If it is true that Putin was assured that NATO membership was out of the negotiating table for them, then he had to act somehow, it seems to me. — Manuel

Interesting fact:

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

And that's actually how close it was. Or how far it was, as you would have needed larger than life politicians to sell that membership both to Russians and Americans. But you see, Americans thought they won the Cold War and didn't need Russia. And Russia can go always back into remembering Napoleon and Hitler.

I'm really not making it up when I say people were truly thinking of Russian partnership in NATO. Russia was in the partnership-for-peace program. It was the time of "new threats" for NATO when people laughed about thinking of article 5. Now Putin has molded NATO back to it's original form. If pre-2008 NATO didn't care anything about issues like defending the Baltic states from a hypothetical attack from Russia, now they sure do and also train for it.

Any and all forms of political activity are exercises in evil, and nothing else. — Garrett Travers

?

So they may ask for help. Who is willing to help them help beyond giving them weapons, as in offering troops, is not too clear. Maybe neighboring countries. — Manuel

The neighboring countries and US and UK are giving them weapons. Lots of talk about Anti-tank guided missiles and manportable surface-to-air missiles (of which earlier the US vacuumed Ukraine out of because it feared the effective weapon systems might fall into hands of terrorists). Poland and the Baltic States have given them weapons also. But NOBODY, absolutely nobody is going to send troops. At least officially. That would mean WW3.

The only like troops, if it comes to that, would be mercenaries. Mercenaries, the Russian Wagner Group and it's US counterparts might be used. Just like in Syria, where the US had a firefight with Russian mercenaries and killed many of them (and Putin didn't raise even a finger). And then the intelligence services are likely there, but they are far and few.

The last time US and Soviet fought each other was during the Korean War above North Korea. Then Stalin rotated Soviet fighter regiments as "North Koreans" to fight the US air force and some Soviet pilots even became aces. Both sides stayed silent about it because they didn't want to escalate the war.

Hopefully it's mostly a political scare, than anything beyond that. — Manuel

It's a political scare everywhere else than in Ukraine, where it is the widening of the war that has already gone on for years.

Russia have been extremely mild, like, Roman Abrhamovic, the owner of Chelsea, is completely fine. — Manuel

He isn't in Putin's inner circle. He was in Yeltsin's. And I guess recommending Yeltsin that Vladimir Putin would be his successor doesn't make you damned by the West.

Couldn't Russia just join NATO? :D — jorndoe

I remember very vividly in a presentation when a German military attache to Finland said right to my face in the mid 1990's that this was a possible option. Other Finns in the room smiled.

That was the reality in back then...when that NATO enlargement was going on.

First page. It doesn't shed much light on exactly what is happening now but it's worth looking at. — jamalrob

If one thinks that every bad event that happens in the World because of US policy, to think that this is happening ONLY because of NATO enlargement will seem reasonable. Yet then you shut your eyes on other facts (as some do here).

Starting from the obvious: Do notice what actually Putin is saying, repeatedly and constantly. For years now, but quite clearly repeating especially now. As you said yourself, it's odd. I agree.

That Ukraine is an artificial country. Of the ties Ukraine has to Russia. How all of the borders were only decisions (basically wrong ones) made by Lenin and Khrushchev. And do note the annexations. Not just military strikes, not just taking possible out the leadership and hopefully having a more friendly one put there, but actual territorial annexations, territory made Russian.

Ask yourself: If this would be just about the threat they perceive from NATO and NATO enlargement, would Putin be talking what he is talking and making territorial claims and annexations?

You see, if the US went all ballistic (even close literally going ballistic) when Russia positioned nuclear weapons to Cuba and was very close to invading Cuba, do note the difference. What do you make of it if JFK then would have said that Cuba was "artificial country" and had these ideas how Cuba and the US belong together? Last time US policy was similar to Putin's was in the 19th Century towards his northern and southern neighbors. And even if the first Cuban president was an US citizen, Cuba wasn't made part of the US, but an independent country where the US obviously had a say. Yet Crimea is a part of Russia, and that difference should be noted.

There actually is a lot of hopeful thinking in that Putin's actions are just a response to NATO enlargement. It is, of course, one reason, clearly stated as the number 1. threat in the Russian Military doctrine, but one should look at what Putin is actually doing. And this is why it's actually Putin that is creating a self-enforcing vicious circle, which just increases the fear of what his actual objectives are and where he will stop.

I don't think people realize just how incompetent Trump and the Republicans are on the world stage. — Christoffer

It's obvious that the whole party is a mess.

Do note that on the other hand, especially when not facing or speaking directly to the Trump supporting voters, large part of the Republicans behave totally normally and understand what has happened. Some interpret this as there being two factions, but remember how totally schizophrenic the Trump administration was itself. Yes, Trump praised Putin all the time and believed Putin instead of his intelligence services. However the administration was not at all so friendly to Putin's agenda. Especially the former generals, apart from the one that was the national security advisor for only a few days, were examples of the consistent long-term US foreign & security policy thinking. The Trump crazies were more or less limited to the media show and the spin cycle of Trump, where Trump basically personally operates (when he isn't watching at Fox News).

Even as Trump portrays himself as better-equipped to counter Putin, the majority of congressional Republicans are backing Biden’s vow to impose crushing sanctions on Russia after its troops entered eastern Ukraine on Tuesday. Some have even praised Biden’s moves, like the deployment of additional U.S. troops to Eastern Europe to boost NATO’s defenses.

But a vocal GOP minority on and off Capitol Hill — represented by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance, among others — has taken a third path, actively arguing against any U.S. involvement in the region while still dinging Biden. They argue that expanding the U.S. commitment to NATO is a mistake, and that the president should instead focus on countering China and securing America’s southern border.

That discordant chorus is making it harder for Republicans to craft a unified message on Russia the way it did during last year’s chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan or during Putin’s invasion of Crimea when Barack Obama was president in 2014.

Conservatives in the third, self-described “America First” camp contend that the GOP base is on their side, even as congressional Republicans are for the most part in line behind Ukraine and NATO.

It's like the public comments to the loonie crowd are one thing and then there is the actual policies implemented behind closed doors is something different. And yes, this is actually very worrying as it doesn't work well at all.

First Trump administration went somehow, if you have a SECOND Trump administration, oh boy...

So what are their alternatives? — frank

a) Costly buying from the SPOT-market, b) extend the use of nuclear energy as they have still three nuclear power plants working which are planned to be shut off this year and even switch on again some power plants that have been shut down, but still can be brought back to operation (which would be suicide for the Greens in the government), c) go humbly to your neighbors like Poland or France and ask to buy electricity at a high price, d) Make deals either with Norway or the US or others to buy LNG from them and have a crash program to build a LNG port in Germany or e) all of the above or some of the options mentioned above. Then there is of course option f) Act surprised when you have power outages and blame them on something, the weather, climate change, Putin's cyberwarfare or whatever you can invent that would seem acceptable to the ignorant voters.

Likely we won't see rolling blackouts in Germany, but who knows. It's basically a self inflicted wound as Germany opted to shut down all nuclear energy because of the Fukushima hysteria.

I think the Germans didn't see any problem earlier as the trade in energy went all fine with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But history doesn't repeat itself and Putin has been active in using all tools he has in his "hybrid warfare".

Some developments:

Germany put a halt to the Nordstream 2.

Germany on Tuesday halted the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project, designed to double the flow of Russian gas direct to Germany, after Russia formally recognized two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.

Europe's most divisive energy project, worth $11 billion, was finished in September, but has stood idle pending certification by Germany and the European Union.

Similarly here the government is going to make a new risk analysis of a nuclear reactor a Russian company was just starting to build here. The obvious issue is that Putin's Russia is a totally unreliable provider of energy. Germany really has to look what to do with it's energy policy.

Other developments....

(Global News) Russian President Vladimir Putin asked the country’s parliament on Tuesday for a permission to use military force outside the country.

Putin’s letter to the upper house of parliament would formalize a Russian military deployment to rebel regions in eastern Ukraine, a day after the Russian leader recognized their independence.

It may also herald Putin’s intention to launch a broader attack on Ukraine. Western leaders earlier said Russian troops had moved into the country’s east – and the U.S. called it an “invasion.”

Lawmakers are expected to quickly rubber-stamp Putin’s request during a session Tuesday. Putin signed friendship treaties earlier in the day with the two rebel regions that envisage the deployment of the Russian military there.

If I was getting responses this stupid (especially see above), I would just give up. — Baden

Well, giving the benefit of the doubt to someone that has different views from yours is important in a forum like this, but up to a point. Ad hominems are just a sign of there's not much the other side has to argue.

Delusional nonsense and lies, as you haven't been long in this forum. I remember well those who defended on the previous site the invasion of Iraq and deemed me anti-american.

That you aren't against the annexations that Russia has done is enough for everyone to understand your position in this thread.

Enough of your trolling.

Thanks for the reference.

I think it would good to say one totally obvious thing:

If one is against imperialism, it is logical to be against all imperialism no matter who or which side has these imperial aspirations.

It is obvious that we have many examples of imperialism and actions totally similar to imperialism done by the West too, yet this surely isn't a reason why then to dismiss imperialism of others. Or at worst, to defend those who are in opposition to the West in their own acts of imperialism and become a spokesperson for one side. One then is just a hypocrite for whom the values themselves don't need anything. After all, this is a philosophy forum, so values and ideas ought to matter.

(And those who are actually against imperialism will be both accused of being anti-American and being pro-American by those that think they have to choose a side in these matters.)

Putin and Trump both backed Brexit. — Amity

Do note that Putin also actively encouraged Scottish independence. When you think of it, the Scottish Independence Party and UKIP/Brexit crowd are quite in opposite camps. But that doesn't matter. For Russia, there is no other logic than to a) break up Atlanticism and NATO, b) break up the EU and c) break up Western countries, if possible. I think the only case where Putin wasn't active (or didn't care) was with the possible secession of Catalonia from Spain. Spain I guess isn't so important for Russia.

Let's say that the United Kingdom understood when it had lost the empire. The French did also, but after far many wars. Putin's Russia, or basically Putin himself and his cabal, have not understood that they truly lost the empire. The Soviet empire collapsed in such an instant, Putin likely doesn't believe that it was something permanent. He genuinely believes that he can push Ukrainians to be part of Russia and they will accept their "historical" place.

Perhaps only now we have to see the wars that typically result in the collapse of an Empire. That's really a tragedy, when the Soviet Union did collapse rather peacefully 30 years ago.

Well called in advance from you.

The next thing I assume, at least at some timetable, is that these "independent countries" will hold referendums or simply decide otherwise to join the Russian Federation. Something quite similar how the Baltic states "voluntarily joined" the Soviet Union.

What is also notable is that Russia is also strengthening it's grip on Belarus. Next Sunday Belarus will have a referendum basically for Lukashenko to continue as president (for life) and for the parliament to have less power, but the changes will also mean that Belarus as a nuclear-weapons free zone and the (now theoretical) neutrality of the country are going to be done away with. (See Belarus seeks to amend its constitution to host Russian nuclear weapons) It's telling that it was Russia that openly lobbied for the changes in the Belarussian constitution. After the huge protests against his rule, Lukashenko is too weak to be as independent as he was in 2014.

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense.

I think that the Canadian government is noticing that Canadians are not what they are stereotypically portrayed to be.

But anyway, any Western government going with mandatory vaccinations is just asking for it and deserves the consequences it gets. Few if any are like the Austrians. It's just stupidity.

It's pretty self-explanatory just to read what Vladimir the Great said in his television address:

Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood. - From the very first steps they began to build their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us. They tried to distort the consciousness, the historical memory of millions of people, entire generations living in Ukraine.

In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike. If our ancestors had heard about it, they probably would simply not have believed it. And today we don't want to believe it, but it's true.

They are trying to blackmail us again. They are threatening us again with sanctions, which, by the way, I think they will introduce anyway as Russia's sovereignty strengthens and the power of our armed forces grows. And a pretext for another sanctions attack will always be found or fabricated. Regardless of the situation in Ukraine. There is only one goal - to restrain the development of Russia. And they will do it, as they did before. Even without any formal pretext at all. Just because we exist, and we will never compromise our sovereignty, national interests and our values. I want to say clearly and directly that in the current situation, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country is increasing significantly, Russia has every right to take retaliatory measures to ensure its own security. That is exactly what we will do.

That is a speech from a man going to war.

Or in stalinist speech, a man that has just started "a peacekeeping operation in the countries he has recognized as being sovereign."

(Btw, remember that before Crimea joined Russia, it also "declared independence" in March 11th, 2014)

I think people want to avoid discussion about where this line-in-the-sand is simply because they don't want to be ideologically tied to it if they sense a change in the wind of popular zeitgeist. — Isaac

Lines in the sand don't work as every event or incident is in the end unique, if it's not the typical marital fight that ends up in the police coming because of the noise complaints. I guess here the underlying assumption is that we are talking about political discourse and political influencing.

But do notice the emotional response on the topic from some about polarization and the hostility towards the idea of working through the normal routes of political participation, which does actually include the importance of demonstrations. For some, outer-parliamentary actions are the only hope. Now in Burma or similar places this actually is the case (as there is no actual democratic process), but it isn't reality for us. Not yet.

And yes, I realize that people like you wait for the concentration camps to be in full swing before deciding that maybe the good 'ol stern chat may not be quite enough. — StreetlightX

You just keep those red see-nazi glasses on and everybody will seem as a supporter of Hitler to you.

In any case, Crimea doesn’t belong to Ukraine, — Apollodorus

FINALLY!

The Truth from you (likely as a slip, but still). Sovereignty of nations and the multitude of international agreements in that Russia accepted the territorial integrity of Ukraine don't matter. After all, Ukraine is the historical birthplace of Russia, so it's totally natural for Ukraine to be a part of Russia...as Putin has hinted many times (the same way the artificiality of an independent Ukraine has been mentioned by the Kremlin).

You know what Swedes and other Scandinavians say about Finns, don’t you? — Apollodorus

Oh so empty with nothing else to say that go for ad hominems or national stereotypes? Lol.

And no, NATO won't do anything and no-one will even be talking about it in six months. — Baden

They haven't stopped talking about Crimea, so this won't be forgotten.

The last conflict that could have been forgotten was the Russo-Georgian war, as the US tried to "reset" the relations. But Georgia is on the other side of the Caucasus Mountains, so technically not in Europe.

Right from the Stalinist playbook.

After recognizing the Independence of Luhansk and Donetsk, next phase I assume is that they volunteer to join the Great Motherland of the Russian Federation. And hence the Minsk agreements are dead.

The EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel said: “The recognition of the two separatist territories in Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the Minsk agreements.

Nobody wants any of this to happen. — Wayfarer

Except Putin. He surely wants this to happen. Do note the choreographed theater how Putin plays this.

This isn't anymore some rough-handed way to get NATO to "back down", to get them seriously to talk, but an obvious march to war.

Those still persisting that it's the US behind the war scare that doesn't exist should just read what Russian news media is writing. How Ukraine is constantly harassing and making provocations towards Russia. (They do have sites in English also, you know.)

Perhaps one should look at this another way. Putin started a concentrated effort to reorganize and modernize the Russian armed forces after a quite chaotic war with Georgia, which was successful, but could have ended in a disaster. Then he gained strategic surprise with the occupation and annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbass. Then he has had the ability to train his commanders and air force in Syria. And now perhaps, he feels confident in his forces. And he does seem firmly believe what he says:

Putin calls eastern Ukraine ancient Russian lands. He says situation in eastern Ukraine is critical again.

“Ukraine authorities have been contaminated by virus of nationalism and corruption," he said during a televised address. The President accuses Ukraine of stealing Russian gas in the past, of using energy to blackmail Russia.

"Ukraine leaders wanted all good things from Russia without obligations." He accused the western intelligence services of helping Ukraine commit crimes.

As to the larger point of the OP: it's as if, trapped in a burning building, walls crushing down on people, pundits cry out: Why is everyone so PoLaRiZed? These people may as well side with the walls and fire. — StreetlightX

But you aren't trapped in a burning building with the walls crushing down on you. Australia isn't on the verge of collapse. You're just spending your time debating issues with strangers that likely are on another continent.

There's a time and a moment when civil discourse cannot do anything. But the usual option then is for people to go the guns. And remember who have the guns.

It's a MAD, MAD world! :up: — Agent Smith

And I'm sure that Leibniz wouldn't have liked that disappointing answer.

No powerful state would want a hostile military alliance, much less NATO, at the border. — Manuel

Usually it has been Putin who has pushed NATO back to it's Cold War stance. There was genuine talk of Russia becoming a member of NATO, we shouldn't forget. In the 1990's there really was "a window of opportunity". But that collapsed due to the Kosovo war NATO fought.

Relations between the NATO military alliance and the Russian Federation were established in 1991 within the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and since that time, NATO and Russia have signed several important agreements on cooperation.

Back then, Russia didn't seem as important as it seemed not to pose any threat.

It was part of the quite disastrous disintegration of the USSR - which could have proceeded in a much better direction, with less suffering involved for all, as we are now seeing. — Manuel

Not as disastrous as the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In fact, what we should be grateful for the last leaders of Soviet Union is that the it didn't end in a Second Civil War. Now we can see just how precarious the situation in the 1990's was. What was then lacking was the Slobodan Milosevic of Russia, that would have started to "protect Russians everywhere in the Soviet sphere". On the contrary, we had Boris Yeltsin, a leader of Russia who the August Coup wasn't able to detain, but defied them. The peculiar case happened then when the Russian federation, the largest member with the majority ethnicity of the union was against the Soviet Union. There simply was nobody to support the failed enterprise. Until now, when we have leadership in the Kremlin who will ethnic Russians everywhere.

It's funny that Crimea is mentioned so frequently - and fine to mention it, fair - but Guantanamo is not. Yet Guantanamo has nothing to do with the US - there are no Americans living there, minus the base. But people don't like to hear this. — Manuel

Actually the case of Cuba just shows how brittle the whole "sphere of influence" idea is. If you are overtly hostile towards a country, which the US has been towards Cuba, in the end you only have the option to invade. When sanctions, coup attempts, using proxies, assassination attempts aren't options anymore. Yes, you have that base GITMO where there is no business for the Americans to stray out of their base perimeter. With South American countries the US has to be even more careful as there simply isn't the option to militarily occupy them. Sometimes the pressure works, but sometimes it doesn't. And Russia has used all the alternative in the playbook to pressure Ukraine, which has lead Ukraine just to defend it's corner.

When the "sphere of influence" works is when the relationship is mutually beneficial and there is not hostility or aggression, just like the US enjoys with Canada (as the US hasn't any territorial claims at Canada and lost the last war when it was part of Great Britain). This is what @Apollodorus is utterly incapable to understand: the US didn't create it's sphere of influence by "divide and rule", but through integration, that the other countries saw beneficial also. Hence West European countries have accepted NATO as their own defense solution. That the US is bitching that the Europeans aren't paying up their share just show this relationship is different. There's a huge difference to the Warsaw Pact. After all, the only time the Warsaw Pact saw action was to crush the Prague Spring in 1968.

Which tells a lot about the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet system.

Why should the US intervene? — Manuel

As Frank said, the US is not going to intervene. They just promise to impose more sanctions. Biden has said he won't even use the US military to evacuate Americans from Ukraine (as he did from Afghanistan). Likely will send military support to Ukraine and deploy more forces to NATO countries, as they have done already.

And of course, Putin doesn't care about sanctions:

(RT)No new sanctions can possibly deter Russia from doing what it wants, because Moscow has experience dealing with them for many years already, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko, on Friday, the Russian leader claimed Moscow cannot possibly avoid Western sanctions, because they are not aimed at altering the Kremlin's behavior. In his view, they are actually a plan to hinder the economic development of Russia.

“Sanctions will be imposed in any case. Whether they have a reason today, for example, in connection with the events in Ukraine, or there is no reason, it will be found,” Putin said. “The goal is different. In this case, the goal is to slow down the development of Russia and Belarus.”

The problem is that Putin is sticking to his argument, which NATO cannot do. You cannot erase quarter of a century of the alliance. However, Putin will try:

Putin "once again stressed the necessity for the United States and NATO to take Russia’s demands on ensuring security guarantees seriously and to respond to them in a concrete and substantive manner," the Kremlin said after their phone call.

Russia referred its proposals on security guarantees to the United States and NATO in December 2021. The proposed measures include guarantees that NATO will not advance eastward, including the accession of Ukraine and other countries into the alliance, as well as non-deployment of serious offensive weapons, including nuclear ones. Russia also demands the NATO military infrastructure be retreated to the 1997 borders.

Retreating to "1997 infrastructure" would mean that NATO wouldn't defend ANY of it's Eastern members starting with Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic and 11 other member countries.

Well, since we're calling Chinese communist because they said so, shouldn't we also acknowledge that China is a democracy? — Judaka

:smile:

Well, I've noticed that the Marxists here aren't so excited about the current "Chinese Marxism" that the Chinese promote either.

It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century. — Judaka

If there is a revolution or civil war. Or Putin's regime collapses. After 2014 he and Russia has gone down a rabbit hole. It's a long, long way now to dissolve the distrust towards Russia.

The present militarism is really unheard of anywhere else and what is obvious is the lack of understanding how crucial trade with other countries is for the prosperity of one country. Italy and Canada have larger economies and they aren't putting money into exotic nuclear weapons and other military spending. Seems Putin is obsessed with territory and "geopolitics" and doesn't see that good relations with neighbors would be important in order for him to get prosperity for his subjects.

Right. So you'd agree with me, on this topic, then, that the presentation of data from the CDC, FDA, journals, experts etc. should not be presented as if it were gospel truth, but rather as contributions to be critiqued like any other (within the bounds of our prior knowledge)? — Isaac

Nobody is a gospel of truth. And since a global pandemic hit us, it's totally understandable that there are errors, overreactions and misguided attempts as there also can be successful decisions. Good example of this is how totally different was the response in Sweden compared to other Nordic or European countries. A totally different response on the lockdown issue simply shows that these aren't things that are "right" or "incorrect". And the Swedes are totally happy with the path that their social democrat government put them. Even if the deaths were a little bit higher in Sweden, they weren't all that higher at all.

There's just this level of hostility towards different opinions, and also the ease in how the discourse can be manipulated. But that doesn't mean one cannot make sense about it.

Because it seems you've been arguing the opposite in the past, though I may have misinterpreted. — Isaac

That can indeed have happen, because I also don't find an obvious disagreement here.

That situation is more difficult. Look at what happened to Hong Kong, pretty sad. — Manuel

One country, two systems could go only so long... until the Chinese leader decided that he did't need the West anymore and Chinese version of Marxism would do just fine. In 1997 when the UK did hand back Hong Kong to China, the economic situation of China was different: they needed that Western investment and technology.

I think that authoritarian regimes, however benign and open they might seem to be have a fundamental flaw in that they cannot trust their people as they see any opposition as an enemy that poses an existential threat against them. Democracy is just a sneaky way to undermine their nation.

Here is the fundamental flaw to a functioning democracy: in a democracy the opposition is your sparring partner. You might find yourself in the opposition and then gain back the leadership and you accept that you can lose in elections. And leaders retire.

In China this is obvious, be it the students in Hong Kong or the protests earlier in Tiananmen Square in 1989, a religious movement like Falun Gong or in the Maoist era, just that Chinese people simply were respecting the former foreign minister Zhou Enlai too much in his funeral, that causes the regime to clamp down on the counterrevolutionaries.

This is why any opposition in Russia, no matter what the agenda is, is viewed as a personal threat by Vladimir Putin on his regime (and himself).

We need more polarization, more division, especially when it comes to power and control. And we should avoid it; we should engage in it. — NOS4A2

I don't. Civil discourse has no value in and of itself. You don't "civil discourse" your way out of fascism. There is a time and place for incivility, and it should be used when necessary. There are people who deserve to be shamed, hounded, and made permanently miserable by all, as a matter of civil good. — StreetlightX

Our upholders of democracy and freedom. :snicker:

Well, that's just great. :/ — jorndoe

And that is also reported by TASS, the Russian news agency. So it can't be just "NATO propaganda".

LUGANSK, February 19. /TASS/. Head of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic Leonid Pasechnik has ordered general mobilization.

"General mobilization shall be announced on the territory of the Lugansk People’s Republic," he said in a decree published online. "The People’s Council of the LPR, the LPR government shall be immediately notified about the announcement of mobilization".

The decree said the mobilization aims to create conditions for repelling an aggression against the LPR by Ukraine. It orders full battle readiness for the People’s Militia and other military units. The republic also prohibited men aged 18 through 55 from leaving the region.

Donetsk People’s Republic
Head of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic Denis Pushilin has ordered general mobilization.

"I’m urging fellow citizens who are in the reserve to report to military conscription offices," he said in a video address on Saturday. "I have signed a decree on general mobilization today.".

"We will protect Donbass and all Russian people," he said.

And furthermore, accusations that Russia has been shelled by Ukraine:

(Russia Today) Two explosions reported on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine were the result of incoming artillery shells, officials have claimed, amid an escalating military stand-off across the border in the Donbass.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the FSB security service in the southern Rostov Region said that local border guard officials had recorded “ammunition strikes” near two rural settlements.

“One of the shells exploded two kilometers from the Russian-Ukrainian border on the outskirts of the village of Mityakinskaya,” authorities said. “Another shell destroyed an outbuilding on the ground of a private home in the Manotsky farming community.” No injuries have been reported, and a criminal investigation is said to be underway.

While officials have not yet publicly declared who they believe to be responsible for the alleged incidents, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has insisted they had nothing to do with Kiev’s armed forces. “We resolutely refute all accusations of any alleged Ukrainian shells falling on Russian territory,” he wrote on Twitter. “Ukraine has never opened any such fire. We call for an immediate and impartial international investigation of the incidents reported by Russian media.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also cast doubt on the news.

Looks really like Putin wants to enlarge the war.

So crazy. Absolutely crazy.

A lot of the people "canceled" by cancel culture actually resigned due to public uproar. They weren't fired per se, so I don't think you're grappling with the main problem. It's public intolerance and the vulnerability of a university, newspaper, etc. to public anger. — frank

Resigning due to "public uproar" is one's own choice. Here one should really think what is genuine "public uproar". It's one thing that you are attacked in the social media, it's another thing is some person tracks you down and attacks you physically in the street!

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".