I consider the development of Russia as a free and democratic state to be our main political and ideological goal — Putin
United Kingdom Full Democracy 8.54
France Flawed Democracy 7.99
United States Flawed Democracy 7.92
Russia Authoritarian Regime 3.31
Ukraine Hybrid Regime 5.81
Defending the homeland, paced to the growing multi-domain threat posed by the PRC
Deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners — NDS
Is this the Russian legitimate security concerns you were talking about: a flag decorating a parliament building? — neomac
I’m talking about the morality and related civic duty to fight against the Russian oppressors by the Ukrainians as long as it makes sense to them to fight for their own national identity and security. — neomac
if the West thinks that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the Russians — neomac
what if I found experts that would disagree with the conclusions of your experts? Still we would need reasons to rely on the opinion of one expert instead of the other, when they disagree with their analysis or conclusions. — neomac
My claim is grounded on a simple & logic assumption: in a competitive game between N geopolitical actors with incompatible interests, if you act against (or more against) the strategy of only 1 of them, you are indirectly helping (or more helping) the remaining N-1 geopolitical actors. And this is the case, no matter if you do it knowingly/intentionally or not (yet I recon that it could be more problematic if you do it knowingly and intentionally). — neomac
You keep repeating that Russia has legitimate security concerns without explaining what they consist in. — neomac
Even if I read it, as you suggest, we could still disagree on how I and you would apply that concept to the case at hand. So if you really want to prove a point, you should actually argue for it. — neomac
if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations. — neomac
On the other hand, those who say that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR might mean only that he wants to re-create an empire, not that he's any kind of communist. But even this is doubtful, and pretty much dismissed as an impossibility by all sides within Russia, even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, I think. A sphere of influence is not the same thing as an empire. — jamalrob
I am not complaining, for one, a real-world solution is an evolutionary solution where each sovereign nation, for example Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, the United States all have to work out their progression without foreign interference, for example, Russian meddling in elections. That was a bad idea, even if it was just an idea in someones head. We have to work with a world we may not like. — FreeEmotion
My argument is that we can look at societies with the highest index for quality of life, indexes showing what fundamental rights in society that enables the most well being for the citizens, and then that should inform what these nations should progress towards. — Christoffer
Russia has violated other nations' airspaces on several occasions, and when their warplanes fly with transponders off they might jeopardize civilian traffic. — jorndoe
I also read Russian comments to the effect that return to empire isn't possible in the short term, but they seemed to have the impression that that's Putin's goal. Do you think they're wrong about that? — frank
Russia has no legitimate security reasons to invade a country that wasn't planning to attack it, didn't represented any threat to it and even it's hypothetical possibility of it joining NATO was extremely remote. Which btw wouldn't justify an all out war. Just as there was no legitimation for the US to attack Iraq, neither was there any legitimation to attack Ukraine in 2014 and continue the war with a full scale invasion this year.To those like@ssu and Christoffer arguing that Russia has no legitimate security concerns because "it's a nuclear superpower", I wonder if you can explain why the US feels so differently about its strategic interests. — Isaac
But let's talk about how bad the US is — Christoffer
The appearance on strategic carriers of low-power warheads means arguments previously voiced by the American side about the possible use of such a device are now being realized in metal form, as products.
This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming.
Russia has no legitimate security reasons to invade a country that wasn't planning to attack it, — ssu
OK. — Isaac
Did they deliberately violate borders with these nukes? Did the president threaten by heightening nuclear readiness without anyone threatening them with the same? — Christoffer
I'm not talking to you so keep to yourself ok? — Christoffer
Stop quoting my posts please — Christoffer
Everything.True. Now what's that got to do with the point being argued? Need I remind you of it? — Isaac
Why bring up the idea of Russia having legitimate security concerns when it didn't have them? — ssu
As it happens I also suspect it's wrong to see the Soviet Union as merely another Russian empire — jamalrob
The method used is immaterial, they heightened nuclear tension. — Isaac
write a fucking blog — Isaac
I think every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence. — frank
It's a little counter to its basic nature to have to go out and conquer someone else, as you said, because of geography. — frank
Please either be civil to each other or ignore each other. — jamalrob
don't know if this fits with my knowledge of Russian history. But then, my knowledge of Russian history isn't great. How do you mean? Peter the Great? — jamalrob
would think it's precisely because of its geography that its imperialism, defensive though it might significantly have been, has very much been part of its basic nature. Having said that, I don't know if it's useful to talk of a basic nature. — jamalrob
If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards? — Christoffer
You need to read some good histories. Some aspects of Russian literature, music, and visual art require understanding the smoldering identity crisis that plagues the Russian culture. — frank
And the Iraqi invasion had the neocons starting from Cheney who immediately after the 9/11 attack started (to the surprise of others) talking about Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq (as recalled by the Richard Clarke). Even if everybody else knew (perhaps with the exception of the President) that Hussein didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda.They did have them. — Isaac
Why is that so hard to understand? — Isaac
IF Russia has legitimate security concerns (just as the US does with regards to China) then tensions can be diffused diplomatically by addressing those concerns. — Isaac
I just didn't know what you meant when you said that "every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence". — jamalrob
But if you just mean that Russian imperialism has always taken place partly against and in the context of the actions of countries and empires to the West of Russia, then yes, of course- — jamalrob
Usually I would say: it's their country, their life and their responsibility, not ours. But now their midget of a fürher threatens us with nuclear holocaust every single time he has an anxiety crisis, which is often. This makes the rest of the world interested in getting rid of that insecure nuclear blackmailer. — Olivier5
I'm measuring by the quality of life indexes, of societies in the world where as many as possible within those societies have basic individual and humanitarian protections so that basic human acts like having an opinion aren't shut down with violence or the ability to have a meaningful impact on the collective through politics isn't as well shut down with violence or censorship. — Christoffer
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.