As if acknowledging the role the US has played in the escalations in Ukraine is somehow pro-Putin or Pro-Russian — creativesoul

It's not. But when one does so in each and every post of his over 200+ pages, you start to wonder what got into them.

Like the first time, he got tired of us.

Don't Look Up.

Like the first time, he got tired of us.

Don't Look Up. — Olivier5

We aren't exactly likable, are we?

We aren't exactly likable, are we? — Agent Smith

Nobody likes me, that's for sure.

By pressuring our governments, voting our politicians in or out, engaging in demonstrations that could push or stop legislation, sending letters to our representatives all of which are an essential part of democracy.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest. — Manuel

The right that you want to exercise and you don't see granted in Russia is likely perceived by the ruthless Russian president and his Chinese counterpart - both leaders of authoritarian regimes and challengers of the current World Order - as a sign of Western weakness, one that could bolster their economic and military aggressiveness by exploiting the Western internal divisions and lack of resolve. Therefore, wanting to exercise this right to promote appeasement and concessions to them even when they are violating international rules to oppress, murder and destroy an independent state striving to be part of the West, will likely prove to them and the rest of the world they were on the right track.

Nobody likes me, that's for sure. — Olivier5

:snicker: Same here! Join the club.

If we disagree, we've absolutely no ground on which to resolve that disagreement, and if we agree we're just building castles in the air.

What we can discuss is our reasons for believing some expert or other. In other words, our political opinions, our narratives. — Isaac

And what ground do we absolutely have to resolve narrative or political opinion disagreements?

So?

You don't seem to have finished your argument. Does it matter that they think us weak for using appeasement? If so, what ought we do about that? Make war just so we don't seem weak?

what ground do we absolutely have to resolve narrative or political opinion disagreements? — neomac

None. We persuade.

If we don't encourage the wonton murder of Ukranians, the West will be seen as weak :(

Never mind that the places like the US routinely shoot their own children in schools, which is no doubt a sign of immense strength.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/biden-closing-new-weapons-package-ukraine-2022-05-31/

Anyway, another $700 million dollars of death dealing because fuck it, may as well cycle the money to arms dealers while the going is good and the grift can be maintained.

You don't seem to have finished your argument. — Isaac

I did it on purpose, to have Manuel's feedback on this.

We persuade. — Isaac

And on what grounds do we persuade?

If we don't encourage the wonton murder of Ukranians, the West will be seen as weak — Streetlight

On the contrary, you will be seen as strong, since the wanton murder of Ukrainians is what their big Russian "brothers" are doing.

Yes, and? That the West feels left out in the bloodshed is not exactly an excuse to partake and heighten it.

Edit: Sorry, by "partake" I mean, not partake at all and let Ukranians do the dying on their behalf.

And on what grounds do we persuade? — neomac

The way things work here, people do not persuade each other, ever. They don't even try much, because it takes two well disposed debaters, and that is not available.

Instead, a lot of people here try to aggravate others by way of trolling. It's an attempt to destroy or debase the debate, to muddle the water and make everybody confused.

Isaac in particular can't articulate what he wants to talk about but he is absolutely certain that others are dead wrong to talk about what he doesn't want them to talk about.

And he demonstrably lies all the time. Lyin' for Putin... Figure that.

And on what grounds do we persuade? — neomac

Depends. The reasons we're persuaded of a theory are numerous.

Sometimes it might fit better with other beliefs so I might persuade you by pointing out those conflicts.

Sometimes they might be token beliefs of a social group to which you want to belong, so I might persuade you by raising the likelihood of ostracism if you don't adopt it.

Sometimes it's familiarity and I persuade you by simply repeating the theory often enough for it to seem like the most familiar one.

And any one of a dozen other ways. You might just prefer the name of it....

Hell, sometimes I might just keep calling you a twat until you break under the pressure of my relentless insults.

↪neomac
Yes, and? That the West feels left out in the bloodshed — Streetlight

For now (and if we exclude Westerners are participating also with volunteers fighting and dying there). The stronger Russia remains the more likely they will be able to come back after us one way or the other in the West and outside, and encouraging the anti-Western front in the rest of the World. And Europeans are exposed to these existential threats much more than the US.

I wonder if in Biden's mind there is not the potential yet haunting image of a missile made in USA crashing into a Russian apartment complex. Something like that making the morning news could send us all into a spiral of death. — Olivier5

Biden seems to have already gotten assurances that US systems aren't going to be used to attack Russia proper from the Ukrainians.

(And seems that now the weapon system is the newer HIMARS that is going to be delivered)

The risks as we can assess them include 1) escalation into a broader conflict involving, say, Belarus for a start, Finland later, maybe even NATO ultimately — Olivier5

How actually this will happen is a real question mark. And seems that many don't even think they need to explain just how this would happen.

We've already seen that what some here argue is the main cause of war, NATO expansion, has already happened thanks my country and my neighboring country doing the most provocative thing ever. And what was the response? That it's a non-issue, both with Putin and Lavrov stating this.

Hence the escalation is partly, and I emphasize partly, something of a risk. The obvious non-starter was the demand for an no-fly-zone. That didn't happen and that surely would have been escalatory. The next escalatory issue is basically blockade running or talk of it.

In some form, perhaps under UN charter or something, this could happen, but of course then it's a negotiating tactic for the Russians. They have to get something from it. They have to agree with it, perhaps allowing some humanitarian grain shipment to countries that are in desperate need of supplies. But likely Russians would demand checking the cargo inbound to Ukraine.

Yet the fact is, which ought to be obvious, is that Ukraine's only alternative is to get a settlement, a peace deal or a cease-fire. It simply cannot win in the classic sense Russia. Russia has nuclear weapons, and it hasn't got them. And likely to have a good negotiation stance, Ukraine has to appear as bellicose and as willing to continue the fight, until it accept the peace terms.

Even for the Finnish people during the Winter War, the peace was a huge and total shock, as obviously the propaganda machine had lifted the spirits up even if the military situation was close to collapse and the end of the war. But that isn't a thing you obviously want to publicly state.

They don't even try much. That would require trying to understand what the other guy is saying. Too complicated. — Olivier5

Bingo! I've got "No one understands me (but I understand everyone else perfectly)!"

That's a full house.

how about violence? Is it a way to persuade people? "Ostracism" and "insulting" seem a form of psychological violence.

How actually this will happen is a real question mark. And seems that many don't even think they need to explain just how this would happen. — ssu

Not saying it WILL happen. I was talking about the kind of risks that may be on our leaders' mind. An escalation COULD happen, which is probably why Biden is moving carefully. In any case, I'm ready to give him the benefit of doubt here.

The stronger Russia remains the more likely they will be able to come back after us one way or the other in the West and outside, and encouraging the anti-Western front in the rest of the World. And Europeans are exposed to these existential threats much more than the US. — neomac

This is just neoconservative parochial trash. Your paranoia does not mean you get to excuse and encourage Western bloodshed. The one lesson to be learnt from the mass murder of Ukranians taking place right now is that efforts to 'weaken' perceived enemies are above all the prime causes of mass death on a global scale. It will of course not be learnt. Anyone with a pulse will have learnt this paying attention to even an iota of US foreign policy since the end of the second world war, but warmongering stains like you continue to champion this utter death-generating rubbish over and over again.

how about violence? Is it a way to persuade people? — neomac

Sometimes, yeah. Violence was a useful part of the civil rights movement in America, for example. Sometimes threat of violence is sufficiently persuasive. The distinction, in my opinion, as to when it works is that it actually persuades, not just frightens people into submission. Submitting to an idea is not being persuaded by it. But violence can drive home the conviction of an ideology and that's often persuasive.

Again, it all depends on the circumstances. Those well-versed in the art of persuasion will never use just one tactic but will switch depending on the audience, the prevailing circumstances, the degree of hostility to the idea.

... but here I am explaining how persuasion works when that's not really what your post is about, is it? It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. So it turns out you do know how persuasion works after all.

This is just neoconservative parochial trash. Your paranoia does not mean you get to excuse and encourage Western bloodshed. The one lesson to be learnt from the mass murder of Ukranians taking place right now is that efforts to 'weaken' perceived enemies are above all the prime causes of mass death on a global scale. It will of course not be learnt. Anyone with a pulse will have learnt this paying attention to even an iota of US foreign policy since the end of the second world war, but warmongering stains like you continue to champion this utter death-generating rubbish over and over again. — Streetlight

Yawn. This is just far-leftist parochial trash. Your paranoia does not mean you get to excuse and encourage non-Western bloodshed. The one lesson to be learnt from the mass murder of Ukranians taking place right now is that efforts to 'weaken' perceived enemies are above all the prime causes of mass death on a global scale. It will of course not be learnt. Anyone with a pulse will have learnt this paying attention to even an iota of the US hegemony challengers' foreign policy since the end of the second world war, but warmongering stains like you continue to champion this utter death-generating rubbish over and over again.
Anyway you are right, my bad, I shouldn't have talked to you. Mutual ignoring is best.

This doesn't even make sense when directed at me lol. Being cute is not a substitute for not being dumb.

Sometimes, yeah. — Isaac

Then violence may be a good way to persuade the Russians to curb their imperialistic ambitions.

... but here I am explaining how persuasion works when that's not really what your post is about, is it? It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. So it turns out you do know how persuasion works after all. — Isaac

Yet, persuading people through the threat of ostracism or insults or by repeating "putative" truths ad nausaum or pointing at somebody's "putative" inconsistency using maybe strawman arguments are all epistemically fallacious ways of persuading to me. Still when there is no ground for rational/moral agreement violence is an option as viable as one can afford, and as valid as its effectiveness. That is why Russian aggression and Western violent response to that have their "rhetoric" force in persuading or dissuading the two competing powers and other powers. Accordingly, the answer to your question ("Make war just so we don't seem weak?") can arguably be yes, while that rhetorical "just" in your question is arguably misleading or prejudicial.

Yawn, then the first accusation of yours didn't even make sense when directed at me lol. Being Streetlight is a substitute for being dumb.

Then violence may be a good way to persuade the Russians to curb their imperialistic ambitions. — neomac

Told you...

It's step one in a line of argument designed to persuade me (or others reading) of your theory. — Isaac

persuading people through the threat of ostracism or insults or by repeating "putative" truths ad nausaum or pointing at somebody's "putative" inconsistency using maybe strawman arguments are all epistemically fallacious ways of persuading to me. — neomac

'Epistemically fallacious'? What could that possibly mean in the context of persuasion? Persuasion either works or it doesn't, there's more or less successful methods, there might be more or less ethical methods, but I can't see what more or less 'epistemically fallacious' methods could possibly mean.

Interested now in what an epistemically non-fallacious method of persuasion might be...

when there is no ground for rational/moral agreement violence is an option as viable as one can afford, and as valid as its effectiveness — neomac

So epistemically non-fallacious? Or not?

hat is why Russian aggression and Western violent response to that have their "rhetoric" force in persuading or dissuading the two competing powers and other powers. — neomac

No. That is why they may. You've yet to demonstrate that they do.

arguably — neomac

Go on then...

Yet, persuading people through the threat of ostracism or insults or by repeating "putative" truths ad nausaum or pointing at somebody's "putative" inconsistency using maybe strawman arguments are all epistemically fallacious ways of persuading to me. Still when there is no ground for rational/moral agreement violence is an option as viable as one can afford, and as valid as its effectiveness. That is why Russian aggression and Western violent response to that have their "rhetoric" force in persuading or dissuading the two competing powers and other powers. Accordingly, the answer to your question ("Make war just so we don't seem weak?") can arguably be yes, while that rhetorical "just" in your question is arguably misleading or prejudicial. — neomac

This is so many rambly words to say it's OK that Ukrainians should drop dead on the West's behalf.

It's funny, at least the others like to pretend - or are too stupid to understand otherwise - that this is not a full blown proxy war and that it's all done for the benevolence of poor, repressed Ukrainians. It's nice to have someone come right out and say: yep, this is about the West feeling insecure!

From Switzerland, a portait of Macron as a student of Kissinger:

Source: https://www.blick.ch/fr/news/monde/commentaire-allo-kissinger-emmanuel-macron-a-lecoute-id17533457.html

Do not repeat it to the twenty-six other European Heads of State or Government who meet this Monday and Tuesday in Brussels for a new extraordinary summit devoted to Ukraine: Emmanuel Macron, 44, is walking on the footsteps of the most admired and criticized master diplomat of the last century, the American Henry Kissinger.

Aged 99, the former national security adviser to Richard Nixon has just shaken up the World Economic Forum in Davos by calling on Ukraine to “make territorial concessions” to seal a lasting peace agreement with Russia.

Scandal. Barrage on the almost centenarian who always had as a model Klemens Von Metternich the Austrian Chancellor of the Napoleonic era, negotiator of the Congress of Vienna of 1815 which gave birth to the current borders of Switzerland. Haro on the man who, in the 1970s, defended the carpet bombs dropped by American B52s over Vietnam and Cambodia. Kissinger, or cynicism incarnate whose motto, ultimately, has always been the same: approach a negotiation by proclaiming ideals, then bow to the facts when it is no longer possible to change them through diplomacy or strength.

Kissinger-Macron: the association is probably not to the taste of the French head of state, whose country assumes the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union until the end of June. Macron is a convinced European. He tirelessly pleads for European strategic autonomy, which would allow the continent to escape the American military grip. [...]

And yet: Macron has indeed been doing his Kissinger for a few days. He continues to talk on the phone with Putin. He makes sure that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, at his side on the phone, is on the same wavelength. He held firm in the face of criticism from his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. Because Macron, like Kissinger, believes the tipping point for war in Ukraine is approaching.

Did Emmanuel Macron read the works of the German academic who emigrated before the war and became Secretary of State of the United States? Likely. Everything, in any case, agrees in the approach of the two men. Macron knows that Russia, also locked in the violent dictatorial spiral of Vladimir Putin, is inescapable, just as Kissinger, in the 1970s, knew that Washington had to negotiate with the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse Tung. And Macron, like Kissinger once with Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, understood that the balance of power in favor of Moscow can be delayed, but not reversed.

In Vietnam, this awful war waged by the United States in the Far East in the name of the “domino theory” – to protect the non-Communist countries of the region – Kissinger understood when Richard Nixon came to power in 1969, that his rice paddy war would never be won. He therefore worked, without pity for the Cambodian and Vietnamese civilian populations, to prepare his country to lose it by inflicting the maximum number of losses on his enemy.

Let's transpose this scheme to Ukraine and the French logic shines through: today everything must be done to increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow. But we must also, with lucidity, lead Ukraine to consider a solution other than the continuation of an unequal fight.

Kissinger was booed in the United States. His name remains synonymous with crimes committed for the sole benefit of American power. Emmanuel Macron is, fortunately, not in this position. France's military support for Ukraine, exemplified by the delivery of several powerful Caesar cannons, is in unison with the rest of the EU member countries. But let's look at the facts: equip without sending fighters... This is exactly what Kissinger's United States did in South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973.

Henry Kissinger ended the war. He thus allowed his country not to find itself confronted simultaneously with the former USSR and China. In Davos in recent days, the very old man has only repeated his doctrine: military one-upmanship can be an effective means of better negotiating. It does not allow, when the imbalance of forces is colossal (as is the case in Ukraine, against Russia), to reverse the situation.

Emmanuel Macron has not yet been to Kyiv. It is rumored that he could go there to deliver the last speech of the French rotating presidency of the European Union, at the end of June. It would be a clever and meaningful gesture. He has to take that risk. [...]

Apart from the superficial comparison to Kissinger, the only piece of substance in that warbling blob of text is this:

Today everything must be done to increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow. But we must also, with lucidity, lead Ukraine to consider a solution other than the continuation of an unequal fight. — Olivier5

And if so - what seems to be the issue, exactly?

...only for Biden to be like "yes we are trying to get rid of Putin" on national TV... — Streetlight

Consider Putin's involvement in America's 2016 election, and maybe you'd understand this attitude. Whether or not the actions, which are a manifestation of the attitude, are justifiable, is another question.