I think it's so also. Even on the interview t hat a former prime minister that I referred on page 55 thought this. And Putin has made similar statements earlier. At least she made it quite dramatic.

That's what I'm talking about. So many people simply refuse to look at the matter from Russia's perspective. — baker

Like, uh, many here refuse to look at matters in Central America and the Caribbean from the US perspective??? :roll:

I think many do refuse to look at that perspective and call imperialism imperialism. When the perpetrator is the US.

Suddenly with Russia they "understand". Or they don't care. It's not their problem, or something.

there is just their own perspective, which is The Truth, and all else is wrong. — baker

Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. Are they wrong?

You can understand the perspective, but you don't have to agree with it.

Ukraine Acknowledges Racist Treatment Of Africans Fleeing Russian Invasion - HuffPost — Apollodorus

Incidentally, I've always been amazed at the number of people in developing countries who studied in Kiev and Moscow. The soviets must have trained thousands of medical doctors, chemists, geographers, agronomists, veterinarians, entomologists, journalists and political scientists, etc etc in places like Indian sub continent, latin America, Africa.... That's a massive contribution to these nations' development when you think of it.

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. — Apollodorus

But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.

(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)


Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences.

Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. — ssu

They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing.

These and many other stories belong to myths spread on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok and are viewed millions of times (one of them 24+m times) across the globe. — Apollodorus

There are all sorts of fake news being spread including by the victims of course. I was reading earlier about a village north of Odessa (Datchne) where there was some bombing. Most villagers attributed the bombing to Russian forces given the current bombing of Odessa, but some of the victims blamed the Ukrainian forces for it... So the 'blame game' happens even under the bombs!

So it does look like mankind cannot live without myth. Ancient mythologies are being swapped for new and people seem to be only too happy to live in a make-believe world shaped by narratives churned out by the global mass media ….

These conditions are extreme and a people besieged and without official information will find hope where they can. So yes, people need to lionize their nation with all sorts of myths, ok ok, but they do need it under the bombs a lot more than when living in peace.

Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice. — FreeEmotion

It only takes one freeloader, one person who doesn't want this brotherhood of men, and the whole project collapses.

They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing. — baker

No. There are pacifists in this World. I'm not one of them, but anyway.

Simply to put it, one doesn't have to choose sides. When one actor does something wrong, it should be condemned. If it does something right, that should be acknowledged.

For many that is far too hard to do. If they condemn one side, they have to condemn everything it does. As if their prior condemnation is meaningless if they acknowledge that something has been done right.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. 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.

So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question. — Isaac

I think this also has to do with what I call "modern city people". I live in a rural area that is rapidly undergoing suburbanization and gentrification. People from the city are moving here, building their homes (destroying first-grade arable land and forests!). The older culture of mostly farmers is rapidly disappearing, along with its dialect. The new people show a remarkable lack of consideration for others. Earlier on, everyone would greet everyone when meeting in the street. Now it's like in the city, it's normal to walk around with a grim face, silently. Even neighbors don't greet.

An example from traffic: There are many hills here, the roads are old and narrow, with many sharp curves, steep slopes. In many places the road is too narrow for two cars to meet, but there are occasional niches built where one car can move to the side for the other to pass. To the "old settlers", it's normal to take this into consideration and to drive in such a way as the narrow roads permit, so that everyone is safe. But not the new ones. They just drive, like they own the road. They have no qualms about endangering others.

These modern people apparently have a very limited understanding of what it means to live together with others, as neighbors. I see this reflected also in the way Russia's intentions have been interpreted by so many. This modern idea of "I'm going to live as I please, others be damned, and if they don't like it, that's their problem".

That's just not the way to live with other people, with neighbors. But these modern people just don't understand this.

There are all sorts of fake news being spread including by the victims of course. — Olivier5

But then there is the actual war that is bloody. And too much video materiel which isn't fake. If this war continues on with similar intensity as now, this will be a very bloody war. If so much destruction in one week, how much then in two. Or three. Or in a month or two. Or a year.

Photos from the battle of Kharkiv:



start looking eerily similar to photos from the battles of Kharkov:





The case of a million refugees might also be correct. That's a large portion of 44 million.

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression?

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression? — frank

In my view a global recession has been on the works for a long time. But now, if you want to have one reason for such complex phenomenon as a global depression in such a complex multipolar World, I guess this is it.

Btw as I said to @Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner.

Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon.

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression? — frank

No, not a global depression. It will give everyone dependent on gas and oil, and in some ways wheat a huge problem, but at the same time, it will boost the need for renewables to be developed. But even that will take years if the decision is that they need to do it now. But an example is Germany who's now beginning to change course, thinking of steering away from Nordstream altogether. If we're gonna weigh global warming as a factor of a future massive global problem, to this, then the sanctions might sting the world hard in the short run, but may also push for a faster change that the world would have to do anyway.

Actually, this is a bigger problem for Russia overall. They rely so heavily on exporting oil and gas that whenever the world has turned away from that they have nothing but wheat, and we don't know how climate change will affect Russian farms for that either so they might lose that as well.

They have to become a nation that relies on trade and has other global functions than resources. They would have to focus on things like tech development. But that requires a much more open society that works as a global hub of such knowledge. To reach that kind of society in the future, they have to let go of corruption, propaganda, and old empire dreams. It's impossible to function with the current standards.

So if the sanctions hit hard now, the future will hit harder on Russia.

Btw as I said to Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner. — ssu

Today our government had closed talks about the military strategy going forward. Many mentioned how we need to speed up to reach the 2% of GDP which I'm not sure is needed but at least recommended by NATO in order to become a member. I think however that in the current situation, NATO need to drop that number in order to let Finland and Sweden in fast, so what I think is going on right now is that there might be an agreement already "signed", but not official with the promise that Sweden will eventually reach 2% in 2024 or 2025. This way Sweden can show the numbers to NATO as a planned expansion in order to be let in earlier than a proper 2% reach.

But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO."

Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon. — ssu

He can be angry, but at least we're no sitting ducks anymore. He brought this on himself by invading Ukraine. He turned me into a pro-NATO person. That's a failure in itself on his part.

But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO." — Christoffer

Yes. I think it has to go like that.

It will be more of a multilateral declaration. I think even the US and NATO have learned that by now.

Notice that when the Finnish President is meeting with Biden, the both of our foreign ministers have a meeting with NATO.

NATO press release:

An extraordinary meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs will take place at the NATO Headquarters on Friday 04 March. The meeting will be in person and will be chaired by the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Sweden, as well as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign And Security Policy, will take part.

But it really puts those Russian fighters near Gotland into context. As at the same time at the western side of Gotland both Finland and Sweden were having military exercises, 4 military aircraft just happened to get a bit lost?



All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen.

All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen. — ssu

MUST (Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service) also came out and said that the behavior of those fighter jets was not normal. They flew directly in line with our borders and at the time of passing Gotland, they did a deliberate steer into our borders close to Gotland before turning away after our response fighters caught up and took pictures of them.

It was deemed by MUST to be a clear deliberate act of aggression, as a message to Sweden. Probably because we might join NATO and also for helping Ukraine.

If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. If they don't want us to join NATO, they shouldn't be this stupid, now they're probably just sealing the deal for us.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe. — frank

Or may make it function well, just not at the elite level at which Western countries aspire to be.
In the long run, this may actually be better, and ecologically more sustainable.

It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it. — FreeEmotion

The Ukraine.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker

Maybe they just don't want to be ruled by an authoritarian leader? Maybe they've been fighting their own corruption for a while now and don't want to flip that on its head? Maybe they felt like they wanted something else? I mean, maybe they wanted to form a society based on western standards more? Maybe the principles of staying independent and forming their own future were so strong that it's worth it to defend against Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency. — baker

But is this the case though? A nation that is finding its own path and hasn't been doing it for more than 30 years might need more time to solidify its modern core culture and values?

It's like if Norway, after the breakup with Sweden, were invaded by us 30 years later with the argument: "look at them, they can't make it, they're barely a functioning nation, we shall fix them with stability". But Norway grew to surpass us in their economy, mainly through their oil, but still, we don't view them as "us", we view them as brothers, just like many do between Russia and Ukraine. And this might be why I have such a hard time seeing the need for Putin's actions here. Sweden and Norway have an extremely good relationship, with a trade that's almost better than within the EU, even though they're not part of the EU. Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".

Russia will also be cast off the world stage in every other regard. — Hanover

To which they have never been truly accepted to begin with.

Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. — Christoffer

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries.

They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. — Christoffer

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars.

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries. — baker

Then they need to focus on other aspects, like forming a tech industry with engineering educations and similar. Maybe even semiconductor facilities etc.

It is possible to build first-world standards even without a geographical area high in natural resources. But you need more time than 30 years of instability. It's like, they've just gone into a form of stability, or working to stabilize the nation, and then Putin bombs the shit out of them.

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia. — baker

Why is Ukraine being neutral important to them if they don't want to control Ukraine? Russia can say whatever they want about what they want with Ukraine, but in the end, they want control over them. Either by them being part of Russia or as a puppet state.

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

Yes, agreed. But that point also counters your point about Ukraine not having anything to warrant higher living standards. Why would Russia force itself into a nation that doesn't really have anything of value? Other than an obsession with redrawing borders?

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars. — baker

But this point hasn't really come to pass yet. There are enough resources still in this world to sustain it a while longer, for many nations.

But it WILL be the conflict of the future. When climate change has created unsustainable living conditions in some places of the world, we will have a refugee crisis that is unprecedented in history. At that time, we will have a shortage of resources... and that will be the source of an extreme world conflict, possibly the true world war 3.

Russian troops must be the most stupid people in the world after shelling the biggest power plant in Europe so that it’s now burning and fire fighters can’t get to it because they’re fired upon when they try.

If the winds go east, then Putin might fuck Russia up in more ways than he had imagined.

Seriously, this is the most stupid thing I’ve seen. :shade:

Day 9 ...

... maybe damage one or more of Ukraine's active nuclear power plants ... — 180 Proof

https://m.dw.com/en/ukraine-fire-breaks-out-at-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-live-updates/a-61007081 :death:

Is this the nuclear option?

Some disambiguation is needed here. A lie is not the same thing as a myth. A theory, true or mistaken, isn't myth. The idea that disease was spread through a 'miasma' or bad air is a mistake, not a myth. Misperception isn't a lie or myth: it's a mistake. "Is it a bird? A plane? A drone? No, it's Super Putin." Lies, misperception, hearsay, rumors, misinformation, unrecognized fact, wishful thinking, etc. are all part of 'the fog of war'.

Russian planes flying over Kiev? – FAKE — Apollodorus

I don't much care whether planes were flying over Kiev or not. Look, wars are not won by a scorecard of facts, fictions, lies, truths, myths, or the like. Wars are won on the ground (with or without air support). Who controls the territory when the war is over?

It would be better if everyone fact checked before they hit 'send', thought first and spoke later, didn't gush BS, observed more carefully, and so on. But hey, humans aren't like that.

Maybe the Ukrainians will fight fiercely enough to end with a draw. Maybe NATO and EU will supply weapons that tip the balance into a Ukrainian win. Maybe a meteorite will smash Moscow, causing Putin to lose focus.

My unhappy guess is that Russia will win on the basis of the preponderance of resources it can bring to bear. I don't like it, mind you.

My unhappy guess is that Russia will win on the basis of the preponderance of resources it can bring to bear. I don't like it, mind you. — Bitter Crank

Win what? Their prize will be a set of problems they never encountered before. So be it.

I do not care who wins if there is peace. So I am truly objective here. I like peace.

Specifically here is my opinion.

1. The United States and to some extent NATO are extremely hostile to Russia, for historical, ideological reasons and because they are stumbling block to US power. The media rhetoric is crudely drummed up to support that end. If you have been watching western media over the last few years, you will know.

2. NATO has been doing what Russia does not want in order establish its power. Russia rightly sees this as a threat:

Ryan Knutson: Why does Putin care so much if NATO is right at the Russian border?

Yaroslav Trofimov: There are two answers to this. One of them is pre-military. I think the more important answer is that he wants to have a sphere of influence. He wants the belt of countries around Russia to be in the Russian domain and provide the security buffer, but also be a place for economic and political domination. And once a country joins NATO, that becomes impossible because he loses this military leverage of over that neighbor because now if he wants pressure Latvia or Estonia, he's actually going to fight himself at war with the United States. — Wall Street Journal article quoted above

3. Sovereign nation: Russia is not the only nation that manufactures glove puppets. According to John J. Mearsheimer, the current situation is the result in coup in Ukraine. Given the coups that have taken place around the world, the only question in my mind is why this could not happen in Ukraine? Those talking about 'covert' operations seem to strangely rule this out.

4.Putin is mad in the American sense, he is angry. I give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a last ditch attempt (at great cost to Russia and his popularity) to preserve Russian sovereignty - was there a better way at ending an 8 year war on its borders and exhaustive negotiations than invasion?

I do not know. I assume that there was no better way to do this.

5. Ukraine will be difficult to govern by Russia. Putin knows this, I am guessing he will let the current leadership stay if they come to an agreement but unlikely since they cannot be trusted (Minsk agreement)

6. I am against all invasions against all countries throughout all history, so I am against the invasions of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, unless there was no better way.

I will respond once and move on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and freedom of conscience.

Here is such an opinion, is this NATO's view?

CBS News senior correspondent in Kyiv Charlie D’Agata said on Friday: “This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilised, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen.” — Al Jaseera

Please show your hand, racists, I the world can and will take you on.

High culture has just demonstrated that it has its own version of more plebeian jingoistic pursuits like "liberty cabbage," "freedom fries" or, today, dumping Russian vodka in the streets. This is not only a crime against art -- though it certainly is that -- but a demonstration of fundamental unseriousness in approaching the actual issues at stake. Russians of all kinds, whether sinful (Valery Gergiev), blameless (the Bolshoi, where the director actually came out against the war), or somewhere in between (Anna Netrebko), are probably well advised to steer clear of Western countries at the moment anyway. In the US, our racism has evolved to the point that Russians are probably not in danger the way Sikhs and Muslims were after 9/11, or Japanese after Pearl Harbor -- but that could well change if things get worse. If I were a praying man, I'd be praying they won't.

Unsurprisingly, most of the types who whine about so called "cancel culture" will say nothing about this, or even approve of it. They will also continue to hold the so-called "liberal democracies" (including Poland? ha!) blameless if the crisis escalates, and all of Europe -- and potentially the world -- once again splits into armed camps.

I promise all of you that this never ends well. Some of us know it, others don't, but all of us will pay the price.

https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2022/03/03/1084177539/anna-netrebko-metropolitan-opera-russia-putin-ukraine

UN vote "to reprimand Russia for invading Ukraine and demanded that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces" ("non-binding")

181/193 participants

141: yes _{(Turkey, ...)}
5: no _{(Russia, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria)}
35: abstain _{(China, India, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, ...)}

"Putin, go home. Have some Vodka. No, Russia ain't about to be invaded by foreign nations."

What does Belarus have against Ukraine anyway?
At least I'm not aware of any threats or some such (except maybe Putin has threatened Lukashenko).



Reuters: U.N. General Assembly in historic vote denounces Russia over Ukraine invasion
Al Jazeera: UN resolution against Ukraine invasion: Full text

Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

All or some?

If you agree there was a coup in Ukraine, how is this democracy? Coups are not democratic, so it was a failure of democracy that started the whole thing? Foreign interference? But that is nothing new.