Your position is more extreme. — Jackson

What is extreme about it?

I can see you may not find it very usual, but to err on the side of caution is hardly extreme.

A newborn has no choice but to live, and an adult can only make that choice by committing suicide.

If your argument is that "if you don't like it, just commit suicide", you'll excuse me if I don't find that very compelling.

And if your position is that life isn't supposed to make you happy, then it begs the question why one feels the need to put more people into existence in the first place.

It's like trashing your car because of a flat tire. — Jackson

It's nothing like that.

Firstly, it is not your car. It's someone else's.

Secondly, "a flat tire" represents an objective problem with an easy solution, whereas the problems and suffering that people experience, indeed the worst kinds, are often neither objective nor easily solvable.

I do not believe people embrace antinatalism because of compelling argument. They embrace antinatalism because of compelling experience. — Bitter Crank

I disagree.

The anti-natalist problem is very simple: what gives one the right to decide for another that they should experience life?

Until someone can give me a satisfactory answer to that question, I have no choice but to "be an anti-natalist".

International relations are a two way street. — ssu

No they're not, not for great powers anyway. And the fact you would use the United States as an example of why they would be is ridiculous. There's not a modern country in the world whose unilateral interventionist policies have created more death and destruction than the United States'.

The famous hypothetical China-Mexico alliance. Well, ask yourself first just why would Mexico want to have Chinese to protect them? The Zimmerman telegraph didn't change their views...even if then US-Mexican relations were a bit problematic. Or their reasons for doing this don't matter here...right??? — ssu

Of course they don't. You're avoiding the question: how would the United States react?

And we all know how they would react - with hostility.

Yet US doesn't treat Mexico as Russia treats Ukraine. — ssu

If they were about to join into a hostile military alliance they certainly would.

How did the United States react to Cuba getting into bed with the USSR? By calling it an existential threat and threatening nuclear war.

That happened over half a century ago, and Cuba is still under sanctions as a result of that. Do you realise that?

With Mexico and the South American countries, the US cannot be such a bully. — ssu

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America

Hello?


But honestly, you've already made my point:

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. — ssu

Exactly that. So say of Russia's behavior what you will - it was entirely predictable that it would respond the way it did and made it clear over the course of more than a decade.

The fact that the United States and the EU continued their efforts to incorporate Ukraine despite this obvious red line being drawn is the reason why Mearsheimer comes to his conclusions.

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. — ssu

We agree on that.

And NATO attacking? — ssu

Mexico attacking doesn't seem very likely either. But how do you think the United States would react if Mexico were to enter, say, a Chinese-led military alliance?

The Monroe Doctrine tells us how they would react, and this concept has guided United States foreign policy regarding the Americas from the Cold War to the present. Remember Cuba, Venezuela (then and now!), etc.?

Well, if you think of it from the Russian view, the shortest way to strike a) St Petersburg, b) Moscow and c) Northern fleet/Kola peninsula is from here. Both Northern Norway or the Baltics don't have that strategic depth, Sweden+Finland add that depth to the North for NATO. In modern war airspace is crucial too, hence it's no wonder Soviet officials were proposing Soviet air defence installations to be positioned into Finland as late as the 1970's. — ssu

Which is why I wouldn't be so sure they're not bothered by it.

But one obvious reason why they would keep quiet is because it's rather obvious that in the case of Finland and Sweden they have no power to stop it. In Ukraine they do, or at least they think they do.

Additionally, since the end of the Cold War the northern sea ports have lost a good part of their military significance - the Black Sea ports have gained in significance, politically and militarily.

The border which increases hugely the border that Russia has against NATO (now only in the north in Norway and around the Kaliningrad oblast with Poland and Lithuania). — ssu

You are talking about the length of the border after the admission of Finland as a NATO member, then?

That's by no means obvious from what you said, so I don't know why it surprised you that I asked for clarification.


As to your point, length of the border is only one aspect that can indicate a strategic vulnerability.

The Finnish border is not of the same strategic significance as Ukrainian one.

The former consists of highly irregular terrain through which is it extremely difficult to conduct military operations. The Soviets experienced first-hand how defensible this terrain was in the Winter War of 1939.

The latter consists of open plains and is part of a region also termed the "highway to the East", used by the Germans to invade the Soviet Union in WWII at rapid speed.


But how are you so certain that the Russians aren't bothered by it? Considering their hands are tied in Ukraine they're hardly in a position to object. Have they made public statements that you're basing your ideas on?

Regime change is one thing. Annexing territories another. Last time the US fought a war of conquest was the Spanish-American war. — ssu

Annexing territory and fighting a war of conquest are not the same, however I don't see why this should surprise you so. Crimea was also (de facto) annexed in the same way, and I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone if they'll do the same with eastern Ukraine.

There's no real alternative that secures the geopolitical / strategic objectives we've discussed, besides a complete defeat of Ukraine that would allow Russia to turn Ukraine into a "neutral" satellite, which the Kremlin probably realises by now is not likely.

Putin's comment might be taken as it was portrayed – as an aside, or a little tidbit of information – if it weren't for the fact that Novorossiya has been brought up so often in recent days by pro-Russian activists, ...

Since when are pro-Russian activists the gateway into the mind of Putin or the Kremlin?

You have this, and a Russian website? I cannot access it by the way.

I really cannot consider this evidence by any scope of the imagination, especially considering the absurdity of what you're proposing:

And lets clarify what you're proposing:

Not only are you claiming that Russia is motivated by a romantic notion of "restoring the Russian empire", and that over a decade of documented policy only serves as a pretense for this megalomaniac ambition of Tsar Putin, not only that - but you're also claiming that the fulfilment of this grand ambition hinges on conquering a handful of Ukrainian territories.

It sounds completely ridiculous.

Considering the amount of damage Russia's actions have caused to itself, it's role in international politics and it's relations with the West, which could not have come as a surprise to Moscow, it's much more likely to me they're acting out of a form of desperation.

Yet our 1344 km border with Russia now posed to be a NATO border doesn't seem to be an existential threat, ... — ssu

What border is this?

The basic underlying fact is that Russia see's the collapse of it's former empire basically as a temporary setback. Putin desperately tries to regain the position that the Soviet Union or Russian Empire had. — ssu

An interesting theory, presuming the ability to look deep into the Russian psyche to uncover underlying, even conspiratorial, motives.

What proof is there that this is the cause of trouble in Ukraine, and why do you think it is a better argument than the one that argues it's clear, geopolitical motivations that are behind it - motivations which experts and the Kremlin itself have communicated frequently and consistently over the span of more than a decade.

That Russian currency is introduced to the occupied areas in Ukraine along with Russian passports and even 20 000 schoolteachers are going to re-trained (see WSJ article) all show what the true objectives are. These show clearly that Russia has far more than just keeping NATO out as it's objective. — ssu

I don't agree that's what it shows. The way to keep NATO out is to make incorporation into the Russian Federation a foregone conclusion, and I think that's what these things are aimed at.

... and all the talk of Novorossiya. — ssu

Talk by whom? The Russians? Or by anti-Russian analists?

a) Usually countries don't have nuclear weapons as their neighbors aren't a threat to them.
b) Mearsheimer argued that Russia is such a grave threat to Ukraine, that it genuinely needs a nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Yes, and how does it relate to what is happening today and what Mearsheimer is saying about it today?

He said this in 1993.

You're leaving us to guess as to what your point is, so I'll take a guess as to what it is:

Because Mearsheimer said in 1993 that Ukraine needed a nuclear deterrent, Russia is the cause of the conflict today?

I don't see how that holds much merit, but that's what you seem to be implying.


But then again, maybe Mearsheimer was right. Maybe Ukraine has been under threat from Russia, but not as a result of Russian expansionism, but as a reaction to NATO expansionism.

Mearsheimer made his statement about Ukraine's nuclear deterrent in 1993. In 1999 NATO first's major expansion took place. In 2004 the second, and minor ones following in 2009, 2017 and 2020.

In the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, the official press release stated:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.

Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Yes, so?

You're not making a point, but leaving us to guess what it is.

You believe he is wrong in what he states today?

I take it you disagree with his view on a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent?

What's your point? And how does it relate to the arguments he's making today?

NATO, more specifically the United States, is deeply committed to integrating Ukraine into its ranks - an intention they have publicly expressed as far back as the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Russia, obviously, is deeply committed to not letting this happen - something which they too have publicly expressed since that very same summit.

At this point, both sides are in too deep for peace to be a serious option and it's not a matter of incompetence, but a matter of unwillingness.

Try and follow what's actually said. — Olivier5

:rofl: You ignore the central point of Mearsheimer's message so you can avoid having to engage with the substance, because it's threatening to you.

That's the problem with you people. When you're presented with something you don't want to hear, you go into tilt and you look for an excuse to plug your ears, which is exactly what you're doing.

If you genuinely believe Mearsheimer's point was that Putin never lies and we should trust everything he says, what can I say? Intellectual pursuits are not for you.

You're obviously not interested in talking substance.

Just like you latch onto any excuse not to engage with actual substance that's presented.

The strawman you presented as though Mearsheimer argued that Putin was incapable of lying (which is obviously idiotic) is case in point.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with this nonsense. Stick to philosophy, not world politics, or better yet, stick with Twitter.

Not really. He came to power by organizing military action. Since then, it's worked well to shore up his power and control. This is the first time things have gone substantially astray for him. This is all things you could investigate for yourself. — Tate

I'm not seeing any sources.

One would almost get the impression you don't have any.

Beating around the bush again.

The "madman Putin" hypothesis.

Do you have any scholarly sources that provide a basis for such a hypothesis, like the one I provided for a more geopolitical approach in the shape of Mearsheimer's lecture?

He is what underlies the conflict. — Tate

You just stated what is happening in Ukraine is a geopolitical conflict. Now you imply that it is not geopolitical factors that caused the conflict in Ukraine, but the sole person Putin.

Which is it going to be?

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"? — Tzeentch

Definitely. — Tate

Then what impact would Putin's death have on the geopolitical factors that underlie the conflict in Ukraine?

You're getting a little hung up on this "great power" thing.

One might almost get the impression you're desperately trying to find something to disagree with, so you can avoid talking substance, just like .

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"?

Or do you also disagree that such a thing is taking place in Ukraine?

Your gas bill suggests otherwise.

Regardless, whether or not you consider Russia is a great power isn't relevant to the point I'm making - a point which you seem to be avoiding.

I think Putin's death would not produce a peace. The conflict in Ukraine represents a genuine geopolitical great power struggle that goes much further than the ambitions of individual heads of state.

I would recommend watching that talk by Mearsheimer. He presents a historical context that goes back to the Bush administration.

The US and the EU are simply willing to admit Ukraine as a member and ally. — Tate

And they have publicly expressed a desire to make it so, and actively taken steps to make that a reality. (See Mearsheimer's talk)

I was talking about negotiations to end the conflict. That is between Russia and Ukraine. — Tate

The United States and European Union are involved in Ukraine, not just politically but also militarily. I don't think you're disputing that.

However, despite the world's largest military and economic power in the world, the United States, being intimately involved in Ukraine, you believe a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia is a realistic solution to this conflict?

He lost me when he argued that Putin doesn't lie. How naïve, or wedged to one's narrative one needs to be to make such a blatantly false statement? Putin told us before Feb 24 that he had no intention to attack Ukraine. He's perfectly capable of lying. — Olivier5

Is it your interpretation that Mearsheimer's theory hinges on whether or not Putin is capable of lying?

I'm not sure why you call it a compromise, but the answer is no. — Tate

It's a compromise because the United States and the European Union obviously want to add Ukraine to their political spheres - something which is unacceptable to Russia.

Since, according to your own words, the US and the EU are unwilling to accept any compromise here, how can you argue Putin is the reason why there are no negotiations?

The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin. — Tate

Since before 2014 the Russian red line has been that Ukraine must stay neutral, independent and demilitarized.

In your view, have the United States and the European Union have been willing to accept this compromise?

What are the forum's thoughts about Ukrainian membership to the European Union, which seems to be inching ever closer?

If Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union while it is still at war with Russia, this would seem to bring war between NATO and Russia closer. Yet, NATO is a defensive alliance and the war in Ukraine is not a basis for invoking Article 5 as long as no NATO countries are directly attacked.

Is Ukraine becoming part of the EU realistic? Will it change anything? How likely is military intervention and thus escalation in Ukraine by NATO or European countries?

Do you agree that the concept of 'currency' is changing?
The total in your bank account is a number that goes down over the month then it gets replenished, if your circumstances allow for such. Paper/metal money is on the wane. — universeness

Paper "money" and metal money are markedly different.

Paper "money" is not real money, but currency. It's a means of exchanging value.

Real money is also a means of exchanging value, but has as one of its key characteristics that it is scarce and difficult to produce. Coins, gold bars, other precious metals, etc.

Paper currency does not check this last box. It is very easy to produce, and so it has been in copious amounts by the Federal Reserve. (see the discussion on inflation)

Since the letting go of the gold standard there's no money underpinning the value of our currency anymore and that has been cause for worry for a long time. The value of our currency is now completely a matter of trust in the institutions of government.

So to answer your question: the concept of currency isn't changing, but currency has taken a different (in my opinion very questionable) role in our economic systems.

Secondly, paper currency might be on the wane, being replaced by digital currency, but both are valueless and problematic in their current role - it doesn't make much difference whether your currency is paper or digital.

Real money on the other hand is not on the wane. In fact, the value of gold has been on the rise for a long time, peaking during times of economic crisis.

In what ways might this cause change as we move forward? — universeness

Our current system is based on whether the public believes in fairy tales, and people are starting to wisen up. Once faith in governmental institutions erodes sufficiently (a process which I think is already started) people will go back to real money. After all, everyone is free to buy gold in order to safeguard their wealth.

What do you think of efforts towards a UBI(Universal Basic Income)? — universeness

I think it's a Trojan horse.

Are you content that your life is so influenced by the amount of money you have access to? — universeness

The things that matter in life can't be bought with money. As long as I have food on my plate and a roof above my head I'm as content as material wealth will make me.

Can you not envisage a different/better/more benevolent system for humans to exist under? — universeness

I could certainly try, but such visions of a better world must always be nuanced by an understanding of the flawed human nature.

Abolishing capitalism would be good, ... — Streetlight

... get money of out politics, ... — Streetlight

This would be a funny joke if I didn't know you were being serious.

Taking away economic power from private individuals and putting it in the hands of government gets "money out of politcs" how?

... rewrite that stupid piece of shit document they call a constitution, ... — Streetlight

And who is going to do that? The politicians that have created this mess? Intellectuals that you happen to like? You, yourself?


Moving on...

... establish a decent fucking healthcare system, ... — Streetlight

... fund the ever living daylights out of public housing, .... — Streetlight

Swell. How are you going to pay for that?

... bring back the corporate income tax rate of the 1940-1950s, ... — Streetlight

... massively raise the capital gains tax, ... — Streetlight

... gut to the point of death funding for the military and for cops, ... — Streetlight

By ruining the country economically, politically and socially, apparently. Interesting approach to fixing things.

All the things that the democrats and republicans are united on opposing. — Streetlight

Gee, I wonder why.

... so and and so on. — Streetlight

I don't even want to know what else you would add to this blueprint of wholescale destruction.

Are you joking, or some kind of closet racist?

Interesting theories, no doubt with a great deal of truth to them.

But I'm not willing to absolve governments just because an alternative theory exists, while they continue to break economy 101. You double the amount of currency in a system, you halve its value.

Is it more complicated than that? Undoubtedly.

Government also failed elsewhere, including in how it mismanaged the covid epidemic, and how it provoked Russia into its illegitimate attack on Ukraine.

Again, the Fed owns about 15% of debt. That fact should give you pause. — Xtrix

I'm sure you have an idea of what kind of money that amounts to, same for the amounts of money that are printed every year. Maybe those number should give you pause?

Not all money printing is undesirable, since it can be used to accomodate a growing economy which relates to your comment.

But instead it has been used to accomodate government spending.

Yes, inflation can be a delicate issue, but this isn't a delicate situation anymore. It's a complete disaster and the cause is obvious.

It's monetary policy of printing billions of dollars causes inflation.

It adopts this monetary policy to accomodate a general fiscal policy of spending too much.

I don't know why you would be asking me for the specifics of that fiscal policy, since it's completely besides the point and you've yet to acknowledge the elephant I just described.

Care to elaborate? — Xtrix

I'm not going to play this game where you ask for details while ignoring the elephant in the room.

I realize I should have specified, but fiscal policy and monetary policy are connected, and intimately so, and both have been disastrous.

How did the United States finance decades of endless war and military projects such as the $800 billion you referred to?

Why, by printing money, of course.

Now, some governments are able to practice restraint, and despite wanting to spend more, they realise that printing money whenever they want will ruin a country in the long-term. The United States government was no such government.

You mean to say you didn't see this coming with the disastrous fiscal policy that the United States and other western countries have been pursuing for years, that people have been warning about for years, decades even?

Everyone knew it was coming, and everyone knows it's failed government fiscal policy at the root of it.

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. [...] Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have. — Xtrix

Indeed, we have markets that are to a great degree controlled by governments, which turn them neither rational nor efficient. It's the governmental monopoly on printing money that's been at the root of this, coupled with ever-growing governmental control.

And of course the government will try to find "alternative" explanations, and insist things are more complicated. It will blame the public, it will blame the cooperations, and now it's blaming Covid and Russia, while it's printing billions of make-believe money thinking it can break the rules of basic economics.

When has the government ever shown a shred of sense and admitted to its disastrous fiscal policy and its eternal desire for control and more spending being at the root of much of this trouble?

Never.

Likely they use the same line of argument as you do, arguing that theories that put the blame on government are "now obsolete and things are more complicated". Please.

Even the Fed acknowledges this. — Xtrix

The Federal Reserve is an absolute failure and a part of the issue. It's completely politicized and unable to fulfill it's primary goal. What a surprise that the Fed "acknowledges Milton Friedman is obsolete" - Friedman argued to abolish that whole rotten mess.

PS: So great is in fact your blind spot that you didn't think to put the primary cause of inflation as an option in your poll.

And the way to handle this, would be higher interest rates. — ssu

You're probably right, but this pill has become a particularly bitter one to swallow, because the raise in interest rates it would require to counteract the current level of inflation will probably be the nail on the coffin of a great many private companies which are already hanging by a thread.

You probably saw how the stock exchanges reacted to even a slightly higher interest, one that doesn't come close to the measures required to repair this mess.

Then again, the longer the politicians keep throwing this hot potatoe around to avoid having to take unpopular but necessary measures, the worse the pain in the end, when the bubble finally bursts.

So what, if that is the result of people's voluntary actions?

There's nothing wrong with destroying the village if all the villagers voluntary want it to be so.

What consequences would that be then? Person A provides arguments for something he believes in, in this case anti-natalism. Person B can the either reject or accept A's arguments and choose voluntarily whether he wishes to live in accordance to A's ideas or not. I have yet to see what is immoral about this state of affairs.