Corruption is a cancer and deeply institutionalized corruption in the form of a Kleptocracy, which Putin's Russia is, has been quite detrimental to the country. Basically only high oil prices has saved the Russian economy. And a dictator that focuses on wars of conquest and building up his military won't solve it. — ssu

Exactly. People treat everything as some capitalism vs [insert alternative system here], when almost everything boils down to, in any form of government and economic system, low or high corruption. Even the most outlandish systems could work if there was low corruption. Even an autocracy could in theory work if there's little to no corruption. The thing is that some systems are better than others to grow corruption. A power more concentrated in the hands of a few generally generate more corruption and this is why states with constitutional free speech, functioning democratic elections (i.e without any part manipulating the outcome) and functioning legal system generally have much lower corruption.

Instead of people just having ideological ideas thrown around, maybe people need to look at what generates the best quality of life for their citizens, while also not making it into a black and white fallacy where the negatives of capitalism are used as some kind of argument for why some high corrupted government that puts a boot down on free speech is better.

The most basic thing is to acknowledge that for a functioning society to be good for its citizens it's based on free speech and democratic elections (with no party manipulation). We still don't have any tested systems in the world that long term has worked better. Any opposition to this need to provide an alternative system that has been proven to function better. It's not even based on capitalism, all of this is based on a society being able to challenge the people in power and replace them if they don't meet the people's will. As a foundational system, any nation that removes these foundational pillars will eventually become a less functioning state.

Well, you can say whatever you like, but I for one think it is irrational to blame others for your failure to understand simple statements that have been explained to you already. — Apollodorus

You have had numerous times to provide support for the belief I asked you to support. Instead you spend post after post talking about how "obvious" your statement is. If it's so obvious, then provide support for it. Provide how it can be the only conclusion possible. Because the entire stance you have in this matter is based on that conclusion being true. So you need to provide support for it. You're not on "unsupported opinion forum" you are on a philosophy forum. Me asking you to clarify in a rational way how a conclusion you use as a foundation for everything is pretty much in line with what this forum is supposed to be.

What's irrational is that you can't even provide such support. You just have opinions and opinions mean nothing without any kind of rational support for it.

You said that what I believe doesn’t matter. If that’s the case, then I think it would be more logically consistent for you to ignore my statement than to go on and on about it, ad nauseam. — Apollodorus

Instead of you tu quoquo yourself out of every kind of breakdown of your logic, maybe you could try and focus that energy into a proper argument instead?

Incidentally, as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t get upset just because someone’s views differ from yours. The whole purpose of discussion forums is to have a plurality of views, not to throw temper tantrums when others disagree with you. — Apollodorus

Or you could provide support for your conclusion instead of treating this forum as some opinion wall where people shouldn't counter your opinions with such radical ideas as asking "what's your support for that opinion?" This is the third part of your post that basically just tries to turn this around against me and how I should just supposedly accept your opinion as some kind of valid input regardless of post after post never ever providing anything as a foundation for it.

It’s understandable to be upset that Zelensky is losing, but (1) it isn’t my fault, (2) I don’t see why this is of concern to Finland, and (3) according to some, Zelensky is a thug as are the oligarchs behind him, as explained on the other thread, which is why a more balanced, rational, and less emotional, analysis would be preferable. — Apollodorus

Nothing of this has anything to do with what I requested and it just reads as low-quality nonsense. This is the fourth segment of your post that tries to derail from what I asked for.

As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.

The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. IMO a discussion based exclusively on the views of countries like Finland (or any others) that have nothing to do with Ukraine is not a proper discussion. But if you think it is, go ahead, I’m not holding you back — Apollodorus

Here you try, once again, to derail by focusing on my counter-argument first. We can go into that in detail once we've established any kind of support for your conclusion. I brought that perspective up because it's a hypothesis that counters your conclusion, and since you won't support your own conclusion, then we have this balance of two hypotheses that both need support in order to reach what's likely true.

So once again, I ask you to provide a foundation for your initial conclusion. Burden of proof please. You start with a claim, a conclusion, I ask you to clarify, expand and provide further support for it, you ignore, derail and try to turn this against me instead of providing what I asked for. Please do some fucking philosophy instead of this low-quality nonsense you're trying.

Here's your conclusion again, please provide support for it.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

Try to do it without getting distracted by my presence. I know it's hard, I know it's a challenge to do so as it seems that's the only thing you're capable of, but please prove to me that you can actually make some proper arguments. That's what I'm asking for.

The basis for my belief ought to be evident from the context and from my previous posts. It isn't my fault that you still don't understand. At any rate, you may rest assured that I'm not going to waste my time with another discussion on it. — Apollodorus

So you have nothing as a support for what you say. You can't argue without fallacies. And you are unable to engage in a discussion through a more proper philosophical scrutiny.

And no, I don't need to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" at all. That is just part of your usual repertoire of weasel words and straw men. — Apollodorus

Or you can start with supporting your own conclusion first so there can be a proper discussion and not some evangelical parrot game from you.

I asked nicely to let you provide support for what you say but it seems impossible for you to reach that point. You just seem to be utterly uneducated in philosophical practice when asked for it. Why should anyone take you seriously?

That's called a tu quoque fallacy.

I asked you to provide some support for your belief so that the rest of your argument can be built upon it. But you clearly don't seem to understand why you have to.

As stated already, there is no logical requirement to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" any more than it is to assume that everything America (or Finland) says is propaganda. — Apollodorus

How is this relevant to what I asked for? I asked for support in premises for your conclusion.
My example of propaganda has to do with a possible counter to your conclusion that can render it false. But you continue to just say the same thing as if it is true because you believe it to be true.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. — Apollodorus

Your beliefs don't mean anything, they are irrelevant if you have nothing to support your conclusion with. You haven't even provided an inductive argument for it. You just say it and then continue based on that assumption being true.

Provide support for the conclusion, please. I'm thinking that on a philosophy forum we break down each other's arguments in order to spot weaknesses. If I explain that your initial conclusion, the assumption, is nothing but your belief without any premises to support it, then you need to show a stronger argument in order to support your reasoning.

From the guidelines of the forum:

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).

This is why I ask you to expand your conclusion with better support. It's impossible to continue a discussion if the only way to do so is to first assume your initial conclusion to be true first. So, start at the beginning and answer these questions:

How do you know for a fact that Russia would have taken no action if the demands had been met from the start? How can you be sure that the demands weren't just part of the lies to hide the true intentions? How do you know that the motivation is exactly how you propose it and not anything other, like the empire expansion hypothesis (which would have led to an invasion anyway)?

On the contrary, there is no requirement, logical, legal, or otherwise, to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders" in the first place! — Apollodorus

Again, can you please provide more substance for your conclusion? Stop trying to sidestep things like you always do. I'm waiting for you to answer this:

How are you sure that the demands are in any way truth and not part of the propaganda and a disinformation campaign? — Christoffer

I think it's self-explanatory. Why would Russia invade Ukraine if it had no reason to do so? — Apollodorus

How is that explaining any valid premises for your conclusion? You conclude that:

Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. — Apollodorus

How do you know this? This would require you to first assume that any will to restore Russian empire borders are false. It requires a premise that assure that there will be no invasion whatsoever. There's absolutely zero evidence that Russia would abstain from invading if their demands were met, because the empire hypothesis still leads to invasion. The empire hypothesis is still the most likely one because it establishes a motive for Putin that is supported by all acts taken so far. Nato expansion into Ukraine would have meant Russia could never "reconnect" it to the empire. So the invasion is a desperate act to do so before that happened. It has nothing to do with security, it has to do with Nato intentionally or unintentionally standing in the way of Russia's attempt to expand back to old borders.

Because this hypothesis has validity to it and cannot be dismissed without clear evidence to the contrary. You might not agree with it, but it still means there's another hypothesis that doesn't compute with yours, therefore, you need to present premises that counter this and support your own conclusion.

So,

How are you sure that the demands are in any way truth and not part of the propaganda and a disinformation campaign? Taking Russias word at face value is NOT a valid premise, regardless of how logical you believe it is.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

What are your premises for such a conclusion?

Ukraine does have biological laboratories (that are secret otherwise we could lookup their websites) — boethius

Biological laboratories do not mean bioweapon research. Biological laboratories exist in almost every country, acknowledge of its existence does not mean acknowledging the existence of biological weapon research. High-tier biological laboratories can possess great danger if compromised, even without being a bioweapon research facility. High-tier biological laboratories are usually secret because their location is a safety risk for any malicious agent, like terrorists etc.

Therefore your conclusion has enough invalid premises to conclude that she's talking about anything other than the most probable scenario, which is a biological laboratory. Another probable scenario is that contagions substances from the Soviet era could be stored there. But that does not mean active biological weapon research.

Your argument is flawed but you don't care. This is called circular reasoning: your conclusion comes before any valid premises.

It's a fact that there's only one common sense interpretation of what Nuland is literally saying. — boethius

This is so faulty on so many levels of fallacies that it becomes utter nonsense. It's like one of the most bullshit sentences of an argument I've ever seen. :rofl:

These are literally questions. It would would be up to you to propose a conjecture to answer said questions. — boethius

No, you conclude it as facts, move it into a premise for another conclusion and there's your maelstrom of ill-conceived arguments. That's why it's such a mess trying to discuss with you, you don't know where the conjectures end and the facts begin.

You've already conjectured that "labs" could mean anything and therefore Nuland's statements have no content whatsoever. — boethius

It has no content before a factual context can be established. That's not conjecture, that's explaining why your premise is wrong until it's been proven correct. At this time, it could mean bioweapons, it could mean traditional pathogen labs, but until any factual context is established, the worst version should not be considered factual since it more heavily erodes truth and leads to conspiracy theories. All we can work on is the most likely scenario, which is traditional high-level pathogen labs, because they're common. Any claim of bioweapon labs needs to have greater factual support, because it's a much less common thing.

Without proper facts, you can only work with what's most likely. If you are unable to do that, you open yourself up to conspiracy theories.

We're literally at the level of grammatical analysis — boethius

No, we're not. We're at the fucking facts- and complexity matters because people with limited rational thinking have it hard to conclude anything other than black and white conclusions. If you ignore actual analysis you are just grasping at what supports your thesis instead of looking at probability correctly. We're on a philosophy forum, this matters, otherwise there are a number of other places where facts, deduction, induction, probability, complexity, logic don't matter as much and opinions matter more.

Then why would Nuland talk about non-bio-weapons-related labs in response to a question about bio-weapons?

Are you just saying she's a total moron? — boethius

Why do you make a conjecture in the form of a factual conclusion?

Already what's admitted to by Nuland is massive bombshell level, and Russia says it's taken these labs, now WHO is casually suggesting it's advisable to destroy any pathogens that may pose a risk to the entire world population. — boethius

Still not a bioweapon lab. You know, there are labs in every nation working to prevent stuff like the pandemic we just went through. There are high-level pathogens everywhere in these labs.

I see no conspiracy here, I see normal high-level labs with highly dangerous contagions.

How did this thread go into pure conspiracy theory territory?

So, maybe they know something that the public aren't being told about .... — Apollodorus

Let's put on the tin foil hats then. I mean, this forum is the last place for facts, rational arguments, or logic.

As stated many times, that claim has long been debunked and exposed as a lie. NATO does attack anytime it serves US interests — Apollodorus

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians

Yeah, because no one in the US has any interest in stopping that. NATO can act offensively if the UN supports it. The UN didn't officially support it but didn't condemn it either. The decision was taken by council, meaning it wasn't the US who did it, it was a decision by everyone with the justification of stopping genocide, which it actually did. The criticism against this went to the Hague and reports by Amnesty, while the outcome of the Hague court ruled against it being a war crime (article 9) and investigation into Nato did not conclude according to Amnesty's report.

So, sure, this is an offensive attack, true, you're right in that. But the offensive was based on "humanitarian intervention" and the fallout was extremely damaging for Nato even with demonstrated cause. It was, however, nothing made in the interest of the US or made without consent from any other nation within Nato.

Would you call that an offensive alliance in the sense of acting out attacks by geopolitical interests as you frame Nato? If every type of military act by Nato is based on defensive measurements or interventions alike, how would that make them an offensive alliance in the way you describe it or relate it to Russia? The support for an offensive attack is so complex based on the charters that it makes it close to impossible for them to do so, even more so after the fallout of those bombings.

So what reason is there for Nato to attack Russia? Give me one reason where Nato can justify it by their charter and the UN charter? Because there has to be lots of support by them in order to do so. Breaking Article 5 of Nato's charter cannot "just happen", it requires an extreme evaluation and there are no reasons for Nato breaking it to attack Russia. The act of including Ukraine is an act of defense for and by choice of Ukraine. Nato would happily want them to join, of course, but there would be nothing to justify an act of attacking Russia. At the same time, the reluctance to help Ukraine shows just how careful Nato is today. And the more nations that have joined Nato means the US has even less council power.

So, your argument relies on Nato being controlled by the US, which it isn't, even back then. And it relies on an active risk of invading Russia, which doesn't exist. So the valid reasons for Russia to fear Ukraine joining Nato becomes a smoke-screen for what is actually going on. Russia can't attack Nato, but Russia needs to force Ukraine to join them in order to claim it into the imperial borders. So the logical motivation for Putin and Russia to invade and push as hard as they're doing still follows my conclusion. You still have to support the premise that Nato is in fact a threat to Russia. Even if the entire existence of Nato would be (which it isn't) about defense against Russia, it still doesn't equal a threat to Russia. All Nato is, is a threat to Russia's expansion of its borders, an expansion that is not legal by international law. Russia doesn't like Nato expanding into the old regional territory that was part of the old Russian empire, but it would be exactly the same as if Sweden bitched about Norway getting into Nato because we want to claim it back by force sometime in the future if they don't want to join us. Nato has no reasons to attack Russia, it will never be able to justify or vote for such an attack and therefore is no more threat to Russia than the US and other nations actively attacking anyway.

If Nato is a threat to Russia because Nato would attack or do whatever they like, then the nations within Nato could just break protocol anyway at any time and attack. Nato's existence doesn't matter if their charter doesn't matter. So it doesn't matter who's in Nato if they were to attack anyway. This breaks any kind of idea that Nato would attack Russia. Everyone would need to be on board and everyone would need to break both Nato and UN charters to attack Russia unprovoked.

So how can you actually justify the argument of threat against Russia? It's based on a simplistic analysis of Nato's history, boiling down to,they did those bombings, therefore, they will attack Russia. Tell me there's more than that to your argument.

The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. — ssu

No, but there have been revolutions before. If the Ukraine war fails, either utterly or as an ongoing failure of never-ending war, it will either lead to a revolution or a collapse like the Soviet collapse. The third option would be a retreat and Russia isolated, economy down the drain with a people suffering under the extreme totalitarian regime of Putin, more like North Korea than how Russia was before or even now.

And if you do it in the West you get attacked by the media and by the brainwashed mobs in the streets. — Apollodorus

Still doesn't prevent you like going to prison does or that police comes to your home because of something you wrote online. When did you get attacked in the streets by a mob? And attacked by media, how do they "attack"?

In a free nation, your arguments get counter-arguments, which doesn't equal active censorship or getting actually beaten by the government.

Ukraine is to be blamed for not meeting Russia's demands to stay out of NATO and for putting its own population in danger. — Apollodorus

This is actively blaming them for not bending over for Russian control. As stated many times, Nato is not an offensive alliance, they do not attack unless being attacked. So joining Nato would never be a risk to the population. What Ukraine wants to do is up to them. To say that Ukraine is to blame for the actions Russia takes against them because Ukraine thought about their own security is fucking disgusting.

Russia is to blame here, pure and simple, it's entirely Russia's act to invade, to kill civilians etc. There's no grey area in this matter, there's no security risk to Russia if Ukraine joined Nato. People need to understand that the only reason Putin is against Nato expansion is that it blocks the restoration of the borders of the old Russian empire. Russia can't invade a Nato nation because of the consequences it would entail, so the only way to restore some of the old Russian empire borders is to invade before that happens. This is why the invasion is taking place. This is why Putin won't retreat because he knows that after such a retreat he would lose Ukraine to Nato, and after that, it would be impossible to invade again. Instead of making up some geopolitical nonsense speculation, look at what actually exists as information, like the leaked propaganda document aimed for after the invasion was supposed to be over. It's clear what the end game is here and it falls in line with why Putin is willing to risk Russia's economy and international reputation. No other end game makes sense in the context of this war and how Putin is treating it. The only question is if he will be able to finish the war before someone finishes him. Because a failure in Ukraine means a failure to restore the old empire and forever makes it impossible to reclaim it.

No, its called a joke... — Isaac

Ah, the usual "it's a joke" as soon as fallacies are called out. You do understand that jokes in a line of arguments without jokes, without anything indicating it a joke (like an emoji) just reads out as you being severely mentally challenged for the level of discussion in here?

As I said, the mere existence of that possibility as a motive cannot stand as evidence that it is, in fact, a motive on any given occasion. — Isaac

But nothing has been proven otherwise or even remotely been argued in any inductive form to support those hidden interests, so you're just doing circular reasoning based on your predetermined contempt of the west and the US. In your eyes, everything is about something else than what it likely is about.

It can also be as simple as these people actually wanting to fight against Russia since they are killing civilians and breaking international law. They want to undermine the lies so that Russia cannot justify what they're doing. Just like when a prosecutor strategizes to show that the killer is lying, in order not to let the killer control the narrative that could free him. The prosecutor, the legal system etc. have no real political reason to either convict or free the killer, but people in such power can absolutely act purely for moral reasons. It's like you assume that because people are politicians or working for the government, then they are no longer moral human beings. You continuously argue with the assumption that everyone has an agenda that does not care for human lives, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a play of power. And yes, much of it is, but much of it can also be an unintentional side effect. Everyone now sees an opening to go against Russia and Putin, but they can very well act to resolve the conflict to the best of their ability, which is hard with a fucking lunatic like Putin doing this invasion, as we've seen with peace talks not resolving and refugee corridors being bombarded by the Russian army.

Let's see how my own personal intel plays out shall we? My network of sources tell me that Russia is likely to use weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. Let's just see over the next few hours if my intel leak proved true. Remember you heard it here first. — Isaac

This is called a straw man ...having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

And that's why it's impossible to discuss with you.

What's there not to understand?

What strawman? — boethius

Because you still retain that I view the intel as true and therefore...

When what I said was that Iinterpret events and structure a likely future outcome based on current events being in line with how previous events played out.

Those are two different things and if you interpret what I wrote with the first one over and over, regardless of my attempts of explaining myself in detail you strawman my argument as being about "true intel". You simply can't seem to understand the difference and I'm beginning to believe that you are just not capable of doing so.

Your narrative is based on "leaked intel": aka. trusting the government in questions intel is accurate — boethius

So you don't understand what I wrote, even with that nice breakdown. Or you just ignore it to fit your argument. Either way, if you don't understand what I'm talking about and just strawman everything like that, then there's no point in engaging in a discussion with you. I can wait until you engage the argument as the argument I presented, not your delusional interpretation of it.

Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany. — ssu

This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government.

Governments obviously leak intelligence to support their interests — Isaac

Or to just undermine the propaganda so that Russia's actions cannot be justified by them through lies.

I know that you just want to blame the west and the US all the time, but that bias just makes you unable to break the circular reasoning you're doing over and over.

I would have hoped to hear other people in here, but it seems like a gang of apologists have formed in here to circle jerk the entire thread. So what's the point of actually trying to discuss anything of this. You're clearly not taking in what other people write and just repost the same conclusion over and over without any attempt at premises that support it.

You say you're "interpreting" government actions ... like "leaked intel" which are still government statements, just nominally supposed to be kept secret as it's intelligence during a war and potential nuclear escalation. — boethius

:shade:

No, you basically seem to not understand what I'm saying. Or intentionally since otherwise it would undermine your argument.

Let's break it down for you so it becomes easier for you.

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government
This means that interpreting the events that have unfolded previously has nothing to do with what governments are literally saying, i.e their info is not the validating factor.

it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.
This means interpreting the interplay between acts by governments involved in this conflict.

So, Russia releases a statement that others accuse of being propaganda, false and lies (example: "we will not invade Ukraine). The west releases intel regarded by outside analysis to be purposeful leaked intel (this intel cannot be verified as true at the time it is released, example: Russia will do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). At this point, it's word against word and disregarding years of confirmed disinformation from Russia we'll just go with the events here. Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. Russia then initiates a full-scale invasion. This validates the leaked intel of full-scale invasion.
These are initial acts from the west by leaking intel that is later confirmed by actions made by Russia.

This interplay points to how events might play out going forward.

So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events.

This is what I've proposed. A likely scenario based on previous events. Because it's more likely that events play out as I've described compared to the fiction and conspiracy interpretations other people try to play against it. I have the events that have happened, a chain of causality that is likely to continue, the interplay between the west and Russia as the foundation, while you use Putin's propaganda, a vague interpretation of a vague answer to a question and a conspiracy narrative that was debunked, or a misunderstanding of what types of labs there are in the world. Nothing confirming bioweapons, nothing confirming a link to anything about Russia's chemical weapons, only the using the link provided by Putin and his propaganda machine.

So if you continue to do your circular reasoning by saying that I say the intel is 100% you are either intentionally misinterpreting what I write or you don't actually understand what I write.

So, you "interpret" leaked intel as being 100% credible. — boethius

Oh for fuck sake, are you illiterate, can you please READ what I wrote here AGAIN and see if you can understand it before continuing?

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

I've found that there's no point in discussing further without getting a good validation that what I've written has been interpreted correctly first. I have no interest in circle jerk behaviors.

And you base this "strategy" of objective truth telling openness ... on what? — boethius

Read what I wrote again...

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

valid question to ask. — FreeEmotion

When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer. — FreeEmotion

You already made up your mind, you just try to find stuff that supports it.

yet "leaked intel" you find more credibly objective, true and no possible ulterior motives. — boethius

Because the strategy has been in the open over the course of this entire war. It is true because leaked information has been validated by how it relates to Russian propaganda and acts in the war. So concluding it to be more plausible is based on the actual events of leaked intel undermining Russian narratives before their acts. This is why it's more credible, not that we trust the government more, but how the act of leaking intel that is actually linked to acts Russia is doing. So if intel is leaked about Russia possibly using chemical weapons, it can be plausible they will do so, especially when they at the same time try to start a narrative about Ukrainian labs. Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/595916-us-employs-unusual-intel-strategy-to-counter-putin

The tactic didn’t prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, but experts credit it with scrambling and defanging some of the Russian plots to create a false justification for an invasion, as well as preparing the world to react quickly.

You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption — Isaac

A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory — Isaac

I rest my case

It's basically impossible to have any intelligible discussion with this level of denial.

The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them. — boethius

The question is raised by Russia. Intel leaked (as intel leaked before that was confirmed by Russian acts) points to possible chemical attack by Russia.

You listen to Russias narrative, you have that in mind when interpreting statements not mentioning anything like that. You interpret according to the planted ideas of bioweapons and weapons of mass destruction.

You have no evidence, there's nothing but an old conspiracy theory and propaganda narrative originated from Russia. But you still entertain the though as valid, without anything concrete to support it.

This is why I think all of this is stupid. It's basically how conspiracy theories work. Confusing facts with being on the same level as questions raised concluding in conjecture without any real connected dots.

Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. If you want to elevate that to what you are talking about, then you need further support for that.

You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, — FreeEmotion

By Fox news and Tucker who's consistently using everything possible to smudge democratic administrations. And what the fuck does it even mean to validate anything through the idea that you "can't dispute a question". Like, how are you all even arriving at valid rational conclusions if you treat "raised questions" as almost equal to facts?

This is literally witness testimony. Nuland obviously knows about these labs — boethius

It's not evidence of any bioweapon research. A lab doesn't mean anything. If Russia uses the idea of a "dangerous lab" as a scapegoat reason to hide chemical attacks, that doesn't mean there is a bioweapon facility because of your vague interpretation of her statement. "She clearly knows about..." doesn't mean shit. And if you think that's "witness testimony", try use that in a court with a straight face. None of this is evidence, jeez

You're saying US has leaked intel (are you saying this is "evidence" or more government statements that aren't evidence of anything?) ... in no way to try to control the narrative themselves? Just concerned truth seekers out to give the world an objective view of the situation on the ground? — boethius

I'm saying that the inductive conclusion to what has been going on in this war points to what I said. You are using conspiracy narratives and valuing Russian propaganda as valid perspectives as support for yours. We know that Pentagon leaked intel about the invasion, about the acts Russia were going to take and then Russia did exactly so. This undermined their attempt at justifying the invasion and helped undermine the propaganda both in Russia and internationally. This happened, it's literally what happened at the start of the war. So leaking intel about chemical weapons COULD be in line with this strategy, which has proven to be highly effective. It's the inductive conclusion based on what we know.

What legitimate research purposes? You're saying that there's legitimate purpose for Ukraine (a defacto ally of the US) to being doing it's own "defensive" bio-weapons research in multiple secret labs? — boethius

There's no evidence for bioweapon research. Research on dangerous pathogens don't need to be weaponized in order to be dangerous. Read what I write.

There is literally zero possible "legitimate research" defense of Nuland's statements. — boethius

That is a final conclusion if I've ever seen one. So there's no other possibility than there being a bioweapon facility? There are no problems with such a final conclusion, such a final definitive fact that you conclude out of that statement? If this is how you arrive at your conclusions, no wonder they're all over the place.

And even so how does that have anything to do with the possibility of a Russian chemical attack?

You don't seem to be following the conversation. — boethius

Well, if people keep spamming you will start confusing yourself as well.

The evidence is what Isaac just literally transcribed. We can assume Nuland knows the whatever these labs are about, otherwise it's unlikely she'd improvise, and from her statement we can pretty safely conclude there is a military purpose for these research labs. — boethius

That's not evidence for fuck sake. That's an answer that you interpret as being questionable.

If you want to say she's making it up as she has zero knowledge of the situation or actually wants the whole world to believe the Ukraine has bio weapons labs (WMD's) the US knows about / funds directly or indirectly ... then that's a possibility too. — boethius

Still no evidence for BIOWEAPON RESEARCH. Get it into your skull already.

She could very well be talking about Ebola strains which are not bioweapons. A specific Ebola strain in a high tier research facility could be vastly more infectious and dangerous than what we've seen in outbreaks since research labs do this to test out variants for treatments and that is totally legal and important in order to combat pathogens like it.

That's exactly what the US (and their British Poodle) are doing, too. They establish a narrative and then they act: — Apollodorus

Of course, but not with the level of state control Russia has and not with the blatant stupidity of thinking people outside of Russia falls for it. The scrutiny in the US and UK is much better since media is more free and it's easier for people to review and question such propaganda. If you do that in Russia you get sent to prison. It's not even comparable.

unless you live on a different planet (called Finland) — Apollodorus

Here's an example of you not ever reading what I'm writing because you think I live in Finland, so clearly you aren't paying attention to what I'm actually writing over the course of this thread.

All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble. — Apollodorus

Are you still blaming Ukraine for this invasion? Like... you are unable to understand page after page of counter arguments to this? Ignoring how almost everyone points to Putin wanting to restore the Russian empire which has nothing to do with Nato except that if Ukraine joins Nato it becomes harder for him to invade and claim Ukraine? Promising not to join Nato does not mean that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia, that's his goal. Nato stands in his way, that's all, that's the whole connection to Nato. He fears that further expansion of Nato will block his attempts to restore the empire borders. Why can't you understand this?

And stop blaming Ukraine for the invasion, it's disgusting.

that sounds like they might be bio weapons. — Isaac

Not evidence

Later...

You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own — Isaac

Based on previous behaviors during this war. In some way you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. I never said they WILL use chemical weapons, I said they MIGHT.

There's also an inductive argument to be made. What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly.
- So, the likely conclusion based on repeating events points to Russia aiming to use chemical weapons and will use the idea of a bioweapon facility in Ukraine having "leaks" in order to control the narrative so that the world blames Ukraine and not Russia if chemical weapons on civilians leaks to the world press. Pentagon leaking this intel falls in-line with how they've leaked previous intel in order to undermine Russian propaganda.

Since we can't deduct and only induct in this, we must go with most likely. A vague interpretation of a statement that might hint at a facility with dangerous pathogens co-funded by the US does not even remotely induce a conclusion of the Russian narrative. And even if there is a facility in Ukraine working on bioweapons, it would still not change the fact that Russia would use it as a scapegoat for their own attacks.

The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them. — Isaac

Of course the tier level has a point. You are all making conclusions based on interpreting Nulands statement but her statement would also work if the tier was top level. Just as I said it can have variants of pathogens for research purposes that if released by bombardments could potentially be catastrophic for the entire world.

And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? Even if they had labs with such weapons, it's still a narrative from Russia to scapegoat Ukraine and the US if they attack with chemical weapons.

You guys seem to always do a flip in this. When the risk is that Russia might use chemical weapons it gets turned into "but the US should be blamed because there might be a lab in Ukraine", or "Ukraine should be blamed because Nato".

If Russia attacks with chemical weapons they are the guilty one of using chemical weapons. Period.
My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. Don't fucking tell me that if we start to see civilians killed by chemical attacks you're all gonna confirm that as Ukraine's labs being the cause of it :shade:

They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab. — Isaac

And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing.

Evidence for the claim you made, obviously. — Isaac

I was asking for evidence of bioweapon labs in Ukraine funded by the US for bioweapon research. What evidence exist? Questions by Tucker on Fox news aren't evidence.

Government statements represent the fact the government made that statement, and give rise to legitimate questions about those statements. — boethius

Yes, but questions does not equal counter-evidence or counter-arguments.

but the logic that this material (that a CIA chief admitting to building a bunch of "Bio Research Labs"--that were obviously secret as otherwise we'd already know about them as just normal university or hospital labs — boethius

Both Isaac and I have already commented that normal biol labs in universities, hospitals and private companies aren't really a concern if they "fall into enemy hands". — boethius

You do know that research labs on extreme contagious viruses are considered secret in practice and location so that criminal groups, terrorists or foreign agents won't attack, steal or infiltrate them? Many of these labs are government funded. This does not equal them being bioweapon facilities.

What evidence do you have that any of these are bioweapon facilities? It's important to have clear facts.

Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world, facilities being funded from many different companies or even governments based on what they're working on. A bioweapon facility, on the other hand, is something else. And in true Fox news fashion they report on how it's been debunked that Ukraine has bioweapon facilities but turn it towards the Biden administration as a "well, so asking questions about it means we are just Russian propaganda so that means it's all untrue *wink wink*"

Or are you immune from the need for evidence? — Isaac

What evidence?

Facts need to be sourced, but just literally showing government statements is a valid source of the fact of those statements. — boethius

Government statements aren't facts. And Russian statements right now have such a low validity that anyone even seriously listening to it does not have the capacity of rational thinking. Tucker is a fucking joke, he was a Putin apologist before the invasion and his word means jack shit. Fox is a propaganda channel through and through.

If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence and people need to realize how Putin and Russia conducts this war. The propaganda machine is their biggest tool. They establish a narrative and then they act, in order to confuse people or validate for their own people why they're doing what they're doing.

The thing is that when they do this with actual UN meetings, they know that if they can't control the narrative with the rest of the world that isn't as gullible as the Russian people, it's gonna be hard for them to use those types of weapons. So they're desperately trying to fool the world that the results we're gonna see "came from an Ukraine lab leak" instead of their intentional attacks.

It's quite clear what the plan is here and it's only fooling them who don't know how to sift through the propaganda BS.

Stop using FOX news as any kind of valid source. :shade:
Verify with anything other than Fox please. It's the official media closest to conspiracy vloggers out there outside of pure state owned propaganda. Since Trump went into power, Fox has been sinking even lower than it already was and now it's impossible to use as a source.

Seriously, the media knowledge in this thread... :shade:

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons by calling for a UN meeting where they will try and create a narrative that the US and Ukraine had a bioweapon lab in Kiev, thinking the world is gullible enough to fall for such bullshit as reasons to why we might see the result of bioweapons soon.

Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists.

Russia is obviously in a stronger strategic position, with its developed arms industry, much larger population, much larger military, much larger reserves, much larger economy — Count Timothy von Icarus

Stronger position, not stronger strategic position. Brute force does not mean high strategic capability. Ukrainians have shown to have much better strategies, since they are able to hold against the invasion with less numbers and less technology. This is the problem with Russia, they have the most power but the least brain.