Or are you seriously of the opinion that whilst the unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations the world's ever seen has dominated the notoriously powerful mass media, but they've somehow met their match at a handful of tweed-suited university deans and the barely functional management of the main academic journals? — Isaac

No, but those notoriously powerful mass media or the "unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations" aren't so insuperable as you portray them.

It's not them, it is up to yourself to make up your mind!

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance. — Manuel

My bad to forget Taiwan!

Well, Taiwan would be similar to that there would be an island or territory where the White Russian forces would have treated to and where the Imperial Russia would still claim a foothold to the Soviet Union. The Island formerly known as Formosa is truly a thorn in the side of China. After all, if the mainland China would have the same per capita as Taiwan, China would have surpassed in GDP the US long time ago. Above all, it's now quite democratic, more prosperous, than the mainland.

And you are correct that there is an analogue to Ukraine. Namely that Taiwan is no real threat to mainland China. It simply cannot build an army and invade and defeat Communist China. It simply isn't any kind of threat. The only threat is that Chinese, just as Russians, can observe that things are there better. Of course in the case of Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the more prosperous example (which explains why there could be a separatist movement in the Donbass at the first place).

Do notice that there is legislation on unfair dismissal of an employee. And this differs by country.

That because of "cancel culture" you are dismissed just show this legislation is quite weak. And in the US?

In the United States, there is no single “wrongful termination” law. Rather there are several state and federal laws and court decisions that define this concept.

In all U.S. states except Montana, workers are considered by default to be at-will employees, meaning that they may be fired at any time without cause.

Hence cancel culture can have real effects, not just silly social media ranting.

Not so in countries where you have had organized labour able to influence the legislation. Like France, Canada or other countries.

Russia behaves as would any other country given its size and military. — Manuel

Actually...no. Not at all.

China isn't as bellicose as Russia has been. China doesn't send it's forces to train to a third country and participate in a civil war as Russia does in Syria. Occupying contested uninhabited islets isn't the same as annexing a peninsula as large as Crimea or annexing South Ossetia.

Last time China had a war it was against Vietnam. China did this because Vietnam had intervened in Cambodia and hence attacked an ally of China. And that border war basically didn't go well for China. If I remember correctly, China has just one naval base outside China and that's in Djibouti, where a multitude of nations have a naval base.

China can feel every bit as threatened about the US with all the talk coming from Washington. However it's ways to deal with the situation aren't as aggressive as Putin's Russia.

India also has a large military, nuclear weapons and also it hasn't been as bellicose as Russia. After all, it has been the pacific where the US has put the focus. It's not projecting power further than it's borders and the ocean named after itself. Or have you seen India sending troops (or mercenaries with close links to the people in power in India) to the Middle East or Africa?

That's property rights (the employer's). — frank

More like the weakness of organized labour unions. Without collective bargaining, an individual worker doesn't have much chance in getting a good deal, except if the employee is some kind of superstar that various employers are fighting for.

How? All of the information most people get is from media of some description, so using their prior 'knowledge' (from previous media reports) to discern bias in current media reports is just question-begging. — Isaac

No, they don't.

History tells a lot of the why the present is the way it is. Television news isn't where you get to know things. Books, documentaries, studies, seminars, lectures. There you can gather the kind of knowledge you need to put things to perspective. And you can (and should) listen and read opposing views.

It starts from the basics you learn at school. And now it's so easy to circumvent the journalist just by looking up the actual documents, listen to what the politicians actually have said, not the points that a journalist has selected to pick up and made an interpretation of his or her own about it.

All you need is some time and interest.

No one is suggesting the media always lie. But in your example its clear the objective is to favour Russia. That fact that the truth happened to do that on any given occasion is irrelevant to understanding the message the media deliver because had the crowd not been that way, the message would have been the same, all that would have changed would be the degree of manipulation required to get to it. — Isaac

And many news and media companies have this bias towards their country. In fact, their readers and viewers often do also. I can be rather sure that if/when the Finnish television reports on a Finnish company having problems with a third world government, they will likely be supportive of the view of the Finnish company and be skeptical about the third world officials making complaints.

Yet once you do notice what is the underlying agenda, then you can estimate quite well what is bias, what is the agenda talking and what is objective journalism.

Yet I disagree with "had the crowd not been that way, the message would have been the same, all that would have changed would be the degree of manipulation required to get to it." The message wouldn't be the same. There are the actual events that do happen, you know. Hence the message cannot be the same. You do have the actual events that you then have to report. You may try spinning it, try tell a different story that isn't remotely true to the actual event or simply not to report the event. It all comes down how informed the reader is. Does he or she read different media outlets? Is he or she informed enough to notice what is true or not?

I will say it again.

Cancel culture is one result of American workers having few if any workers rights when it comes to the ability of their employer to fire them.

If some stupid tweet can get your employer to fire you because someone (not remotely connected to your work or workplace) complained about it, you don't have much rights.

Not at all.

Russia has committed war crimes in Chechnya and also in Afghanistan and most recently in Syria. There are no innocent states.

But the crimes committed by states is proportional to the power they have. — Manuel

Well, this is about a war that is going on Ukraine and the possible enlargement of that war. For the Russian involvement, just to give one example of a battle in 2015:

in February 2015, separatist militia attacked Mariupol from the east with only limited success. A Russian tank battalion was committed to the fight to capture the town before the Minsk II ceasefire was signed, but a company(-) of Ukrainian Army tanks were able to defeat them. The infantry attack continued for three more months, with support from Russian artillery and multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), but the separatists were unable to penetrate the city’s eastern outskirts. Ukrainian volunteer infantry, backed by army tanks and long-range artillery, prevented a Russian success because there were insufficient local separatists, and Russia was unwilling to commit enough regular infantry.

Do notice that actually there hasn't been accusations of war crimes, mass killings, against Russia and there hasn't been ethnic cleansing as in the Yugoslav wars. Far more soldiers have been killed on both sides than civilians have died. But note the use of entire tank battalions, and heavy artillery. Even if there has been an obvious restraint (starting from that Russia hasn't used at all air power), the Russian role and participation in fighting is obvious.

The case of the Kosovo war is important to this as that was basically the braking point of Russian and NATO relations. But then NATO was interested in these "new missions" as it tried to reinvent itself, and the Russian response came as a surprise. Note back then it was Yeltsin, not Putin in power.

Biden is now saying he thinks Putin is committed to invasion. Who is he targeting with that? What is he trying to accomplish with that statement?

To rob Putin of justification? — frank

Something like that.

I think (and many commentators have noted this too) it is the tactic that the US hopes to deter Putin from attacking. Likely Biden is telling what his intelligence services are reporting. They are saying that a lot of those forces have now moved from depots to field deployments. And obviously if those armored vehicles now photographed in depots spread out to the countryside into their battalion combat teams, then that is something that you have to do in order to use those forces in war.

I guess Biden makes these statements because if Putin doesn't attack, then he can say these statements deterred Putin from attack. Obviously if there's no attack, then those who think that Putin had no intention of attacking can stick to their argument. No attack is no attack.

Putin can put his forces all ready...and then call it off later. If he wants.

For Ukrainians this obviously is annoying as the markets starting from their currency get a hit from a possibility of a war braking out (even more). That explains why the Ukrainian president has said for the US to calm down. It really isn't a role for a president of a country to spread fear around.

Were they having a collective day off? — Isaac

Haha.

You don't see the obvious illogicality in everything is a racket? So, all the media does is to lie? Not even a single issue that is truthful or objective? Not even one? All issues are done further the financial interests of the extremely wealthy? And somehow we cannot see what part is motivated by an agenda? Or at least someone like me (I guess).

, I just find the position absurd. You admit that "there are indeed rackets and obviously many want to influence the public discourse (and those with money have more ability to do it)", but then want to argue that sometimes they...just don't. — Isaac

What is absurd about it?

Perhaps I'll give an obvious example.

Remember the Occupy Wall Street -protests some years ago? Russia Today reported them with good objective journalism and interviewed the various protesting people, which obviously didn't come from a certain mold and had quite variegated views. For them, objectivity worked well as it was to show that people are unhappy about issues in the US. Compared to American media covering the protests, RT was better. But then when it was Russian people demonstrating against Putin, yes, RT did cover them too, but you obviously noticed the difference. Suddenly the protesters weren't interviewed as much and RT was a lot more like the US media, even more cautious not to give the protesters a voice. The agenda part was obvious. And then if it something that TRULY is in the interest of Putin, then they stick to the official line. (With the US the obvious example when the country actually goes to war. The reporting isn't like during the Vietnam war, when the military didn't actually bother so much with keeping the media in line. And didn't understand what the impact is when the soldier on the field is interviewed and has a voice.)

So would I say that RT lies all the time? Of course not.

The issue is that you can perfectly read Chinese, Iranian, Russian or American news outlets and notice just where the media bias is, yet to see that they report issue with adequate journalism and when it's obvious when they have an agenda. Why I chose RT above is that here the link is obvious, just as with Chinese media. With US media it can be a bit different as the not all adhere to one agenda.

Let's stick to the topic of this thread. So @Punshhh started it two years ago when it wasn't yet called a pandemic. Is everything about it a lie?

I don’t know who to believe. — NOS4A2

But this is easy.

1) If Russia doesn't attack Ukraine, then it can be said that the outing of the Russian army on the Ukrainian border got the West to sit down with Russia and talk about Russia's security issues. An attack that doesn't happen isn't an attack.

2) If Russia is "forced to respond to the grave threat" and performs a military operation, then Biden told the truth.

Of course you could look at previous history at what the sides have said. Starting from that Russia (and Putin) has denied any involvement of Russian army in the Ukraine. And those Russian soldiers that have been captured their were just volunteers, who went to fight alongside the separatists on their spare time.

And if you think that Ukraine would launch a military strike to Donbass when Russia has deployed the largest army on it's border since the Cold War, then, how does the saying goes... "I'd sell you some real estate in Florida".

They are KGB. All that matters is that the Russian people accept it and go publicly with the lie, even if they would have doubts about it in private.

You show strength by believing in your own lies, I guess.

Yes.

Well, if Putin does that, he'll do it with his armed forces.

And it doesn't really look good.

Putin is accusing Ukraine of genocide. We already had the "kindergarten bombing incident" noted by . That the rebel enclaves say they are evacuating 700 000 people to Russia isn't either a good sign.

What Russia is saying about Ukraine should is alarming:

(TASS) It is highly probable that Kiev will embark on a combat operation in Donbass, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.

"The attention of our interlocutors is drawn in every possible way to this dangerous concentration [of the Ukrainian troops at the engagement line in Donbass] and the attention of our interlocutors is drawn to the fact that a military operation and an attempt to resolve problems with the use of force in the southeast [of Ukraine] are quite real. This probability is high and real and, unfortunately, all of us and the entire world were witnesses when Kiev unleashed a military operation in Donbass, that is, it started a civil war in the country," the Russian presidential spokesman said.

The Ukrainians are saying their side:

(Jerusalem Post) The military intelligence of Ukraine announced Friday that it has information that Russian special forces have planted explosives at a number of social infrastructure facilities in separatist-controlled Donetsk.

Donetsk is located in eastern Ukraine, where Ukrainian forces have been fighting pro-Russia rebels since 2014 in a conflict that has killed some 14,000 people.

“These measures are aimed at destabilizing the situation in the temporarily occupied territories of our state and creating grounds for accusing Ukraine of terrorist acts,” the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine said in a tweet.

Comes to my mind Finland attacking Soviet Union in 1939 and the famous the artillery shelling of Mainila. Right from the Stalinist playbook.

This time Biden and his secretary of state Blinken would be just fine and happy if they would be wrong. They were wrong about Wednesday, you know.

Hopefully a war doesn't start...

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact. — Apollodorus

Erdogan is one of those leaders who is ruining his country and tries to hide it with bombast nationalism and obviously wants grandeur. That's true and I assume you agree at least with that.

Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia. — Apollodorus

Who gave Crimea to Ukraine was Nikita Khrushchev. And Russia accepted in multiple occasions and treaties that Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Until Putin saw an opportunity and annexed it back. (Which, I'll remind you again, you haven't answered if you condemn or not).

It isn't rocket science either that Putin's own actions of annexing parts of neighboring countries has changed the dynamic totally within the West. Prior to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO didn't even have any military plans to defend the Baltic States, which had become members of the alliance. That was thought to be far too hostile towards Russia and was blocked by one NATO country. Do notice that when Bush made his declarations, not all NATO countries were enthusiastic about it. Back then NATO countries were dismantling their armed forces and NATO was desperately looking for new missions. Article 5 and the old Cold War NATO that was a past thing.

I don't think this will be true going forward. — frank

Remember we were talking about the economy and trade. Both Italy and Canada have a larger GDP than Russia. The German economy is many times larger. If Russia would have an economy the size of Japan, which is also many times larger than the Russian economy (which theoretically would be totally possible as there are more Russians than there are Japanese), then it would be different. To focus your trade totally with Russia simply doesn't cut it.

But that would mean that Russia would have to have those trade relations and manufacture stuff just like well, Japan or Germany does. And that would mean focus on something else than physical territory, but things like competitiveness, innovation, R&D and export sector. Something also than just weapons. As the old political saying which Clinton used against older Bush (who just had won the Gulf War) goes, "It's the economy, stupid!".

This is why Putin is actually so detrimental to Russia.

You realise passing off moderate centrism as the only truly wise assessment in all situations is a 'stereotypical character'. It's pretty much the archetype. — Isaac

Far more typical is simply to see everything as a racket of the rich. Either it's leftist or the right-wing populism, but for both it's the elite that is against the ordinary people. And that's all basically what one has to say.

If being against the "everything" part, but admitting that there are indeed rackets and obviously many want to influence the public discourse (and those with money have more ability to do it) is a bit too complicated, well, sorry.

I'm open for discussion and as this is a corona-virus thread, do notice that a) I was first doubtful about the corona-epidemic and thought it might be something similar to what we have seen earlier. And people here (and naturally the events) did make me change my mind. Then b) I have considered the lab-leak hypothesis to be totally possible, perhaps even probable even before it was totally politically incorrect.

Uh huh, nothing to see here, everything as it should be, always was, always will be... — Isaac

It doesn't mean that. The media operates how it does. Then there is the reality that is happening, which is important.

Appeal to mediocrity isn't an argument, no matter how well it fits with the script for the 'worldly wise voice of centrism' character you like to play. — Isaac

Sorry for being centrist and not going with the given stereotypical characters.

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity — Apollodorus

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border.

(And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.)

Are you agreeing or disagreeing about Russia weakening Ukraine economically? — frank

Obviously Russia is trying to weaken Ukraine by every means and also economically. So I agree with you. My point was only to show that the EU is far more important to Ukraine than Russia even before the current crisis.

I meant that Russia has weakened the Ukrainian economy where it has control and has left the area dependent on Russian subsidies. Its picnic surrounding Ukraine is further weakening its economy. — frank

Do note that both in exports and in imports EU countries altogether are far more important to Ukraine than Russia. Yes, by some stats Russia is the largest country in both exports and imports for Ukraine, yet in imports China is nearly as big and with exports just Germany and Poland are both combined are bigger than Russia. And then there are the other EU countries, like Italy, Netherlands, etc.

And this is important to understand just why even when pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was President, he tried to balance between the EU trade deal and Russia. Russia simply isn't so important and it's really a lousy deal just to be in the Russian camp.

It's as if some other distraction has come along to take its place. — Isaac

No, that's just how the modern media works.

First it was leaders of countries who held media briefings about corona-virus. Then it was the ministers and officials in charge of health issues. Then a lower ranking officials who held the meetings with lower media participation. Then the media didn't report it anymore as the most important news and goes on to other news. And in the end, you might find information about the coronavirus and the pandemic just by going to your national health officials website.

That's how pandemics end....not with a bang, but with a whimper, like a famous poet said.

Putin proved that no one but Russia cares about Ukraine. Russian domination hasn't been a positive experience for Ukrainians so far. Could that change in the future? — frank

I think here Georgia would be a good alternative example. The two countries have had no formal relations since the war, but still Georgia has had to adapt to the new situation. And Russia

It was telling that when Georgia and Russia had it's war, Georgia had to quickly withdraw it's troops from Iraq to fight in their own country. Later Georgian governments have tried to normalize the relations, but that isn't so easy as Russia continues the bullying. An interesting event sparked protests in 2019, when a Russian MP sat in a chair reserved by protocol for the Head of Parliament and delivered a speech in Russian extolling "the Orthodox brotherhood of Georgia and Russia". It was a bit too much for at least part of the Georgian people. Likely the protesters had also other issues against the government.

America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world. — Apollodorus

You do know that there is a war that could be defined as a civil war ALREADY going on in Eastern Ukraine with Russian forces involved?

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia — Apollodorus

A very, very strange idea. Please give references to back up this idea.

in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia. — Apollodorus

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia. Closest come Crimean Tatar, and Azerbaijani that are Turkic languages. Yes, the Crimean Khanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire for three hundred years, yet it lost it in the late 18th Century. And a lot of borders have changed all around since the 18th Century.

And conveniently forgetting that Turkey and Russia have had also warmer relations too in their oscillating relationship? Just from September of last year:

Relations between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Biden administration may be frayed, but on Wednesday the Turkish leader made abundantly clear his access to an alternative partner for trade and military deals: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

At a three-hour meeting in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, Russia — the first for the two presidents in more than a year — Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan discussed weapons deals, trade and a nuclear reactor Russia is building in Turkey.

Turkey and Russia have been both friends on energy and arms deals and enemies in multiple Middle Eastern wars. Through mercenaries and proxies, the countries are on opposite sides in the wars in Syria and Libya, while both Turkish and Russian troops are serving as peacekeepers in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Most people care about what happens after their death. Their values and axioms are not temporary. — Andrew4Handel

Certainly if you have loved ones and those who rely on you. When you have children, it's an obvious feeling.

If you are totally alone, have no friends and nobody cares about you, then it can be difficult. Then you might be also indifferent towards the people yourself.

Loneliness is a killer.

Selling arms to regimes responsible for human rights abuses... — Isaac

Second largest arms exporter...hmmm. From 2016. That sounds a bit fetched when you think that Canada would be pass then Russia, France or UK in arms deals.

You do know that General Dynamics and Prat& Whitney are American corporations? It's not like there is an Canadian owned arms industry, but the following:

most of what Canada produces in the way of military components and parts goes to the U.S. The bulk of Canada’s military subcomponents are for U.S. systems

Hence Canada doesn't show up on any ordinary list.





But coming back to the actual topic, seems that the Canadian government hasn't noticed that after omicron the attitudes have changed and this is the time when ordinary, let's say even non-Trumpian not populist-governments, are easing the restrictions and are going the way Sweden went long ago.

Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations. — SophistiCat

New membership in NATO should be accepted by all existing members and when you have Germany openly saying that even if "each country should be able to make decisions on which alliances to join" it was important to “look at the reality” and "de-escalate" the situation, I think the message is obvious for the Ukrainians. (That it has been obvious for a long time seems to escape many even here) But it seems that Scholz has directly stated this again to the Ukrainians.

After shutting down it's nuclear reactors Germany has made it's own mess in it's energy policy and likely will want to avoid any kind of sanctions at all costs and hold on to Russian gas imports. Otherwise it's a bit cynical to say that these Germany wants to "avoid a war" at any cost to a country that is ALREADY fighting a war with Putin's Russia and has lots large parts of it's territory to Putin.

So if the huge Russian army picnic on the Ukrainian border really was all for this, great. But of course NATO membership of Ukraine already wasn't going anywhere after Russia started a war in Eastern Ukraine AND has forces already there inside the country (even if we don't account the annexed Crimea being part of Ukraine, but talk about the Donbas region). Which leads me to think that Putin simply will try to milk for as long as he can the situation. Or at worst, go ahead with salami tactics if he gets an excuse for it. But that seems unlikely, as it simply is a stupid idea from start once the strategic surprise has been lost (and Putin already has Crimea).

Putin will go as further as he can and his objective is to control Ukraine, to show that the West won't come to the help. He may hope that after Zelensky a more favorable government comes to office. Good examples of how Russia operates can be seen from how it has dealt with Georgia and Armenia. As a president for life, he has the time to wait.

I think problems arise when we take an easy case and then try to apply it universally. — Cuthbert

Something like that.

Or if we want to define just when are you nervous and when you aren't. And is it really the opposite? Is the nervousness the same or if we call 'being nervous' totally different things. You might be nervous that you will flunk the exam. You then you were nervous that during the exam your car in towed away. Or then people loudly shouting in the adjacent room make you nervous as you cannot concentrate. Are all of them the same feelings?

Do true opposites need to both exist 100% and independently of the other — TiredThinker

I think that true opposites exist only when they have been defined to be as (logical) opposites. Then the terms in my view cannot be independent. You can define things to be "true" or "false" or "correct" or "wrong" and the law of the excluded middle works quite well here. Or you can draw a line that has opposite points where the line ends.

Looking for opposites in the real world will be difficult. You get then questions like what actually would be an opposite of something. Not as easy to define, actually.

I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. — Christoffer

There's has been for a long time a tendency to write off Russia, as it cannot overcome it's real problems. Well, perhaps it cannot find solutions to truly solve and overcome it's fundamental problems, but it doesn't mean Russia will go away or cease to exist. It can simply hang on. Russians are good at that.

The tragic thing here is that Putin needs the huge, larger than life enemy in order to justify his position and to justify his crackdown on civil liberties etc. The US has to be the great evil... or at least America's evil foreign policy community. And I assume he truly thinks that the West is out to destroy Russia, to carve it up and has that the West has this fixation on doing this. Hence any kind of opposition or civil disobedience that emerges in Russia is instantly seen as something artificially created by the intelligence services of the West or their proxies, people like George Soros and the like. This naturally isn't the case, but the truth doesn't matter.

What is also lacking in this mindset is the understanding that third parties and countries can have independent agendas and objectives. For example: NATO bombs couldn't overthrow Milosevic, but the little assistance to the Serbian opposition that the US State Department gave was highly successful and Milosevic was ousted. This is something that Putin clearly observes as an example of a "color revolution" and hence the whole "Gerasimov doctrine" is viewed only as a counter to US hybrid warfare: because they do it, we have to do it also. Yet what here is forgotten that despite of this, Serbia is still a close ally to Russia and isn't at all wanting to join NATO. You see, bombing a country does have an impact on the way the people think of you and if the opposition does take money from an outside entity, it doesn't mean they obey you afterwards.

And then there is the way how Putin's Russia sees NATO. In a testimony for the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe just this month, Fiona Hill puts quite well:

As far as NATO is concerned, Russia sees the institution as an extension of the United States, not an alliance based on mutual interest, collective defense, and voluntary association. Moscow continues to view the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Cold War terms, as the equivalent of the Warsaw Treaty Organization that USSR created as a mirror image and coerced Eastern Europe into. Russian officials and commentators routinely deny any agency or independent strategic thought to any NATO member other than the United States. Note, for example, that Russia has not sent any similar documents to our North American neighbor, Canada, challenging its role in European security, despite its membership in both NATO and the OSCE and close ties to Ukraine. Canada and other countries barely exist in Russia’s calculations.

Similar views (as the current regime in Russia has so aptly described by Hill) have been given even in this thread.

This is a very good point.

The most offensive view that still goes around is that Russia and Russians cannot have democracy and that they need a strong leader, a tough central government or otherwise the country collapses. That somehow democracy cannot work in Russia. Of course Russia is a mixture of various people and ethnic groups and is the largest country. Yet we aren't thinking that India will collapse, even if it too has a multitude of different people and languages. And for Canada or Brazil the size of the country isn't a huge problem. The so-called "strong leaders" usually suck.

An Russian opposition leader (now living in the West) said once that Russians are very like Americans in their distrust of big government. Those Russians we just don't see, the people that might be fed up with war all the time. The Russians weren't so excited about Russia going to Syria, and note that all the deaths of the "volunteers", meaning the Russia forces that fought in the Donbas, were kept out of the media, sometimes so that the families had problems to get their sons bodies back.

Just as in Belarus, the amount of love Russians have to their leaders is an open question, but it is doubtful it's as high as said. On the other hand, they are those who support Putin and I guess later when Vladimir isn't around, you will have the babushka on some demonstration carrying the photo of the "saviour" of Russia, who gave them Crimea back.

Who else would you appease? — frank

Someone who thinks you are going to attack them or have those imperial asperations yourself!

States usually try to have good relations...because if they don't have those, then you know what military planners have to (it's their job, you know) prepare for.

History teaches us that appeasement frequently invites further aggression and war. — frank

Only with those who want war and have imperial aspirations.

Yea. They still had staff and "in service" equipment, but they weren't prepared to actually use it. — frank

Ummm...yes! That the whole idea with nuclear weapons. They are for deterrence, not for use.

And if you have doubts on Russian missiles working? Well, a glimpse on Russian missile technology working can be seen either from the Soyuz-rockets or from the banned medium range nuclear missiles: the latter the US decided to just demolish, but the Russians shot every missile as testing (without warheads, of course). None of them had any problem in functioning.

And btw, the US nuclear weapons are very, very old. Far older than their Russian counterparts.

(Military.com, Jan 2021) The aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles that have formed the land-based leg of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad for half a century can no longer be upgraded and require costly replacements, Adm. Charles Richard, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said Tuesday.

"Let me be very clear: You cannot life-extend the Minuteman III [any longer]," he said of the 400 ICBMs that sit in underground silos across five states in the upper Midwest.

"We can't do it at all. ... That thing is so old that, in some cases, the drawings don't exist anymore [to guide upgrades]," Richard said in a Zoom conference sponsored by the Defense Writers Group. Where the drawings do exist, "they're like six generations behind the industry standard," he said, adding that there are also no technicians who fully understand them. "They're not alive anymore."

The submarine ICBM's are younger though: the missile system was deployed only 30 years ago and the upgraded version of the Trident is planned to be in service until 2042.

Maybe.

Then again Greece doesn't have much of a military itself, so a war in that situation would be rather quick and favor Turkey. Of course, if you have alliances then it can become a big problem. — Manuel

A war that didn't / hasn't happened is in history naturally unprovable, but when talking about wars, that "maybe" is a good thing. But do note that PRIOR to Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 NATO was genuinely focused in everything else but Russia.

In fact, even if the Baltic States joined NATO in 2004 there was no plans to defend them. One NATO member considered it too "provocative" to even have plans for a defense of the new member states. Russia might get upset! What really got Russia alarmed was the "new mission" when NATO started a war in Kosovo. That was the real red-line they crossed for Russia. Yet NATO member countries understood Russia's worries.

That changed when Russia had it's war with Georgia in 2008. And finally, actual real training, US troops in the Baltic states, started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

So the idea of NATO hawks going all these years for the jugular of Russia simply is wrong. And this is why I do have the opinion that Russia could easily have prevented the membership of Ukraine in NATO with smart diplomacy (which the US would have found utterly annoying) and not with wars and annexations. It's Putin himself that is basically hammering NATO back to it's original role.

Not after the collapse of the USSR. — frank

What do you mean?

The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat). A lot of Cold War systems continued in Russian service. Yes, some systems fell into the hands of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but they were given back to Russia and both countries didn't have the incentive to try to upkeep such a costly weapons system (with horrific consequences to Ukraine, as we have seen now).

The reductions happened because of START I and START II agreements.

It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore. — Manuel

It's not at all so crazy in a couple of instances...

Remember what we heatedly discussed with @Apollodorus about Cyprus. If Greece and Turkey wouldn't be NATO members, I think they we surely would have had a war or two between them. (After all, the Greek Cypriots wanted to join Greece)

Then there are the border issues that Hungary and Romania have had over Transylvania:

Soon after the demise of the Communist regimes in Hungary and Romania, in March 1990, violent ethnic clashes in Transylvania strained the relationship between both countries to the brink of war. As a result, the first Open Skies Treaty in the world to mutually assess the strength and disposition of opposing military forces was worked out and became effective in 1992. This is considered a direct precursor of the 2002 multilateral Treaty on Open Skies that once included Russia and the United States.

And then both countries joined the EU and NATO. Now the relations have improved.

Intelligence is very much about curiosity. People who think they know it all have a serious problem learning because they are close-minded. — Athena

This is so true. And once we have no curiosity and just close our minds, we start to go backwards. The idea of lifetime learning is extremely important. I remember how refreshing it was in the late 1990's when the internet was still a new thing an old relative in his 80's gave his email address to be intact. I always respect old people who learn new things and keep up with current times even after retiring.

Perhaps the ease that we can be complacent is the problem when our environment doesn't challenge us.

Through the lenses of my very basic telescope, the Orion nebula looks like this — Olivier5

You have a cool telescope, even if you say it's basic.

"That star, called HD 84406, is located 241 light-years from Earth and part of the constellation Ursa Major, the Great Bear. The images will not be used for science, but will help the ground teams align the 18 golden segments of Webb's 21-foot-wide (6.5 meters) main mirror.

The images will be taken by Webb's Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam), which first has to cool down to its operational temperature of minus 244 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 153 degrees Celsius).

At the beginning, we will have 18 individual blurry images," Mark McCaughrean, a scientist at the JWST Science Working Group and senior advisor at the European Space Agency (ESA), who is familiar with the process, told Space.com . "At the end, we will have one nice sharp image."

Or then we have blurry image and a huge collective D'OH!

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. — Manuel

Do notice the importance of NATO articles 1 and 2, not only 5. Having the European militaries working together is important force peace. That was a reasonable thing to have as EU isn't a military pact. Don't forget that the US did have plans for a war with UK after WW1 (as it had with Japan), even if they just had been allies in the Great War.

Actually, it was the basic reason why they didn't dissolve the organization when Russia wasn't so bellicose as now and everybody didn't thing it would stand up anymore.

Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired. — frank

Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence. That was the last thing they let to crumble apart and they have, unlike the US, have had a persistent program to renew their nuclear deterrence. Having over 40 000 nuclear weapons was indeed a burden, but thankfully there were the huge reductions with the US and a lot of those Russian nukes ended up as fuel in US nuclear power plants giving energy to the cities they were intended to demolish. (A really happy true story, which are rare in this World)



Russia hasn't forgotten nukes...as basically the US has (and focused on hunting Islamic terrorists and fighting wars abroad) and now, as usual, has to spend a lot more perhaps to upgrade it's existing systems that work on 80's technology. I remember someone saying that Russia develops these new nuclear weapons, like the Avantgard, in order for having them as bargaining chips.

The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened? — frank

Actually, for over 77 years now. And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949. Yes, there was a missile gap in favor of the US for a long time, but the Soviet Union surpassed the number of nuclear weapons (and ICBMs) finally in the late 1970's I guess.

That Biden won't even think to deploy US troops to assist in a hypothetical evacuation of US citizens from Ukraine if a war would start shows that the Russian nuclear deterrence works.

(Now the US has similar amount of nuclear weapons it had in the 1950's and Russia the amount it had in the 1960's)

Your example just makes the point that @L'éléphant has an argument, perhaps it's just too much to say that human intelligence is declining. Yet our modern lifestyles and all the assistance we have from our machines does have an effect on us. The most obvious issue, which is again far easier to measure, is how we actually have to change our diet to have far less calories as we simply don't do as much physical work and how being overweight has become a problem. Once you don't have to use a skill and you don't even use it on your spare time, that skill will be lost or it won't be ever gotten. Starting from obvious things like earlier people had to walk a lot when going from one place to another.

There is a better term for people before us like hunter gatherers being "smarter" than us. We use the term "street-smart". For a homeless child growing up in a modern slum in the Third World, the life expectancy is decades lower from the nation's average and there are a lot of dangers and life is about survival, about where to get the next meal. For hunter gatherers the life expectancy was low: those that survived to 15 years had a reasonable chance to survive over 45. But one slight injury that got infected, something easily preventable by modern medicine, might end it. Today, the life expectancy in slums can dip below 40 years, even if the national average even in Third World countries can be in the 70's.

We likely would notice that many of the "street smart" are quick witted, but lacking formal education they likely would do not so well in an IQ test. And likely would our ancestors, the hunter gatherers, would do not so well on an IQ test either...if the piece of paper is given to them with a pencil.

The thing is, our society needs that kind of intelligence that at least partly is measured by IQ tests: to notice patterns, to use mathematics and formal logic and above all, have a lot of educational knowledge and to use it when seeking those patterns out that others have not noticed.

Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII. — SophistiCat

Talk of a true strategic surprise. That the VDV airborne troops had only to take off their Russian flags from their uniforms and instantly, they were "little Green men". That is still a total mystery for me: how could the reporters be so clueless? And the propaganda effort worked as a charm. But that kind of surprise works only once: when it comes out of the blue as it did back then.

Here indeed there isn't much strategic surprise. Ukraine hasn't mobilized it's reserves, but still. In 2014 it didn't have the ability to defend itself. It got only a paratroop brigade to move to the east and for the first Ukrainian main battle tanks to be deployed into the Donbas it took six months or so. Not so now.

Hence there is the possibility that this will go for far longer than anticipated and Russia will just try to milk everything out of the present. Because going into war with Ukraine is simply a bad idea. Or if Putin really wants to get those old borders, then it's a great idea.