Well, you'll see it in 2027-2030 when you buy a BigMac. — ssu

I don't buy Big Mac's. :grin:

I don't know enough about economics to assess that intelligently.

NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

By Ukrainians, yes.

The real reason is the fiscal and monetary policy implemented for decades. I think the basically all the Corona policies implemented just broke the dam. — ssu

How so? Inflation hasn't been a problem for the past few decades.

Handing out cash to people finally could do it, — ssu

If you're talking about the stimulus payments, I don't think that was enough to generate the inflation we're seeing. If you add up all the elements of the pandemic response, plus the subsequent labor shortage which made wages increase, supply line problems, a global petroleum shortage, and a sluggish Fed, all together, that gave us high inflation. The Fed is going to increase rates again this fall, but that isn't expected to stop inflation. We'll just have a recession with inflation. :grimace:

:up:

Putin at a summit in Astana: "2.5 million people live in Crimea. They [Ukrainians] cut off the water [from the Dnieper to the peninsula] just like that - so the [Russian] troops had to go in and open the water to Crimea. Just as an example of the logic of our actions."

Simple as that :roll: — SophistiCat

How do you think the war is most likely to play out?

ok.

Well that was a distracting waste of time. — Isaac

You're welcome.

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever. — Isaac

If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter.

In fact, if Biden wasn't the president, his perspective is one I'd seek out.

, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. — Isaac

That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously.

I don't understand this. If it exists nowhere, it doesn't exist. — Hanover

It's a quantity.



I have a theory about why this seems counter intuitive. I think we have a sense of physics informed by emotions and sensations. We all know what it's like to have pent up energy and we know where it's located from sensations. We use this to understand physics.

What part of my post is this responding to? I'm not asking this dickishly, but I don't see how that responded to it, but it could have, but I just don't see it. — Hanover

You said the potential energy is in the spring (or at least you seemed to.). Strictly speaking, potential energy doesn't have a location. You could think of it as a sophisticated prediction.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point Manuel was making. — Isaac

That's true. It's a case of ad hominem. Ad hominem is acceptable in cases where it's wise to be skeptical of an individual's statements because that person lies unusually frequently.

You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant.

Potential energy is part of an analysis of a state of things wrt all the possibilities associated with that state.

The formula is always something like:

potential energy = kinetic energy times resistance

So the less resistance (like a penny falling through air instead of honey), the bigger the kinetic energy in the event (the penny goes fast instead of slowly). It's the same potential, though, matter what the resistance is.

I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true. — Isaac

Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing.

You saw the video Olivier posted where his own soldiers didn't know they were going into battle until they were actually on the way to Kiev. Talk about information fog.

That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action — Isaac

The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to.

So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine — Isaac

I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians.

Why would Putin lie all the time? — Isaac

There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them. — Manuel

That's true. My point was just that doubting Putin is kind of like doubting Trump. The total disregard for truth is unusual in both cases.

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always. — ssu

I think that's the rudder for a lot of folks. They react specifically against the idea of the US showing up in a positive light.

I think all political entities are better conceived forces of nature. You get closer to the truth that way, I think.

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees — Manuel

Putin changes his stories pretty frequently, though. You get to the point where you're not second guessing him or wondering what he really meant by such and such, you just discount everything he says because it's all lies.

Yes, Americans lie too, but the only American I know of who lies the way Putin does is Trump. I don't advise believing anything he says.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

That's a good question. I think there's a thread of truth to it, but there's more going on than that. Honestly, I think it will be a few years before we get the historian's take on what happened.

Ha ha. That was easy though, Turkey facilitated previous talks eg on freeing cereals export ship lanes in the Black Sea. Those negotiations worked, BTW. — Olivier5

Let's hope they come up with something.

Maybe we can end this without blowing the world up. — RogueAI

That would be nice. :grin:

The Kremlin said on Wednesday 12 October that it expects Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a concrete proposal to Vladimir Putin to mediate on the conflict in Ukraine, while the two men will meet on Thursday in Kazakhstan. — Olivier5

Ha! You called it.

US actively working to keep its competitors weak — Tzeentch

The primary way the US and Russia "compete" is ideological, not financial.

Because Russia is a dictatorship, profoundly corrupt, and militarily aggressive, the traditional American view is that it should be contained.

Consider China's interests, particularly their eye being on Taiwan. If Putin succeeds in annexing a good deal of Ukraine through force, that creates a precedent that Chine could use to invade Taiwan. This means China may be more interested in Russia fighting on, than in Russia backing off ofUkraine. — Olivier5

Aha. All true

But at the end of the day, isn’t Putin/Russian military killing people to gain territory? How is that disputed? — schopenhauer1

Some make the accusation that Putin is acting in self defense, or at least defense of what is rightfully his client state. Because the US has been supplying military aid to Ukraine, the idea is that Putin reacted in a way that should have been predicted. Therefore the fault goes back to the US and NATO.

I wish that wasn't true.

Too much aligned with Moscow, I think. — Olivier5

Maybe, but they've kept their statements sort of neutral.

frank

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying? — schopenhauer1

Some are saying that, yes.

frank
Just saying, I wonder what the controversy is? Appeasing or not appeasing right? — schopenhauer1

The controversy in this thread? It's hard to say. I've asked, and I don't get back anything that makes sense to me. It's maybe just people expressing their angst about war crimes and war profiteers. There's a fair amount of people assuming everyone else is naive about the agendas that give rise to mass events.

I think that expressing angst about all the victims involved is why I'm here.

Appeasement was the lesson of WW2 wasnt it? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Biden's from the Silent Generation, so he's probably up to speed on that.

ask Turkey or the UN to do it. — Olivier5

How about China?

Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February. — Isaac

Your theory is that whether the US funds a conflict, with no other goals in mind, comes down to how easy it is?

Ok. I think I understand you. I think you're wrong, but I guess you think the same about me. :up:

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.
— apokrisis

I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. — Xtrix

This isn't an insult you great boob. In my experience, you're often wrong. That's not an insult. It's just a fact. Everybody gets things wrong from time to time. Take it as an opportunity to learn and grow if someone points it out.

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?
— frank

Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did — Isaac

So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea.

Apparently not. Ya didn't pay attention.

Honest question: did you not realize Biden is a hawk when you voted for him? Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead?

When Biden said to the world "We're back!" after he was elected, what did you think that meant about US foreign policy during his presidency?

I guess I'm looking to get a handle on exactly how blind American voters tend to be.