Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    Anyway, I haven't seen indications that there are significantly more Russian than Ukrainian fighters in Ukraine at the moment. — jorndoe

    Then again my point:

    If the Russians managed to capture 20% of Ukraine while outnumbered, how could the Ukrainians ever hope to go on the offensive successfully?

    Going on the offensive is extremely difficult and costly, and if anything the troop counts have shifted into Russia's favor.

    But the Kremlin has spent a significant amount of shells and rockets (and troops) in 17 or 18 months of warring. Reports suggest much more unity among Ukrainians (and hate towards the invaders). — jorndoe

    Russia is reportedly enjoying a between 5 and 10 to 1 artillery advantage. That's massive, especially considering artillery is perhaps the single most important factor in a war of attrition.

    I understand the desire to turn this into something positive, but the bottomline is the Russians have vastly more firepower than the Ukrainians, and that's a terrible situation to be in as first-hand accounts of the Ukrainian frontlines attest to. Constant artillery shelling takes a real toll on people.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    FMI, do you mean GlobalFirepower? ISW? FOCUS online? Another one? — jorndoe

    ISW has been the prime peddler of nonsense and some of the other articles refer to their claims. At this point the ISW is little more than a mouthpiece of the US DoD / MIC (which they're funded by, by the way).


    But to pick some slogans that I saw passing by:

    1. "The next defensive line will be weaker than the last"

    2. "The offensive is picking up steam"

    3. "The offensive was targeted at the strongest part in the Russian lines"


    These are all claims that don't pass the basic military common sense test:

    1. Defense in depth gets stronger with depth.

    2. Offensives produce quick results or they fail.

    3. Offensives are targeted at weak points in the enemy line.


    Some rough estimates of troop sizes ... — jorndoe

    Russia has almost ten times the GDP of Ukraine and a vastly larger manpower pool to draw from.

    Do these numbers pass the common sense test in your mind?

    EDIT: I was actually thinking about CSIS and not ISW, so some of my criticism was wrongly addressed. My gripe with their claims still stands though, and I am similarly suspicious of ISW's affiliation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jorndoe
    The Russians haven't been sitting still. They've recruited literally hundreds of thousands of troops. If we go back to the start of the war, they managed to occupy 20% of Ukraine while being significantly outnumbered. The Russian forces now outnumber the Ukrainians significantly. That should tell you enough about the current balance of power.

    Second, this Ukrainian offensive has been an unmitigated disaster and going way too slow. If the Russians feared any kind of breakthrough to begin with they've had ample time to react.

    The media you keep linking deal in the deadly drug called hopium, not reality.
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    Governments can barely organise the quotidian things they’re supposed to organise, let alone conspiracies to deceive. — Wayfarer

    The CIA's track record is out there for all to see, and most of it isn't even being disputed - it's accepted history.

    As is the United States' self-evident history of lying and deceiving its population.
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    ↪Wayfarer
    If you're willing to entertain the thought that aliens exist and have visited Earth, you should be willing to entertain the thought that your government is trying to deceive you - something which it has the power to do, the institutions to do, a vested interest in, and has been caught red-handed doing several times in the past.

    I know which one I find more far-fetched. :smile:
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    Fantastical news stories are usually pushed to disguise failing US policy.

    So really it's an exercise in finding the fuck-up they're trying to cover up.

    My guess would be the fact that US foreign policy is failing across the board has something to do with it.
  • Climate change denial
    Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown. — unenlightened

    Oh, the irony.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪Benkei
    To be fair, while the US obviously isn't fascist, it shares an uncomfortable number of features commonly attributed to fascism.

    Nationalism, militarism, belief in American supremacy, interwovenness of state and economy, growing authoritarian tendencies, etc.

    I see where people get the idea from.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    US politicians are starting to speak sense on the matter of Ukraine:

  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    ↪T Clark
    Your behavior suggests otherwise, which is why you're participating in the smear.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    RFK Jr. is a clown. — T Clark

    Oh, perhaps. I don't really care.

    Smearing people with lies is degenerate. Believing such practices are acceptable just because one dislikes the target of the smears is likewise degenerate.

    Thanks for making my point for me. :up:
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    ↪T Clark
    So clearly you have no idea what he said, because here's what he actually said:




    Degenerate journalism from the New York Post to smear a political opponent, and you're enabling it because you view RFK as a political opponent too.

    So it appears I was right - you are showcasing the exact degeneracy I was talking about. It's disgusting.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    RFK was "smeared" for saying that covid had been engineered so that Jewish people would not get sick. — T Clark

    That's not what he said, though. But if you're a political opponent of RFK that's how you might like to frame it.

    I appears that you might be showcasing the degeneracy I mentioned - using racism as a stick to beat political opposition with.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    They're terms that in the modern day are primarily used to whip people up into a self-righteous frenzy; a mechanic through which people are easily controlled.

    It sets up (ironically) a heirarchy of moral superiority. The racist, morally inferior - the anti-racist, morally superior. The opinions and well-being of people deemed morally inferior may be disregarded at will - very useful to silence people or get rid of people espousing unwelcome opinions. Note how RFK was recently smeared as being anti-semitic in a not-so-subtle attempt at silencing political opposition. This is degeneracy parading as moral virtue.

    While racism and sexism undoubtedly exist, the use of these terms I regard with the utmost suspicion, because people who genuinely care are rare, and it's almost always about power, manipulation, or plain old social masturbation.
  • Coronavirus


    A recent Swiss study done on the risk of side-effects of mRNa vaccines, this time producing a 1 in 35 risk of developing myocardial injury.

    Quite stunning numbers, considering the vaccines were marketed as being completely safe.

    As this and other recent studies are pointing out, the risks may have been considerable.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Countries may say one thing, and do another.

    That should be obvious by now. If it isn't obvious to you yet, ask yourself why the international sanctions against Russia failed.

    It's also worth noting the countries who abstained from voting: China and India for example - the countries with the largest populations on the planet, each one seperately being larger than all NATO countries combined.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yes, but there are other costs to giving Putin what he wants, e.g. an increased risk of Russian aggression in the future. Forcing Russia to burn through its entire Cold War stock of hardware and ammunition greatly reduces their ability to wage future wars. Even at current wartime production levels it will take Russia well over a decade to put together anything like the force they initially invaded with, likely far longer. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    As you probably know, my view is that the Russians were provoked into invading Ukraine.

    If they are provoked similarly in the future, and conventional means are no longer available, they will likely react more extremely; possibly with nuclear weapons. Remember the Cuba Crisis.

    Further, if the purpose of western intervention was to send a message, who is listening? Independently-minded countries like the BRICS don't buy the narrative of an unprovoked invasion, and they have all refused to side with the US over this issue.

    Meanwhile, the US has its hands tied in Ukraine trying to protect a two-decade investment which it will probably end up losing in the end. The US is losing influence all over the world, the Persian Gulf being a prime example. China is the laughing third.

    This strategy has been a disaster.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The issue with "not giving Putin what he wants" is that the cost of that strategy is the destruction of Ukraine, and with a risk of Putin getting what he wants regardless.
  • Masculinity
    ↪Isaac
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :pray:

    I'm going to give what you wrote a think, and come back to it later.
  • Masculinity
    ↪Isaac
    I have a slightly different view about this, and I'm curious what you think about it.

    If these people were indeed coming from a place of superiority and a belief in 'the Truth', perhaps we wouldn't expect to see this type of anger, nor would we expect such folks to be reluctant to engage in real discussion. Both neither suggest confidence nor a well-rooted belief of 'the Truth'.

    To me it suggests the opposite, though in some ways it is related.

    The anger stems not from a sense of superiority, but from taught ideology. Through what is basically indoctrination the ego is bound to the ideology, and the individual develops a sense of self-esteem that is directly connected to this ideology.

    The result is a lack of confidence, because the ideology is what has value, and not they the individual. Only through the ideology does the individual gain value, or so they are implicitly taught.

    When the ideology starts showing cracks (as any ideology is bound to do at some point), it is their fragile sense of self that starts cracking along with it, hence the aggression - they perceive debate as a direct attack on themselves.

    Rather than going through the painful process of decoupling one's sense of self from the ideology, they develop coping mechanisms to deal with a stubborn reality that doesn't conform to the ideology, by shunning honest debate and instead relying on every dirty trick in the book to protect their sacred egg.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Oh, I'm sure the US was mighty interested to hear what Johnson had to say about peace in Ukraine. :lol:

    Chirst, these people.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    No, I am claiming that if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is), then we should not treat their reports as 'independent', as Tzeentch claimed. — Jabberwock

    What an ignorant thing to say.

    He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said. — Jabberwock

    It's exactly what he said:

    Naftali Bennett: Everything I did was coordinated down to the last detail, with the US, Germany and France.

    Interviewer: So they blocked it?

    Naftali Bennett: Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.

    The level of intellectual dishonesty here is truly astonishing.

    Or perhaps you're all experiencing the first stage of grief?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Common sense, being one.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Interviewer: "So they blocked it?"

    Naftali Bennett: "Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong. In retrospect it's too soon to know.

    [Naftali Bennett lists a number of disadvantages of continuing the war, and then continues...]

    On the other hand, and I'm not being cynical, there's a statement here, after very many years. President Biden created an alliance vis-à-vis an aggressor in the general perception and this reflects on other arenas, such as China and Taiwan and there are consequences."
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu
    Hilarious as you may find it, there are independent people giving acounts of the negotiations, and that's the picture they sketch.

    Here's what Jeffrey Sachs had to say, based on his direct contact with the diplomats involved:

    The war broke out, and within a month Zelensky said: "[Ukraine] could be neutral." And negotiations started in Ankara with Turkish mediation. And I spoke to the Turkish mediators. I spoke to people who were deeply involved in this. There was rapid progress made on the basis of Ukrainian neutrality.

    Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]. The best estimate given to us by former prime minister Naftali Bennett in a very interesting, long interview he gave online a couple months ago, said: "The US stopped it. I didn't agree with them, but they thought they needed to be tough towards China. That it would be a sign of weakness to go along with [the peace negotiations]."

    Honest to god. It's worse than five-year-olds.

    The Russians and the Ukrainians were ready for peace. The US wasn't, because they feared how it would reflect back on them in the eyes of the Chinese.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You are campaigning against your own intellectual decency. — neomac

    Coming from you, that's rich. :rofl:
  • Coronavirus
    Imagine spinning apologetics for smear campaigns falsely accusing someone of anti-semitism.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It appears those who would post lengthy and strongly-worded posts on how the Ukrainians must continue to fight and die, themselves lack the courage to risk something so trivial as being wrong.

    There's something rather icky about that, and it doesn't suggest any kind of confidence in one's views either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock
    Not in the slightest.

    ↪Isaac
    makes a good point here:

    Convincing people that Ukraine has a chance of 'winning' is the main method by which continued drip-feed sales of weapons are justified (making the arms manufacturers an unrivalled fortune). Since Ukraine is actually being destroyed (economically, but also literally), it takes quite the major advertising effort to keep this illusion up. Hence the massive social media campaign, of which your posts (wittingly or not) form part. — Isaac

    Since so many of you are happily contributing to said ad campaign, isn't there anyone among you who believes enough in this theoretical chance of winning to make a prediction of the how/when of Ukrainian success?

    It appears not, and that is no surprise, but it does beg the question what it is exactly that those people are doing here.

    Entertaining a notion for sport?
  • Coronavirus
    If "you people" means US voters, [...] — jorndoe

    Of course that's what I mean.

    [...] a few US politicians are clowns, including RFK Jr. — jorndoe

    And I suppose that is your excuse for participating in said smear campaign without even bothering to see what was actually said?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    :point:
    If there are people here who are predicting imminent major successes in line with this paper reality, speak up please. — Tzeentch

    No one?
  • Coronavirus
    ↪jorndoe
    Here's what Kennedy himself had to say about it:




    Is Kennedy secretly anti-semitic, or is this just a well-coordinated smear campaign to dispose of a threatening political opponent?


    Let's be real. 'Dumpster fire' doesn't begin to describe American politics and the buffoons you people put in the White House. Think what you will about RFK, but he's a decent common sense guy, and common sense is something that is deeply threatening to the American elite.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I'm sure on paper everything is looking just dandy for Ukraine.

    If there are people here who are predicting imminent major successes in line with this paper reality, speak up please.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    How far should the situation in Ukraine deterioriate before we can agree the peace accords that were on the table in March / April 2022, scarcely a month into the war, should have been carried out instead of blocked by the US?

    Those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego. Flipping Ukraine pro-western has been a decades-long project of the Neocon foreign policy blob, under leadership of chief blob Nuland.

    How many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock
    I await Ukrainian success, as evidenced by their 'offensive' at Kherson, with bated breath. :pray:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If Ukraine lacked the capability to take Kherson, then Russians had no reason to leave it. — Jabberwock

    A very simplistic way of imagining things.

    There's not really much point in debating. If you want to believe the propaganda spins and keep puffing the hopium, have at it.

    I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that the longer people cling to idle hope, the more people needlessly die and the more devastation is inflicted upon Ukraine.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What? You still consider the offensive in which Russians lost Kherson (the only oblast center they managed to take) as failed? — Jabberwock

    The offensive I referred to took place well before the Russians left Kherson. And it failed.

    It's pretty obvious that Ukraine lacked the offensive capability to wrench Kherson from the Russians in an actual battle like the one we saw at Bakhmut.

    They timed their 'offensive' when the Russians were pulling back to fix their overextended lines, and of course the western media propaganda spun this into a 'successful offensive'.

    Pure nonsense.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That is, you have declared the Kherson offensive as failed (and Ukraine as losing the war) a bit prematurely, haven't you? — Jabberwock

    No, I think those were both bang on the money, and the current situation reflects that.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why do you think so? — jorndoe

    There have been reports of the Russians pushing for territory in the north. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians haven't reported any territorial gains for about a week or so. That to me is a pretty good indicator that the Ukrainian offensive has likely concluded, and the Russians might be looking to retake the initiative.

    The Russians probably wouldn't go on the attack if they believed the Ukrainians may still have capacity left.

    NATO members (and whoever else) are indirectly involved (no declaration of war / combatants). Why "heavily" though? — jorndoe

    Biden stated Ukraine couldn't join NATO while still at war with Russia, obviously fearing what would happen if Ukraine invoked Art 5. and dragged all of NATO into the war, potentially triggering WWIII.

    This is a big deal, because it basically puts the power in Russia's hands. As long as Russia continues the war, Ukraine can't join NATO, and NATO won't be getting directly militarily involved.

    All of this was of course already implied, but when Biden says it publicly it means it's basically official NATO policy now. It's a harsh blow to Ukraine, because as I've argued earlier, their chances in this war are extremely slim without direct NATO involvement.

    Plausible enough, yet makes Prigozhin appear dumber than a fairly successful entrepreneur. Is he that out of touch? Does it stack up? — jorndoe

    I don't know. Much is still unclear and earlier I stated I would judge the episode by its effects on the battlefield, which haven't been noticable, so for now I'll settle on it having been an accidental fluke.
  • Personal Morality is Just Morality
    I've not heard you rate the two elements before (but I may be misremembering). Intention and effect are necessary but intention is 'first and foremost'. That complicates any judgement a little. How does this 'first and foremost' cash out in terms of moral judgement, for you? If a person really strongly intended a good thing, but a bad thing occurred, is that moral because their intentions is 'first and foremost'? The element of weighting adds a new dimension to my understanding of your moral system. — Isaac

    Consider these examples:

    A person intends to harm, but fails to do so. Was the act immoral? I would say yes. In this case, apparently the intention is all it takes.

    A person does not intend to do harm, but accidentally does harm anyway. Has this person acted immorally? I would say no. Because the person did not intend for this to happen, this has to be chalked up to ignorance or inevitability, and as such belongs in the realm of tragedy. It's impossible to avoid harm if we are not aware that we're committing it. Apparently, a harmful outcome alone is not enough to class an act as immoral.

    Obviously we could fill a whole book with this subject alone, but this is my simple take on the matter and the types of intuitions I'm following.

    Then I'm persuaded. Otherwise we'd go left. — Isaac

    I think we're using different ideas of what persuasion entails. It seems persuasion to you means the act of changing another's mind. I don't think that's inherently immoral, and in my view, nothing immoral or questionable happens in your example.

    Why? Why meddle? — Isaac

    I'd appreciate you come to your point.
Home » Tzeentch