I couldn't care less what Putin or NATO say about it. The comparison is valid or invalid based on reality not what competing propagandists say. America has either launched a massive invasion of Somalia akin to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or it hasn't. There have been thousands of civilians killed or there haven't. The government either invited them or they didn't. There's some leeway for ambiguity there but not so much we can't make our own judgements confidently based on the evidence available, no?

The Somalia angle might make sense if what happened in Ukraine was that Zelensky asked Putin for a couple of hundred Russian troops to help suppress an insurgency and Putin obliged. Of course, that's just about the opposite of what happened, so the comparison doesn't work.

That doesn't mean if the US sent 100,000 troops backed by heavy armour and air support into Somalia, bombed some of their cities to dust and killed thousands of their citizens, that the reaction of the West would be as sympathetic to Somalia as it is to Ukraine. It just means that's a hypothetical and arguing a hypothetical as if it was a reality isn't going to fly.

I don't say this to extend this aspect of the debate but hopefully to truncate it as it's not going anywhere.

I'm aware everyone hates each other and we are possibly in an episode of Sesame Street where Big Bird beheads Snuffleupagus and hangs the Cookie Monster from a lamp post, but can we dial things down a notch, please?

Ok.

Make an argument if you have one and no more silly videos, please.

It means what it says. Not sure where the confusion lies...

It's not that trivially simple. Big capital can get unequivocally fucked over too by changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which is why they're so active in trying to control it. If someone wants to start a thread I'll contribute but let's not go too far off topic here.

It's ok if you have something new to say and/or the issue has become current again, as with the Roe v Wade thread. That's not bumping. Bumping is posting a reply purely to get attention for a thread, usually one that posters are losing interest in.

My to-do list for the day: Give granny more-fatal cancer. Murder all preborns. Take dog for a walk.

Don't blame Wiki for your amateur attempts at spin. And if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. Of course, you don't appear to think you need to.

One of the current Irish parties of government has its roots in the Irish fascist 'blue shirt' movement of the thirties. Have they anything to do with fascism now? No, zero. But I suppose if we wanted to join NATO, the Russian troll army would be calling us Nazis too. :lol:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts

Your issue is trying to throw mud at Sweden and Finland by dragging up irrelevancies like pre-Nazi swastikas and a few fascist policeman from the thirties. Pretty desperate stuff tbh.

It looks like some folks have their heads so deep in NATO propaganda, they forget that detailed info on Finland and Sweden’s collaboration with Hitler is all over the Internet. — Apollodorus

It looks like you have your head so deep in... somewhere... that you've forgotten the Nazi-Soviet pact.



Now that's collboration, baby.

Finland was aligned with Hitler at the time. — Apollodorus

But:

this was not intended to show allegiance to Nazi Germany

And:

"Finland participated in the Second World War initially in a defensive war against the Soviet Union, followed by another battle against the Soviet Union acting in concert with Germany and then finally fighting alongside the Allies against Germany."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_in_World_War_II#:~:text=During%20World%20War%20II%2C%20Finland,refugees%20were%20safe%20from%20persecution.

So:

You have nothing.

And of course Finland is up to its neck in it:

"Finland's air force has been using a swastika ever since it was founded in 1918, shortly after the country became an independent nation and long before Nazism devastated Europe." — Apollodorus

In what? Do you read your own sources? The symbol had nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism.

@frank

Democracy doesn't unequivocally equal majority rule. E.g. Northern Ireland is a democracy, but the majority (as in majority community) is specifically forbidden to rule. Power sharing is enforced. When you have a state that's significantly split, subverting majority rule may in fact be necessary for democracy (as in representative rule) to function.

"Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will"."

https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy

For the people, of the people, not for the majority, of the majority, which is more like majoritarianism.

"Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, which may refer to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule. It is a belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism#:~:text=Majoritarianism%20is%20a%20traditional%20political,decisions%20that%20affect%20the%20society.

Having said that, @Michael has some work to do to demonstrate restrictions on abortion constitute repression of a minority. It probably depends on the strictness of the restrictions, and the other side will counter-claim that abortion is repression of the unborn.

Are there any other innocent old people we can wish hindsight cancer on for ethical reasons? You never know what harm granny might cause if we don't kill her off. *Cackle*

Anyway, the Christian Taliban and the Dems are the two big winners here, so let's call it a draw.

Americans now get to vote on the issue, like most other countries. The end.

Oh look pretty girl sing funny song. I no fall for disinformation anymore. :lol:

They were spewing American intelligence about it early in the war. Do you care enough for me to look it up? If you looked it up yourself would you believe it? — frank

Depends on the source. I've seen news reports to that effect but nothing convincing as yet. I don't think we're going to get reliable intelligence on exactly what was said and then it's down to speculation to fit pro or anti Chinese bias. But I'm open to being wrong on that.

I thought you were all about it ending with negotiations. I realized a couple of weeks ago that this could actually lead to WW3. You're catching up! — frank

Unfortunately, I am. I still don't think it will lead to WW III, but with every escalation, my confidence wanes.

I also think it's misleading to claim they gave him the thumbs up. Unless you have sources to back that up, they might just as well have tried to talk him out of it but failed.

Anyhow, I think we should all ask ourselves the simple question, 'Will delivering an additional $20 billion of weapons into that region end well?' If you can honestly say you believe 'yes', then fine. I doubt many here can say that though. And 'maybe' isn't good enough, considering the dramatic tail risks of such escalation.

If you accept the premise of Chinese influence being a factor in the war being started then it makes sense to accept they could be influential in finding a way to end it.

Our immediate reaction to this war should have been the realization that we fucked up and misjudged Russia's determination to get Ukraine to bend to its will, and then we should have been focusing on building alliances with countries like India and China, who Russia actually cares about, to put diplomatic pressure on it to 1) agree to a ceasefire 2) engage productively in talks in that context. Instead we went it alone, got nowhere, and are now doubling down on a failed approach.



You're completing missing the escalation point. Russia has strategic objectives, which don't necessarily involve levelling Ukraine. If they had got what they wanted initially, they wouldn't even have started the war and you wouldn't need SAM missiles to protect Ukrainians. But if we keep fomenting the situation, maybe you can let me know what's going to protect them from a tactical nuclear strike. Prayers?

So better that Putin would win and create new "People's Republics" that could join later Mother Russia? — ssu

Better that this gets deescalated. My expectation is the more you escalate it, the more Putin will demand as a penalty for the extra dead Russians you create. That penalty being more dead Ukrainians and harsher terms for ending the conflict. Probably the only route to this 'People's Republic' you refer to is, ironically, the complete decimation of Ukraine caused by an indefinite extension of the war fuelled by an indefinite influx of foreign weapons: A neat way to give cover to Putin to completely destroy and subjugate the country. As a bonus you might get to start WW III.

We are drifting into a brittle situation where we are gleefully arming Ukraine with heavy weaponry. I support helping Ukraine fight off Russia, but I can see a plausible chain of escalation that ends very badly. — RogueAI

Yes, it's all about probabilities, of course, and my take is that the probability of this being a constructive rather than a deductive move is very low. Talking heads in Russia are already saying WW III would be preferable to defeat in Ukraine. Do we want to bet the house that Putin doesn't feel the same way? I wouldn't. I don't think it will go there, but I also don't think Putin will back down. So, ball back in our court.

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox.

20 billion of that is for weapons and only 3 for humanitarian aid, apparently. :sad:

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-looks-congress-oligarchs-more-cash-help-ukraine-2022-04-28/

What's bizarre is that you think 33 billion is a lot. — frank

It's a lot in Ukraine. About the same as their total annual government expenditure.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Ukraine/government_spending_dollars/

It's not specifically in the rules. It just makes things easier to read and helps to show you haven't misquoted someone. If you really don't want to use it, ok, I suppose.

Please use the quote function. You can access it by highlighting text.

There's been speculation he has Parkinson's. That won't stop him though.

I get a 404 error on this. What's it supposed to link to?

At what point does it become a failure for the invader? — Olivier5

When he withdraws his forces and the country is liberated or when that outcome becomes inevitable, obviously.

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far. — Olivier5

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.

:chin: Just to add though, for all their ostensibly hostile talk, there seems to be a tacit agreement between NATO and Russia that goes something like this: NATO 'You can destroy Ukraine, but go no further'. Russia: 'You can arm Ukraine, but go no further'. This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine even as the propaganda arms of their respective media were dramatizing it. It's distasteful as the likely result is that Ukraine's destruction just gets drawn out rather than mitigated while NATO and Russia act tough to keep their respective plebs satisfied.

Obviously not Baden — Manuel

I'm just another internet rando anyhow. :grin:

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? The former is a significant possibility (though still very unlikely) at the moment imo, the latter not. The most likely outcome is still Russia forcing Ukraine to capitulate through conventional warfare. That might take a month or a year depending on how much support Ukraine gets, but they're losing the war simply because they're facing a much more powerful opponent and there's no external political will to overturn that dynamic.

Mandatory 'Finnegan's Wake'? That'll teach 'em. :naughty:

A book about a dystopian society where everyone is forced to read Kierkegaard should be required reading for anyone who suggests everyone must read Kierkegaard.

:up:



From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.