I think he's referring to Appolodorus.

How the false Russian biolab story came to circulate among the U.S. far right

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Caw2XsbJjaR/?utm_medium=copy_link

Geopolitics in a nutshell.

Is it morally justifiable for us then to encourage our friend to fight, maybe by giving him a knife? — Baden

That's a good analogy, so let me take it further: you want to put paid to a 'mugger' by setting a trap but you don't want to take the risk of getting mugged, so you ask your friend to walk down the alley late at night promising to come 'stand by him'. When he is attacked, you supply him with a few guns to keep things going until maybe the mugger gets wounded and bleeds to death in the ensuing battle. It was worth it. Your 'friend'? Well, you could always take in his family for the 375 pounds or so the government is offering.

I see you have no argument against my argument other than "this is how we've been doing it for decades!" Pretty cool of you to assume ignorance instead ofengaging my argument that clearly disagrees with nuclear deterrence as an acceptable policy.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

Perhaps it's flawed, but I'm not so sure if "surrender if threatened with nuclear weapons" would really work better.

Of course how could I know. I'm not the one living under the nuclear umbrella.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

Could someone please enlighten me on this MAD strategy. If I was leading country, say Country X, having nuclear weapons, I would think the best strategy would be to publicly state the following plan:

1. Reduce nuclear warheads
2. Promise not to launch a first strike under any circumstances
3. If a first strike is launched against my country, upon verification, promise to launch a limited strike against a few military targets using nuke and conventional ICBMS and then seek to de-escalate immediately.
4. If de-escalation is not possible, take no further action. (If country Y wants to launch all its missiles and destroy country X there is no way to stop them)

This will avoid accidental response. This will avoid mutual destruction, while preserving the moral high ground by not responding in a way that destroys the entire world.

You are the opposing country, country Y. What is your response? I need to l know how other people think in order to evaluate this strategy. Is it mad? I ask because I have no expertise in this field at all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/202203/cognitive-bias-could-trigger-nuclear-war

One such judgment error is called Mirror Image Bias, where we assess motives underlying the behavior of another person based on our own experiences, beliefs, motivations, and values

Beebe goes on to say that our current strategy of thwarting Russian aims in Ukraine while “asphyxiating” their economy may succeed in humiliating Russia, but that, backed into a corner, Putin’s risk calculus could lead him to conclude that nuclear first strike is his only option.

By the way, I do not agree with that article: the devastation caused by conventional weapons in this war as well as in previous wars should have demonstrated that nuclear strikes are not necessary here. The fallout by itself from the neighboring country would be a disincentive, not to mention Russia forever losing its honor as a nation. President Putin must know that as I do.

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

I can see an imperialist streak in NATO's expansion and authoritarianism in telling countries how to vote at the security council, whom to trade with, and whom to condemn. If that is what you mean, I am against it.

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. Freedom be damned. I prefer to live and find the relative freedom possible even in the most autocratic regimes.

Empires come and go. I'm not willing to die for one. I'm not willing to risk the lives of others for one. — Benkei

I can understand that pragmatic approach. Just have to remember that people have been (systematically) killed by the hands of empires that rolled in before. :( Quote spam ...

variables:
1. Putin doesn't use nukes, no escalation
2. Putin uses nukes, no escalation
3. Putin uses nukes, escalation — Benkei

4. Strike a deal, no escalation
^{• no Ukraine NATO membership ✓ ← the main demand
• ... (possibly UN peacekeepers) ...
• Russia to clean up or pay for what they ruined (← incidentally, negative return on destructive investment)}

Is that sort of thing off the table already?

Is that sort of thing off the table already? — jorndoe

Absolutely not! But I thought that was implied with my post history in this thread. :wink:

But yes, a negotiated settlement is best for everyone involved even if I'm sure certain US hawks will see their hopes dashed.

All right, I’ll expand my argument with a premise. I see 2 distinct kinds of possible evaluations on the current Ukraine-Russia conflict: one is strategic and the other is moral. From a strategic point of view, what counts is how geopolitical agents can maximise benefits and opportunities while minimising costs and risks wrt actual/potential competitors, independently from any moral considerations. Indeed moral considerations are seen as instrumental in the form of propaganda or soft-power in winning consensus against geopolitical competitors. On the other side, from a moral point of view, an action can be good or bad without necessarily being strategically good or bad, yet strategic thinking should be constrained by moral considerations. Given this distinction one can argue that while letting Ukraine free to choose to join NATO was morally good because we value freedom and sovereignty, yet it was not strategically good because it challenged Russia to react in a way we weren’t neither ready nor capable to properly contain; or argue that the Western propaganda is hypocritical in trying to downplay the role of neo-nazi movements or even hide their indirect support to neo-nazi militia, yet this propaganda is strategically effective in winning the consensus of the western public opinion for supporting the Ukrainians.
The distinction I just pointed out is at play also in your (and not only your) comments when, on one side, you morally condemn the the Western hypocrisy (see the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.) and “warmongering” propaganda at the expenses of the Ukrainians. On the other side, you switch to strategic thinking mode when the subject is Putin, so the point is no longer to condemn the propaganda or the inhumanity of the Russian aggression of Ukraine, but to evaluate costs/benefits of a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia. And expect your interlocutors to do the same.
This dialectical approach is twice flawed:

• You are switching between two modes of thinking as you see fit, and you may take it as a sign of intellectual - if not moral - dishonesty when your interlocutors do not follow you on this or, worse, they do the opposite of you (i.e. they morally condemn Putin, while thinking strategically about Ukrainians and Westerners can do against Putin). But you didn’t provide any compelling reason why your way of switching between strategic and moral evaluations is more legitimate than alternative ways of doing it.
• This switching between moral and strategic thinking is also misleading you into thinking that your reasoning is more objective and detached than the one of your opponents when you reason strategically. But that’s not the case because: A. If you want to talk strategy then also propaganda is part of the game and must be judged accordingly for its effectiveness, no matter how much you feel morally above any propaganda. Indeed, from a strategic point of view any moral claim, can be exploited for achieving non-moral goals: e.g. your view too is or can be instrumental to the Russian propaganda! B. You are limiting the scope of your strategic analysis to how much or how likely the Ukrainians can lose (e.g. in terms of human lives or political/territorial integrity) in this war as if this is all that matters. This might be true from a moral point of view (even if I have difficulties to understand how this can match the interest of humanity at large), or from Ukrainians point of view (but they do not seem to think like you), anyway that is not certainly so from a strategic point of view at large because what is at stake in this war goes beyond Ukraine’s fate and its outcome can destabilise the world order in ways that no other war after the end of cold war has done.

Could someone please enlighten me on this MAD strategy. — FreeEmotion

I think it's already has changed from mutually assured destruction to "reasonable" assured destruction as the amount of nuclear weapons have luckily been decreased radically. US and Russian politicians in the 1990's did some good agreements and many of those Russian warheads ended up as nuclear fuel for American cities (one of the rare nice stories about disarmament). The country that is increasing it's nuclear deterrence is China. But it's still way smaller than the US and Russian stockpiles:

The number of Chinese nuclear warheads could increase to 700 within six years, the report said, and may top 1,000 by 2030. The report released on Wednesday did not say how many weapons China has today, but a year ago the Pentagon said the number was in the “low 200s” and was likely to double by the end of this decade.

Good example of propaganda here: In this case through what looks like intentionally shoddy reporting of a dubious and unconfirmed event.

"Russian commander killed ‘deliberately’ by his own troops in Ukraine, Western officials say"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-commander-ukraine-colonel-medvechek-b2044282.html

Looked into this story, which I first saw in a Twitter post. No evidence for it, apparently, except a FB post by a Ukranian journalist (parroted by unnamed Western 'officials', I guess). Seems the Daily Mail got a version too except in their version, there's video of the guy alive and hospitalised but with serious injuries to his legs. That didn't stop them headlining the story:

"Revealed: Russian commander has DIED after being run over with a tank by his own mutinous troops"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10652501/Russian-commander-deliberately-run-tank-soldiers-DIED.html

"Ukrainian journalist Roman Tsymbaliuk said in a Facebook post on Tuesday that Colonel Medvedev's tank battalion of 1,500 troops had lost around half its strength to either death or injury.

'A soldier, choosing a convenient moment during the battle, ran over his brigade commander, Colonel Yuri Medvedev, with a tank, injuring both his legs,' Tsimbalyuk wrote in his report to his followers.

'Medvedev is in a hospital in Belarus and has already been awarded the Order of Courage.' He said the Colonel is now awaiting compensation.

There was no independent corroboration of the claim, but a video released by Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov - a close ally of Vladimir Putin - allegedly showed Medvedev being transported by medical troops to Belarus for hospital treatment."

So, he's dead according to the headline but in the body of the story he seems to be alive in hospital. The Independent leaves out the bit where he's alive and just runs with him being dead.

It might turn out the story is true or it might turn out it's bullshit of half-true (Note for example how him being run over morphed into him being deliberately run over by 'mutinous' troops as if it couldn't have been, e.g. a battlefield accident). I can guarantee you anyhow we won't be getting any retractions.

you morally condemn the the Western hypocrisy (see the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.) and “warmongering” propaganda at the expenses of the Ukrainians. On the other side, you switch to strategic thinking mode when the subject is Putin, so the point is no longer to condemn the propaganda or the inhumanity of the Russian aggression of Ukraine, but to evaluate costs/benefits of a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia. And expect your interlocutors to do the same. — neomac

I'm not Russian, nor talking to any Russians. Why would I morally condemn them? This is a discussion forum, not a socialising site. You're not 'getting to know me better' by my writing a little puff piece about all the things I like and dislike.

Morally - People have implied (outright said in some cases) that 'the West' bears no responsibility for what's happening. I think that's morally wrong, so I oppose it. No one has said that Putin's is blameless, so there's no cause for me to write anything morally condemnatory about him.

Strategically - Again, no one has commented to the effect that we should not take America's strategic interests seriously, so there's no cause to write anything to the effect that we should. People have, however, treated Putin as if he were a psychopath with no legitimate security interests, I think that's wrong so I oppose it.

The mistake you're making in your analysis is thinking my comments here represent some kind of manifesto. I think that's a pointless approach to take. To be honest I can't really understand why anyone would ever start a thread here at all (though I am, of course, incredibly grateful that they do).

Well, it's been anticipated that Belarus would join the fight for a long time. And it hasn't.

Yet the fact is the Russian reality is absolutely strange. It's a myriad of strange occurrences and crazy events in the eyes of Westerners. I don't know what would come close to it: a perpetual Trump administration? It's really different from the West.

In a way it's on purpose organized to various different elements, a multitude of intelligence services with their own military forces and to army and national guard, in order that there wouldn't be some strong counterweight to Putin himself. Quite similar to the Third Reich, actually.

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.
— baker

No, he's genuinely being pro-Putin. — ssu

Look, Biden refers to Putin with he! It must be that Biden is a Putin troll!!!!!$#%"/$&%3

You're so hyped up that it clouds your judgment.

I can't remember the keywords, so I can't find you many direct quotes, but @Apollodorus has said things like:

If Ukrainians can resist Russia in Ukraine, Europeans can resist America in Europe. It's just a matter of Europeans uniting against foreign powers. — Apollodorus

That's clearly not pro-Putin or pro-Russia. In some earlier discussion elsewhere, I also saw him commenting negatively on Putin. So I see no reason to think he is pro-Putin.

Did you read through the his quotes that I gave? Likely not.

*sigh*
Your bad faith really isn't helping.

Yet the fact is the Russian reality is absolutely strange. It's a myriad of strange occurrences and crazy events in the eyes of Westerners. I don't know what would come close to it: a perpetual Trump administration? It's really different from the West.

In a way it's on purpose organized to various different elements, a multitude of intelligence services with their own military forces and to army and national guard, in order that there wouldn't be some strong counterweight to Putin himself. Quite similar to the Third Reich, actually. — ssu

The total genius of Western democracies is that they outsourced government oppression to individual people. So that it isn't the government which oppresses people, it's Tom oppressing Dick and Harry. The government's hands are clean, but the people walk on eggshells and fear for their jobs and lives. At the same time, they are becoming more and more alike, the differences between them are superficial at best, one big mass of mindless drones. And what does it help if some politician can hold his elected position of power only for 4, 8 or, 10 years, or so, if the next one differs from him only by name?

The greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

not to mention Russia forever losing its honor as a nation. — FreeEmotion

Eh? Did you ever get the impression that it had any honor in the eyes of Americans and most other Westerners?

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

Pffft.

People love to say they are against "authoritarianism and imperialism", and they do so in an utterly authoritarian manner.

The endless ironies of life.

Interesting read:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2022-03-24/putins-afghanistan

The British have traditionally been racist towards the Irish too, e.g. the phrase 'That's a bit Irish' means 'That's stupid'. That doesn't amount to a Western Jihad against the Irish. — Baden

The point is that the anti-Slavic sentiment, and specifically, the anti-Russian sentiment serves as a framework, a context, in which it is perfectly sensible to say mean things about Russians and their leaders, and to take action against them. Without decades of anti-Russian propaganda under their belt, the Westerners couldn't pull this off.

And a NATO jihad against NATO members, such as Poles, would be a bit self-defeating wouldn't it?

Not if they use the Poles as cannon fodder. That would be achieving two goals with one blow.

People love to say they are against "authoritarianism and imperialism", and they do so in an utterly authoritarian manner. — baker

You often have to fight fire with fire.

Oh no, protests are very useful for demonstrating that that Regime allows dissent and democracy. The power structures are safe from any influences from below, and things carry on as usual. They don't jail people for protests, worse, they ignore them.

These people are captives: they are being used to pacify, ironically, those who were against the war: see, we are protesting, we are fighting back, but in the end there is no effect. — FreeEmotion

So a proper, strong democracy is the one that can maintain its own illusion?

You often have to fight fire with fire. — RogueAI

To get what?

Ashes.

To get what? — baker

To put the fire out. Do you really think there was some kind of moral equivalence between Nazi's using violence to round up and kill Jews and Americans using violence to stop the Nazi's?

Yeah, I was trying to convey to Wayfarer earlier this very idea that propaganda is not just lies, but (more so, in my opinion) distraction, misdirection. I fear the point was lost. — Isaac

I posted a story about a 96 year old Buchenwald survivor killed by a Russian missile. This was labelled 'propoganda'. I expressed the view that Russia's invasion has already failed, in that no major city has been captured, and the Russian economy is going to contract to depression-era levels as a result of sanctions. This was also labelled propoganda. Any criticism of Russia's actions seems to be regarded as 'propoganda' by someone, but that seems to me to be apologetics for Russia's actions.

My opinion is that Russia's invasion is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, totally destructive, a disaster and a humanitarian catastrophe. Some will label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. I will post stories that draw attention to this from time to time.

:up:

Not if they use the Poles as cannon fodder. That would be achieving two goals with one blow — baker

Correct. What is important to bear in mind is that the Chief Jihadi entity is America who created and leads NATO as an anti-Russian and anti-German organization, and expects its proxies and client states to do most of the work on America's behalf.

It's the same mentality Britain had in WW1 when it expected Russia to flatten the Germans after which the French would finish them off and the Brits would go in with a small expeditionary force to claim "victory" over the Germans and add Germany's African colonies to the empire. The Americans have inherited not only much of the British Empire but also the mentality.

You're so hyped up that it clouds your judgment. — baker

Don't you know, the only thing you're likely to come across in the Finnish outback is reindeer in the winter, giant mosquitoes in the summer, and some isolated trolls in between. Judgement would be the last thing to expect .... :smile:

That's clearly not pro-Putin or pro-Russia. In some earlier discussion elsewhere, I also saw him commenting negatively on Putin. — baker

Absolutely. I have repeatedly said that I'm against Putin's policies like his alliance with Turkey which is a neo-fascist state with a long history of racism, slavery, and genocide, as well as being a NATO member.

Racism in Turkey – Wikipedia

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

And, of course, saying that Crimea has never been Ukrainian is stating a historical fact, not being "pro" or "against" anyone. I also repeatedly said that I believe in free and independent countries and continents.

And I don't see anything wrong with giving Crimea, which has been Russian for centuries, back to Russia, and the same goes for areas within Ukraine that are inhabited by ethnic Russians, IF that's what those areas want.

Unfortunately, you can't reason with NATO's zombified jihadis and activists on steroids. Complete waste of time, to be quite honest ....

The moderators can label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. — Wayfarer

There is white, grey, black, and many other types of propaganda:

White propaganda – Wikipedia

Black propaganda - Wikipedia

I don’t know about that particular concentration camp survivor, but there are literally hundreds of instances of fake news relating to Ukraine.

Even the Western media, the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, etc. has pointed out that Western platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and others are full of fake news:

Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC

And Ukraine's TV news channels have been taken over by Zelensky, so it would be hard to find independent and verifiable info unless you are there and see something with your own eyes.

If this forum were in Russia, and the participants expressed negative views about the war, or even called it a war, it would be shut down immediately and there’s a good chance the admins and owners would be arrested and jailed.