Popular culture. — Andrew4Handel

What's that and why would it be reflective of society's values at large?

What evidence do you have that society values female traits (considering the pay for jobs dominated by women) — Andrew4Handel

Why would pay be considered an indicator of how much a society values certain traits?

Isn't parenthood greatly valued in any society? Guess how much that pays.

How many super heroes are female.

How come heroes have to be aggressive and strong and vengeful and not caring and nurturing and reasonable? — Andrew4Handel

Super heroes are for children.

It seems to me that male traits are seen in a more positive light than female ones still and that traits like nurturing, caring and kindness and forgiveness are seen as weaknesses. — Andrew4Handel

By whom? I can't think of anyone I know that doesn't value those traits highly.

Russia bad

I don't think you're missing anything.

It's a very level-headed way of living life, sticking to living in the moment rather than worrying about all the things that might be. Very Buddhist-like indeed. The two may have even influenced each other. (Especially the Greeks being influenced by traveling eastern sages)

I see where you're coming from. There's one accepted narrative and anything that remotely questions it is attacked as "pro-Russian". I agree it has things in common with cancel culture.

The narrative is so fragile that it cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny, so the goal becomes to silence criticism. It's used in the domain of public discourse and in the political arena to silence political opposition.

However, I suspect for the "people in the know" as you put it, narratives are just a tool to influence the public, and they don't believe in them as fanatically.

I'm not sure about cancel culture. That seems to be something that mostly threatens public figures, whereas the people who cook up geopolitical strategy that remains constant throughout several presidencies are almost certainly not public figures ("deep state" / elite, in the US also known as "the Blob" or the foreign policy establishment).

In parallel to cancel culture essentially suppress any critical analysis, at the bare minimum within, political institutions to arrive at coherent policies, there is also the essentially pure game theory problem, when everyone believes the other parties policies are an irrational bluff. — boethius

I don't think the Americans' actions suggest they believed the Russians were bluffing, especially after 2014. They took the threat serious enough to intensify security cooperation with Ukraine.

Generally, I am reluctant to accept explanations that rely on the big players on the world stage making irrational or ignorant decisions. I think more likely the opposite is true - that they know more than we do, and I tend to try and make sense of their actions through that lens.

Notice how many things were absent from was all the military cooperation going around then, and earlier in Central Asia even with CSTO members. The basic fact is that US and NATO has had a lot of military cooperation even with other CSTO members. — ssu

You implied that during the Obama administration there was a reversal in regards to the United States' Ukraine policy.

This is untrue, as is evidenced by the intensifying security cooperation between the US and Ukraine during this period:

From the NATO Chicago Summit in 2012:

Recalling our decisions in relation to Ukraine and our Open Door policy stated at the Bucharest and Lisbon Summits, NATO is ready to continue to develop its cooperation with Ukraine and assist with the implementation of reforms in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the Annual National Programme (ANP).

From the NATO Secretary General's Annual Report 2013:

In 2013, the Alliance updated its Political-Military Framework which ensures that partners can participate more effectively in Allied assessments, planning, and decision-making on current and potential operations. [...] Through these experiences, NATO and its operational partners improved their political consultations and gained higher levels of interoperability. To secure these gains, NATO's partners will be more systematically integrated into NATO's regular training and exercise programmes.

As part of these efforts, NATO is fostering partner participation in the NATO Response Force (NRF), NATO's rapid-reaction force. In 2013, Sweden joined the NRF alongside Finland and Ukraine, while Georgia pledged to make forces available to the NRF in 2015. In the autumn, four partners participated in the Alliance's largest exercise of the last seven years, Steadfast Jazz, which served to certify the NRF rotation for 2014.

I could go on and on. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to publicly available documentation on NATO-Ukraine cooperation.

Notice how the matter of Ukraine was conspicuously absent from all of what you quoted, and military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO did not cease, but intensified.

Cabinet approves action plan for annual national plan of cooperation with NATO in 2010

As reported, in December 2008, NATO invited Ukraine to a new format of relations as part of the so-called annual national program on preparations for joining the alliance. Since then, Ukraine, along with NATO experts, has drawn up and implemented such a document for a second consecutive year.

LOL. — ssu

I'm open to the possibility, but I fail to see a coherent plan behind letting Russia conquer (parts of) Ukraine.

For one, Ukraine isn't Afghanistan, Ukrainians aren't Afghanis, etc. I don't think it goes without saying that the preconditions for a similar kind of insurgency are in place in Ukraine as they were in Afghanistan or other parts of the Middle-East.

Second, the Russians also realize what happens to nations who try to conquer too much at once. They've suffered through their failure in Afghanistan and then saw the Americans try and fail in much the same way.

There's a good chance that what we're seeing today in Ukraine is already a part of this new approach: conquer a piece of land and pacify it while keeping the conflict hot.

Thirdly, both Crimea and Donbass were annexed without any type of insurgency taking shape. It's possible that that is still to come, but again I don't think it goes without saying that it will.

Lastly, the American elite (the Bidens, for example) are deeply invested in Ukraine, and during the 2013 Maidan revolution they were already getting busy constructing a new Ukrainian government. I don't see how that fits into a picture where the United States is content to let Russia conquer Ukraine.

There's been 4 US administrations since 2008, and I'd be willing to accept the idea the US more-or-less stumbled into this conflict without really a military plan if Russia did a full scale invasion (they may have been satisfied with Russia conquering Ukraine, having a big headache to deal with trying to manage it, and slapping tons of sanctions on Russia). — boethius

The remarkable thing is that during those four administrations the United States policy has been constant, unchanged. That is no coincidence.

Additionally, the United States must have expected full-scale war because that's what they sought to prepare Ukraine for for years, through all kinds of military aid, from training, equipment, to joint military exercises, etc.

A "wir haben es nicht gewußt" from the United States I won't buy.


I agree what the Americans are doing isn't illogical from a realpolitik point of view.

Russia was weak after the Cold War, scarcely a great power. The Americans, seeing new great power competition on the horizon with China likely sought to end Russia as a great power permanently to avoid having to contend with two potential peer competitors in the future.

Instead, what it achieved is the exact situation it tried to avoid - Russia and China being united in their opposition towards United States hegemony.

That simply isn't "an instrument of US / NATO policy". — ssu

The Americans have purposefully steered towards this conflict since at least 2008.

Now they have their conflict, and they spin a yarn about Ukrainian sovereignty.

Russia won't be more dangerous after the war, it will be defanged and humbled. — Olivier5

How do you envision this "defanging" and "humbling" taking place?

Naturally countries tried to do have good relations and hope for the best, ... — ssu

By ignoring the Russians for fifteen years when they proclaimed Ukraine in NATO was a dire security concern and a red line?

Now, you're right that most countries tried to have good relations, and in that they succeeded for the most part up until 2013.

That's when 'the most important country' - the United States of America, doubled down on intentionally provoking conflict with the Russians, likely because they thought the Russians were weak and would allow it, just like they had allowed all the other NATO expansion prior.

The US can be defined in such away in the Middle East and Central America or the Caribbean. — ssu

I think the term "hostile militant aggressor" objectively fits US foreign policy a lot better than it does the Russian.

You seem to be at a point where you're able to accept that the world isn't black and white, and that at the level of great power politics there are no good guys or bad guys.

Perhaps then it's also time for you to take a more balanced stance towards this conflict.

What should be obvious (which seems not to be for some) is that you can agree with some issues and disagree with other issues what an individual expert says. — ssu

The issue is not that you disagree. The issue is that you dismiss Mearsheimer's views entirely when they don't fit your ideas, and treat people who agree with his ideas as Kremlin propagandists.

So yes, I find it very weird how you can quote Mearsheimer in one context as an expert and dismiss his ideas as nonsense in the next. And how odd too that these instances seem to coincide with whehter they support your personal fancies or not.

How did the US force Russia to annex Ukraine, to see Crimea as a historical and essential part of Russia? How did the US make Putin to see Ukraine as an artificial state?

How did US ambitions make Sweden to through away it's neutral stance after few hundred years? How did US ambitious makes us apply for NATO with more support than when we joined the EU? — ssu

There have been several NATO tranches before 2014, if you'll remember. All of which directly violated agreements made at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand eastward.

But I guess we'll just pretend those are the result of Russia's "hostile militant aggression", and when after decades of NATO expansionism and warnings from the Russians the Russians finally lash out, you go "SEE! I told you they were a hostile militant aggressor!"

You fell hook, line and sinker for the western narrative.

None of those are calling Russia a "hostile militant aggressor."

They are simply aware of the geopolitical issues that exist, and assume conflict will break out at one point or another. That's the realist view.

If discussions about geopolitical issues that a country is involved in brands them as a "hostile militant aggressor" then I suppose the United States more than fits that bill, but that seems to be a hard pill for you to swallow.

And since you're keen on quoting Mearsheimer, I assume you take his analysis of the current state of affairs very seriously then? Or do you only quote him when you believe it suits your argument?

NATO expansion is a consequence of Russia's ambitions — ssu

Nonsense. After the Cold War ended the subsequent NATO tranches have been a result of American ambitions, seeking to take advantage of Russia's weakness. Mearsheimer makes that point aswell, but I forgot his opinion only matters when it suits your views.

It is simply absurd after all the annexations to insist that Russia is acting defensively and NATO would be here the culprit and aggressor in this war. — ssu

That after 400+ pages of discussion you're still clinging to this strawman is the real absurdity.

You may want to double-check who was the aggressor in that war.

Nope, this view is based on an alternative reality where causes and effects have changed places: that NATO is the hostile aggressor, not that countries next to Russia have frantically tried to protect themselves from a hostile militant nation that by force tries to conquer it's lost Empire. — ssu

You won't find a credible source portraying Russia as a "hostile militant aggressor" before 2014.

That's where your entire argument falls apart - before 2014 Russia was seen as a mostly normal state, and Putin was widely regarded as a reasonable leader with whom the West could do business. Cold War rivalries were put aside, things were looking good and you can find plenty of sources lauding the Russians during this period. That's why there was even talk of Russia joining NATO and the EU.

Your attempt at creating a larger context of Russian aggression has no leg to stand on, since this narrative only started after the conflict in Ukraine went hot.

And what have they been doing? Winning and having huge victories? — ssu

As I've said before, considering the amount of troops they deployed at the start of the war it is likely that taking the Donbas and establishing a landbridge to Crimea were the Russians' primary military objectives. I don't view them as losing - definitely not to a degree that would make them consider nuclear weapons, especially since they can escalate conventionally.

Anyone with a shred of sense can see the hollowness of the "everything is America's fault" argument. — ssu

I'm not making that argument.

This is just the knee-jerk deflection for anyone who doesn't like to think about the obvious role the US and the EU have played in provoking this conflict.

If after 400 pages of thread you still haven't moved beyond a World War I-esque propaganda depiction of the Russians as the imperialist bad guys then I don't know what to tell you. Geopolitics might not be for you.

That too, Russia wanting create Novorossiya again, must be the fault of the Americans. — ssu

As Mearsheimer points out, there is zero evidence for that.

However there are bags of evidence, 15 years worth of evidence if not more, that Russia viewed Ukraine in NATO as a security threat.

China has said that they are against the use of nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine. — ssu

Isn't everybody, including the Russians, against the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

That doesn't mean that it won't happen.

But then you aren't highly in doubt that the Russian leader and military will want to escalate the war and face a possible conventional NATO attack when they have experienced severe losses in Ukraine? — ssu

My expectation is that they will escalate if they start to lose, and they won't shy away from using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, possibly even on NATO troops should they choose to intervene.

You seemed to be on the verge of recognizing those aforementioned crises are real ones and then you say: "European stake in this conflict is mostly the ego of its deluded leaders." It sounds like you are saying that the leaders could solve those problems if Russia wins or not. You will have to explain what the former scenario would look like. The latter has already been established as the basis for policy decisions. — Paine

Anyone with a shred of sense can see that the Americans purposefully pissed off the Russians in Ukraine, in Europe's backyard, as it always does - stirring up shit far away from their island so other people can bear the cost of war and conflict.

I've always argued that the European leaders should not have played America's lapdogs, and not let Europe become a pawn in America's game, as it is now.

Things were looking great between Europe and Russia. Even after 2008 and 2014 (both crises caused directly by the Americans), things were mendable. Perhaps things were looking a little too great for the Americans' taste - heartland theory and all that, divide et impera.

Had the European leaders cared about their countries, they would have given a clear 'no, and never' to Ukrainian membership to NATO and EU. Merkel did this in 2008 for Ukrainian NATO membership.

The part I quoted was taken from an interview she gave in June of this year.

I didn't agree on much with Merkel, but at least she was level-headed. It seems nowadays European leaders are desperate to prove something. That Europe is strong perhaps, to keep the dream of a United States of Europe alive. But being completely dependent on America and lacking any military strength (or intellectual, for that matter) they were always destined to become Washington stooges in the process.

To "teach Russia a lesson" - what a joke, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Such rhetoric belongs in the children's playground - not in the real world where "teaching lessons" means thousands of people will die and countries get destroyed.

For all her faults, Angela Merkel actually understood this. She recently went on record saying that what the Americans and Europeans intended to do with Ukraine would be interpreted by the Russians as a declaration of war, and she was spot on.

That's why she sought to stop Ukraine from entering NATO.

Asked about whether she regretted opposing the US-led membership action plan for Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, Merkel said: “Ukraine was not the country that we know now. It was a Ukraine that was very split … even the reformist forces [Yulia] Tymoshenko and [Viktor] Yushchenko were very at odds. That means it was not a country whose democracy was inwardly strengthened.” She said Ukraine at the time was “ruled by oligarchs”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “didn’t want to provoke it further”.

She claimed to have blocked Ukraine’s route to membership of the military alliance with the country’s best interests at heart. “You cannot become a member of Nato from one day to the next,” Merkel said. “It’s a process, and during this process I knew Putin would have done something to Ukraine that would not have been good for it.”

Other nations have more than a rhetorical interest in the outcome. The security crisis in Europe is real. The economic crisis is real. The refugee crisis is real. — Paine

You'd think then that the Europeans would have been a bit more reprehensive about letting the Americans stir up shit in their backyard, because they helped create all of those crises.

Or perhaps that now they would be interested in ending the conflict instead of "teaching the Russians a lesson", which is a recipe for protracted, possibly nuclear war.

It seems to me the European stake in this conflict is mostly the ego of its deluded leaders.

But to depict Russia as merely defending itself is to turn a blind eye to what they have been doing and what they are capable of. — Paine

I don't view Russia merely as defending itself, but pointing out the obvious role the Americans and the Europeans had in causing this conflict seems enough to give off that impression to some.

By only framing it as a matter of a U.S. agenda, you fail to see or hear how much other nations want Russia to lose. They have all said as much and have put their money and resources where their mouth is. Many of the refugees will have no home to return to if Russia keeps all the annexations made so far. The rest will have no place to return to if the country is made uninhabitable. If Russia partitions Ukraine as you propose being all they want, the benefits of aggressive invasion will be established, especially if it leads to the withdrawal of sanctions and the return of business as usual. — Paine

Sending "political signals" to Moscow and other countries about the consequences of aggression is so hypocritical even the most deluded European leaders couldn't sincerely believe that. I don't know if you've noticed, but the United States and European countries have been meddling non-stop in other nations' affairs, invading wherever they pleased, leaving behind chaos and smoking ruins wherever they went.

Perhaps such rhetoric is aimed at propaganda-fed domestic populations.

If all of this is about sending messages, how many dead do you suppose it is worth to get that message across?

Lastly, what message do you suppose is being sent? "It is only ok when we do it"?

You know what message that is? "Might makes right" - and it seems Russia took it to heart.

Talks of nuke use are rhetorical. — Olivier5

So far, yes.

If Russia were to start losing the war, I believe they no longer would be.

Given that the Russians likely achieved their primary strategic objectives during the opening stages of the war (Donbas and landbridge to Crimea - limited objectives that correlate to the low number of troops the Russians deployed) it is highly unlikely that initiating a nuclear attack has even seriously been considered, but if you want to believe that I suppose I can't stop you.

That's not what I mean. The United States has been pursuing NATO membership for Ukraine for over a decade, to expand its sphere of influence and to limit Russia's.

That's great power politics.

Other NATO/EU nations have no such interests. Whether they win or lose in Ukraine, it doesn't matter. Only to the United States it matters, and the Ukrainians of course.

If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, the whole Russian army in Ukraine and in the Black Sea will be annihilated by NATO strikes, thus ending the war quickly and neatly. — Olivier5

If NATO could end this war "quickly and neatly" they would have already done so.

So you think then Russians or Putin will just ignore warnings as fake? — ssu

The Americans ignored Russian warnings as fake for 15 years.

It's entirely possible they will ignore warnings if A: the stakes are high enough and B: they expect the Americans are bluffing.

What if you then after using tactical nukes the Ukrainians won't budge, China gets angry and suddenly the rest of your Black Seas fleet gets attacked and sunk? — ssu

Who knows?

It's unlikely the Chinese will alter their stance towards Russia much, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. Their shared rivalry with the United States is likely what will determine their relations for the coming decades, and by provoking conflict in Eastern Europe the Americans pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese even further.

Also, it is not "my" Black Sea fleet. Don't start again with trying to frame me as partisan.

A response to Russia using nukes is something that the Western leaders and NATO have had to think now. — ssu

I highly doubt that Western leaders are willing to enter a protracted land war in Eastern Europe and/or nuclear conflict just to save face for the Americans after they overplayed their hand in Ukraine.

I think that Ukraine turning into a nuclear conflict would make NATO involvement a lot less likely, actually. And Mearsheimer has made that point aswell.

The only country in NATO that is invested in Ukraine is the United States, and even they aren't invested to such a degree that they're willing to risk a protracted land war or even a nuclear conflict.

The core of belief is that we cannot be certain. We can't be certain that there is such a thing as God, nor can we be certain that there isn't.

If we choose to believe either despite our ignorance, it begs the question why. And the answer is usually that we believe to fool ourselves into thinking we are certain, because we prefer to feign certainty than to accept uncertainty.

Agnosticism or apathy is a more logical and honest way of approaching things we cannot be certain of.

- I don't know, so I choose not to believe either.
- I don't know, and it doesn't affect me, so I choose not to form opinions. (I choose "not to care")

See how nice? — frank

How is not having stuff nice?

Then who would make your stuff? It's all made in countries that pollute and have bad working conditions.

The US just outsourced child labour to third world countries, though.

Countries are unable to wield power responsibly, even when they are not hampered by great power politics as they are today, like the United States during the unipolar moment. What makes you think more centralized power would do the trick?

Centralized governments? You mean like China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc.?

True, but it is Russia and not the United States or NATO that are saying they face an existential threat.

I agree, though. We simply don't know. When experts say that the chance for nuclear weapons use is non-trivial, that's saying something.

It's unlikely NATO would enter into the conflict after Russia has used nuclear weapons, simply because of the risk involved.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia on NATO troops is also not off the table. Mearsheimer makes the argument that during the Cold War NATO planned for limited nuclear weapons use in case of a Russian invasion of Europe, so clearly they believed MAD would not go into effect immediately.

Prof. John Mearsheimer recently gave a lecture in Hungary, During the Q&A session (timestamp: 1:13:40) the question about MAD comes up.

Mearsheimer concludes that it is not obvious that the MAD principle applies for various reasons. The most important one being that, as pointed out, Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, and it is unclear whether the Americans would be prepared to enter a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Most likely not.

When a nuclear strike would be launched against American soldiers in Ukraine (if the US would involve itself further to the points of "boots on the ground") it's a more dangerous situation, since the Americans would likely retaliate in some way, thus there'd be a serious risk of nuclear escalation.

Being alarmed is the modern equivalent of buying an indulgence.

So apparently Qatar, a muslim fundamentalist country, has been lobbying and influencing economic and political decisions in the European Parliament.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-police-raid-gulf-lobbying-eu-parliament/

At this point I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the dumpster fire that is the European Union.

Preaching egalitarianism and progressivism on the one hand, and taking bribes from a country where adultery is punished by death with the other. :vomit:

I guess, by your take, humans best go extinct, or at least be markedly decimated. — jorndoe

By Covid? Get with the times, buddy. That hysteria ended last year already.

Of course, that didn't stop closet tyrants like Macron from blatantly threatening people for exercising a human right.

I'll stop derailing the thread now.

No.

A source for what? Macron threatening the French people?

Here it is: Macron Says He Wants To Piss Off France's Unvaccinated

Could've been a quote from Germany in the '30s.


If you want a discussion, discuss. Stop with this passive aggressive nonsense.


Also, where do you get the idea I live in Eindhoven? It's actually a bit creepy that you're trying to guess (or trying to find actual information) about where I live. Sounds like something a hacker kid in their mother's basement would do. :chin:

racism — Olivier5

:rofl:

Macron is easy to dislike, but he is not a wannabe dictator. — Olivier5

He threatened the people of France for exercising their human right to bodily autonomy. "Dictator" is being kind. Absolute scum of the Earth, better? The fiery pit is too good for that man.