So, are you actually agreeing with me or trying to make a point? How does the many hours of work to get some information affect the acuity of the brain? — L'éléphant

Intelligence isn't something easy to measure and define like measuring muscle strength or how fast can someone move from point A to B.

Intelligence is perceiving or inferring information, learning and having the ability to deal with new situations. And when those situations change, it doesn't affect intelligence as the problems and the situations change. We simply have different problems and situations than hunter-gatherers had. Memorizing or learning by heart is an ability, but it isn't at all synonymous to intelligence. In fact, as a way of learning it has many negative aspects starting from people can memorize "by heart" something they have absolutely no idea what it's about (as even the saying learning by heart, not by brain, tells us). But of course put into extreme, some transferring accurately through time the vedas in Hinduism by the Vedic oral tradition can be successful.

So if we have things starting from having the written word (a massively useful tool that no animal has, even if they can communicate to each other) and then computers and so on, it really doesn't mean that our intelligence has become worse. We just can solve different problems far more quickly. That doesn't make our intelligence lazy.

I think I understand your point, but it isn't so straightforward than comparing physical stamina and physical strength to what we need to "survive" in our society and what a hunter-gatherer needed in his society. And even that is a far more complex issue than it might at first seem as then we understand the importance that physical exercise has for our health and well being.

I don't think you can reduce it all to the economy either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was only referring to poverty. Now crime is different and complex. Starting from having effective institutions like the justice system and a working and among the people an accepted police force. Huge income inequality and lack of social cohesion helps crime. I've always said to Finns that Finland would be like Mexico, if no criminals would be jailed and they could do whatever they want. Mexico is a perfect example when organized crime just can go rampant and integrates into the legal system and security forces. Basically if something happens to you in Mexico, stay away from the police.

Basically it just takes a few criminals and everybody loses the notion of safety. In Mexico over 90% of the homicides go unsolved. In Finland they make books and television series of the unsolved murder cases. Which there are in a hundred years like 10 or so. There has been a huge scandal here when a drug police chief had been too friendly with the local criminals.

But at the moment, the priorities are saving travel and tourism, levelling down, profiting from vaccine sales, and 'getting back to normal' — unenlightened

Perhaps there are reasons also for that.



The economic recession due to the pandemic was just papered over by the central banks, which made the statistics simply not make sense. And now thanks to that we have inflation. (Which I estimate will not be as transitory as they say).

While this is not the subject of the studies I mentioned on this thread, are you forgetting the masterpieces created in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries? Literature, fine arts, music? — L'éléphant

All those masterpieces are actually far more accessible to me now as they would have been then.

The most obvious case is when I look at my children's school books where there can be a question to use the internet to answer some question. Do you know how difficult it would have been to answer those question without using search engines conveniently at your fingertips with one's smartphone or the laptop they gave from school? It would many times taken hours first to go to a library, find then a book where the information might be.

The conspiracy isn't public housing, drugs, or guns. The "conspiracy" -- if you can call it that -- is 155 years worth of post-slavery economic, political, and social suppression of blacks. — Bitter Crank

Partly it's also about poverty being this vicious cycle: poverty creates poverty. If some region is poor, it likely will stay poor. Active entrepreneurial people will move to bigger places where there are jobs and it's the old and the poor with not much to offer that will stay. The smart investments will likely go somewhere else. For this to happen you don't need racial or ethnic differences or divides. You being from the poor neighborhood can be a stigma. That city dwellers look down on the country folk and the countryside dweller being suspicious about the city slickers is actually quite universal. When you add ethnicity and race to mix, the issues just become more ugly.

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what? — frank

Of course Putin would really want to see NATO going the way of SEATO or CENTO. If Russia can engage European countries on a bilateral basis, it will be strong. That's why Putin absolutely hates to face Western Europe in the form of EU. Or in security issue talk to NATO. Yet let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are not anymore.

But do note the difference between those treaty members: CENTO dissappeared in revolutions and later two former member states, Iraq and Iran, had a bloody war. In SEATO there was hardly much if anything unifying in the security worries of it's members: for Pakistan the central threat was India, for South Korea North Korea and for New Zealand nobody I guess. The members simply started jumping out of the treaty.

NATO here is different. European countries have gotten content with the organization and wanted to have it around even after Soviet Union collapsed. (Let's not forget that an unified Germany still got some to be worried about the militarily harmless economic giant.) So Putin has a lot to do.

What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures. — Apollodorus

And hence it's OK for Russia to annex parts from Georgia and Ukraine?

Or do you condemn that kind of action, just as invading Tibet? (Do notice that the Turkish part of Cyprus hasn't been annexed by Turkey, but is a republic only recognized only by Turkey).

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. — Apollodorus

Not either Russia's puppets, but that I gather you see Putin only "defending the interests of Russia". And Brussells? It might be a huge bureaucracy, but it isn't imperialist and de facto confederation however much they would want to be a federation.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. — Apollodorus

You talk easily of puppets. Or see just puppets and puppet masters everywhere.

The Normandy format can be a way to solve this crisis.

We'll see what it was.

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on.

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument. — Apollodorus

Lol.

I think an Independent Tibet would be great. There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. China is another of these countries who see as a victim of history and having the right to it's "old provinces".

we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government — Apollodorus

:roll:

-Wasn't that already the UN? :snicker:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Oh sure, @Apollodorus. But apparently they are not allowed to make organizations and collaborate with each other.

Back to the actual topic of the thread:

Macron held talks with Putin. I think France is also in charge of the EU presidency now. At least France and Russia agreed on something. Perhaps the way out of this threat of war is for the Normandy process to continue and the Minsk peace agreement to be ratified. If this is done, of course the West ought to support Ukraine that the agreement isn't used as a Trojan horse by Russia (which Ukraine fears). And Putin would show to his domestic public that he has showed it again to the West and the border camping-trip of perhaps 170 000 troops was needed.

(They couldn't find a longer table?)


Or then he could perhaps just annex parts of Donbass that he already has and nobody basically can do anything about it. At least the shelling might stop then.

Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez! — Apollodorus

You didn't understand.

The Suez crisis was the time when the US used real pressure on UK and France to stop their military operation. That's the time when the US used pressure. Not when they asked France to take leadership on an issue both countries agreed on. Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that sometimes countries can find policies they both find beneficial.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command. — Apollodorus

And others were not defeated Axis powers.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia. — Apollodorus

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians?

The hope is that the flare up in violence is actually a sign of gang's economic fundementals collapsing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that is way too optimistic to think so. In truth only a rise in the economic prosperity and a functioning local economy in the society will dramatically alter crime. Then only those who genuinely want to be criminals are criminals.

The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And reusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically.

I'm not saying it is all orchestrated. I'm saying the way choices are made is partly influenced by an interest in undermining the progress for blacks. Maybe it's a leftover from the late 1960s? — frank

I genuinely think that drugs are a way to control the masses in the US as vodka has been a way to control the Russians. Only two Russian leaders have tried to take the vodka-bottle out of the hands of the Russian people. Both events lead to the collapse of the state (the leaders were Nikolai II and Gorbachev). It's not a deliberate written policy you will find somewhere. It's just a thing that leaders are happy with, because it makes any organizing of a social movement difficult.

Without all the description drugs, and the "undescribed" drugs you too would have a revolution.

And don't get your hopes on it being a revolution that you would want to see, @Frank.

I've had some crappy jobs that paid poorly, and they were still better than standing outside all day asking for handouts. — Bitter Crank

I remember the story of a German guy who made a decent amount of money by begging. But how he did it was different: he was well dressed, drove his BMW to a parking lot and simply politely asked people for coins to pay the parking. Assuming he had no coins, suddenly many Germans gave him Deutshce Marks as the situation was easily relatable for them.

My own opinion is that I will continue my de facto boycott of The View that has been going strong ever since the show first aired. — Hanover

"And today we have as our guest an conservative internet commentator from the well revered Philosophy Forum, @Hanover.

There is a huge problem of circular causality/feedback loops in figuring this out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In truth I think something simply like a turf war of organized crime (or the lack of it being organized) or competition for the lucrative drug trade can be the real reason for the statistics.

Although gang membership is difficult to pinpoint, local authorities estimate that there are over 100,000 active gang members in the Chicago metropolitan area. Collectively, Chicago street gangs serve as the primary mid-level and retail-level distributors of drugs in the city and are responsible for a
significant portion of the city’s violent crime.
_ _ _

Disputes between rival gangs or individual members are a contributing factor in Chicago’s recent rise in violent crime, with the majority of incidents occurring on the South and West Sides of Chicago where gang presence is high. Local authorities in Chicago have attributed much of this rise to the fracturing of Chicago’s street gangs into multiple factions that lack hierarchical authority. This fracturing has been the result of decades of internecine warfare among and within gangs, as well as the removal of many key leaders through incarceration or death. Consequently, previously agreed upon gang rules or social mores have dissolved and internal discipline has eroded. As a result, much of the violence in Chicago has become less controlled by gang leaders and more disorganized.

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to. — Apollodorus

Oh right.

This is something that happened far earlier than Suez. You see, if you have the US forcing something on France and the UK, there you have the example. Not here.

How you interpret for example the Dean Acheson letter as "forcing France to do" is beyond me, or anyone that reads the letter.

Now you might refer to historical events, but we disagree in the interpretation. Where you have a total blindspot can be seen from many of your comments, just like the following, for example:

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic. — Apollodorus

You see, I gather you understand well the policy of "divide et impera", divide and rule. Yet you have really problems to understand the opposite, a policy to encourage integration and union, and how it actually works. It has been very successful for the US. Yet this strategy only works when there is a mutual desire to do it and when those to be encouraged to integrate don't view the other (here the US) as a threat. Divide and rule "works" when otherwise the people would form an alliance against you.

And why it is shameful and disgraceful not to aspire for World domination and be a team player I really don't know.

And I don't mean to be offensive. — baker

Actually, you made good points there.

I think that a person who is approaching art in a consumerist, easy fashion is not making the best use of their time and resources. It's a bit like insisting on eating cold pizza. — baker

So some people put ice cubes into the best single malt whisky's there are. That's reality.

Yet I think that the distiller and the shopkeeper are still happy that the person bought the expensive bottle.

But ....I get your point. Still, even if the consumerist doesn't or cannot appreciate the fine touches, at least he or she gets hopefully something out of it that is positive. And that counts.

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.

Of course what is totally lacking here is the strategic surprise (which they had in 2014). This might genuinely make Putin to weigh his options here. Or then, let's hope, that this genuinely is a huge bluff to get the US and NATO to sit down and talk (or as others put it, a Western media hype) and a huge camping out of the Russian military.

(A pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Kharkiv yesterday)

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so. — Apollodorus

You seem to be simply a bit illogical or confused here, even if I think you have the historical facts correct.

For example, let's take how you see French involvement:

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany. — Apollodorus

You don't realize how loonie what you say is.

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 in order to to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible", then somehow, somewhere, you concoct this idea that France WAS FORCED to take A LEADING ROLE in this project.

That's how it goes? Forcing France to take a leading role? How do you force a country to take a leading role? I've never heard about such micromanagement. What was the pressure? How was France forced to do that? Or is impossible for you to think that they might have themselves also seen this as something good?

You see, the vast majority of history books say and I agree that the US encouraged European integration for obvious reasons, as Europe had just gone through a devastating war. Encouraging a person or state to do something is a bit different than to force them to do it. But of course, you don't see it that way (I get it).

The basic problem is that you see all West Europeans as puppets of the US that behave just how Washington wants them to act! Starting from agent Churchill, who obviously is just a mouthpiece of the Americans that served loyally his masters in Washington.

As if Europeans would have been utterly unable to see themselves how devastating two World Wars had been to their continent and that France and Germany ought to do something else than prepare for the next war against each other. Oh no! For @Apollorodus, that was just a machination of the Americans! The French had to be forced into these kind of ideas.

And naturally, any other view than his is Pro-EU, Pro-NATO propaganda.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. — Apollodorus

And this shows clearly your bias. As if Europeans didn't have anything to do with this. Also leaving obviously out that the actual orders and commands, more than just not to join the West, were given in the countries that the Soviet Union occupied tells a lot too.

Again. That's neither here nor there because we don't support Russia. — Benkei

I am just putting things into scale here, when you talk about genocidal behavior. I think countries and their actions ought to be judged on a similar scale.

How you deal with independence movements, secessionist movements or with ethnic tensions do matter. How many civilians are killed does matter. Even your country has "overseas countries and territories", but we don't read about political turmoil or human right violations (or at least, I haven't noticed) in Sint Maarten or Curacao. Perhaps those countries that insist they are democracies and say that they uphold international laws ought to be looked even more critically.

Now as we tend to look at Israel being a democratic state, we can raise the bar for it. I can imagine what would have happened to the Jewish people if they would have lost let's say the Six Day War and they wouldn't have the Samson Option. Yet that was even then quite hypothetical and now days no Arab country, not even them together, do really pose an existential threat to Israel. It's really no excuse what and how let's say Syria would have dealt with Jewish people. (We shouldn't forget that the neighboring countries of Israel were not fighting in 1948 for Palestine, but trying to annex as much territory of the former British Mandate)

Unfortunately the welfare state is failing too. In my town people live in doorways and tents on the street. They beg politely. Crime is still not up horribly.

The problem with the welfare state is that the money doled out is clearly not enough to pay for food and rent, and absolutely not for clothing and entertainment. If they raised the welfare amounts to livable levels, there would be a revolt, because minimum wage jobs full time (40 hours a week) still don't pay for food, rent and clothing for an individual. — god must be atheist

Actually there ought to be a genuine debate (even here) about US "welfare state". Just like with the US health care system, I have really troubles of understanding for example just how California can spend so much on welfare and still have people living in tents. It all seems to have totally illogical and counterproductive objectives. It seems just like the health care system: hideously expensive, but fails on the overall population level. Some stories seem to point that it's basically some kind of racket. (But then there is a huge opposition towards welfare in the US)

I'm familiar with his policy of removing political opponents but I'm not aware of a policy of genocide. There's a qualitative difference between the two though. — Benkei

Hmm, let's think about this.

There's about two million Chechens of whom 1,2 live in Russia (and Chechnya) and then you have 4,75 million Palestinians in what is now the Palestinian state,over a million in Israel (proper?) and in all 13 million when you count the diaspora, so there is over six times more Palestinians.

In the first Chechen war the Russian Statistical office estimates 30 000 to 40 000 Chechen civilians died while Human rights groups estimate that 80 000 civilians is closer to the truth and about 10 000 Chechen fighter died or went missing. In the Second Chechen war, that was the war Putin instigated, Chechen military and civilian losses estimates range from 50 000 to 100 000.

Add them up and you have what, perhaps from hundred thousand to two hundred thousand killed from a far more smaller population of a few million.

Now perhaps you can correct me with the statistics, but I gather that far more Chechens have been killed than Palestinians since 1948 in the wars. And there are far, far more Palestinians than Chechens. During the war of 1948 about 10 000 Palestinian civilians died. First Intifada, perhaps 2000 Palestinians were killed, in Second Intifada, a bit over 10 000, in Gaza during 2008-2009 about 6 000 killed. The numbers don't come close even to the official Russian stats from the two wars, which extremely likely don't tell the truth. And even if they would come to the same range, then you are talking of one people being 2 million and the other 13 million.

So you just HOW you consider Israel's actions to be genocidal and while Russia's actions against Chechens isn't I really don't understand.

(Of course, such accurate statistics as below aren't available from the Chechen conflict)

The other side of that coin is that one can be fired without any justification -- unless one is working under an agreement, like a union contract. (You probably already know this.). — Bitter Crank

And you probably know that because the role of the unions is so small is the reason just why so often firing can happen without any justification or for the most unimportant issues.

It's not a political view to join an union, it's just common sense. Or should be.

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission. — Apollodorus

A good question.

I think the reason is that only the UK wasn't defeated, wasn't occupied, during WW2. The only two European countries that think they are Great Powers, that see themselves to be in a position that they should use the military as an extension of their foreign diplomacy are UK and France.

For (West) Germany it was a traumatic experience and they truly had to search their souls after Hitler and nazism (while East Germany denied it had anything to do with them and Austrians suddenly noticed that they weren't actually Germans). Just like Japan, it has been cautious of not looking militaristic. Italy suffered a humiliating defeat and the other smaller countries that participated in WW2 lost and were occupied (with only one avoiding occupation). And Spain had lost it's Empire a long time ago (and had even a civil war after that). For Soviet Union and Russia it of course was different.

Yet it truly affects the psyche of country when it's defense fails and the huge sacrifices, if there were those, were for nothing. And WW1 and WW2 have made an impact. Hence Europe simply doesn't have the will or the stomach to carry that "big stick", be bellicose and genuinely is all but happy with the US handling those issues. And do notice that the US behaviour in Europe is totally different from let's say it behaves in Central America and Caribbean. Something like the Berlin Airlift did show the Germans that the US were friends.

A similar story from history would be when Rome at first defeated the Carthaginians and the Carthaginians adopted a non-militaristic approach. While they weren't fight Rome anymore and didn't have a huge army as an expense, the city-state prospered in trade. In they found it totally acceptable. Yet of course the Romans didn't, and they decided to annihilate the city altogether as there could not be any successful competitor in trade with Rome.

Western Europe is simply happy to be the junior partner with the US, just like the UK. After all, how many times has the US toppled British governments, backed up military coups, assassinated it's Prime Minister's, made open threats about intervention or sent cruise missiles into London?

If it had done any of the above, I would guarantee that the British wouldn't like you as much as now. And that's the bottom line just why the US can in your own words, "bully the whole of Europe into submission". Let's say it has used silk gloves and not an iron fist to handle West Europe.

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. — frank

A director of the CIA has actually been later the President of the US. (Not a career spy, but anyway)


...and btw, a far more cautious foreign policy with him than with later Republican presidents, even if he invaded Panama.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. Just to put things into context, the largest military exercise the Soviet Union held towards the West had 150 000 troops (Zapad-81). The largest military exercise since WW2 held in the West was Reforger 1988 with 125 000 troops.

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there. And of course, tanks assembled row after row in vehicle depot means that they aren't fielded tactically.

It should be remembered that the Zapad exercises (same name as with the exercises the Soviet Union held) with Belarus have nearly always stoked fears (after 2014) about Russian motivations in the West, yet nothing has happened so far. So perhaps the Russian army simply adapts to live in tents for a prolonged time. Which actually isn't such a bad idea for an army...

I think American employees should have some protection on how easily their employers can fire them.

The welfare state, as nearly everything in our complex world, has negative sides too.

Simply put it, if you don't need to work, some can choose then not to work. And then you basically slide off "the society", even if the welfare state does provide you housing and free health care. In that case you look for a job only so many times and then say f*k it. And what it creates is apathy.

Yet that negative side isn't so bad as that you would have people begging in the streets and pushed to be criminals. I'll choose that apathy if the other choice is people living in tents in the street.

I guess if he would be the US President Vladimir would have been born in a place like New York or Chicago, then joined the CIA and now would protect American interests all around the World.

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you? — Apollodorus

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia and Russians were truly open for a new relationship with the West. It was the time when Dzerzinsky's statue was taken out of the front of the KGB headquarters. But the West, self centered and haughty as usual, thought Russia was over and nothing would come of it. You simply would have had larger than life politicians to make these two countries friends as they were no American tanks on the Red Square. Then Russia has always had two sides, the Westernizers and those who see the West as trouble. These two views go long into Russian history. (And should be noted, that the West Europe has also had this difficult relationship to Eastern Europe and especially Russia, to Orthodoxy and East European culture since the time of East-Rome, which we called Byzantium)

And then two things happened. NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission).

(Why the incident in Pristina airport was important can be seen how Russians view it now)

or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZm2zdZ9_U

And the second reason of course is that an intelligence service chief who saw the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster of the 20th Century into power. He needs an enemy to justify the power grab he has done. Simple as that.

A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland. — Apollodorus

LOL! Oh yes, as we would have any say about that.

And Umm...my point is that countries should themselves have the right to decide themselves their future.

Oh you'd love him. Or at least many Republicans (democrats?) would love him. I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump). And you would have him for President for two terms and then you would have him as vice-president of the following administrations for a long, long time. After all, there was a time he did have that role and Medvedev was the President (for one term).

(Do notice where Vladimir is sitting in this picture.)

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.