Do you genuinely think that if Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? Of course not! — ssu

Do I genuinely think NATO and America were completely powerless to stop Russia by any non-military means? No. And "Of course not!" hardly constitutes a counter-argument.

Just think about what it means when Putin says that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Just stop for a moment and think what that means. Just think how Russia has approached other ex-Soviet states. — ssu

You keep reverting to this tactic. Putin said that he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. We can point to all sorts of things Putin said. If you're just going to assume the ones that support your narrative are true and the ones which oppose it are lies then obviously your narrative is going to come out looking well supported.

somehow, Russia is given this right to "naturally" be a bully as if it would have the right for a "sphere of influence". — ssu

Russia is not 'given' anything. Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson'. We hope that mature nations don't act like parents from a 1950s soap opera.

Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson' — Isaac

... are we ... are we the peace mongers?

Austria distances itself from Vladimir Putin, without renouncing its neutrality
Vienna supports Ukraine, but its desire to keep its neutral status and its heavy dependence on Russian gas prevent it from delivering weapons to Kyiv.

By Jean-Baptiste Chastand (Vienna, regional correspondent, Le Monde)
Posted today at 5:00 p.m.

The Austrian Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg, receives journalists, Wednesday, May 4, in the magnificent office which overlooks the Minoriten church, at the center of Vienna; the same office as his famous predecessor's, Karin Kneissl. Minister between 2017 and 2019 during the two years when the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ, extreme right) governed with the conservative People's Party (ÖVP), this career diplomat shocked Europe by inviting Vladimir Putin to come and waltz to his wedding in the summer of 2018. She now sits on the supervisory board of the Russian oil group Rosneft, and has become the symbol of Austrian diplomatic alignment with Moscow.

“I would never be tempted to waltz with a Russian, whether it's Putin or someone else. The change is very clear”, promises, four years later, Mr. Schallenberg. With his assumed pro-Western opinions, he was appointed to this position in early 2020 by the new eco-conservative government to make people forget the awkward alliances of the past. "Faced with Russian aggression, we are clearly on Ukraine's side ," insists the minister, in the face of critical voices, particularly in Kiev, who deplore Austria's relative caution about the conflict.

Firmly attached to its neutrality, the country of 8.9 million inhabitants is one of the last in the European Union (EU) to not deliver arms to the Ukrainians, alongside Hungary led by pro-Russian Viktor Orban.

"Our Constitution prevents us from doing so, but we let other countries pass through our territory for their military transport" , defends the minister, also insisting on the "100 million euros in humanitarian aid" released by his government since the beginning of the conflict. If the war pushed countries like Sweden or Finland to debate their neutrality and consider joining NATO, this is absolutely not the case in Austria, where neutrality is legally a different matter: imposed in 1955 by the USSR in exchange for the return to independence, it is enshrined in international treaties.

"Austria was neutral, Austria is neutral, Austria will remain neutral ," Chancellor Karl Nehammer promised in early March, with the support of almost all of the country's politicians. “There has been no change in public opinion in Austria: renouncing neutrality would be extremely unpopular ,” observes Gerhard Mangott, specialist in international relations and Russia at the University of Innsbruck.

Unavowable links with Moscow

In recent weeks, the conflict has nevertheless reminded us that this neutrality has also long served as a screen for a story of unavowable links with Moscow. As a result of its proximity to Russia, Austria is dependent on Gazprom for 80% of its gas supplies, one of the highest rates in the EU. And the national energy company OMV, which was historically the first in Western Europe to import Russian gas (in 1968), is the subject of much criticism for not having prepared any diversification. Its director between 2011 and 2015, Gerhard Roiss, even claimed to have been ousted from his post for opposing "the large fraction of pro-Putin who deliberately led Austria to be dependent on Russia" .

Even after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia continued to benefit from a favorable a priori both on the left and on the right, and in Viennese economic circles; the latter receiving Mr. Putin with retrospectively awkward regard. Not to mention the infiltration of the Austrian intelligence services by the Russians, brought to light on the occasion of several scandals in recent years. "Bootlickers who rolled out the red carpet for Putin", lambasted the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Greens, Werner Kogler. He asked for a commission of inquiry, which has little chance of succeeding given the reluctance of the political world.

The Greens are pushing for Austria to do without Russian gas completely by 2027. But a study by the Austrian energy agency estimated that this would only be possible with a reduction of one third of the gas consumption. "An incomprehensible objective ," said Andreas Rinofner, spokesman for OMV, recalling that his company signed a contract in 2018 with Gazprom, which runs until 2040. "It does not provide for a break clause" , warns- he already, also ensuring "to seek solutions in accordance with European sanctions" to meet the new requirement of the Russians to be paid in rubles. “We are a country without access to the sea, we cannot build a terminal for liquefied natural gas”, points Mr. Schallenberg.

By Chancellor Karl Nehammer's own admission, this dependency nevertheless prompted the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to "blame him for conceding dead children for Russian gas", during his visit to Kiev in April. Mr. Nehammer then went to Moscow, where he met Mr. Putin, without result. “A perfectly useless trip, but which had above all a domestic political aim” , according to Mr. Mangott. “In diplomacy, you always have to try ,” retorts Mr. Schallenberg. The Minister also defends his reluctance regarding Ukraine's accession to the EU. By calling to be "reasonable" and "not to forget the Balkan countries", who have been waiting for their integration for years, he rather hopes for “an imaginative new model” than outright membership.

Lukashenko says nuclear weapons are a bad idea.

"It is also unacceptable because it might knock our terrestrial ball flying off the orbit to who knows where," he added. "Whether or not Russia is capable of that — is a question you need to ask the Russian leadership."

:chin:

"It is also unacceptable because it might knock our terrestrial ball flying off the orbit to who knows where," he added. — frank

Talk about escalation... of the planet's orbit!

:lol:

... are we ... are we the peace mongers?

Why of course, Putin is trying to re establish peace in the region. Talk that he’s desperately trying to build a legacy before he becomes to ill to continue in power. A legacy which includes the sacred city of Kiev, is just that, talk.

... are we ... are we the peace mongers? — boethius

Ha! No, unfortunately not. Apparently advocating any strategy other than throwing more Ukrainians under Putin's tanks so we can gloat when he loses, is literally working for the FSB. I've been assured that this is "nuance" ( ).

I think most politicians, and people with power and influence in general, see themselves above the law. Your "Norman" system doesn't really seem any worse than others.

Agreed, although in Britain there was an acute case of the people who were treating the people in a brutal way were foreigners who invaded and they literally were above the law for hundreds of years. You see Boris Johnson literally believes he is morally above the law, the law is for the plebs. Eton college drums this mentality into their students, it’s morally corrupt.

All or most systems have some form of social and economic hierarchy, including supposedly "egalitarian" ones like Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, in Britain though the architects of the hierarchy were these invaders. I see in the U.K. the unprivileged classes as traumatised following a thousand years of abuse. This trauma manifests in the hooliganism, base ignorance and populist politics. I doubt that if the Normans had lost in 1066 we would be like this.

Yes, Churchill probably considered himself "upper-class"

That is irrelevant to the argument. Many of our ruling class were corrupt, decadent, self destructive. In a sense victims of the system they were born into.

I have no argument with you about how and who built the empire. They worked in and were a product of the system I described.

America largely took over from Britain and continued the Anglo-Saxon or "Norman" imperialism by financial, economic, and military means. Organizations like NATO and the EU are manifestations of US imperialism a.k.a. Atlanticism or Transatlanticism.

Again, no argument here. Although I would put the emphasis on some positive and constructive aspects of this. Rather like what made Roman imperialism successful, Transatlanticism worked with those who they influenced, often made them more prosperous.

You see “The West” offers something good, provided you comply with some basic obligations, you have piece, prosperity and personal liberty. This is why it is known as the free world. I know it’s not perfect and is going through a rocky period at this time.

But what is the alternative?

I doubt that if the Normans had lost in 1066 we would be like this. — Punshhh

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilization.

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilization. — Olivier5

Between burning people's crops and cutting everybody's hands off, they brought civilization.

cutting everybody's hands off, — frank

?

You'd be worse off. The French brought you civilisation.

What? the French imported the aristocracy to Britain and then took the guillotine to their own. You should have brought it across the channel while you were at it.

Ha! No, unfortunately not. Apparently advocating any strategy other than throwing more Ukrainians under Putin's tanks so we can gloat when he loses, is literally working for the FSB. I've been assured that this is "nuance" (↪Christoffer ). — Isaac

"How to strawman", an anti-philosophy paper by mr Professor.

This is exactly why you are impossible and pointless to have a discussion with. And also, Ukrainians don't seem to be thrown under Russian tanks, Russian troops and officers seem very capable of doing that to themselves instead. And I didn't say anything about you being FSB, so again, cut the bullshit.

The point you never fucking understand is that Ukrainians fight for their survival as an independent state and the world support that defense and will to exist. You advocate for them to surrender to a dictator who wants to rule over them and pull all their freedoms under his power. What's the purpose of saving lives if those lives lose what they feel is a life worth living?

That you oppose this pushback against Russia in order to keep Ukraine free from being ruled over by Putin is the very point that makes you an apologist of Russia's actions and agendas. Being apologetic of their actions doesn't mean you are them, it means you basically apologize for their actions, war crimes, and acts of invasion, something any rational person right now can't do.

And the nuance that I describe is that things like Sweden and Finland wanting to join Nato in order to safeguard against the brutality and degeneracy of Russia and its irresponsible actions does not mean we love Nato. It only means that it's the best security we have against Russia. But you can't get that into your skull, because you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. You cannot grasp a fight for survival, a will for security, and a condemnation of a nation for its crimes, while this stage is set within the already existing alliances and diplomacy.

THIS is the problem with you apologists; you live in a utopian dream where there is some kind of fantasy solution outside of the current players of the world. You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist or that blindly are about saving lives with total disregard for what the consequences of that would be. Like, even if Ukraine surrendered and Russia came to power in Ukraine and it saved lives in the short run, how the fuck do you think life would be like in Ukraine after that? Especially after the torture, executions, and rapings of civilians by Russians. What do you think such life would be like going forward under the rule of Putin? It would be a bloody insurgency and revenge for decades, all that hate set within the boundaries of Putin's new empire while the FSB and Russian state terrorize the civilians living with the memories of Russia's vile acts during the war. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to fight back and push Russia out of Ukraine. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to build some guarantee of this kind of invasion to never happen again. It's a fight for the survival and soul of their nation and the rest of the world understands this. Sending weapons and supporting their fight is to support their chance to live free of the Putin regime as well as a message to Putin and Russia that this kind of act is not tolerated.

This is what I have been saying, that people today are so apathetic and have forgotten what a fight to survive actually is. Have forgotten the risk of war in Europe. This is what is going on right now, all the talk of Sweden and Finland joining Nato etc. is all about the realization that Russia is in fact a real threat from a superpower nation. It's existential for everyone, especially us living so close to their borders and we cannot give a fuck about the downsides of Nato at this time because Russia is a much more serious threat and problem than how to define Nato as a player. And apologists seem to be unable to grasp any of this, sitting in their armchairs trying to justify Russia's acts, criticizing Sweden and Finland for being "puppets of the US" for wanting to join Nato, downplaying the Ukrainian's will to fight for their freedom; it becomes parody, satire, and a disgusting line of arguments. So yeah, the nuance I'm speaking about has to do with the pragmatic reality of all of this. A reality that doesn't seem to exist within the set rules of your arguments; which is supposed to be an ideal world based on your personal opinions about education, society, morale etc. etc. Who gives a fuck about your fantasies?

The Harrying of the North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

The point you never fucking understand is that Ukrainians fight for their survival as an independent state and the world support that defense and will to exist. — Christoffer

Not agreeing with someone is not the same as not understanding. To conflate the two, you'd have to assume you were infallible, otherwise it may, alternatively, be simply that your assessment is wrong, not misunderstood.

You advocate for them to surrender to a dictator who wants to rule over them and pull all their freedoms under his power. — Christoffer

No. I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). Again, your personal assessment of the situation is not a fact, its an opinion, one with which I, and many experts in the field, disagree.

It only means that it's the best security we have against Russia. But you can't get that into your skull, because you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. — Christoffer

No. I can't get that into my skull because I disagree. Again, something many experts in the field also do. This is what makes you so interesting to discuss with. You can't seem to come to terms with the idea of rational people disagreeing with each other. It's like the moment you think something it becomes a fact and anyone disagreeing must simply have misunderstood.

You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist — Christoffer

If you restrict solutions only to those which currently exist, how do you suppose society evolves?

if Ukraine surrendered and Russia came to power in Ukraine and it saved lives in the short run, what the fuck do you think life would be like in Ukraine after that? Especially after the torture, executions, and rapings of civilians by Russians. What do you think such life would be like going forward under the rule of Putin — Christoffer

You're simply assuming a negotiated settlement would result in Putin having complete control over Ukraine. There's no ground for you to assume that's the only possible outcome.

The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to fight back and push Russia out of Ukraine. The ONLY solution for Ukraine is to build some guarantee of this kind of invasion never happen again. — Christoffer

As you said...

you can only draw thick lines in the sand, view everything as black and white. — Christoffer

...and...

You advocate for solutions that do not simply exist or that blindly are about saving lives with total disregard for what the consequences of that would be. — Christoffer

You see why it's difficult to take you seriously? Everything you think is black and white is assumed, without question, to be so, yet you accuse others of black-and-white thinking without even a hint of humility about the hypocrisy inherent there.

the nuance I'm speaking about has to do with the pragmatic reality of all of this. — Christoffer

A perfect summary. Do you actually know what 'nuance' means in this context? You're claiming the 'nuance' - the subtle and complex effects and implications that are not immediately apparent - is the simple, uncomplicated reality you see in front of you.

...

In any situation in which experts disagree, laymen must, at the very least, agree that it is possible to rationally hold one of the viewpoints held by any of the disagreeing experts. We could be at each other's throats about the politics driving our choices over which experts we've chosen, but to try and argue that a choice is not rational on no ground other than that it disagrees with yours is simply delusional.

You should have brought it across the channel while you were at it. — Punshhh

Oliver Cromwell did some of that beheading though, so not sure what you needed us for... :-)

The Harrying of the North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North — Punshhh

"Records from the Domesday Book show that 75% of the population died or never returned."

We call it: "the Special Military Operation in the North".

I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). Again, your personal assessment of the situation is not a fact, its an opinion, one with which I, and many experts in the field, disagree. — Isaac

In this world of globalized trade and international relations, within which we live, what kind of isolation would be required to secure one's regime against "foreign interference".

"Foreign interference" is just an ill-defined catch phrase, which in most usage on this thread, only means someone else is getting in the way of me getting what I want. The act of getting in my way, is carried out by some foreign individuals or agencies, and by reference to some laws is deemed as illegal. So for example, Hillary Clinton complained of foreign interference in the American election.

As you can probably see, "foreign interference" as an illegal activity (if we could separate it from the legal sort) is a shifty sort of phantom, like a mirage. It has a very real existence, but its physical presence, i.e. where it originates, or its cause, is not what it appears to be. How do you think that the use of "brutal force" could be effective for defending oneself against such an entity as "foreign interference", whose mode of existence is ideological rather than physical?

No. I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). — Isaac

Do you even understand what you wrote here? Who's really throwing Ukrainians under the tanks? :shade: The lack of insight or understanding of the consequences of this statement is remarkable.

No. I can't get that into my skull because I disagree. Again, something many experts in the field also do. — Isaac

Experts of your choice, the cherry-picked ones from fringe departments who naively disregard any kind of consequential analysis of the fallout from the atrocities Russia commits or what Ukraine would face under the rule of Putin. Also the blatant disregard of what the Ukrainians actually want. The blind arguments from experts who smelled their own farts for too long and who forgot the reality of a superpower conducting these kinds of war crimes.

If you restrict solutions only to those which currently exist, how do you suppose society evolves? — Isaac

By doing what can be done in the moment and examining the events post an actual solution. Your idea of "solutions" is like trying to come up with some moronic way of dealing with Hitler in the midst of World War II, instead of you know, winning the war and then organizing society by philosophizing about the events in order to not let such things happen again. Your way of thinking would have led to the world losing to Hitler because it's naive and a fantasy and a total waste of time. Want to write fan fiction about some utopian solution to an ongoing conflict while Ukrainian women gets raped, children are murdered and whole villages are executed, go ahead, but no one cares about such naivety.

You're simply assuming a negotiated settlement would result in Putin having complete control over Ukraine. There's no ground for you to assume that's the only possible outcome. — Isaac

You are assuming that you can trust Putin. Doesn't the constant broken promises from Russia during this war kind of inform you that they're not trustworthy to follow through on any kind of negotiation? They're constantly killing civilians who're supposed to be let through corridors out of war-torn regions. They're lying through their teeth and you think any kind of negotiation will result in anything other than Putin and Russia doing whatever the fuck they want. Seriously, you are so fucking naive and blind to the actual behavior of Putin and his minions.

You see why it's difficult to take you seriously? Everything you think is black and white is assumed, without question, to be so, yet you accuse others of black-and-white thinking without even a hint of humility about the hypocrisy inherent there. — Isaac

Stop acting like a moron. Are you able to spot the difference between a literal two-sided issue and issues that are nuanced? Like, what do you think are the options for Ukraine and its people? You naively think that Russia would grant them any kind of freedom if they surrender? Give me a fucking break. Get your head out of that fantasy utopian Russian apologetic ideal. Russia would only settle for total power over them, a true puppet state. The Ukrainians don't want this, so maybe you should fucking listen to what the Ukrainians actually want and stop speaking for them. Because for them, there is NO other choice, if you had any intention of actually caring for their voice in this conflict you would understand why this part only has that side to it.

A perfect summary. Do you actually know what 'nuance' means in this context? You're claiming the 'nuance' - the subtle and complex effects and implications that are not immediately apparent - is the simple, uncomplicated reality you see in front of you. — Isaac

The nuance to see reality for what it is, good and bad, pragmatically choose a solution that is good for the people, not ideal for the personal ego of the person making the argument. And if "good for the people" is only about saving lives and not caring for what life people will have after survival, then that's not nuanced, that's blind naive morality. And the nuance I spoke about was about Nato. There's no need to be nuanced about Russia, they are pretty obvious in what they're doing. But Nato is a more complex issue. You however seem to be unable to understand where nuance exists and where reality stares you in the fucking face. Maybe you should go and watch the mutilated bodies of civilians and children in Ukraine and you might let go of that "nuance" about Russia that you advocate for.

In any situation in which experts disagree, laymen must, at the very least, agree that it is possible to rationally hold one of the viewpoints held by any of the disagreeing experts. — Isaac

Or just go with the consensus. If you cherry-pick you don't take any epistemic responsibility in the matter, you pick and choose what already fits your own personal opinion and narrative. And you know, it's also possible if you are actually educated yourself to analyze and philosophize from the facts and reports that exist openly, but you don't believe in education so there's that.

You only have your opinion, you don't do any kind of evaluation of reality to arrive at any truth, you pick and choose to fit your own personal opinion. This is proven by you ignoring and blatantly disregarding what Ukrainian themselves actually want and naively believe Russia, contrary to how they've acted throughout this war in diplomacy, to arrive at peaceful respect towards the Ukrainian people. It's an extremely naive and stupid perspective of actual events.

You keep reverting to this tactic. Putin said that he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. We can point to all sorts of things Putin said. If you're just going to assume the ones that support your narrative are true and the ones which oppose it are lies then obviously your narrative is going to come out looking well supported. — Isaac

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war.

Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson'. We hope that mature nations don't act like parents from a 1950s soap opera. — Isaac

And this kind of behavior, which you aptly describe, is the reason why countries have opted to join NATO. The fears that the Baltic States or Poland has had about Russia have shown to be true, unfortunately. Many didn't think it would be so.

I'm very happy that the Baltic States are in NATO. Because otherwise they would have now at least Russian military bases inside their borders. Or worse, there would be puppet states inside them like in Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine.

We call it: "the Special Military Operation in the North".

Ahh, that’s alright then. Let’s just go back to the history written by the victors then. Nothing to see hear.

Cromwell only did half the job, he gave us the House of Commons, but in short order that house became packed with the aristocracy and the common folk had no vote, or representation.

But the Normans were provoked by various Englishmen who shipwrecked on their shore.

The lack of insight or understanding of the consequences of this statement is remarkable. — Christoffer

No, the lack of agreeing with you is remarkable. again, unless you're claiming yourself to be infallible, then disagreeing with you is not the same as lacking understanding.

Experts of your choice, — Christoffer

So you didn't choose the experts you cite? Remarkable! who did choose them then?

cherry-picked ones from fringe departments — Christoffer

Which fringe departments would those be?

who naively disregard any kind of consequential analysis of the fallout from the atrocities Russia commits or what Ukraine would face under the rule of Putin. — Christoffer

Again, unless your claim is that you are infallible, people disagreeing with you about the fallout is not the same as then naively disregarding it.

You are assuming that you can trust Putin. Doesn't the constant broken promises from Russia during this war kind of inform you that they're not trustworthy to follow through on any kind of negotiation? — Christoffer

Putin's trustworthiness and Putin's intentions are two different matters. If Putin can't be trusted it means that he may not act in the way he promised. The claim you're making is a prediction about how he will act instead, not merely a claim that such actions might be contrary to any promises made. It doesn't require that I trust Putin to predict what actions he will and will not take in response to attempts at negotiation.

you think any kind of negotiation will result in anything other than Putin and Russia doing whatever the fuck they want. — Christoffer

Yes. Successful negotiation does not rely on the lack of lies (thank God!) otherwise no negotiation would ever take place and the world would be at constant war. All politicians lie.

Are you able to spot the difference between a literal two-sided issue and issues that are nuanced? — Christoffer

Once more. Disagreeing with you about the difference is not the same as being unable to spot it, unless you are infallible.

The Ukrainians don't want this, so maybe you should fucking listen to what the Ukrainians actually want and stop speaking for them. — Christoffer

OK, so there are 41 million Ukrainians. By what means did you come to your conclusion about what they all want? Did you ask all of them? What about future Ukrainians, do they get considered, and if so, by whom?

Maybe you should go and watch the mutilated bodies of civilians and children in Ukraine — Christoffer

That would confirm that there was a brutal war going on. In what way would that confirm which was the best solution to stop it?

Or just go with the consensus. — Christoffer

Ah yes, the famous 'consensus'. How was it you measured this again? Was it a properly stratified poll, or a meta-analysis of journal articles? It surely wasn't just a 'feeling' based on the opinion pieces you just happen to have read, that would be a ridiculous basis on which to claim a consensus.

And why would you go with the consensus? Explain to me the mechanism by which a more popular idea is rendered more likely to be right. What truth-enhancing process has the more popular theory been subjected to here?

it's also possible if you are actually educated yourself to analyze and philosophize from the facts and reports that exist openly — Christoffer

And you measure people's capacities in that respect how, exactly? Let me guess...is it the extent to which they agree with you?

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. — ssu

I agree. Putin said he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis, so that is very important in understanding his motives...

...oh sorry, that's not important, is it? Because you've decided that some of the things he says are lies and some are true. Some things are irrelevant to his motives and some aren't.

As I said, if you're going to ignore the things Putin says which don't fit your narrative, then all you have is a self-immunised narrative.

Well, if a statement is "more articulated" that doesn't make it more logical, comprehensible, or true, does it? — Apollodorus

Yet it proves that yours was a straw man argument based on a misinterpreted bit of what I wrote.

You're claiming that my "propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism”. But you have completely failed to demonstrate (a) that my statements were "propaganda" and (b) that they have any impact on Russia's foreign policy. — Apollodorus

Completely failed?! How so? I usually don’t even try to “demonstrate” what I take to be evident or common knowledge.
But if that’s your challenge to me, ok let’s address it. Starting with (b), your accusation looks three times pointless to me: first of all, my claim that your propaganda is “instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism” is simply acknowledging its instrumental role in this war of propaganda, not assessing its specific impact. By analogy, saying that that knife is for cutting bread, doesn’t mean that knife is used or has ever been used to cut bread or is effective in cutting bread.
Second, I don’t even see the rational of requiring such an assessment in ordinary political debates like ours. Assessing the specific impact of your specific claims may be pertinent as a scientific task, I guess. But my claim is still rationally compelling despite the lack of such an assessment, or even due to the lack of such an assessment. Indeed propaganda is not only matter of sources and methods but also of content virality wrt a certain social environment. Considering that in Western democratic societies one can take part in free public debates and vote to have an impact on leaders’ policies also wrt the war in Ukraine (and indirectly wrt Russia's foreign policy), pro-NATO or anti-NATO propaganda narratives can compete in order to influence public opinion accordingly (letting aside all other more or less questionable ways available to militants to proselytise and fight the system from within, of course). Besides thanks to the internet and the social networks non-mainstream and anti-system propaganda have become more pervasive, impactful and easier to infiltrate by hostile powers too. All that considered, uncertainty about the risks of spreading propaganda about controversial issues plausibly increases a default aversion toward ideological opponents in those who are risk averse (by analogy we take default counter measures against covid-19 and expect the same from others, even if we don’t exactly know the medical condition and actual impact of spreading the virus in our and other cases).
And, third, you too must know all that already since you keep stressing the role of propaganda in this thread:
“Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.”
“The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda”.
“And let's face it, every major power wants more power. The only difference is the tools you employ to acquire power, financial, economic, political, military, or any combination of these, and the narrative you use for justification, "world peace", "economic progress", "democracy", "human rights", etc. ”


Concerning (a), besides the fact that you keep complaining about Western propaganda (e.g. “The problem with Americans and Westerners in general is that they tend to be either uneducated or miseducated. It’s hard to tell which is worse, but the result in either case is that Westerners can’t see through their own ignorance and propaganda.”, “The West is, literally, an island of ignorance and self-serving propaganda promoted by the US-controlled global media”), you do not seem to do it exclusively based on your selected repertoire of alleged “facts” at all but also because motivated by your own justificatory narrative which you have been very vocal about on several occasions in this thread: e.g. you wrote “a real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table. As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.
This attitude of yours is perfectly in line with non-Western powers’ narrative as you described them (“IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population”).
Add to this, your biased intellectual approach (just see how you grossly and conveniently misunderstood my claims about Russia being an existential threat to Europe and then tried to minimise Russian nuclear threats) and polemical rhetorical attitude (see the usage of loaded language e.g. NATO jihadis), and what you get is exactly your propaganda, actually one that’s very much in line with the claims of other participants in this thread.
Finally, it’s not uncommon among those who support certain controversial propaganda narratives to deny that even when it’s evident, and this is what makes them also intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, I never said I was "against Western involvement in Ukraine", so there really is no need for you to make things up. As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus

Yes, I am against NATO and against the EU because I am against imperialism. But I think discussion forums are for people to exchange views without resorting to ad hominems and insults. — Apollodorus

Well then I never said you said it either, nor I made anything up since that claim was logically implied by many other claims of yours: basically, you see the Western involvement in Ukraine (or as you called it “America’s economic and military jihad in the region”) as an expression of NATO imperialism and you are against NATO because you are against imperialism. Even more so because you see Western imperialism as illegitimate contrary to the Russian imperialism which you see as legitimate. You also claimed: “EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government”. And: “no, I'm not ‘pro-Russian’, just anti-NATO and anti-US hegemony. And definitely against world government”.
In other words, you are against illegitimate imperialism, even more so if it’s likely leading to world government, which Western involvement in Ukraine you claim is all about. Then yes you are against Western involvement in Ukraine. As for the social-darwinist flavour of this claim of yours “As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win”, it simply makes no sense wrt your own legitimacy claims in favour of Russia/non-Western powers and against US/NATO.

If I find it appropriate, I don’t mind resorting to “ad hominems and insults” as much as you don’t when making comments such as “It looks like some folks have their heads so deep in NATO propaganda”, “Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic”, especially against intellectual dishonest interlocutors like you are proving to be. Yet it's not what I'm here for, so as long there are more pertinent arguments to address, the exchange can continue.

Ukraine entering NATO may or may not be a nuclear threat to Russia. That's for Russia to decide, not for you or me. But the situation is much more complex than that. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it might try to push Russia out of Crimea. This would be unacceptable to Russia (a) because Crimea has never been Ukrainian, (b) because this would result in NATO control of the Black Sea which Russia needs for access to the Mediterranean, and (c) because Crimea has been the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet for centuries (from 1783, to be more precise): Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia
So, I think an objective analysis of the situation needs to consider the concerns of both sides, not just one. — “Apollodorus

I acknowledge the strategic importance of Crimea from a military and commercial point of view (actually I myself brought this issue up a while ago). Yet this is not how this war was explicitly justified by Russian propaganda in the first place (i.e. denazification of Ukraine, broken promises of NATO expansion), nor something the Westerns can now concede to Russia so easily given the confrontational attitude of Russia toward the West and its military presence in Middle East and Africa. And the claim that’s “up to Russia to decide” sounds preposterous because it conflates a trivial observation with a questionable understatement: ordinary citizens’ political contribution is obviously limited to ideological support (in debates and during elections) not in political decision making as political leaders so what’s the point of mentioning me and you?! At the same time the allusive normative force of your otherwise pointless claim is questionable on geopolitical and ideological grounds.

Anyway, if you think that "the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies", and is "not waiting", then there is nothing to worry about. — Apollodorus

Of course there is, because “wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc.” So consensus can be eroded as well as support for certain foreign policy measures.

So, I'm not sure who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. A country that has never done it, or one that has? — Apollodorus

Your way of assessing the likelihood of such an event is preposterous, given that the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US). Besides after the Cuban missile crisis, it became a political and military imperative for major nuclear powers to regulate the usage of their weapons within the boundaries of an officially declared, strictly codified, and implemented logic of deterrence. At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.

No, the lack of agreeing with you is remarkable. again, unless you're claiming yourself to be infallible, then disagreeing with you is not the same as lacking understanding. — Isaac

Did you even understand what I wrote? Probably not, or decided not to in order not to have to answer properly.

So you didn't choose the experts you cite? Remarkable! who did choose them then? — Isaac

You apologists have used the same sources over and over. I choose closer to the consensus and form my own analysis of the situation based on it. You know, actually doing philosophy on a philosophy forum. Though, since moderators allow this thread to be low on quality I can't do much when the bar is set low.

Which fringe departments would those be? — Isaac

Ideological opinions pieces and blogs used as factual sources.

Again, unless your claim is that you are infallible, people disagreeing with you about the fallout is not the same as then naively disregarding it. — Isaac

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you incapable of understanding the social consequences of the dynamic between Russia and Ukraine after the atrocities that Russia has committed? Whatever the outcome of the war, Ukraine and Russia will not be "friends" anymore, if Russia occupies Ukraine or make it a puppet state, there will be insurgencies and revenge acts. If Russia is pushed out, there will be no diplomacy between the two, closer to how North and South Korea's relationship.

If you want some daddy blogger to tell you this simple fact as a source that's your problem, I can actually use my head and analyze the fallout of what is going on. Unless you simply ignore what has actually been going on in Ukraine.

Yes. Successful negotiation does not rely on the lack of lies (thank God!) otherwise no negotiation would ever take place and the world would be at constant war. All politicians lie. — Isaac

Putin and Russia aren't just lying, they use lies and manipulation as a weapon. They've lied about evacuation corridors only to massacre civilians when they're out in the open.

There's no diplomacy to be made with lies on this level, but you are unable to understand this. If you think Russia, Putin, and his minions are on the same level as other politicians when it comes to "lies" you are simply delusional or intentionally apologetic. The truth is in the pudding, and the Russian pudding is rotten as hell.

Once more. Disagreeing with you about the difference is not the same as being unable to spot it, unless you are infallible. — Isaac

Again, what the fuck are you talking about, are you unable to understand what I actually write? I cannot discuss with someone that's mentally impaired to understand the point.

OK, so there are 41 million Ukrainians. By what means did you come to your conclusion about what they all want? Did you ask all of them? What about future Ukrainians, do they get considered, and if so, by whom? — Isaac

If you cannot conclude based on reported Ukrainian public opinion about what they think of the invasion and Russia, then you are fucking ignorant or intentionally apologetic of Russia. Seriously, maybe you should talk to some Ukrainians like I have, maybe talk to people working down in Ukraine, maybe listen to interviews and dig into all of that... well, no of course not, you just use the "how can you even know what every single one of them wants?" as some kind of argument. Give me a fucking break, that kind of counterargument is so weak and stupid that it's impossible to discuss this with any kind of intellectual quality.

You simply ignore stuff that is inconvenient for your opinion and make these stupid counterarguments.

That would confirm that there was a brutal war going on. In what way would that confirm which was the best solution to stop it? — Isaac

Oh, you mean that the war crimes, the mutilations by the torture of civilians, the rapes and executions of civilian women, and the mass graves are normal signs of a brutal war? Are you for real? There are independent investigators confirming all of this in Ukraine, there's no propaganda to this thing, these are facts and you just to brush it all under a rug.

Your dismissal of these things disgusts me and your inability to understand why these things matter for how to judge the sides of this war is beyond stupid.

Ah yes, the famous 'consensus'. How was it you measured this again? — Isaac

By having more experts saying the same thing compared to you and the other apologists using almost the same links to the same pieces over and over. It's not rocket science to follow this war and expert analysis of it, you just have to listen to more than your favorites.

And why would you go with the consensus? Explain to me the mechanism by which a more popular idea is rendered more likely to be right. — Isaac

Because it's not consensus by stupid people not educated in the matter, but by people researching the matter. But how would you know, you don't even think education is needed so I guess you are incapable of understanding any of this.

And you measure people's capacities in that respect how, exactly? Let me guess...is it the extent to which they agree with you? — Isaac

By how logical their conclusions and arguments are. By how consistent they predict future events. And by how much they incorporate new facts into their arguments. Like, you ignoring the impact of war crimes to how you position what Ukraine and Russia should do to stop this conflict. It's a head in the sand moment for you. Ignorant, disgustingly dismissive of the atrocities' impact.

Because you've decided that some of the things he says are lies and some are true. Some things are irrelevant to his motives and some aren't. — Isaac

His intentions are obviously important. Likely he believes that the West has always been out to get Russia. And naturally that any opposition movement against his rule is machinated by the West and it's intelligence services.

Just as many American politicians believed in the "Domino Theory" and lastly they believed that the US has to be in Afghanistan, because it otherwise becomes a safe haven for terrorists. Yet these ideas might not be actually truthful, but surely they do guide the people believing in them.

... are we ... are we the peace mongers? — boethius

Try peace-mongering Putin. :smile: (it's a "truth or dare")
Takes two to tango.
*cough*

I advocate that they surrender to a dictator who wants to secure his regime against foreign interference (and is willing to use brutal force to do so). — Isaac

And the Ukrainians aren't bending over. And are willing to use force to defend themselves. :shrug:
But, getting together at the negotiation table (or diplomacy) surely is desirable. Let's not try to stop that.

, my emphasis:

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war. — ssu

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/why-russia-has-failed-to-win-the-battle-for-donbas/