It is exactly what would stop it.

If government goes too far, they'd have to contend with a population that is already armed.

Waging a large-scale counter-insurgency on its own soil, against its own people? That'll be the end of whatever empire is foolish enough to try. — Tzeentch

You've simply asserted the 'large scale' without any basis whatsoever. Why would it be 'large scale', on what possible grounds might you believe a 'large scale' revolt of gun owners that didn't also include large numbers of the police and the military? It's just a fantasy.

You're taking a known risk to thousands of children's lives to secure the possibility of something you've no grounds to think would ever happen or even be required. It's madness.

To test your interest in a specific, actual diplomatic effort as opposed to theoretical gesticulations in favor of diplomacy in general. — Olivier5

And how did you suppose it was going to do that? By catching me out in a cunningly worded question? Are you one of the people who think "What's in your bag, sir?" actually catches terrorists?

Of course I would be in favour of a diplomatic solution to the blockade, but I would say that even if I weren't because it's so obviously the only reasonable sounding thing to say, so I fail to see how you've 'tested' anything that you didn't already know.

OK. If the population is only two million and not forty million (like in Afghanistan), then 40 000 killed means that more of the population has been killed in the war. — ssu

I wasn't talking about the changes to your argument regarding Chechnya, I was talking about the changes to your argument regarding Afghanistan. You cited absolute figures for Afghanistan because they looked big, then when you want to make smaller figures look bigger your revert to proportional figures. It's just a really transparent trick. Hence my reference to totals.

If you want to use figures to make the claim that Russia cares less about civilian deaths than America, then you need to compare the actual number of civilian deaths each country has knowingly caused, in total, by it's various actions. Anything less is just lying with statistics.

To think this is a question with any significance is to espouse a dogmatic ideology that necessarily creates its negation as the eternal enemy. This is an exercise in futility that the world can well do without, that has taken over from religion as the banner under which wars and other power games are commonly prosecuted. "Your body pile is higher than mine, therefore we are the good guys." — unenlightened

Then you might want to take the matter up with @ssu who made the claim...

But the numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu

...but still, I think it's relevant here. If one of your choices when fighting a bear is to let a lion in to the arena it's relevant to know whether the lion's going to do more damage to your bear than it it is you.

the civilian casualties of the Second Chechen war should be added up: — ssu

Why? Should we add up all the collective interventions in the 'war on terror'?

And of course one should remember that compared to Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, the population of Chechens is tiny. — ssu

Ah, so we should reduce your figures for the deaths in Afghanistan? Or do we only reduce figures by population size when it suits you?

And...as still goes unanswered...

Shall we include deaths from starvation and health poverty resulting from pecuniary postwar loan terms? — Isaac

As was famously espoused during the Covid crisis, total unexpected death is the only way to get a true measure of a country's general concern for civilian life.

So. Add up all the avoidable death in the world - the invasions, the starvation, the civil wars, the poor health, pollution, suicides - just how many are on Russia's hands and how many on America's?

Anything less than that is just fiddling with statistics to make your point.

Would you find it objectionable if Draghi (and/or others) would find a diplomatic way to get this wheat out of Odessa? — Olivier5

Your point?

Civilian casualties during the American invasion of Vietnam (9+ years): 332,000

Civilian casualties during the American atomic bombing of Japan (2 days): 355,000

Civilian casualties during the American fire bombing of Tokyo (1 day): 100,000

How far back do you want to go? Just far enough to prove your point, and no further?

Shall we add up all the wars Western powers have been involved in and those of Russia? Shall we divide by the size of the country? Shall we include deaths from starvation and health poverty resulting from pecuniary postwar loan terms?

Translation: the world can die, as long as Putin is safe. — Olivier5

Translation: "I've got no counter argument and the intellectual imagination of a five year old, so I'll resort to parroting the puerile trope that anyone not cheerleading the war must be pro-Putin"

Why would we do that when we can have a lovely little war? — Streetlight

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that world-famous saver of lives - warfare.

That is BS. — Olivier5

Food availability in rich countries in fact represents 150-200% of nutritional needs in calorific terms — Tristram Stuart - Feedback

There is more than enough food produced today to feed every last one of us. — UN FAO

Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).

Even if just one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted globally could be saved, it would be enough to feed 870 million hungry people in the world. — UN Environment Programme

in developing countries, food that is perfectly fit for human consumption ends up unsold as a result of the actions taken by those further up the supply chain – brokers, exporters, importers, retailers, and consumers. — Feedback

In none of the twentieth century famines has there been an absolute shortage of food; the problem has been unequal access due to poverty, a problem that resort to food aid has not solved. In Bengal in 1943-1944 about three million people died after rice prices quadrupled in two years. Worst affected were the rural areas, where wages had not kept pace with wartime inflation, and some towns where workers were unemployed because of the dislocation caused by the war. People without money were unable to buy food and the British imperial authorities took little action (apart from moving food to Calcutta because they feared mass civil unrest). One of the worst famines of modern times therefore took place when the amount of food per head in Bengal was actually 7% higher than in 1941 and food stocks were at record levels. In Ethiopia, in 1972-1974, about 200,000 people died in the provinces of Wollo and Tigre even though the country’s food production only fell by just over 5% – during this period food was still being exported from the affected provinces and from the country as a whole. In Bangladesh in 1974 when rice prices doubled in three months after severe flooding, those who were out of work because of the disruption caused by the floods could not afford to buy food. As a result one and a half million people died of starvation. But there was no absolute shortage of food – production of rice in Bangladesh, both in total and per head terms, was the highest ever in 1974 – once again it was a problem of who had the resources to buy food at higher prices. — Clive Ponting

Around 240 million tonnes of grain are stored worldwide in order to keep the price high. That would provide every human being with 3600 calories a day

in Kenya, the policies of European supermarkets and their direct suppliers cause Kenyan smallholders to waste around 40% of what they grow for European markets – even in a country with millions of hungry people. — Feedback

The point would obviously be to lower food prices and reduce suffering the world over. You're not interested? — Olivier5

Why would we do that via breaking a naval blockade when we could do it without losing a single life simply by paying the food producers a fair wage so that they can afford the food we export?

But the numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu

Afghanistan - Not even going to dignify that one with an answer, it was 40 years ago. are we going to allow Hiroshima and Vietnam in the comparison?

Syria - some 6,000 civilians killed by Russian forces http://sn4hr.org/blog/2018/09/24/civilian-death-toll//

Chechnya - some 40,000 civilians killed (some proportion of which will be Russian forces) according to the research of Chechnya expert John Dunlop

America's wars (for comparison) https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll

Afghanistan: 46,000
Iraq: 200,000
Pakistan: 24,000
Yemen: 12,000

So just fully explain to us all how exactly 'the numbers' show that Russia particularly cares any less (or more) about civilian casualties than any other.

Do you reckon it may be possible to break the blockade? — Olivier5

I don't see why it matters. America and Europe have enough food to feed the world several times over. If they gave a shit about starving people they'd fucking feed them. They also have enough firepower to break the blockade with their eyes shut.

So whether they'll break the blockade or not will depend entirely on whether they think it will serve their foreign policy objective or not. The starving poor are, as ever, collateral damage in their endless fucking war.

Maybe you'd like to throw some more Ukrainian bodies at it.

As ever, all this bleating about the starving poor is nothing more than useful idiots regurgitating warmongering propaganda. A minute ago we had to continue to fight Putin because of the civilian deaths, now its because of starvation. This despite the fact the the Western governments and corporations of these exact same useful idiots kill more civilians and cause more starvation in their normal activities than Putin has this entire war.

told you why I don't engage with you: you're dishonest. — RogueAI

Not looking for engagement, just correcting your bullshit. The responsibility for the ensuing starvation is categorically the result of the underdevelopment-related vulnerability of these nations to fluctuations in imports for which Russia is far less responsible than America, or, even more so, Europe.

Aside from murdering Ukrainians, Russia is going to be responsible for the starvation of a whole lot of people. — RogueAI

Or there's facts...

https://www.cgdev.org/cdi#/?adjusted=true

Commitment to development index. The United States is below Russia. But who cares about which country is actually responsible for mass starvation when you've got a warmongering narrative to feed.

Woah, a pro war puff piece in The Atlantic. What a surprise!

The same Atlantic whose Editor said, of the Iraq war...

Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if 'never again' is in fact actually to mean 'never again.'"

Sound at all familiar? Christ! It's unbelievable that idiots just lap this stuff up when they've barely done more than just change the names.

There's nothing red about them (nor herring-like). It's exactly what you're doing here. Declaring some really odd thing to be 'immoral' and then acting like its any kind of interesting revelation when the result of doing so is that odd things turn out to be proscribed by your new bizarre rule.

Absolutely no one thinks that denying people every slight whim is immoral, so absolutely no one is going to be in the least bit interested in your conclusion that life is thereby proscribed by such.

Life comes first. Then morality. The other way round is impossible since morality is a creation of living humans (or other social creatures). Morality is the effort of people to get along with other people. No people, no morality.

Zelensky has already made the proposal of going back to the pre 24th February limits, which means that Russia gets Crimea and the part of Donbas they already had. — ssu

Good for him. I'm talking to you, not Zelensky.

it's the Ukrainians who already have made concessions here. Have they have to give more to an imperialist aggressor here or what? — ssu

As far as I'm aware Russia has not made any greater demands than that. What's needed are some independent authorities willing to help broker such a deal. If America weren't hell bent on throwing Ukrainian bodies under Russian tanks a deal might well have been made already. What's needed is the mechanism, the involvement of agencies outside of the conflict. Which is why it's so important to talk about their role in this, to put pressure on them to do the right thing here.

If Ukraine, together with a couple of third parties (say the US and China) are actively willing to make a deal but Russia refuse, then we can bleat about how they've no incentive to stop.

Right now we have the last official word from Russia being that they demand an independent Dombas, Crimea, and no NATO membership. We have Ukraine offering much the same. So what's missing? Any serious united international help to get them together.

Wrong. Methods do matter. In fact, it's all about those methods. — ssu

Who said methods didn't matter. The question was about objectives. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

Wrong again. Crimea isn't independent. — ssu

Did I say it was? I suggested it might be a negotiating concession, not an existent state of affairs. Your reading comprehension is appalling.

Just admit that hey, you are open to give everything this away right now, immediately. That works wonders for morale for the Ukrainians now defending the Russian attack, I guess. — ssu

So? The future of Western Europe is decided by what's best for the morale of the Ukrainian army? Why?

then what? Wait for the next time that Russia invades after it has restocked in equipment and trained new batch of soldiers. Come to finish you let's say in 2030? — ssu

Yes. That's exactly it. Because fighting a devastating war because you think someone might otherwise attack you in ten year's time is monstrous.

I think Putin has made those objectives quite clear. Not only the Donbas, but the demilitarization of Ukraine and of course the denazification. Or you disagree? — ssu

No. This is a negotiation.



What remains inconsistent is the idea of a Russia both immanently about to lose and one which would have nothing to gain from a peace deal.

Nobody here has ever demonised any diplomacy advocate. — Olivier5

Myself, Boethius, benkei, streetlight among others have advocated diplomacy. You've demonised all. Accusations of working for the FSB, supporting terrorism, condoning rape etc. It is an indisputable fact the you have demonised posters here who advocate diplomacy. The latest of which is referring to them as...

...the Putinistas — Olivier5

You really are stupid aren't you. In the same posts as you're trying to claim you don't demonise, you refer to anyone with a different opinion to you as supporters of a war criminal. Do you even think for a second before spewing out whatever crap it next occurs to you to write?

At least you should have some stalemate where Russian's can see they aren't making progress with continuing the attack.

The only way for Ukraine to get a peace agreement with Russia is when Russia cannot gain it's objectives through military force and it is worse for Russia to continue the war than to have a peace agreement. — ssu

This incoherent double standard again. Is Russia losing really badly or not? Make up you mind.

When you want to advocate further arms sales, you claim Russia are useless, losing horribly. Then when is comes to joining NATO, Russia are a force to be reckoned with again. Then when assessing objectives, Russia are back to being useless, couldn't hold the ground they wanted. Then when the idea of negotiated peace is raised, Russia are back to winning again, nothing for them to gain by a peace settlement...

What on Earth is for Ukraine to "stop fighting at the smallest opportunity" when the other side is attacking you? — ssu

Concede the independence of Dombas and Crimea, and the independence from NATO. Then deal with their independent governance via diplomatic means. It's not complicated.

The only way for Ukraine to get a peace agreement with Russia is when Russia cannot gain it's objectives through military force and it is worse for Russia to continue the war than to have a peace agreement. — ssu

The bizarre, near maniacal, certainty you have about Russia's 'objectives', is not shared by...well, anyone rational. The rest of us take a more circumspect approach to what it is that they might concede to in negotiations.

Ukraine has to at least accept that it has lost Crimea, which will be a huge letdown for the Ukrainian people — ssu

I think we've roundly established that invading a country just because you want it back under your control is wrong. It's wrong if Russia do it, its wrong if Ukraine do it. Crimea is now under Russian control. Invading it to get it back is warmongering. The correct course of action is sanctions and political activism to allow the people of Crimea to elect the leadership they want.

If we haven't established that using tanks to effect political change is a bad idea by now then there's little hope for the world.

You're still talking about methods when the comment was about objectives. Russia clearly has no greater an objective of "control and influence" than America. Gods! If America weren't aiming for "control and influence" then the almost global level of "control and influence" they have acquired (apparently by chance!) must have come as a tremendous shock to them.

American culture, industry, military and politics is present in one form or another in every country in the world. Dominant in most. Russian culture, industry, military and politics holds sway in a very narrow band of contested countries at its borders.

Unless you're suggesting that situation came about entirely by luck, then its absolutely unarguable that America has sought "control and influence" to no lesser, if not a greater, extent than Russia.

Even somewhere like Finland. Take a serious look at your financial institutions, your corporate governance, your media... and tell me exactly how that's more controlled by Russia than by the US. I'll eat my hat if Black Rock and Vanguard don't own at least half the companies in Finland.

the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the i958 National Defense Education Act replaced domestic education the US had with Germany's model. — Athena

Directly contradicts...

I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies. — Athena

The 'culture [you] had' was the one which decided to 'adopt the German model of bureaucracy and replace the domestic education the US had with Germany's model'.

If the 'culture you had' was so great as to lament its loss, then how come it made such a 'terrible' choice? It was clearly either stupid, or unethical, neither worthy of lamenting the loss of.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/23/henry-kissinger-warns-against-defeat-russia-western-unity-sanctions/

How psychopathic do you have to be to be more Hawkish than Henry fucking Kissinger?

Where have I disparaged diplomatic efforts, ever? — Olivier5

Who said anything about disparaging diplomatic efforts? There's a quote function here for a reason. Quote the section of my post you consider to be a lie. I know how much you love the old "liar" dodge, but some minimal effort to actually find a lie is not too much to ask surely?

It's immoral to wear hats. This proves that all policeman are immoral.

It's immoral to eat spaghetti on a Tuesday. This proves that all Italians are immoral.

It's immoral to stand less than 2 metres away from another person. This proves all rock concerts are immoral.

You are commenting on the ethics of war, now? — Olivier5

Not just 'war'. This war. Yes, it's always been about the ethics, not just 'now'. As I've said a dozen times none of us are qualified to offer an opinion on the technicalities so it's pointless to act as if we could. What we can discuss is the ethics, the politics... That, we are perfectly as qualified as any other to discuss.

The point being made right now is that supporting the continuation of war is unethical. War is something which should be avoided at the first opportunity, not encouraged until the last.

Your rhetoric of 'teaching lessons', minimising the risks of arms support, heroising those who fight, demonising those who advocate diplomacy... is unethical because it supports war beyond the first opportunity at which it could be avoided.

Your repeated attempts to pretend you're nothing but a dispassionate observer, reporting the facts and leaving all decisions up to the Ukrainians are transparent as attempts to simply dodge the ethical question.

That's what wars do, indeed. What else is new? — Olivier5

No one's commenting about the novelty of it. We're commenting about the ethics of it.

Do you additionally support the right of Ukrainians to vote? If yes, you will agree with me and many others that the freely elected and hence legitimate government of Ukraine has the right and the duty to defend the lives and well being of the country's population, and to decide which peace they want — Olivier5

Yeah, and we're back into your obvious nonsense that we've been through before. Entertaining though your mental gymnastics are, there's little to be gained from seeing you do the same trick twice. I want something new at least.

I said that I support the right of the Ukrainian leadership to decide their own peace terms when and how they see fit. — Olivier5

Yep, as I said, I'm talking about what you support, not what you fail to object to. Supporting someone's right to do something is the same as just not objecting to it.

I support your right to vote, I have not the slightest care whether you actually do so.

A campaigner for minimum wage supports fair pay, a campaigner for laissez faire supports the right of employers to pay minimum wage if they see fit.

I personally see no objection to Ukraine signing any peace treaty they want, at any point. I've said so already so I am a bit surprised by your apparent confusion. — Olivier5

Who said anything about anyone objecting to the signing of a peace treaty? I'm talking about what you support, not what you fail to object to.

Peasants with guns have been besting professional militaries for decades (throughout all of human history, really), including the US military on several occasions.

And fighting against a guerilla on your own soil, against your own people? A modern military wouldn't stand a chance, no matter how much barbarism it is willing to resort to. — Tzeentch

Presumably you'd have some evidence for this conclusion?

This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral standard than this existence entails it never being moral. — schopenhauer1

And again. If you set up some bizarre moral framework, you'll reach bizarre results. Why is this still of any interest to you? Are you seeing if you run out of weird moral proscriptions? Are you waiting to see if at some point the more bizarre you make them the less weird the conclusions?

There's nothing "additional" here. — Olivier5

It's exactly the 'additional' element about which the entire disagreement here revolves. As I said above, there are two options - one is to end hostilities at the earliest opportunity from which diplomacy might take over, the other is end hostilities at the last possible opportunity, inflicting the maximum damage to the antagonist. Concerning yourself (and your rhetoric) with the damage inflicted supports the second. Concerning ourselves with the costs of war supports the first.

Our entire disagreement here is about the morality of supporting either approach.

others may or may not feel schadenfreude if those unfortunate people walked in there to blow others up — jorndoe

It's not about coincidental schadenfreude though, it's about the active encouragement with schadenfreude as a goal. The difference (in your analogy) is between smirking as someone who shouldn't be in your front yard steps on a rake, and actively promoting the leaving of more and more lethal rakes, in someone else's backyard, at great expense to the landowner just for the pleasure of seeing the intruder get their comeuppance.

The costs of Ukraine's defence are enormous, both in terms of lives, and in terms of future economic devastation. Neither you, nor any of the other cheerleaders here are going to have to suffer that. Ukrainians are. There are clearly two options available.

1. Ukraine does the minimum required to ensure a future they can tolerate.
2. Ukraine inflicts the maximum damage on their antagonists.

Ukraine will do whatever they choose, we can support (and encourage) either depending, obviously, on what we think best.

Supporting (1) would be to maximise diplomatic efforts, maximise non-military solutions, stop fighting at the smallest opportunity from where diplomacy might be ale to take over.

Supporting (2) would be to keep framing the whole war as 'teaching Russia a lesson', exaggerating the necessity of driving them off, minimising the likelihood that any non-military solution will work, maximising the evils of the antagonist and minimising those of the defenders.

I think doing (2) whilst not actually being prepared to fight that fight oneself is morally reprehensible.

I just hope they win. — Olivier5

No. We all hope they win. You additionally hope they 'teach Russia a lesson'. I don't give a fuck about teaching Russia a lesson because doing so at the expense of other people's lives is a despicable objective.

Maybe what you confuse with glee here, is hope. — Olivier5

OK.

A little humility might be in order recognising it's other people's lives you're hopefully anticipating the consequences of risking.

The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) can head home, the Ukrainians are already home.
The Russians (and their Nazi compadres) have homes, the Ukrainians are running :fire: shorter. — jorndoe

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here (I rarely am with your posts, I have to say). The Russians are the invading party, yes. I think we're all agreed on that. My comment was directed against people sitting in comfort hundreds of miles away egging on strangers they've never given a shit about before (nor will after) to risk their lives so that these armchair wargamers can get their rocks off on a Russian defeat.

If @Olivier5, or you for that matter, think it such a good cause to die for, then get out there and start shooting, otherwise a little humility might be in order recognising it's other people's lives you're gleefully anticipating the consequences of risking.

Given the last and the current US presidents, and the recent propensity in the US and the world towards authoritarianism, I'd say keep the second amendment right where it is. — Tzeentch

I can't for the life of me think why. I don't see how the two things are in the least bit related. If some government went barmy and demanded something of me I didn't want to give it, the government is going to win, hands down every time, my .22 hunting rifle is no match for fully armed AFOs, let alone the army. Even some of the arsenals that our lunatic American cousins amass in their garden sheds will be no match for the even better armed (and equally reckless) police force. Has there ever, even once in history, been a case where someone has refused to obey some law and the police have gone "we'll leave it, he's got a gun"?

If ever we (the people) needed to rebel against our government we'd need at least some portion of the army on our side (as we always have). Quite frankly the adolescent nutjobs with more bullets than braincells are exactly the people I'd rather stayed home during any actual revolution lest they fuck it up for everyone by forgetting which bit of the grenade to throw and which to hold on to.

There's absolutely no justification for having any less stringent gun laws on the basis of untrustworthy governments. The two issues are not even tangentially related, let alone one being a solution to the other.

Seriously guys, I don't see any need to keep dragging the moderators into this brawl. You both know full well your own posts have been no less viscous, inflammatory and off-topic as anyone else's, so just give up with this pathetic 'appeal to the law'. If this thread were moderated more strictly, half your posts would be discarded with the rest, so if you want a different standard of debate, set it yourself first before criticising others for not enforcing rules you yourselves are not even prepared to keep to.

If a response offends you, flag it, and then, most importantly, don't just copy the exact same tone, that just so offended you, in response.

Ukrainians will teach them a lesson. — Olivier5

Does your passion for getting other people to die for your moral didactics know no bounds?