Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else? — Isaac
What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine? — Isaac
Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics. — Isaac
It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever. — Isaac
If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer
Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff. — Isaac
Relates to my questions above... — Isaac
2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac
since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer
There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups. — Christoffer
why do you even talk about this in the way you do? — Christoffer
It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. — Christoffer
What intelligence? — Christoffer
it is an impossible demand to be met — Christoffer
Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons — Christoffer
Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link — Isaac
It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me. — Isaac
One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac
One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? — neomac
Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? — Isaac
Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? — Christoffer
One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac
So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO). — neomac
By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." — boethius
You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it? — Isaac
If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda. — Christoffer
I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. — Christoffer
This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.
"""
The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.
Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
""" — NOS4A2
Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. — Christoffer
This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal? — boethius
What harm could a lost, pointless war could do to the leadership that instigated it? A lot. After losing the Falklands War and not getting the "Malvinas" back, the junta in Argentina was deposed. After the disastrous war against the West after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein faced an insurrection both in the north and the south, that he succeeded only barely crushing. Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin, so likely he would simply call it quits before that would happen. The fact is that Ukraine is in no condition to militarily crush Russia like let's say Israel did in the Six Day War. Victory for Ukraine is to fight Russia into a standstill.1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there? — Isaac
He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable.2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac
This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?
— boethius
No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer
He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. — ssu
No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer
I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion
There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. — FreeEmotion
Who knows. I assume at least securing a land bridge to Crimea and at least getting the parts of Donbas that are now "independent states". He cannot retreat now from assisting the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, that likely later will join the Russian Federation afterwards. And if Ukraine opts for peace and accepts that they are now Russia, that would be a victory for him. A Pyrrhic, quite meaningless victory, but still a victory.ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real? — Benkei
They are smart and learn a lot from their parents. I haven't talked about the war with my daughter. But she came next to me and drew a heart with an Ukrainian flag. Her best friend has close family in Ukraine.Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei
She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei
It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer
Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin — ssu
He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable. — ssu
> You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table. — neomac
Russia wasn't broken up. The Soviet Union, the successor to the Russian Empire collapsed. Ukrainians aren't Russians, Lithuanians are not Russians, Estonians are not Russians, Kazakhs are not Russian, Uzbeks are not Russian and so on...His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion
Would he? If he is surrounded by generals promising that Ukraine will fall in days, that Kiev will be conquered in hours, and that the armed forces that he has been uprgrading and improving since 2008 is totally ready, he might think the gamble is worth it. He might think that Ukraine will just improve it's defenses as time goes on, that the US is in dissarray with a weak President who just unceremoniously withdrew from Afghanistan when the Pro-US government had already collapsed.If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. — FreeEmotion
I don't think so.Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis. — FreeEmotion
First I think you should define just what Putin losing would mean.I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling. — Isaac
Why do leaders need this? Simply to portray to their own people that they are doing the right thing. Or in this case, all the other options have been used and they cannot do anything else than a "special military operation" against neo-nazis.Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need? — Isaac
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.