So very true. Unfortunately. The mentality is already there, it just needs the right conditions.
I don't see this being stopped anytime soon... — Amity

This is why I earlier said that Putin needs to be put down. Whatever the outcome of the current war, he is such a big threat to the world that there's no point in dragging this out keeping the world in jeopardy. There's no point in having the ideal of pacifism or diplomacy when someone is literally holding the hand on the button of nuclear war.

Black ops, intel, infiltration, whatever it takes. Remove him and his oligarchs before his current embarrassment turns him into a ticking time bomb. The only problem is that we don't know where he is exactly. Maybe anonymous could hack the nuclear codes to aim at his location instead.

What is it about a request for a book summary you find to be flaming? — Isaac

And now gas lighting. Look back in the thread, I already gave a summary. If you have specific questions, ask.

You don't need to pretend any such thing. — Amity

Then what exactly do you think is happening here? It's coming across as a concerted effort to render all mention of the far right problem in Ukraine and it's relevance to the history of the conflict as off limits. Pointing out there are Neo-Nazi elements is "disgusting", noting how US and UK willingness to ignore it for political gain gave Putin ammunition makes me an apologist for the invasion.

So to what extent exactly do we 'not need to pretend'? What context remains open in which the relevance of the far right to this situation can be discussed?

You need to read carefully what has been said and not take things out of context and misrepresent.

Look back in the thread, I already gave a summary. — frank

You've given no such summary to me. I don't read all the posts. If you've already summarised you might just link to the post. Otherwise, as I said, the fact that someone who agrees with you wrote as much in a book is pretty much the minimum threshold I expect for someone commenting on the matter, not the conversation-ending coup de grâce you treated it as.

Pointing out there are Neo-Nazi elements is "disgusting" — Isaac

The problem is that you appeared to be labelling all the Ukrainians resisting Russian attack as neo-Nazis, which is stupid and offensive, even if you were just trying to redress the balance.

Indeed.

This is why I earlier said that Putin needs to be put down — Christoffer

You're saying this without having considered possible consequences. Suppose we declare March 15, the Ides of March, All Tyrants' day. What then? Who or what will follow Putin in Russia? Do you have any idea? Would it become a fairly elected republic or would it be an Augustus or a Caligula?

The problem is that you appeared to be labelling all the Ukrainians resisting Russian attack as neo-Nazis, which is stupid and offensive, even if you were just trying to redress the balance. — jamalrob

Yes, I realise that. Not my best judged response, but I did make it clear in the very next post, so why it's still being used in lieu of any substantial argument about the topic is beyond me.

Anyone who wants to univite me from their dinner party arrangements for fear of further ill-judged comments would be quite within reason doing so.

But anyone who wants to fling mud at every position I've taken here on the basis of one porly judged comment, clarified within minutes, has misunderstood the nature of internet discussion boards.

I take it you’re here just to cheer on one side in the war?* I suppose part of the point I was making before is that the demands for condemnation are nothing but demands for people to declare allegiance in a battle of good guys against bad guys. It’s an extension of the war into the forum and it’s completely pointless.

See, now you’ve got me angry, by agreeing with me no less.

* EDIT: actually I now see that I’ve attacked you unfairly here, because the post I was responding to was Isaac’s reply to you.

Thanks for clarifying. I’ll leave it to others to further hound you if they feel (possibly rightly) that you haven’t sufficiently corrected yourself, or repented.

I think I've made my point of view clear.
Did I agree with you :chin:
That can't be right!

Agreed

:smirk:

You're saying this without having considered possible consequences. Suppose we declare March 15, the Ides of March, All Tyrants' day. What then? Who or what will follow Putin in Russia? Do you have any idea? Would it become a fairly elected republic or would it be an Augustus or a Caligula? — magritte

Was this the case with Hitler? To think about what comes after and therefore not act? Of course there will be consequences, they are extreme consequences.

The best scenario would be to remove him, let's say eliminate him and the oligarchs. Then seize their money to a fund for rebuilding both Ukraine and changing Russia's political landscape. Next step would be to remove state propaganda sources, shut down media with state ties and give the void to independent media outlets to become official. Then, seize all nuclear weapons to remove the risks of rogue nukes. Then, initiate a republic leader, a president that has support from a large portion of the people of Russia. So far, that would be freeing Navalny and install him as the president. This is a temporary solution in order to build-up a proper democratic function. This is always a problem in nations that didn't have ideas of freedom and democracy within the population, but a large portion of Russia's people want to have a proper democracy, Navalny wouldn't have the support he had if there wasn't an underlying will to have this kind of state. Over the course of a few years, the development will be monitored by the world in order to push down anyone who sees the void after Putin as an invite to do the same.

Of course, this is the best scenario possible, but an immediate threat of nuclear war is more critical to push down than what comes after. It is the final type of threat, there's nothing worse than it so anything after Putin cannot be worse than nuclear war.

The best scenario would be to remove him, let's say eliminate him and the oligarchs. Then seize their money to a fund for rebuilding both Ukraine and changing Russia's political landscape. Next step would be to remove state propaganda sources, shut down media with state ties and give the void to independent media outlets to become official. Then, seize all nuclear weapons to remove the risks of rogue nukes. Then, initiate a republic leader, a president that has support from a large portion of the people of Russia. So far, that would be freeing Navalny and install him as the president. This is a temporary solution in order to build-up a proper democratic function. This is always a problem in nations that didn't have ideas of freedom and democracy within the population, but a large portion of Russia's people want to have a proper democracy, Navalny wouldn't have the support he had if there wasn't an underlying will to have this kind of state. Over the course of a few years, the development will be monitored by the world in order to push down anyone who sees the void after Putin as an invite to do the same — Christoffer

Who do you see carrying out this magnificent plan?

Thanks for editing your post.
The fog of war, eh?

I’ll leave it to others to further hound you if they feel (possibly rightly) that you haven’t sufficiently corrected yourself, or repented. — jamalrob

Of course.

But perhaps four days ago when I actually made the comment to these exact same group of participants might have been a more appropriate time to do so as opposed to four days later when someone (quite rightly) points out the offense-taking opportunities it is fecund with!

not the conversation-ending coup de grâce you treated it as. — Isaac

You asked me for a source. I gave it.

Putin's vision for Russia is as an independent regional power. He wants Russia to be a peer of America and China, under the umbrella of the UN. That's what he's steering his country toward.

He arrived at that vision after being rejected by both NATO and the EU. Under his rule, Russia has prospered by privatizing industry. A white collar middle class has emerged. But they're now heading into stagnation because they haven't been investing in future growth.

It's not clear how they'll navigate out of the present situation and on top of that, Putin has an odd legitimacy problem. His power supposedly rests on the fact that he was elected, but at this point the elections are very overtly rigged. The Russian system allows the president to control the constitution, so Putin has basically made himself a dictator for life. He hasn't cultivated a successor, but one assumes he eventually will.

As things evolve in Russia with some degree of uncertainty, the US stands opposed to them for various reasons. Some of it is just historic tension, some of it is that the neoliberal organism is always hungry for someone to exploit, and some of it is that a dictator is always going to show up as a monster in the American culture.

Nevertheless, the US is not as focused on Europe now as they once were. They're more interested in China. Though Biden may place importance on what Russia is doing, some commentators expect the animosity to drop off after Biden leaves office. He's from the Cold War, so I guess we can expect him to act like that's still where we are.

Now Putin's put nuclear forces on "high alert".

Wtf. This is madness, total lunacy.

Now Putin's put nuclear forces on "high alert". — Manuel

You should hide under your desk.

Who do you see carrying out this magnificent plan? — jamalrob

Most likely a covert op by the US initially. Then an alliance of US troops with troops from European nations (not through NATO, but each nation's regular army) to seize the nuclear weapons and keep civil war from escalating. The pressure on the temporary leadership of Russia to stand down arms, retreat Russian forces from Ukraine, and all nuclear orders to stand down immediately.

The remaining forces and people over the long-term change in Russia would be UN forces and personnel.

I see. Cool plan!

Oh, and when exactly did Russia start "bombing and annexing their country"? Was is before or after the government was overthrown by a US backed coup? — Isaac

US-backed... — Isaac

...put Neo-Nazis... — Isaac

...in power in Ukraine — Isaac

I'll do it just once, not to convince Isaac, but to counter the misinformation. Anyone interested can read more about those events online.

What happened in 2013-2014 was confusing and messy, but calling it a "coup" is tendentious and misleading. In the end, right after signing an accord with opposition representatives, for reasons that to this day are not entirely clear, Yanukovych and key members of his administration fled the capital and soon fetched up in Russia. (Yanukovych fled on the day when Russia initiated its "special operation" in Crimea.) In the ensuing constitutional crisis, the parliament, where Yanukovych had lost support, appointed a transitional administration and scheduled early elections.

The US had rather little to do with all this. The talks between Yanukovych and the opposition were brokered by EU members - and Russia (although the Russian representative refused to sign the final declaration). But that was the culmination of months of protests and violence, leading to a massacre of some 100 people by unidentified snipers (which I believe was the point of no return.) Contrary to how Russian propaganda likes to present it, the West had little to do with how mass protests started, spread and escalated. I know this, because I was following those events; I had traveled to Ukraine before and after those events; I have Ukrainian friends, some of whom took part in the protests or supported them from abroad.

What did the US do? As that leaked phone call between the US ambassador and Nuland shows (which Isaac is holding up as evidence), they followed the events, they fretted over who would take power after Yanukovych, they jockeyed for influence - because of course they would. None of that amounts to a "US backed coup." Although I can see how that fits in with the popular narrative: US had backed coups and toppled regimes elsewhere, so the same must have happened in Ukraine. And look - here is something that sort of confirms this story (conveniently supplied by Russian intelligence).

The similarities between the way Russian authorities and people like Isaac think are striking. Both think that nothing happens but for the will of agents of great powers, such as US. A pro-Russian government fell in Ukraine? Surely, it must have been a US backed coup. There is no way that ordinary people could have accomplished something like that. Putin and other autocrats like him think that they know their people, and they despise them. They refuse them any agency of their own. The masses can be led by a strong hand (theirs, of course), or else they can be manipulated by malign foreign powers. For all their nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric, they actually hold foreigners in much higher regard than their own people.


@ssu has addressed the neo-Nazi canard, but I'll just add that I am generally not a fan of Ukrainian politics (neither the present administration, nor the ones before it), and I am well aware of far-right nationalists and their involvement in it. (Although, considering that the country has been at war for its independence with a regime that refuses to recognize it as an nation, I am surprised at how limited that involvement has been.) But to casually smear all people defending their country against an invasion as "neo-Nazis" is really low.

Ha.

Maybe I am being paranoid or alarmist or whatever.

But I think this ought to be taken extremely seriously. I can understand why most people believe that these weapons just won't be used, it would be way too costly.

But I'm not as confident.

But I think this ought to be taken extremely seriously. I can understand why most people believe that these weapons just won't be used, it would be way too costly.

But I'm not as confident. — Manuel

No one in their right mind would use nuclear weapons today... Putin is not in his right mind.

That's the clearest argument for why this is really serious.

Yeah...

Someone needs to step on the breaks.

Good stuff, thanks.

I'll do it just once, not to convince Isaac, but to counter the misinformation. Anyone interested can read more about those events online. — SophistiCat

Thanks again for sharing relevant information so clearly.
It helps me better understand.

Call me a knowledge nihilist. A denier of expert analysis. A refuser of believing in speculative results. When it comes to international politics.

Need I go any farther?

According to Wittgenstein, no person's motivation can be accurately guessed by others. Wittgenstein did not prove this, but the notion has been accepted by thinkers.

In international politics and diplomacy people hide their agendas. We can't guess where Peter Sommers, a given house realtor will be next Tuesday, and he has an agenda of events. How can we guess where Putin will put out next Tuesday, and what and why and when he will do that? HE HIDES HIS MOTIVATION. We couldn't guess if he did not hide that. But we think??? that now that he hides it, we are smart enough to accurately guess it?

My opinion goes beyond this war. It reaches all kinds of political moves. Putin and this war just was just an example to illustrate my point.

That's why people are prone and able to believe in conspiracy theories: there is no way to tell (philosophically speaking, in the vein of Hume's system of what's known and what's knowable) which theory is right. If I say space goats from Io, from Jupiter's third moon, are eating up the Ukrain's army reserves, I can't prove it, but you also can't prove it to me why the war started, why it's continuing, and how it will end.

===============

Question: do you think rejecting ALL (not just some) possible scenarios is a valid proposition in this war, and in any other? Do you think people are capable of logically determine the course of war? I should think not, and any talk about it may be interesting, entertaining and thought-provoking to some, but ultimately there is no way of telling ahead of time.