formal neutrality agreement, involving external parties like the UN — jorndoe
In a war zone. Not a neutral zone — jorndoe
Indeed, I took just the most notable examples to me.You could throw in the whole of Europe after WW2. — Olivier5
Hence: "It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading" — neomac
What? — Isaac
If your claim - more charitably understood - refers only to corporate contributions to reconstruction as such, then one must take into account the Marshall Plan after WW2. — neomac
It is, for example, difficult to demonstrate that ERP aid was directly responsible for the increase in production and other quantitative achievements ... assistance was never more than 5% of the GNP of recipient nations and therefore could have little effect.
point about any deal — Isaac
As for the limits of the goals that we set during our special military operation, the President has outlined these goals, they remain unchanged. They will be achieved. Ukraine shouldn’t be a terrorist state that terrorizes its own citizens. It should not be a country that’s allowed everything, and whose impunity crosses all boundaries and leads to murders of journalists, political figures, and deputies of the Verkhovnaya Rada. It’s not only about the residents of Donbass, but about how Ukrainian nationalists treat peaceful citizens, as it is now happening in those areas of the Kharkov Region, and parts of the Zaporozhye Region, that they entered after our special military operation participants regrouped. — Sergey Lavrov · TASS · Oct 11, 2022
corporate opportunity to screw everyone — Isaac
Bayer plans to invest approximately $34.9 million (35 million euros) to boost the capacity of the company's seed processing facility in Pochuiky in Ukraine's Zhytomyr region.
[...]
Bayer has donated more than 40,000 bags of corn seed that will enable more than 1,250 smaller farmers to grow food. — USAID and Bayer partner to support Ukrainian farmers and address the global food security crisis (Oct 11, 2022)
the introduction of such a subject in schools will allow for the systematic preparation of citizens for a possible confrontation with the enemy — Sergei Mironov
Soviet school kids were taught to assemble and disassemble Kalashnikovs. Now ‘Basic Military Training’ is set to return to Russian schools. Today one unhappy parent tells a Russian newspaper: “We should prepare our children for a peaceful happy life, not for war.” — Steve Rosenberg · Nov 9, 2022
The neutrality deal was to accommodate Putin's demands, "NATO threatening us", "deNazification", "demilitarization", that stuff. Their tune has changed some, and might continue to change. — jorndoe
Conjecture on my part: If they thought it feasible, they'd grab all of Ukraine, and start re-culturation immediately — jorndoe
The demands have become increasingly fake-looking (almost ridiculous), but decision-making and such depend on understanding their aims, which may not have much to do with peace anyway. — jorndoe
The neutrality thing addresses the demands, but if their aims are too different, then they wouldn't accept it, perhaps even as a starting point for talks. — jorndoe
Does this really look that sinister to you...? — jorndoe
don't buy for a second that he's actually concerned about Nazis — Isaac
Its goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories. We are not going to impose anything on anyone by force. — Full text: Putin’s declaration of war on Ukraine · Feb 24, 2022
Moscow orders retreat from Kherson — Olivier5
Anyway, if that can be scratched off, then their interest in Donbas was another from the get-go, and that was/is among their demands. And, if they had ulterior plans, then it'd be helpful to understand what they were/are, especially for decision-makers. — jorndoe
Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. Furthermore:The Assembly has also expressed strong support for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution of the conflict through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means, “with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and in accordance with the principles of the Charter.”
She said the General Assembly had been clear that so-called referendums and attempted annexations of southern and eastern regions in Ukraine by Russia, had “no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine.”
Less territory the better, but in fact any agreement to end the fighting. Anything goes, yeah right.I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great. — Isaac
The Marshall Plan was a US government loan instrument. — Isaac
It was not a corporate reconstruction contract, which is what I was referring to with Bayer. — Isaac
A congressional report on the plan later concluded that
It is, for example, difficult to demonstrate that ERP aid was directly responsible for the increase in production and other quantitative achievements ... assistance was never more than 5% of the GNP of recipient nations and therefore could have little effect. — Isaac
You're making progress. — Olivier5
Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. — ssu
And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period — ssu
if both central planning and corporation initiative are always a way to screw people, what's left for you to hope for? — neomac
even if we shouldn't overestimate the immediate and direct economic impact of the Marshall Plan, there isn't enough to support the idea that the Marshall Plan was just a "corporate opportunity to screw everyone" either. — neomac
you'll know full well that a wide range of solutions have been proposed which are neither government controlled nor corporate profit engines. — Isaac
Your claim was that the Marshall plan countered my position. To do that it would have to have been a) constituted of corporate reconstruction contracts, and b) an unquestioned success. It was neither. — Isaac
↪jorndoe
Thanks for the maps.
Reuters give some more detail: they cannot supply Kherson well enough for its defence; they are afraid to lose too many men for nowt.
"Russia abandons Ukrainian city of Kherson in major retreat ~~ By Mark Trevelyan LONDON, Nov 9 (Reuters) — Olivier5
Nevertheless, either side is capable of blowing up this dam at any time. The immediate result would be a wall of water carrying debris cascading down the Dnipro valley washing everything in its path into the Black Sea. — magritte
You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.
And just how lousy the weapon is, actually. — ssu
if Nato steps up its military involvement and Ukrainian forces push the Russians back militarily, then Putin may become increasingly desperate. Desperate leaders who believe the net is closing are the hardest to both deter and reassure, and if this dangerous cocktail of fear and insecurity is coupled with nuclear weapons, then all the ingredients are present for a dangerous escalation of the crisis.
The reluctant conclusion may be that reducing the risks of nuclear use depends on finding an “off-ramp” that simultaneously does not reward Putin nor leave him humiliated or desperate. Putin has core security interests at stake in this crisis and they will have to be acknowledged in any settlement. This is the lesson from the peaceful ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. — Nicholas Wheeler professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham and senior fellow at British American Security Information Council
SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.
This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The risk of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the past two years as the United States and Russia have abandoned long-standing nuclear arms control treaties, started to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons and expanded the circumstances in which they might use nuclear weapons.
the original idea I was addressing was about post-war reconstruction as "corporate opportunity to screw everyone". To question it, it's enough to prove that the post-war reconstruction supported by the Marshall plan was not just a corporate opportunity to "screw everyone", because to some extent and in some cases it succeeded. — neomac
Going just to ad hominems — ssu
Alexander Vershbow, NATO’s deputy secretary general from 2012 to 2016, said that Western leaders had concluded that Russian plans to use nuclear weapons in a major crisis were sincere, raising the risk from any accident or misstep that the Kremlin mistook for war.
With Russian forces struggling in a Ukraine conflict that Moscow’s leaders have portrayed as existential, Mr. Vershbow added, “That risk has definitely grown in the last two and a half weeks.” — Reported in the Telegraph
The escalation dynamics of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia could easily spiral into a nuclear exchange — Dmitry Gorenburg, an analyst of Russian military policy
A lot of the pieces of their nightmare are already coming together,... Between volunteers from NATO countries, all this NATO weaponry, reinforcement of Poland and Romania...they might connect dots that we didn’t intend to be connected and decide they need to pre-empt. — Samuel Charap, Russian foreign policy analyst at the RAND Corporation
Scores of war games carried out by the United States and its allies in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine make it clear that Putin would probably use a nuclear weapon if he concludes that his regime is threatened.
In most games, Russia still responds with a second nuclear attack, but in the games that go “well,” the United States and Russia manage to de-escalate after that, although only in circumstances where both sides have clear political off-ramps and lines of communication between Moscow and Washington have remained open. In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed. — Christopher S. Chivvis Senior Fellow and Director American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment
Again a strawman.It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.