Issac, you're not an honest debater.

And one of the moderators is one of the worst offenders of this thread's behavior. — Christoffer

You can mention me by name. Unlike you I don't think the world boils down to a popularity contest. "But who do you trust more?!"

This thread is proof that a breakdown of moderation -- in both senses -- leads to cacophony and to a breakdown of the discussion.

They won't be able to travel, buy foreign goods, import anything from the West. How is that a victory? — Wayfarer

Some junkfood franchize closing shop in Russia is not a loss, it's a good riddance.
And similar for so many other things from the West.

This thread is proof that a breakdown of moderation -- in both senses -- leads to cacophony and to a breakdown of the discussion. — Olivier5

'Discussion' is not furthered by eliminating opposing opinion. For the sort of engagement you want I suggest a very large cave.

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal. — RogueAI

List at least three examples of such democracies.

Unlike you I don't think the world boils down to a popularity contest. "But who do you trust more?!" — Benkei

Unlike you, I make an effort to understand my interlocutor instead of picking stuff out of context to make some smug response. I still don't understand how you became a moderator on this board, the posts you've written in this thread don't even try to follow forum guidelines. I may not be a master philosopher, but I know I have more quality in my posts than you. And this is what Oliver is talking about.

And I don't agree that the bar should be lower in a forum thread about politics. Setting the bar low for people venting their frustrations is one thing, but that's not the same as setting the bar low for quality of arguments.

I've tried to ask for clarifications of others' arguments over and over and there's not even an effort. Every time I've asked for better logic, better induction and deduction it's met with "oh the bar is lower in this thread for quality posting", as if quality arguments don't matter when talking about ongoing wars.

Lost interest in actually discussing this topic for real in here, it's too much of a Reddit shitstorm than anything of value.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally.

And scary.

Mind you, some of them seem not to know what to believe, or even what is real. Probably too much screen time. If a Russian artillery shell comes through the wall of your building, that would be a wake-up call. Although not if it’s only something you read about in ‘the media’. Then, it’s ‘propaganda’. — Wayfarer

You, of all people, should know better.

But perhaps different principles apply to Russian artillery shells than they do to arrows.

We want Russia to be free. — Olivier5

No. You want Russia to be Western. To be yet another consumerist hellhole.

Without some minimum degree of freedom of expression, new ideas just don't get expressed because expressing them would be dangerous. And if one can't express new ideas, why have them? So only cultures that are reasonably open and tolerant can generate new ideas at a sustained rate. Of course these things come and go: cultures evolve all the time. — Olivier5

Ideas that are merely new are useless. An idea must be good.

People were reasonably content but no one was happy. Nobody was ever smiling for instance, or joking or laughing their ass off, even when drunk. No public expression of joy. — Olivier5

Yes, because some people still know how to behave decently.

It must be pretty schizophrenic. I travelled through Hungary in the 80's. It was rather sad how nobody would ever speak their mind in public but would unload in private. — Olivier5

Exactly like in modern democracies.

Unless, of course, one's "own opinion" is actually all politically correct and pleasing to the regime.

I met an Albanian once, who had this story about the death of Enver Hoxha. She was at school when the news broke, a pupil in an average primary school in Albania. The teacher said that this was a terrible news and that they should all cry now. She found it hard to do, in fact she started to laugh irrepressibly. She quickly put her head down in her arms, crouched on her desk, and pretended to sob, all the while she was laughing and laughing. That's how she got through that.

1. In schools everywhere, children are taught how to think, feel, speak, and act about a variety of things. Failure to comply has ramifications -- poor grades, poor references, stigma. Just because the system allows the dissenters to live doesn't mean it's not oppressive, as has been addressed earlier in the thread.

2. To prioritize the opinion of a child in political matters is infantile.

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away. — Baden

Very easily: By declaring themselves to be the moral winners. The West is already helping them do that.

What I do not understand is why at least agree to a deal that can be simply rescinded at a later date — FreeEmotion

Promises can be broken so I do not see the point except to bring a ceasfire. — FreeEmotion

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it?

My view is simply that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable, unwarranted and fundamentally criminal. It has resulted in thousands of deaths already, massive destruction of cities and homes, and the displacement of millions of people. That is not 'western propaganda' nor is the war a consequence of western foreign policy meddling - it came about solely because of Putin's resentment at the demise of the USSR and his vain attempts to restore elements of it into a greater Russia. Every so often I will post something in this thread to register that view. That is all I wish to say, and I have no intention in becoming dragged into these interminable circular arguments which this thread seems to generate.

My view is — Wayfarer

Exactly.
Yet you want it to be taken as more than that.

No I don't. That is only my opinion. I agree, other people have other opinions, and they are free to express them, and I can then take issue with them, or not.

No. You want Russia to be Western. To be yet another consumerist hellhole. — baker

So there are no other roads to take? It's either the authoritarian regime imprisoning or poisoning critics of the state, propaganda to the point of total denying reality... or a consumerist hellhole?

Because that is the dichotomy you are presenting here. If giving the population the individual freedom to choose their own path in life, to give them security in freedom of speech, to have real democratic elections (a democracy with low corruption is still the best system in existence, and if you don't agree then provide an example of a functioning alternative system), is the same as a consumerist hellhole, you might need to elaborate how you reach that conclusion.

Just because western culture has a lot of problems that a lot of modern philosophy is examining and dissecting, that doesn't mean Russia is better. It's not, it's an authoritarian state with state violence against anyone who doesn't follow the rule of the "king". It is entirely possible to say that we want Russia to be free without it meaning some "consumerist hellhole".

Maybe first get Russia to a place where people don't get poisoned, imprisoned, and don't have an authoritarian leader who plays around with his rich friends while a large part of Russia lives on almost nothing. If that means more western standards, so be it. If not western standards, then feel free to present a system of state that frees Russia while keeping western standards of living out of there.

It's tiresome to hear people complain about a solution when there's no alternative solution presented that is better. If you want real-world solutions you might need to be a bit more pragmatic. Idealism is good for changing a system that is already somewhat functioning, pragmatism is needed when a system is fundamentally broken.

:up:

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it? — baker

For the sake of peace, a ceasefire deal affected and used as an opportunity to re-think and pursue strategic objectives further down the road when Russia is weakened by sanctions. Why the insistence on making a tough stand now - I can only assume it is to send a tough message to President Putin and the Russian Government., President Zeleskyy being the messenger.

l recall reading that in the Vietnam nuclear attacks were discussed as options. Probably true, given the state of affairs at that time, and the level of bombing. Given the death toll, ending the war quickly may have been a justification.

At one point in 1968, Westmoreland considered the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam in a contingency plan codenamed Fracture Jaw, which was abandoned when it became known to the White House — Wikipedia

Fracture Jaw was a top-secret U.S. military contingency plan[1] in which General William C. Westmoreland sought to ensure that nuclear weapons would be available for use in the Vietnam War. Planning began in 1968 and included moving nuclear weapons into South Vietnam so that they could be used on short notice against North Vietnamese troops.[2] In spite of moves towards activating the plan, the project was abandoned in February 1968 when it was discovered by the White House.[1]

  On 27 October 1969, Nixon had ordered a squadron of 18 B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons to race to the border of Soviet airspace to convince the Soviet Union, in accord with the madman theory, that he was capable of anything to end the Vietnam War — Wikipedia

Although both Moscow and Hanoi did not show any reaction or impact of Operation Giant Lance, the uncertainty of Nixon's nuclear power posed a significant threat.[4][8] As Nixon was socially recognised as a "madman", the risk of Nixon's continuous nuclear threat towards Hanoi was undermined by the anti-war sentiment on US home soil.[10] This implied to Hanoi that the US did not wish for further war, or risk of nuclear warfare.[10] The heightened fear of nuclear warfare brought upon a shared parity of nuclear avoidance across all participants of the war.[3] Neither participant willed a military confrontation that would escalate to that level, exemplifying the significance and extreme measures of Nixon's "mad" actions in social perceptions at the time.[3] — Wikipedia

Interesting. I am learning new and disturbing things about 'our' world, things that do not inspire confidence in a peaceful future.

It's tiresome to hear people complain about a solution when there's no alternative solution presented that is better. If you want real-world solutions you might need to be a bit more pragmatic. — Christoffer

I am not complaining, for one, a real-world solution is an evolutionary solution where each sovereign nation, for example Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, the United States all have to work out their progression without foreign interference, for example, Russian meddling in elections. That was a bad idea, even if it was just an idea in someones head. We have to work with a world we may not like.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. — UN

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. — UN Charter

I think we have the seeds of peace here, since everyone signed on to it, maybe the maturity and sheer genius of working within the charter and at the same time pursuing national interests has not been forthcoming.

My view is simply that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable, unwarranted and fundamentally criminal. It has resulted in thousands of deaths already, massive destruction of cities and homes, and the displacement of millions of people. That is not 'western propaganda' nor is the war a consequence of western foreign policy meddling - it came about solely because of Putin's resentment at the demise of the USSR and his vain attempts to restore elements of it into a greater Russia. Every so often I will post something in this thread to register that view. That is all I wish to say, and I have no intention in becoming dragged into these interminable circular arguments which this thread seems to generate. — Wayfarer

Since we are stating our opinions here, I will state my view that the Russian SMO may have been unjustifiable and warranted. Criminality does not enter the picture the here unless you mean violation of international law, like for example, the invasion of Iraq.

I do not know how it is possible to obtain the information whether Russia faced an 'existential threat' (By the way, a poor choice of a word, since existential does not mean threat to existence') "Unjustifiable, unwarranted?" maybe not. I also do not know whether the interests of Russia could have been safeguarded through a higher intellectual prowess on the part of President Putin. Did you know, for example that Albert Einstein was offered the position of Prime Minister of Israel?

Towards the end of his life, he was even offered the chance to become the second president of Israel but respectfully declined. The first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, stated that Einstein was “the greatest Jew alive” and wished him to be his successor. However Einsten, who was 73 at the time, and not even an Israeli citizen, cited old age, inexperience, and insufficient people skills as reasons why he wouldn’t be the proper choice.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/11/einstein-israel/?chrome=1

It has resulted in thousands of deaths already, massive destruction of cities and homes, and the displacement of millions of people

True

- it came about solely because of Putin's resentment at the demise of the USSR and his vain attempts to restore elements of it into a greater Russia

This is opinion. He may have been upset with the demise of the USSR (so am I, come to think of it, they were headed for breakup which is what we want, a declining power), but I don't think he is so unintelligent as to actually think he wants several more Ukraine like scenarios on the way to his final crowning of Tzar of the Russian Grand Empire.

Am I pro-Putin? Am I pro - Zelenskyy? I am both. Ukraine can have the world if it only can resist NATO's dreams of imperialism, that is my view. The President of Ukraine is in a very difficult position he did not bargain for.

You don't even need to cite Syria. The monstrous piece of shit that is Hillary Clinton already suggested it in the context of this war: https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1500531727957172224?s=20&t=a574O6MNhzCX_ns1P9-cqQ

---

Also, I loved this piece that makes the point that the selective hysterics over Russia is basically identity politics on steroids:

"On the one hand, we hear from the Wall Street Journal that Russia under Putin is returning to its ‘Asian past’, even though its methods of urban assault are comparable to those deployed by the United States and its allies in Fallujah and Tal Afar. And, similarly, from Joe Biden and neoconservatives like Niall Ferguson that Putin is trying to restore the Soviet Union, even though he declares ‘decommunization’ to be among his aims in Ukraine. Though most politicians and journalists would be too sensible to make this logic overt, hysteria about all things Russian entered warp speed on day one of the invasion

On the other hand, the Ukrainian leadership is conveniently airbrushed and lionised, so that it can be identified as an outpost of an idealised ‘Europe’. Daniel Hannan, writing in the Telegraph, declared: ‘They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking.’ Charlie D’Agata of CBS, reporting from Ukraine’s capital, was struck by the same cognitive dissonance: ‘This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European city.’ ...This provincializes sympathy with Ukrainians under siege, reducing what might have become a dangerously universalist impulse – raising standards that could apply in Palestine or Cameroon – to narcissistic solidarity with ‘people like us’.

...The culture war over Russia and Ukraine is more about the moral rearmament of ‘the West’ after Iraq and Afghanistan under the ensign of a new Cold War which declares Putin a legatee of Stalin, the resuscitation of a dying Atlanticism, the revitalisation of a moralistic Europeanism after the collapse of the Remain cause, and the stigmatisation of the left after the shock of Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, than it is about Russia or Ukraine. More broadly, it revives in a new landscape the apocalyptic civilizational identities that were such a motivating force during the ‘war on terror’, and which have lately fallen into disarray."

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/the-belligerati

So what's the solution, revolution? In this case I believe the solution is evolution, not revolution, and not the ex-nihilo creation of some perfect political paradise out of a void. — FreeEmotion

I'd like to see this^ question answered.

I cited this earlier in the thread, worth reiterating in this context that America has form in this, it's right out of their standard playbook

My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians
— US envoy James Jeffrey — Isaac

↪Isaac You don't even need to cite Syria. The monstrous piece of shit that is Hillary Clinton already suggested it in the context of this war: — StreetlightX

Yeah, uh, that's generally how proxy wars work. How is it "monstrous" to make your enemies' military objectives harder/impossible by supporting the people they're fighting against? Your outrage at this strategy pretends that Russia is not the aggressor and it's poor old Putin being picked-on by the west again. The west obviously doesn't have squeaky-clean hands in most of this, but to pretend that Putin is just an unfortunate defender of Russia who was goaded into these violent campaigns by NATO and is undeserving of the outrage and vitriol currently aimed at him is insane.

even though he declares ‘decommunization’ to be among his aims in Ukraine.

Are we supposed to take seriously a journalist who takes Putin's stated motivations at face value when the Kremlin has been calling white black and up down for years? I guess Russia must also be there to free the Ukrainians from Nazis and drug addicts too?

I sincerely hope you and Isaac are at least being paid for this propaganda.

The west obviously doesn't have squeaky-clean hands in most of this, but to pretend that Putin is just an unfortunate defender of Russia... — ProbablyTrue

I appreciate that you lack basic literacy skills but you did not have to announce it so loudly to the world.

Are we supposed to take seriously a journalist who takes Putin's stated motivations at face value when the Kremlin has been calling white black and up down for years? — ProbablyTrue

Ah yes the 'ol "secretly aspiring for communism while literally announcing that one is going to kill communists" approach. Putin, that wily fox.

That said I really do genuinely appreciate the acknowledgement that this is, in fact, as you said, a proxy war, and by extension the fact that the US is, in fact, using dead Ukrainians to achieve their geopolitical ends. At least it's honest.

Unlike you, I make an effort to understand my interlocutor instead of picking stuff out of context to make some smug response. — Christoffer

Well that's patently false. You were fishing for one answer and one answer only, that people choose the side of the USA. And when they don't you cry they don't listen. This is of course total bullshit and it was you who wasn't capable of understanding the other side by shifting the goal posts just to get people to agree with your preconceived conclusions. And when you get called out for the shit posts those steps were, you cry about moderation. Of course, it isn't you, because you're so smart!

Lost interest in actually discussing this topic for real in here, it's too much of a Reddit shitstorm than anything of value. — Christoffer

I wish you would just do that but then I read another post.

My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan by Jonathan Littell ... It wasn’t always like this. There was a time in the 1990s when you had freedom and democracy, chaotic, even bloody, but very real. But 1991 ended the same way as 1917. Why, every time you finally make your revolution, you get so scared of the Time of Troubles that you go and hide under the petticoats of a tsar, a Stalin or Putin? — Olivier5

I still cannot get over how completely, totally, utterly garbage this fucking 'letter' is. Like it still makes me annoyed just thinking about it. So, the celebrated 'freedom' of Russians in the 90's, let's take a look at that:

"Start with real GDP. The decline in Russia was 40%. This is significantly more than the decline in the US or Germany during the Great Depression. Note also that Russian depression lasted longer. ... How does that depression compare w/the past Russia's catastrophes? It was not as bad as the disaster wrought by WW1, Civil War. The industrial output in the latter case dropped to 18% of its pre-war level; in the 1990s, Russia lost "only" half of its industrial output. ... What happened to real wages? They were cut to 1/2 of their 1987 level: much worse than what happened in Poland in the 1990s, and much, much worse than in the US & Germany during the Great Depression (real wages in these two cases went up).

... Ok, we now know: Russia's real incomes were cut by 40% and its inequality skyrocketed. If you are in the lower part of income distribution, you lose not only 40% of your income (the average), but more: perhaps 60-70% as inequality change moves against you. So poverty went "wild"! ... The number of people in poverty in Russia (measured by using the same poverty line of 4 international dollars) went from 2.2 million people in 1987-88 to 66 million in 1993-95; from negligible to more than 40% of the population.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1506776903960649735.html

Or maybe this Littell fuck is sincere - it really is just better for the West when Russians are swamped in poverty.

Well, at least it wasn't communism!

I still cannot get over how completely, totally, utterly garbage this f — StreetlightX

I agree with you, except for the some of the word choices, but empires are patronizing. Insulting persons on the other hand, like former Secretary of State, Mrs Hilarious Clinton, really diminishes the argument somewhat.

To put it bluntly, I think President Putin's support of armed rebels in the East of Ukraine was ill- advised, and possibly a violation of international law. These are the rebels who shot down an Ukranian transport plane and then the Malaysian Airlines passenger airliner. All mistakes.

My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians — Isaac

This is another example. Supporting the Mujaheddin and getting Osama bin Laden to read books by Chomsky also was another tragic mistake, I am very disappointed with President Carter's illegal actions in that war. I wonder what he has to say about it.

Assume the following is true.

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise:Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

http://marktaliano.net/interview-how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen-interview-with-zbigniew-brzezinski-le-nouvel-observateur-france-jan-15-21-1998-p-76/

I believe that those who don't study history sleep easier at night.

My view is simply that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable, unwarranted and fundamentally criminal. It has resulted in thousands of deaths already, massive destruction of cities and homes, and the displacement of millions of people. That is not 'western propaganda' nor is the war a consequence of western foreign policy meddling - it came about solely because of Putin's resentment at the demise of the USSR and his vain attempts to restore elements of it into a greater Russia. Every so often I will post something in this thread to register that view. That is all I wish to say, and I have no intention in becoming dragged into these interminable circular arguments which this thread seems to generate. — Wayfarer

:100: :up:

This is the correct way to proceed. I think the correct thing is to engage in discussion that is worth wile. If some have problems to see the real picture from their anti-Americanism or somehow feel that some facts seem for them to be too "pro-US" (starting from the fact that this war was indeed of Putin's making) or whatever, it's their problem.

Russia has likely far more political prisoners now that it had during the late Soviet era and the policies of Putin are making it a larger police state. His fear of "colour revolutions" in Russia won't make it easier. Things are now getting only worse there and the war will continue as Russia simply doesn't have today the ability for a new determined push Ukraine. It might take weeks before that happens.

I see that the bear suckers are getting all excited.

After a month of sucking, maybe the bear has finally reached turgidity?