Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?
— baker

Free speech — Christoffer

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech".

and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters.

It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it?

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Well, self-sufficiency indeed seems awfully unrealistic and practically impossible.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?
— baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care.

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America?

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America? — RogueAI

Someone asked a seasoned bank robber why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is", he replied.

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America? — RogueAI

Because it's the only place America hasn't yet turned into a warzone?

That sounds like more pro-NATO propaganda from the Finnish outback. — Apollodorus

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences.

Both sides lie. So why believe one and not the other? — Isaac

And you don't see an obvious lie when it's presented? In your postmodern life you are totally unable in every issue to do that?

Because when truth fits someones agenda, they won't lie. They can tell the truth then. You can separate the event and how something is represented.

I'll get back to that previous picture.

What is so hard to say that in the picture they are obviously Russian soldiers? I think it's quite easy to notice that they indeed are in the picture Russian soldiers. It's not something that "Oh, we don't know! We don't have sufficient information!"

Because if it wouldn't be so, you really believe looking at that picture that those are what Crimean volunteers as Putin declared them to be. So before they were ethnic Russians living in Ukrainian Crimea, then Maidan happened and they got from somewhere got all that similar equipment and rounded up all the fit military age men.

And pigs fly.

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences. — Baden

Seeing as @Apollodorus does not seem able to heed warnings, his last couple of posts have been deleted as will any more along the same lines. Apologies to anyone who bothered to reply to him.

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all. — Isaac

And what source do you have for this cut and clear answer for every situation in every nation by every nation? And why would the children be consulted, it's the adults, parents, communities etc. that should be consulted as it's them who has the insight into their culture and community.

I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out. — Isaac

There's no reason to think that the logical tools established over the course of thousands of years, through the Greeks, the Islamic Golden age, renaissance, enlightenment, and modern scientific movement could ever just appear just because no special equipment is required. If you have any proof of analytical philosophy in this regard exists somewhere without any influence of collaborative philosophical transactions between nations, then please provide that instead of using an "it could be likely" argument as if that was somehow valid. You're grasping at straws here trying to justify why critical thinking within Western philosophy is "bad" knowledge for people in other cultures when the knowledge itself is nothing bad. It's like educating them 2 + 2 = 4 and then you say that we shouldn't do that. Why would that be a bad thing for them to know?

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case. — Isaac

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it, you did nothing but say that you "disagree". So no, you have less of an argument, you have elaborated a thing and you require a truckload of evidence but ignore it when asked for even a fraction of it for your own conclusions.

I've said plenty more than "X" and enough to warrant more depth from you, which you never provide.

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs. — Isaac

Interesting, that would mean you're pretty bad at your job since you believe a hell of a lot that you won't elaborate or support in any way, and you should definitely understand that knowledge, or rather beliefs passed down from parents to children is a core part of the social construction of how beliefs manifest and no way near the kind of knowledge that can help people break free from indoctrination and propaganda in a culture.

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem? — Isaac

You don't even know what I've studied. You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy, that is not a valid support for an argument. And nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in.

I don't care if you claim to be the God of knowledge, do you have a valid or reasonable argument? Do you support it logically? Those are the things that matter.

But you use your claimed title as a way to win the argument through authority. That is the same as a police officer beating an innocent down and saying, I have the right to do this because I'm a police officer and therefore I'm right. It's an appeal to authority fallacy with yourself as the authority and it's pretty annoying, especially since that behavior is one that I absolutely despise as it's an attempt at using a title as a form of proof of being right. Which is similar to authoritarian bullshit.

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education. — Isaac

Philosophy, logical reasoning, deduction, induction, the practices of philosophical study in analytical form. On a more elementary level is to let students question a claim further than normally done, to examine their own claims in light of other perspectives or facts. Teach about biases and how they work. How the scientific method works, and in relation to it, how to actively try and disprove yourself as part of proving a point.

We can go on and on, but I think you know what I mean by "critical thinking". It's the foundation of study that isn't based on reciting past facts, but to examine facts through method, through thinking past biases, and reaching conclusions not rooted in pre-existing presumptions by the person examining.

Basically, it is philosophy, epistemology with a focus on examining one's own knowledge and pre-existing beliefs.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people? That nothing of this is helpful in giving people a good foundation for figuring out actual truths instead of accepting the truths they are being told?

I think the problem is that you are referencing things like this. Which is more focused on high-level complex critical thinking. When I'm focusing on getting a basic understanding of critical thinking to people who generally have never viewed their own knowledge in light of such mental strategies.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth. That is key to teaching people under an authoritarian regime to start questioning what is true or not.

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least. — Isaac

Are you saying that education does not change people from being servants of those in power to being agents of their own destiny? You can look at history for examples of how education reshape society. In older communities with a church and workers, the church was the source of information, but when general education started forming it drastically changed these communities.

So you're saying there's no change between a society with no- to low education and one with a good foundation of it?

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids.
— Christoffer

Yes, that's right. — Isaac

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then? All the parents already teach your students what they need, right?

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems.
— Christoffer

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions. — Isaac

Your studies focused on hunter-gatherer tribes and English people learning from home. I'm talking about people in authoritarian nations with extreme levels of propaganda forming the entirety of exposure to "truth" that the people are able to get. You keep saying that education isn't needed, that people can learn from their parents. Yes, that can be true with educated parents of nations with less corruption or state-controlled information. But religious and authoritarian societies are very much existing in a lot of places in the world and that's when this type of method falls flat and becomes indoctrination through tradition. Five generations of people living inside the truth of an authoritarian regime does not learn to question anything if all their knowledge comes from parents already indoctrinated. It becomes a feedback loop for them, with no keys to break out of that loop.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac

One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first. Second part is funding to build schools, infrastructure for running those schools, and getting students to them and home. So if nations with more wealth than they need can help establish these first steps and that's where I mean that it can be done in collaboration with the people of that culture.

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing. — Isaac

No, but facts are being taught through education and more importantly, how to interpret facts, and understand them.

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.
— Christoffer

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males. — Isaac

Of what schools?

And you don't really seem to understand what I'm saying here. Educational content is derived from up-to-date sciences and facts. As the world has become more globalized, studies more often assimilate studies from other places of the world into the studies they do. All knowledge is a synthesis of what came before, studies informing other studies, etc. And in a historical context, this is what happened with the Islamic golden age, Greeks' knowledge was scattered away and was picked up during that golden age and then their refinement of the Greeks' teachings was scattered and picked up back by the west.

And schools in Sweden have made good efforts into researching how education has been tailored by earlier "white males" and helped correct things to better neutrality in content. Just the last 30 years have made schools here unrecognizable in how they've improved neutrality.

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials — Isaac

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.
— Christoffer

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter. — Isaac

You seem to have forgotten where this started. It's your sidetrack to talk about poorer nations' educational forms and yes, the constraints are primarily material. But I was talking about nations with authoritarian governments or nations with extreme religious violence and oppression of the people.

My point was that establishing schools independent of propaganda, religious or political, guarded against the authoritarian boots, will slice through the tradition of indoctrination within those nations and enable people to see through the status quo of such regimes. Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.

And regarding your opposition to formal education, aren't there a lot of studies showing how important it is for kids to get out of their homes and interact with other people as well as other perspectives than their own or what they've learned at home? Part of developing a balanced perspective is to challenge it through the exposure of those perspectives against others in the world. It's a large part of development. How do you do that without some gathering of young students in a place where such interaction can happen and be encouraged rather than randomly happen on its own. Your way of thinking about formal education seems to just focus on a dislike and criticism of the "white male controlling the curriculum", but excluding everything else that formal education gives young students. Viewing the UK schools from the outside, I get how people can criticize it due to the heavy focus on tradition in the UK. But schools in Sweden are nothing like that and your opposition to these schools makes little sense compared to what you propose instead, which has major problems when examining it closer.

logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought. — Isaac

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?

Basic logical thinking exists, but the tendency for bias is so high that it's easily can become corruptible knowledge.

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments? — Isaac

I didn't talk about Senegal I talked about an example of a poor community without farming skills.

If we talk about Senegal, don't you think that there are other skills that can be taught that can help them in other ways? What would happen if literacy went up from the low levels they have now? With better literacy comes other open doors in higher education.

Without education who's gonna fix the problems? Because just blaming the dept isn't enough, the reality is more complex than just cutting that dept, and then everything is fine. There needs to be a foundation underneath that as well.

Depts need to be cut, or at least lowered to levels actually sustainable, that I agree with. But you blindly blame the west for everything.

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice.
— Christoffer

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact. — Isaac

No? Is ancient Greece "the west"? Is the Islamic golden age "the west"?

Where do you think western philosophy comes from? Just because it's "western" philosophy today, do you think any of modern philosophy is just purely "the west" or is it heavily influenced by the progress of philosophy through time? What about people like Schopenhauer who were heavily influenced by Eastern Philosophy, that didn't contribute to a synthesis of different perspectives that makes it hard to just say "western philosophy"?

"Western" is a trigger word for you it seems. It is just a word. Look at the content.

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine. — Isaac

Sure, for hunter-gatherer societies and concentrated specific communities. Apply it to large-scale complex societies or complex interactions between different large societies. Or for when people need to change their nation because they are oppressed and they don't know how to do so.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things
— Christoffer

There's no evidence for this at all. — Isaac

education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes. — Isaac

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves? Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west, even forcing away corruption, which could mean it requires violence to do so. Reduction or removal of dept is obvious, but what I meant was that reduction of corruption, fair trade trading agreements and building a functioning educational system all need educated people within these nations to make sure this happens. Otherwise, it's us going into their nation and deciding for them, which you don't want happening.

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them...
— Christoffer

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture. — Isaac

It's basically your own argument for which I agree with. I don't say that the west are angels and innocent, I'm agreeing that the west fucked all these nations over, but neither of that helps them now and the west just cutting dept and then leaving them alone will not help anything either. Poor nations of the world today have different levels of functioning societies, many even have rather high standards of living, but still struggle. Many of the national problems they have are not all the west fault and how do they fix those without educated people who have the skills and knowledge to do it? Because these problems aren't hunter-gatherer societies, these are large societies with complex problems that self-learning skills from parents don't fix.

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac

Because you are a professor? Because now you're doing that appeal to authority fallacy again. Maybe it's you who need to come to terms with the possibility of being wrong? Maybe your self-image as a professor makes you dismissive of others' perspectives.

Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged. — Isaac

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense? Because posts you've made in this thread do not show any kind of sign that you have a clear understanding of your own behavior.

Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong. — Isaac

Wrong where? You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong. You haven't presented anything in an argumentative form that proves anything correct. You imply opposition to formal education without any thought of further consequences of removal of formal education, you argue that complex problems in poor nations are just the West's fault and any other problems they can figure out themselves without any education in relation to such problems. You imply a Marxist reform of Russia, ignoring everything about how Russia functions today, and you imply that people can break through indoctrination and traditions of propaganda without understanding critical thinking or through balanced knowledge gained from independent education. None of this has any real arguments behind them, but you are a professor, so therefore your authority as such a professor makes your arguments correct.

This abuse of authority on your part in this does not validate your ability to be correct, quite the opposite.

To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions. — Isaac

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions. Without a clear argument, elaborating your points and premises for your conclusions you only abuse the authority to disqualify my input before yours.

The quality of your argumentative skills has been shown to be lousy, even towards others in this thread and I'm beginning to understand that if you are a professor using your authority as a fallacy like this, then that explains a lot of why you don't listen to others. And it might be high time for you to rethink things yourself.

You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong. — Isaac

I cannot know if you are lying or not, but it doesn't matter because if you are then you are a shitty professor who uses his authority as his main source of reasoning in a debate. "Professor" doesn't mean anything really, I've seen professors getting fired for being really bad at their jobs. I've seen professors not worthy of their title. Academia is filled with bullshitters who abuse their authority, that's nothing new. It's just obvious when it's obvious.

I think you are biased to your studies, I think you don't have a clear image of further consequences for your conclusions. It happens when studies are focused on a specific thing and not further large-scale ramifications of it that other studies and meta-studies aim to do. This focus on being a professor that knows more than others can lead to a delusion of being an expert in everything. But you are not a professor of philosophy, you are not a professor of political history. So when topics range between different areas, you can only really be an expert in your narrow field of study, but you comment and argue about so many other things while still using your authority as an explanation of why I'm wrong and you are right.

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged. — Isaac

And now you call everyone else "laymen". I'm interested to know how a professor that's not a professor in political history and political philosophy could explain the practical implementation of Marxism into Russia better than the "laymen" around him. But isn't it also convenient to not have to explain actual practical change like that and just dream utopian dreams while telling everyone else that you don't have to explain anything since you are a professor and others should just trust you because they are laymen that don't know better?

We are not your subjects of study, we are interlocutors in a discussion where you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor rather than through convincing rhetoric and reasoning. Maybe you should study your own behavior on this forum?

Prior to the invasion I was closer to your position. This changed in 25th Feb and especially when Putin threatened nuclear Armageddon with menaces. A line was crossed at that point, not just for me, but the leaders of all NATO leaders(Orban excepted). I don’t disagree that Putin and his gang are intelligent and rational. You only have to listen to Lavrov’s rhetoric, or the speech given by the representative of the Russian Federation at the UN today to understand that there is a sophisticated intelligent narrative on the Russian side. A narrative of victimhood(re NATO, or the West) and blaming Ukrainian failures (with US and Nato meddling) for everything happening in Ukraine including the war crimes. A narrative which is also drip fed to the Russian population.

The problem is what is going on behind this facade. Putin has absolute control and runs his country like a Mafia boss. He views and deals with his enemies with contempt and like the mafia, he pushes and threatens at every opportunity and takes full advantage of any weakness, or concessions. This situation has been developing for over 20yrs until now he has invaded a large sovereign country(an act of aggression) and threatened NATO countries with nuclear annihilation. Now we are waking up to the reality that he has a massive war chest, has built up a large army and is rampaging around ex USSR territories.

Now if we don’t stop showing weakness, or making concessions will this escalation just continue? If we do get involved, no fly zone for example, does the war just escalate. Either way it doesn’t solve the problem we are faced with. A tyrant.

He may become even more menacing and then at any time. just retreat to the Donbas, claim the special operation is complete and he will finish liberating the Russian speakers in that region from persecution. Or he might become more menacing and march across Macedonia, link up with Orban, just keep heading west. We just don’t know, all we see is a poker face. A Godfather, playing poker with us. Do we call his bluff, or show weakness and he wins another hand and more and more of the pot.

The fact is that in 1957, when (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU, he said:

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

There was a lot of talk about “building a United States of Europe” and “rebuilding the Roman Empire” among politicians and technocrats at the time, especially in countries like France and Belgium.

European Coal and Steel Community president Jean Monnet himself set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

More recently, Carl Baudenbacher, former president of the European Free Trade Area, openly admitted that the EU is trying to rebuild the Roman Empire:

Under Trajan the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, encompassed the entire Mediterranean region, but also parts of present-day Germany, Britain, Romania, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The European Union is preparing to build a similar empire.
Roman law played an important role in the expansion of the Roman Empire; and the EU relies on the export of its law, and the extraterritorial effect of the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The EU has concluded bilateral association treaties with four former Soviet republics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia, under which these countries are aligning their legislation in important fields with EU law. The ECJ has a monopoly in the interpretation of treaty law which is identical in substance to EU law. Since each side can bring a dispute before the ECJ unilaterally, the European Commission may take a case to its own court and thus has a de facto right of surveillance over the associated states.
The same system is now to be set up for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Syria …

The choice Britain faces if it wants an EU trade deal: either EFTA, or the Ukraine model – LSE Blogtest

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion ….

Someone asked a seasoned bank robber why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is", he replied. — unenlightened

America is very rich, that's true.

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech". — baker

What is the level of free speech you want before you can accept the fact that you have free speech?

It also depends on which country you are in, of course, but assuming you are living in a nation that doesn't imprison or shoot you because of what you say.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters. — baker

All of that depends on how the government functions as well. Not all western nations are the same. While I agree with your argument, it's a bit simplified.

But in terms of Russia, free speech is suppressed by people in power in order to keep being in power. We're not talking about levels of resources here, but an authoritarian government limiting free speech. They didn't really value human life before this invasion either, even when things were "stable".

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference. — baker

The difference between being under a boot and not. That a western society can become authoritarian is not an argument for the west being authoritarian as well. (not speaking about the US which has too much corruption to be free of authoritarian attributes). I don't get imprisoned or killed when speaking my opinions on the street, I don't get state lies fed through the media, I can question whomever I want without getting into trouble. As long as my society isn't doing any of the opposite of that I am not in an authoritarian society.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint. — baker

Do you see the same level of engagement in these questions among non-western-standard nations? If anyone reaches zero carbon footprint, who do you think will be the first nation to do so? Norway is pretty close.

Debates and free speech enable people to push politicians for such changes. Companies are able to see the demand and act accordingly. In nations where you can't really change politicians' decisions, where corruption rules over all, and there's too much economical risk with changing anything, it won't happen fast or at all. I'm including the US in these types of nations that have a hard time changing course.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do. — baker

Do you think it's the more westernized parts of Russia's population that do?
And the majority of people in the west want this, the vocal others are a minority but still enough to hold things back. But as said, western nations have a much higher push toward sustainable energy and will get there sooner than others.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country. — baker

I live in it, so I must be dreaming then.

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care. — baker

Well, I can merely speculate since it seems we don't know how many support Putin, how many criticize him, and how many criticize him but plays along so as not to be killed or imprisoned. The increase in popularity for Putin is an example of just how hard it is to know because that popularity can both be state propaganda or just people more afraid of consequences for saying anything else.

We're not talking about levels of resources here, but an authoritarian government limiting free speech. — Christoffer

That is really the central point, isn't it? The idea of government, using all its powers, to suppress certain types of speech is chilling. Shades of 1984.

Putin has absolute control and runs his country like a Mafia boss. — Punshhh

Nonsense. He may or may not "run his country like a Mafia boss". That's pretty irrelevant given that this goes for most presidents across the globe, to be honest.

But "absolute control" sounds like polemical exaggeration. If you had "absolute control" in Russia, would you have a military that can't even beat Ukraine?

In 1940 Germany overran Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France in six weeks. Even Stalin was more efficient than Putin even though he was essentially a gangster and former train robber who used revolutionary Marxism to seize power.

You don't have absolute control when your armed forces and your intelligence chiefs perform the way Russia is performing in Ukraine.

The truth of the matter is that Russia has been a kleptocracy for half a century or longer. Putin is not Stalin, he has just got enough control over the oligarchs and other members of the kleptocracy to prevent them from taking over and to keep the country together and not under the control of international finance like in the 90's before he came to power.

Volodomyr Zelenskyy said

some victims in Bucha were “shot and killed in the back of their heads,” while “some were shot on the street, others thrown into wells”. The graphic images have led to global condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and demands he be tried for war crimes.

In his first speech to the [UN Security Council] since the invasion more than a month ago, Zelensky said he did not wish to negotiate with Russia and would rather a powerless and outdated UN purge Russia of the veto power it wields on the Security Council. Failing that, the organisation should dissolve itself, he said.

“This undermines the whole architecture of global security, it allows them to go unpunished so they are destroying everything that they can,” he said, adding that Russia’s leadership was acting like “colonisers from ancient times”.

“It is obvious that the key institution of the world which must ensure the coercion of any aggressor to peace simply cannot work effectively.” — SMH

Meanwhile Russia has dismissed the graphic footage and witness testimony of grotesque abominations and mass murder and torture as 'Western propoganda'.

So - is Zelenskyy right? Should Russia be expelled from the UN Security Council? If a country is committing criminal acts, doesn't its presence on this council vitiate the chance of it being held responsible by that council?

I was referring to this case:

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was a commercial flight shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. The aircraft, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members. — ssu

I stand corrected: I was not aware of this case, the only similar incident was the suspected TWA 800 flight: but it occurs to me now that they do not clear the skies of commercial airliners before launching missile tests. If it locks on to the wrong target...

I'm not so sure how Curtis LeMay thought about it. He perhaps would have wanted have that nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Russia had only a few ICBMs. He surely saw the "brief but bloody" war something that would prevent from the "long and bloody" war, which is quite dubious. — ssu

I see the rationality of Curtis LeMays' view: it would have resulted in submissive, united Russia, prosperous and peaceful. Courage for a soldier is more than courage in battle, it is also courage in peace. I must admit I misjudged him.

Air Force General Thomas Power, who once asked officials at the RAND Corporation why they were concerned about keeping down body counts on both sides in the event of a nuclear conflict. “The whole idea is to kill the bastards,” he cried. “At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.” (LeMay, who was the model for General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick’s classic Dr. Strangelove, thought Power “not stable.”)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-daily-intelligence-briefings-history-jfk-cuban-missile-crisis-214521/

The graphic images have led to global condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and demands he be tried for war crimes. — SMH

It appears that the people whom they govern simply do not think. Where are the graphic images from Yemen? We all better hope no-one circulates graphic pictures of corpses in our back yard.

So - is Zelenskyy right? — Wayfarer

Since you asked the question, I am sure everyone here is aware of the irrationality in singling out one particular member of the UN security council for punishment when other members have 'credible allegations' of various crimes that they have no intention of ever addressing, let alone admitting.

As for Zelenskyy, I do not know what everyone here thinks of his actions, but his frequent absurd statements make him seem like a puppet whose strings are being manipulated from the other side of the world rather than a national leader. I know that I would respect his leadership if he made the choices presented to him earlier. Right now it looks like he is the best person for the job of getting Ukraine destroyed and his people killed.

Can't we come up with some sort of exit strategy for Ukraine at this point that simply makes sense for Ukraine and in its best interest? Will it be the same as Zelenskyys? Why not?

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion …. — Apollodorus

How about asking the Ukrainians? About Ukraine, you know, where they live (and are now bombed)? About what they want?

As discussed before, an United States of Europe is a threat to the United States of America, which may explain the dynamics of the current situation.

Kremlin's website has been on and off for a bit, maybe they're getting hit by hackers.
Sure hope they don't cause any plane crashes.

Russia’s Aviation Authority Switches Back to Pen and Paper After Huge Alleged Cyberattack (Apr 1, 2022)

I see the rationality of Curtis LeMays' view: it would have resulted in submissive, united Russia, prosperous and peaceful. — FreeEmotion

How can you be certain of that? A nuclear change could have also resulted in just millions of dying yet in a stalemate like in the Korean war and the Soviet Union still persisting with only now the World having experienced a wider nuclear war. And some American cities being destroyed.

Yet a nuclear holocaust wasn't inevitable. Not only did it not happen, but the Soviet Union collapsed and before that there actually was nuclear disarmament. Hence LeMay's "rationality" was not only wrong, but actually quite dangerous.

I think we have to understand that wars aren't inevitable.

Or he might become more menacing and march across Macedonia, link up with Orban, just keep heading west. — Punshhh

Because this is the rational and intelligent thing to do? I don't think these fears are founded. Putin threatening using nukes is to clarify NATO shouldn't get involved. What else would there be to it? What exactly did he say making you think he meant more?

And the maffia comparison is simply wrong. Has everybody forgot the support the US got in its war on terrorism from Russia? That doesn't fit in the capitalising on weakness part at all.

Remember this:

Putin's pro-American plan was not simply tactical. Putin's policies of support after September 11, including his agreement to an American military presence in Central Asia, represented a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. The potential for breakthrough - for a fundamentally new and improved relationship between Russia and the West - has never been greater. — Carnegie

Also, if we're so keen on peace and avoiding unnecessary deaths is important then one should be wondering why the US is refusing to join the negotiations.

What really pisses me off is how no European government calls it out, while we're the ones that run all the major risks, because of financial risks and energy dependence, right after the Ukrainians.

How about asking the Ukrainians? About Ukraine, you know, where they live (and are now bombed)? About what they want? — jorndoe

Those who see sphere's of influence as an obvious reality, greater countries dominating weaker ones and annexations of territories of sovereign states as totally justified simply don't care about issues like that.

What really pisses me off is how no European government calls it out, while we're the ones that run all the major risks, because of financial risks and energy dependence, right after the Ukrainians. — Benkei

Being dependent on energy from a totalitarian regime like Putin's Russia, which will use that dependence as a way to imply pressure has been a wrong policy. That energy policy has to be changed. Germany should show resolve in this too. Hopefully it will change it's policies.

And you don't see an obvious lie when it's presented? — ssu

Wow. You're going with "It looks like a lie to me, therefore it must be one". Because you're infallible? I don't know if you've come across propaganda before, but the idea is make it look like one thing when it's in fact another. The key pert, for our purposes here, being thatit will look like one thing. So if you just take everything to be the way it looks to be, then you'll fall for every single propaganda piece presented to you.

So - is Zelenskyy right? Should Russia be expelled from the UN Security Council? If a country is committing criminal acts, doesn't its presence on this council vitiate the chance of it being held responsible by that council? — Wayfarer

That leaves no members in the security council. So no.

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion …. — Apollodorus

I am not sure what law is broken when countries sign trade deals with the EU, or what harm is done to anyone. To the extent that the EU tries and contribute to stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation, it is doing good work.

Whose skin would be peeled off whose nose if Ukraine joined the EU, pray tell? Antiquity historians?

Because this is the rational and intelligent thing to do? I don't think these fears are founded. Putin threatening using nukes is to clarify NATO shouldn't get involved. What else would there be to it? What exactly did he say making you think he meant more?

I agree with you here but for different reasons. That Russia’s army is incompetent with poor equipment. They can’t even occupy Ukraine, so are not going to continue west.
I can’t point out where he said he would go further than Ukraine. But he has given long speeches in which he comes across as wanting to re establish the USSR.

But his proving himself to be a bare faced liar (100,000 troops just happen to be on military exercises on the Ukraine border, we have no intention to invade). His apparent irrational behaviour, the fact that many of his subordinates had no idea he was going to invade. The press conference where he humiliated his chief of staff. The long tables. This was interpreted in the West as someone unhinged with his hand on the nuclear button, who has just invaded a large country with a large army, which he can’t possibly hold, while insisting he wasn’t planning anything of the sort. This has crossed a line in Europe and we will now see a European army built and the awakening of Germany after 70yrs of passivism.

Regarding the mafia point. I refer to Frank’s answer. The mafia are business men, they strike deals and alliances. They had a common enemy with US after 9/11. They sell people services until they become dependent, while they grow rich and powerful and then come for their pound of flesh.

I don’t think the negotiations are likely to go anywhere as the two sides are worlds apart. The US getting involved would not help and could just cause a stand off.

I hear you about European countries not calling it out. The problem is they have been dependent on the US for security and now Russia for gas and oil. They are stuck in the middle and compromised from both sides. Ideally they would have provided their own security over the last generation and avoided becoming dependent on Russia gas and oil. In hindsight we were all asleep at the wheel while Putin was friendly, business like. We even thought he would form some sort of alliance with Europe. But quietly he amassed his forces, his wealth. He was going in the other direction. He fostered that dependency on gas and oil and now he is coming for his pound of flesh.

We know see that nato and EU expansion was becoming an existential threat to Putin. We were blind to it, under the guise of free choice, democracy, prosperity. All good things, but Putin saw it spreading his way. And if the Russian people wanted a piece of it, his grip on power might be threatened.

Being dependent on energy from a totalitarian regime like Putin's Russia, which will use that dependence as a way to imply pressure has been a wrong policy. That energy policy has to be changed. Germany should show resolve in this too. Hopefully it will change it's policies. — ssu

The EU is build around the idea of economic interdependence as a path to safety. So I disagree. Where we went wrong is not making serious progress in trying to increase economic interdependence with Russia in the 90s when circumstances were right. Instead the West collectively chose to keep treating them as enemies. That was the wrong policy.

And for those saying this wasn't possible: if we could enter into association agreements with Turkey, Moldova and Albania, we sure as hell could've done the same with another corrupt regime.