There's no such thing as a perfect social system; the more individuals, the more unhappy about something, that's just history and statistics, and homo sapiens. — jorndoe

It's basically about how many people there are. Representation becomes a necessity even if the group of people is rather small.

In my life one example of democratic decision making is for example the private road going to my summer place. The people sharing that road decide on what to do with the road and in order not to create a large hassle about it, every house has one vote (if something would be voted on) independent on just where on the road they live. Of course, one household or land patch has one vote, so there's the representation. And even if there are roughly 20 landowners on the road, some never participate. And only a few do the actual work and keep up the maintenance of the road (as there still are farmers with appropriate equipment to maintain the road).

And in this microcosm you could find (possibly, if the people wouldn't work together) nearly every defect or problem of democracy: the limits of representation (not all adults vote), free rider problem (not all participate in the decision making) and that "power" usually tends to be with some active people as others aren't so interested. Hence these problems are inherent for democracy.

Yet that democracy is so popular and can create stable countries is shown by the handful of cases of the total opposite: Absolute monarchies which are stable and have people happy living in them are basically tiny, extremely wealthy mini-states (Monaco, Brunei etc.). If a citizen has a problem, but can easily approach the monarch, then that representation problem can still be solved with an absolute monarch... assuming the monarch understands to listen to the needs of his subjects. Hence if our private road would be owned by one entity, I think the 20 land owners wouldn't have a problem, if the road would be maintained with minimal cost and the land owners would be listened to. Easy with 20 land owners. Yet they (we) understand how expensive (and thus stupid) it would be to buy the service from some company of maintaining the road would be as the company obviously does it for a profit.

But once there are hundreds of thousands of people or millions that "direct democracy" or "direct connection to the monarch" simply cannot exist. Hence larger absolute monarchies (Saudi-Arabia) or poorer ones can face difficulties, corruption, and usually have to form a police state. The absolute monarch cannot decide everything, thus the underlings have to decide things on behalf of him.

However democracy is or might be implemented, the details, is another matter, and could be discussed/voted until kingdom come, is my guess. — jorndoe

Yes. And the extremely radical approaches can be left to philosophical theorizing, because usually they have to assume something from the society which simply isn't there.

Eastern European nations have the extra twist of having had some of their populations participate in the Shoah. Other groups fought for autonomy against the Red Army or against the Germans depending on who was seen as the bigger threat. Ukraine had the special attention of Stalin before the war when much of the population was starved to death in order to eliminate the Kulaks. The swirling series of conflicting ends defies simple categories. The groups mentioned have a number of overlaps that History still has not resolved. — Paine

I think the biggest problem is that basically Eastern European history isn't even looked at itself, but we in the West focus on the region either as a theatre for the implementation of the Holocaust or a geographical area where Germany and Soviet Union clashed during WW2. And then afterwards that these countries were either under Soviet rule or were their satellite countries. Some Katyn massacre is a side note some might know, but otherwise there is actually blissful ignorance especially what the Soviet Union did in the areas it occupied.

The real problem is that naturally during Soviet times anything critical to Soviet rule wasn't tolerated, history was only a tool for Soviet propaganda (and in Putin's Russia still is) and there wasn't much if any study what happened behind the Iron Curtain. Huge events, like just how long Soviet Union faced an insurgency against it's rule in the Baltics (and other places) is something people really don't know. That every tenth Lithuanian was deported to gulags hardly matters and the new countries simply cannot voice their own history.

Russian propaganda, which wants to white wash Stalin now, eagerly has played and will play the Hitler card and tries especially to portray for the American and West European audience East Europeans as nazi sympathizers and racists. After all, why would you support people who neonazis? And this works. This is evident in the case of Ukraine and obvious even in this thread, where a favorite subject has been for some to portray (and thus back up Putin's claims) Ukrainians being ruled by neonazis.

No, we don't want to see more high quality stuff. Quality is too demanding, too burdensome, hard to produce, often tedious to read. We don't have to go for absolute slop, but let's be sensible: sitting down at the mighty Mac and turning out refined, insightful, elegant, and witty text is a major drain on one's ever-diminishing intellectual resources. I could be brilliant, but then I would be too exhausted to appreciate the adulation which fallow philosophers would shower on me.

Enough about the flight to quality! — Bitter Crank

:up:

Besides, I always like when some new member starts something like "I was introduced to Ayn Rand and liked it. It's so true. What do you guys think of her?".

And then just enjoy the replies with popcorn.

. But how much of a difference are they making? Can they become a political force in Russia? — jorndoe

Prison inmates etc. don't make good soldiers, on the contrary. But it tells about the attitude...

The whole system is designed for there not to emerge any kind of power bloc that could rival Putin's power. That is the simple reason just why the Russian Army was and is basically so tiny even if armed forces in all are over 1 million strong (and now more). A Mercenary group and a Muslim warlord that runs a small part of Russia cannot overthrow Putin, but they know their worth and can say truthfully how bad the special military operation is going.

In truth this "separation" of military has had serious disadvantages in this war: the surprising advances of Ukraine in Kharkiv region earlier happened because the forces were mainly the National Guard units, which were designed for internal security. Fighting protesters and fighting an enemy army are two different things. Yet what should be needed to fight this war, a large Russian Army with unified command, would hand too much power to the generals from Putin.

Just like Hitler had both the Wehrmacht and the SS.

I always use the illustration of ants: Some ants live, some ants die (from getting trampled, crushed by feet, etc etc etc). Nothing special. It's the same with human life. — niki wonoto

Nonsense. Ants are simply awesome.

Just compare them to single cell lifeforms. WHOW!!!

And if you live long, you might actually see Peak Human Population. So a top of some more billions. Both India and China are looking to get smaller with population...

Just think of all the countries that are by birth rate shrinking:

193 South Korea 1.1
190 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.2
191 Singapore 1.2
192 Puerto Rico (US) 1.2
183 Mauritius 1.3
184 Portugal 1.3
185 United Arab Emirates 1.3
186 Greece 1.3
187 Cyprus 1.3
188 Moldova 1.3
189 Italy 1.3
174 Serbia 1.4
175 Croatia 1.4
176 Saint Lucia 1.4
177 Finland 1.4
178 Japan 1.4
179 Spain 1.4
180 Ukraine 1.4
181 Luxembourg 1.4
182 Hong Kong (China) 1.4
168 Hungary 1.5
169 Thailand 1.5
170 Canada 1.5
171 Poland 1.5
172 North Macedonia 1.5
173 Malta 1.5
156 Chile 1.6
157 Romania 1.6
158 Slovenia 1.6
159 Cuba 1.6
160 Barbados 1.6
161 Estonia 1.6
162 Albania 1.6
163 Slovakia 1.6
164 Bulgaria 1.6
165 Germany 1.6
166 Switzerland 1.6
167 Austria 1.6
3 More Developed Regions 1.6
139 Colombia 1.7
140 Montenegro 1.7
141 Bahamas 1.7
142 Iceland 1.7
143 Costa Rica 1.7
144 Czech Republic 1.7
145 Brazil 1.7
146 Trinidad and Tobago 1.7
147 Curaçao (Netherlands) 1.7
148 China 1.7
149 United Kingdom 1.7
150 Latvia 1.7
151 Netherlands 1.7
152 Belgium 1.7
153 Lithuania 1.7
154 Norway 1.7
155 Belarus 1.7
124 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1.8
125 Nepal 1.8
126 France 1.8
127 Qatar 1.8
128 Maldives 1.8
129 Brunei 1.8
130 Armenia 1.8
131 Denmark 1.8
132 Sweden 1.8
133 United States 1.8
134 Ireland 1.8
135 New Zealand 1.8
136 Australia 1.8
137 Russia 1.8
138 Martinique (France) 1.8
73 Philippines 1.9
114 Bangladesh 1.9
115 Malaysia 1.9
116 Jamaica 1.9
117 Uruguay 1.9
118 Bahrain 1.9
119 Bhutan 1.9
120 New Caledonia (France) 1.9
121 French Polynesia (France) 1.9
122 Aruba (Netherlands) 1.9
123 North Korea 1.9
102 India 2.0
103 Mexico 2.0
104 Kuwait 2.0
105 Lebanon 2.0
106 Georgia 2.0
107 Vietnam 2.0
108 Turkey 2.0
109 Grenada 2.0
110 El Salvador 2.0
111 Azerbaijan 2.0
112 Antigua and Barbuda 2.0
113 U.S. Virgin Islands (US) 2.0
6 Latin America and the Caribbean 2.0
96 Libya 2.1
97 Sri Lanka 2.1
98 Tunisia 2.1
99 Iran 2.1
100 Myanmar (Burma) 2.1
101 Guadeloupe (France) 2.1

Maybe Putin is pushing Lukashenko's Belarus into the war? — jorndoe

Lukashenko is doing a tightrope balancing act. Attacking Ukraine would be simply insane for Belarus. Starting from that the condition of the armed forces or the amount of Belarussian volunteers fighting already in Ukraine, one of the more stupid things to do. Yet once Belarus is such an important ally to Russia and for Russia the ability to use Belarussian territory and airspace as a safe zone from where to attack is already a huge factor. And I think the Belarussians and Lukashenko know this very well.

But I guess for Lukashenko rhetoric that hasn't got anything to do with reality is totally normal.

A lot of decisions revolve around avoiding embarrassment, so it's entirely possible the US planners did not think seriously beyond just trying to make sure Russia couldn't so easily take more of Ukraine, leading Putin to conclude, due to these actions being a threat and overconfidence from Crimea annexation, to "Putin would think that a 10 day operation is all what is needed to solve the Ukraine-problem once and for all".

Generally in large institutions, people have all sorts of elaborate theories and analysis and plans, but the logic and sequence of decisions is fairly simple, since a lot of people need to agree for anything to actually happen, and the complex analysis just explains why given people support given decisions at certain times (even if it's all mutually incompatible on the whole). — boethius

It's been said that Putin postponed the attack several times and that it was the FSB pushing for the attack and Gerasimov and the military being hesitant. That Putin then made a "putsch" at the FSB afterwards does reinforce that this may be so. (The FSB was in charge of Ukraine, unlike other countries.)

Again we have to compare this to the 2014 operation: Russia did then get high ranking Ukrainian officers to jump on to the Russian side: for example Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky, head of the Ukrainian navy, issued an order for the Ukrainian Navy to lay down it's arms and afterwards being dismissed, defected to Russia.

After such covert operation success and taking into account Russian bureaucratic culture, it's not crazy to assume that those in charge of covert operations in Ukraine promised similar results again. But that was eight years ago.

Former head of the Ukrainian Navy in new uniform in 2019:

This was maybe true at the very start, and had Ukraine sued for peace then, it would have been significant Ukrainian agency just as you say, both the fighting and negotiating (especially if the US disagreed and wanted more fighting to bleed the Russians). — boethius

I'm not so sure that there even then was a moment to sue for peace. Remember that in the south and east Russia was gaining ground as Ukraine concentrated on defending Kyiv. And Putin wasn't going to talk to the drug using neo-nazis.

Ukraine had a significant stockpile of weapons and equipment, and I agree (wherever it came from, mostly soviet days) it was (at the time) the basis of independent decisions action.

However, in the months that followed essentially the entirety of the Ukrainian original armour fleet and other heavy weapons were destroyed and a significant part of its officer corp killed, and munitions stockpiles fired, transitioning to complete dependence on the US / NATO to simply maintain current lines, much less make any offensive operations. — boethius

Yes. Basically Ukraine went through it's stockpiles of artillery ammunition quite quickly and then afterwards Russia enjoyed fire superiority. And obviously then was very dependent on Western assistance.

I think the simple fact neither Ukraine or actually the West was ready for such a long war fought with ammo consumption of WW1 or WW2 level. The West has basically looked at short conventional wars. The conventional wars in the Middle East (which are somewhat comparable) lasted only some days. Only basically Russia has hoarded old stuff and ammunition for such a conflict. Yet neither Russia or even the West have a military industry to produce huge amounts of munitions. At least yet.

Just treading water required thousands of rounds of artillery and other munitions a day as well as attrition of vehicles, and now also the electricity grid (requiring thousands of generators to try to cope with, which again Ukraine is 100% dependent on the US for). — boethius

Where Ukraine needs that ammo is if makes large scale maneuvers. Then it has to attack Russian forces whereas if it is on the defensive, it can just pinpoint the fires to needed points. And even without artillery (or little artillery), Ukrainian infantry still can defend.

Ukraine is 100% dependent on NATO, in particular the US who calls the shots in NATO, for arms, intelligence, training and planning support, and bankrolling the entire government — boethius

You are confusing the ability to take the initiative and make large scale offensive maneuvers with the ability to defend it's territory.

Notice how the matter of Ukraine was conspicuously absent from all of what you quoted, and military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO did not cease, but intensified. — Tzeentch

Notice how many things were absent from was all the military cooperation going around then, and earlier in Central Asia even with CSTO members. The basic fact is that US and NATO has had a lot of military cooperation even with other CSTO members. Ukraine was actually neutral, unlike them.

US soldiers training with Kazakhstani officers in Steppe Eagle 2017.

It's entirely possible that the policy came into existence after seeing the Ukrainians fighting back successfully enough to halt the invasion. — boethius

Policies can and do come into existence after events. It's quite likely that ideas of a full-scale war with Ukraine came to existence after the astonishing success of capturing Crimea. In fact, the easiness of this brilliant operation can perfectly explain just why Putin would think that a 10 day operation is all what is needed to solve the Ukraine-problem once and for all.

Additionally, the United States must have expected full-scale war because that's what they sought to prepare Ukraine for for years, through all kinds of military aid, from training, equipment, to joint military exercises, etc. — Tzeentch

I agree it's not coincidence, just that it may not have been completely thought through, or then arming Ukraine post-Russia invasion was not the original plan. — boethius

Hey guys!

Have noticed that the war between Ukraine and Russia actually has gone on since the year 2014?

And again the hubris of Ukrainians not having any role here... :smirk:

The Americans have purposefully steered towards this conflict since at least 2008.

Now they have their conflict, and they spin a yarn about Ukrainian sovereignty. — Tzeentch

LOL.

Just a quote from the White House page from 2010:

In one of his earliest new foreign policy initiatives, President Obama sought to reset relations with Russia and reverse what he called a “dangerous drift” in this important bilateral relationship. President Obama and his administration have sought to engage the Russian government to pursue foreign policy goals of common interest – win-win outcomes -- for the American and Russian people.

And this included:

The New START Treaty:

On April 8, 2010, in Prague, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the New START Treaty, a strategic offensive arms reduction treaty to follow-up on the START Treaty, which expired on December 5, 2009. The New START Treaty reduces limits on U.S. and Russian deployed strategic warheads by approximately one third.

Non-Proliferation:

In addition to the New Start Treaty and actions taken against Iran and North Korea, the U.S. and Russia have made significant progress in developing our common nonproliferation agenda over the past eighteen months. Russia joined the United States in supporting the UN Security Council Resolution 1887 on September 24, 2009. Russia also played a critical role in President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, held on April 12-13, 2010.

Creation of the Presidential Bilateral Commission:

During their meeting in Moscow on July 6, 2009, Presidents Medevedev and Obama established the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Commission consisting of sixteen working groups ranging from nuclear cooperation, space, health, military-to-military, cultural and sports exchange, to civil society.

Military-to-Military Cooperation:

Russia and the United States agreed to renew bilateral military cooperation and have approved a work-plan for this cooperation under the Defense Cooperation Working Group of the Bilateral Presidential Commission. Russia and the United States also have cooperated successfully on anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia and have committed to intensify counter-piracy cooperation. The U.S. sponsored Russia’s UN Security Council resolution for an UN-led study on the cost and effectiveness of various approaches to prosecute pirates.

Accelerating Russia’s WTO Accession:

After a long lull while Russia focused on forming its Customs Union with the Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan, the United States and Russia have intensified their discussion regarding Russia’s WTO accession. - On June 24, based on the significant progress achieved, including agreement on the treatment of state-owned enterprises, and provided that Russia fully implements the mutually agreed upon action plan for bringing Russian legislation into compliance with WTO requirements, the Presidents agreed to aim to settle remaining bilateral issues by September 30.

Supporting President Medvedev’s Initiative on Innovation:

The Obama Administration has welcomed President Medvedev’s focus on innovation and has looked for ways to support this initiative. In February, 2010, the State Department and National Security Staff led a delegation of high-tech executives to Moscow and Novosibirsk to help promote this innovation agenda, including promoting entrepreneurship, openness and transparency, internet freedom and freedom of expression, and the use of communications technologies to augment the work of traditional civil society organizations.[/b]

Expanding Trade and Investment:

Rostechnologiya and Boeing signed a proposal acceptance to enter into a sale of 50 737 Boeing aircraft with a potential additional sale of 15 planes to the Russian national airline Aeroflot. The multi-billion dollar sale will create potentially 44,000 new jobs in America’s aerospace industry. U.S. companies have opened new manufacturing facilities in Russia in the areas of soft drinks, paper, and tractors.

Above seems quite something else than "steering towards this conflict". Oh! But as the year WAS 2010, the Russo-Georgian war had happened, and according to you the march to war had started. Of course Georgia, a war that had happened two years ago, was mentioned also:

Georgia:

The Obama Administration continues to have serious disagreements with the Russian government over Georgia. We continue to call for Russia to end its occupation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and in parallel have worked with the Russian government to prevent further military escalations in the region. We have witnessed some incremental confidence building measures, such as opening the border at Verkhniy Lars and allowing direct charter flights between the two countries, and continue to press for the strengthening of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms and a return of international observers to the two occupied regions of Georgia.

Yes! Serious disagreements. Yet incremental confidence building measures seemed to have been noticed. And yet the differences are not so serious to prevent everything else mentioned above and even more... just on one meeting with the US and Russian presidents.

Hence this idea of the US starting the march to war in 2008 is quite biased and ignorant view, which picks some events and disregards everything else, but is well suited for Putin's present propaganda.

How according to some the US marches to war:

Ukrainian lives (especially the soldiers) are the instrument of US / NATO policy in this fight, and the collateral damage would be civilians and structures that the Ukrainian military kills, wounds or damages as an unintended consequence of warfare. — boethius

Ukrainian lives (especially the soldiers) are lost in the defense of a sovereign Ukraine from an existential threat, which wants (or wanted when attacked) to annex parts of Ukraine and put a puppet regime in place for the rest of the country. Now it seems to want to destroy Ukraine and it's economy.

That simply isn't "an instrument of US / NATO policy".

Just remember that the first thing when Russia attacked was for the US to ask if the Ukrainian leadership needed help in evacuating from Ukraine. That's how much they believed in this "instrument of US / NATO policy" you try to depict.

And indeed, this interview is not what you might expect: "Rah-rah-rah! Crimea in six months!" Not at all. — SophistiCat

Indeed. Taking Melitopol would do the trick. That's why he is referring to the 84 km to Melitopol. So it's a long war.

He may very well be someone who speaks candidly, but this interview was certainly planned by the US administration (because it's to a US news outlet; if it was to Ukrainian journalists, then maybe in that case he's gone off script or just shit-happens kind of thing). In addition, Zelensky was there. — boethius

Really? How are you sure of that. Oh, I forgot, Ukrainians are only the pawns of Americans...

Why not Zelensky? — boethius

Or because Zelensky is the elected political leader of the country and this is an interview with the head of the Ukrainian army, general Zaluzhny.

Of course, losing the war while retaining independence was potentially the best outcome for Finland, so it was definitely a "win" in that sense, but since it was simply impossible for Finland to "defeat" the Soviet Union, the only options are eventual defeat or then a diplomatic compromise (acceptable to the Soviet Union; what other people think doesn't matter if you're dealing with Soviet Union). — boethius

Yeah.

And Japan didn't "win" Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, because it didn't "defeat" Russia.

Or Germany didn't "win" Russia in WW1, because it didn't "defeat" Russia.

So Ukrainians might be looking at similar "losing" this war as the two mentioned above. So he is hopeful as things aren't as bleak as they were for us Finns in the Winter War.

They are simply aware of the geopolitical issues that exist, and assume conflict will break out at one point or another. That's the realist view. — Tzeentch

The basic fact is that Russia thanks to it's own policies constituted that threat. Naturally countries tried to do have good relations and hope for the best, but the unpredictability of Russia was totally obvious to many.

And that's why Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO.

Now NATO in the 1990's early 2000's was looking for other roles, but those applying for membership had Russia in mind. And the threats that for example the Baltic states tried to get other Europeans to think about just came only true after 2008, 2014 and 2022.

If discussions about geopolitical issues that a country is involved in brands them as a "hostile militant aggressor" then I suppose the United States more than fits that bill, but that seems to be a hard pill for you to swallow. — Tzeentch

The US can be defined in such away in the Middle East and Central America or the Caribbean. Unlike some, I don't have that as "a hard pill to swallow". I've been critical of the US policy in the Middle East for a very long time. It's usually the leftists that have this problem that when they are critical about the US, they cannot be critical about the countries that oppose the US. That's their own illogical behaviour.

And since you're keen on quoting Mearsheimer, I assume you take his analysis of the current state of affairs very seriously then? Or do you only quote him when you believe it suits your argument? — Tzeentch

Just because people are so keen to quote him as an expert. Well, he has his views and they sell very well to one segment of the audience. What should be obvious (which seems not to be for some) is that you can agree with some issues and disagree with other issues what an individual expert says. The counterarguments to Mearsheimer's present views are simply compelling. Besides, the view that one has to accept all views of some academic person and you have to put them on a pedestal and support them is very naive.

Nonsense. After the Cold War ended the subsequent NATO tranches have been a result of American ambitions, seeking to take advantage of Russia's weakness. — Tzeentch

How did the US force Russia to annex Ukraine, to see Crimea as a historical and essential part of Russia? How did the US make Putin to see Ukraine as an artificial state?

How did US ambitions make Sweden to through away it's neutral stance after few hundred years? How did US ambitious makes us apply for NATO with more support than when we joined the EU?

You cannot answer that, because the idea is just absurd. It's nonsense.

You won't find a credible source portraying Russia as a "hostile militant aggressor" before 2014. — Tzeentch

Sorry, but that is the most ludicrous statement, which shows your ignorance. The threat of Russia acting as it has now was obvious... at least to a minority. Of course the mainstream hope was that Russia would transform. Remember all the reboots in US Russian relations!

Ok, to give just SOME examples of many, let's have now one favorite of the pro-Putinists, John Mearsheimer from 1993.

(Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 Summer, 1993) Most Western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union."

-

President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake.

A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. If the U.S. aim is to enhance stability in Europe, the case against a nuclear-armed Ukraine is unpersuasive.

Do note what Mearsheimer is talking about: Russia attempting to reconquer Ukraine.

And there are a multitude of other writers, for example Stephen Kaufman from 2004:

As much after the Soviet collapse as before it, the "Russian Problem" remains Europe's single biggest security issue. The collapse of the Soviet Union did, of course, end the threat of continental war in Europe, making the world a much safer place. The retreat of Soviet power also unmasked a broad range of other security threats ­ ethnic and nationalist conflicts; unstable governments and concomitant crime and terrorism; unrest due to economic collapse; and a power vacuum in East-Central Europe. Yet it is Russia itself that has dominated the attention of Western policy makers, and for good reason: it is Russia's attitude toward these issues, and toward the West in general, which will have the most decisive impact in shaping the political atmosphere in Europe in the coming years.

What the real problem is Russia and the choices it's leaders have made. NATO expansion is a consequence of Russia's ambitions: that countries like Finland and Sweden shed their neutrality and join NATO, when they surely would preferred good relations with Russia, shows this clearly. It is simply absurd after all the annexations to insist that Russia is acting defensively and NATO would be here the culprit and aggressor in this war.

Stephen Kotkin explains this very clearly in the following short commentary:

Can't help but notice you ignore the "s" to "funders" and don't bother to even put United States Department of State and BAE Systems plc as the next entries on the list. — boethius

Well, it's a war.

You can of course be critical what military intelligence of the West says, but then just look at what actually has happened in the occupied territories: forced movement of people, jailings and torture, the Russification policies... All that gives the credibility to what they are saying. If Russian actions and manner in which the war is fought would be different, then I would be also critical about such plans. But it seems that they have indeed implemented such actions. That "denazification" can be quite well seen.

Yes, air attacks are the likely option, but as I point out using only cruise missiles is of limited damage, and there are large risks in sending NATO planes into Ukraine. — boethius

Likely it would be of limited damage, at least in the long run.

Look. I think it should be evident that in the case of Russians using nukes the vowed retaliation by US/NATO would likely to be to save face. If they have given the message that in case of using nukes, they will make a conventional response, then it would really look very bad if they would not do anything. Yet NATO or the US have no desire or ambition to take the war inside into Russia and have a victory parade in the Red Square.

Yet coming back from hypotheticals, the likely future of this war is that Russia will try to stabilize the fronts for the winter and build up strength for a spring offensive. The Russians have formed the 3rd Army Corps to handle the inflow of the mobilized troops. These are now either sent in company strength formations to plug gaps in the line or sent near Rostov to create new formations. Will we see an Ukrainian offensive perhaps against Melitopol earlier in the winter? Next months will tell.

In short, this doesn't look like the situation is so desperate that Putin would gamble with nukes. Hence it's quite unlikely. Putin already gambled with attempting to seize the government with a 10-day campaign in which Ukraine ought to have fallen just like US-backed Afghanistan. Likely he isn't in the mood for desperate gambles, yet. But who knows.

This is just the knee-jerk deflection for anyone who doesn't like to think about the obvious role the US and the EU have played in provoking this conflict. — Tzeentch

As clearly stated even in this thread, Russia has desired Ukrainian territories right when Ukraine got it's independence. If this was about NATO, Putin wouldn't be annexing territories, talking about how artificial the whole construct of Ukraine is and how Ukraine belongs to Russia. The frozen conflict in Moldova shows that this isn't about NATO, as Moldova has never tried to join NATO.

Not only is it a figleaf of a reason, just like to say Iraq's Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because the country wasn't towing the OPEC production quotas or presumably drilling oil from the Iraqi side.

Nope, this view is based on an alternative reality where causes and effects have changed places: that NATO is the hostile aggressor, not that countries next to Russia have frantically tried to protect themselves from a hostile militant nation that by force tries to conquer it's lost Empire. And now this aggression can be seen by all in just what Russia does and says.

This illogical view tries to disguise itself as "realpolitik", that somehow an economically failed dictatorship should have the right to dominate and annex countries that have long since broken from the former Soviet Empire it enjoyed. And that these countries, that many thankfully have joined NATO for protection now, are only "pawns" of the US, not having either the capability or the intellect to chose their own foreign and security policies. The Balts, the Poles and even now the Swedes and Finns admit just what an untrustworthy and dangerous neighbour Putin's Russia is. But they, just like Ukraine and Ukrainians, don't matter in the story where only the Americans are the actors. Such is the arrogant hubris.

No, the idea that this war is America's and NATO's fault is the knee jerk view of people who just blindly want to be "critical" of the West's actions and for whom a more nuanced version of reality is uncomfortable.

. Putin recently harmonising Russian nuclear policy with United States policy to allow first strike against a non-nuclear opponent, is not rhetoric. — boethius

Russia hasn't made this change recently. They have said this far earlier than now, actually.

Ground troops are the other conventional response, but if you agree that's unlikely then no need to debate it further. — boethius

Conventional response means non-nuclear in this case. NATO and the US use the arm of the forces that is most powerful, which is the air forces and cruise missiles. I don't know why you are insisting the case for ground forces, which make an obvious target. Air attack is the way to keep the response limited. You can stop the attacks instantly. It's Russia's choice then to escalate.

The deterrence of nukes isn't hypothetical, but the use of them on the battlefield is.

All this analysis, in my view, NATO has done, which explains their policy to let Russia slowly win but inflicting (tolerable) damage and limiting the scope of victory. — boethius

NATO letting Russia to win? Bit of hubris there from you.

Which is difficult to take you seriously when you don't mention their top funders 2020-2021: — boethius

LOL!

Oh you are so funny again. Yes... the evil Commission of the European Union!!!

The next argument will be that I'm referring to experts with military intelligence background or military leaders themselves. Or perhaps all the interviews of Ukrainian people that have been tortured? All of them are just propaganda!

My expectation is that they will escalate if they start to lose — Tzeentch

And what have they been doing? Winning and having huge victories?

Anyone with a shred of sense can see that the Americans purposefully pissed off the Russians in Ukraine, in Europe's backyard, as it always does - stirring up shit far away from their island so other people can bear the cost of war and conflict.

I've always argued that the European leaders should not have played America's lapdogs, and not let Europe become a pawn in America's game, as it is now. — Tzeentch

Anyone with a shred of sense can see the hollowness of the "everything is America's fault" argument. Never mind that Russia isn't just intervening in it's neighbors, but annexing parts of them. That too, Russia wanting create Novorossiya again, must be the fault of the Americans.

So when attacking your neighbors, just say how everything is the fault of the US and there's an eager audience in the West wanting to listen to you.

Science show us how to think about nature and to correct our 'common sense', which can help one adaptively discern how to live. — 180 Proof

However accurate our models of objective reality are thanks to science, it doesn't do away with our subjectivity and that we have to make subjective decisions what to do. Hence, just like @unenlightened said above, we can surely make wrong decisions even with scientific knowledge. And sometimes even with relying on scientific reasoning we can make decisions that later we find out to have been wrong, as our questioning and understanding of complex issues can be limited. How things are don't give us easy answers to the question how things ought to be.

We also seem to agree that NATO would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, why would it?

As for conventional retaliation, this is really a problematic thing. You don't just casually destroy Russian forces. The options are fairly limited. — boethius

During the Cold War, which seems to be continuing now, US and Soviet forces did clash. When they did, both sides didn't opt to escalate to the next level and go to a declared war. First and foremost, this is rhetoric on both sides now. Russia hasn't used nuclear weapons and hence NATO's response is also hypothetical. But when the issue has already come up, I think that the situation is different than where the West was in 2014. The West has given an unified response and I don't think

Sending in boots on the ground into Ukraine ... does any Western nation actually want this? — boethius

Why would they be sending ground troops? If the response to a hypothetical use of nukes would be a conventional attack, that likely would be done by cruise missiles and aircraft. Then Russia would have to think if it wants to escalate further and strike NATO countries. And really, if it now has problems to fight a war with Ukraine, is the solution to start a war with countries it even before it's attack in February didn't match? De-escalation through escalation is simply a shock-and-awe strategy which can work when the other side is totally unprepared for it.

Certainly, there are plenty of reasons not to use nuclear weapons we would agree on (domestic politics, China and India's reaction); however, that Russia is reasonably deterred by conventional military means, or reasonably deterred by nuclear means, or believes nuclear weapons are not useful, are fairly weak arguments. — boethius

Russia has gotten already the benefit from it's nuclear weapons: NATO hasn't openly interfered in the war. There aren't any "no-fly-zones" being patrolled over Ukraine.

Hence to start actually using them is in my view really pushing the limit. Russian armed forces aren't on the verge of imminent collapse in Ukraine. Hence it would be really strange just why to continue to be so reckless.

Sending funding (basically bankrolling the entire Ukrainian military payroll), sending weapons, providing intelligence, covert meddling, are all in themselves interventions. — boethius

Which happened all the time everywhere during the Cold war with the Soviet Union and the West.

And that's why the era was called a Cold War.

So absolutely nothing new here.

No, the West can definitely fuckup now by actively obstructing peaceful resolutions, encouraging hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries and millions of traumatised and disrupted lives and the complete destruction of Ukraine which Zelensky does not hesitate to tell us is being done for "your values" (i.e. the West, not necessarily good for Ukraine) and to protect Eastern Europe (not necessarily good for Ukraine). — boethius

Lol.

Let's first notice just what Russia had in mind if their planned 10-day operation would have been successful and they would have gotten Kyiv:

After D+10, the role of Russia’s conventional forces was to transition to a supporting function
to Russia’s special services, responsible for establishing occupation administrations on the
territories. Since these activities were critical to the Russian theory of victory in the operation,
it is important to outline these plans to appropriately contextualise the role of the conventional force. The assumption appears to have been that Ukrainian government officials would either flee or be captured as a result of the speed of the invasion. It was also anticipated that shock would prevent the immediate mobilisation of the population, and that protests and other civil resistance could be managed through the targeted disintegration of Ukrainian civil society. To manage these protests Russian forces would be supported by Rosgvardia (Russian National Guard) and riot control units. Meanwhile the FSB was tasked with capturing local officials.
The Russian counterintelligence regime on the occupied territories had compiled lists that divided Ukrainians into four categories:

• Those to be physically liquidated.
• Those in need of suppression and intimidation.
Those considered neutral who could be induced to collaborate.
• Those prepared to collaborate.

For those in the top category, the FSB had conducted wargames with detachments of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) to conduct kill-or-capture missions. In many cases, the purpose of capture was to put individuals involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (often referred to as the Maidan Revolution) on trial to be executed. Although initial lists of persons in the second category existed, the approach was to be more methodical, with the registration of the population through door-to-door sweeps and the use of filtration camps to establish counterintelligence files on large portions of the population in the occupied territories. Filtration would be used to intimidate people, to determine whether they needed to be displaced into Russia, and to lay the groundwork for records to monitor and disrupt resistance networks. Over time, Russia would bring teachers and other officials from Russia itself to engage in the re-education of Ukrainians.

See Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022

That above is the reality what "De-nazification" would have meant. We already have seen this in the occupied territories with Russification taking place. The evident Stalinist approach makes this a truly existential struggle for Ukraine and Ukrainians, hence it is ludicrous to talk about that Ukrainians are being killed for "our values". The fight is about their existence their sovereignty and own culture and hence it's whimsical to argue that Zelensky and the Ukrainian defence is the problem here. It's all totally evident when you just think what it means when Russians declared earlier Ukraine to be an "artificial" state.

It's unlikely the Chinese will alter their stance towards Russia much, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

China has said that they are against the use of nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine.

The international community, said Xi, should “jointly oppose the use of, or threats to use, nuclear weapons,” according to a statement carried by Xinhua, China’s state news agency. The world should also “advocate that nuclear weapons cannot be used, a nuclear war cannot be waged, in order to prevent a nuclear crisis” in Europe or Asia, Xi added.

I highly doubt that Western leaders are willing to enter a protracted land war in Eastern Europe and/or nuclear conflict just to save face for the Americans after they overplayed their hand in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

But then you aren't highly in doubt that the Russian leader and military will want to escalate the war and face a possible conventional NATO attack when they have experienced severe losses in Ukraine?

I think that Ukraine turning into a nuclear conflict would make NATO involvement a lot less likely, actually. And Mearsheimer has made that point aswell. — Tzeentch

And Medvedev has made that point.

So you think then Russians or Putin will just ignore warnings as fake? What if you then after using tactical nukes the Ukrainians won't budge, China gets angry and suddenly the rest of your Black Seas fleet gets attacked and sunk?

Putin has lost his strategic surprise that he had in 2014. A response to Russia using nukes is something that the Western leaders and NATO have had to think now.

Which is a synthesis of my criticism of the West's intervention in Ukraine. If Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya were now vibrant democracies, benefits of the Wests reconstruction and tutelage of these places far exceeding the cost of the war to bring it about, then by all means go help Ukraine become a happier place. However, the West simply has no track record of actually fulfilling our promises, but rather abandoning our allies. — boethius

But @boethius, the West isn't intervening in Ukraine as in Iraq. And in Libya there are quite many countries all around meddling in it's internal problems (also Turkey, Russia, Egypt, Qatar,...). Ukraine is basically getting arms and intel from the West, but it's doing the fighting all alone. So

No, actually where the West can fuck up big time isn't now (of course, if they just abandon Ukraine to face of Russia all alone would be that fuck up), it's later. The West can fumble after this war in the promised rebuilding of Ukraine. Done lousily that can simply increase corruption, which the Ukrainian people hate. And simply if it disregards it's own requirements, values and laws in case of Ukraine. The rebuilding of Afghanistan is a prime example how these things go bad.

And again, Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons so MAD does not apply. — boethius

Again, that the use would result in NATO making a conventional attack on Russian forces in Ukraine is believable enough to make the use a very, very bad decision.

And would the Ukrainians suddenly surrender? I'm not so sure.

How convenient that Mearsheimer is talking in Hungary.:smirk:

Makes no sense. — boethius

Again you don't understand.

They are perfect for deterrence, but not so great in actual warfare because of the obvious drawbacks and the obvious escalation. Why would Russia use them, if that could get NATO involved. How are things better for the war for Russia if they really will fight also NATO?

THAT doesn't make any sense.

Just in comparison: The Third Reich had a huge amount of chemical weapons (basically WMD's too) in it's arsenal and it never used them. And then when it was all over and the fighting was inside Germany, there simply wasn't effective measures to use them on some level that could change anything.

Yes Isaac. Something like that I meant.

It's not you or I, our friends, our work colleagues, relatives, people who we know that are banned. That's what I meant with very, very rare.

But if some student of Philosophy in Mainland China would participate in this Forum, lets say about the current protests, alarm bells would go off in China. Computer algorithms at work.

And of the examples you gave, well, at least investigative journalist have through history stepped on the "wrong toes". Of course there has been an Overton window even before. It's now just the ease that you can use social media.

A cohesive European defense, on the other hand, preferably including the UK and Ukraine :wink:, might do it. The resources exist, at least. — jorndoe

There simply isn't the will.

With the US committed to Europe, it won't change.

The only thing that would get Europeans and Europe to truly emphasis on defense would be the total departure of the US from Europe. Only then the Germans and others would wake up from their slumber. Or possibly Finlandization would be an option.

It's just simple geography: the Russians are behind Poland. Not in the eastern parts of Germany having the possibility to run through Europe to the Atlantic in few weeks as during the Cold War.

Russia on the other hand hopes that it can engage European countries individually. Then it would be strong and hence the opposition to European integration.

Opening to Russia's anti-NATO security concerns before even having Russia opening to Ukrainian and Western security concerns, along with Macron's position toward Putin since the beginning of this war seem more in line with a political agenda and likely an understanding of NATO's role that neither the US nor other more involved NATO partners are sympathetic with. So not only Macron is far from stating the obvious but he holds no leading position to weigh in. — neomac

Good point.

The truth is that if would want a true solution, not a frozen conflict of some state (like what exists between the two Koreas), Russia simply would have to shed it's bellicose imperial aspirations just like France and the UK have done. The UK isn't eyeing to annex Ireland back to it's Kingdom. Hence Ireland doesn't have to be afraid of that. With Russia neighbors it's different.

True change is possible basically with a huge humiliating defeat, which would throw out the existing leadership. One possibility is that Russia would fall into even smaller parts. The parts in Russia where Muslims are the majority would likely be the first one's to go: Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia.

But if we want that an autocratic Russia will prevail and continue, then appeasement is the correct way, of course.

It only even works on this forum because you guys shut off the inflow of shit-posters and trolls - some of which still get through. — ToothyMaw

s that not what we are doing here? Exchanging ideas about what is the case and what ought to be the case and how we feel about it? — unenlightened

Yes, that is what we're doing here because this site is generally well moderated (censorship is limited to matters of civility). — Isaac

Let's be honest. This is the basically what we are talking about. Not about the limits of the Overton Window. The instances of someone being a victim of some activist cancel culture is very, very rare. Without any moderation and no supervision, I simply wouldn't go to that kind of sites. Why interact on a site where the vast majority are questionable bot pushing viagra or so-called Nigerian bankers making lucrative business proposals?

If Russians have vodka, Americans have drugs. In both cases it isn't outrageous conspiracy theory that alcohol & drugs are used to keep the masses in control. Twice in history has the Russian leadership tried in their stupidity to take the bottle away from the Russian people. Both times the state collapsed. Not that it wasn't a big issue as every fifth Russian male dies due to alcohol related causes. I guess if the American leadership would really take drugs (including prescription medication for pain and mental health) away from the American people, the US would experience similar turmoil. One should not forget that not all drugs are illegal.

Russia has already had a huge demographic problem (and, actually Ukraine too), which has a long tragic history. The real burden of communism and two World Wars fought with little respect for life can be seen in the size of the Russian population. The gruesome fact is that The Russian Empire had a population of 136 million in 1900, but today Russia is barely any larger, at 146 million and it's depopulating. Just to make a comparison, there were 76,3 million Americans compared to now over 330 million, France had a population of 40 million and now 65 million and there were 56 million Germans in 1900, where there is 84 million now.

This has made the demographic pyramid in Russia to oscillate (as those generations that were substantially smaller after WW2 had less children) and then after the Soviet Union collapsed births fell also.



Of course, the demographics of Ukraine is even worse, but now as such a huge portion of the people are refugees, the statistics are quite out of the ordinary.

In what sense does Santa Claus exist?

As an unregistered trademark that execs at Disney have wet dreams about owning the rights to.



Or would more appropriate be the Coca-Cola company?



It sure ain't this saint:

Where does consciousness begin? Without the language parts of our brains are we even conscious? — TiredThinker

I think this is a very good and important question.

First, just to communicate somehow with your own species (and btw also to other species) is absolutely fundamental to animals. Basically it's a necessity to have a method of communication "Danger!" and "I'm here!" and communicating by making sounds is very effective. Hence it's not surprising that we do talk of animal consciousness. And those animals assumed to have a higher level of consciousness do interact by signals or even with a rudimentary simple language, if one would dare to say so.

I assume people agree that there isn't a fixed point just where something is conscious, but there simply are levels of consciousness. Higher levels means that there has to be an advanced language. The huge breakthrough that I guess humans have is to have abstract notions in the language, which just opens up so much. And as we know, a new born infant has to learn to be a human and part of our society. That would be difficult without communication and language is simply so much effective than trying to show everything.

I think you are a bit confused about what independence or sovereignty is in our deeply interconnected and globalized World.

:grin: :100: :cheer:

Sherbakova says the truth. An imperialist Russia won't change: it will continue to threaten it's neighbors and continue to try to dominate them.

Countries don't cede sovereignty to NATO as a result of signing the charter, but as a result of neglecting their armed forces to the point that the United States is the only nation presenting a credible deterrent. — Tzeentch

Yet the US has wanted and still wants them to spend more on armed forces?

And countries definitely do cede sovereignty to the European Union by becoming a member state. — Tzeentch

And Ukrainians have seen how prosperous and stable this has made other countries. Earlier Ukraine enjoyed a higher GDP per capita than for example Poland had. Now it's totally different.



The simple fact is that in a globalized World it is better to seek that cooperation with your neighbors and thus shed some of that sovereignty in decision making than go it all by alone. To somehow hang on to an economically weak and authoritarian neighbor that obviously has desire to annex you is the most ruinous decisions you could do. Apart if you aren't a dictator yourself, like Belarus has.

In fact really.

If you are going to go for the trope NATO members of being vassals to the US and EU members to being vassals (umm...to somebody), then you really should look at the organizations themselves. The UN can use force (and has used force), as it's founders understood quite well just how the previous organization had utterly failed.

NATO is an European security solution. One should just look at it's first articles:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

It's basically also to prevent the Western states to have conflicts among themselves. I'm sure that without NATO there would likely have been several conventional wars between Greece and Turkey. And perhaps territorial disputes between Hungary and Romania, for example. To have the armed forces operate together is quite a way enforce that they won't start to eye each other as potential enemies.

The United Nations is completely different from NATO or the EU. Nations do not give up any sovereignty to the UN. It's basically a public forum for states. — Tzeentch

Really?

First of all, it's not basically a "public forum for states".

Article 4

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

and if the member doesn't comply,

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

And furthermore, "public forums for states" don't have articles in the Charter as the following:

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

So just remember @Tzeentch, that it was the United Nations that went to war with North Korea when the country invaded South Korea. The closest it came to a similar situation was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then neither the Soviet Union or China vetoed the military action in the UN as the invasion was unanimously condemned by all major world powers.

So if you think members of EU or NATO aren't sovereign states, then isn't also the sovereignty of the members of the UN also limited with the charter saying what they can do or not?