@StreetlightX addresses the USA:

I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging — Baden

Maybe they aren't on the same paragraph, but they're standing together on the same sanctions page, which are geared toward squashing the Russian economy flat.

True, but old men are at a pretty high risk for suicide.

There's more of a sense of dread now? I'm guessing Russians feel that way, but I think there are a lot of young Chinese who feel the opposite: they want nuclear war. They've turned the US into an image of what keeps them down (when the opposite is actually true).

Anyway, I hope you're right. I don't want war at all.

It's possible it could happen again, but it in the same order.

Have you noticed that the 20th Century started with a pandemic and a world war?

Here it is.

Well, now I can't find it, so I guess consider it bullshit until I do.

My hope is that China is putting some pressure on them to gradually deescalate — Baden

I think they're going in the opposite direction. They're reaching out to countries who might want to create an anti-NATO alliance. This is how it becomes a global conflict. If you want to see the citation on that I'll look for it.

Europe might also put some background pressure on Zelensky to concede he's more or less lost that region to Russian puppet control. — Baden

I think Biden is actually leading the team right now and he wants to bruise Putin.

I would also love to see this end quickly, but the stars are saying it's going to continue and it has the potential to spread. This is partly about prying American fingers off global control.

And I've thought it through: no, this is not happening because of previous American aggression. That's bullshit. It's happening because the US is obviously in decline.

So we can't rely on Russian mission statements. It's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish from observing them. I don't think it's supposed to be this complicated.

Are they jailing people for protesting for democracy? Because that would be a good sign, in a way.

Yes but even if one remains 'apolitical', one must live somewhere, and chose to stay there, under this regime, rather than emigrate over there under another. This is a choice one makes even if one is unconscious of it. — Olivier5

Up to a point. A constructivist would say that power is made up of little interactions all over the place. American influence is Coke sales and such.

So the US is withdrawing its influence from Russia pretty vigorously right now. Ironic?

Thing about being as unfair as you can possibly be, you get stuck in your own little echo chamber

chamber

chamber

To be neutral is to withdraw from the world. If that state is peppered with resentment, it's Nietzsche's slave morality in a nutshell.

You can be apolitical without any resentment, though. Or you can be complex and dwell in an amoral, anthropological state some of the time, and engage the world at other times.

But engaging the world at the level of significant power is apt to put you in the "dirty hands" category.

Look who's been studying a little climatology. :victory:

think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective — Manuel

True, but sometimes the best general is discovered in the middle of the war. That happened in the American Civil War. His name was Grant.

But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win". — Manuel

I think they would probably just like to get to a negotiation table. Putin will put that off as long as he can, I guess. He's a scumbag.

It is what it is.

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster. — Manuel

Supposedly they aren't used to this kind of warfare. It takes a while to get up to speed.

do you think he'll run again? — Baden

I think he'll have to. Harris can't beat Trump.

That story hasn't appeared in the sources I follow. That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

Biden's looking like a rock star. Couldn't Putin have waited a couple more years to do this?

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

They'd probably tell Putin he has to give up all nuclear materials or face attack. He wouldn't give them up, and Russia would be attacked. It would be fucking horrendous, illogical as it may be.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.
— frank
But does Benkei feel the same way? — ssu

I don't know, but Joe Biden does. That's what matters.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list. — Baden

:up: :up: :broken:

Here is an Associate Justice. — 180 Proof

:up: I really like her.

:heart:

But you don't want to talk to anyone who describes it as such? It's not a judgement but an observation btw. — Baden

Have a good evening/night. :halo:

It's not a controversial statement by any means. — Baden

I didn't say it was.

traditional adversaries such as the US and Russia. — Baden

I think this tells me all I needed to glean from your perspective. Thanks for the discussion.

The missle placement is clearly a direct threat to Russian power. You can add layers to that if you like, but there is no fundamental reason for Russians to be happier about having American missiles piled up along their borders than Americans would be having Russian missiles piled up along their borders. Again, there are lots of other layers and nuances you can add, but I don't know why that basic fact is hard to grasp or agree on. — Baden

The problem is: this presupposes conflict instead of explaining it.

Obviously the UK doesn't feel threatened by American missile placement. If Russia does, then what is the basis of the conflict?

Again, my goal was to understand your statement that NATO sees Russia as an adversary.

I think the missile placement issue is more about Putin's objections to American foreign policy decisions. He has bemoaned the way Americans leave instability and cell-structured terrorism in their wake, which happens to be his backyard.

He believes he would deal more effectively with turmoil in the middle east, and I think he's probably right. American efforts to install democracy have been disastrous.

Putin wants to maintain his big gun. — Baden

Of course.

Would you feel threatened if Russia became friendly enough with Mexico to allow it to place missiles there? I suppose most, if not all, Americans would. And your government certainly would and would act correspondingly. — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general feel threatened by the US?

Do you happen to have some data that shows that?

And this from a Russian angle could read as:

"Why would Russia prepare to attack the U.S.? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?"

So, why did NATO expand, why plant missiles in Eastern Europe?

Simply invert your perspective and you answer your own questions. — Baden

No. If the US placed missiles in Eastern Europe to threaten Russia, there has to be a reason for it.

I'm not making normative judgements about whether Russia should feel threatened or not. I'm simply trying to help lay out an explanatory framework for their actions/reactions — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general have felt threatened by American missile placement? Or is it just the Russian govt?

If so, we can probably drop "NATO" here, right? It's mostly just the US.

And the present invasion of Ukraine is related to this apparent aggression.

I think there's probably a kernal of truth in there, in that, without the USA or EU, Putin wouldn't need to invade. He could just send in his drushina and kill Zelensky.

:up:

You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What? — Baden

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia.

At this time, China is threatening the vision of some Americans as having a divine mission to rule the world. Only a fucking moron would say: "Look! That's evidence that China is antagonizing America! (Not that you're a fucking moron, I don't think that).

Everybody has some responsibility to look at the world objectively, including Putin.

So, funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle. — Baden

Is it spin? The problem I have is that it makes sense that the US would ready itself to bomb Iran. Iran has been hostile toward the whole region. It's a sectarian issue.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. — Baden

Historians say that perception actually ended with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. This was the real basis of the cold war: Stalin felt vulnerable.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed — Baden

Their economy was in shambles. The US gave aid to Russia, for fuck's sake.

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In — Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it.