Similarly, the impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. Tell you what guys, get your own asses down to Ukraine, do without food, clean water, and heat in the freezing cold while being fucking shot at and then tell us how you want this to go on and on until bad man Putin gives up.

Mariupol 3(!) days ago. Just a few broken bones. Just a David.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/how-russia-is-using-tactics-from-the-syrian-playbook-in-ukraine

“The important lesson from Syria is when military and political victory is their explicit ambition there is pretty much nothing that will cause them to stop except achieving that."

"The woman in labour stared out from the stretcher, as medics rushed her over a wasteland left by a Russian attack on a maternity hospital. In a different hospital and feeling her baby slipping away, she begged doctors: “Kill me now.” Hours later, both she and her child were dead.

The horror of the attack on a maternity hospital in the besieged Ukrainian port city of Mariupol stunned the world. But it was not the first time Russian bombs had fallen on women as they gave birth."

This is fine. Whatever it takes. Because hopefully Putin might be overthrown or something. Eventually.

When the whole country looks like that, the cheerleaders here might actually get bored and change their mind, moving on to the next shiny object to get their armchair kicks from.

impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. — Baden

Absolutely this. These people have been reared on underdog stories their whole life and now that they get a real, live one, oooh boy is it exciting and thrilling for them.

Similarly, the impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. Tell you what guys, get your own asses down to Ukraine, do without food, clean water, and heat in the freezing cold while being fucking shot at and then tell us how you want this to go on and on until bad man Putin gives up. — Baden

Maybe take a break from this for a little bit.

Thanks for the article. Sure is long, but contains some great quotes by Aldous Huxley

For the unhappy few who know the complicated truth about Kosovo, the words of Aldous Huxley seem most appropriate: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall drive you mad.”

What came down to us general populace was "Serbs were the bad guys".

I did some browsing to find the UN records - which have not been edited to prevent thought-crime - had to say about this. I rather trust the non-aligned parties views on the issue rather than the defense made by the perpetrators. The agreement is mentioned also in passing.

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/kos%20SPV3988.pdf

Most recently, the parties were convened at an
international peace conference in Rambouillet, where they were urged to abandon their maximalist positions and accept an honourable compromise for peace. Ultimately,
the Kosovars demonstrated courage and vision by signing the Rambouillet peace agreement. The only holdout was the Yugoslav President, who refused to move from his utterly intransigent position. — UN Report - Canadian Representative

The NATO attacks have been made against my
country only because Yugoslavia, as a sovereign and independent State, refuses to allow foreign troops to occupy its territory and to reduce its sovereignty — Mr. Jovanovic (Yugoslavia)´:

The attacks against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that started a few hours ago are in clear violation of Article 53 of the Charter. — Mr. Sharma (India):

I will go with that. Of course that applies to President Putin's actions as well, according to this much revered concept, although Russia did mention something about preventing genocide.

Maybe there's a difference between having no choice and thinking you have no choice. — Srap Tasmaner

You missed out the possibility that certain forces felt that they had no choice but to provoke Russia into this military operation as they say, and keep fueling it.

It all depends on what your end game is. If you like starting wars and keeping them going, like a sort of international pyromaniac then that is what you will do. Helps clear the forest.

The Guardian uses tactics from the propaganda playbook: highlight a few horror stories from the war, to inflame public fury against the perpetrator of this unforgivable act. I don't recall any stories on other victims of war in other, less valuable places of the earth.

bayonet him — FreeEmotion

You can do anything you like with bayonets, except sit on them. — Talleyrand

Way back when, East Germans wanted to flee to West Germany, but weren't allowed to. West Germans didn't want to "flee" to East Germany, but were largely allowed to, as far as West Germany was concerned anyway.
So, a sort of asymmetry or imbalance, if you will.
With Gorbachev and the wall/curtain coming down, all that, there were concerts, busses of young people going to Russia for friendship (I know some personally), a sort of fresh optimism was going 'round, "enough with all the :vomit: posturing, let's party and be friends".

If I were to have a vision for Russia, it might be a place where people wanted to go — no, not (necessarily) to escape Interpol. :) Say, with good accessible educational resources (for children, researchers), job and business opportunities, fair general safety and health support, reasonable freedom, increased trust, whatever, ... (came to mind while typing). But that seems different from Putin's vision for/of Russia, going by his actions at least. Authoritarianism, imposition, dreams of an empire, power, corruption, assassinations, ☢ posturing, stomping freedom, ... Not really a dream destination for a family.

Someone should put together a Putin versus Gandhi game, maybe like a board game or something. :) However much I admire the staunch pacifism, I'm guessing Gandhi would be Putin's laughing stock. :fire:
The Ukrainians aren't really pacifists (when invaded) as far as I can tell, despite faced by a heavy-duty ☢ ☣ :death: (and other arms) force.

Anyway, I can't tell if Zelenskyy has a vision for Ukraine in the sense above. Could Ukraine become a place where people wanted to go? If Putin and his are caught in a geo-political-cultural thing, then what of the Ukrainians? They don't seem inclined to Gandhian pacifism, nor "Putinism", though many are Russian-speakers.

Syrian and Ukrainian refugees...

These^[Ukrainians] are not the refugees we are used to...^[Syrians] these people are Europeans. These people are intelligent, they are educated people...^[Ukrainians] This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists...^[Syrians] In other words, there is not a single European country now which is afraid of the current wave of refugees.^[Ukrainians] — Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov

Disgusting. Petkov :down: :sad:.

Not a whole lot sought refuge in Russia, by the way:

Refugees of the Syrian civil war (Wikipedia)

these people are Europeans

The big question is, are Russians Europeans?

As someone mentioned, and from my consumption of mainly English language based information, there seems to be a feudal hierarchy in the world. I was looking for a list, but I found a simple arrangement called the G7. These governments call the shots and want to continue to do so, because they are better than everyone else? I do not know. Certainly get that impression, in any dispute with another country, that country is automatically wrong. All empires are the same.

The G7 is an intergovernmental association made up of countries that have the world's biggest, most developed economies.

The G7 was previously called the G8, until Russia was expelled from the group.

Russia was expelled from the group - previously known as the G8 - in 2014 in response to its annexation of Crimea.

"Russia was excluded from the G7 after it invaded Crimea a number of years ago, and its continued disrespect and flaunting of international rules and norms is why it remains outside of the G7, and it will continue to remain out," Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52885178

The G7 does not include some of the world's biggest economies, such as China, Brazil, and India.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/group-of-seven-g7-countries.html

I think it best to understand, sympathize, and work with the situation which is basically a worldwide military rule. For example, I wish no-one else gets expelled from the G-7.

I am sure the Romans of old looked down at everybody just because they had an empire. George W. Bush impressed me on the campaign trail by saying "Americans must be humble. We cannot tell the world what to do" . Then he got elected.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. — George W. Bush

Could Ukraine become a place where people wanted to go? — jorndoe

Not if they fight to the last man. I am more worried about President Zelenskyy's ambitions rather than of President Putin's.

What's exactly the point about being able to categorise them as Europeans other than to highlight someone's racism?

The material conditions, then, might come down to this: are the options more than theoretical? Can you come to believe that you do have real competing options, requiring a choice? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I agree, but, of course, there's more to believing one has a choice than merely it being materially the case. I think a greater part of what makes people feel they have no choice is that scarcity itself constrains one's opportunities to explore something as esoteric as an analysis of the probability space.

To put it a bit more crudely; if one is having to expend considerable mental resources on securing one's food and board, one is less likely to be pushing the apparent boundaries of one's prison, self-made or otherwise. Not until such time as food and board* become the very problem in need of some boundary-testing solution.

*I mean food and board here somewhat figuratively, I'm not literally bringing everything down to material needs, only basic ones. In Many places it's literal physical safety.

To be clear, I'm not simply saying ordinary people often have no choice because of material constraints - I'm saying the mere existence of certain material constraints act themselves as a constraint on the assessment of choice even where there might actually have been a material choice in some given case.

What are our options in a world with people willing to use violence? Here's a different problem: is it violence that we should be concerned with, or control? But is there genuine control that is not backed by the threat of violence? — Srap Tasmaner

I realise I didn't actually answer your question, though the answer you hint at is exactly the one I would agree with. It's about power ('control') not violence. MMA is violent. The violence we need to be concerned about is an abuse of a power imbalance, but such abuses need not always come in the form of violence and sometimes violence is the result not the means.

it is not for you to decide what is best for them, as if they were children who can't make responsible decisions about their own well-being. If they ask for help, you either give it to them or fuck off. — SophistiCat

Then it is for 'you' to decide isn't it? Your last sentence literally entails a decision. It's that decision we're discussing. If some Ukrainians (they are not, as I keep having to repeat, some kind of homogenised entity, they are 40 million diverse people), if some Ukrainians ask for help in the form of military aid, then our governments (and us in our role as their mandate) have to decide whether it is in the best interests of humanity at large to give such aid. It is totally up to us to decide what's best for them, that's the nature of the power relationship. We have the weapons they need, so we must decide whether what they're asking for is in their (and other people's) best interests.

The alternative would be the utterly ludicrous suggestion that whatever a democratically elected leader decides is best for his country must automatically be best for that country - as if democratically elected leaders cannot possibly be wrong about that. Is that really the line you want to take? That Zelensky simply can't possibly be wrong?

The big question is, are Russians Europeans? — FreeEmotion

Why would that be a big question? :brow: It's not.

, none, except maybe add a bit more context to 's grievances. (Is "Petty Petkov" a good nickname?)

Every party has limitations but who do you think will take more pain before folding? Putin or the West? — Baden

That's easy. Putin and Russia, or basically the Russians can take magnitudes more pain before folding. At worst, once if they do fold, it could become even worse for them. Authoritarian regimes are like this: they can bend over backwards, clamp down on protests, look very strong and popular... until everything snaps. Democracies will have their political crisis far much earlier, which will make them less harmful. That may look to some people as weakness, but it isn't actually. And since the starting points are totally different, it's an interesting question. The Soviet Union looked eternal too...until it collapsed.

Just wait until that changes as the economic and security stakes rocket. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that. — Baden

Don't underestimate yourself. Just in comparison, would you have thought Western people would fold so quickly in line with covid lock downs? Also, now it might look that West Europe is bound to have the energy ties to Russia. In one year it can be different.

If I were to have a vision for Russia, it might be a place where people wanted to go. — jorndoe

Which might have happened, had liberalization been successful after the end of the USSR. But it manifestly was not, so having not been successful in the ‘market of ideas’ they can only try and win by bludgeoning other countries into submission and threatening nuclear armageddon. It’s a tragic situation.

Like I said, why bother with propaganda when you've got CNN reporting this stuff? — RogueAI

This is possibly the most hilarious one of the last page, so I thought it worth re-iterating. If there were propaganda, from what source were you expecting it? "Who needs propaganda when we have CNN reporting the absolute truth".

Propaganda - as I explained to @Wayfarer in his last post, is as much about what you miss out as it is about what you say. People don't have to lie, they can simply shift your focus away from what they don't want you to know.

https://fair.org/home/how-much-less-newsworthy-are-civilians-in-other-conflicts/

The Iraq War offers a clear contrast to Ukraine coverage. The US invaded Iraq on pretenses of concern about both Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and his treatment of the Iraqi people—pitching war as humanitarianism (FAIR.org, 4/9/21). But Iraq Body Count recorded 3,986 violent civilian deaths from the war in March 2003 alone; the invasion began March 20, meaning those deaths occurred in under two weeks. (The IBC numbers—which are almost certainly an undercount—documented some 200,000 civilian deaths over the course of the war.) The US-led coalition was overwhelmingly responsible for these deaths.

...

During the first week of the Iraq War (3/20–26/03), we found 32 segments on the primetime news programs of ABC, CBS and NBC that mentioned civilians and the war’s impact on them—less than half the number those same news programs aired about Ukrainian civilians.

Remarkably, only nine of these segments identified the US as even potentially responsible for civilian casualties, while 12 framed the US either as acting to avoid harming civilians or as working to help civilians imperiled by Hussein’s actions. NBC‘s Jim Miklaszewski (3/21/03), for instance, informed viewers that though “more than 1,000 weapons pounded Baghdad today…every weapon is precision-guided, deadly accuracy designed to kill only the targets, not innocent civilians.”

In Ukraine coverage, by contrast, these shows named Russia as the perpetrator in every single one of the 28 mentions of civilian casualties, except in one brief headline announcement about a tank crushing a car with a civilian inside (ABC, 2/25/22); that incident was expanded upon later in the show to clearly identify the tank as Russian.

Like Wayfarer said, there aren't two sides to every story. Climate change is real, and the reality of the Holocaust is not "Western Propaganda". — RogueAI

Not every story has two sides. Climate change denialists don't have a 'fair story to tell', nor do anti-vaccination activists, nor apologists for the January 6th civil insurrection in the United States. — Wayfarer

So guys... how do we spot one of these 'truisms'?

Worth wile to see.

The former economic advisor to Putin, Illarionov, makes extremely good points and comments. Good comments for example about Mearsheimer and just how long Putin has been obsessed about Ukraine.

On some readings, Putin believed he had no choice but to invade Ukraine. — Srap Tasmaner

You missed out the possibility that certain forces felt that they had no choice but to provoke Russia into this military operation as they say, and keep fueling it. — FreeEmotion

I'd also add that it's different for those in power. Vivek Chibber explained it quite well in an interview recently, so I'll borrow him...

the reason the working class does not spontaneously or routinely rise up and overthrow the system is not because it’s steeped in ideology, or that it’s fooled by culture, or that it’s suffering from false consciousness. The reason it doesn’t do this is because of the material constraints that the class structure puts on collective action.

The singular fact about the capitalist class structure is that it binds the two classes — capitalists and workers — in a very unequal way. Workers have to not only come together politically as actors but they have to do so against the much greater resources that capitalists have, and against the very real risks and the costs that they have to bear if they are going to overcome the resistance of the capitalists.

Capitalists routinely don’t even have to organize themselves. They have the structural advantage of the workers needing them more than they need the workers. Capitalists can literally sit back and wait for workers to come to them looking for a job. As long as the workers show up for work every day, the capitalists’ subordination of the working class is kept intact.

In that situation, if workers are going to come together, there’s a baseline level of risks and costs that they have to be able to absorb. Now, in order to absorb these risks and costs, the key component of all the things that have to come together is a cultural one.

@StreetlightX

When the whole country looks like that, the cheerleaders here might actually get bored and change their mind, moving on to the next shiny object to get their armchair kicks from. — Baden

Could you please stop lying, both of you? Nobody here is cheerleading anything. We just have different opinions than yours, that's all. No need to get all nasty and insulting. Go discuss the baldness of the kings of France somewhere, will you?

I'm reminded of when you cluelessly accused me of not knowing English. Anyway, what's nasty is referring to a war like it's a cliche scene from a movie, learning absolutely nothing about what's going on, refusing outright to engage in any critical thought whatsoever, and using that basis of pure ignorance to call for its continuation.

I'm reminded of when you cluelessly accused me of not knowing English — Baden

That was meant as a joke.

Anyway, what's nasty is referring to a war like it's a cliche scene from a movie, learning absolutely nothing about what's going on, refusing outright to engage in any critical thought whatsoever, and using that basis of pure ignorance to call for its continuation. — Baden

Don't be so hard on yourself.

If you don't like propaganda, don't lie. Otherwise what does that make you?

Nobody here is cheerleading anything. If you want to pretend we are, give proof. Use the quote function. A lie oft repeated is just another lie...

You can go down your high horse now.

First, do you know what 'cheerleading' means in this context? You don't have a good record on understanding what posters are saying. So, let me know what you think it means and if we've got that straight I'll give you a quote.

You use the word, so you must know what you mean by it. Give it a go, explain the charge if you dare.

No need to get all nasty and insulting. — Olivier5

You really are a case, aren't you. Tell me, when you wrote that, what went through your mind? Did you think of all the nasty insulting things you've said on this thread and think "I expect no one will remember", or have you actually blocked them out of your mind now your narrative has changed?

Use the quote function. — Olivier5

Again. Do you not even recall my having to ask you to do exactly that? Is it just some kind of willful blindness, or just a wild gamble?

The point is that nobody is cheerleading.