There's a difference between supporting a murderous regime and provoking a regime into an international war. — Benkei

So according to you only one is murderous? Actually there's an obvious similarity as both countries don't care a shit about international agreements, about the sovereignty of other countries and are totally fine with annexation of land from their neighboring countries. Because both absolutely think they have a right for it. They have a "sphere-of-influence" where they can use force as they want.

Do notice how their own maps (karta rossii) look like now. Do notice one peninsula in the west:


Or how in the other country a map in schoolbook looks like:


But for some reason, only one is murderous and aggressive while the other one, well, actually you don't care what happens inside it, you seem to think that it has a right to a sphere of influence and think it's just bullied/provoked by the West or something.

Ruins caused by the indiscriminate massacre of Jewish Israelis in 1948. — Benkei

You mean Palestinians?

The only reason people think this is complicated is because of misguided guilt, pesonal loyalties or general lack of being adequately informed - particularly if they can't go beyond MSM reports. — Benkei

But shouldn't we accept "that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences"? Isn't Palestine, West Bank, Gaza, in Israel's sphere of influence?

It is a regional power, you know. :roll:

Do they have the will and the means for that? — frank

The only thing worrisome to me is that Russia makes demands it knows NATO cannot accept to. Now it might be a negotiation tactic, but still.

It's speculated that they don't have the means to fully occupy Ukraine, much less spread eastward. — frank

The whole reason to invade Ukraine seems illogical, but who knows. Some say a partial invasion would be the likeliest, happening in the east, basically on the eastern side of the Dniepr. But who knows what will happen or not happen.

As I've said, I'm so optimist that I think that the likeliest outcome is that there is no war. It ends up in just as one of those scares. But that there is some kind of conflict is unfortunately a genuine possibility. Russia has been now multiple times been accused of a coup plot, and at least in history it has intervened quite aggressively into Ukrainian politics (even before 2014). So what is certain is that Russia will continue to be a bully to Ukraine.

The article talks about Donetsk and Luhansk, the rebellious states that opted out (with Russian help) from Ukraine. And the situation in these regions is bleak. One article said that Russia is pouring about 1 billion dollars into these areas, but naturally that when they are cut out from Ukraine, it isn't easy to realign the economy to work for Russia (just like Crimea has a tough time without the Ukrainians coming in for a holidays etc). Everything basically comes from Russia (and Belarus) and the natural issue of commerce isn't happen now. Russia is givin Russian passports to the people, so it's easy for them to go to Russia. As, well, there is a war going on. If there are no jobs and artillery shells may land on your doorstep, a lot of people will opt to move.

Basically the Minsk accords/protocol have not been ratified, especially with the Minsk II being left open from 2015. Basically what is left open are the following terms:

1)To ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
2)To ensure the monitoring and verification of the ceasefire by the OSCE .
3)Decentralization of power, including through the adoption of the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
4)To ensure the permanent monitoring of the Ukrainian-Russian border and verification by the OSCE with the creation of security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5)Immediate release of all hostages and illegally detained persons.
6)A law preventing the prosecution and punishment of people in connection with the events that have taken place in some areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.
7)To continue the inclusive national dialogue.
8)To take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Donbas.
9)To ensure early local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
10)To withdraw illegal armed groups and military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.
11)To adopt a program of economic recovery and reconstruction for the Donbas region.
12)To provide personal security for participants in the consultations.

The issue is that Ukraine is very fearful of giving autonomy (above decentralization) that then Russia could use.

Better to be late than never to come to the party.

But yes, again good points from you earlier.

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions. — Benkei

Yes. Like the Netherlands in the 1930's. But hey, it worked just splendid during WW1!

Being a buffer state sucks. But it reinforces the truth that foreigners genuinely truly don't give a shit about you or your people or about values.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

So the "de-escalation" would be that NATO would withdraw troops or never deploy troops to Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, The Baltic States, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and North Macedonia?

That's what Russia is saying it wants.

That's one way of looking at it — jamalrob

Well, let's hope that we don't get some similar event in this crisis justifying for Russia to respond.

Yet on the other hand, if nothing happens, then nothing happens. NATO was bellicose with Serbia, that's a historical fact. Then it was desperately looking for a "new mission". But when the opponent has the most nukes in the World, I don't think there is that desire, which people seem to see. The motivation would be to have normal relations, which can be seen from all the efforts and attempts to reset the relations by several US presidents. Nothing like that has happened with let's say Iran and the US.

But apparently Russia has a right for it's historical empire, I guess.

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory? — jamalrob

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack.

It's interesting that a while ago you presented it as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact. — jamalrob

I put in the category of being more likely to be true than false. But thanks for the correction. We naturally don't know as the archives haven't been opened.

I am wondering how the discussion would go if we thought the Creator manifested our reality by giving chaos order and that human activity can either maintain that order or destroy it? What if we recognized chaos as the evil that threatens us and felt responsible for causing that chaos and also for restoring order? — Athena

Coming back to the OP.

The question is: isn't life chaotic, even without the human's in picture? The environment may seem to be in order, tranquil and harmonious in the short run, but if you lengthen the time period everything is in a flux and changing. Evolution creates change, mass extinction events happen, the environment altogether changes in a huge way. The change usually is just so slow that it doesn't happen in one lifetime.

Humans want order. They want to be in control. They are happy when things are under their control. That's why peace, harmony and all that stuff needs regulation starting from self-regulation. Now it's great that in maintaining that order we would take into consideration other species than just ourselves. Yet as we still don't understand how things work, our effort in micromanagement usually just fucks up something that we didn't understand to be important. Even when we try to do the good thing, we end up messing something else badly.

It's like Western doctors going to Papua New Guinea and introducing soap to the natives. Because isn't hygiene important, yes? So once they got the natives to wash themselves with soap, many of them got nasty infections as the protective layer of dirt wasn't there to protect them from the creatures of the jungle and some died. But the natives weren't upset: they just interpreted that the Western shamans had killed those as an offering to the Gods. (This anecdote was told to my father by a Nobel-prize winner that had made his career in Papua New Guinea.)

Here they are disbanding the corona restrictions and even the local health officials don't see worth in continuing to have corona passports. Cases are multitude far higher than ever before, hospitalizations have stayed low and deaths as sporadic as they been all the time. The obvious fact that even the officials have admitted is that omicron isn't at all so lethal as variants before.

I would assume this pandemic will end as T.S. Elliot wrote "not with a bang, but with a wimper":

First it was about the leaders of countries holding press conferences and issuing dramatic restrictions. Then the presidents and prime ministers have other more important things to do and the press conferences are held by a health minister or the sort. Then it's just some official. Then even the media doesn't participate. Then it becomes an issue that you can read at a government web page just like about the new flu variants and new seasonal flu shots. They do recommend people to get seasonal flu shots, you know.

That's where the covid-19 will be buried and will stay for perhaps decades if not longer.

And of course, this long thread will be buried somewhere in the backpages.

Snow shovels are needed here. Actually have to go and do some shoveling after this...

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries. — Apollodorus

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless.

You have a Russian leader, a president for life, that sees the main enemy number 1 the United States. A former intelligence chief that started his political career as a President by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost. Then has annexed parts both from Georgia and Ukraine, considers the fall of Soviet Union the worst disaster in the 20th Century and openly writes about Ukraine should be part of Russia and how an independent Ukraine is an artificial country. And now has had a proxy war with Ukraine for 8 years and has massed a nearly third of the Russian army ground forces on the border of Ukraine, and you see the problem in the US to be too hawkish, re-urgitating the line that Putin says.

Yes, Russia could be an ally with the US, if the regime of Putin would fall itself. Even then it would be extremely difficult, which can be seen how cool Navalnyi and other Russian opposition leaders (the few if any) are to the West. And the Putin apologists in the West don't make that better. For some reason you cherish the current totalitarian regime so much.

And if that would happen, if the Russians would have enough of their dear leader for life, likely some people would be screaming how awful it is and how it has to be a CIA lead "color revolution" and how bad it is that the West has "taken over" Russia. Because, obviously, nobody else has a say than " the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries".

Obviously it was a poor decision from Milley to talk about critical race theory or to refer to it. But then he I think it's his least worries in Public Relations. Far more dangerous for him (and the armed forces) is the toxic political theatre that the himself and the armed forces are dragged into in Washington. Just think about it: you have political turmoil in Washington DC, the Speaker of the House phones you (not the other way around) and then makes public the call and uses the obviously private telephone call to push her party's side.

So when you had a President that at least thought seriously about using the armed forces to alter elections, you know how perilous the situation is for such a well respected institution like the US armed forces. That's where Milley had to walk the real tight-rope between the commander-in-chief and the constitution.

As I've said earlier, the FBI and it's director were the first to be used political pawn used by both sides (without skipping a beat) to their partisan polemics. First James Comey was a Republican stooge that did more damage to the Democrat party than the Russian trolls ever could do. Then suddenly he became instantly a Democrat stooge from a hero. How does that happen? I think that officials who by law ought to be non-political and serve an elected adminstration (whatever party it comes from) ought to understand that now the political fighting is so abysmally toxic, that they have to approach politicians like when talking to a hostile foreign entity...when it comes to anything that can be used in party politics. You just have to weigh what you say. Whatever you say (or can be depicted to have said) can and will be used to promote the partisan political line. Being non-political or apolitical will simply not be accepted in the current political atmosphere: either you are with their party or you work for the enemy party. If they can use you, they will, and not care at all if then you are forced out.

There cannot be such a grave crisis that these two parties wouldn't think about their partisan objectives and use it to attack the other party in order to win in the next elections. Milley should understand that.

And that's really the sad thing with the US now. At least in my puny small country I know that if and when the shit really hits the fan, the partisan political bickering is put aside and the political parties work as a team and are capable to work as an unified team when the effort is really needed.

With the US I'm really not so sure.

Now, let me point out again -- as anti-hand gun and anti-assault weapons as I am -- a very small percent of gun owners shoot people. Those who do shoot other people almost always use hand guns. [Of course, mass murders with rifles or assault weapons are an egregious exception.] A large share of hand gun deaths are among young minority males, generally in urban areas, who often are at least relatively poor, may be involved in the drug trade, and may be involved in gangs. — Bitter Crank

I think actually the only statistic that is easy to point out to be a direct and obvious consequence of the huge amount of weapons among people are the gun accident statistics. Not surprisingly, the US leads the charts by all accounts in gun related accidents. So many people that anywhere else wouldn't have a gun and aren't at all interested in guns have guns that are loaded in their drawer. And above all, the gun is intended for protection if someone invades the home, not for hunting. The fact is that the small handgun is far more dangerous and accident prone than a rifle or a machine gun: you don't easily accidental point at yourself or another person a machine gun (if you had one).

Also, is the murder rate uniform over the US? It's a humongous country. — RolandTyme

Compare Chicago's or New Orleans murder rate to other cities or places.



...or a place with a Narco-War like Mexico:

Of course not, but I think some people, including active service members, might think that those things are indeed indicative of pervasive wokeness in the military that needs to be fought and eliminated. And I think people like Milley give those people ammunition by saying that "white rage" caused the January 6th insurrection, for example - which I think it was just a bunch of idiotic Trump supporters being idiots; as far as I can tell it wasn't racially motivated. — ToothyMaw

(Actually I agree with the latter)

Yet what can one say? Only that there are these juicy narratives that people want to use and fit everything into. If the narrative is that "The Democrats are making the military woke...and thus the combat capability of the military is in danger", then you will try to find every small detail that you can use for that narrative, be it maternity flight suits or whatever.

Of course the "normal" answer would be that the military is part of the society and hence everything that happens in the society in general will typically show also in the military. When there was segregation in the US, then the US military was segregated. When it stopped, so did it in the military too. The armed forces aren't so detached from the overall society as some people assume. And likely there is a law or regulation that demands pregnant workforce has the right to have fitting clothes in their work.

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states". — Apollodorus

Yes, those sovereign states are the member states. It's totally logical. Now the US formed various similar Treaty organizations, NATO, SEATO and CENTO and only NATO is still working. The idea of it being just a tool of the US isn't the whole picture. It is that European countries are happy with the arrangement of NATO that ought to be mentioned also. the organization had so much elan that it didn't dissolve once the Soviet Union went away. CENTO basically dissolved because of revolutions, and SEATO member countries just didn't see it as relevant. Once the other countries don't want to play, then the organization goes to the dustbin of history whatever the US would want. I'm sure the US would be all happy if there would be a SEATO nowdays. Now it has to stick with bilateral aggreements and AUKUS.

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders? — Apollodorus

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe.

If I remember correctly, you were of the view that NATO enlargement, just as EU enlargement has been driven by the motives Rockefeller and similar. The issue I just point out is that one should add to that the actual countries joining NATO or EU have had their own motivations for joining in. Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US?

As couple of answers have pointed out, intelligence isn't the same as cognitive skills. I think we just adjust and optimize for our environment and that's it. The skills we have to have in the modern world are simply different from those the hunter gatherers had to have.

If our environment isn't so filled with problems and just to survive isn't a challenge, then the outcome that our brains aren't so focused on problems of survival is logical.

Besides, advance language and written text has expanded vastly our abilities to communicate and solve problems. Just think about, look at the threads in this forum. Now what would it look like to people let's say in the 19th Century? They would awe how much the members (who all aren't academic professionals) know about literature or the data about a subject. Of course, they should be explained that we can use search engines and "google" things.

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO? — Apollodorus

Well, having the biggest nuclear arsenal in the World should deter that.

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it. — Apollodorus

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO. :smile:

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it. — Apollodorus

And it's preposterous to think that the oil price is what it is because of the Ukraine crisis. There's many other things at play here. And just a while ago the future oil price was negative. In fact, the money is made from those fluctuations.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”. — Apollodorus

If the West is just hyping a Russian attack, then there is a perfect answer to this: not to do anything. That's how the issue then goes away.

And it's totally possible, perhaps the likeliest outcome of this. The issue just is forgotten, news things capture the focus of the media and life goes on as it has.

Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans — Apollodorus

Finland pays roughly over 700 million euros more to the EU that what it gets back in subsidies and other payments. Finland, just like Sweden, Denmark or Germany, has been a net contributor (not big, but still a net contributor) to the union during it's time in the union.

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. — Apollodorus

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be.

However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy. — Apollodorus

And how about taken into considerations the foreign policies of European countries as we are talking about European countries? The US is just one player here, not the only player. Russia is a country where the oil industry is a servant of the state.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia — Apollodorus

Do you think all Russians are happy with having a President for life? In truth, Russian are even more skeptical about their government than Americans are of theirs.

I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation .... — Apollodorus

That's why we have these debates on this Forum, don't we?

Then maybe I'm an idiot. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that will float to me, quite frankly. — ToothyMaw

So you really would think that the Biden administration would think that maternity flight suits are more important than the threat of Chinese hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy US aircraft carriers?

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans. — StreetlightX

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low. EU countries close to Ukraine have higher minimum wages than in Ukraine (220 USD per month) and the average salary there is a bit over 800 dollars. In Poland average salary is 1800 dollars (in the US close to 6000).

Yet do notice the absence of any enthusiasm from the EU for Ukraine to join the union. Or any talk about it. Even the whole 2014 mess was about only a trade deal between EU and Ukraine.

And do notice that Turkey has SINCE 1987 applied to join the EU and still is viewed as a candidate country even if this is quite remote now and time has truly passed. Other candidate countries are Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Potential candidates are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (Iceland has requested not to be regarded as a candidate country, so I guess it has opted to join the exclusive club of European non-EU countries).

In fact, especially after 2014, but even before that Ukraine not joining NATO could have been avoided as all NATO members have together agree on the membership. Some members could have simply dragged their feet, just like with Turkey's EU bid, and Putin would have been a respected leader in European eyes. But that's not an option anymore.

Unless you can relate it to the growing noise about supposed wokeness in our military. I feel like these people are testing the waters to see if it will *float. Hopefully it won't. — ToothyMaw

One is an idiot, if someone thinks the below argument will float:

Perino’s Fox News colleague Tucker Carlson brought the issue of wokeness in the military to the forefront when he mocked President Joe Biden for prioritizing things like maternity flight suits and hairstyle regulations for female service members while China was focusing on developing masculinity, building new islands and developing hypersonic missile technology.

But then again, the senile Fox viewers... :roll:

And then there is the reality:

(CNN, Jan 29th, 2022) The Pentagon is preparing to push the CEOs of America's largest defense companies to accelerate hypersonic weapons development by hosting a high-level meeting next week with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The purpose is to "light a fire underneath the entire hypersonic industry" and "encourage industry to pick up the pace," according to two executives at two defense companies who've been invited to attend the meeting which is scheduled for Thursday.

The United States has "a lot of catching up to do very quickly," according to US Space Force Gen. David Thompson, after recent hypersonic weapons tests by China and Russia surprised US national security officials and indicated the US is falling behind their main geopolitical rivals.

Yes. A lot of tax payer money (and new debt) going to the military-industrial establishment. Nothing is more lucrative than government demands for acceleration of a weapons program. Or establish an entire new industry.

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. - I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. — Apollodorus

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. The Ukrainians, or those protesting Belarussians (that are forgotten now) obviously could see how joining the EU has made the Baltic States and Eastern Europe far more prosperous. From the name Euromaidan this should be obvious. Their demands for democracy weren't some CIA covert operation and in Ukraine we have seen how the Ukrainians have voted in new political parties in elections hoping for improvement. But for some reason, for them, and of course for the Russians, the firm grip of a president for life seems to be the "rational", obvious and acceptable choice. Contrary to being part of the West, which would be so bad.

At least I remember that @the Opposite here has been quite consistent in keeping up the discussion about Hong Kong protests or the protests in Belarus earlier. I would suppose that kind of thinking would prevail in a Philosophy Forum, not acceptance and understanding of the views of a President-for-life who leads a kleptocracy made up of KGB spooks and spies.

Wasn't NATO more like a response to the second world war? So it's purpose is to deter any rogue state from becoming too aggressive. Therefore it has no particular enemy, as its mandate is to prevent the arising of an enemy. So if there becomes a particular enemy it has failed in its mandate. — Metaphysician Undercover

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about:

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.

Now you might ask, what's the point if we have such organizations as OSCE? Well, do notice that NATO puts the militaries to work together. They train together, they make their plans together, they simply know each other. That's a huge thing when you consider how hostile nations can be in the end to each other. For example, with the case of Greece and Turkey it's obvious that NATO membership has refrained these two countries from going to war. Once you have such alliance, the countries militaries won't be making war plans for hypothetical wars between them, just like the US had warplans to fight the United Kingdom after WW1 (War Plan Red).

It really should be hammered in that NATO is the security policy option for West European countries. Just to look at NATO as a tool of the US isn't the total picture. It's not similar to the Warsaw Pact: NATO isn't going into it's own member states to crush popular uprisings.

In the West, NATO enlargement wasn't done because of Russia. Russia was...past, an old story. People selectively forget how NATO was looking for a new mission, that article 5 wasn't so important and how there was talk about Russia joining NATO. The above articles (1 and 2) were really thought to be the important thing for the countries emerging from behind the Iron Curtain not to go the path Armenia and Azerbaijan have gone (actually even under the last moments of the Soviet Union). At least until now, NATO members haven't gone to war with each other.

Article 5 only came important after the annexation of Crimea. But then, you might believe Vladimir Putin, who tells a different story.

Ready-made identities suit us perfectly. We don’t need to consider a person on his own when we need only apply an identity and be done with it. Of course, this is to misidentify rather than identify, but who cares at this point? — NOS4A2

Yep. That's the name of the game.

You wouldn't people interact as citizens, would you?

Now that there is a collective identity some seem to hate.

I guess I agree with some of that. But why not model our government after what we know works and results in the most happiness (social democracy)? — ToothyMaw

Most happiness with social democracy?

Actually, I think the best policies are those when the opposite side of the political aisle takes on the agenda of the other. Also this is the perfect way to go through with some smart policies: the majority of the supporters of a party are just happy that their party is in power and don't actually notice that the actual politicies are quite in line with what the opposition wanted. Take example of Republicans with George Dubya Bush with Medicare (or was it Medicaid) or the economic policies of the UK Labour party after Thatcher (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).

This is the way things become to be "a norm". I think the UK Conservative Party has understood this and this is why they got in the last elections a lot of previously labor-voters to vote for them (and smartly Johnson understood this and was humble about it). The GOP on the other hand... Well, it's in crazy Trump-land.

Quit playing identity politics. It is just as superstitious and divisive as when the right uses it, and for the same reasons. — NOS4A2

Wishful thinking from you, NOS.

Both sides just looove identity politics. Oh they won't let go of the issue they so dearly love. It's like Germans and Hitler (Germany allways has these Hitler-Welle things happening in their public debate). Remember, the objective is to keep the tribes separate, you know. Best thing is to have the voters be angry at each other, that they don't notice they have much common in their resentment about those who rule them. What better way to refer to the color of skin or whatever difference they come up with, you privileged white cis-gender male living in Canada (or something like that).

Ok, I got it.

I would argue that this is how modern political parties who depend on the outrage factor to get people to vote for them operate. Now I don't want to be trite, but this is the way political parties do it: getting your supporters to be angry about the other political side is crucial, especially when you don't have much actually to give your voters. And yes, you can say it is a great way to distract public discourse from bigger issues. It's basically populism 1.0.

Remember Colin Caepernick?

He actually started his protest by sitting on the bench and it took two weeks for the media to notice this. Then a veteran Green Beret advised him to take a knee as obviously just sitting on a bench can be interpreted as rude ignorance or indifference, not as if you would be protesting something. But then Trump picked the issue in a very Trumpian way with demanding that the players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired and encouraged fans to walk out. And media limelight was focused on the issue creating a media frenzy. And Trump got what he wanted.

Perhaps political experts have a name for this, but basically it's about capturing the public discourse and to get your voters closer to you using values. It's designed so that the other side simply has to take the other side of the argument, like with freedom of speech in this case. George Bush senior did a similar operation with demanding that burning the US flag would be a criminal act.

And lastly, it's easy talk. It really doesn't have much to do with the budget or with government instititutions, it's this kind of talk that keeps people interested. It's the kind of meaningless value-talk that doesn't really change how the government and the political machine works. The military going all neo-marxist or woke will capture some interest as it is such a bizarre accusation. Or something similar.

I think that that is wrong. People don't need to be wrapped up in critical race studies debates, for instance, to be incentivized to vote in their own self-interest. — ToothyMaw

Do notice that many Americans don't know how terribly expensive their health care system is (compared to any other system in the World) and assume that everything the government does, will end it up in an even more fucked up system. So better to have the present system, at least.

Socialism is a swearword, as you know. Single payer system is socialism, as the American view goes. So it has to be bad. Just like neo-marxism.

So he is now caught in a situation where he doesn’t want to launch the invasion but also doesn’t want to be seen to back down. — Wayfarer

It wouldn't actually be so hard. A victorious speech in front of Russian soldiers and an Iskander-missile launch vehicle behind him and he can declare that NATO has backed down. Because, let's think about this, would Biden or especially the Germans have the stomach to focus on Ukraine when trainloads of soldiers and equipment is withdrawn from the border? Nope. They would sigh relief, pat themselves on the back of job well done and forget more quickly the issue than we would forget this thread.

Besides, let's remember that the first troop surge of forces happened early last year. A lot of the equipment has been parked on the border for a year. Now it's just an issue of organization, that you permanently rotate troops to the Ukrainian border and train them there. It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger.

The ~13,000-odd casualties of the already-existing Ukraine conflict ought not to be forgotten. My understanding is that this conflict is wholly and solely a consequence of Russia’s territorial incursions - would I be wrong in thinking that? — Wayfarer

Oh but they are forgotten. Or it's a statistic that doesn't bother people. Putin can use the deep and longstanding skepticism in the West about the Western (US) intentions and objectives. Hence as you said, the idea that Putin and Russia is the victim and NATO basically the aggressor here can be easily accepted. Let's say even I understood a lot more Russia's argumentation when the Kosovo War happened, when actually the US-Russian relationship first soured. But annexing Crimea, that is quite different.

That's on the to do -list at number 22 if Putin would annex Ukraine.

Is he just doing it to keep the West on its toes, as some say? But this is too dangerous and too costly an adventure for such a modest payout. And what would be his end-game? After all these hysterics and military escalation he can't just back down or settle on a reasonable compromise. He is spoiling for a fight. This is the scariest aspect of the whole thing. — SophistiCat

The idea that Putin put over 100 000 Russian soldiers on the border of Ukraine just to get attention and have a conversation with Biden doesn't make any sense. But who knows what Presidents-for-life think.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian government accused last November that Russia was plotting a coup attempt in Ukraine. And now also stockpiles of ammunition and field hospitals, the logistical tail needed for a major offensive, are deployed to the border. It's really an enormous effort just to get the attention of the US. It does also look like Putin has gone through many options.

If he guesses that the US, post pandemic, has zero will to fight a war, he's right. So this is his opportunity. — frank

The US is not going to fight, that is totally clear. After all, the war is already been fought (which many here seem to forget).

The US will only make sanctions that won't hurt itself and send weapons to Ukraine. The dying will be done by Russians and Ukrainians, if it comes to that.

Should we better then avoid talking about "materialism" --since it can easily produce confusion and misunderstandings in a discussion-- and use the term "physicalism" instead? — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

If that is the issue we want to discuss.

No really, what on Earth are you trying to say?

People aren't getting your point. So that I'm so stupid.

I'd say sometimes there are these excesses of cancel culture or political correctness or whatever.

One hardly should think these show a real genuine culture change has happened in such large hierarchial organizations as the armed forces. Or in how university and academics work. Yes, those well reported excesses do show aspects of the present public discourse and views held especially in the media.

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, and I don't understand why I'm being misrepresented.

Same goes for you, ↪ssu — ToothyMaw

I'm not accusing you of anything.

So what was your real question?

Hey, It's OK.

You didn't get banned, so be happy! :grin:

What is going on in the military that you find wrong? What is the evidence for this? Why do you think this attempt in the military will fail? — Philosophim

It's basically a very old political spin both parties actually use:

In the GOP view the basic issue is that: "Look what the Democrats are doing to the US armed forces!!! OMG!""

The democrat versions is to cry out: "Look at how right-wing the US armed forces are! OMG!"

And this happens, or has happened when:

- When blacks started to serve in all military units.
- Women were allowed to combat positions in the military.
- The military changed it's stance on sexual minorities. (Don't ask, don't tell)
- some in the military have been openly for Trump. (Then naturally it was the democrats who cried foul).

You might get the drift. Any political hot potato that the military has to reflect on and there is this rhetoric that commentators can go to.

(US Navy Seals being political in Kentucky in 2017. They were punished for showing political credentials. But I guess these aren't the neo-marxists that Gorka talks about.)


Basically it's a way to suck in the military to the cultural war discourse and to try to show that the other political party is politicizing the military and in the way making it less capable. That's where it basically comes to.

Please do note that this is a Philosophy Forum, so people do take marxism actually seriously, not just as a colorful swearword and totally replaceable with maoism, trotskyism, cultural-marxism or whatever. It absolutely doesn't matter what -ism it is in this type of talk, just that it hears like being bad. But it does on a Philosophy Forum. And also:

- You should be aware when people accuse the US military of marxism.

- You should be aware that Sebastian Gorka is one of looniest Trump advisors, a deputy-assistant to Trump, that there ever were. He served the Trump White House for six months (only because Stephen Bannon wanted him there). He is basically a Hungarian born television commentator who has had from the start of his career problems to get security clearance. This guy lives only in Trump world and is no kind of expert (other than that). But he pops up in the right-wing media to comment issues.

After taking that into consideration, that this is the crazy type Trump polemic that you can find there, the by all means listen what they say. Just remember the above.

But as all sides knew even before this brouhaha started, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon, if ever. — SophistiCat

Exactly. Ukrainian NATO membership was like the potential EU membership of Turkey. And if it wasn't for the invasion into Ukraine, the situation would be totally different. Yet Putin making demands NATO simply couldn't meet is what makes it so sinister. In fact, Russia's demands go against Article 10 of NATO, that goes by the following:

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Some even seriously thought in the 1990's (before the Kosovo war) about Russia joining NATO, which basically would make it an organization which would be for Article 1, not Article 5.

However smart Putin has otherwise been, the temptation to annex Crimea when Ukraine down on it's knees during the Maidan revolution was too great. This had enormous effects. You see, Georgia (and the Russo-Georgian war of 2008) would have been de facto tolerated. Just remember all the attempts to "reset" the relations. And if Russia uses force in Central Asia and sends troops to Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, it's a non-issue. Just like the US sending troops into Haiti. Good if people even notice it. Ukraine was different.

A country that is continually being bled by its hybrid war with Russia, including a low-intensity armed conflict on a large part of its territory, has no chance of being admitted to NATO or to EU. — SophistiCat

And for that reason both Sweden and Finland cannot write off the possibility, however small, that Russia could stoke a problem in either in the Swedish island of Gotland or the in the Finnish Åland Islands.

My real worry is if Putin sees the situation with Ukraine as "closing window of opportunity": that Ukraine is still beatable, but the further time will go Ukraine will strengthen militarily that would put military victory into serious doubt. Who knows what he is thinking. But then on the other hand, Russia attacking Ukraine doesn't make any sense logically.

Those troops might be positioned close to the border for a long time.

The relevant difference is between a naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated, unstructured listening to music and with it, a naive liking; and on the other hand, a systematic, educated, structured listening, which, arguably, provides a more meaningful and profound music experience. — baker

What's wrong with "naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated" listening to music? How many know how to play an electronic guitar? How many know the history of pop-music or rock? How are those people who don't know all that about pop or rock music so different in their liking of the music from those who do?

Sorry, but it's really not a relevant difference. Yeah, if you know how to play the guitar, you might really appreciate more some virtuoso, yet is that really relevant?

I think more relevant is the hostility we take towards some music that isn't "for us". Hostility to classical music is actually quite similar to the hostility towards country music or the music "ordinary people" listen to. The music that the peasant, the redneck, the yokel, listens to in their shabby bars and gatherings. Why is that music so bad? Take away the social or class construct around it, a lot of music is quite interesting to listen to.

Is your life any better now? — baker

Mmh...long time I heard that. :up:

Yeah I wonder if Lockheed Martin built the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. — Wayfarer

It was actually shown to be a Russian BUK-M1 missile. They used an equivalent missile given by the Finnish armed forces (as Finland had the same system) and found that the blast marks and the shrapnel were similar. And even found parts of the missile matching the Russian missile. The missile is produced by Almaz-Antey in Russia. The Dutch did they work well.


(And accidents happen in wars...)

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine. — baker

Actually, Russia can do whatever it wants with it's tanks inside it's own borders. But usually camping over 100 000 men on the border of another country is extremely rare and extremely suspicious. Just like if your neighbor would come and stand on his side next to your backyard armed with a shotgun staring at you and your house. Not typical behavior, but the neighbor can argue that he has the right to do that...

As if Ukraine would constitute a threat for Russia.

Russia's covert online ops teams are also active in propogating false narratives about Western democracies through social media, and amplifying memes like the likely imminent collapse of American democracy and 'America the real aggressor' and so on, which people echo.

Here's a (rather reassuring) analysis in today's NYT by journo with long experience in covering Putin. — Wayfarer

In 2014 the information campaign succeeded and went through well. To tell the truth, if Putin hadn't admitted that "the little green men" were Russian paratroops, but had insisted that they were "Crimean citizen volunteers who had taken up arms" as was the first Russian reply, some idiots would still insist on them not being Russian soldiers. I think this time people are more ready for this. But still, a lot of people will be fooled by total fabrications and outright lies.

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it. — baker

Well, what do you call then all those times that the US has wanted to "reset" the relations? Or how the US helped Boris Jeltsin when he asked for help (for instance in the elections). Just like with China, the US has had a lot of hopes for Russia, hope it would democratize and become more like the West, hopes that had then turned out to be a wishful thinking. And only then things turn sour.



There is consistency in the Russia view, but just compare the diffefence how Russia handled Central Asia (and the US involvement there). Compared to the brute bullying and open hostility against Ukraine and Georgia Russia had a different stance in Central Asia. It even had military bases in the same country with the US (in Tajikistan). Russia kept silent when the US built bases all around in Central Asia. It simply swept back and had it's "sphere of influence" when the US withdrew and now can say simply "No" to any US requests now. As I mentioned before, well before 2014 Putin was very popular in Ukraine. Not anymore. Russia could have prevented NATO far more successfully by simply NOT DOING ANYTHING AGGRESSIVE. The Western powers would have continued to weaken their militaries and NATO would have been focused on the War-on-Terror and other outside operations.

Of course then it wouldn't have Crimea. Which looks like to be what Putin is around for: to make Russia great again. Physically greater.

I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone — I like sushi

So are you saying that demanding that independent countries have no right to make decisions on their own security policy is diplomatic?

One can say those things without ranting as Putin does. But they are threats.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West. — I like sushi

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'?

Is Canada a 'buffer state' of the US?

After the war of 1812, when the British kicked the asses of the young upstart US, the US hasn't had claims for Canadian territory or had ideas that Canada ought to be part of the US. If the US still had such aspirations, I can guarantee US-Canadian relations wouldn't be so warm and friendly. With Ukraine, the present Russian leadership has quite different and in fact hostile ideas, starting from the idea of them being the same people. (Putin won't have Russia to join Ukraine, you know...)

And seems one has to remind that a de facto state of war already exists between Ukraine and Russia. So it's ludicrous to assume that Russia wouldn't be here the aggressor, but it somehow is the US and NATO. The sad fact is that prior to all this, prior to the annexation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine.

He isn't anymore.