I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably.

I do read it.

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably. — Manuel

I think what you mean to say is after a certain amount of posts it becomes clear some posters are here for purely propaganda purposes or then to protect their own fragile egos in interpreting being able to post with being able to make a coherent point, and have zero good faith engagement in the discussion.

For example, to argue there's not enough Nazis to justify invasion, presumes if there was enough it would justify invasion and one would need to provide that definition of "enough Nazis".

Those presuming "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good" but do not have an answer to this basic question are either:

A. not engaging in discussion in good faith, which always has a point to continue between good faith interlocutors willing to do so, and some discussions have literally been going on for thousands of years without reaching the "certain amount of posts" you mention ... even more notably, good faith interlocutors who are not willing to debate don't chime in just to complain that others are doing so.

B. pro Nazi.

Define 'nazi'.

Or:
C. Able to distinguish nuance. Maybe it isn't about a specific number of Nazis, but what they are doing. Are they massacuring civilians and gearing up to invade their neighbors the way the real Nazis did? Do they actually have the capacity to do these things or is there an immanent risk of them gaining those capabilities? How will said Nazis be eliminated and what collateral damage will occur during these efforts? What tools are available for dispatching the Nazis: a modern, professional military with guided munitions for avoiding collateral damage, or one that is going to begin punitively shelling residential neighborhoods when they meet resistance and which will start gang raping women and children? Are there ways to engage the Nazi threat with more limited means?

There are plenty of people who are not "pro-Nazi," who nonetheless, seeing isolated US areas with active neo-Nazi groups, don't think the correct course of action is to begin shelling those communities.

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

I’m referring to capitalism as a monetary system (capitalism in principle) rather than “capitalism” the political system of the West. I’m talking about it as a monetary system which supports markets and the use of capital to generate economic growth. This is practiced successfully by Vietnam and China for example.

Without the adoption of a capitalist monetary system across large populations we are doomed to the next dark ages (much worse this time due to overpopulation and climate change, perhaps existential).

Is this what you are referring to?

Sorry, I was distracted. I mean, perhaps. I think some explanations I've seem to verge on jingoism. But this whole "bad faith" stuff, it's not worth more than one or two replies.

If they're going to twist your words or say something very silly, I'd just go talk with someone who has a point which I think is good, may be a bit misleading, etc.

But to keep this "Anti-America", "Pro-Putin", "Pro-Democracy", and all these labels, is kind of meaningless. For me.

You're one of those apologists I refer to. I won't even bother reading it because you and Isaac have just proven to be noise. And the mods don't give a fuck about this thread so why should I bother to discuss things with you? Enough has been said, you want to parrot on, go ahead, I'll focus on more able people because I've had enough of Putin apologists, Russian trolls, and people up in their own ideological asses. What you and everyone like you keep asking for is to make arguments that have already been made, but ignored or drowned out, so why should I bother debating with people like you? I'm waiting for the mods to clean this thread up, which they never will because it's "a political thread". :shade:

As I pointed out already, history is relevant to the present IFF you can derive a lesson from it applicable in the present. Otherwise it's water under the bridge. What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell? — Olivier5

That the United States has a major role to play in this conflict, historically and currently -- and are, as usual, making things worse by rejecting peace negotiations. (There are historical reasons for this as well.)

I can't do anything about Russia. As a US citizen, I can at least do something -- however small -- about my government's actions. This is why I bring up the US, in part. But even if I weren't a citizen, given that the US is the world superpower, it would still be relevant indeed.

The Russians have made it fairly clear that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line and completely unacceptable. Since at least 2008. After 2014, the US doubled down. It was only a matter of time before Putin responded. John Mearsheimer had been predicting it for years, in fact.

What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell?
— Olivier5

That the United States has a major role to play in this conflict, historically and currently -- and are, as usual, making things worse by rejecting peace negotiations. — Xtrix

How is the US 'rejecting peace negotiations'?

They have no interest in a negotiated settlement. This war is good for business, and so there's little chance the US will allow Putin any kind of path to save face. What they've done is spent billions of dollars to arm Ukrainians and prop up resistance while issuing economic sanctions (which, as always, will mostly hurt the population of Russia, not the elites-- despite talking points).

This war is good for business, — Xtrix

It's really not.

Thomas L Friedman opines (The New York Times):

China and Russia Are Giving Authoritarianism a Bad Name (Apr 18, 2022)

:D

You can sit down now. — Putin to Naryshkin (intelligence chief)

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war. — EricH

If the United States wanted it that way, as in "Russia is not he enemy" , Ukraine could have existed as some sort of a West-leaning buffer state. Clumsily, as usual, they went too far in engineering a coup. This is not diplomacy.

There is hope, however, I will not name any names, but there are politicians over in the United States who have a more peaceable approach, at least before being elected. Then something seems to happen to them.They have to get elected though.The hope is that in the next election the issue of arming Ukraine, of how the entire crisis was handled, is sure to feature in the debates, and then it will be time for the American people to decide: however, if they vote out of fear, and the instinct for self-protection, vote for war, then I think the status quo would continue.

There is open discussion on how to 'defeat China' militarily, I hope this is not a majority view, the desire to go to war with China. If it is, then you are in trouble.

A review of RAND Corporation's
'War with China: Thinking
Through the Unthinkable'

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/review-rand-corporations-war-china-thinking-through-unthinkable

How will this end? I think it depends on President Zelenzkyy, and if enough destruction is wrought enough times he is bound to give in, I think that is what President Putin in trying to do.

May 9th seems to be a nice date to end it all. I do feel very very sorry for Ukraine, and very upset with Zelenskyy's line. If this is defending a country, then defense is not a good idea at all.

I won't mince words, President Zelenskyy's best option would have been to negotiate with the Russians, re-arm and fight back in some sort of insurgency. No doubt experts here have better ideas on how this could have been avoided, but that is my view.

:rofl:

They have no interest in a negotiated settlement. This war is good for business, and so there's little chance the US will allow Putin any kind of path to save face. — Xtrix

For one, Putin can find in him the strength to make peace, irrespective of the US. He doesn't need the support of the US to do so.

For two, so can Zelensky. If he wants to go for peace, the US can't stop him. Sorry to break it to you but your country is not that powerful anymore.

For three, I don't know where you've seen that the war is good for business. Inflation is already here. Global recession awaits us after the Russian debt default.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation — boethius

Speaking of...

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/19/ukrainian-workers-flee-modern-slavery-conditions-on-uk-farms

"Nobody cares what happens to seasonal workers. I thought our rights would be well protected in the UK but this has not happened. Working on the farm is probably one of the worst experiences and worst treatment of my life"

She and her boyfriend worked on a cherry farm, where they were not allowed to wear gloves, leading to their hands bleeding and skin beginning to peel off.

She said workers on one farm staged a protest over the poor conditions and were punished by being suspended for a week.

...sorry. I meant how much support we in the west have for Ukrainian flags. They're everywhere, we love 'em! Ukrainians themselves... meh, apparently not so much

I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine. — EricH

1. The US and Europe continue to supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war - thousands more Ukrainians die, eventually they lose Donbas and Crimea, because (without boots on the ground, they can't win)

2. The US and Europe stop supplying weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war and instead put all that money and effort into brokering a serious peace deal.

3. NATO send troops into Ukraine, set up a no-fly zone, bomb the shit out of the invading Russian army and hope to God it doesn't start World War Three.

Option 1 leads nowhere but more death and destruction, yet it's the option currently being taken. Option 2 could save thousands (if not millions) of lives, risks 'giving in' to a bully, but little more. Option 3 could also save millions of lives, doesn't risk 'giving in' to a bully, but does risk global annihilation.



Do you not think we should even try option 2? If we ought, then there's your answer. There's what you should persuade your political leaders to do.

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. It is well documented how sick the U.K. economy and work practices are.
The government’s position is to prevent as many refugees arriving as possible.

Not to mention that the U.K. government is dysfunctional atm. We are returning to our place as the sick man of Europe.

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. — Punshhh

How so? We've been talking about the role of hypocrisy in bolstering and providing cover for Putin's invasion within Russia (and other sympathetic states). It might be irrelevant to the political discussion you want to have. Feel free to refrain from replying if so

From Putin's speech...

This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

It’s irrelevant because it’s the result of an internal social and political failure within a failing U.K. Any international affairs don’t shape it. It predates the Ukraine crisis anyways.

It might be an example of something Putin can point to and shout look how bad they are. But he was not short of propaganda material to begin with.

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets.

It’s irrelevant — Punshhh

...

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets. — Punshhh

Surely that's makes it relevant? You've not explained what the criteria of relevance are.

That Johnson isn’t micro managing events in the U.K. as party of his propaganda initiative. And that Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition.

Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition. — Punshhh

So, because he's not short of ammunition, that makes discussing his ammunition irrelevant? I don't see the link.

If twenty people each give a criminal a gun, it's not irrelevant to discuss one of them on the grounds that there were 19 others, that just makes no sense.

The rampant hypocrisy in Western countries with regards to stuff like this is a large part of Putin's propaganda which keeps him in power and provides support for his actions. This is an example of that. You can't use the fact that there are many other examples as an an argument that any given example is irrelevant.

There's a fourth option you forgot to mention: The US and Europe supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. It ought to be mentioned as the fastest way to bring this war to a close, even though it would be a catastrophy for the world.

Not so farfetched, when you think of it. President Trump would have supported Putin.

The US and Europe supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. It ought to be mentioned as the fastest way to bring this war to a close, even though it would be a catastrophy for the world. — Olivier5

Why would we be interested in the 'fastest' way? The fastest way would be to launch nuclear strikes on both Russia and Ukraine. No countries, no wars. Job done.

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that I wasn't talking to a bunch of sociopaths and we all had reducing human suffering as a goal.

In that respect, it seems the difference of opinion is over whether 'giving in' to Putin's bullying is going to cause more suffering long-term, or whether a long drawn-out war followed by crippling debt would.

But that's just exactly the contrast I've been pointing to for the last 200 pages. Apparently it makes me a Putin apologist, because it seems concern for the well-being of ordinary folk has to take second place to flag waiving for the 'goodies'.

n that respect, it seems the difference of opinion is over whether 'giving in' to Putin's bullying is going to cause more suffering long-term, or whether a long drawn-out war followed by crippling debt would.

But that's just exactly the contrast I've been pointing to for the last 200 pages. Apparently it makes me a Putin apologist, because it seems concern for the well-being of ordinary folk has to take second place to flag waiving for the 'goodies'. — Isaac

Why do you behave so aggressively then, if we are talking of a mere tactical difference but agree on the goal? Why are you so angry at folks who think that giving in to Putin would create more suffering than resisting him? It's a perfectly valid opinion, no?

Why are you so angry at folks who think that giving in to Putin would create more suffering than resisting him? It's a perfectly valid opinion, no? — Olivier5

That I'm angry is entirely a fantasy of yours, I can't account for your overactive imagination.

And I've not once argued against the reasonableness of the view that giving in to Putin would cause more suffering. I've argued against the view that the alternative position is 'preposterous', 'apologist', 'kremlimophilic', 'supporting Russia'...and all the other pathetic attempts to avoid any actual argument by tribalistic cheerleading.

I think the view that giving in to Putin might cause more suffering in the long term is perfectly reasonable. It's supported by a range of experts in their field. I happen to disagree with it. My view is also reasonable and supported by a range of experts in their field.

What interests me here is why, given two reasonable views people could adopt, they choose the one which exculpates the West (mostly their own nations) and puts all agency on Russia (the one nation they have absolutely no say in, nor responsibility for). I find that choice suspicious in motive, but it's still one of the plausible options.

That I'm angry is entirely a fantasy of yours, I — Isaac

Well then, you might wish to tone down the insults.

What interests me here is why, given two reasonable views people could adopt, they choose the one which exculpates the West (mostly their own nations) and puts all agency on Russia (the one nation they have absolutely no say in, nor responsibility for). I find that choice suspicious in motive, but it's still one of the plausible options. — Isaac

And I find your interest in blaming the West suspicious, when the topic is a war started by Russia. It's quite bizarre. People are not 'putting all agency on Russia'. Rather, Russia objectively started this war and can stop it. That's a fact that we simply recognize, not a choice we are making. The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it.