so you can avoid talking substance, just like ↪Olivier5. — Tzeentch

Where does that come from?

The symmetry is between the way you see it and the way your opponents see it. But to be comfortable with war is assuredly to be a good long way from it. One may have to choose a side, one may have to fight, but to find it comfortable is unconscionable. — unenlightened

I didn't say I was comfortable with war, but with making a moral distinction between an aggressor and his victim. That much should be obvious.

You're obviously not interested in talking substance.

Just like you latch onto any excuse not to engage with actual substance that's presented.

The strawman you presented as though Mearsheimer argued that Putin was incapable of lying (which is obviously idiotic) is case in point.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with this nonsense. Stick to philosophy, not world politics, or better yet, stick with Twitter.

The strawman you presented as though Mearsheimer argued that Putin was incapable of lying (which is obviously idiotic) is case in point. — Tzeentch

Try and follow what's actually said. Straw men are for losers. I am saying that Mearsheimer argues that we should take Putin's words seriously (at least those he cherrypicked) because Putin is not in the habit of lying. That's wishful thinking, not the kind of serious argument I was expecting from such a renown scholar.

Try and follow what's actually said. — Olivier5

:rofl: You ignore the central point of Mearsheimer's message so you can avoid having to engage with the substance, because it's threatening to you.

That's the problem with you people. When you're presented with something you don't want to hear, you go into tilt and you look for an excuse to plug your ears, which is exactly what you're doing.

If you genuinely believe Mearsheimer's point was that Putin never lies and we should trust everything he says, what can I say? Intellectual pursuits are not for you.

Just like ↪Tate you latch onto any excuse not to engage with actual substance that's presented. — Tzeentch

I don't even know what your thesis is.

Zizek has always existed in the tradition of Chris Hitchens anyway —i.e., entrainment and posturing. Give me Chomsky and Hedges any day of the week.

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing.
— baker

At least, our modern Hitler failed his Anschluss. That's something to celebrate. — Olivier5

Sadly, you're thinking of the wrong "modern Hitler".

I'm a Chomsky and Hitchens reader from way back. Žižek is a philosopher-clown who I find is more insightful than ridiculous. Hedges bores me.

No doubt support for Ukraine is prolonging the war, but the primary cause of its duration is Putin. The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin.
/.../
That the US is responsible for Ukrainian deaths? I disagree. I believe the cause is Putin. — Tate

Such extraordinary powers ascribed to one man. Talk about the cult of personality!

Žižek is a philosopher-clown who I find is more insightful than ridiculous. — 180 Proof

What insights?

Hedges bores me. — 180 Proof

To each his own. I don’t see what’s boring about him beyond superficialities.

Anyway…I’m getting off thread topic. If you want to respond I’ll let you have last word.

Such extraordinary powers ascribed to one man. Talk about the cult of personality! — baker

It's called a dictator.

the central point of Mearsheimer's — Tzeentch

Isn't that precisely that we should take Putin's rhetoric seriously when he says that pushing back against NATO motivates his special military operation?

It's called a dictator. — Tate

No, it's called scapegoating.

No, it's called scapegoating. — baker

:chin: :rofl:

Okay so @Tzeentch is obviously not interested in talking substance, @Xtrix has left the thread for good for the tenth time, and @baker takes refuge in paranoia.

Supporting Putin is bad for karma, I guess.

Can't stop yourself to make it personal can you? @Isaac as a psychologist, what do you make of his vacillating between aggressor and victim in the span of on average two posts?

Edit: no need to answer, I'm just demonstrating a point.

what do you make of his vacillating between aggressor and victim in the span of on average two posts?

Edit: no need to answer, I'm just demonstrating a point. — Benkei

Oh yeah, there's at least a book in this, if not a lucrative new line of consultancy!

Seriously, though. One of the things I do at work is provide a social psychological element to economic risk analysis. Actually, this kind of response to complex global events is a hot topic at the moment. People's economic choices are being swayed by the psychological impacts of the way social media platforms can alter our interactions. This is just such a good example.

Why is NATO only supplying armas? It, as a strategic military alliance, lives upto its name, oui? It isn't exactly the go-to-guy in an armed conflict. Where's the peace deal that's supposed to be on parallel tracks?

If the only thing you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. — Maslow's hammer

NATO, more specifically the United States, is deeply committed to integrating Ukraine into its ranks - an intention they have publicly expressed as far back as the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Russia, obviously, is deeply committed to not letting this happen - something which they too have publicly expressed since that very same summit.

At this point, both sides are in too deep for peace to be a serious option and it's not a matter of incompetence, but a matter of unwillingness.

Can't stop yourself to make it personal can you? — Benkei

Oh the irony! This one is a real gem...

Oh the irony! — Olivier5

You're confusing 'talking about persons' with 'making it personal'.

LOL. You're no logician.

NATO has to reinvent itself - open a department that doles out aid/grants/loans etc. if it's to stay relevant in the modern global climate. Once Russia falls, who's it going to pick as its next bogeyman (foil)? China? And after that? I dunno!

I didn't say I was comfortable with war, but with making a moral distinction between an aggressor and his victim. That much should be obvious. — Olivier5

You said it in response to my post not particularly addressed to you, pointing out that to make that distinction was to enter the war. which you did not argue against or contradict. You have joined the war, you complain at being badly treated, and you are comfortable with that. Your comfort is no comfort to me.

Folks make analogies with WW2 and the fight against fascism. But to me it is a false analogy. Both in the trench war and artillery attrition, and in the causes and leadership, this is a reprise of WW1. Clowns for leaders, bankrupt ideologies for causes, and no possible positive result for anyone. Putting the kibosh on the Kaiser is well worth being blown to pieces in the mud for. Not.

It's not a fight about freedom, but a fight about security; a fight amongst bullies for domination.

I didn't say I was comfortable with war, but with making a moral distinction between an aggressor and his victim. That much should be obvious.
— Olivier5

You said it in response to my post not particularly addressed to you, pointing out that to make that distinction was to enter the war. which you did not argue against or contradict. You have joined the war, you complain at being badly treated, and you are comfortable with that. Your comfort is no comfort to me. — unenlightened

You are trying to confuse yourself, and it seems to work out.

In truth I have NOT joined the war just because I post my opinion here, not anymore than YOU or anyone else have joined the war by posting here. TPF is not Dombass, and that is a fact which no amount of blah blah blah will ever erase. Your neutrality is fake, an aggressive neutrality, inasmuch as you condemn people taking side, and that is in itself a form of taking side.

If you genuinely believe Mearsheimer's point was that Putin never lies and we should trust everything he says, what can I say? Intellectual pursuits are not for you. — Tzeentch

I think Mearsheimer should have been listened far earlier, when he was arguing that Ukraine needs it's nuclear deterrent to prevent Russia attacking it.

Conventional wisdom argues that Ukraine should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons to ensure peace and stability in Europe. This is quite wrong. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, Washington should have encouraged Kiev to fashion its own secure nuclear deterrent. The dangers of Russian-Ukrainian rivalry bode poorly for peace. If Ukraine is forced to maintain a large conventional army to deter potential Russian expansion, the danger of war is much greater than if it maintains a nuclear capability. U.S. policy should recognize that Ukraine, come what may, will keep its nuclear weapons.

Of course, this view from Mearsheimer isn't now widely referred by some. The simple fact is that things have many reasons... not just one most convenient to oneself.

Obviously, intellectual pursuits are not for @Tzeentch... :-)