Slippery slopes?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe

Why then do you question ssu about why he's chosen their side? — Olivier5

You'll find if you want to know something about what I've written, a good start is to read what I've written. I've underlined it, to help your struggles with comprehension.

it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.

You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side. — Isaac

Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections? — ssu

Let's not forget that the election campaign run by Zelensky was mostly virtual using social media channels and YouTube clips, and with the backing of Kolomoisky’s media network.

If you control the media, you control public opinion. Members of Kolomoisky’s party UKROP campaigned as candidates for Zelensky’s party.

By all accounts, Kolomoisky is basically a mobster:

In reality, Kolomoisky is tied to alleged contract killings and armed militias and jaw-dropping bribery. And all of those tools made Kolomoisky, by the mid-2010s, one of the most powerful figures in Ukraine … 'I think Kolomoisky is super-dangerous,' one American diplomat said. 'He was one of the first oligarchs who began to act like a warlord.' … As both Ukrainian investigators and American authorities have detailed, Kolomoisky allegedly oversaw a multi-year, multi-national money laundering scheme meant to loot billions from unsuspecting Ukrainian depositors … The U.S. directly sanctioned Kolomoisky in early 2021, announcing his 'involvement in significant corruption.'

Who is Ihor Kolomoisky? - The Spectator

Though Zelensky and Kolomoisky are supposed to have grown apart since the elections, Kolomoisky’s party continues to support Zelensky’s. And as a matter of fact, Zelensky’s approval ratings as president had sunk to 31% before the conflict.

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - New Statesman

So, I think we can see that he isn't much good as a president and that he is obviously profiting from the conflict ….

he is obviously profiting from the conflict …. — Apollodorus

Positive side> bump in approval ratings; negative> country destroyed and probable assassination by Putin's goons. A quick cost-benefit analysis tells me one of you is incredibly stupid.

Well, as I have nothing to do either with Zelensky or his approval ratings, I doubt very much it's got anything to do with me.

The fact remains though that his approval ratings have reportedly gone up from 31% before to 90% after the conflict. As with anything else in life, you win some and you lose some. In any case, he could have avoided the conflict by accepting Russia's requests, as apparently suggested by Naftali Bennett:

Russia-Ukraine war: 'Bennett wants us to surrender,' says senior Kyiv official - Middle East Eye

PS Incidentally, there seem to be signs that some agreement may be reached within the next few days:

Russia and Ukraine give brightest assessment yet of progress in talks on war – Reuters

The question is whether this could have been done earlier in order to prevent unnecessary death and destruction ...

@ssu and I support what the government of the Ukrainians wants, not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. If Zelensky decides to strike a deal with Putin tomorrow, I will support him too. It's his call, not mine. I've not chosen a side, I respect the will of the Ukrainians themselves.

Here are some other folks who chose their side:

Odesa’s Defense Stiffened by Belarusian Volunteers
STEFANIE GLINSKI FOR FOREIGN POLICY
MARCH 13, 2022, 10:54 AM

For hundreds who fled Minsk’s oppression, Ukraine’s fight has become theirs.

ODESA, Ukraine—As Ukrainian army and territorial defenses resist a Russian invasion that has entered its third week, a small legion of Belarusians has joined the defenders, saying they would like to help combat a regime similar to the one that forced them to flee their own country.

Thousands of Belarusians are estimated to live in Ukraine. Many fled their homes after Belarus’s anti-government demonstrations in 2020 and 2021, which resulted in large-scale crackdowns and mass detentions of protesters. And hundreds are believed to have joined the Ukrainian defense forces so far. The majority of the volunteers work alongside the freshly created territorial defense units or offer auxiliary services.

In the critical Black Sea port city of Odesa, a group of about 20 Belarusian men has been deployed. They say there are about 30 more volunteers in the city. Here, they help secure the city center and are on the lookout for possible Russian saboteurs and spies. They check documents and set up checkpoints, saying they won’t let the Russians enter a city that has become their home as well. For more than a week, Odesa has braced for a Russian assault, including from the Black Sea, that has yet to arrive. In the meantime, residents have stiffened the city’s defenses with old-fashioned tank traps and sandbag barricades. ...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/13/ukraine-belarus-territorial-defense/

ssu and I support what the government of the Ukrainians wants, not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5

Yes. I was asking why.

I respect the will of the Ukrainians themselves. — Olivier5

But you just said...

not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5

...which is it, the will of the Ukrainians as a mass or the will of the Ukrainian government? And if the former, how on earth did you find out, what with there having been no polls, referenda, or election manifestos on the matter?

I'm not in the business of second-guessing commanders-in-chief. What ground do you have to say Zelensky is illegitimate?

I'm not in the business of second-guessing commanders-in-chief. What ground do you have to say Zelensky is illegitimate? — Olivier5

Seriously? You just unquestionably accept whatever any commander in chief decides? When Trump was commander in chief of the United States did you adopt the same unquestioning policy toward his decisions?

So you disagree with Zelensky's policies. I don't. I think he does the right thing and he does it well. So what? Do we need to be at each other's throat for it?

So you disagree with Zelensky's policies. I don't. I think he does the right thing and he does it well. So what? Do we need to be at each other's throat for it? — Olivier5

I don't really care if we're at each other's throats or calmly disagreeing. I prefer the latter but I've little expectation of that from you. What I'm much more interested in is your reasons, which you seem frustratingly reluctant to provide.

First you say it's because you support Ukrainians - then when I point out Ukrainians are not an amorphous mass who all agree, you say it's because you always support whatever the legitimately elected leader thinks - then when I point out that would have applied to Trump you change the subject...

It should be a simple question. Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal?

It's not because "that's what the Ukrainians want", the Ukrainians are not an homogeneous entity all of one mind and you've no way of finding out what they want anyway...

It's not because you just always trust elected leaders to know best, you wouldn't be prepared to extended that principle to an idiot like Trump...

So why?

"This would take us a hundred years back, to the year 1917, and the consequences of such a step would be the global distrust of Russia from investors, it would be felt for many decades," Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin said in a statement Friday on the Telegram messaging app."

from The Hill about sanctions on Russia

What I'm much more interested in is your reasons, which you seem frustratingly reluctant to provide. — Isaac

You see? You are 'frustrated', or pretending to be. Why are you so angry all the time? What do you care soooo much about my reasons? When did you start caring for other folks?

then when I point out that would have applied to Trump you change the subject... — Isaac

Trump was Putin's puppet. He wasn't legitimately elected. You can't compare him with Zelensky.

Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal? — Isaac

Because Putin cannot be trusted, for one. A deal is nothing to him. Because the Ukrainian forces aren't broken yet, for two.

Slippery slopes?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe — jorndoe

At least the sliding has been noticed.

Thus, if the Western liberal democracies—out of an understandable abundance of prudence—declare a priori that they will not engage in a forceful way with military means in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, then there will not be adequate restraint for most authoritarian and autocratic leaders with ambitions of empire. And that applies to more than Russia’s President Putin.

If you think that's bad, you'll be shocked to learn the US government "stockpiles" dangerous pathogens all over the United States, including the last surviving smallpox viruses outside Russia. Not only that, but it partners with the Canadian government to do so in Canada. The UK, Germany, and France all do this to, as does Russia.

Wealthy countries tend to fund labs in poorer ones. France operates a lab in Gabon. Russia helps fund one in Belarus, and is helping with the opening of one in Kazakhstan. It previously contributed to the lab in question.

What possible excuse could they all have for this?

Well, the claim is that emerging new biological threats, such as tuberculosis that is extremely resistant to antibiotics, need to be collected and safely stores. The reason is twofold.

A. So you can test cures (e.g., experimental antibiotics) on them, and;

B. So you can track changes in pathogens, build out a database on lineages, and try to track down the origins of new diseases of note.

Now, B does not necissarily require keeping the pathogen alive, but A does. They do other stuff with live cultures too. You can edit their genome to try to see how potential mutations will effect the virus, you can test out what will make the virus more virulent, so that you can spot dangerous mutations when you see them, and you can also figure out ways to make them less dangerous (which has obvious uses). Note, the point here isn't here isn't to develop a super bug. We don't know enough about pathogens to accurately predict how a change will effect the disease caused by a pathogen. Gain and loss of function tests are used to find out more about what mutations might do to a disease.

These experiments entail growing more of the pathogens and infecting human tissue or animals with them. This is a prerequisite for developing cures. Our current modeling technology is not at a point where you can just get the genome and preform accurate experiments for treatment using a computer simulation.

For obvious reasons, research on the most dangerous pathogens is only done at the very highest security labs. This would not be the Ukraine lab.

These facilities are how new variants of COVID-19 have been identified and vetted so quickly. COVID is very contagious and endemic, so we get tons of data on how new strains effect people from public health systems, but for rarer diseases, growing the pathogen is the only option for learning about it.

The alternative is to know nothing about extremely dangerous diseases, such as Ebola, until there is a major outbreak. I think the last 2 years is a very good case for doing more of this type of research.

Lineage tracking helps determine where an outbreak started, which can aid contact tracing and stopping a pandemic (see MERS and SARS).

There really isn't any reason for the US and USSR to keep smallpox samples. Canadian scientists rebuilt a similar virus, so smallpox could likely be ressurected if necissary for anything.

Weapons samples have generally been destroyed, but some do still exist. The weapons, as I've pointed out, just aren't very useful outside of terrorism.

The reason samples are kept is to be able to trace methods for their production, and in theory, to test countermeasures for them, although I don't think anyone is publicly doing this due to the risks. Having samples of anthrax weaponized in Iraq allowed the US to conclusively show that the anthrax attacks after 9/11 were not from Iraq (or were at least made very differently).

Of course, who the fuck knows what goes on in secret. The Soviets and later the Russians were trying to combine smallpox with other virulent diseases, which caused a scientist to defect, and they also had a few major leaks that killed people, so we know of those ones. The US declassified older projects, so we know of some of those too.

These projects are generally dumb ideas because obviously any super disease will end up in your country too, making them a bad weapon, and they don't make for nearly as good deterrents as nuclear weapons. Mostly, they were created due to too much funding going into defense budgets and people wanting sci-fi weapons. As far as public documentation is concerned, funding stopped less out of moral concerns, than the fact that it wasn't money well spent in terms of effective military weapons.

It would not totally shock me to know that the US makes bioweapons, although if they do it'd probably be in small quantities for research, since there is no use case for them. I'd put to odds fairly low though. There is way more other shit the generals want.

It makes no sense that they would do it in a low security lab in a foreign country with foreign scientists (including Russian ones) though. They have top end biosecurity facilities on a US military bases for that.

I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. — Isaac

As @Olivier5 said, it's up to the Ukrainian government to decide what to accept as terms for armistice or for peace. How Ukrainians perform in the defense of their country will guide what options the government will have. If they accept a deal with Putin, that hopefully should be made from a position of strength: that continuing the war after rebuilding the army, isn't a valid option for Putin. They know far better their situation. Ukrainians have every just reason to defend their country from an hostile invasion. And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread.

And anyway, since you rely far more on the disinformation of Putin, perhaps in your attempt to be "objective", this is quite meaningless.

:up:

At least the sliding has been noticed. — ssu

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking?

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really. — Christoffer

Ending a 200 year old policy that has been so successful that Sweden avoided two World Wars is naturally a big decision for any prime minister. But the fact is that the decision has already been taken. Every shred of neutrality has already basically gone. NATO trains in Sweden and Sweden has participated in NATO operations like in Afghanistan and Libya. Sweden isn't neutral and even Swedes should understand that. Just like we should do ourselves. It's not like during the Cold War when some secret guarantee was done between Sweden and the US.

The thing is that Magdalena is wrong. NATO membership wouldn't destabilize this area. The area has already been destabilized and without NATO membership or bilateral defense treaty, there is a huge opening for Russia to destabilize the situation with both Finland and Sweden. Just consider the possibilities:

a) hybrid attacks: already happening here. Problems with GPS interference in the eastern border and cyberattacks for example against organizations sending aid to Ukraine.

b) hybrid attack II: Sudden flow of refugees to the border like Belarus did with Poland. Was practiced already on the border with Norway and Sweden.

c) Sanctions: Finland could be easily squeezed by oil sanctions. Russian oil is about third to one quarter of Swedish oil imports. To anticipate the effects of an oil embargo from Russia and to get the security of supply to cope with this possibility is needed. Yet this option is declining as both countries are already cutting their ties to Russia.

d) Military actions. Perhaps an naval blockade (like in Ukraine) wouldn't be noticed as an act of war. Perhaps would go down into the category of "special military operations". Or then just sink Finnish / Swedish ships and blame it was done by the Americans as a false flag operation (many would believe that nonsense). Or then the classic invasions of the Gotland and/or Åland Islands. A bit difficult now at the present as everything is in the Black Sea.

The problem is one can throw all kinds of possibilities around what would be the reaction of Russia, but the real fact is that all those options, the most ugly ones, will simply persist and be totally possible with minimal risk for Russia, if our countries just stick our heads into the sand and believe that saying that they are neutral gives them security.

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank

You have to ask from the person directly.

But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist.

If there was a mistake that the US did, it was to promise "in the future" membership of NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. That the Baltic States could get into NATO is a real blessing. But just as I'm discussing with @Christoffer the possibility of NATO membership of our countries, it would be quite dangerous to apply for membership and then get an answer "You will get in sometime in the future". I guess they have learned that now.

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank

Not me, as far as I recall.

Not me, as far as I recall. — jamalrob

The dangers of appeasement? You were offended, weren't you?

If you think that's bad, you'll be shocked to learn the US government "stockpiles" dangerous pathogens all over the United States, including the last surviving smallpox viruses outside Russia. Not only that, but it partners with the Canadian government to do so in Canada. The UK, Germany, and France all do this to, as does Russia. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is a big difference between "stockpiling" 1 small sample of an organism in a very cold freezer and "stockpiling" a few hundred pounds of the organism. There has been a debate in medical/scientific circles about whether the last surviving samples of the Variola virus (small pox) should be destroyed or saved--ever since the disease was eradicated in 1980.

There are some samples of the 1918 influenza virus (which was much worse than Covid-19) which were recovered from a frozen body in Alaska. It might be the case that some thawing human body mighty contain the smallpox virus. In that event, it would be good to have a sample for comparison purposes.

I'm not in favor of keeping a leading killer in the cooler. Eventually, mistakes will be made. The same goes for Poliomyelitis, a disease which (like smallpox) has no non-human animal reservoirs) has been all-but eradicated. Once it's gone, we would have little need for the actual virus.

Well, the claim is that emerging new biological threats, such as tuberculosis that is extremely resistant to antibiotics, need to be collected and safely stores. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Tuberculosis (TB) is hardly an emerging disease. Over the centuries it has been one of the leading causes of death in the world, and still kills about a million people a year. True enough, multi-drug-resistant strains of TB have arisen, along with multi-drug-resistant strains of Gonorrhea and various other disease-causing bacteria.

Anthrax is another disease that has appeared in long-frozen bodies, this time animal corpses. Anthrax Bacteria are very dangerous, though the disease can be treated in many cases.

I don't know which disease would be the ideal candidate for a biological weapon. Besides, nukes are so good at killing people, why invent a biological weapon that once set loose would be impossible to put back into the box. And if we decided that germs were too dangerous, there are always effective gases and high explosives.

But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist. — ssu

The conventional wisdom is that China is supposed to start playing the role of global peace keeper. They want to be a super power, so that goes with the job.

Ah, appeasement. I did take objection to that, yes, because it seemed to be part of the simplistic and hysterical likening of Putin to Hitler that I’d been seeing in the media. That was back in the good old days when I didn’t think Russia would invade, so what do I know?

That was back in the good old days when I didn’t think Russia would invade, — jamalrob

Ah. So you actually thought Joe Biden was lying about that. That kind of blows my mind. Why on earth would you think that?

And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread. — ssu

I believed Putin would not invade. I was wrong. I believe Zelenskyy will give in at some point.

An amendment? (peacekeepers = :up:)

Russia ends its military presence in Ukraine, including Ukrainian airspace
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
the Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member
Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine
Ukraine agrees to UN peacekeepers
if Russia insists on an investigation into bio-facilities in Ukraine, then the same is to take place in Russia (perhaps under WHO/UN supervision)
Russia recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign state
Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine, Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians

The victims of the invasion/bombings are still the Ukrainians on the ground, not Putin or his Kremlin generals, or other Muscovites. — jorndoe

Nor Zelenskky.


The Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member

Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine

That will not work, one country cannot rule on affairs of another sovereign state. Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereignty once before, it can do it again.

Ukraine has to promise to 'postone joining NATO indefinitely' . To put it bluntly, they can make a false promise, and break it, somewhat like the Minsk Agreements. What does he have against lying, really?
Some sort of Non-Agression Pact (NAP) would be nice.

On August 23, 1939, representatives from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union met and signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also called the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact), a mutual promise made by the two leaders guaranteeing that neither would attack the other.

Trump was Putin's puppet. He wasn't legitimately elected. You can't compare him with Zelensky. — Olivier5

Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position.

Because Putin cannot be trusted, for one. — Olivier5

So you can't even try to negotiate with someone you don't trust? The only option is to fight? Don't you think that creates a dangerously antagonist world. Every leader who doesn't trust another ought resort to war rather than settle disputes by talking?

And how do you see this whole 'trust' think playing out? If Putin surrenders and says he'll withdraw all his forces, should Zelensky continue shooting Russian soldiers - after all you can't trust Putin, it might just be a ruse, If Putin offers an Humanitarian corridor (finally), should Zelensky ignore it and take the opportunity to shell Russian positions anyway, after all you can't trust Putin. Are you literally going to ignore all diplomacy in this and just advocate killing as the only option?

Because the Ukrainian forces aren't broken yet, for two. — Olivier5

That seems self-defeating. If you'd only support talks once you've thoroughly exhausted the military option. Isn't the whole point of diplomacy to ensure disagreements are handled exactly the other way around?

If you've no intention of answering the question you can just say so. You don't have to waste your time writing another puff piece.

Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position. — Isaac

And here is the reason never to vote for another president because all their decisions are always right as long as the right process was followed.