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. — Benkei

And sure as hell, we've done the same. Since 1997, the EU's political and economic relations with Russia have been based on a bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The trade-relevant sections of the PCA aim to promote trade and investment, as well as to develop mutually beneficial economic relations.

I think it's telling it's just the West saying all these things about Putin and Russia, What's ther rest of the world doing? South-America is shaking its head in disbelief because they smell the hypocritical bullshit from miles away. "Sovereignty, sovereignty" cried the USA. "When did that ever matter to you when pursuing regime change in our countries?". India doesn't commit to condemning the war other than reiterating platitudes it's committed to the UN charter.

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked.

We all know the answer don't we? This is to say, we have no moral standing to condemn Russia, we only have power and it's being exercised to cow the Russians into submission.

Oil-producing countries are not upping production. E.g., they are following through on the treaty obligations they have with Russia which is indirect support of Russia or at least not a condemnation.

The ease with which everybody here just parrots EU, NATO and US talking points is just amazing. The world doesn't revolve around Europe; pay attention to all these different views.

uhm... https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

Aside from the fact that I said "association agreement" and not "PCA" and said "90s" and not "naughts", where exactly is it?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A21997A1128%2801%29

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it — Christoffer

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them.

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. — Christoffer

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why?

You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy — Christoffer

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking. But I'm talking about your response to that fact (which you asked me, by the way. I didn't offer it as an ad verecundiam - you asked me about my qualifications). If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!". The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...". You, however, haven't even broken stride.

nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in. — Christoffer

How would you know? That would require you to simultaneously believe that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology, and yet you know that body of knowledge better than I do. Even if you too were a professor of Psychology (or perhaps something like Education, maybe) then the best you could claim is that you have as good a grasp as I do of that canon. Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know. It would be far less odd to simply claim I'm lying about being a professor. Honestly, I would have been far less intrigued by your response if you'd have just said "No you're not". You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject.

do you have a valid or reasonable argument? — Christoffer

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching. I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity.

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people? — Christoffer

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect.

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. — Christoffer

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that.

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then? — Christoffer

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance.

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. — Christoffer

I agree. Certainly in early industrial and agricultural societies, as well as in religious communities, education is a form of indoctrination. I've already said this. But it's exactly the same with schools in those communities too. The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are.

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. — Christoffer

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage?

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

Yeah. Right.

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system.

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. — Christoffer

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them.

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? — Christoffer

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms.

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? — Christoffer

Yes and yes.

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? — Christoffer

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that.

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

According to whom?

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves? — Christoffer

No. Not once.

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west — Christoffer

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention.

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? — Christoffer

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense? — Christoffer

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong. — Christoffer

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you.

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. — Christoffer

You asked me, remember?

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions. — Christoffer

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but your conclusions are not supported by sufficient evidence to be so strongly held as you hold them. It's quite normal for expertise to be used this way (again, assuming you believe me) - even if you too are an expert. It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree.

And now you call everyone else "laymen". — Christoffer

No. In terms of solutions to the Ukraine Crisis, I too am a layman. That's why I'm not interested in offering solutions either. I'm interested in people's support for different solution already offered by experts (including my own support for the solutions I think are best).

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor — Christoffer

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were.

Wow. You're going with "It looks like a lie to me, therefore it must be one". Because you're infallible? — Isaac

No. But you can use your own judgement. Some of the most blatant lies are so obvious.

Or is that too difficult for you to understand?

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. — Isaac

Again. Let's look at that picture. Do these look like volunteers, people that have lived in Crimea, yet in the days after the Maidan revolution have taken up arms against the new Ukrainian government? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers?

[/img]

you can use your own judgement. Some of the most blatant lies are so obvious. — ssu

Obvious to you. Not so to others, and it's the disagreement between you and those others we're talking about here.

If you say "it's obvious that X", and your interlocutor say " it's obvious that not-X", you can't use the fact that you find X obvious as an argument supporting your position, that's just a restatement of your position, not an argument in favour of it.

Do these look like volunteers that have lived in Crimea and have taken up arms against Ukraine after the Maidan revolution? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers? — ssu

They appear to be Russian soldiers. Because they're meant to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point of the propaganda image.

Propaganda is something which is presented to appear to be one thing, when it is, in fact, another.

So the fact that they appear to be Russian soldiers is entirely irrelevant. We already know they're going to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point. We're trying to establish if they actually are Russian soldiers.

Where we went wrong is not making serious progress in trying to increase economic interdependence with Russia in the 90s when circumstances were right. — Benkei

What's your argumentation here? As if we didn't want to have trade with Russia? On the contrary, the Europeans would have just loved to have that commerce and trade with Russia, just the same way as we have wanted with China. The idea went, just like with China, that economic prosperity will make these countries have better relations with us. And that they will change to be like us and value things like rule of law and democracy (and the usual stuff).

Instead the West collectively chose to keep treating them as enemies. That was the wrong policy. — Benkei

What policy are you talking about?

The policy of making the G7 countries to be the G8 countries with Russia?

By NATO making the Partnership for Peace agreement with Russia?

By having a multitude of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship?

Just to take one example of the attitudes...that actually were in hindsight doomed:

In one of his earliest new foreign policy initiatives, President Obama sought to reset relations with Russia and reverse what he called a “dangerous drift” in this important bilateral relationship. President Obama and his administration have sought to engage the Russian government to pursue foreign policy goals of common interest – win-win outcomes -- for the American and Russian people.

To see everything as the fault of us is wrong as there obviously are two sides in this relationship.

Attitudes really changed only after 2014. And now this year.

Thanks. Weirdly enough that didn't show on their own web page in the overview but does come up if you approach it by region/country here: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/russia/

In any case, point remains we should've gone further as was argued by several politicians early 2000 to include Russia in "the West". Instead we opted for geopolitical steps and the "encirclement" of Russia against promises made: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

What policy are you talking about? — ssu

See above. The bait and switch policy and flatly lying. Of course, the Russians should've gotten it in writing.

They appear to be Russian soldiers. Because they're meant to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point of the propaganda image.

Propaganda is something which is presented to appear to be one thing, when it is, in fact, another. — Isaac

That's totally illogical and basically a strawman argument. It is Putin who is saying that those forces in the picture are Crimean volunteers.

And there's a massive amount of pictures of similar clothed soldiers suddenly appearing in Crimea simply cannot be propaganda when covered by all the various media and social media output. Just by whom? No, stick really to the example: the pictures of those soldiers were said to be Crimean volunteers by Russia.

You simply have to have common sense here.

Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. ;-)

Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. :wink: — Benkei

Don't let the denazification of Ukraine disturb you:

“What should Russia do with Ukraine?” published by the news agency RIA Novosti, declares that Russian forces should not draw sharp distinctions between Ukraine’s military and civilians.

“Denazification is necessary when a significant part of the people – most likely the majority – has been absorbed and drawn into politics by the Nazi regime. That is, when the hypothesis “the people are good – the government is bad” does not work,” it states.

The RIA article, written by Timofei Sergeitsev, goes on to say that “a significant part of the popular mass, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, is also guilty… War criminals and active Nazis must be punished approximately and demonstratively. Total purification should be carried out.”

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? Tugging at my moral convictions just shows how tribal your own convictions are.

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? — Benkei

In a thread about Ukraine one would assume that Ukraine would be discussed.

If we would have a thread about the war in Yemen and somebody would start talking how Saudi Arabia was forced to intervene in the Yemeni civil war, I would use my time to debunk such nonsense. And I wouldn't sit idly by with people "understanding" the motives of the Saudi lead coalition.

Or then if people would say that the war going badly with Saudi Arabia and it's allies is just Iranian propaganda...

But somehow I have the feeling that as the aggressor is the US backed Saudi coalition, there wouldn't be such nonsense declared on that thread.

However in the case where the agressor isn't US backed... :sad:

Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then.

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white.

It is Putin who is saying that those forces in the picture are Crimean volunteers. — ssu

Yes. And it is western media who are presenting that picture saying "look at how much of a liar Putin is". Both are acts of propaganda so we would fully expect both representations to appear to show exactly what they're meant to show.

You present me a picture backing up your claim that Putin is lying about Crimea, then of course it's going to appear to show exactly that. If it didn't, you wouldn't have used it.

All I'm saying is that because of the nature of persuasive imagery, the fact that it appears to show X is not an additional piece of support for it. It was chosen entirely because it appeared to show X. The investigation is into whether it actually does show X. This involves context.

stick really to the example: the pictures of those soldiers were said to be Crimean volunteers by Russia. — ssu

You gave me one picture. If you want me to comment on the " massive amount" of similar pictures you'll have to post them. Of course, corroborating evidence is one of the things a further investigation would look for. You were talking about a single image.

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? — Benkei

Folks here don't care about what disturbs you or not. This is not about you. If you don't care about Ukraine, by all means shut up about it, and write about Ethiopia or Yemen instead.

But somehow I have the feeling that as the aggressor is the US backed Saudi coalition, there wouldn't be such nonsense declared on that thread.

However in the case where the agressor isn't US backed... :sad: — ssu

Very astute. :grin:

Another attempt at cheap point scoring and you suck at it. I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. I do care about what you think and what disturbs you. I just happen to think you've got a limited view of relevant circumstances are deeply emerged in the western holistic view of general benevolence and being on the right side of history etc.

Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then. — Benkei

Selective?

This is a thread about Ukraine and the only thing you throw is strawman argument and hints that I somehow wouldn't be against the atrocities committed by the Saudi coalition, which basically is quite equivalent to the situation with similar flawed ideas of "sphere's of influence", just as Russia is said to have acted, or forced to act and attack Ukraine.

No, I think it's you who's quite selective here, as I'm perfectly willing to talk about the similar unjust and irresponsible wars and interventions done either by the US neocons or by Saudi-Arabia. Let's have that discussion. But as I said, I don't think nobody will come to the defense of the Saudi lead coalition, start some delusional rant of Shiite Crescent or how evil Iran is. No, that wouldn't happen. But in this thread there are those (not you) who even go so far to argue that actually Putin isn't a dictator. And perfectly seem to if not justify, do see the realpolitik reasons for Russia to attack it's neighbors.

Well, I'm not seeing similar realpolitik reasons for the Saudis to again intervene in the Yemeni politics as they did earlier and just make things worse for the people of Yemen.

In a thread about Ukraine, the counterargument seems to but everything else than what is happening in Ukraine.

And what I oppose is the selectivity in condemning wars of aggression so apparent in this case.

In a thread about Ukraine, the counterargument seems to but everything else than what is happening in Ukraine. — ssu

We're not a news service and we're not anyone's personal blog, nor are we your therapist. This is a discussion forum. It's for discussion.

So a thread on Ukraine should expect discussion about the situation in Ukraine. A situation which involves Russia, the US, Europe... The history, authenticity, moral integrity and intentions of all the actors in the current crisis are relevant to the discussion.

If you want to read up on the news or let everyone know how upset you are, I strongly suggest you use the appropriate institutions specialising in those services.

This is s discussion forum. It's for discussion. — Isaac

Yes, and if someone says things that seem to be incorrect to me or I disagree with, then one should point it out.

FYI, the thread about the Corona-virus has also been informative. People have put their links to interesting articles and interviews. If you have a discussion, it's quite understandable to make your case be referencing your conclusions. At first I thought it likely was more of a scare as epidemics coming from Asia have been earlier in this Century. @Benkei corrected me on that and I stood corrected. It isn't some kind of contest.

I don't understand what your opposition to that is.

If you want to read up on the news or let everyone know how upset you are, I strongly suggest you use the appropriate institutions specialising in those services. — Isaac

If you want to see how upset people can be in this forum, check up the threads about the George Floyd killing and police violence in general. That was heated.

You gave me one picture. If you want me to comment on the " massive amount" of similar pictures you'll have to post them. Of course, corroborating evidence is one of the things a further investigation would look for. You were talking about a single image. — Isaac

The point is that you can use common sense. It's not all that blurry and utterly confusing that you cannot make sense of it.

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white. — Benkei

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and @Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia?

The war in Ethiopia happened mainly because of domestic political reasons. Which is a tragedy as Ethiopia was making some economic progress and was becoming more stable, although people more informed about the situation in the country did raised alarms. Yes, the Ethiopian government has gotten aid from abroad, again the usefulness of easy-to-use drones directing artillery fire can be noted. And we could also have a discussion just how many military coups there have been in the Sahel and how dire the situation is in Mali and across the region. There the role of France as basically the colonizer that didn't leave is interesting. The "War on Terror" is still going on there, unfortunately.

Again an interesting topic for another thread.

How about asking the Ukrainians? — jorndoe

I never said Ukrainians shouldn't be asked, did I? But when it comes to something that affects Russia, or any other country, then I think it is proper to ask the people of that country as well.

I don't see why Ukraine should matter more than Russia who has a much larger population.

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. — ssu

If there is a nuclear war someday then we have postponed the inevitable to a bigger, more disastrous exchange of nuclear missiles.

If wars are not inevitable lets go for total disarmament, I mean total. Some countries do not have armed forces.

If wars are not inevitable lets go for total disarmament, I mean total. Some countries do not have armed forces. — FreeEmotion

There's not enough trust between countries for that, unfortunately. And things are now getting just worse as military spending is going to increase.

What can happen and successfully has happened is arms reductions. Let's remember that there were far more nuclear weapons in the end of the Cold War than now. And many of those disposed nuclear warheads ended up as nuclear fuel warming up the cities they were intended to destroy. Positive things can every then and now happen.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. — ssu

Sure, for people that are "close" ... but how is the United States any closer to Ukraine than Ethiopia or Yemen?

@Benkei is talking about Western countries, which in today's parlance also includes Australia.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents?

I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. — Benkei

Not at all. It's your stupidity that has this effect. If all you have to say here is that you don't care about Ukraine, and care much more about Yemen, then feel free to get out of here and start a Yemenite thread.

Again. Let's look at that picture. Do these look like volunteers, people that have lived in Crimea, yet in the days after the Maidan revolution have taken up arms against the new Ukrainian government? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers? — ssu

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to argue on this topic of the "little green men".

Are you saying if we catch the US or the Ukrainians in a lie then we can assume everything they say is a lie?

Or when the Americans and Ukrainians do it that's just "winning the information war" and, you see, we need to understand that they have just cause so anything they do is explainable and understandable.

Ukraine and US have been caught in plenty of lies.

And, if we were talking basic military strategy, we'd obviously agree that deception is a large part of military tactics and intelligence services, which (I think it's safe to assume) that you'd argue that American and Ukraine certainly need intelligence services and information campaigns and it's normal deception and lies are used in that.

Of course, makes figuring anything out difficult. But doesn't prove anything about anything.

If I go ahead and demonstrate the US or Ukraine lying about something ... you'd just say that doesn't matter.

So how does this lie, assuming it's a lie, about the little green men matter?

And, in terms of uniforms, army surplus exists and anyone engaged in militia activity is going to want to look like a badass. So, as @Benkei points out the photo proves nothing and could be staged anyways, and Russia has as much right to conduct intelligence operations as anyone else.

US military and intelligence are on the ground in places they shouldn't legally be all the time (in a sovereign country helping and committing acts of war without a declaration of war by congress), media just repeats the euphemism "advising" ... which even if it really was just advice doesn't change the legality of it and committing an act of war.