really, no. I go by the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation, but does not imply that only reasonable statements are in good faith. The word 'faith' is not synonym of the word 'reason'. It's more an antonym in fact. Sometimes it is rational to lie. but one cannot lie in good faith. — Olivier5

The term "good faith" has a specific meaning quite devoid from "faith". It's a legal term of art which nowadays is also used in common language. Your use of it is incorrect, the absence of lies and dissimulation (great word btw) are not enough. It is generally assumed an effective translation of the Latin bona fides, which is about reliability and trust between two parties in their dealings towards each other. If you cannot reasonably rely on your statements to be correct (because you're just guessing) and if you're not taking into consideration the interests of the other, you are not acting in good faith.

I understand from your reply you didn't read the Mueller report. Collusion isn't a legal term. He looked into conspiracy and it didn't reach that level but specifically he did find:

1) the Russian government tried to help Trump win;
2) the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats; and
3) Trump’s campaign advisers had a lot of troubling ties to Russia.

Plenty of stuff to raise the question whether there was in, lay man terms, collusion, which is what was reported on: "possible collusion" after Mook mentioned the Russians stole the DNC emails to release via wiki leaks with the purpose of helping Trump. Which turned out to be accurate.

Mueller also found 10 issues of possible obstruction of justice about which he said "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." A logical negative inference is then Mueller believes it likely.

One could go so far as to argue the years of this kind of reporting helped usher in the present threat of nuclear war. — NOS4A2

That's total bullshit when that proxy war spans at least two decades already.

Errors aren't fake news. Fake news is the deliberate pushing of falsehoods. The majority of the stories had a) alternative versions on other news outlets that people could read or b) were corrected when facts were clarified. A nice example is comparing 157 and 1, two cases where in one case the New York Post got it right and in the other it got it wrong.

There's of course a certain laziness in news outlets parroting each other under the assumption the original story is correct and with a 24 hour news cycle a lot of reporting involves no investigation just regurgitation of opinions and statements.

Also, Trump was in public office as presidenr which I do hold to a higher standard than newspapers. I guess it's a win you aren't denying the sheer amount of lies he's uttered.

He waves with the spectre of Russia attacking Poland and the Baltic States in a similar fashion as Ukraine and you're thinking about a no fly zone and not pre-emptive defence? And he references NATO, knowing full well the article 5 obligations in that treaty, because shits and giggles, "no fly zones" because where exactly are those mentioned in the treaty?

As I said, I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation at all.

So your interpretation of "Action is needed" is Zelensky wanting a no-fly zone? Have you seen the entire address where here comes to that conclusion? I don't feel that's a reasonable interpretation of what he said.

Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died. Please accept condolences from all Ukrainian brothers. Poland, the Baltic states. it's only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further. We must put the terrorist in place. the longe Russia feels impunity, the more threats there will be to everyone who can be reached by missiles. To strike with missiles NATO territory isa Russian strike on collective security. It's a significant escalation. Action is required. I now want to tell our Polish brothers and sisters - Ukraine will always support you. free people won't be broken by terror. Victory is possible when there is no fear. And we and you are not afraid. — Zelensky

I don't know why you go through this process as a reaction to my post as it's not very relevant to the point I'm making. Zelensky called for action as a clear reaction to what he called a "Russian escalation". You mind-reading Zelensky that he would think it won't lead to an article 5 consequence, which requires him to mindread NATO decision makers, is quaint but I'll take what Zelensky actually said over that particular invention.

Btw, irrespective of who fired the missile, you get an article 4 event if invoked.

The fact is that the US and Poland have both said conflicting things within their own nations so there's nothing conclusive at all about this. — Christoffer

I've read "Russian missiles, we don't know who did it" and read several people clamoring the Russians did it, including the Ukrainian president and several US news outlets, on Wednesday and that changed to "Russian missiles, fired by Ukraine" according to NATO and the USA when I opened my browser this morning. Seems pretty conclusive to me and I can't for the life of me think of a good reason for NATO/USA to claimy it wasn't a Russian fired missile when it actually was and to do so before the investigation has been finished unless they have very high confidence levels to make such statements.

So, at this point in time, I'm going with "Ukraine accidentaly hit Poland while defending against a Russian barrage" as the most rational position.

If Zelensky believes in good faith that the missile was sent by Russia, then he is not following a political line in saying so. He is just saying what he believes is the case. — Olivier5

You have an interesting idea of "good faith" which is actually to the total opposite. What Zelensky believes is irrelevant; he needs to have reason to believe it.

One of the tests of "good faith" is that the action has to be reasonable. You cannot maintain that acting, or urging others to act, on beliefs that are not grounded in facts is reasonable. Facts which you maintained were not available. I can honestly believe we'll be struck by a meteor tomorrow and urge everyone to go out and get drunk but I wouldn't be acting in good faith, since claiming such a thing without any evidence is unreasonable.

Zelensky's willingness to make these claims without knowledge, or more likey with knowledge to the contrary, is a reminder that our interests do not align 100% with that of Ukraine. The most charitable interpretation is that he wants to secure arms deliveries for the foreseeable future in light of Biden's mention of "ally fatigue" beginning of this month but that requires him to be stupid enough not to realise the possible consequences. But he did realise because he expressly referred to an escalation when he said: :

Hitting NATO territory with missiles. … This is a Russian missile attack on collective security! This is a really significant escalation. Action is needed. — Zelensky

So he doesn't know (according to you) but he's totally fine with calling for an escalation of a war with a nuclear super power right here in Europe without knowing whose missile it was. That's not reasonable and considering the very serious potential consequences, is a textbook example of "bad faith" as it in no way, shape or form takes into consideration the safety of people currently not involved in this war.

Not everything Ukrainian is necessarily sinister, you know?

How strangely your mind works.

Thanks for the... cash? I guess.

So across a multitude of news outlets (New York Times, New York Post, CNN, MNBC, NPR and probably more) she found 157 falsehoods about Trump since 2016, whereas Trump has lied about 30,000 times in his four years as president. So close!

Let's assume that's true. On the basis of belief but not evidence, because that's difficult to get by according to you, he thinks it's perfectly fine to follow a political line aimed at escalation? I still think that's cynical, possibly more so because then facts aren't relevant to his position and we should worry that Zelensky will go to significant lengths to ecalate the conflict.

So it was a Ukrainian missile. Which I'm sure the Ukrainians knew but blamed on the Russians any way. Either Zelensky is optimistic about escalation not really escalating to something I'd rather not think about or that was a hell of a cynical political move.

Après moi, la deluge!

I disagree. Your attitude is Western hubris in short (assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight if it wasn't for the West). I think the Ukrainians would fight even if they didn't have the backing of the West. Or in such numbers. — ssu

They might have fought and Ukraine would've been Russian in the first week. You seem to forget western support was there well before the war started.

Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. — ssu

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic.

Jeez. I'm glad I haven't been participating in this thread for a while. You guys are entrenched. It's like WWI all over again. Carry on!

I say just take the wretched bombs out already, aggressively, throughout, whether it takes lots or more or special or expensive tech or not.
They've been wreaking destruction for a long time and it's apparently spilling over.
It's not like shooting them down is going to kill anyone, at least that's very unlikely, rather the opposite.
Yep, keep heads cool, NATO shouldn't just retaliate. — jorndoe

Retaliate against whom, anyway? There's an assumption these were fired by Russia but latest news is this is unlikely given the trajectory. We need to wait to understand what happened. If it wasn't the Russians though... that's going to complicate matters. But I'd rather not speculate at this point.

Just found this great website: https://goodonyou.eco/

And my country doesn't have a real right wing party. — ssu

And yet you're not pretending there are right wing communists. Seems like we're perfectly capable of distinguishing left and right based on a more theoretical baseline than what exists in a given country.

At least Finland has more to choose from. And the Dutch system is getting almost hilarious with the number of parties.

Since when are left and liberal related and when did the Democrats deserve the moniker left? It's a right party on any European spectrum. There are no political choices in the US, Trump is simply unfit to rule on a personal level and therefore a danger to the world. Particularly in a volatile situation like Ukraine.

Not a superpower though. Watch me be a lot less worried about Bolsonara :yawn: as opposed to the spectre of Trump. :scream:

Not because he thinks it's a good idea for the US but because it is an imminently bad idea. If even Putin recognises that, you'd think it was a hint but since US media is mostly intent at gazing at its own belly button, nobody is aware voting Republican weakens the US.

It's funny how no one anywhere but in the US would ever consider voting Republican. The US political system is a tragedy.

I'm boycotting. I won't watch any game.

Still fits the frame. You're just more likely to argue it's worth the cost because you see benefits outside of the protection of human lives at the expense of human lives. Or the other way around, whatever. I don't know what side of the fence you sit and I don't care.

I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. The only difference of opinion on this thread is when that yes becomes a no. Avoid nuclear war is obvious, the evaluation of what actions increase that risk is not. Then there are knock-on effects like causing an energy crisis that hurts the poorest all across Europe. Is it worth that? There are plenty of people divided on that.

Emission gap report: You Fucktards Aren't Doing Enough.

This also reads like fiction.

I really think people here have a tendency to extrapolate all sorts of stories from a minimum of facts.

We have seen an irrational Putin. Which is a variation on the theme whenever leftists proclaim "but why do poor people vote against their interests? whine whine". It's elitist and almost always misplaced. Putin is not an idiot, he's not irrational. He simply thinks other things are important than most "Westerners" fed on a steady diet of neoliberal economic policy, white saviour complex while being blind to the financial and cultural oppression of other countries and sometimes outright wars (based on lies). He doesn't care about the legal order so the whole "it's an illegal war" is not a consideration at all. We know this because Russians bomb the shit out of civilians in every war and those rules are older than the UN charter.

Then there's the "Putin is a mastermind" kind of exposition you just wrote. We see coping and market mechanism developing alternative financial systems, we see increased trade between Russia and countries that didn't join sanctions. These are reactions to circumstances and I don't believe for a second these steps and consequences can be predicted by any type of accuracy because you cannot accurately predict the shape and form of sanctions, the level or type of support by the West and even your own allies. etc.

Then there's the "imperial" Putin because he referenced tsaristic Russia a couple of times (and boy, what a lot of books that invited). I'm sure lizards dream of being dragons too. That doesn't automatically mean they actually try to breathe fire.

I still believe the simplest explanation is NATO expansion or the threat thereof. The BBC in 2008 on Georgia:

President Saakashvili has made membership of Nato one of his main goals - and Nato agreed in April 2008 that Georgia would become a member of the alliance at some unspecified date in the future. — BBC

I think the similarities in 2008, 2014 and now in 2022 are obvious. It's the simplest explanation for Putin's actions. A basic realpolitik interpretation of the geopolitical situation where Russia considers NATO an existential threat. The knee-jerk reply that "NATO is a defensive alliance" is neither here nor there - it's not about what we believe, it's what Putin believes that drives his decisions.

Well, actually I think that's the problem, we have no way to interpret it other than establishing it happens. My gut feeling is pretty optimistic this has an effect on the war effort in Ukraine but it's just a vague sense and too many other variables swirling about to trust it.

I'm banking on Russia imploding from the inside as the most likely way of this war ending in favour of Ukraine (eg. land returned, possibly even Crimea then).

A second option is Russian "allies" get fed up with the fall out from the war, such as India, NK and China. In guessing they're not too happy about current food prices either. But this would probably force Russia to the table and might mean some territorial gains (eg keeping what they currently occupy) or even a reversal. It's unclear what the West would back and Russia would be expected to swallow.

I guess if neither of these play out by the end of winter, we'll have to assume this is unlikely to happen and sanctions aren't accomplishing what the West wanted.

Worst thing that can happen is that the Russian disgruntlement and logistical problems with the mobilisation are grossly exaggerated in the news and we'll see a huge influx in personnel on their side. That will lead at a minimum to a long protracted war or worse new gains by Russia.

@Jamal do you have any sense about sentiment in the Russian population? Some "resistance" seems quite well organised but no clue how big or small it is.

Biden classified what you had for dinner last week when his turd spelled an "M".

I just love how 7 months ago everybody was like "we need to make sure this doesn't escalate to nuclear war" and now at least in the UK they're entertaining just that on national television. The applause was... worrying.

Liz Truss: I feel great, I launch, it's an important duty of the Prime Minister (... to annihilate the world when ordered to do so?!?!). — boethius

She doesn't say how she feels about it though.

It wasn't my point. I was pointed there as support for a Russian identity of imperialism, which I didn't find particularly if nationalism is just a political tool. It doesn't contradict indeed but it doesn't support it either.

also, from one of those sources apokrisis keeps insisting I don't read.

The Kremlin conducted a campaign against radical nationalists in the 2010s, and as a result, many of them are currently imprisoned, according to a Russian political scientist and a senior visiting fellow at the George Washington University Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies Maria Lipman.[32]

Sociologist Marcel Van Herpen wrote that United Russia increasingly relied on Russian nationalism for support following the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.[33] Nationalist political party Rodina cultivated ties with Eurosceptic, far-right and far-left political movements, supporting them financially and inviting them to Eurasian conferences in Crimea and Saint Petersburg.[34]

However, the Kremlin scaled nationalism down out of fears that prominent figures such as Igor Girkin began to act independently, following a brief period of stirring activism that resulted in Russian men volunteering to fight in Donbas in 2014 and 2015, according to Lipman. In Lipman's view, the Kremlin's aim is to prevent emotions that "might get out of control and motivate people to act independently".[32] — Wiki

It's funny how you keep trying to find a psychological issue with me simply because I don't agree with you. If I'm not an apologist (bad by association) I'm angry and frustrated. You've got such a narrow view of the world anything that doesn't fit in it is intrinsically wrong. Good luck with that.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation.

I'm not the one making sweeping claims about Russian identity based on a few speeches by Putin or even the existence of nationalism in a country. It's pretty clear Putin has been using nationalist sentiments as a political tool. First he cracks down on it, then he employs it, then he puts the breaks on it because others are getting to popular. And if some support is enough to support claims of the existence of Russian identity as you're doing now then equally showing there's some lack of support proves the opposite.

Some arguments are so vacuous a single sentence suffices to waylay them.

It contradicts the facts and still you maintain it by equivocating the acquiescence to existing power by a population that has barely any agency, with support.

Jesus.

"Russian identity is imperialistic". Reality: Russians fleeing mobilisation.

I think the crux in that quote is what he means with Russia. If he meant including Crimea and Donetsk then following that premise, I guess technically not a lie because we're supporting Ukraine to reclaim their territory* (we reject the premise of course but I want to tease out the exact meaning) and much more worrying than if he meant Russia without Ukrainian occupied territory. I was hopeful he meant the latter but could be worse obviously.

*again, for me this is not at any cost, which never seems a worry for most supporters.

I provided sources. If you want to posture on the issue, then provide the sources that argue against these sources. Kindly put up or shut up — apokrisis

I don't need to provide sources when what you bring to the table aren't facts. The onus is in you to show the facts supporting your position. Merely offering up additional opinions that agree with you, aren't facts, and in any case I already pointed you to two other writers who hold different opinions. I've argued why I believe your position is a leap of faith based on the links you've provided. You're just dodging.

Where have I claimed that anything you might have said reached the level of an argument. I’ve said exactly the opposite.

Anyone who claims Putin’s war is going to plan is rather hard of understanding. It makes no sense on any level. The incompetence is plain to see. — apokrisis

Blah blah. I have offered an argument, you simply choose to ignore it and then pretend I haven't. Whatever floats your boat I guess.