Yes, but The USSR, fearing the restoration of German militarism in West Germany, had suggested in 1954 that it join NATO, but this was rejected by the US and UK. — Isaac

You really think that the Soviet Union would have altered it's policies toward the Eastern European countries it held under it's control? Nonsense. It just wanted to water down the organization, make it into an UN type organization where it would have a veto-vote.

Because it's a bit hard to think that a basically Stalinist Soviet Union would apply things like Article 2:

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.

Russia joining NATO in the 1990's was a far more possible outcome and then it could have worked, but as I've said, you would had to have larger than life politician both in the US and in Russia back then. There was a window of opportunity for this. But then Russia ought to have understood that the Russian/Soviet Empire was over and it would be somewhat larger, but comparable, Great Power as France or the UK. As the Soviet Union had just collapsed in one night or so, there wasn't this feeling that everything had changed. And Putin's goal has been to "make Russia great again" by using violence.

The fact is that the KGB should have truly been disbanded, not just broken up into successor agencies and former KGB agents should not have been given the keys to the Kremlin. Then true change could have happened in Russia. Unfortunately, it didn't happen and here we are.

And for the US and the West, they should have understood that Russia will continue to play a role in the World. Which they didn't.

Yes, but the Warsaw Pact (WP),[5] was a collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe in May 1955. — Isaac

Which as it's only military operation occupied one of it's own members.

And that just tells where the real threat was: the main aim wasn't only NATO, but also in crushing revolts that sporadically happened in Eastern European countries (East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia).

And actually it's no wonder that the largest ever Warsaw Pact exercise was held in 1981 and it had an amphibious assault made next to Gdansk, the birthplace of free Polish trade union Solidarność. The Polish Solidarity Movement was one of the first cracks of the freedom movements against the Soviet empire behind the Iron Curtain. Polish officials did get the message and hence martial law was imposed in Poland few months after the Zapad 81 exercise.

Hence sticking to the official lithurgy is one thing, but totally forgetting that the Warsaw Pact was a tool to control Eastern Europe itself for the Soviet Union is simply wrong. The fact that Yugoslavia (or Albania) weren't part of the Warsaw Pact should tell this obvious fact.

Referring to the Prussian military model I really didn't think about Max Weber, actually. After all, there are different models and ideologies that are German / Prussian. Starting from the fact that Karl Marx was born Prussian! (But for some reason we don't look at Marxism as part of the cultural heritage Prussia has given to the World)

But yes, Weber is also one of my favorites and his views have been very influential. Indeed in his works on bureaucracy are important as it's been a framework on how bureaucracy has been studied. It's not only that Americans have adopted Weber, it's quite universal at least in the West. The faceless Weberian bureaucrat has been seen an antidote antidote patronage, nepotism and corruption. Of course as person living in the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries he didn't live to see what modern bureaucracies developed into (someone as smart as Weber could have made interesting observations) and for him modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world. We have to understand that a professional, impartial and meritocratic government bureaucracy have been the exception throughout history. In Weber's time there was in Germany still the Kaiser and when you do have an autocrat, bureaucracy can be passed by going directly to the monarch. Hence sociologists that lived in the late 19th Century had still much things around from the past like the last remnants of feudalism in their day to day life.

With Russia, it's all about control and influence.
— ssu

Well, how is it different with America? — Apollodorus

There's differences.

What Russia obviously wants in the region is neighbors that are friendly toward it or at least neutral.

Which is exactly what America wants in its own "backyard" that apparently includes Europe, parts of Asia, and the Pacific .... — Apollodorus

There's a difference in how the US has acted in Europe and how it has acted in Central America and the Caribbean. Just as how Russia acts in it's "near abroad" and towards other countries let's say in Western Europe or Latin America.

But let's first think of the broader picture. Just look at what the Warsaw Pact did compared to NATO. And how many countries wanted to continue the relationship with Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. Not many, I think.

A lot can be said about NATO post-Cold War operations, yes, but let's remember that the only time when the Warsaw Pact acted was with Operation Danube in crushing the "Prague Spring" with the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Of the half million troops deployed to the country the majority were Soviet troops, but for example Poland deployed 28 000 men into Czechoslovakia, Hungary one division. Have NATO troops been used this way? Nope.

The fact is that Russia's actions and attitudes haven't become much different from the Soviet times. Same kind of bully tactics have continued. I've had a front row seat to see this in action when the Soviet neighbor transformed into being Russia again. There's not much difference especially during the Putin years. Fall of the Soviet Union seems to have been a temporary set back, while I think that after Suez crisis the UK understood that there was no Empire anymore.

You yourself have noted that Americans listened to European integrationists after WW2 and the positive US attitude towards West-European integration basically created the environment were European countries are all but happy with US participation in European defense. "Keeping the US in" as they say. We can see how countries can have a say in the Western alliance system now with Turkey, and many times NATO members have opted out from various US-lead operations. And have been extremely annoying to the US.

And of course obvious fact is that the US behaves quite differently towards Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Sweden or Finland, than it has behaved towards for example Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti or Lebanon. First world countries and Third World countries are dealt differently. With Russia, it treats it's "near abroad" totally differently than other countries, which we have clearly seen now.

Above all, there is a dramatic difference between countries that have wanted to join the US-lead alliance and those countries where the US has literally installed a new government. The train wreck that we knew as Afghanistan has already collapsed in a huge catastrophe, while the relations between the US and the Post-Saddam Iraq have been cold and extremely problematic. Hence when the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan applied the old imperialist strategy of occupying a country and then picking a favorable administration for it, it usually has failed miserably.

You're forgetting stalemates. — Benkei

Stalemate is what we have seen in Donbas after the larger battles in 2014-2015 before February 24th of this year. When both sides have no incentive or ability for larger operations, stalemate ensues. But usually that doesn't mean that it will be peaceful. The stalemate option is very probable, only to be then to be replaced with new offensives.

Actually in many cases there has been this kind of low intensity conflict going on beneath the radar of the international media. Not only in Donbas, but earlier in the Israeli-Lebanese border or the War of Attrition after the Six Day War in 1967-1970. Even in the Iran-Iraq war there were these times of less fighting when both sides replenished their stocks.

Russia simply has to take a breather if it wants to build up it's forces. And even if Ukraine will get supplies and modern weapon systems from the West, it usually takes months to deploy these systems.

the blatant railroading of the issue by big business. — Isaac

Lol. Oh boy, are you clueless. Last time big business was indeed "blatantly railroading" was with the EU membership. And that was a close call, actually. But of course you don't know anything about my country. And it seems that you have mixed my and @Christoffer's country, which is quite telling. :snicker:

The very notion of laying infinite infinitely small intervals together is nonsensical. Like the other way round, zero infinite big intervals. — Hillary

Can you think of a polygon with an infinite amount of sides?

Can you think of a circle?

An 10 cm diameter polygon with 1 trillion same length sides might look quite like a circle, but still isn't a circle.

The racist thing is a distraction from the wanting a totalitarian system and I am so glad you brought in the rest of the world. Through the internet, I know a Portuguese man and the brutality of fascism is still with him. Why not go with what works? Except as you said. in Germany, it was clear it did not work. But exactly what piece of it did not work? — Athena

I think it was evident to everybody when every large city or town was bombed and the country was occupied. The corrupt Nazi organization couldn't (and wouldn't) take care of the people once the fighting came inside Germany's borders. The absolute collapse could also be seen that there wasn't any resistance afterwards the surrender: no large scale Werewolf units continued the fight afterwards. You don't hear about nazi-insurgents fighting on and being captured in the 1950's or 1960's in either East or West Germany. The Third Reich just evaporated into thin air afterwards and became just an idea.

It is mind-boggling that people could want Putin in charge, but in the US many people want Trump in charge and I can't explain this. But somewhere in this soup of thoughts is a burning need to be superior and in control, and to have no qualms about exploiti8ng or crashing others.

Why is being a Nazi attractive to some? — Athena

For many Russians, Putin seem to bring back stability to Russia and someone to contain the robber barons that had stolen the largest companies of Russia. Of course what Putin did was start his rule by killing innocent Russians by staging a terrorist attack in order to get the Chechen war going again (as the last had ended in humiliating defeat) and then put his friends and basically the St. Petersburg mafia in charge. And until now (at least), starting wars has made him extremely popular.

For many Americans, Trump seemed to be the perfect middle finger to the ruling elite, even if the guy was part of that elite, and simply went for his rhetoric and basically didn't care how inept the guy was as a leader.

Stability and security is what all authoritarians proclaim. And usually they portray every opponent of theirs as being against this and that those before them were evil and had no desire to serve the people, unlike them (the populism). The situation is so dire, that tough measures are needed. And many fall for that.

The Prussian military model means that even if all your generals are destroyed, the war will proceed as planned. Every detail of the operation is planned. Every job is planned in detail so everyone who does the job will do it the same as the person before. Kings die, but bureaucracies never die. — Athena

Actually, the Prussian Model is not that every detail is planned. Actually quite contrary: It's that lower leaders will take initiative as they understand what the intention of their commanders is and can use their own judgement to achieve those goals. Every detail, especially after the initial stage, isn't planned as no plan survives contact with the enemy. What is taught is a method of warfare and hence lower commanders, even soldiers, can use their own thinking and their own initiative.

In fact it's more of the Russian way of thinking where every detail of the operation is planned and total obedience is demanded from lower commanders. Hence you have had the situation (now in Ukraine) where high ranking Russian generals have had to command the troops from the front (as otherwise nobody wants to take responsibility) and hence they have been killed in large numbers. Even I myself was told in training that if you can take out the commander of a Russian force prior to it's attack, the unit will likely not continue it's operation.

But of course this is just a sidenote. When you have soldiers / bureaucrats who are not only following just orders, but using a method to operate even without given orders from above, then you have a situation where "kings die, but bureaucracies never die".

For those (like me) who aren't mathematicians, a great way to understand this is to look at the history of mathematics and how much great minds have pondered these question throughout the centuries. Then you get more understanding of how the debate has gone as there actually is a historical narrative how humans have thought about these issues and how we have gotten to where we are.

The thing is that a mathematicians or math education can (and usually does) look at this ahistorically. They just give you the end result, at worst basically an algorithm to use with not much debate about the underlying issues. A proof is given and that's all. Once you understands let's say the notion of limits, for some it looks quite meaningless to ponder about the motion paradoxes of Zeno. These are basically foundational questions about mathematics, and then mathematicians (or philosophers) do understand the question better from that viewpoint.

Thanks.

Perhaps it would be proper to say that the set of paradoxes has more paradoxes than just one's with negative self-reference.

God I wish you were even semi-literate: — Streetlight

OK! So she mentioned that. So I stand corrected, enough to be corrected earlier in the article that I didn't notice it. Yet the issue is that now in every age group and income group, there is a majority for NATO membership. Which was left out. (So at least I have better in Finnish literacy than you are, Aussie.)

And how much "nationalist sentiment" is there in the Green Party, The Social Democrats and the Left Alliance now in government sounds a bit dubious for me. The Left Alliance didn't walk out of the government, so I guess they uphold "nationalism" now.

You just continue and tell us how bad Ukraine, the Ukrainian government and perhaps the Ukrainians are (Nazis, corrupt neoliberals oligarch lovers and so on...) and how the West (US) is turning a blind eye on the evils of Ukraine. Because that's the most important issue here, right?

Are you, if I may ask, trying to say that all paradoxes can be reduced to a negative self-referential paradox?

I'd like to see you do that with Zeno's paradoxes if you don't mind that is. Can you? — Agent Smith

I didn't notice this earlier, so I'll try to give an answer to this. I'm no mathematician, so the answer can be quite difficult to understand. Hopefully I make sense to you.

As we know, Zeno's paradoxes are about infinity. Modern math has "no problem" with Zeno's paradoxes of Dichotomy, the Arrow or the Tortoise as it uses limits (or the infinitesimal). And modern math just takes infinity as an axiom, and axioms don't have to be explained. Hence we still have a lot of questions about infinity, because we don't have an understanding about it. (The people who say we do, then should answer the Continuum Hypothesis for us)

Now when you think about infinity, the self reference should be obvious. It's pretty hard going from the finite to the infinite: you cannot just add finite numbers to other finite numbers and get infinite. Or, you add them an infinite times (hence the self reference). Cantor himself did understand the paradoxical nature of infinity, but could make something about with the proof of there being more reals as natural numbers. Although you can show in another way, Cantor's diagonal argument uses negative self-reference, proves by reductio ad absurdum that not all reals simply can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers (hence it would have the same aleph).

Why isn't it a paradox? Well, if we would assume that all numbers can be well-ordered/put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers, then it would be a paradox for us! Yet as we don't take as an axiom that all numbers can be well-ordered, we don't have a problem with this, just like we don't have any problems with irrational numbers.

Yet there is the link to Zeno's paradoxes as they are about infinity.

I'm not sure if I've been able to show the connection to you, but well, all I'll say in the end that paradoxes for me aren't questions to be answered or solved, but more like answers that should be understood.

Perhaps then peace negotiations can start again and we can get a ceasefire, at the very least. — Xtrix

The question is why would there be a ceasefire. Ceasefires happen when either one side sees the situation totally unbearable or are close to defeat and the other sees a ceasefire a far better choice than the continuation of the war. There is no imminent outside reason for the conflict to end.

It will have to end in an ceasefire. It's extremely unprobable that Putin can invade all of Ukraine and Ukrainian tanks will never be on the Red Square.

Likely Putin is embracing for a long war. Already in the Duma they are talking about postponing future elections. As elections would according to some in the Duma be bad for morale.

On May 17, lawmakers in the State Duma discussed the possibility of cancelling both gubernatorial and regional and municipal elections scheduled for September 11, 2022. The stated reason is the need to support the president unanimously during Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.

- - -

Under the circumstances of the special military operation, do we need to hold elections on [September 11]? We should all be unified now, but what will happen in elections? We’ll have to fight against each other. All of us here in this chamber support the president and the special military operation, but we’ll need to talk about our differences in elections,” Just Russia party chairman Sergey Mironov said in a speech to the State Duma on May 17.

How long do we think this war will carry on for, now that the Russians have Mariupol? — Xtrix

Far longer than it should, unfortunately. Russia cannot obtain it's objectives. But it can prolong the war if Putin wants to prolong it. Putin hasn't ever had to withdraw from a fight, so he unlikely will do it.

The problem is that it when both sides are out of steam for an offensive, it can just become static as before (in 2015-2022). Zelensky has declared that now Ukraine has 700 000 in service now. As obviously a major part of that force aren't frontline troops, it's still a huge manpower reserve. In the 8 years of fighting before this large scale attack about 400 000 Ukrainians did serve on the front. These make the backbone of a qualified reserve for Ukraine.

That was interesting. Especially when you look at the sources on the new left review article.

A quote:

Polling by Helsingin Sanomat describes the typical NATO supporter as educated, middle-aged or older, male, working in a management-level position, earning at least €85,000 a year and politically on the right, while the typical NATO-sceptic is under the age of 30, a worker or a student, earning less than €20,000 a year and politically on the left.

Luckily the article gives the link to the Helsingin Sanomat article, which is in Finnish. Which actually states this:

Tyypillinen Natoon liittymisen kannattaja on akateemisesti koulutettu keski-ikäinen tai ikääntyvä mies, joka on ammatiltaan johtaja tai ylempi toimihenkilö. Hän ansaitsee yli 85 000 euroa vuodessa ja kuuluu poliittisesti oikealle. Puolueista hän kannattaa kokoomusta.

Kriittisimmin Natoon suhtautuvat alle 30-vuotiaat ja naiset. Nato-kriittiset ovat peruskoulutettuja työntekijöitä tai opiskelijoita. He ansaitsevat alle 20 000 euroa vuodessa ja kuuluvat poliittisesti vasemmalle.

On kuitenkin huomattava, että myös kriittisemmin Natoon suhtautuvissa ryhmissä enemmistö ja osin hyvinkin selvä enemmistö kannattaa Nato-jäsenyyttä.

NATON kannatus on lisääntynyt kahden viime viikon aikana erityisesti työntekijöiden, alle 20 000 euroa vuodessa ansaitsevien, peruskoulutettujen, työväenluokkaan kuuluvien, opiskelijoiden sekä sosiaalidemokraatteja ja vihreitä kannattavien joukossa.

The first two paragraphs is used in the article, which explain who is the typical person in favour of NATO and who are against (under 30, women etc). What is (naturally?) dismissed are the following paragraphs of the same article:

And this is what that's in English:

It should be noted, however, that even in the more critical NATO groups, the majority, and in some cases, a very clear majority are in favor of NATO membership.

Support for NATO has increased over the last two weeks especially among workers, those earning less than € 20,000 a year, those in basic education, the working class, students and those in favor of the Social Democrats and the Greens.

And here is the prime example of media bias.

It's not based on lies, it's about selective use of sources and a noteworthy comment like a) that there has been a rapid change in the views of young leftist people and that b) and there is a clear majority among all age groups etc is not something worthy or notable to write in the article.

That actually the Finnish Parliament voted 188 to 8 in favor of NATO, which one of the most unanimous votes ever taken in the Parliament (a bigger majority than the vote in 1917 for Independence), isn't noted.

Hence Lily Lynch's agenda is quite easy to see.

The Armenian-Azeri conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Russia’s “divide-and-rule tactics”. — Apollodorus

Except that Stalin made the region with a majority Armenian population to an autonomous oblast of Azerbaijan in 1923.

Furthermore, in the last war it was totally clear that Russia didn't support Armenia as one would think a treaty member should be supported. Of course you might argue that Nagorno-Karabakh isn't Armenia...

Yet one obvious reason is that Russia didn't like the administration of prime minister Nikol Pashinyan, that had come into power after street protests (read, color revolution) in 2018.

As Aljazeera put it:

Another explanation of Russia’s indecisiveness is the peaceful 2018 uprising that toppled pro-Russian and allegedly corrupt President Sargsyan and installed former publicist Pashinyan at the helm. He tried to diversify Armenia’s political alliances and sought closer ties with the West.

That attempt was a no-no.

One commentator put's it this way (when the last war was fought):

Moscow’s current calculation seems to be that it can have its geopolitical cake and eat it. By holding off, Russia seems to be offering Azerbaijan some time and space to regain territories that are legally part of Azerbaijan but that have been under Armenian control since 1994.

And what about Armenia? From a Russian standpoint, the country will have few options other than to stick with Russia. Even if other states might sound supportive of it now, Armenia knows that Russia remains the only country that would deploy troops to defend it. So, even if Russia lets Azerbaijan recapture some territories, Armenia will have to remain a loyal Russian ally.

With Russia, it's all about control and influence. Or basically dominance. Not to have an alliance where other's can have a say (and thus can have a mind of their own, like Turkey's horse trading now with Swedish and Finnish NATO membership or the various times when France and other allies haven't gone along with US foreign policy adventures).

Egypt had already earlier food riots when the high oil price affected food prices some years ago.

Troubles in the economy will in some places become political troubles. It's hard to know just where.

This is something that unfortunately seems to happen. The upturn in global inflation (thanks the enormous money printing efforts during Covid and before) isn't going to make this any more easier. Or climate change.

I think the worst affected areas will be the Sahel. But the hit Ukraine's economy is taking is extremely severe, but naturally that isn't on the minds of Ukrainians as they are bombed daily by Russia and fighting a conventional war. When the enemy is bombing your cities, people aren't upset about the economy tanking.

As you have said you don't read what I write, there's no use to interact with you.

:grin: (Noticed it too.)

If I wanted badly written wikipedia summeries and two minute Google searches I would go to the source. — Streetlight

The only source you seem to refer to is the Jacobin magazine.

Didn't read any of that. — Streetlight

Of course. Why would you participate in a discussion?

Tells everything about your contribution to this thread.

"Elected" — Streetlight

Well, a country that has basically collapsed, that has parts of it declared independent (Somaliland) and a major internal conflict, it's not surprising that there aren't general elections.

(BBC)The ballot was limited to Somalia's 328 MPs due to security concerns over holding a wider election, and one of them did not cast a vote.

Mr Mohamud received 214 votes, defeating Mr Farmajo who won 110 votes.

Three MPs are reported to have spoiled their ballots.

The unusual circumstances highlight Somalia's security issues as well as the lack of democratic accountability.

The real problem for Somalia will be the possibility of famine.

The alert from the World Food Programme (WFP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) followed the latest food security assessments which showed that six million people in Somalia will face acute food insecurity in the coming months, unless the rains come.

That is almost double the number at the start of the year, said Lara Fossi, WFP Deputy Country Director in Somalia, who noted that Somalia last endured famine in 2011 and only narrowly avoided it in 2016-2017, thanks to prompt humanitarian intervention.

Add to this that the missing supplies from Ukraine and the global inflation will raise food prices, the victims of the war in Ukraine might be found also in Somalia and in the Sahel.

Yet, "Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. — neomac

Obviously they would have had to make a major program, but it wouldn't have been the situation of starting from nothing. The main obstacle wouldn't have been the technical aspects of the program.

The main obstacle would have been the West and the US. US had come to the conclusion that the best option was for Russia to solely have the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal, which obviously Russia totally agreed with. Let's not forget the environment of the Clinton-Yeltsin era: Russia wasn't a threat. The idea that Ukraine needed guarantees from Russian aggression wouldn't have flown. Russia had trouble fighting the Chechens inside Russia, so many simply wrote off Russia. Hence there would have been a coordinated effort against an Ukrainian nuclear program.

The disarmament of Ukraine actually didn't end with nuclear weapons. As the perception was that Soviet arms would end up in the wrong hands, the US persisted in Ukraine giving up large quantities of shoulder launched SAMs, which it now would have desperately needed. Shoulder launched missiles are too easy and effective.

Hence in 2005 NATO was doing things like this with Ukraine:

NATO Project to Destroy Excess Ukrainian Weapons Stocks
The United States is pleased to announce the launch of a NATO Partnership for Peace Trust Fund project to help Ukraine destroy stockpiles of excess munitions, small arms and light weapons, and Man-Portable Air Defense Systems. This represents the largest partnership trust fund project ever undertaken by NATO, and responds to Ukraine’s request for help in eliminating 1.5 million small arms and light weapons, and 133,000 tons of munitions. These stockpiles, some of which date from the Soviet era, are a threat to public safety and the environment and a potential proliferation risk. The four-phase project will span twelve years and cost approximately $27 million in donor contributions.

The United States will lead phase one of the NATO Trust Fund project, which will cost donors over $8.5 million. Ukraine will provide most of the operational and in-kind demilitarization costs. The project is due to start as soon as the spring of 2005. As the lead nation for phase one, the U.S. will make an initial contribution of $1,642,000.

The U.S. welcomes broader international support for the project, and will be working with potential donor countries and organizations, including outside the Partnership for Peace framework. We welcome early pledges of £400,000 from the United Kingdom and €240,000 from Norway.

Ah here we go, from Feburary: — Streetlight

Well, if the new elected Somali government goes further with that US deal, you just have made your case then.

Oh, you mean ad hominems like — boethius

@Boethius, I'm responsible of what I write. And yes, others might get offended at the insults hurled at them and respond accordingly. The last time I got really pissed off was a guy that said that the Saur-revolution was a blessing for Afghanistan and it was the best thing that happened to the country. If someone says exactly the same things as Putin and never actually criticizes Russia, but acts like an apologist, I think it's fair to say that the person is a troll. Hence for example Streetlight has criticized what Russians have done in Ukraine, so he's not a Russian troll.

(In the military coup about 2 000 died and then repression was introduced to Afghanistan, which it had never before seen with something like 27 000 political prisoners being executed by the communists. And the well known response to this was the countryside going up in arms and the mujahideen emerging and over 40 years of war then continuing in the country.)

Says the guy who thinks NATO handing Ukraine a few Nukes under the table to nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg is A. a good idea — boethius

Stop lying. I never said it was a good idea. Only that if Russia nukes Ukraine, as you fantacized about, then Ukraine might be able to retaliate. — Olivier5

Let's remember that nobody was giving them nukes. They already had them as Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union. And this is the one point people forget: as if the sole successor of the Soviet Union was Russia and none of the other republics had any claim to what had been an union of Soviet Republics.

Street clearly shows signs of worsening agitation. I'm afraid he's gona blow a gasket. — Olivier5

Maybe.

I've had perfectly fine discussions with ssu on this thread because he doesn't have a kindergarten understanding of international relations. We still disagree. Not the end of the world. — Benkei

And sometimes we have agreed on issues. Besides, if people can make myself to change my opinion / views, learn something or see something from a different perspective, what could be more beneficial?

I understand their nervousness. They chose the wrong camp and are panicking now. — Olivier5

I'm not sure about that how much panic there is. It's just usually that when you don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments, some people then resort to ad hominems.

Well that was a war on terror conducted by the French. Who deserved every dead Frenchman killed by an Algerian. — Streetlight

?

I think you are referring to the Algerian war, not the Algerian Civil war of 1991- 2002. The Algerian FLN wasn't at all islamist (or what we would call now islamist).

The civil war happened when the Algerian military made a coup when rulers didn't accept that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would have victory in the elections. Unlike in Mali, France didn't play an active role in the war and the only Frenchmen killed were those killed by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). GIA was far more active in killing FIS members and Algerian civilians than the soldiers of the Algerian military. FIS didn't attack France.

Hence the dead Frenchmen killed by Algerians (GIA) in this war were in 1994 four French embassy workers, in 1995 (killed or wounded) users of the Paris metro, passers by on the Arc de Triomphe, and some in a Jewish school. Only ten killing ten were killed, but scores were wounded (about 200 people). In 1996 four were killed in Paris by a car bomb. Earlier one person in a hijacked Air France plane had been killed the organization's hijackers.

The connection between GIA and the Algerian junta seems to have been clear to the French as Chirac refused to meet with Algerian ministers after the 1995 bombings, openly saying that the GIA could have been manipulated by the Algerian secret services. Such allegations were actually widespread.

Algerian civil would be a prime example were the insurgents are successfully divided and the most bloodthirsty extremist cabal then turns the public sentiment against the insurgents.

Somalis that I've talked to long for the times of Siad Barre. Again someone you wouldn't be in favour.

Well, it's a simple 'all of it', but I know this is a fuzzy topic for you because you like to defend superpowers and their holocausts. — Streetlight

Actually not 'all of it' as muslim extremism has happened far earlier too and there's for example Algeria.

The US hasn't been involved in Algeria and Algeria saw one of the most bloodiest civil wars. It also shows that also Algerian military junta could use extremist fractions (the GIA) to divide the opposition. Hence when the Islamic opposition tried to get France to start negotiations, what do you know, GIA attacks French airliners. There are allegations of Algerian forces posing as the GIA and carrying on attrocities. And finally when the opposition laid down it's arms, the GIA suddenly simply vanished out of existence.

But that's for a different thread...

A national flag is usually the government of the country. It's used by the government in charge. The Somali government is happy to see American troops in Somalia.

Could it be more clear?

Learn what flags mean, for starters.

And considering those who fly the other flag are a US creation anyway, — Streetlight

Actually it would be an interesting topic of how much of the emergence of jihadist organizations is a direct consequence because of the "War on Terror" itself, but I'm not sure if your genuinely willing or interested in the discussion being something else than your rants.

@frank said it so well four months ago on this thread:

StreetlightX is deranged as usual. — frank

All I'm saying that "Stand with Somalia" with the Somali flag in the background isn't interpreted the way you think. At least the twitter handle @StandWSomalia is pro-Goverment, supporting the new government that was happy to get back US support. Earlier government wasn't happy about Trump pulling away the meager resources.





And of course those who stand against US assistance in Somalia have different flags. :snicker:

:100: :up:

This is the actual reality. There are so few participating on this forum, that single opinions effect where the discussion goes and what points are made.

This has been an absolute disaster for Russia and it's becoming more clear as the war goes on. It's the end times for Putin. What he can now basically do is just try to hold on to his power and survive.

But this war isn't like Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union, it's becoming more like the Russo-Japanese war was to the Russian Empire. Or could become like that.

Back then Czar Nicholas had been told by his advisors that the Japanese would not dare to challenge Russia militarily, even after negotiations between the two powers had collapsed (as Russia had rejected Japan's deal, offering to cede control of Manchuria). Back then when the war started, many in Russia believed that it would be a victorious war that would improve the domestic and foreign standing of the Czar. That wasn't what happened. A revolution happened.

But to argue nothing would have deterred him from invasion except for NATO membership, when there's reason to believe that it was NATO's advancement that contributed to the decision, is pretty unrealistic -- in my view.

I tend to listen to the likes of John Mearsheimer on this issue. Pretty good scholarship there. Been lecturing about this for years. — Xtrix

Well, what then you think of John Mearsheimer's correct forecast in 1993 published in Foreign Affairs?

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." The United States and its European allies have been press
ing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to
the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
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 fash
ion 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 imper
ative 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.

See The Case for Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent

Nukes might have been the solution. Not a popular idea, but still plausible. Unfortunately then the West was far more afraid of those nukes ending in the black market than the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Let's be absolutely clear, because the entire thread is on record. The issue has been entirely with your 'side' complaining about any and all mention of anywhere except Russia. — Isaac

Except I've said about the mistakes like the Kosovo war and of course leaving Ukraine hanging dry with promises of NATO membership in the distant future. Or how stupid the post-Cold War era "New NATO" thinking was and how only now, after 2014 and 24th of February this year NATO has found itself again.

But those are things you won't notice. The mere mention that when a country annexes parts of another, it's main objective isn't to stop the enlargement of a third party international organization seems to be blasphemy for some.

At least I'm having first row seats to see just how much this all has been about NATO enlargement. Because here's the big NATO enlargement!

Good idea. I don't get why anyone would even want to give the time of day to these fuckwits. The less attention they get the better. — SophistiCat

Yeah.

But this is a Philosophy Forum and if someone who usually writes nonsense says something good or true, I'll give him or her my approval. Engaging with people that disagree with you can be beneficial and if people who are interested in Philosophy cannot speak to each other, then all is lost. We'll just look at each other through the sights of our rifles.

How different are we from fascist Germany? — Athena

How different is present America from the segrationist America would be more interesting.

Totalitarian states actually give the perfect reason for people to adapt to it: it's simply survival. Yes, you can be a hero and fight the system, but you can easily pay the ultimate price, or your loved ones, without anyone even knowing about it.

Nazi Germany and post-war Germany are so different as the Third Reich collapsed so totally. In it's death throws it was genuinely destroying itself and the defeat was so bad that you really had a collective understanding that it didn't work and that it was utterly bad. This created the rare example of a country truly looking at it's past and condemning it. And that of course makes it so easy to hate.

In other countries, especially in Spain and Portugal, the fascist past is more problematic. It wasn't defeated in war. Spain just eased off the era of Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal the Estado Novo, basically ended with the Carnation Revolution.

Quite different are the totalitarian systems which still have their supporters around who are respected "contrarians" and ideological minorities.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Putin is a good guy or is in the right. — Xtrix

But there's the anti-US team that thinks everything bad happens because of the US and is extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. Their main argument is that it's the actions of NATO and the US which lead Russia to start the war and hence it's the fault of the US. And the rest is just ad hominems.

And you do your useless stereotypical rant as you usually do.

And as usual, quite clueless.

Like "Stand with Somalia". Well, the Somalian government (that use the blue flag with the white star) are happy that the US are back. But that small detail doesn't matter I guess.

Somalia’s newly elected president is welcoming word that U.S. special operation forces will again be based in Somalia to help in the fight against the al-Shabab terror group.

Hassan Sheikh Mohamud thanked U.S. President Joe Biden in a tweet Tuesday, calling the United States “a reliable partner in our quest to stability and fight against terrorism.”

As I said, the War against Terror goes on. Unfortunately.

One of the last things Trump did.

(Dec 5th, 2021 Reuters) President Donald Trump has ordered nearly all American troops to withdraw from Somalia, U.S. officials said on Friday, part of a global pullback by the Republican president before he leaves office next month that will also see him drawdown forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The United States has about 700 troops in Somalia focused on helping local forces defeat the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab insurgency. The mission has received little attention in the United States, but has been considered a cornerstone of the Pentagon’s global efforts to combat al Qaeda.

War on Terror continues... sigh.

Meanwhile, in a popular Russian talk show, Mikhail Khodaryonok gives his grim assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AacHvH2Z-mQ — neomac

Although that Ukraine would field 1 million men is unlikely, it can and will use the pool of reservists and the National Guard to replace it's losses. Now Russia would basically have millions of reservists, but the fact is that is has no way to train and mobilize them and huge difficulties to arm them. Above all, the move would be as toxic as the US reinstating the draft.

Yet the example of Mikhail Khodaryonok shows very well just how perilous situation Putin has put Russia now. I don't know if the TV program was cut at that point (perhaps it was!), but he surely was telling the truth.