I am still a believer in the fact that Jesus understood Greek at least a little bit. It is well documented that Koine Greek was popular in his day. Aramaic just so happened to be his native tongue. — Dermot Griffin

Sure. However, even if his "native tongue" was Aramaic, it does not follow that the language he used was always Aramaic. On the contrary, precisely because Greek was popular, it would have made sense for Jesus to use Greek, the language that would have been understood by Jews and non-Jews alike.

As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek.

Moreover, Matthew says:

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (lit. Hades) shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16)

Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra", which suggests that the language used may have been Greek.

The same goes for the Last Supper event, where Jesus conveyed a message that was addressed to the whole community of believers, not only to Aramaic speakers.

As far as my faith goes, believe me, I am at odds with some of the things in Catholicism — Dermot Griffin

So, would you agree with @Joe Mello's statement "Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic"?

I only got a scholastic education, and didn’t spend time on the Internet Googling my ass off. — Joe Mello

Great. And part of your scholastic education was to make evidence-free statements?

Theologically many modern Catholics are very open to other theological positions in my experience. — Dermot Griffin

I agree, they seem to be particularly open to Marxism, Atheism, and Islam. Though not necessarily in that order ....

Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic, the common language spoken. — Joe Mello

Just out of curiosity, is that what it said in the local paper, or were you there in person? :smile:

I would not support NATO's use of nukes, except in retaliation for Russia's use of nukes. — RogueAI

And I would not support Russia's use of nukes, except in retaliation for America's use of nukes.

Having said that, if Russia (or anyone else) dropped a small tactical nuke on dictators like Xi or Erdogan, I don't think it would be something I would object too strongly to .... :wink:

But the resemblance is interesting — Gnomon

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's. :grin:

Plus, Z isn't the only letter used. They're also using V and many other letters:

The Z was first spotted on Russian military vehicles, as were other letters including including O, X, A and V. They were often painted inside triangles, squares and other shapes. People also spotted other symbols, such as a triangle with two lines either side, a circle with three dots inside and a small triangle inside a larger triangle ...

What does the Z mean? Meaning of Russian symbol explained and why it’s on the tanks used in Ukraine invasion - I News

Well, I don't recall ever saying that I "support Russia".

The point I've been making is that Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian. And that Europe belongs to the Europeans, therefore America should stay out of Europe.

As for Russia using nukes, that would depend on the type of nukes it uses and on whom.

Incidentally, would you still support America if they use nukes? Sorry, I mean, do you still support America after they used nukes? :wink:

Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media. — boethius

To be quite honest, I think most of them still don’t know anything except what they are being fed by the media.

Opinion polls conducted by the Carnegie Center in Moscow and other organizations have found that most of the Russian people support Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine and it is generally accepted that Putin enjoys popular support for the war.

Russia appears to have no way out as Putin goes ‘all in’ – The Guardian

Unfortunately, Westerners are highly susceptible to NATO propaganda because they’re hooked on social media controlled by pro-NATO tech companies that are encouraging anti-Russian mass hysteria and hatred:

TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times

Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. As one Twitter user infamously put it, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

Even here some become irate when inconvenient facts are mentioned and resort to denial, evasion, diversion, and ad hominems.

The way I see it, philosophy is about looking beyond appearances and not taking things at face value. A more philosophical and rational approach needs to acknowledge the fact that there are wars going on across the globe, e.g., in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, some of which are waged by NATO members like Turkey whose neo-fascist regime has also illegally occupied North Cyprus and is involved in the brutal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities.

So, the question that needs to be asked is, what’s so special about Ukraine? Why is America suddenly so interested in that country after ignoring it since the 1920's?

From what I see, the pro-NATO narrative seems to offer no rational explanation. One way of looking at it is that Biden may be holding a grudge against Putin for allegedly interfering in US elections. In 2019, Biden said:

Putin knows if I am president of the United States, his days of tyranny and trying to intimidate the United States and those in Eastern Europe are over. I’m going to stand up to him … when I’m president, things are going to change …. - CNN News

So this may be some kind of personal vendetta for Biden.

But another, and I think more important, reason seems to be that America sees Russia as a challenger to its global dominance.

America has got used to ruling the world ever since it became the world’s main financial center in the wake of WW1, after which it came to look on Europe as an American colony. This is why it now sees even the smallest sign of European insubordination as a direct challenge and threat to American rule.

When seen from this perspective, Ukraine becomes a small detail in a larger puzzle that only makes sense when seen against the background of a global, geopolitical picture in which America seeks to expand its power and influence and enforce a unipolar world order through a network of regional and global institutions like the UN, World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc. ….

Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media decyiphering" or whatever the correct translation would be. — Christoffer

Don't worry, if you tell us the Finnish original we'll look up the Swedish translation for you :wink:

just like as an Australian, you probably know very little about Europe. — Olivier5

Not only do they know very little (which is probably a generous assessment), but due to their unfortunate antipodean position they tend to see thing upside-down ... :grin:

In Germany, both the “far-right” (AfD) and “far-left” (Die Linke) have close links to Moscow. If mainstream opinion is strongly against Russia, then smaller parties will naturally become more careful about openly expressing support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Incidentally, the same applies to major parties. They may overtly distance themselves from Russia in a show of obedience to the US, but at the end of the day business and industry need links to Russia which is a natural economic partner of Germany. This is why England and after it America have always tried to drive a wedge between Germany and Russia. But Germany’s economy can’t afford to ignore a large neighbor like Russia.

It is to be hoped that the Ukraine conflict will soon be over and Europe can resume normal relations with Russia.

How do you figure?
But, sure, not "omnipotent", there is a parliament and a few players after all.
He's up there, though. — jorndoe

If a president has no control over billions of dollars that he invests into the military and that gets stolen from under his nose by corrupt officials, then he can’t possibly be a totalitarian dictator.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish (a) between someone being labelled “dictator” by political opponents and the media, and actually being a dictator, and (b) between a dictator in a Western context, and a dictator in a Russian context.

For example, Wikipedia describes Russia’s form of government as “federal semi-presidential republic” and North Korea’s as “one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship”.

Obviously, there is a big difference. Russia has never had anything like a Western-style liberal democracy, which means that Putin cannot be described as “dictator” in a Russian context.

Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine.

That would make a nice movie. The title could be: Rebirth of Ashkenaz. Gal Gadot would play the lead MOSAD agent. She would meet with her grandma who stayed back in the shtetl... — Olivier5

:grin: Well, at this stage anything is possible. Sometimes it takes more courage to make peace than to make war.

In any case, if the conflict goes on much longer, most Ukrainian Jews (and, apparently, many non-Jews) will soon be in Israel where the weather is better and Cyprus is closer. And Kolomoyskyi will be in Miami plotting his next coup ....

It’s a well-known fact that the West backs political groups in Russia and Russia backs political groups in the West. And Russia also backs far-left Western groups, not just far-right ones, the obvious objective being to influence the position of major parties where their policies are antagonistic to Russia’s interests.

In any case, there is no shortage of far-left parties like Die Linke (Germany), Podemos (Spain), Syriza (Greece) that share Russia’s opposition to globalization and US world domination, so they tend to be on Russia’s side.

Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s former chancellor and leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), who has much more influence on German (and international) politics than any far-right group, is a well-known supporter of Putin.

The Telegraph has called him “the most dangerous of Putin's useful idiots” and there is no need to look for far-right groups when there is opposition to arming Ukraine within the current center-left government which, incidentally, has just announced that it will not discontinue gas and oil supplies from Russia.

Different countries have different interests that are determined by the majority, not by fringe groups.

BTW, Russia’s embarrassing performance on the ground in Ukraine seems to be explained by the widespread corruption that has resulted in billions invested in the military being syphoned off by oligarchs and other criminal elements who have been buying themselves yachts and villas in Cyprus and elsewhere. Hopefully, a few heads will be rolling which can only be good news for the shape of Russia’s armed forces.

Russian military’s corruption quagmire – POLITICO

IMO this shows that Putin isn’t really a dictator, because if he was like China’s Xi or North Korea’s Kim the military failures in Ukraine would never have happened.

Speaking of Cyprus, Ukrainian oligarchs in Zelenzky’s entourage have multiple nationalities. For example, Kolomoyskyi is a national of Ukraine, Israel, and Cyprus. The way I see it, Israel needs Russia on Iran and Syria, so it may put pressure on Zelensky and his oligarchs to come to some kind of agreement with Russia.

At the end of the day, Zelensky's government isn't particularly experienced in statesmanship and it needs some proper advice from someone with more experience and expertise in the field. The Israelis would be the right people for the job.

Israeli Mediation in Russia-Ukraine Conflict Stands to Help Bennett and Putin – Foreign Policy

Apparently, Zelensky has said he is prepared to consider Putin’s four-point request.

Obviously, Zelensky is a professional actor, but unless this is some kind of US-UK deception, it looks like Zelensky – or the oligarchs behind him – has more sense than some “philosophers” on here .... :grin:

In nod to Russia, Ukraine says no longer insisting on NATO membership - AFP

President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia's stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbor.
In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelensky said he is open to "compromise" on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24.

countries that seemed like they often couldn't agree on anything are starting to be more willing to work together (at least in the short term) after they realize that Ukraine isn't the only country Russia is willing to occupy. — dclements

I thought we already had a pro-NATO thread (see Ukraine Crisis), so I for one fail to see how having two is going to make the discussion "more objective".

BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this?

The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks — Gnomon

Yeah, right. Because the Guardian says it's "incendiary", it MUST be so. As for the "Z" being a "remodeled swastika", that's just too ludicrous even for Guardian readers to believe. The way pro-NATO rhetoric zigzags between claims that Putin intends to "restore the Soviet Union" and claims that he is a "Nazi" is simply hilarious and shows that the West has run out of arguments and is resorting to redundant and moth-eaten clichés from yesteryear that even Westerners (at least the more intelligent among us) don't believe .... :grin:

The narrative that this is bad for Russia because the Western media doesn't like Putin even more than before, may not be a true narrative and things far more complex than they seem. Yes, the western media disapproves, but, no, Putin can't be cancelled like some "toxic" male executive trying to host Jeopardy . — boethius

Correct. Russia may be behind in high-tech and, apparently, in conducting large-scale military operations (which, incidentally, isn’t Putin’s fault but the fault of his lazy and unimaginative generals). But it is a big country with a wealth of natural resources and enough intelligent people to devise strategies to counteract Western sanctions.

Russia produces enough grain, meat, fruit and veg to feed its population and the government will make enough money from selling oil, gas, coal, metals, and other materials to China and others, to fund its military.

Unless US-UK stage a coup or something, the government will last for long enough to make Biden’s life difficult.

On the plus side, the sanctions will get rid of some of Russia's super-rich and put a brake on oligarch (or monopolistic) capitalism. So, that’s one development that should be welcomed by all - even though it might go against Wall Street plans. :smile:

Also, greater isolation from the West means greater economic independence from the West and less cultural and political influence from the US. Russians will be able to focus on their own cultural heritage and develop an authentic alternative to American guns-and-drugs gangsta "culture".

So, I definitely don’t think Putin should be “cancelled”. I believe that a US-dominated unipolar world order would be a disaster for humanity. The world needs Russia, India, China, and others to challenge and balance US hegemony.

Moreover, we need to remember that no US presidents were cancelled for deliberately bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. A balanced debate needs to analyze things in the right perspective, not in isolation of everything else.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia

Germany's forgotten victims - The Guardian

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

Now, regardless of whether Azov brigade is "too much" and tolerating it further would be appeasement, what we can know for sure is that this is the major justification for the war by the Kremlin. — boethius

I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war.

However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression:

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns … We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments … For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation … (Putin Speech Feb. 24 2022).

Obviously, it isn’t necessary to attack Kiev in the west in order to protect the Russian minorities on two small patches of land in the east.

In contrast, if Ukraine is seen as a historical part of Russia and, especially, if it plans to join NATO against Russia, it makes sense for Russia to invade Ukraine and either reincorporate it into the Russian Federation, or install a Russian-friendly regime in Kiev.

In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda.

It doesn’t make sense to focus exclusively on Russia when Russia is not the only actor in this conflict. Let’s not forget that NATO is participating in this conflict by arming, training, and providing intelligence to the Ukrainians, and disseminating propaganda for them. Apparently, some neighboring NATO countries are even giving safe haven to Ukrainian military aircraft. NATO was supposed to be a “defensive” alliance. So, how is it still “defensive” if it gets involved in conflicts between non-NATO countries?

IMO, for a more balanced analysis, we need to take all factors into consideration, even when they expose inconvenient truths. For example, Zelensky has been hailed as a “hero”, even though pictures of him visiting troops on the frontline have turned out to be from 2021. But could he be an oligarch puppet as some have suggested? After all, this accusation did not come from Moscow, but from Ukrainians like Petro Poroshenko, incumbent president of Ukraine and himself an oligarch and in a position to know much more about Zelensky than we do.

In order to get to the bottom of it, we need to start from the beginning, i.e., from 1991 when Ukraine became independent from Russia.

What is imperative to understand is that from inception Ukraine was ruled by oligarchs – “businessmen”, speculators, and criminal elements – that transformed the state-controlled, planned economy into oligarch capitalism by taking over state assets during the early privatization program that was implemented in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet system, on the advice of Western "experts".

The Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Maidan Revolution of 2014 aimed to bring about economic and political changes in a society controlled by oligarchs.

Instead, they brought to power oligarchs like Poroshenko who had amassed a fortune by taking over state-owned enterprises in the 1990’s.

For example, the top presidential candidates in the 2014 elections were Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, both of them oligarchs. Poroshenko was elected president. He created the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to eradicate corruption but the head of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office coached suspects on how to avoid corruption charges! Obviously, no one ever got charged with any serious corruption crimes.

Zelensky was elected president in 2019 on the promise to rid the country of corruption and of oligarchs. In 1921, he passed a new law intended to restrict oligarchs’ influence on politics and economy. And yet, as I demonstrated in an earlier post (here, page 64), his own party has close links to the same oligarchs who have controlled Ukraine from the start. Indeed, critics have claimed that the new restrictions were really meant to target his political opponents:

Despite his campaign promises, no progress has been made in fighting corruption. According to Transparency International, Ukraine remains the third-most-corrupt country in Europe, after Russia and Azerbaijan. Anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies are either stalling or run by loyalists appointed by the president … – New York Times

What about the charge that Zelensky is a “puppet of Kolomoyskyi”? In addition to his and his party’s links to oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Zelensky appointed Kolomoyskyi’s lawyer Andriy Bohdan as head of the presidential administration. He appointed the media and production mogul Andriy Yermak, who had assisted him in his presidential campaign, as presidential aide for foreign policy issues. He appointed a number of operatives of Kvartal 95, his production company, to government posts including the head of the national security service, etc., etc. ....

I think everyone agrees that targeting unarmed civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests.

Meantime, the war propaganda and fake news go on:

TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times

The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling.

However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate.

Leading Jews like the oligarchs themselves are neither neo-Nazis nor anti-Russian (though some may be anti-Putin). But for various reasons (e.g., links to Western business) they prefer a West-oriented, liberal capitalist Ukraine to a less liberal Ukraine dominated by Russia. Hence, they tend to back pro-Western political parties even when they are nationalist and anti-Russian.

Now, consider that most of Ukraine’s parties, including the ruling Servant of the People, are center to center-right and thus NOT far-right by any definition. However, they are pro-European (or pro-EU) and therefore, “anti-Russian”.

So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”, i.e., an umbrella term for anyone deemed to hold an anti-Russian position, including those who are pro-EU without necessarily being anti-Russian in a narrow sense, i.e., people who have no anti-Russian intentions or sentiments, but are “anti-Russian” as a consequence of their being pro-EU.

This does not mean that violent neo-Nazi groups have not been used by mainstream parties in anti-Russian activities, possibly with the knowledge of Western powers. But is this enough to justify war? If the Russian minority is being persecuted, suppressed, or physically attacked, it may well be. But I think a greater danger for Russia would be if Ukraine joined NATO in which case Ukraine (and NATO) may decide to take Crimea back from Russia. This would be a direct threat to Russia’s security in the Black Sea area and, therefore, unacceptable.

The way I see it, the West could have avoided the conflict by renouncing eastward expansion, and Russia should have formed a broader diplomatic alliance with China, India, and other non-Western players, in order to pressure the West into staying out of the region by non-military means.

But to return to Zelensky. As stated before, he started his career as a TV comedian. In 2003, Zelensky and his close friends Ivan Bakanov and Serhiy Shefir set up the production company Kvartal 95.

Kvartal 95 started producing TV shows for Ukrainian TV channels including Inter, one of Ukraine’s most-watched television channels. A few years later Zelensky became a member of the board and general producer of Inter.

In 2015, Kvartal 95 started producing the TV series “Servant of the People” in which Zelensky played the role of president of Ukraine.

In 2018 Zelensky, Bakanov, Shefir, and other Kvartal 95 operatives founded the political party “Servant of the People”, named after the series, and headed by Bakanov. Zelensky ran for president in a virtual election campaign, using social media channels and YouTube clips. He was elected in 2019.

Zelensky’s party included media magnates like Oleksandr Tkachenko who became minister of culture and information policy. Tkachenko had been a correspondent for the British news agency Reuters, had a business degree from Harvard and completed a business course at INSEAD, after which he entered the TV and film production business, becoming a leading figure in Ukraine’s largest media group, 1+1 Media, which is owned by oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Ukraine’s second-richest man.

Together with oligarchs Hennadiy Boholyubov (a British citizen) and Oleksiy Martynov, Kolomoyskyi became super-rich during the privatization of state assets after the collapse of the Soviet Union and currently controls the global business conglomerate Privat Group which controls thousands of companies worldwide and maintains close links to political circles. (Other key associates from media, business, and banking include Boris Lozhkin and Serhiy Tihipko.)

Kolomoyskyi was a member of the pro-Western Fatherland Party and according to sources, Privat Group provided significant financial support to the Orange Revolution of 2004. Following the Maidan Revolution of 2014, Kolomoyskyi was appointed governor of Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine’s most important industrial region, by acting president and former SBU boss Turchynov, a Fatherland leader.

Incidentally, Zelensky, Shefir, and Bakanov (who was appointed head of Ukraine’s Security Service SBU) themselves were operating a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.

In 2019 Zelensky handed his shares in one of the companies over to Shefir, but the two men appear to have made an arrangement for Zelensky's family to continue receiving the money from these companies. Bakanov also controlled the Spanish construction and real estate company Nueva Tierra Verde SL.

Putting their money into offshore companies was not necessarily illegal, but it exposes a pattern of behavior typical of the oligarchs of whom Zelensky and his crew had been highly critical and whose rule they had promised to bring to an end.

In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government.

Anyway, here is an interesting take on the Ukraine situation from Henry Kissinger (written in 2014):

How the Ukraine Crisis Ends – Washington Post

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!? — Manuel

So it seems. As I said from the start, Western oil and defense companies are going to make a huge fortune from this:

Investors are betting the threat of a new cold war will trigger an arms race. Britain’s BAE Systems, as well as US aircraft maker Lockheed Martin, weapon manufacturer Northropp Grumman and engines-to-missiles conglomerate Raytheon, hit record share prices in the wake of the invasion.

British arms makers tool up for Putin’s new Cold War – The Telegraph

Incidentally, note how they call it "Putin's Cold War". But, of course, to have a cold war, or any war, you need two sides, not one. And now we know which side is making the big profits .... :grin:

Now, possible, war would have happened anyways, but with some actual track record of opposing these neo-Nazi's, this entire conversation wouldn't be happening and the EU could credibly say there are other policies available to reduce neo-Nazi influence and full scale invasion is unwarranted. — boethius

Correct. I think the most important thing is to debunk the idea that "Ukranian neo-Nazis" are "Russian propaganda" when this is a well-known fact accepted by mainstream sources like Wikipedia, and when even the US Congress called them "white supremacists".

Other false claims, like that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, or that NATO isn't controlled by America, have already been refuted here. Unfortunately, the pro-NATO camp keeps churning out false allegations in the hope that they can hoodwink people with their anti-Russian propaganda.

This is why it is essential to be alert and vigilant at all times and see through their not-so-clever maneuvers and machinations. :smile:

Was that democracy? I do not have the information to say one way or another. Was it a coup? Can anyone explain his statements lately, attacking NATO (verbally, of course) for not doing more. Why was he having unrealistic explanations? — FreeEmotion

To be honest, I haven't had the time to look into all the details of his case, but something definitely isn't right there. When foreign money and the media are involved you know that something stinks ....

1. Zelensky started off as a TV comedian.

2. He became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, thus getting the masses used to the idea of him as president.

3. Then he created a political party called "Servant of the People" with operatives from the same company that had created the series.

4. Then he ran for president with massive media backing, and - surprise, surprise - the masses who had been conditioned to see him as president, elected him president!

Additionally, people close to him especially the head of Ukrainian Security owned off-shore companies in dodgy places where people go to evade taxes and hide their activities. And we know that foreign interests were involved in Ukraine's anti-Russian "Orange Revolution" of 2004.

Moreover, Zelensky was a TV actor and it’s an established fact that actors and politicians can’t be trusted when it comes to telling the truth. But is Zelensky delusional or a compulsive liar?

Apparently, in a televised speech, Zelensky has announced that "the end of the world has arrived" and that “if we are no more, then, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia will be next”.

I for one have seen no indication whatsoever that Russia intends to invade any of the Baltic countries, have you?

Zelensky made other curious claims including that the Russian forces carry “mobile cremation chambers” for disposing of their own dead!

Allegedly, Zelensky also has “survived three assassination attempts” (!) against him by Kremlin-backed Russian (Wagner Group) and Chechen special forces, that were “thwarted by anti-war elements within Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB)” who tipped off the Ukrainians ....

Unfortunately, Zelensky has omitted to provide any evidence to back up his claims. I fully understand that he may be in a precarious situation, but why keep making evidence-free allegations?

Also, Ukraine is being funded, armed, and supplied with real-time intelligence on Russia's moves by the US. Why is America so keen on pushing Russia out of Ukraine? At the end of the day, Ukraine had been part of the USSR since 1922 and it wasn't a problem. Why is it a problem now? How is Russian presence in Ukraine threatening Washington or New York? Or London for that matter?

It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement. — boethius

Correct. And that's because the movement is anti-Russian.

As for its ultra-nationalist character, Wikipedia says:

Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), often known as Azov Detachment or Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) is a right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.

In 2014, the regiment gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. In 2014, a spokesman for the regiment said around 10–20% of the unit were neo-Nazis. In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the United States Congress blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology

Wikipedia calls it "right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi". Wikipedia is a mainstream Western source, NOT Russian propaganda. The propaganda is entirely of @ssu's making.

Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO... — ssu

Is that Finnish "logic", again? :smile:

If Ukraine isn't in NATO, it doesn't follow that Zelensky isn't doing the bidding of his NATO masters.

Leading NATO members are funding, arming, training his people, and providing them with intelligence and propaganda support. I doubt very much they would do that if Zelensky wasn't acting in their interests .....

From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind) — FreeEmotion

Correct. I for one am pretty sure that America and its British Poodle are planning a war against Russia, first by arming Ukraine and neighbouring NATO countries and then manufacturing a pretext to intervene.

I think what is happening in Ukraine is very similar to WW1. Britain had sought to contain Germany for years while it was itself constantly expanding. When Germany invaded Belgium, Britain claimed that this violated Belgian neutrality, declared war on Germany, and fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium in order to turn America against Germany.

This time round the idea was to contain Russia whilst NATO and the EU were constantly expanding. Instead of giving Russia some form of guarantee that there would be no further expansion into its sphere of influence, the West decided to escalate by meddling in Russia’s neighboring countries and backing or instigating the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003) and the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004).

Incidentally, Zelensky was a TV comedian. How did he manage to get elected president? Was it through massive media coverage in his favor?

Some points raised by his critics include:

1. He has sought to centralize authority and strengthen his personal position

2. His chief aide and head of the Ukrainian Security Service Ivan Bakanov operated a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.

3. He had his own expansionist plans. In January 2020 he said "Romania occupied Northern Bukovina", etc.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy - Wikipedia

The major benefit of reading is getting information, — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, who needs reading when they can watch and listen to stuff in the media? And even the literate can be brainwashed by the media.

At any rate, I think Zelensky's case is a perfect illustration of media influence on the masses. This guy was a TV comedian, he became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, then he created a political party of the same name with people from the same company that had created the series, ran for president with massive media backing, and was elected president .... :grin:

Lies, misperception, hearsay, rumors, misinformation, unrecognized fact, wishful thinking, etc. are all part of 'the fog of war'. — Bitter Crank

Sure. But I think the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Aside from the revealing fact that NATO and, in particular, Ukrainian propaganda isn’t any more truthful than the Russian one, what is really scary is that a growing number of Westerners seem to be thinking that the truth or falsehood of these stories doesn’t matter!

When fact-checking website Snopes published an article debunking the video [of the mythical Ukrainian jet pilot allegedly shooting down Russian planes], some social media users pushed back.
“Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

So, what we are witnessing is a rapidly diminishing interest in actual facts, even independently of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. More specifically, what seems to be happening is that people hold preconceived ideas about issues of this type, which ideas are formed by the mass media in the first place, and which they seek to reinforce and disseminate by means of the same media and despite knowing that what they are disseminating is nothing but fake news.

In other words, the “info war” is a smokescreen for something much bigger and more dangerous, and my guess is that the real winner isn’t going to be Ukraine or Russia (regardless of who wins in military terms) but the international media and tech giants that get to decide what “news” the world is allowed to access, what to believe, and what action to take.

Yes, wars are won on the ground but the action on the ground is motivated and justified by the propaganda or myth. And the myth in this case starts with Europe’s false belief that NATO is not an instrument of US self-interest or imperialism. Interestingly, Americans, at least the better-informed ones, tend to be more honest about it than Europeans who clearly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by their ruling elites.

Incidentally, I've always been amazed at the number of people in developing countries who studied in Kiev and Moscow. — Olivier5

Yes, apparently, the Soviet education system used to be pretty good and the current system isn’t too bad either. Obviously, there would be differences from region to region, but that goes for other countries as well.

According to Britain’s National Literacy Trust, 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills” or as being “functionally illiterate”.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the West, especially the US and UK, to look down on others and dismiss them as second or third-rate people. The truth of the matter is that Germany, for example, used to be a world leader in science, technology, literature, and music, and German used to be the main language of science until it was replaced with English following the world wars. Nowadays even Ukrainians speak English!

This exemplifies how the “Anglo-Saxon” (or Anglo-American) world systematically suppresses other cultures and is rooted in British imperialism - which explains why the world is currently going to the dogs as European culture, once the basis of Western civilization, is being replaced with the anticulture of America’s slums.

In short, America controls the World Bank, NATO, the global media …. But some still want us to believe that Russia is “taking over the world”.

But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.

(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)

Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

Correct. And the lesson to draw from it is that if one wants to make a difference, a pro-US philosophy forum may not be the ideal place to start …. :smile:

In the real world, NATO is front and center here. In the world of imperialist propaganda, NATO has nothing to do with it, Russia’s stated concerns are ridiculous, and anyway, every country has the right to join a defensive alliance! – CounterPunch

The way I see it, there are two fundamentally opposed views in international relations: (1) continentalism which believes in a free and independent European continent, and (2) Atlanticism a.k.a. Transatlanticism which aims to tie Europe to America.

Continentalism represents the interests of individual continents, in the present context, Europe. Atlanticism represents the interests of America (and its client states like Britain) and has had various manifestations from general cooperation with America to political union of America, Britain, and other countries (see Atlantic Union).

NATO is a manifestation of Atlanticism. It was proposed by America and it was created by America. NATO is a creation and instrument of US interests.

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various Euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

the North Atlantic Treaty is a product of the US' desire to avoid overextension at the end of World War II, and consequently pursue multilateralism in Europe. It is part of the US' collective defense arrangement with Western European powers
Established in the aftermath of World War II, NATO implements the North Atlantic Treaty - Wikipedia

In his speech to Congress, Eisenhower, the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe, made it very clear that the principal objective of the NATO project was US self-interest:

I have no end to serve, except the good of the United States, and that is the reason I have the courage to appear before this body to express my convictions …. I have one object in view – the good of the United States … We are approaching this problem from the welfare of the United States …. First of all, in Western Europe exists the greatest pool of skilled labor in the world. In Western Europe exists a great industrial capacity second in its capacity only to that of the United States … Now if we take that whole complex with its potential for military exploitation and transfer it from our side to another side, the military balance of power has, in my mind, shifted so drastically that our safety would be gravely imperiled … We would be cut off in short from areas from which we draw the materials that are absolutely essential to our existence, our way of life … Take such items as manganese, copper, uranium. Could we possibly think of existing without access to them? … The Western European complex is so important to our future, with them our future is so definitely tied that we cannot afford to do less than our best in making sure that it does not go down the drain … - New York Times, Feb. 2, 1951

As stated by state secretary Dean Acheson, NATO was also connected with America’s desire for "closer European political unification", hence the US Marshall Plan that stipulated European economic cooperation.

Similarly, in a statement to Europe’s OEEC Council (Organization for European Economic Cooperation that administered Marshall Plan funds), Marshall Plan administrator Paul Hoffman said that the US Congress could not finance the Marshall Plan without European economic and financial integration.
Statement by Paul Hoffman at the 75th OEEC Council meeting (31 October 1949).

It can be seen that from the very start, NATO went hand-in-hand with European unification under US hegemony, the idea being that Europe was a source of natural resources and a market for US goods hence it could not be allowed to fall into someone else’s (i.e., Germany’s or Russia’s) hands.

This was reiterated by NATO general secretary Stoltenberg on Sep 15 2000, whom the NATO website describes as “a strong supporter of greater global and transatlantic cooperation”. So, ATLANCICISM and GLOBALISM.

Incidentally, the post of NATO Secretary General is held by a European, allegedly to balance the influence of America who controls NATO’s military command. However, if we look at the profiles of secretaries general we immediately see that they are people with close links to America and, in general, are strongly pro-American.

The very first NATO sec gen (1952–1957) was the Briton Hastings Ismay who was a close US ally and who infamously announced that NATO’s aim was to “keep the Americans in Europe, the Russian out, and the Germans down”. Ismay was succeeded by the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak (1957-1961) who had lived in New York in the 1940’s when he served as chairman of the first session of the UN General Assembly. In particular, he had also served as president of the US-funded European Movement which aimed to achieve the political, economic and monetary Union of Europe. The Dutch Dirk Stikker (1961-1964) had been involved in the creation of NATO and other US outfits. The Italian Manlio Brosio (1964-1971) had been ambassador to Washington …. Anders Rasmussen (2009–2014) was a strong supporter of America’s Iraq War. Stoltenberg has been discussed already.

From inception NATO’s secretaries general have been staunch supporters of Atlanticism, i.e., of the propensity to act in harmony with US interests. It follows that the post is a European civilian front for an essentially US military organization representing the interests of the US. Indeed, in addition to their Atlanticist credentials, NATO secs gen act as advised by the NATO Military Committee, whose current deputy chair is the American Lt Gen Lance Landrum, USAF, and in collaboration with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), currently the American Gen Tod Wolters, USAF, who is nominated by the POTUS (in this case, Donald Trump).

The White House on Friday tapped an Air Force general with experience overseeing all U.S. and NATO air forces throughout Europe to lead U.S. European Command and serve as Supreme Allied Commander.
President Donald Trump selected Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters to serve as the top American commander in Europe and lead all NATO forces on the continent.
Wolters now serves as commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa based at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. In his role, he also serves as the chief of NATO’s Allied Air Command – Stars and Stripes

I for one don’t believe in globalism and world government but in continentalism in the sense of continents being independent and treated democratically and equitably, which is why I reject America’s imperialist New World Order.

In any case, America’s global dominance is indisputable as is the fact that America is the dominant element in a number of (US-created) international organizations like NATO:

With the world's most powerful military, a huge economy, and a leading role in international institutions such as the UN and NATO, the USA is a superpower. The rise in power and importance of China and re-emergence of Russia will continue to challenge the global dominance of the USA ...

The USA's international influence – BBC

In light of these facts and of US actions against Russia, it is clear that the focus of international attention should be not on Russia but on America who has demonstrated once again that it has complete dominance over most of the world, and especially over Europe, financially, economically, politically, and militarily. The events also show that America controls the international media which it uses for its own propaganda, all of which signals a trend for mankind to get closer and closer to world government controlled by Washington and Wall Street, a situation that in my view is not only inconsistent with genuine democracy and freedom, but extremely dangerous.

Especially in view of the growing polarization and radicalization of US politics, it is not difficult to think what might happen if we had a world government run by certain US presidents …. :smile:

Protesters in Greece set flame to NATO flag during anti-war rally - Newsflare

Fixed it — Isaac

CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades – YahooNews

The Biden administration weighs backing Ukraine insurgents if Russia invades – WashingtonPost

The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S.
“The United States is training an insurgency,” said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how “to kill Russians.”
The program, which does not appear to have ever been formally aimed at preparing for an insurgency, did include training that could be used for that purpose.
The Biden administration has reportedly assembled a task force to determine how the CIA and other U.S. agencies could support a Ukrainian insurgency,

According to former CIA Russia analyst Michael van Landingham, “Russia is going to lie anyway, and try and shape a narrative”, which may well be the case. But the West seems to be making every effort to catch up, if not surpass, the Russians.

For example, while some stories of Ukrainian resistance seem genuine, many of the most popular ones have been exposed as fake.

Ukraine: The fake images 'showing Ukrainian resistance to the Russian army' – The Observers

Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC

7 FAKE NEWS Stories Coming Out of Ukraine – Truth Unmuted

Ukrainian border guards massacred for telling Russian warship to “fu.. off”? – FAKE
Russian planes flying over Kiev? – FAKE
Laughing Russian troops parashooting over Ukrainian farms? - FAKE
Luhansk power station explosion? – FAKE
Zelenskiy visiting troops on the frontline? – FAKE
First Lady of Ukraine takes up arms against the Russian army? – FAKE
Ukrainian woman explaining how to drive abandoned or stolen tanks from the Russian army? – FAKE
Ukrainian girl fighting a Russian soldier? – FAKE
Ukrainian jet pilot shooting down Russian planes? – FAKE
Ukrainian ground forces downing Russian aircraft? – FAKE
Ukrainian drones destroying advancing Russian columns? – FAKE

These and many other stories belong to myths spread on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok and are viewed millions of times (one of them 24+m times) across the globe.

So it does look like mankind cannot live without myth. Ancient mythologies are being swapped for new and people seem to be only too happy to live in a make-believe world shaped by narratives churned out by the global mass media ….

I guess that means Putin is not an urban sophisticate. — Bitter Crank

Sounds like a reasonable guess to me. I think Russians in general tend to be a bit less sophisticated than West Europeans because they have a relatively large rural population and because their upper and middle classes were wiped out by the communists.

But I think foundational mythology starts with one’s own personal myth about who one is, how one has come into existence and has developed over time, what qualities, abilities, and skills one has, in what ways one is different and better than others, etc.

This is then expanded to encompass one’s family, village, and tribe, and culminates in ideas like that “Anglo-Saxons” are a superior race, with other nations occupying various degrees of inferiority and some, like the Germans (or “Huns”) having only the vaguest resemblance to human beings.

So, it looks like the modern myth is really just a means to glorify oneself and put everyone else down. Perhaps ancient myths weren’t very different, the main difference being that nowadays the mythology is largely the product of political interests in collaboration with the news, social, and entertainment media.

I think the Ukraine war is a good opportunity to study the mechanism through which modern myth is created, reinforced, and propagated.

Having created the narrative of Putin’s desire to “recreate the Soviet Union” (which is absolute nonsense as Putin’s party United Russia is more Conservative than Marxist-Leninist), there is a clear attempt to exaggerate the invasion beyond all proportion. Putin, Biden has claimed, “sought to shake the foundations of the free world … He thought he could roll into Ukraine and the world would roll over…”. Zelensky’s aide has warned that the war 'could be a prologue to a global massacre”!

Next, it has been claimed that Putin is “mentally ill” or suffers from “neuro/physiological health issues” or, alternatively, is taking steroids high doses of which can result in “having strange or frightening thoughts”.

Apparently, Putin also suffers from a “weakened immune system” which is why he sits at a distance from foreign visitors. This, of course, ignores the fact that he routinely shakes hands or stands next to, other leaders like the president of Belarus, the president of Brazil, the prime minister of Pakistan, or China’s Xi …. But, hey, why spoil a good story when it serves propaganda purposes? :grin:

Then there is the myth of the “Ghost of Kiev”, an invisible Ukrainian jet pilot who apparently flies high in the sky and shoots down one Russian warplane after another, which, unfortunately, has been debunked as Ukrainian government propaganda based on footage from a combat flight simulator.

The story of three Russian members of parliament protesting against the invasion which is sold as proof of anti-Putin dissent but ignores the fact that the Russian parliament has 450 seats of which 325 are United Russia and seemingly, so far, behind Putin. And so it goes on and on.

The information and media war has turned into a game of "Spot the Myth" :grin:

Meantime, people of color fleeing Ukraine are attacked by Polish nationalists.

Welcome to NATO’s brave new world ….

Businesses like predictability, stability. And Capital, at heart, wants a borderless world. (Since the world still has borders, you might as well use that, but at bottom politics is a nuisance.) — Srap Tasmaner

Business in general does like stability and predictability. But some also make billions from price fluctuations, buying and selling assets, or stock-exchange speculation.

If BP and Shell, for example, are selling their shares in Russian companies they will be bought up by Russian oligarchs who will get richer than they already are. Western energy companies will certainly make a nice profit by replacing Russia as oil and gas suppliers to Europe, etc.

The biggest gain to the West though, would be if the Russian economy collapses and becomes dependent on Western investments like in the 1990's. So, the West may still see its old dream of controlling Russia's resources come true. And the EU and NATO will be free to expand ad infinitum.

But in the short term, Russia will turn to the West's rivals like China and Pakistan who will benefit from some massive energy deals with Russia - while Europe loses out.

Imran Khan strikes huge trade deal with Russia despite international outcry over war – The Independent

But I still love my country, and I relish its cultural output--not all of it uniformly. Much of American culture was imported from elsewhere--like coffee which has never been grown here. Coffee is a very good thing. — Bitter Crank

Sounds like you've done some serious research on the goodness of coffee. :smile:

Tobacco, on the other hand, seems to be less health-promoting ....

But I agree that compared to some other countries, American culture isn't entirely bad. If Americans somehow managed to be more independent of Wall Street and refrained from replacing European culture with that of America's lower social strata, it might be even better.

It's the xenophobia involved in nationalism that I object to, as well as the many fake nationalistic histories in currency right now. The many lies underlying the nation state, everywhere. — Olivier5

I agree. Unfortunately, the nation state seems to be a necessity in organizing the world, unless we want an amorphous mass of humanity ruled from Washington or New York.

And as the state is a political construct, this involves a narrative or "foundation myth" that, almost inevitably (like all things in politics), will contain counterfactual elements. Even in their personal life, people tend to tell myths, or lies, to themselves and to others.

Incidentally, even Ukrainians don't seem to be entirely blameless:

Ukraine Acknowledges Racist Treatment Of Africans Fleeing Russian Invasion - HuffPost

During a discussion on BLM last year I asked a group of students from the region about the public attitude to blacks in their country. I won't say which country, but the answer wasn't particularly positive.

in previous episodes Aimen Dean dismisses the inside job conspiracy theory about the Russian apartment bombings, and he's a person who knows a lot about the North Caucasian jihad. — jamalrob

Even in logical terms, Kirill Pankratov and others have argued (1) that the government did not need any additional justification to wage war on Chechnya, given the kidnappings and the invasion of Dagestan, and (2) that the operation involved too many people for the government to have been able to keep it secret.

In any case, there is no evidence and IMO speculation is just waste of time. Unfortunately, some are trying to blame everything on Russia and Putin. After all, there is an information and media war going on as we speak and some of the stuff we’re being told is simply fake news.

The important thing is to learn from such things, internalize the guilt, accept one's national destiny as, well, not so manifest or exceptional after all... Digest history. — Olivier5

Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I am inclined to believe that culture is the basis of civilization and that to be truly cultured is to be truly civilized.

History is certainly essential in understanding not only culture but also international relations. This is why I think the best diplomats often are not newbies appointed by ignorant politicians but people whose families have pursued a diplomatic career for generations.

Incidentally, though Boris the Turk has denied that NATO will get involved in Ukraine, Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff has said:

There is a possibility that we as a nation will soon be at war with Russia. We in this country must recognise that our security starts not on the white cliffs of Dover - it starts in the forests of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

So, the UK’s borders are now in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, i.e., on Russia’s borders! Apparently, “public opinion” (informed by the mass media) may force the UK to intervene in Ukraine, after all.

Some, it seems, never learn ….

You don't know what I campaign or support outside of this discussion. — Christoffer

So, you are not campaigning for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans? Then why campaign for Russia to give Crimea to Ukraine?

Show me where Jens Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs. — Christoffer

Everyone in Norway – at least among the educated classes - knows who the Stoltenbergs are. They are Germans from Schleswig-Holstein with close links to the Norwegian defense, finance, and foreign ministries and to US interests. Jen’s father Thorvald was a member of US outfits like the Trilateral Commission and FRIDE.

When Turkey invaded Kurdish territory in Syria in 2019, Jens said:

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

So, according to you, and to NATO, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish lands, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine! And you still expect to be taken seriously?

Moreover, I didn’t say “Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs”, though now that you say it, it probably is correct.

However, what I actually said was that NATO was created and is controlled by America for American interests. If Finns find this difficult to grasp, I can only stress that it is regrettable ….

The only ones I left with an impression of having met a true professional and not an inexperienced joker, were the Indian and the Russian embassies. — Olivier5

Correct. Which is not surprising given that India and Russia are neighbors. Unfortunately, US-UK and their Pakistani collaborators created the Taliban to keep the Russians and the Indians out of Afghanistan.

In any case, US-UK have ZERO understanding of the local culture. They despise the Afghans and the Afghans despise them. Now they are laughing at Putin's problems in Ukraine. IMO they should look at their own disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam ... :smile:

:up: My fault. I forgot to mention the "frogs" and the rest .... :smile:

There is definitely an air of superiority in the "Anglo-Saxons", no doubt about it. In a way, it's understandable, when you have been ruling the world for centuries it can get to your head, however unconsciously. But to many others it smacks of arrogance and even racism.

According to some analysts this has been a contributing factor to the failure of US-UK adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ....

Like a proper democratic vote. That is what they should have had, not what they got, as precisely what I wrote. — Christoffer

Yep. That's why you are campaigning so hard for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, or for Turkey to return North Cyprus ....

And of course NATO is run by America. Everyone knows that. It isn't my fault that the news hasn't made it to the Finnish outback yet .... :wink:

Of course, the English (the "WASPs") were untouchable. There weren't even any pejorative terms for them. There is definitely an ingrained belief among European peoples that slavs are "lesser". I feel certain that western Europeans hate the idea of a strong slavic country, as Russia potentially represents, since it challenges their ingrained bias. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Totally correct. Racism in Europe (and America) is very much alive and well, only that it has acquired different forms. It certainly occurs in England where there is prejudice not only toward "darkies" but also toward the Irish, the Russians, and above all, the Germans. Obviously, this is a reflection of England's past (and present) imperial ambitions. State propaganda can inculcate 'ingrained' bias in public perception of other nations.

I definitely think the Germans and the Slavs need to play a greater role in Europe in order to counteract the prevalent Anglo-Saxon feeling of cultural and racial "superiority".

Germany's decision to massively increase its military expenditure and ship arms to Ukraine may be a welcome sign of it finally beginning to reassert itself and no longer play second fiddle to England and France.

By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. — Christoffer

YOUR logic, not mine. :smile:

they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, — Christoffer

Have a vote? You mean like China did before annexing Tibet? :grin:

all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works. — Christoffer

NATO works by constantly expanding and not giving a dime about anyone else. Plus, it was created by America, and it is run by America in America's interests. But maybe things look differently when seen from the Finnish outback .... :lol:

it's not in the spirit of 'one family' that world religions or humanists for that matter talk about. — FreeEmotion

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic.

I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide. — jamalrob

I think it's probably best referred to as "democide":

democide - Wikipedia

Democide is a concept proposed by American political scientist Rudolph Rummel to describe "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command."

Still an awful lot of dead people, though ....

You keep saying this but I don't get it. As long as their naval base is secure what else would they want with a practically closed sea? — magritte

1. If Russia’s fleet is based in Crimea, where it has been for centuries, then giving Crimea to Ukraine (and NATO) would be a problem. This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian.

2. The Black Sea is not a “closed sea”. Russia, Ukraine, and others use it for access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits.

3. The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships.

Turkey Closes Bosphorus, Dardanelles Straits to Warships – US Naval Institute

Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia.

4. Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America.

Electing to go to war can be a decision to fight an enemy who is about to kick your ass or a phantasy like Hitler dreamed. — Paine

I think every war is a gamble as no one can predict the outcome. Look at Iraq where the West thought it was going to enforce order. It left chaos, death, and destruction behind, with Islamist dictatorships like Iran stronger than before and no end in sight. Or Afghanistan. Too many "unknown unknowns" as Rumsfeld said.

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.