Defending against an invasion is just as long as the invader isn't just in their invasion.
An invasion that is just needs to have a just cause.
A just cause for invading requires the invaded to conduct human rights violations, genocide, global threat or war crimes.

Those are absolutes that need to be existing. Some nations (cough Russia cough), use invented reasons, i.e false flag operations, to create the illusion of a just cause. But for a war to be truly just there needs to be no question as to the reasons being just, they need to essentially exist.

To just boil down war into only just or unjust and there can only be one answer is essentially making an enormous simplification of what "war" is.

For example, a war to stop Hitler is considered by most to be just. The lives saved by taking down his delusional empire were worth the lives lost. If we were to speculate just giving Hitler what he wanted just to save lives for the moment would have led to massive deaths at the hands of that empire, maybe even prolonging that regime for decades.

To blindly look at war as a spreadsheet of death and suffering statistics doesn't lead anywhere. It's as empty as high hippies dancing around singing about love peace and understanding. While all would agree with the will for peace, they have a naive perspective that just because they live and breathe love, everyone else is the same. This bias creates ideas and idealisms around peace that ignore those who lust for blood. Just as we have people in society that are broken, like for example serial killers, similar people are not unable to exist in positions of power. And through countless psychological experiments, it's been proven how bad people are at being genuinely good all the time.

There will therefore always exist people in power that go too far. Who start wars, who kill, who conduct genocide for no other reason than their own broken selves.

To initiate warfare to stop such people is always just. As long as the intention is to stop them and not be like them when doing so.

Just as we can discuss the negatives of a police force, the state having that monopoly of violence, it's not black and white, police always bad or always good. But no one would argue that when bad things happen and police stop it with violence, it saves lives, it fixes the situation for the moment. The same goes for war, it's a way to halt a progression out of control, to stop something bad to become worse. When all peaceful means to stop something bad fails, there has to be an act of violence that becomes required.

So it's rather not a question of unjust or just war, it's about morality. When is a nation, a leader or someone else in power, immoral? And when is that person or group so immoral that it justifies killing them to stop them? If that moral question is solved, it becomes a blueprint for a just or unjust war.

Any fact in this sea of confusion? Any salient idea, even? It reads like a long, clumsy propaganda piece, honestly. Your rhetoric is as empty as the Kremlin's. — Olivier5

Don't bother with him. I'm beginning to think there are people in here that are truly part of the Russian propaganda machine, apologists for Russia and this war. It's disgusting really. It's one thing to try and be unbiased, but I think that people have lived far too long in a world that's super-grey, with extremely complex variables making everything hard to figure out. And then something like this hits the world and people can't seem to think within something pretty crystal clear. It was long ago since we had someone so clearly the bad guy as Putin and people have such a hard time grasping that idea that they can only compare it to some Hollywood simplification. Well, it really isn't. The whole thing is complex as a piece of causality, but the players on the board right now aren't. I guess it was the same around Germany in the 30s, lots of people trying to point out the pretty clear reality of what is going on while some people just couldn't accept it. Especially after WWI and everyone trying to intellectually cope with the fallout of all empires collapsing and who to blame in that mess. So now people try to understand something without looking at what is going on right in front of their eyes.

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO and some of the thinking behind Putin — dclements

Yeah, that video pretty much sums up most of it. The main part is that people genuinely seem to be unable to understand that reasons don't equal justification. Putin can delude himself and his minions all he wants with his reasons, but there's nothing about Nato expansion nor his dreams of the old Russian empire that justifies any kind of invasion or war of any kind.

It all boils down to a simple question of national freedom: does an independent nation have the freedom to build its own security, including joining a security alliance? If the answer is no, then people can argue for Putin's justifications. If the answer is yes, then the debate is over and Putin is essentially the bad guy here. If no, then that leads to a whole bunch of follow-up questions that need to be addressed. What Russia wants, what it fears, how delusional it is about Nato or whatever argument there is for Putin's justification, it doesn't matter because, as the video ends with, Putin proved the justification for Nato's existence. It even forced Sweden and Finland to radically change opinions 180 about their will to join Nato. If Russia could just, like, fucking stay within their borders and do whatever they want in there, that's totally fine, then Sweden and Finland wouldn't have to think about Nato like this. But since Putin threatens the world as he does, even if that is just his Russian bullying bullshit methods, it really justifies having an alliance of security against such lunacy. There's no justification that can be done on Russia's or Putin's part, none.

If Russia wants to be alone, they can be alone, no one really cares about them as a nation, especially not now. If Russia wants to be cared about, if they want to be a global player, then no one is actually stopping them from it. It's just that they have to be involved with lots of globalization things that they just didn't like. And they can't have the cake and eat it too. They either join the rest of the globalized world, be a true partner, someone people likes, not someone they fear. Or they go down the route they've gone down now, to be someone to fear, to gain "respect" through that. It's bullying mentality really, the gangster/mafia method of gaining respect. It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. If someone is consistently acting like a criminal, bullying, beating people up, and never stops even when everyone tells them to chill, then in the end people will turn their backs. To then be pissed because people don't trust them, to be pissed that people want security from them, so pissed that they attack in full force... that isn't in any shape or form justified. It only justifies their own demise and gives every justification for an alliance of security.

I find it remarkable the amount of defense Russia and Putin get on this forum. From the uneducated, the illogical apologists and the confused irrationals, not seeing how actually non-complicated things have become by the acts of Putin and Russia. We now have much more insight into Russia and Putin than ever, fully seeing what he has built up towards. Over the years there's been lots of apologists as well as fear-mongers and the discussions and debates have been raging without any real conclusions being able to be drawn since neither side had much to back anything up. This war really sided with the fear mongers, there's no question Putin lived up to their arguments and ideas. But still, the debate is ongoing for some reason. It's hard to look at bombed children and think there's any grey area to the justification Putin had for this invasion. It's crystal clear he's become the first superpower dictator since the cold war or even WWII. And there's no defending that, however people think they're clever arguing for it.

Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! — Apollodorus

A usual response when someone doesn't understand simple fallacies.

I never said "Nato and EU has been expanding for years. Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful." — Apollodorus

So what is your premise then? I asked for a premise in support of the statement you made, what other premise can be drawn from what you wrote? Or did you evade providing a correct premise once again?

From what I see you're drawing your own conclusions and then attribute them to others. And you call others "delusional"? Maybe you're from the Finnish outback after all: — Apollodorus

No, I'm asking you for valid premises to your conclusion, so far you haven't. And I still don't know why you're so focused on the Finnish outback when I'm Swedish, maybe you don't pay much attention, which might explain a lot of things actually.

Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT: — Apollodorus

And still not a valid premise for your conclusion. Do you have problems actually understanding what you read? Since you don't seem to understand why they don't glue together? Your conclusion was about evaluating the level of truth in Putin's speeches about not invading. It has nothing to do with the fact that Nato has been expanding. You seem very confused as to what is actually being asked of you, instead answer with all sorts of answers thinking they can produce a valid outcome. Maybe pay a bit more attention and read more carefully.

So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time .... — Apollodorus

No, you are wasting everyone's time with not just answering a simple request to provide more support for what you say. Instead, you whataboutism around it, provide facts that don't support the conclusion I asked you to provide support for, and continue to talk about some Finnish outback in order to try and ad hominem your way out of it. Answer the simple request and stop wasting everyone's time with post after post that doesn't even connect to it.

Here's your conclusion again, since you seem to not even understand what conclusion you're supposed to provide support for:

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

Why is it so hard to create a proper argument for this? Is it because you can't? Because you don't have anything that actually provides support to this being actually truthful? That it's basically just an opinion, an unsupported belief without even much of a probability assessment behind it?

There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War. — ssu

Yes, and it might be that they had the plan to invade, but it might be that the result of Ukraine will dictate whether they will do it or not. If Ukraine is an utter failure for Russia, both Russia not getting Ukraine and also screwing up their own country down into third world standards, then I'm not so sure they will feel any urge to invade Taiwan.

Delusional dictators pop up now and then, but that would be what is required. Any balanced politician, even in nations like China will, I think, try to play the geopolitics a bit different today compared to the old empire war days.

So I think it all comes down to "the Putin disease" as you put it. Some delusional leaders or leader who just does something without any regard for the consequences.

By trade, I also mean how influential China has become world wide. They have a lot of influence in corporations around the globe that's about more than just transactional trade. They've conducted the power play of the modern globalized world by instead of waging war, they've put themselves in power by investing abroad as well as making the west dependent on their exports. Cutting off all of that is a much greater loss for China than how Russia deals with the cut off the world. Russia hasn't been involved in the world economy to the same extent. And this is what I mean with China losing far more than what Russia has done.

Of course they will survive, but I'm not sure they want to sink that low, I don't think they see any benefits to risking what they've built up. In essence I don't think there are many "Putins" among the top leaders in China, and instead there are people who we might disagree with politically and ideologically, but who are still more balanced diplomats than how Putin behaves.

I just find it hard to see China justify something in the way Russia has done. I think they know the power they have globally and don't want to risk any of that. China seems to be interested in being a superpower, not being an empire, as those are two different things.

I think China is too dependent on trade to easily just join up with Russia. China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. Russia could basically just cut ties to the west and still work with low living standards but still survive. China however has much more to lose if they would ever end up with similar sanctions.

If all goes to shit for Russia, I'm not sure China wants to be part of such a downfall. They are "idealogy-allies" in terms of being against western culture, but I think China just wants to "be themselves" while still trading with the rest of the world. Russia doesn't seem to give a fuck if they become totally isolated, at least Putin doesn't and I think it's this difference that puts China in a difficult position. Either ally fully with Russia and risk their entire economy as well as trade, but be cut off from western culture, or let western culture in, but try and influence the world to stay somewhat themselves.

I'm not so sure that it's possible to become a superpower today without being part of globalization. It's risky trying to be alone and still make it. Like how North Korea is; alone, isolated, not part of the west and I wouldn't say they're having any kind of life quality living standards worth it. Most of the population is starving and it's quite a mess for everyone but the top leaders. Compare that to South Korea.

People say that all of this is a kind of end of globalization, but it could also be that globalization is the only way forward for the kind of world we have today and everyone who dislocates themselves from it will suffer from it. It's entirely possible that there's no way back from it, it's locked into the economy, into the living standards.

This dynamic is also breaking up in modern culture, hence we see the reaction of both women and men on the extreme ends aggressively enforcing against or for the dynamic.

It's the reason we have this toxic male incel culture of dividing up men in Chads, Sigmas Alphas etc. It's a way for them to cope with the reality that the traditional dynamic has broken down and it doesn't work to "just be a man" anymore, you have to naturally fit the narrative of the dynamic, otherwise, you're an outsider and women will see you as an outsider, excluding you from this dynamic.

Basically, people have realized that this dynamic is bullshit (outdated) and doesn't include the complexity of gender relations as it exists today. So people who aren't capable of accepting (either mentally or unwillingly) this new status quo, rebel against it and tries to build a new narrative that incorporates new simplified explanations for this complexity.

In doing so, the exclusion from this complexity means they are also excluding themselves since they gravitate towards the old dynamic more and therefore men more openly show hate towards women today.

This also generates a counter-act from women, who has found liberation in this new complexity and want to defend it. Some so extreme that it becomes a counter-culture towards that incel culture. They start to hate men because they view everyone man as promoting the old dynamic.

In some Hegelian manner, all of this will synthesize through generations. We have two extreme thesis and antithesis sides that will eventually synthesize into the complexity they are pro or opposed to. We're almost seeing it in new generations of kids growing up, gender relations aren't as toxic outside those outliers growing up with older men and women who are teaching them to be toxic.

Very interesting. However, not particularly coherent or convincing, to be honest.

The way I see it, it is imperative to understand that this isn’t about your opinion but about facts. And the crucial fact is that NATO and the EU have been expanding for decades, not Russia. — Apollodorus

It's also interesting that you think it's about facts when your conclusion looks like this:

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

I see no facts here. Nothing about the Nato expansion is in direct relation to evaluating if Putin is being truthful or not. Something that is a fact in itself does not mean it becomes a valid premise just because you think it does. This is called "false cause" fallacy.

Basically you get this:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:

From a Russian military perspective, I can understand that they were worried when Nato was enlarged … It’s an awkward position for the West. It is true that the US and Nato have used force when they felt they needed to. Sometimes it was justified, as in the Balkans in 1995, but sometimes it was very dodgy like in Iraq. From the Russian perspective, I can see how they can make that argument. — Apollodorus

The conclusion you made is that you argued that they wouldn't have invaded if their demands had been met. But nothing of what has been said about Ukraine and surrounding the invasion has any real support in such a conclusion. All the movement of the military, all the intel that proved to be true, the video metadata showing how Putin recorded both his statements of not invading and the post-invasion speech at the same time etc. points to this invasion being planned for months. There's really not that much more than you "believing that Putin was truthful". This is the problem with your conclusion, you state that he is truthful contrary to everything that has happened, everything discovered. And if he was truthful with that, why not also with his fascination with history, his distortion of it? That would make him a delusional despot anyway, regardless of interpretation of intention. What about the leaked "manifesto"? There's too much working against the conclusion you've made for you to be certain that it is the truth other than you just believing in it to be the truth.

So, now your argument is this:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

In contrast, from what I see, you expect us to assume that everything that Russia says is “propaganda” and everything that America says is the pure and unalloyed gospel truth. But the fact is that America does use propaganda on a regular basis: — Apollodorus

So? We're talking about Russia and Putin's propaganda here. This is blatant whataboutism. But to play along for now: when it comes to this conflict, it's not even a balance between them in how it's being done. Russia is actively doing propaganda as the Soviet Union did, they're nowhere close to each other in magnitude. Russia is actively hammering down on free speech, free media, silencing anyone who criticizes them. This kind of information control coupled with state media that is impossible to criticize creates a totalitarian society where propaganda is the ONLY information flowing around. It's not even remotely close to how the US operates its propaganda. The US's propaganda has more to do with building an image of US exceptionalism around the world and nationally. It's about building up justifying reasons for their presence globally. It's propaganda, but compared to Russia it's "harmless" and totally open to criticism. You can speak out as much as you want in the US about this and there won't be a boot pressing you down. There might be some MAGA morons doing it, but that is not the same as a state doing it. The problem with propaganda is that when it becomes the only narrative allowed and when there's no way of criticizing it or bringing other perspectives to it, then it becomes utterly destructive.

Russian propaganda is the main engine in how Russia operates, just like it was during the Soviet Union. And it has now become even worse, basically a totalitarian nation where even your relatives get visits from the police if you speak up against Putin and Russia. The US and every other nation in the world basically use propaganda in some form or another. But it's very important to understand when propaganda is destructive and used as a form of control and when it's used as basically just a kind of national interest marketing. Those two are very different.

So propaganda in Russia is an important part to include and deconstruct if there's ever gonna be any truthful conclusions about Putin, Russia and this invasion. If you can't do that, if you can't use information and facts as a foundation for deciphering their propaganda in order to conclude what is likely going on, and instead just pick and choose from what Putin says to support your own pre-determined belief, then you're not really doing much more than stating your beliefs as "the truth" and using what fits that belief as premises for your argument. So now your argument is:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Not getting better here.

an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situationwould be to acknowledge that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism, the former being a mere reaction to the latter. — Apollodorus

This is not an argument, this is you saying that "you are wrong because you don't agree with my argument". I don't agree with your argument because there's enough pointing towards Russia and Putin's intention of expanding Russia into the old Russian empire, with those borders and playing a part of being one major superpower, disconnected from "the west". That the invasion is a reaction to take over nations included in that old geography before it's impossible to do so.

The problem with your argument is that you conclude it true by just disregarding any other interpretation. You disregard Putin's actions as just a reaction, because that fits your anti-west imperialist narrative. So for you, it needs to be true, there has to be validity to Putin's actions, otherwise many of your other values and ideological ideas fail. Putin and Russia can't have other intentions, and people not acknowledging your own perspective are wrong.

So, that is not an argument. You conclude something by saying "if you don't think like me you are wrong". There's no actual link between western imperialism and Putin's reason to invade that you have established as a connection. You just say, "it is about western imperialism" and expect this to be enough. No premises, no argument, just you saying so, therefore true. This is your problem.

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Just getting worse.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that Russia should not be allowed to react but must always allow itself to be acted on by America and its instruments of foreign policy like NATO and the EU, in any way or ways that Washington or Wall Street fancy .... — Apollodorus

And this is just what happens when you delude yourself that your conclusion is correct. You first conclude something based on nothing more than your belief, then you continue with your argument like this as if your earlier conclusion was true.

This is why I continue to return to your conclusion and demand true premises as a support for it. Because you don't do actual philosophy here. You don't use rational deduction or induction.

You state what you believe as being true, then you continue further arguments that require that truth as its premise foundation, meaning that it becomes circular reasoning. You think you are rational, but all you do is to use your own beliefs as premises thinking they are facts.

It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who's so delusional about his own conclusions and who are unable to see past his own biases and fallacies.

So once again I return to your original statement because you still haven't given rational and logical support for it. Nato's expansion does not explain how in your conclusion, Putin is being truthful. It ignores the evidence we have against it (video metadata) and it comes into contradiction with Putin's other speeches about aspirations for the Russian empire based on Russian history (why is he truthful about what you want him to be truthful of, but not about everything else he says?).

Again, I want true premises that logically connect towards your conclusion here:

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

There's no point in debating further if this hasn't been established as true or false first. I'm asking you to support THIS statement, THIS conclusion. Clean off all whataboutisms and irrelevant noise and give me an argument that's about supporting THIS conclusion, that's all I ask. Is it hard? Is it not possible? Because it seems you aren't able to actually do this. Stop trying to side-step this issue, because this issue is at the core of your arguments and there's no point in going further before this statement has been proven true or false first.

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years. (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p3 The US also conducts propaganda (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Try again

I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. — ssu

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse. — ssu

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. Times have changed and we have to act with more dedication of defense than before. I mean, it doesn't matter if we're in Nato or not if there's a nuclear war. It's not like bombs all around us won't destroy us anyway. So any defense against traditional warfare is better than risking us being the next "proxy nation in order to keep Nato away".

You''re just playing with words, and the global "capitalism" that Scandinavia is still a part of is destroying the entire planet, so doesn't actually contribute to quality of life in Scandinavia. — boethius

I'm still not talking about capitalism, that's what you brought up. I agree with you on the point of it destroying the planet, but that has little to do with my point on true democracy being the superior form of government in terms of peace and quality of life for the people.

The criticism of US, NATO and EU policies in the current war in Ukraine is not some vague criticism of "capitalism" it's a criticism of their actions right now. — boethius

US, NATO and EU don't do anything with Ukraine right now. Everyone tries to help Ukraine in any form that isn't military. What are the actions by them right now you are criticizing? That they don't do enough or that they help Ukraine with material and the refugees?

That "someone is worse" doesn't matter. Can I kill 100 people just because someone has killed 101 people? Or let people starve even if I have the means to do something easily ... because, technically, other people created that starvation situation? — boethius

That wasn't what I said now was it? I objected to the simplistic conclusion that capitalism leads to corruption. I objected to it because corruption needs other failures of government before capitalism can corrupt it. My argument was that a state with strong constitutional power of democracy, with free speech, free press and elections that aren't manipulated by the parties involved can have a capitalistic system and still not become corrupt. That capitalism alone doesn't corrupt.

But you seem to confuse what I say with it being some defense of capitalism. It's entirely possible to point to grey areas of a matter without going into a black and white fallacy. I can dislike capitalism and still point out a faulty causality in an argument about it.

I live in the EU, I can affect EU policy, and if it's just letting Ukrainians die for politicians to masturbate each other on television and advertise the effectiveness of their arms industry, I'm going to complain about the actions and decisions of my "leaders" because there's a point to doing that. — boethius

What has this to do with what I said? And what is it that you want them to do exactly?

Hating on Putin accomplishes nothing and, the whole Western media doing that for 2 decades, is what leads to a situation where Western leaders don't care about any sort of diplomatic process with Russia to avoid human suffering, — boethius

They've been "hating" on Putin because he has created a corrupt government and limits people's free speech. He imprisons opposers, poisons others, shuts down state critics. There are tons of reasons why he deserves criticism, just as we've been criticizing Trump and other bad politicians and governments. That this is some unjustified "hate" is bullshit. Of course people in power who misuse and abuse should be criticized. Appeasement mentality leads to things like Nazi Germany.

You cannot be diplomatic with someone who acts under other ideals than diplomacy. There have been plenty of peace talks now, plenty of diplomatic hands reaching out, but he and Russia don't care.
What exactly do you think leaders of the world have been doing when talking to Putin? Nothing works, he repeats himself over and over with no diplomatic balance other than "give me what I want and I'll back down".

That's not diplomacy, that's an ultimatum. If you want diplomacy, tell me how to be diplomatic with someone who's not diplomatic during those talks. You ask for the west to be diplomatic, but when Russia isn't acting according to diplomacy, what are you going to do?

It becomes the equivalent of a crowd shouting"What do we want? WE WANT PEACE! How do we do it? WE DON'T KNOW!"

You may not be aware of it, but doing philosophy is precisely what I'm trying to do. — Apollodorus

:rofl:

Problem, you see, is that in order to philosophize you need to have the facts first, otherwise it's all just empty speculation. — Apollodorus

So when I ask for that, for your initial conclusion, it doesn't apply?

You do know that philosophy also requires logic, rational deduction and induction? As well as having as little bias and fewer fallacies as possible when providing an argument?

If you ignore the facts and dictate to others what they should think, that's an approach that isn't going to get you very far. — Apollodorus

So what are you doing then? You start out with a conclusion and I ask you for evidence or rational support to back that conclusion up, then your answer is that I shouldn't dictate anything?
Are you fucking serious? :rofl:

My advice would be to acquaint yourself with the facts, especially established and well-known historical facts, first, and then attempt to philosophize. — Apollodorus

What facts? I asked for facts and support for your conclusion, you provide jack shit of anything. The only thing your doing is trying to talk around failing to provide a proper argument for your conclusion.

I'm still waiting.

If you knew the facts, then I'm sure you'd agree with me that Putin has got a point. To take the example of a trial in a court of law, you'd need to take into consideration both sides, not just one. Very simple and easy to understand, really. — Apollodorus

That's not what you said though. You are not considering both sides:

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

If that's the only thing you had to say in court, the judges, jury and people would laugh you out of the legal system. Then saying "if you all knew the facts, then you would view what I say as true".

You're like,"If you all knew the facts, you'd know that the killer had a point and when he says that he wasn't going to kill the victim, then he was truthful, I promise, I know this because I know the facts"
Then we ask "What facts? Make a proper argument for your conclusion and we can continue" and you reply, "If you all knew the facts as I do, you would agree with me that the killer has got a point. We have to consider both the killer and the victims side in this, it's very easy to understand really".

Give me a fucking break. This is just stupid. :rofl:

So, demonstrate (a) that you have knowledge of the relevant historical facts and (b) that you are willing to engage in an objective and balanced conversation. If not, then there is nothing I can do for you .... — Apollodorus

Give me a proper argument for the conclusion you've made. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of normal philosophical practice when asked to provide it.

I'm open for discussion, but if you start with a conclusion and I ask for clarification and support for that conclusion, whatever my stance in the discussion is irrelevant if you can't support your own initial conclusion first, then we can go into my counter-argument to your argument.

Demanding me to do anything and trying to ignore your own responsibility as an interlocutor, just means you won't take responsibility for your part in a philosophical discussion while demanding that others should take more responsibility than you. This is how a child rationalizes their status.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Scandinavia is not an example of how "capitalism works", it's an example of how socialism works and a free market can add some value to a largely socialist state. — boethius

Yet, Scandinavia's free market system is still capitalism. Your argument was that capitalism corrupts democracies, then it should corrupt Scandinavia as well since we still have a free market and live under capitalism. Neoliberal ideologies of capitalism corrupts, but we don't have that, not in the sense that the US has. So it's not this black and white thing, capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is first and foremost that nations who reject true democracy are worse societies and it has been proven over and over again in the world. There might be a better system of government, but so far we haven't been able to invent one or tested one. So until that happens, true democracies will be better and more peaceful than other forms of government.

It's not enough for you to simply say that life in Ukraine would be better than life under Russian puppet governance. — Isaac

They don't want to live under the boot of Russia and Putin. They fight for their right to be free, they fight for their will to live in their country under their own free will. They don't agree with you, even if they're getting killed, they don't want Ukraine to be part of Russia and it's Russia who's killing them.

If a killer killed half your family and then said to you that you all need to live under his rule or else he kills everyone. With a chance to fight back and regain freedom, would you either accept his rule or would you try to fight back? You might accept living under his rule, you might dance around as his puppet, but people with experience of that, with a history of that, might just want to fight back in order not to erase all progress they've made so far to be where they are today.

The question at the core of your argument is really if it's worth fighting for freedom or not. You conclude that no, it's not worth it. With the risk of going into a life of totalitarian repression, this is more favorable to you than risking your life for freedom.

Ukrainians, however, seem to disagree with you. And I disagree with you. The reason is that the rise of a totalitarian power has over the long term in history led to more bloodshed than the concentrated bloodshed during a war. There's a reason people fight for their freedom, there's a reason people stand up against people like Putin. And it's my moral conviction that fighting totalitarian powers is always the right thing to do. For others and yourself. In my perspective, setting such powers lose by not standing up against them will never lead to freedom for anyone, it would lead to a worse state of the world.

That's why I live in Scandinavia. — boethius

Then you know what I mean.

The whole criticism about capitalism is that it leads to corruption of the democratic process. That's the whole point. — boethius

And yet, it can work well in a society like in Scandinavia. I'm guessing that you only focus on the US now, but that's just one of many democracies. If there are laws and constitutional articles that focus on lowering corruption, it also protects democracies from growing corruption. Yet, corruption is still greater in nations without a free market and free press. Part of democracy is to have free speech and free press, those aren't disconnected from the government system. Even in a nation with high corruption like the US, the press and free speech can take down corrupted officials. That cannot happen in nations without it. A democracy without free speech and free press is a sham democracy, which is how Russia's "democracy" has been viewed over the course of the entire post-Soviet era.

That capitalism could lead to corruption of the democratic process is not an argument against democracy being the best form of government we have in the world to date. Comparing a completely mud-dirty shirt to a fresh clean one and then saying "you can't say one is cleaner than the other" based on the fact that you found one small dirty spot on the clean shirt just makes everything into a "black and white" fallacy.

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.