Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent. — Apollodorus
I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right .... — Apollodorus
Barack Obama calls for 'world without nuclear weapons' during historic visit to Hiroshima
He called for the world to embrace the notion of a "single human family" to move beyond conflict — The Independent
A settlement is possible if Russia's legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account, including the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the demilitarisation of the Ukrainian state and ensuring its neutral status
What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? — FreeEmotion
In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces. — FreeEmotion
Electing to go to war can be a decision to fight an enemy who is about to kick your ass or a phantasy like Hitler dreamed. — Paine
For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte
It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. — ChatteringMonkey
For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte
I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat. — Metaphysician Undercover
But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea — Apollodorus
Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi. — Apollodorus
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out — The Beatles
On December 30, 2016, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine signed into law a decree that restricts import of books into Ukraine from Russia.
According to the law, a person can bring at most 10 Russian books without a permit. Unauthorized distribution of books from Russia is under a penalty — Wikipedia
The Denazificatiom claim of Putin is valid. The Azov battalion is a neo-nazi right wing militia and an actual unit of the Ukrainian national guard. In the eastern Ukraine, the neo nazi battalion was deployed without reservation to quell pro Russian sympathizers and by "quell", l mean torturing separatist, killing children, forcing people to speak Ukrainian and spreading Russophobia. — Eskander
What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine? — ssu
I don't know, but I know that the only advantage of blaming the West for this war, is to exculpate Putin. — Olivier5
Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.
...Western (especially US) leaders continued to blow through red warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway with a vengeance.
History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that Nato expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. We are now paying the price for the US foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.
This is a stupid thing to say, said only by stupid people. — StreetlightX
None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage. They're old-fashioned that way.
Thank you.I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. — Isaac
Then hopefully history will later tell that! But do notice that what is lacking is the smoking gun showing that indeed there was a far greater role than we know now. For example, if you could show that the US assisted the Svoboda-party in the 2012 elections, then things like that would make your argument more credible.It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also. — Isaac
Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”
You remember what the first phase of the Revolution of Dignity, the student protest were called? The EuroMaidan. The time when Ukrainians were waving flags of the EU. And this still has an obvious link to the present, where President Zelensky wants that Ukraine would be accepted part of the EU. This urge to be part of the West is obvious in Ukraine. In 2014 it was basically only a quite normal trade agreement, the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, that caused Russia to pressure Ukraine and Yanukovich to back down from the agreement.There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). — Isaac
The number of influential and knowledge people in the West who understood that what the West was doing would lead to fucking tragedy, is mind boggling. Yet utter morons who are totally fixated on Putin as a personality - while ignoring decades of history and politics - would like to sanctify a West which very well knew its own role in bringing this about: — StreetlightX
Conventional wisdom argues that Ukraine should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons to ensure peace and stability in Europe. This is quite wrong. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, Washington should have encouraged Kiev to fashion its own secure nuclear deterrent. The dangers of Russian-Ukrainian rivalry bode poorly for peace. If Ukraine is forced to maintain a large conventional army to deter potential Russian expansion, the danger of war is much greater than if it maintains a nuclear capability. U.S. policy should recognize that Ukraine, come what may, will keep its nuclear weapons.
The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. Negotiating with Putin from a platform asserting that he's a madman with no legitimate strategic interests at all, and America are as pure as the driven snow with only the poor Ukrainian civilians in their minds is doomed to fail, and the result of a failed negotiation is more people dying.
The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict. — Isaac
A fact that the Western media seem only too willing to paint over in favour of the Disney version (bad man suddenly invades united, peace-loving nation of brave heroes). — Isaac
ust for a few members of a neo-nazi command you do not have to bomb all Ukrainian cities... I think we are mixing up some issues here.
Those "nazis" fight in the invaded area by Russians. They are like militias. Nothing related to an average citizen.
In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. I think this is the worst part — javi2541997
None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked.
The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO.
The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it. They're old-fashioned that way. — jamalrob
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.