What we need now is genuine leadership from our leaders, not denials that everything is OK...with us and Russia. — ssu

At least our people start to talk about nations as friends, as "one people" more now. I don't mind it, I actually would think that a nordic union, almost like the Kalmar union would be something positive. Imagine all of us joining together, keeping our nations as states with sovereignty, but a as a union, closer to the style of USA than EU. Almost no borders, just us people up here in the north as one people. Imagine if this union was then part of EU and also Nato. Imagine the power of some of the top nations on world's "life quality lists" grouping together. I think that would be a wonderful idea, we have all more in common than what makes us different.

China and Russia actually can be self-sufficient. — baker

Russia can be self-sufficient, but not be able to advance in technology in the same way if they cut off the supply of semiconductors. However, of course, if China invades Taiwan, they have their own factory for that. But China is more deeply ingrained with international trade. China also has A LOT of investments in other countries and if they even smell a movement to sanction against China, that might lead to them breaking with Russia.

Thing is... Putin and Xi Jinping aren't really best friends. Right now it's more of a "my enemy's enemy" kind of deal. There's also a lot of political movement inside China where plenty of critics towards Xi Jinping has been formed due to his attacks on Chinese billionaires and businesses. China seems very interested, as a whole nation, to move towards more trade with the west, not less. If Xi Jinping gets removed later this year, that might shift the balance against Putin. That would be a true crisis for Putin and Russia if sanctions still hold. Remember, Putin wants his billionaire friends to be happy, he doesn't give a shit about the population of Russia.

I'd say there is a zero percent chance that destabilizing Russia is anybody's goal. Russia will turn to China for trade. — frank

With what trade routes? And you think they can cover every kind of trade? What if China lose other trade because people want to sanction their help towards Russia? China has a lot more to lose on international trade than Russia.

They can't go too far with sanctions because Russia owes Europe, particularly France, a lot of money. They have to give Russia access to European banks so they can pay their debt. — frank

Not if this conflict escalates, not if Putin acts on his indirect threats towards the west. But yes, the upcoming sanctions will go pretty far. The plans are to lock bank access and international trade. But the biggest hit will be a cut-off on trade with gas and oil while not trading export to Russia with electronics like semiconductors, which will tank any technological development or improvements of their military.

Everything depends on if this becomes long term or short term. If it's short term it will be painful for Russia. It's basically cutting off their ability to develop and work normally. This pressure will not be felt from the west towards Putin, but from the people of Russia towards Putin. That's the goal, destabilize Russia from within through isolation of Russia.

I don't think so. I think this will become normalized in a year or two. — frank

I'm talking about the upcoming sanctions. If the parameters of those sanctions are true, those are not something easily normalized in the long term.

Åland Island is even demilitarized, so it's an easy picking for Putin, if that would happen. The border guards over there aren't much of a match and Russian helicopters have the range to fly there.

Now as tough sanctions (as EU members) and counter-sanctions from Russia will already happen, it does beg the question of what is the point? It dawned to me before the corona epidemic when sitting in the soldiers home in the local military garrison with fellow reservists and Finnish career officers and watched young British soldiers eating pizza. We are just fooling ourselves here with the non-aligned thing. Or simply giving this fig-leaf to Putin not to act. — ssu

Maybe this will push us together, Swedish and Finnish alliance, strengthening our entire line of defense. The best thing that comes out of Putin's stupidity is that it might shake apathetic nations into more defensive actions. I would like us both to join NATO and go further with a much better line of defense throughout the Baltic sea and the Finnish eastern border.

We are pretty good at ground warfare, Sweden has a good mechanical strength that is primarily fast moving and can move around much faster than many other nations. However, as we see in Ukraine, it's the air bombings and missiles that are the biggest problem. We would need cutting-edge laser weapons that use AI to automatically shoot down any enemy aircraft or missile. If we can guard the entirety of our nordic borders towards Russia with such a defense, it will be impossible for Russia to attack through the Baltic sea and the terrain in eastern Finland is extremely problematic for ground movements, so if the air is defended, it will be very hard for Russia to do anything.

My only worry is that politicans are naive and don't realize that Putin is essentially a new type of Stalin/Hitler-type dictator that require an extremely more advanced warfare defense line.

The US government says he doesn't have the ability to occupy Ukraine. It's a logistics problem.

He can attack and make changes, leave a Russian military presence, but that's it.

Putin isn't going to take over Europe. — frank

No, in the long term he won't be able to occupy Ukraine and even if he's doing so, the Ukraine people's morale is to fight for survival, while the Russian army fights for whatever Vodka they can get. So when the military settles down and try to occupy, they will be met by guerilla attacks and constant pressure from smaller Ukrainian groups until the war and occupation become so unpopular that they leave regardless of orders from Putin.

The problem for Putin and Russia is however that the world isn't tiptoeing around them anymore. If this continues long term, it will be the collapse of Russia. The Russian people might fix this with a coup and by killing Putin and his elite allies. But that would be hard and probably not likely.

The most likely thing is that Russia will try and occupy Ukraine and over the long term the Russian forces will be terrorized by Ukrainian groups while Russia suffocates under the upcoming sanctions.

Hopefully both Sweden and Finland can decide together if to join NATO. — ssu

I'm all for it, it's impossible to reason with the crazy fucker in Russia so we need to be in that alliance. Putin is too irrational and erratic to be trusted with keeping peace with non-NATO nations. I wouldn't be surprised if they attack Gotland and Finland sometime. Hopefully Putin gets a bullet before that.

Yes, he is so lonely but at the same time he doesn't care at all. Remember when he poisoned all his rivals back in the past? Lunatic and dictator — javi2541997

Yes, his loneliness is actually a thing that could end up being a catalyst for his aggressions. The more alone he feels the higher the risk of just "going out with a bang".

This is why he needs to be killed. Seriously, before things escalate, he needs to be put down. Because he is the one figure who's initiating all of this, he is the enemy, even to his own people. If the sanctions really tank their economy, the people of Russia might even publically hang him. No one wants this except Putin.

That would be very crazy. Really, I don't understand what is going on with Putin's mind and Russia interests. — javi2541997

Because Putin is a lunatic. He's essentially a dictator. If you ask "why" it's the same "why" you would ask about Stalin and Hitler.

For us in Europe, especially Sweden, we have a real risk of invasion of our island Gotland since it's a strategic military point to govern the entire Baltic sea. So it is quite possible that the process to join NATO is fast and it will include Sweden and Finland. Because if Russia invades nations that aren't members of NATO in order to expand the Russian empire, it's the only way to defend against them.

I'm just hoping that Putin does some act that makes politicians confident in taking him out as an only way out. I think the Russian people would support such an act. Putin is pretty lonely, even the elites under his rule seem to act with criticism against his actions.

I comprehend, but don't you think that's quite unfair to Ukrainian citizens and sovereignty?
When a country does not respect other territories, the rest should act or try something. Doesn't matter if they are part of NATO or not — javi2541997

The problem is that there's a mentally challenged lunatic called Putin who is indirectly threatening with nuclear weapons. That is such an unstable factor which means that no one can predict his actions if any non-Ukraine boots get within Ukraine borders to help them. He can very well use nukes against those who try and help Ukraine, no one really knows, but the reality is that this uncertainty is real and that is why no one can help Ukraine. If he acts against any NATO member, that would change the game, then it doesn't matter if there's uncertainty and we will have a full scale world war, probably with nukes.

Putin's also demonstrating promises from NATO are meaningless. — Benkei

NATO won't defend Ukraine because Ukraine isn't part of NATO. Since they're a defensive alliance, if Putin ever becomes even more delusional and attacks a NATO nation, then we're in WWIII. In that scenario, if Putin is serious with his indirect nuclear threat, it might mean actual nuclear attacks. If he sends nukes anywhere it will be the end of Russia, literally, it will be nuked into oblivion by the west.

The elite won't be affected — Benkei

We don't know that yet, a total isolation of their economic mobility by locking in their money might not do much in the short run.

What's more troubling is that most expert researchers analyzing the actions of Putin have stated that Putin is indirectly threatening anyone involving themselves in Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

I see a lot of amateur analysts on this forum who seem to not really understand both Putin and his actions. Lots of "no worries" comments. But as I've said many times now, this is fucking serious. We have a lunatic who indirectly nods towards nuclear weapons within a situation of an offensive war. I don't think people really understand the severity of the situation outside of what is actively going on in Ukraine.

Putin's actions are of one of a delusional lunatic. He's up there with Stalin, Hitler and the rest. I'm deadly serious in that he needs to go. He needs to be put down. There's no diplomacy that works with him and he is a serious threat to world peace. Either Russia gets fed up with his rule and do it or some other operation, but this is the beginning of his fall, Putin has now finally shown his true colors and people might be able to wake up from any kind of "ideal" of who Putin was.

Russia will be economically suffocated until someone becomes fed up with Putin's empire fantasies and assassinates him in order to free Russia's people from the tyrant. I don't mind it happening, after this invasion, Putin is fucked, no one will take him seriously, no one will want to trade or be friends with Russia. It's up to the Russian people to fix this, otherwise, they're gonna be treated like proxy-Putins and become unwanted in Europe and many other places in the world. Few people will feel comfortable interacting with Russians and companies there.

So essentially, Russia is fucked now. Maybe this will accelerate everyone's move over to renewable energy solutions, which in itself will fuck Russia's economy even more. Maybe that's why Putin acts now, he knows his energy politics will collapse in a decade or two. But he might be remembered for the one who fucked Russia into a collapse. People think that sanctions don't mean anything to him or Russia, but it will, in the long run, it definitely will.

The point was that if all Russia is guilty of is not being a proper democracy then such a crime pales into insignificance when compared to massive death and immiseration that democracies like the US have engendered. — Isaac

You are still comparing crimes to crimes when we are essentially discussing a system that might lead to war. The systematic poisoning and imprisonment of opposing voices in a country that is then using that power to invade another country that has done nothing to warrant such an invasion, is what this is about. What you seem to never understand is that you are using the "crimes of the US" as a kind of argument for downplaying the acts of Putin, for which I do not understand why you do?

By that notion (rich elite gets richer off the backs of poor workers) then every government ever is basically the same, nothing to chose between them. But regardless, you want to include the holocaust in Europe's track record? The genocide of the Native Americans in the US's? — Isaac

Why are you continuing to argue based on that fact that others do bad things? If I point at Putin's acts and what is going on right now with the conclusion that his delusional Soviet ambition is a cause of concern for the security of nations, primarily in Europe, why are you focusing on historical criminal events in the way you do? In what way does that change the fact of the current events?

What is your point? When Ukrainians start dying, what will be your point?

I didn't say 'only', I said 'led'. — Isaac

So? What's your point based on the current events?

I asked you what the alternative was to inaction. What do we do about the fact that Putin is a bad man? How are you measuring the consequences of those proposals to ensure they're not worse then things are as they stand? — Isaac

Do you know how things are within Russia? Do you know what the situation is for the people under Putin? There isn't anyone educated in the inner workings of Russia and Putin's position who would position Putin as a "reasonable man". People usually talk about past dictators in a way of "just imagine if we killed Hitler before his reign of terror". Based on all the people in prison, all people poisoned, all people silenced. Based on all intelligence about Putin, I would say that his removal from power, the removal of his closest allies would be the best, not primarily internationally, but based on what many in Russia feel as well. People think Putin is popular but he is not, he just has the power of a dictator. The only viable way is that the people of Russia get so pressured that the consequences of fighting Putin become less severe than the international consequences of his war.

What WE do about him is mainly for my country to protect our borders, strengthen the waters around Gotland. For US to pressure on an international scale, for Europe to become independent from Russian natural resources, to isolate Russia until change happens from the inside. This is what is happening right now. However, if Putin invades and occupy Ukraine, that is an act of war not seen since WWII, an act of a leader to "claim" another nation as their own. You can speak of invading nations and interests, but since when has the US taken over another nation and claimed it as their own? That form of aggression is on another level. If Putin succeeds in that and if the sanctions aren't enough to stop it, what then? If Putin feels like it, he will continue to try and revert back to the borders of old Soviet. Further pushing the borders, further pushing the aggressions just as he is doing now, because he feels there aren't any real consequences. If that happens... that means war with Nato. If that happens, that could lead to WWIII. This is not some fucking imagination or fantasy. Anyone naive enough about this are either too young or really uneducated in this matter.

What is it about this site which seems to attract people who can't tell the difference between their own opinion and what is actually the case. You've told me what you think is the case, you haven't 'explained' anything. — Isaac

So what is the case in your perspective? What is Putin's ambition? His goals? I mean, sure, the sources I draw from are military connections and a documentary filmmaker who's been working with interviewing intelligence people for over ten years about specifically Putin's actions and ambitions. So yeah, I can't "prove" anything in the way you are asking for. So, let's say you are right instead, let's say that I'm full of shit and you know what is going on right now. If I say that Putin is a lunatic who wants to restore the glory of the Soviet empire, the only thing I can really use right now as an obvious signifier is the speech he gave which directly pointed towards that specific ambition. Which, based on reactions all over the world was pretty idiotic and idiotic outbursts rarely contain strategic lies. But please, explain to me what Putin's ambitions and goals are. If the inductive conclusion I make, based on all the info I have, is that Putin has extreme ambitions of rectifying the embarrassment he felt during the fall of the Soviet state, what is your explanation for Putin's actions right now? We are analyzing the behavior, the facts and acts of Putin, if I KNEW the truth, I would have called up Nato, EU and UN by now, but knowing the truth is not the same as having an assertion that is likely based on known information. Now, provide your assertion, please. Remember how much Putin actually risks losing by invading Ukraine, then figure out what the reasons are.

You mean like Amb. Jack Matlock (US ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991) who said — Isaac

What's his modern connection to Putin's Russia? Putin wasn't even a figure head during that era.

I could not and cannot imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine, bomb its cities, etc., — Isaac

I sincerely hope not, but people have already called him stupid for his speeches during this escalation, so what does a little more "stupid" mean when he doesn't care about being called that? If he actually invades Ukraine, goes all in, that quote would age very badly. All we have is hope that he's not that stupid, but the acts the past few weeks have shown a pretty stupid side of him, so who knows?

..or have I gone and chosen the wrong expert again? I'm always doing that. — Isaac

I dunno? I seem to hear lots of experts speaking of Putin as stupid, as extremely aggressive, as careless and totally out of mind. Seems to happen on a daily basis now. Maybe you aren't really following the current events or just "save" comments made by those who you agree with, but I've yet to see an expert on Russia and Putin not being very concerned about Putin's current actions. When people like that start acting nervous, that is not good.

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter? — Isaac

We are already doing it. Unfortunately, the only real sanctions working might be the next phase. Total isolation of economic mobility. It will tank the global economy, but it might save lives. But if he invades Ukraine, well, we won't be able to do much, but Putin will show the world what lunatic he actually is. Lots of people in both Russia and Ukraine don't want a war, this is all Putin's actions. So if he does it, he can shrug off the sanctions and keep acting like it doesn't bother him, but the economy in Russia has been shit since 2014 and it will be worse going forward. If the world can heal away from the dependence of Russian natural resources, then it will leave the Russian economy in the gutter. Ukraine rebels will also most likely keep pushing the fight and the morale will get lower within the Russian troops. Right now there are reports of Russian troops at the Belarus border who constantly gets drunk and break discipline. Russia does not treat their troops in the same standard as other nations so the longer a conflict occupation of Ukraine goes on, the less capable the Russian forces will be upholding that occupation. What happens to Putin then? Who knows, I mean, everyone in their right mind and knowledge is laughing at his current cock measuring behavior so if the invasion, in short term or long, becomes an embarrassment, it will shake the foundation of his power. How long then will the people be "ok" with his rule? Why remove a leader of power when you can suffocate his leadership?

We cannot do much about this situation other than what we are already doing. However, if he invades and then continues forward, if he invades Gotland in the Baltic sea, if he tries to push onto borders of Nato, that will lead to armed counter-attacks against him. Just because we think he isn't that stupid, it doesn't mean he won't be. He's old, he might want to try and remedy his legacy in Russia as someone who brought back the Soviet glory days. Who rebuilt Russia, before he dies of old age. Do not underestimate a narcissistic and nihilistic dictator. We've done that before.

Sorry, have to been to Earth recently? Have you noticed anything about the US's ability to de-escalate? Any kind of trend? — Isaac

What does that prove? US "de-escalation" usually fails if there are interests for US within the area of de-escalation. However, Putin's actions are not some proxy war action as I've mentioned before. This is an act that calls back to WWII aggressions. It's not the same thing as proxy wars fought over oil or imperialistic reasons. De-escalation is nothing that the US alone is trying to do, everyone is doing it. What the hell do you think is going on right now in Europe? You think all of us are just waiting for what the US will do? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Funny how much I'm hearing that recently. "Yeah, the corporations are bad, big business is bad, big Pharma, the US military complex...all terrible..but not this time. This time they're doing it all out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind. This time it's different." You're like victims of domestic abuse. "This time he really wants me back, he's changed". It's disturbing. — Isaac

Are you mentally challenged? If I tell you that we are seeing movements of aggressions around the Baltic sea, if we see aggressions from Russia that based on all military strategic analysts, points to a serious risk of actual large scale war in Europe, are you seriously saying that this is like the act of "domestic abuse" based on our alliance with US within this conflict trying to push back Putin's aggressions? What the fuck are you smoking? Seriously, are you fundamentally uneducated about this topic and just babble forward your foundational opinions about US world politics while not understanding the current conflict when it's staring you in the face?

The world is not black and white as you describe it. US geopolitical interests have long been destructive and will continue to be. But the current aggression from Putin is not some fantasy and Europe and the US working together to counter these aggressions are not some fucking delusional act of a victim of domestic abuse. Seriously, what the fuck?

You did. — Isaac

Ok, fair, but I didn't say that democracy is some kind of bright beacon, it is still the ONLY system that has led nations to a more balanced life for the people with less corruption endangering that people. US isn't the only nation in the world with "democracy", so your argument of pointing out "democracy" being "bad" as well does not really matter if my argument was that Russia just plays theatre of the nation being a democracy. To imprison and kill anyone that oppose you and call yourself a democracy, that isn't being done, even in a corrupt nation as the US.

And that is my point. Russia has a dictator while people actually fall for the lie that they have elections that in any way or form is true democracy.

No. Russia has undergone massive regime changes since then, the US is still run by the same people. I'm comparing regimes because, you know, the soil they happen to stand on doesn't make so much difference. — Isaac

Really? The oligarchs got fat rich and then Putin took that wealth and gave it to his friends while most of Russia is in poverty. You only see the rich front that Putin wants you to see... Sounds an awful lot like the corrupt top 1% of the Soviet regime to me, just in new clothes. What exactly is different except the form of government on paper? It's just as corrupt as it's ever been, but maybe you fall for the propaganda more today when "communism" isn't a dirty word that can be slapped onto them.

Yes. Because "worrying about Putin" doesn't happen in a vacuum. We can't just not not do anything about Ukraine, if you want action, that action is going to be US led, so the track record of the US is fundamentally important here. Its the alternative you're advocating in "worrying about Putin". — Isaac

You think that we're not acting in Sweden right now? We're pulling large funds to increase our military, we have the island of Gotland that is a target of Russia to seize the Baltic sea area. You think US is the only one acting on this? You think no one else is affected?

It's no good pointing a finger at Putin and crying "bad man", you need to work out what the alternative to inaction is and whether anyone is actually going to be better off that way. — Isaac

The alternative for us in Europe is to be actually threatened by Russia if no action is taken. The US is an ally in this. Putin IS a bad man, his threats are out of date, his ideas are delusional misrepresentations of history.

Everything. Geopolitical conflicts don't happen in a vacuum, they don't spring out of thin air. the arms industry don't spend millions (5 million in Europe, ten times that in America) on lobbying on a whim, a vague hope that politics will just happen to turn out favouring war. — Isaac

Are you sure you have good insight into what Putin is doing and why? I've already explained the reasons for this conflict and you don't seem to get it. Listen to the experts on Russia and Putin, you are babbling about things that doesn't have anything to do with what Putin is doing. That is a problem. You have buried your head into reasons that don't compute with what Putin's ambitions actually are. He wants to rebuild the power of Soviet, that's his goal here. Figure out the consequences of those dreams.

You're advocating starting a war on the off-chance that your target might start one. And to not even see the link... Huge numbers of those children are starving because of American foreign policy. Again, to think these things are not connected. Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... you think each is just coincidentally increasing, unrelated to the others? — Isaac

I have not advocated starting a war. I couldn't give a fuck about the US, we in Europe are the ones who are threatened by Russia's actions. US is an ally that we work together with to try and deescalate the conflict. You don't seem to understand the actual conflict that is going on right now, it's not about US interests, it's about the security of Europe, which the US is an ally with. It's about not letting a lunatic like Putin push ambitions of creating a new Soviet-style regime onto this place.

But I guess that if people have been debating US foreign policies for a long time and criticized it for the horrors it created, it's easy to just scream IMPERIALISM, every time something happens in the world. And I agree, USA is really a villain internationally. This time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. I don't know where you live, but if you lived in close proximity to Russia, you would not be so blatantly dismissive of Putin's actions. The US might be a really bad player on the world state, but if you use that as an argument defending Russia and Putin at this time you are really not in the game of what is actually going on.

It is exactly the quality that treating Putin like a cartoon villain deserves. A cartoon response. — StreetlightX

I'm not. I don't think you know enough about Putin, his ambitions, the geopolitics of those ambitions and how Russia functions. I would say, it's easier to understand all of this when the proximity of this conflict is very close to home. It actually affects stuff around Europe and it's not some cartoon villain analysis of Putin. That's a ridiculous perspective.

Your having an overactive imagination doesn't seem like very good grounds for international politics. — StreetlightX

Explain to me why I should engage in such low-quality posts as this?

I wonder what it's like walking through the world thinking that it functions like an off-brand Marvel movie. Is he planning to wield the infinity glove after that? — StreetlightX

If that's not a strawman I don't know what is.

What's it like walking through the world thinking we are immune to historical destructive events? Ignorance is bliss I guess. "Might not happen" does not mean "we shouldn't act". The worst-case scenario global climate problems "might not happen" so "we shouldn't act" upon it. WWIII "might not happen, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it. Ukraine "might not" be invaded and thousands of people being killed while thousands more need to flee to other countries, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it.

Question: Do you believe Putin will stop after a successful invasion and occupation of Ukraine? If not, what do you think the next step would be? What would you think is going to happen in Europe if he continues? How do you think international relations, trade, diplomacy, energy politics and so on, will be affected if Putin does that?

I mean... he "might not", so "why bother".

Who? 'Everyone' is not an answer. Give me a non-partisan source claiming Russia is the main threat to world peace, so we've something beyond your opinion, to work with. — Isaac

Everyone is pointing out how Russia is a "security risk", it's political lingo. No one can speak in the way you require because of diplomacy. You cannot call out someone as a dictator threatening world peace and expect diplomacy further down the road. "Security risk" means that Putin threatens the security of Europe and in extention world peace.

So? In terms of actual harm the choose-your-preferred-colour-of-warmonger 'democracy' in America is way more damaging. I mean demonstrably so. How many has Putin killed? America's total stands a little over 20 million. — Isaac

You are comparing "America" to "Putin". Aren't you suppose to compare "America" to "Russia"? Then apply Soviet history and a guy named Putin who dream Soviet dreams, of reclaiming that power.

It's no good bleating about democracy when a living breathing democracy is sweeping though the world killing millions in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions. Democracy isn't going to save us here. — Isaac

Who the fuck said anything about democracy? I spoke of a lunatic named Putin who wants to reclaim Soviet power on the world stage. The war aggressions he makes have nothing to do with any notion that "democracy will save us".

I can list all the wars America has orchestrated and the measures of their destruction (though it sounds as though you might already agree, saving me the trouble), so what are you putting up against the war crimes of this 'democracy' to support the notion that veering from its political methodology is the most significant threat to peace? — Isaac

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying about Putin and Russia? Your argument is essentially: "because US is really bad, has been really bad and will probably be bad in the future... therefore we don't have to worry about Putin and Russia?" Do you understand why I think you are naive? You don't connect any dots in your premises.

What's 'naive' is assuming that the most powerful corporations and elites the world has ever seen are in any way held back by something as trivial as 'democracy'. — Isaac

Again, what are you talking about? What has this to do with the current geopolitical conflicts?

No one's saying Russia is innocent, but try speaking to the parents of the 700 children who just died from poverty whilst you were writing your post and see if they give a shit whose flag is over Donetsk and Luhansk. — Isaac

And speak to the parents of children who will die in a third world war if we don't do anything about lunatic aggressors making that scenario a possibility. Just because we're trying to fix one bad thing in the world does not mean we don't care about other bad things. The current "bad thing" about Putin and Russia is a critical one, a time-critical one, something that is progressing rapidly.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't address what is happening at the moment because of starving people elsewhere? What about the thousands of people who will be killed if Putin does a full-scale invasion? What about if he doesn't stop there? What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? THIS is why you are naive, you don't understand what is really going on.

They argue that expanding the U.S. commitment to NATO is a mistake, and that the president should instead focus on countering China and securing America’s southern border.

That doesn't help if China gets in bed with Russia. Fighting Russia is fighting China. And if relations with China get worse, their relation with Russia will strengthen and that is bad... that is really really bad. The relationship between China and US needs to be an arms-length trading act where the benefits of trade between China and US is more beneficial of both than actively blocking that trade.

China can cuddle with Putin and Russia all they want, but if the trade vitality between China and the west, especially US is strong and beneficial, then China won't fully support Russia until such a trade with the west and US collapses.

What "America first" people don't get is how international trade and relations keep the peace people take for granted. It's this globalization that has kept the world from new world wars. All it takes is either to close borders and stop interacting with other nations or let a lunatic roam free for too long.

Putin dreams Soviet dreams. Anyone who doesn't understand how dangerous that is don't know history.

According to whom? — Isaac

According to us living here in Europe, according to everyone involved with global trade, global interactions. It's very naive to pinpoint the distance to Russia as an argument that Russia isn't a major threat and even if Russia is only a direct threat towards other nations in Europe, do you really think a major escalation of war in Europe wouldn't affect the US? What the hell did you think happened in both WWI and WWII?

Ah, yes. The main threat. The nuclear weapon. The one which Russia has never used. As opposed to the one which America has used. Twice. And yet Russia is the main threat here. — Isaac

US interests in modern times are far away from what they were at the ending years of WWII. It can also be argued that because of the act of actually using the bombs, US wouldn't dare to use them again because that would put major crosshairs back on them.

And the threat doesn't come from the bomb themselves, it comes from the one wielding them. Putin is a literal lunatic, THAT is the threat. We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy. Are you seriously this naive as to what is an actual threat in modern times?

What on earth makes you think the American people give a shit about warmongers? — Isaac

Because Putin isn't just some small-time dictator or some proxy war puppet they can throw around. We can criticize the US in another thread and I agree with you that the "world police" practices of the US is horrible throughout history. But when it comes to Putin, especially in light of his attempt at rewriting history to fit his narrative, he's now acting as a Stalin-type dictator. He is a real threat to world peace, not just an isolated spot of geopolitical conflict in which the US can interact with the interests of natural resources or other reasons.

So this isn't just another proxy conflict, this is a major threat of global proportions. And just as a reminder of what the lunatic has in store if he completely loses it, tsar bomba.

*Pre-WWIII conditions occur under president Biden*

Liberals: How could Trump do this??? — StreetlightX

It's all Putins doing. The US president isn't a watchdog for WWIII. But when Trump calls Putin genius, that is a major red flag. Throw both the democrats and republicans out the window and just back up for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Putin is a major threat because he's a fucking lunatic. To have a former president and someone who might take office again, call Putin a genius is serious.

A lot of people will die and there will be a major hit to the security of the world if Putin invades Ukraine. So who can defend such a statement from Trump? How can the blatant pro-Putin and apathy of the republican party be something the US people would support? What the fuck is wrong with people?

I wonder if people now finally would realize how deeply incompetent the republicans are when Trump calls Putin "genius" and Tucker and Fox news continue to defend Putin's actions.

It should be absolutely clear how dangerous Trump and the republican apathy towards a war crisis like this is. The danger was never that Trump would hit the big red button, it would be that he would let someone like Putin create a serious security risk on a global scale and not act in time to contain it. It is becoming clear that the republican party is unable to sustain a stable political line and if any conflicts occur during Trump's next 4 years (if Trump gets re-elected), it could escalate the world into a major international conflict. If this happens, the world will view the incompetence of US, Trump and Republicans in such a serious matter that it could break Nato in half. The biggest issue is that US could be isolated, no one wants to be connected to such an unstable nation and EU might initiate a new military alliance without the US.

I don't think people realize just how incompetent Trump and the Republicans are on the world stage. It doesn't matter if you vote republican, like them or oppose them, everyone with any rational thought would agree that the republican party isn't what it used to be and it should be considered a great security risk if republicans were to ever oppose Putin in a situation like the current one. To have Trump call Putin genius, Fox news blindly criticizing Biden in a way that almost sounds like Russian propaganda and a republican party who mainly stays silent through all of this is really fucking serious.

It's a combination of both way too liberal gun laws and problematic socioeconomic politics, it's not one of the other. You increase crime through problems of poverty and lesser quality of life, as well as bad educational systems, no real working welfare, bad medical care and so on, while too liberal gun laws increase the severity of crime.

Logically there are also lots of people with good memories of Soviet russia. They're old and dying off, younger people without memories of the Soviet era don't have that kind of attatchment and just want better living conditions. They view other nations and see the potential they can have and they don't like Putin at all.

On top of that, the retaking of natural resources from the oligarchs into Putin's inner circle of KGB people have made Moscow extremely rich and the view from the outside is that Russia is a rich nation with western standards. This is so far from the truth. The money flow goes through the largest cities and the front propaganda of the nation. The real population around these areas is living in third world standards. With falling infrastructure and unable to live on their wages or pensions, especially now with inflation and the pandemic as well as how it could be if the US cut Russian banks ability to transfer internationally or with dollar currency.

So everything with Putin and Russia is just a big smokescreen. If nothing is properly done to remedy this situation, I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. As the elders die off, young people take over, the economy collapses and soldiers are killed in the Ukraine conflict.

The worst thing about this is that Putin is acting like a deranged child. If Russia collapses, he could very well just hit the big red button and send off nukes just because things didn't go his way. If people were afraid of what Trump could do, just imagine the manchild that is Putin.

The Russian economy is in the toilet and with the pandemic and rising inflation it's obvious that war becomes a way to distract the Russian people from those problems.

Putin, with his KGB roots, is an expert in disinformation. His whole power is based on a shadow play to lure the people into believing the nation is better off than it actually is. And plenty in the west look upon Putin as a strong leader and Russia as a powerful entity. This is exactly how Putin wants himself and Russia to be viewed, both internationally and nationally.

But you can only take it so far. Many in Russia are right now on the brink of poverty, barely able to make it. And what might the result of a Ukraine conflict be? If the US and the west initiate their sanctions, and if Germany is able to cut off Nordstream, then the economic collapse of Russia is probably very likely.

Putin could try and wage war all he wants to distract even further, but there will come a time when the emperors' clothes fall off and his KGB methods won't work anymore and the people will initiate a revolution. He can try disinformation, he can try and kill off his own people if they oppose him, but that can only go so far before he's publically hanged on the Red Square.

All it takes in that chaos, is another leader who gets enormous popularity within that chaos and there will be a massive shift in how Russia operates.

If Putin attacks Ukraine full-on, it could very well become the starting point for a Russian collapse and Putin's fall from power.

Of course, there's also a chance he escapes all of this unscathed. But how much shit can the Russian population take before they have enough? All leaders who make their own people suffer will eventually be taken out by the people.

what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel

This is propaganda koolaid. Nato is an alliance of defense. If Russia keeps being Russia, keeping the current borders, then Nato isn't doing anything, regardless of how many nations become members. Russia tries to blatantly change the narrative into Nato being an offensive alliance, which it isn't. Russia would never be attacked by Nato, but Russia and Putin benefit from spinning that narrative as Putin wants to expand into previous Soviet borders. So by using "the threat from Nato" as an excuse, he can (in his mind) explain to the world why he's invading Ukraine. But it's just foolish to think people outside of Russia fall for this because it's very clear what Nato stands for and Russia has nothing to worry about. Nato builds defensive lines, if Russia were to ever send missiles into Europe, that's when Nato comes into play. It's not Russia that "needs to defend the borders from Nato forcers", it's the rest of Europe that needs to defend the borders towards Russia. It's Russia that acts as the aggressor, not Nato, not Europe and not Ukraine.

Invading and occupying another country as a way to defend your own borders is not considered a defensive act in peacetimes. Russia is the aggressor, the invader, the attacker. If they invade Ukraine, THEY are breaking peace.

There is no way Russia could argue themselves into being the good guy here, whatever narrative they try to spin as propaganda.

I just think all of this is stupid. Russia has the potential to be a tremendous partner in alliance with the rest of the world. But Putin and his compadres from the old KGB are so delusional in their quest for Soviet empire ideals that they hold their own nation hostage. Killing opposing political figures and keeping Russia in a slowed economy due to their actions internationally. It's plain stupid.

Anyone can do philosophy, but a true philosopher does not jump between emotional opinions and proper philosophical scrutiny when constructing conclusions to an argument. A true philosopher knows when they're just having opinions and when they are doing a proper argument.

Most non-philosophers that shouldn't be considered philosophers don't conduct proper arguments or try any kind of evaluation of their own argument, they just present opinion pieces.

That is the difference.

Now, it's difficult to frame all philosophers within this framework since much of the proper methods are what we've arrived at in modern times. So many old and dead philosophers cannot be judged in the same light. But the question is what constitutes a philosopher and we can only conclude for today's people and at this time, the methods of philosophy are much more strict and focused than ever before and philosophers are only the ones who follow that strict method and constantly put their own argument under scrutiny.

I wonder if it's possible to manufacture a genetically modified variant that is almost non-lethal but has a transmission level hundreds of times that of Omicron?

In order to bypass human stupidity, lower slow and costly distribution and build up herd immunity fast, wouldn't a genetically modified virus be a better way towards that since it will distribute itself? It would bypass anyone who's stupid and doesn't understand how vaccines work, it would bypass slow and bureaucratic distribution chains, bypass corporate profits and be equal between poor and rich nations.

If there was a way to remove lethality and increase transmission rates, that would be a much more effective distribution towards herd immunity than any kind of vaccine. So modifying the virus towards that and intentionally setting it loose could be a very controversial but more efficient way of ending a pandemic.

I would say that the purest definition of art is:

A creation created intentionally as an expression with the intent of a receiver experiencing it.

Everything else starts to dig into how people subjectively define art. But this definition denies agents that are unaware of what they do to be artists, since a monkey drawing, a tree formed by evolution etc. shouldn't be considered "artists". We can appreciate the end result of their output, but they are unaware of that output being experienced as a form of expression and are unaware of having made it with any such intent. A computer AI that is fully self-aware and "wants" to create art in order for people to experience it, is indeed an artist. A computer algorithm AI that scans millions of pictures to form a collage animation that looks dreamlike, is not an artist.

Art has to have the intent of it being art with the focus on being experienced by another agent. Any deviance from it removes every common trait that is connected to definitions of art. If someone creates an art piece and it is not experienced by anyone, not even the artist himself, then it is not art, but how can an artist create something without experiencing it themselves? So art becomes art just by making it with the intent of someone experiencing it, in this case, the artist themselves. But even if it were possible to create art without experiencing it yourself, as soon as it is discovered, it is art, as the intention was there from the beginning.

If people start discussing what art is based on the quality of craft and such, that is not the definition of art, that is the definition of craft. And craft can be somewhat objectively judged, art can't. But as a form of definition, the question of "what is art?" is a pretty basic definition.

The more interesting question is, how does the perceiver's experience of the art define the artwork itself in relation to the artist's intention? If an accident reshapes the artwork after the artist's death, but people have forgotten that the accident happened, how would this new experience exist or be defined when neither the artist's intention nor the perceiver's experience truly correlates.

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best. — Athena

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.

But for whatever reason they tried it other way about. — NOS4A2

I don't think they tried anything. The Talibans were in Kabul before they even had the ability to say that they might come to Kabul. So whatever they couldn't blow up or shred were left behind just to avoid the shitstorm of killed soldiers. The attack on the airport didn't help the schedule, I think that attack made them panic and just left everything. Hopefully, they left outdated manuals for the Black Hawks and planes so the Taliban crash them instead of mastering combat with them.

I'm just stunned about the number of advanced war assets they have, it's fucking crazy. Seeing them in night-vision goggles and M4s is a whole other thing than white robes and old Russian AKs fired into the air. With some modern training, the Taliban forces could be trained to be special forces that could become a real nightmare in the middle east. Fubar clusterfuck.

As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares. — frank

I'm not sure how we should categorize $85 billion of war assets that the US seems to have "left behind". They have more Blackhawk helicopters than 85% of non-US nations around the world. Imagine if Sweden got all of that, we could be much more efficient as a baltic sea blockage against Russian interests. Now, Talibans have great war assets and might be in bed with China. This entire war has been so successful... I mean, no one in the world has criticized this since Bush let his mental health problems dictate what to do with 9/11. And now, US has done it again, put weapons in the hands of terrorists. Great job! It's not really Biden's fault, this is both side's fault, it's US fault. If it weren't so tragic I would laugh my ass off at this incompetent handling of middle eastern politics the last 20 years.

I dont realy understand a hyperreality. — Prishon

Read Baudrillard or some summary of his concepts.

There are no communist nations and they never have been. The original communist ideas by Marx and Engels were primarily about the evolution of society rather than revolution. At one point they proposed to revolutionize, but that's not what's really found in their analysis. Most of it is about how the fall of capitalism happens naturally and that communism is the ideology that takes its place in order to steer clear of chaos. What Lenin and the rest did was to try and force communism into reality. By doing it through force, they break the natural progression Marx and Engels talked about.

So, any nation who's ever positioned itself as being communists did so on false grounds and it becomes as shallow as a mass murderer saying he is an altruist.

There are no communist nations. If you believe that, you're as much under their influence of propaganda as their own people. There are only dictators and the elite calling the shots while the people believe they are being cared for. Doesn't that sound exactly like, say, the world built on free-market capitalism?

There's only one global structure; the elite and people in power, by money or by blood... and the rest of the population under their boot. The rest is delusions and simulacra, a hyperreal perception of abstract realities that do not exist anywhere. Some in this world actually try to propose cities built from the ground up in accordance with communistic ideals, but they cannot be realized since everything revolves around money and the power through those means.

Calling China a communist nation is an insult to the intellect in my opinion.

I think it's time for rehab... no?

How does a copy of the original cave make them both fake? If there’s a reference to the “real” thing what makes the real cave fake? What makes the recreated cave more real, or just as real as the original? There is no feasible way that the recreated cave was an absolute stone cold carbon copy, and even if it was, if the original exists, why would someone substitute the recreation for the original? — Ignance

Haven't come around to actually read Baudrillard yet, despite him being one of the most interesting modern philosophers I know. Reason being that while people use Descartes or Plato's cave whenever they make the metaphysical thinking about "reality being a simulation", it's such an overused argument that it misses the more interesting ideas that Baudrillard brings to the table.

Even though I haven't read Simulacra and Simulation yet, the things I've read about his philosophies tell me that it's the psychology of the experience and memory of the cave that is key. Think about it this way, many appreciate 1900- house architecture, the more down-to-earth, lived-in feeling instead of modern factory-produced houses without any "soul". So a company starts building 1900-era houses, replicating everything and it becomes a huge trend, much so that a hundred years in the future, most people have forgotten that the architecture originally started 200 years ago. For them, this is architecture from the start of the millennium, they've forgotten the original and cannot see the difference between originally built houses and newer houses that essentially just copied the old architecture.

You can see his ideas all the time in society. When someone tastes wine that they think is expensive, but it's just a cheap copy. It tastes the same, it is the same to the one experiencing it.

But it goes much further. And the most interesting idea is how his philosophy applies to the world we live in now. How Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook have created a simulation of our world, but how people started blurring the lines between the real and the fake online persona to the extent that it's basically a simulacrum, a hyperreal society. How do you know that your friend is, in your mind, is not just a blurred sum of your real experience with him/her and the added fake reality of his/her online persona? Where does the online persona begin and end, and where does the real physical self exist in this regard?

Essentially, we already live inside this fake cave. Our experience of the world is so influenced by the simulation of fiction blended with the simulacra of news, commercials, and propaganda, that we cannot really see where the fake sense of reality ends and reality begins. Just look at how media and social media produce people who seem to be so detached from everything that we are stunned by their alien words and behaviors. Qanon is a perfect example of this, an extreme and totally bonkers conspiracy ideology that is based on its peoples' hyperreal experience. They are unable to distinguish between the real and the simulation. They accept crazy bloggers' depiction of reality as the real world to the extent that they don't understand the difference anymore. The attack on the Capitolium was a prime example of how far into this hyperreal they actually are. And the sentences many of them get now are a shock to them; a sort of awakening where they don't understand what is happening, much like Neo waking up in the tank in The Matrix. Not really seeing the real world, but seeing the border more clearly and how traumatic that is.

Now, Baudrillard criticized The Matrix for not really understanding his ideas, but I think that was a bit premature since the rest of that film trilogy did in fact use a lot of his ideas to the fullest. They were filled with the ideas of symbols and archetypes as simulacra and they took the concept of hyperreal and used it on top of the story structure of the movie itself. People with surface-level philosophy knowledge were speculating if the "real world" in the movies were just another simulation, but they didn't realize that even though the real world wasn't a simulation, it was a hyperreal event. Everything that the second two movies were about was the manufactured simulacra of fighting against the machines. It's like if the future wars of the Terminator movies were instead carefully manufactured by the machines to keep humans thinking they were free but inside a prison of their own mental concept of resistance. This type of hyperreal situation let us believe that Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and the rest were actually fighting for freedom when it's just a rehash of a thing that has been happening over and over again. This is what Neo is then breaking by literally being blinded, but seeing the line drawn. He is then able to navigate towards a solution that breaks the hyperreal fake war. And maybe here the criticism by Baudrillard makes more sense, since his point is that we are unable to see the border clearly, however, for the Wachowski's to pinpoint the philosophy, they had to show it clearly.

This type of hyper-real war is also closer to reality than many think. Much of the wars going on today is merely proxy-wars where the soldiers think they fight for survival or something noble or God or whatever, but in reality, it's just superpowers playing them against each other to acquire geographical resources and strategical positions.

Wherever we turn today, we have hyperreal things all around us. Even knowing things are hyperreal, it's very hard to break through the boundary. I can understand the hyperreal situation of social media vs reality, but I cannot break free of it. I don't know where, in my experience and mind, my friends' online persona and their real physical persona start and end. They influence each other and blurs together. It's easy to just say that the person standing in front of me physically is the real friend, but that doesn't help my experience and feelings towards this person. Everything they are online influences my "real" experience. So how much of this relationship is based on their persona online and how much is based on their persona in real life? It's impossible to answer, and that is the point of the hyperreal.