The UN is not a collective and doesn't define itself like that:
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. — boethius
The UN is not a collective and doesn't define itself like that:
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter.
— boethius
The UN Charter, which starts with: — Olivier5
guided — the UN
The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules. — Captain Barbossa
the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity. — UN about page
These retaliatory strikes - and they are retaliatory... It's an expression of our hatred, our holy hatred. They'll be sitting without gas, without light and without everything else. If the Kyiv regime chose the path of war criminals, they have to freeze and rot over there. Regular people have to take to the streets and put an end to Zelenskyy's Nazi regime. — Boris Chernyshov
There is no uprising, when it seems there should be. [...] Zelenskyy fits all the criteria of a terrorist. You remember him being compared to Al-Qaeda, bin Laden - his fate is the same. — Vladimir Oleynik
Where are the revolts? We don't see any revolts. [...] With respect to our strikes, our strikes should continue. [...] One way or another, this contributes to our victory. For us, victory is absolutely necessary. Any negotiations, if they suddenly start with the Ukrainian side, these negotiations won't end well for us. On the other side, there is not a single person that could be trusted by the Russian government and the Russian people. Destruction of our nation is the sole reason for their existence. They openly talk about it. We can overcome this situation only through strength. — Roman Babayan
We don't need to liberate anyone over there. We need to take what's ours. — Dmitry Steshin
Nonsense.. If we are only considering Zelensky lying to us; I think what matters is the intention. Zelensky's intention is clearly to escalate tensions between nuclear powers in a way that he certainly has in mind may go all the way to nuclear war; either as a desirable thing or then just a risk he's willing to take. — boethius
The Nazi thing was and is a ruse. — jorndoe
Yes it was.
But notice how eagerly it was employed even on this thread by some very active participants. — ssu
The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.
Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS. — boethius
And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation? — boethius
And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing: — boethius
January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.
The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".
But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.
[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]
Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — BBC
Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".
And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters: — boethius
We're Aryans, and we will rise again — totally not a neo-Nazi, according to the German government
But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side). — boethius
This one's just adorable. — boethius
Nonsense.
If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians.
It would be typical of Russian propaganda to say Zelensky has "in mind to go all the way to nuclear war". As if he was the instigator of this war. — ssu
gaffe — ssu
logical — ssu
UN is the worst possible example ... for, whatever you want to call it, Russia has a Veto, so it's pretty unlikely the UN will come to Ukraine's aid of "collective security" of the UN "collective", if you insist on calling it that anyways. — boethius
And, keep in mind I am not an anti-Ukrainain advocate.
Thanks for the laugh. You’re the voice of Moscow here. Of course you are anti-Ukrainian. — Olivier5
However, does just parroting whatever Zelensky or Ukrainian intelligence service say, benefit Ukraine? — boethius
And, despite it being now completely obvious to everyone that Ukraine needs armour to compete on the battlefield, NATO still maintains the policy of no NATO produced tanks ... well, why is that? NATO just want Ukrainians to die when superior NATO tanks could save them?
The excuse is that NATO tanks are different and it would require training ... — boethius
What's the consequence of propping up Ukraine enough to fight but not with? A very large amount of suffering in the pursuit of objectives that cannot be accomplished. — boethius
This is a pretty ridiculous canard, even by your standards. Nobody here repeats Ukrainian intelligence service material or whatever Zelensky says. — Olivier5
If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians. — ssu
I would think that the reasons for this are that tanks cost a lost of money, are in short supply, and you don't want the enemy to get hold of them. — Olivier5
So you think NATO countries should support Ukraine with fighter jets and tanks? I mean, that's an option worth considering. — Olivier5
The thread is discussing Zelensky and his preconditions for dozens of pages. — boethius
retroactively dilute the meanings of words to most the goal posts of your claim to something so trivial and tautological it is not wrong — boethius
you're asking us to believe you were simply not following the discussion and just-so-happened to use the word in a different sense to make an empty point about how people generally make decisions — boethius
This is a proposal exactly in the understanding of international relations I've described: whatever the US does, now or in the future, is because it's in the US interest and no Ukraine. — boethius
There's no charity towards Ukraine now nor in the future. — boethius
Why would a nation that has accepted to live within its own borders attack anyone? — boethius
I'm sure you have some new boring diatribe explaining how this proposal is self contradictory — boethius
the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue. — neomac
"pre-condition for the kind of agreements" and "but Ukraine doesn’t have!" — boethius
having nuclear weapons was not a precondition for pursuing these kinds of agreements — boethius
So what? There are three reasons your question is failing to take into account:
1. We are in the middle of the war so we don’t see the end of the war nor the full consequences of such war. The Soviet–Afghan War lasted 10 years, could anyone see the end of it and the following collapse of the Soviet Union while they were in the middle of it back then? No, because they didn’t happen yet.
2. Russia was complaining about NATO enlargement since the 90s, did Russia see NATO enlargement stopping for that reason? NATO/US can be as determined as Russia to pursue their goals in Ukraine at the expense of Russia. And since Russia, especially under Putin, took a declared confrontational attitude toward the hegemonic power, Russia made sure that NATO/US will deal with Russia accordingly as long as they see fit.
3. The end game for NATO/US involvement in this war doesn’t need to be to stop Russia or overturn its regime. But to inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power (in terms of its economic system, its system of alliance, its capacity of military projection outside its borders, its its technology supply, its military and geopolitical status) to the point it is not longer perceived as a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West. — neomac
Second, Ukraine will receive zero meaningful security guarantees in any peace deal with Russia, other than the ornamental meaning of "trust us bro". — boethius
First, in our exchange, you wasted all occasions to quote where Zelensky used the word "precondition" which would be relevant to your argument. — neomac
"We agreed that the Ukrainian delegation would meet with the Russian delegation without preconditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River," he said in a statement. — Reuters
Zelensky demands Russian troops leave Ukraine as precondition to diplomacy — The Times of Isreal
"Precondition" wasn't referred to deterrence means nor nuclear weapons (this is your misunderstanding), but to considering the available deterrence means as a rational ground for pursuing any kind of security agreement by geopolitical agents. In other words, I was referring to a rational requirement. — neomac
This argument is perfectly consequential and in contradiction to the claim that the military cooperation between Ukraine and the West is "zero meaningful" from a geopolitical point of view. This war is proving exactly the opposite of such spectacularly dumb claim of yours. — neomac
WHO ON EARTH IS TAKING SECURITY GUARANTEES IN THE CERTAINTY SENSE? CAN YOU QUOTE HIM? — neomac
“There is only one goal (from Russia): to destroy our independence. There’s no other goal in place. That’s why we need security guarantees. … And we believe we have already demonstrated our forces’ capability to the world.” — Zelensky, quoted by CNN
RUSSIA IS CLAIMED TO SEE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT IN HAVING UKRAINE AND GEORGIA WITHIN NATO, THIS WAS NO ACTUAL NUCLEAR THREAT (BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUCH WEAPONS, AND THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT) NOR - AS YOU COULD ARGUE - GUARANTEE IN THE SENSE OF CERTAINTY THAT RUSSIA WOULD BE NUKED AFTER UKRAINE JOINED NATO OR AFTER INVADING UKRAINE FOLLOWING THE UKRAINIAN NATO MEMBERSHIP. HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN? — neomac
HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN? — neomac
THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT — neomac
Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. — frank
Of course it can. If I feel that you're threatening my life, I'm not thereby justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on your house. The collateral damage would be out of proportion to the harm mitigated.
It's absurd to suggest that self-defense somehow morally justifies any response no matter what. — Isaac
Zelensky probably will use everything at his disposal to secure his goals. Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. We'll all do what we have to do to survive, and for many, that extends to the political entities we're parts of. — frank
I think you're following Isaac in doing your best not to understand that when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker. — frank
If you had spy satellites, you probably wouldn't feel manipulated. — frank
If we both agree fighter jets and tanks would be useful in that effort, and training is only a temporary problem and totally irrelevant as the war could still be on years or decades from now, why hasn't NATO already started those programs to train, supply, workout the logistics for tanks and planes months ago? — boethius
keep in mind that apologising for Zelensky is also apart of it ... which we just went through an example of:
If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians — boethius
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.