You describe results without relating that to the Russian strategic objectives. I asked you before what those probably were and you seemed to grasp it then. So go back to that post and then you'll see the results you mention are irrelevant. The only outstanding point is probably mariopol to create the corridor between Crimea and Russia. The main goal that Ukraine won't join NATO is already admitted by Zelensky, which is what this has all been about.

Moral indignation is always easier. Feel free to call me stupid if that's what you really believe but I you're pushing me buttons when you suggest I'm unethical or immoral.

Males with extreme beliefs.
Some act as lone wolves or gang up in 'brotherhood' to get attention or a sense of belonging. — Amity

But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.

Not that I necessarily need to defend my one liner because that's just an attempt to trying to make part of the world accessible to my daughter, to give a frame in which to think about a war. There's more to it.

A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch, those no longer seem to be related to competition. And that's probably because there are alternative base emotions than those related to sexual urges.

So disgust is usually a strong moral indicator as well, at the same time a lot of disgust is socially conditioned. Need to be careful with that one.

Then there's fear, which I can imagine playing a big part in the side of the Russians in the last war.

But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions. I have plenty of problems with it myself. Installed an app "in love while parenting" to become emotionally more verbal and react more appropriately to my kids in stress situations. Even in that research you do well when you react in the correct way about 1 in 3 times, which seems like we're all, as a species, lowballing our interpersonal interactions anyway.

Think of the school killings - the causes - so many by young men thwarted, rejected.

Women are still seen as weak and men as strong.
"Don't be a big girl's blouse!"; a father to his 5yr old son crying, after a fall from a wall.
The phrase denotes a man regarded as weak, cowardly or oversensitive. — Amity

And actually makes men oversensitive to feeling weak, rejected or unmanly when grown, resulting in very unhealthy reactions to them when they expedience those feelings. Repression is just a shit way of dealing with any emotion.

Well that puts a different spin on this family guy clip :

Only correct strategic move? To start a war they cannot win? — ssu

Yes. Nice of you to get all judgmental over that assessment. Just like the USA would've done in the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians attacked. Strategy isn't about morality. I thought you'd be the one person from the camp not agreeing with my position that wouldn't confuse the two.

I guess we're done then?

So the question is, why the above condemnation (which I agree with, actually, don't find anything incorrect there) is only preserved for Israel, but not for Russia and Putin? Now for some reason I find myself with a realpolitik (or anti-US?) Benkei who doesn't care what Russia does. (Perhaps it's all Western propaganda or what?) — ssu

The difference is that the Palestinians have not made strategic choices for which they can be blamed, as opposed to Israel and its enablers. They haven't done anything wrong except for existing. If you want to compare it, then the Palestinians are Ukrainians.

It's interesting to see you think there's an inconsistency.

There's just two levels, strategic and rules based. I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. I therefore blame the USA and NATO for limiting strategic choices that result in war.

But the question is what you think about these conflicts. Were they illegal? — ssu

This is irrelevant to the point that plenty of illegal wars were fought by the USA and NATO and to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy, which once again goes to the point that if legality isn't a relevant measure by all parties involved it shouldn't be an argument to absolve USA and NATO from their responsibility when considered strategically.

That some wars were justified and in accordance with international law doesn't diminish this point. Also, the Gulf War turned illegal.

For good order, based on international law the Ukraine invasion is illegal. Before people misunderstand my argument again as if it absolves Putin, it doesn't.

Why are you purposefully misrepresenting I was talking about the Gulf War when I'm referring to Iraq?

5. That my wife is right.

I explained the cause of the Ukraine war to my daughter of six as the weakness of old men as being incapable of compromise.* I had to explain compromise but being able to give up on what we want in favour of what's better for everybody seems to be the core of wars to me, so I think I agree with the competition aspect. And there's an argument to be made that all competition arises from sexual competition.

I'm wondering though what place unadulterated fun has in competition. Some people just love what they do and become incredibly good at it. So they might like the competition but the only reason they can really compete is because they love archery, running, skating etc.

And it's not as if women don't compete, just in other ways. So I'm not convinced it's just a male thing (which is worrying if true, because that means there's no clear way to avoid wars).

*"volwassen mannen die te zwak zijn om een compromis te sluiten".

Pakistan? How Pakistan? Actually Pakistan is just a great example and the way how the US treated a country that assisted a lot the fighters that the US fought and lost to. Pakistan is the crazy example of a country being an "ally" to both sides and getting away with it.

Afghanistan? Well, the Emirate of Afghanistan is back after fighting a long war against the US, which was backed by NATO. Even South Vietnam held a bit longer than the US backed Afghanistan. So did also the Najibullah regime too.

And finally Iraq. Well, I could start just how problematic and stressed the US-Iraqi relations are, but you would be bored, I guess, and this response would be too long. — ssu

LOL. This is exactly the double standards that agitates me. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. The expansion of drone bombings into Pakistan were illegal. The extra-judicial murder of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was illegal. Either it's rule based or it's not.

And then an entire expose on the Cuban crisis to try to obfuscate the simple fact the Russians did what the US demanded because they knew full well it would lead to war. It sas their withdrawal that avoided the war, if they hadn't the US would've started a war against Cuba.

No man, fuck the USA and NATO just as much as Putin.

Why simply Vladimir Putin has any justification to say how sovereign states manage their alliances? — ssu

This is again the trap of thinking rules-based. While I agree that this is and should be what we should aspire to, the reality is sovereignty means fuck all. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, rendition etc. That's the same stuff. That doesn't absolve Putin but knowing geopolitics isn't rule based clarifies that responsibility lies with NATO just as much. It's not a pretext, it's how every country, including our own operates. The Cuban crisis was averted because the Russians pulled back. NATO decided to play chicken with Ukrainian lives on the line.

I don't think anyone has taken for granted what the Russians said, except for one thing: they have repeatedly pointed out they do not want NATO to expand eastward. That doing so nonetheless would lead to war has been repeatedly stated since the 90s even by our own advisors and think tanks. It's only through the lens of "rights" that we can pretend this is solely Russia and Russian imperialism. But it's naive and it's not even the paradigm on which Western countries operate.

Speaking of that imperialism, Russia simply doesn't have the economic basis or military capacity to project an empire so I find such claims divorced from reality. Talk of Russian empire is a form of nationalism, just how the Dutch look favourably on our east India company and Italians talk about the Roman empire and Greeks about the cradle of civilisation.

What's worse is, I think, that the US and NATO were fully aware of provoking the Russians in which Ukraine was nothing more but a pawn. There was never an intent to defend Ukraine against any form of Russian aggression so creating a situation where this became Russia's only viable (in their view) action to take, means US and NATO are complicit in the deaths of innocent Ukrainians.

So what was the end game here? Could've been a couple of things in my view. Either a wish to further intensify sanctions to weaken Russia. Make it spend a lot of money on a, possibly protracted, war. I don't really know and I Wonder if they actually thought that far. I find it more likely that hubris and incompetence have led to this.

I didn't realise incels now classify a rejection as a reverse rape. Makes me really glad these people get rejected and fail to procreate.

For me war totally obvious with the television speech that Putin made on the 22nd of February, two days before the invasion. This was never a dress rehearsal, a training exercise to get the US to talk. And I had agreed with the historian Nial Ferguson's comment from January that the probability of war was 50/50, which is a really high probability. For example Amity understood well the reality before the attack commenced. Others too.

Some insisted that everything was an American propaganda scare tactic, that all this has happened because of the US, well, they are still quite active. Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia." — ssu

These two do not preclude each other.

What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation, which appears to be a consequence of the naive mistake of applying ethics to geopolitical politics. While I agree that preferably every country adheres to international law, and I'm the first to argue they should, the fact of the matter is that it's a mistake to represent international relations as governed by those rules, eg. there's a clear difference between what is done and what ought to be done. Let's not forget renditions, torture, illegal wars etc. that "our" side committed, we don't have a moral high ground.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. If I see Russians firing at a flat, then I'm wondering whether they were fired upon from that position and we've just not been shown that. I have no way of knowing but I do know we get maybe 5% of what's actually going on.

Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position. — Isaac

And here is the reason never to vote for another president because all their decisions are always right as long as the right process was followed.

Sigh. @Tobias this thread is a prime example. :roll:

I don't think we should be wasting our time on such a reductionist view on gender relations.

Sen. Marco Rubio: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?

Victoria Nuland: Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.

Sen. Marco Rubio: I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to unleash biological weapons in the country, and with NATO’s coordination.

If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?

Victoria Nuland: There is no doubt in my mind, senator. And in fact, it is a classic Russian technique to blame the other guy for what they are planning to do themselves.

Your inferences do not make any sense based on what was said.

@ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real?

I also had an interesting talk with my six year old daughter who we watch the Dutch children's news with. She came home from school saying it was good the Netherlands gave weapons, so the Ukrainians could defend themselves. I asked here what would happen if two sides would be more or less equally strong. She realised they would keep fighting and more people would die. So now she wasn't sure what was better but she "felt" it was wrong to do nothing.

So I said that in the end this war only exists because grown men are too weak to accept they cannot have everything they want and resort to violence as a result to get it. We're left with making decisions we don't know whether they are right or wrong so all we can do is have the right intention. I told her to think about what she thinks is best and that maybe we could help in different ways.

So she woke up today and she doesn't want to send guns anymore but we decided together to make a room available in our home for fugitives instead. I asked her why? She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times!

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me. — boethius

A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO.

The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with.

Gergiev was fired from the Rotterdam philharmonic orchestra as well.

I'd say it's unlikely.

Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication. — ssu

And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? I don't think so. I think they're prepared for any and all contingencies including nuking Russia in retaliation.

The point being, of course, that as usual the official communication isn't the actual communication. Russia threatened and the US shrugged. It's a diplomatic "fuck you" to the Russians.

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis. — Christoffer

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts! — Benkei

@ssu

I just want to highlight that this is the third time I correctly predicted the future.

:100:

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts!

:yawn:

Christoffer likes to pretend he's a grown up. I'm sure he doesn't need another idiot defending him.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical.

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues.

So yes, Frank, ragging is entirely appropriate when posts are simply that shit.

another cartoon! What a surprise.

:yawn:

Look at Cuthbert here, he actually engages with the question in a way I find more civil. You know, it is possible to do that. — Christoffer

I have neither the time nor inclination to take your apparent fragile ego into consideration when clarifying the kindergarten level of your thinking.

:yawn:

America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. — Cuthbert

That's entirely ahistorical. And it was also on the table in 1962 during the Cuba crisis. So no. There's really no reason to "trust" either country to handle nukes responsibly.

Let go of your childish outbursts and either engage in the discussion or ignore what I write. Getting really fed up with everyone, even the mods, acting like this forum is fucking reddit. — Christoffer

Either write better posts or stick to reddit. Bye.

Do you trust Biden or Putin more with nuclear weapons? Do you trust the chain of command in the US more than Putin's? Everyone can argue that the US also has nukes and they're the only nation who actually used them, but all of that just smells over-simplification from the regular "the US is to blame for everything"-people. It can also be that because they are the only ones who used nukes, they know the consequences, the national guilt, the terror that it implies. There are reasons for the miles-long red tape before even touching the keys of the "football", it's because it should be extremely problematic to fire a nuke.

The question is really: do you trust Putin more than the US when it comes to who would initiate total annihilation? — Christoffer

Again, what's up with the fucking childish questions? I question the US narrative and your reply is, who do you trust more? Seriously?I don't trust either, especially considering the US is the only country that ever used nukes. Twice.

The only relevant difference here is, it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really.

So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler? — ssu

The point of my post was not to apply a saying as the end of truth in the matter. It's supposed to give pause and think before choosing sides. I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. But that the US and NATO have acted callous with no respect for the dignity or sovereignty of Ukraine is for me entirely clear.

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on. — ssu

So we're not actually in disagreement then.

:100:

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940? — ssu

You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies.

I'm not here to give you a history lesson on what is entirely well-documented and regularly warned about since I was in university (1996).

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO?

This is not about law, it's about strategy spanning decades.

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin.

Attributing the blame that lies with the US and NATO does nothing to exculpate Putin.

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame.