Or to just undermine the propaganda so that Russia's actions cannot be justified by them through lies. — Christoffer

Yes.

As I said, the mere existence of that possibility as a motive cannot stand as evidence that it is, in fact, a motive on any given occasion.

it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Governments obviously leak intelligence to support their interests and/or undermine the interests of opposing governments.

One of the ways leaked intelligence could be used to undermine opposition governments is to de-fang their propaganda.

That can, in no way, serve as evidence, or even greater likelihood, that any given intelligence leak is being used for that purpose. Simply being one of the options doesn't stand as evidence that it is more likely than any of the others.

Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries. — ssu

Right, I've actually quoted our entire conversation and you're still making up stuff you imagine I said rather than using the quotes I painstakingly provided for you. I don't see the point replying if my role in this discussion is going to take place entirely in your head.

Don't you think that is one of the possible explanations but not the only one? Probabilities aside. — FreeEmotion

Yeah, definitely. They're both as bad as each other. If it came out later that they'd cooked the whole thing up between them to boost arms sales I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

I've no objection to having the least charitable interpretation of Russian motives possible. It's probably right. What I object strongly to is the associated white-knighting of the US and Europe. They're far more powerful so giving them a free ride is way more dangerous in the long run.

Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. — Christoffer

Good idea, let's try that. You provide the template.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons — Christoffer

Lay that out for us using only what we actually know.

Based on previous behaviors during this war. — Christoffer

What previous behaviour? Which of the behaviours you have evidence for, indicates a likelihood of creating a smokescreen for and then using chemical weapons? You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption

you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. — Christoffer

No more firm language has been used in discussing the bioresearch labs than you have used, we're all just speculating here. Your more insane than I thought if you think America hasn't got just as much history of deception and subterfuge on which to base our suspicions as Russia has on which you base yours.

as I said it can have variants of pathogens for research purposes that if released by bombardments could potentially be catastrophic for the entire world. — Christoffer

And why would anyone be concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces when Russian labs already have samples of similar variants? You've not answered the question. If all these ksbs are doing is researching defenses against likely threats then it is unreasonable to assume Russia wouldn't already have preparations of these threats.

And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? — Christoffer

Seriously? A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory and you're wondering why it might be a strategic target?

When the risk is that Russia might use chemical weapons it gets turned into "but the US should be blamed because there might be a lab in Ukraine", or "Ukraine should be blamed because Nato". — Christoffer

No. If the Russians use biological weapons, the Russians are to blame, but that hasn't happened yet so there's nothing to discuss on the matter. What has happened is s US state official has made a statement which, given America's unscrupulous history, is very suspicious, so that's what we're discussing. You're not obliged to take part.

My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. — Christoffer

A point lacking any evidence at all and so one which can simply be discarded.

And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing. — Christoffer

The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them.

The issue people are interested in (anyone above kindergarten level analysis, anyway) is why Nuland would be concerned about these samples getting into the hands of the Russian forces. If they were purely defensive preparations in this lab, then they would be defences against preparations the Russians already had, wouldn't they? So no cause for concern about them falling into the hands of the Russians.

The only reasonable explanation for the concern is that the labs contain samples of something the Russians could use as a weapon which they don't already have. In that instance it's very hard to see how they could have been researching some standard global risk. The Russians would already have samples of that.

Here's the conversation we just had...

Us: The US Secretary of State has just admitted that Ukraine has biological research facilities of such a nature that it would be concerning if they fell into the hands of enemy forces - that sounds like they might be bio weapons.

You: You need evidence, evidence, evidence...

Later...

You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own

Me: You need evidence

You: What do you mean I need evidence?

Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world — Christoffer

They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of easily available various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab.

And if they're not bioweapons, or anything close they why were they mentioned as an answer to the question "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

She didn't say " no, but they've got some great restaurants "

What evidence? — Christoffer

Evidence for the claim you made, obviously.

Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. — ssu

No. Here's the exchange...

Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. — Isaac

Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.

That's enough, really. - ssu

And the context before was me saying...

NATO has attacked loads of people. Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan... It's attacked them under the auspices of peacekeeping goals but it still attacked them, so Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. The fact that you personally trust their judgement of what counts as 'peacekeeping' is irrelevant in international relations.

...in response to questions about whether advancing NATO was provocation.

I don't see any complication there except of your making. Russia has no less a reason to fear being attacked than America does. If America has legitimate concerns about where its bases should be located then so does Russia.

Marco Rubio (R-FL) to Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Nuland: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities...we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of them, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”

My bolding. It's on tape. The news channel broadcasting the tape is immaterial.

Ukraine has 'biological research facilities' the contents of which are of sufficient military function that there's a concern they may fall into the hands of the Russian forces.

If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence — Christoffer

Well, let's have them then. The actual evidence for...

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons — Christoffer

Or are you immune from the need for evidence?

I think anyone who looks at this source will get a good feel for my view that handing out small arms to civilians is just killing people for no military justification. People with rifles will be fired upon by mortar and artillery, bombs dropped on them etc. — boethius

The levels of support for this kind of cynical exchange of civilian lives for a cheap propaganda coup is vaguely excusable (if not morally sound) in a country actually at war, but supporting from the comfort of one's armchair, as many in the West are doing is, I think, disgraceful.

Just recently in England, our Foreign Secretary said of British civilians going to 'join the fight' -

I do support that, and of course that is something that people can make their own decisions about.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging.

...until her own defence chief had to point out that that would be illegal.

Really, the levels of zealotry for this war in the West have become absurd.

Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. — ssu

Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started.

how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. — ssu

Again, if I had actually said anything about those interests justifying invasion then this might be relevant, but since I haven't, it isn't. Please, if you want to discuss, discuss with me, not with some imaginary version of me saying things in your head. Find a quote and respond to it, it's really simple. And if you can't find a quote of me saying the thing you're ascribing to me, that should be something of a red flag that you might not be following the point.

It's called deterrence. — ssu

Deterrence against whom? - Apparently, no-one would attack America (even without the missile defence base in Poland) because even without that base they were a massive nuclear superpower, and you said no-one would attack massive nuclear superpowers, so why the base? If America faces no threats on account of the nuclear weapons it has then why add anything new to that arsenal? You're giving me reasons why countries have military at all, I'm asking for reasons why they expand them as America has done.

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. — ssu

Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons?

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. — ssu

Well maybe you should try reading what I've written, it's less confusing than you making up what I think.

We only hear the pro-war almost kamikaze level fanaticism side of Ukrainians (as you point out) but we'll hear other voices as soon as the war ends: and the viscous partisan fighting has only just begun. — boethius

Yeah, people forget, this is a country that's been at war with itself (in parts) for years - over exactly these issues (the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, far-right nationalism, Crimea...) the idea that they're now suddenly all united behind, not just a single goal, but a specific method for achieving it, is ludicrous. War certainly unifies people, but, a) not when the attacker is ideologically aligned with one of the sides in that dispute, and b) it only lasts the duration of the war, or less if massive losses begin.

A smart politician needs to make decisions that they think their population will be satisfied with in the long-term, not one which placates the kind of simplified jingoism that war necessitates. In Ukraine, I imagine that's excruciatingly difficult and it seems to me Zelensky is doing a good enough job of walking that fine line between being realistic about the future. and keeping morale up for the fight at their doorstep.

Here, however, and in other social media, mainstream media, politicians even, I've absolutely no sympathy for this faux camaraderie, this enthusiastic joining in with the jingoism and war-time bravado. It's just going to make that job harder.

you are quoting just part of a paragraph and splitting a sentence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see so...

You're assuming there is a deal offered. Lavrov and the Russian state just spent months telling bald faced lie after bald faced lie to journalists, diplomats, military attaches, etc., and now they say "here are our generous terms, all they'd have to do is say yes!" and you buy it 100%? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Says what, in addition to "Ukraine can't negotiate with Russia because they're liars"? That there isn't really a deal? Well Russia have certainly said there is a deal, so there seems to be nothing more here than just the 'liar' issue. And "...and you buy it". Well, again there seems to be nothing more there than saying I shouldn't 'buy it' because Russia are liars.

Unless you're writing some seriously cryptic metaphors, I'm not seeing anything in the rest of the paragraph that says anything more than Russia are liars so no-one can negotiate with them.

I was referring to your credulity regarding Russian public facing statements, not commenting on Ukraine's diplomatic position. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well that's odd seeing as my question, not to mention my entire conversation for the last few pages, was about Ukraine agreeing to the terms rather than continuing war - as you say they "100%" have to do.

So perhaps, having got the important task of berating my credulity out of the way, you could say something about Ukraine's diplomatic situation. Why do think they 100% have to continue fighting rather than accept the terms?

Zelenskyy finds himself fighting an existential war with a foe that keeps repeating they just want the exact same situation as a before the war, just de jure instead of de facto. — boethius

Indeed. There was talk before the war of Putin wanting to be recognised as a proper player on the world stage. A war to make official that which was true but disputed seems aligned with that ideal, especially if the whole thing can be glossed with a shiny coat of anti-Nazism.

In keeping with this general trend of schizophrenic analysis here (Fumbling lunatic one minute, iron-fisted dictator the next) I think there's a sense among some people here that the war in Russia will be judged on the terms that we in Europe believe it to be really about. As if Putin will have to go back to Russia, tail between his legs and say "well, I didn't manage to capture all of Ukraine for Russia, sorry", but there's no reason to think there's any large group in Russia who are supportive enough of Putin to be behind the war in the first place, but also savvy enough to see that it wasn't a 'special operation' at all. I just don't see any evidence of such a demographic at all.

I think Putin is, as you say, in quite a strong position really. If the war goes his way, then it's obviously a win. If it doesn't then, well, it was only an 'operation'. It's not that nothing could count as a failure, but he's certainly hedged his bets.

Sure, that's exactly what I was saying... :roll: — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're arguing that Ukraine should not accept terms because...

Lavrov and the Russian state just spent months telling bald faced lie after bald faced lie to journalists, diplomats, military attaches, etc., and now they say "here are our generous terms, all they'd have to do is say yes!" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I mean I'm literally quoting you here, I can't get any closer to what you're saying than actually quoting you. If there's more there than "Ukraine can't negotiate because Russia are liars" then you'll have to add it, because it's clearly not in the quote.

So you're saying that because the Russians are liars, Ukraine (who obviously never told a lie in their lives, and probably are being considered for beatification as we speak) can't negotiate. You're basically saying that the only situation in which two sides can negotiate peace is one in which there's no propaganda. Do you realise what a hawkish position that is? You're basically advocating full on war for every dispute until one side is utterly wasted.

I explained those points in detail. You seem to want to reduce my answers to binary 100% yes, 100% no answers. That isn't the case in any complex phenomenon. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ukraine has to either say yes or no the the deal. It's a binary question.

Your claim that it is "100% correct" that the only way forward for Ukraine is continued bloodshed. That isn't sounding complex at all.

So which is it. Is Russia such a threat that Ukraine must hold out for NATO membership, even at the cost of it's men women and children, or is Russia so weak that Ukraine has a fighting chance of defeating it. It can't be both, no matter how complex because those are two halves of a binary choice, they must continue the war or not.

A choice. But not the only choice. Defend to get a better peace treaty is a possibility also. — ssu

I included that...

Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children — Isaac

...or did you think they could defend some more without any more loss of life?

Yes, countries when attacking other countries are weaker and while defending themselves are stronger. — ssu

That's not what's in dispute. This part of the argument started because you claimed Russia had no strategic interests as they were too big to have to ever be concerned about attack. I took issue with the scale of the difference you were claiming, not the mere existence of it, not to mention the more substantive issues (which you're dodging) that if Russia have no such interests, then neither do America.

“Biological research labs”. Russia claims they are bio-weapons labs; America claims they are bio-defence labs. One way or another, I’m sure American tax-payers love finding out they are funding this.

Victoria Nuland, who once handed out cookies to Maidan protesters, tells us all about them. — NOS4A2

The best bit about this story is the 'fact checkers' response. This one from USA today is priceless (if you're into dark humour)...

"Some people suggested that the US Government are funding bio-weapons labs in Ukraine...

...We asked the US Government and they said they weren't".

So that's that 'fact-checked'

Obviously they can maintain a war effort long term — Count Timothy von Icarus

So how come...

The best way forward for Ukraine is to win this war on the battlefield. — Olivier5

...is

100% correct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...?

How do you see a chance for Ukraine against a superior force undamaged by sanctions which can maintain a long term war effort, yet with the same breath say that Ukraine cannot give up NATO membership. I can't see a way those aren't directly contradictory statements. Is Ukraine strong enough to convincingly repel Russian invasions on its own or isn't it? You seem to say it is when asked about continuing this war, but then say it isn't when asked about the reasons for not accepting the terms offered.

Sanctions won't stop an invasion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...yet...

They are causing significant additional damage to Putin's grip on power and reducing Russian incentives for continuing the war — Count Timothy von Icarus

...sounds like stopping an invasion. Surely if something can reduce the incentive for continuing a war, the war no longer continues, no? Or do wars continue despite having no incentives to do so?

11 million Russians have family members in Ukraine, so efforts to hide the war seen particularly foolish because it's going to put moderates and even supporters in a position of facing prison sentences just for speaking the obvious truth about the "special operation." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would they need to 'hide' the war? Again, I'm getting this mixed picture. Putin the dictator with an iron grip on power, shooting dissenters left right and centre, powerful enough to send armies to do his bidding - when we want to make the war sound strategically mad. Then Putin the fragile madman who can't even allow images of war out lest his volatile population reach for the guillotine. Which is it?

It's humiliating at the operational level because they went at lengths to present themselves as a peer rival to NATO and have had abysmal performance in some areas. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That doesn't explain the...

losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get the idea that operationally any number of mistakes might have happened in Ukraine's favour, but you go on to say...

My guess, given Russia's previous demands, is that the demands are such that Ukraine can not only not join NATO, but cannot receive military aid and training from NATO. It should be clear why this is untenable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see how your former assessment leads to the latter. If only a series of humiliating mistakes have given Ukraine a short term, unsustainable advantage, then in what sense is holding out for the military protection of NATO in their best interests when you're claiming the it's the financial muscle of the west that's causing Russia their only long-term harm?

Long-term, accepting being outside NATO gains Ukraine a ceasefire/peace, it loses them military protection, but the financial protection of sanctions against aggression are, you're saying, sufficiently damaging anyway to bring about near bankruptcy.

So what has Ukraine got to gain holding out for a better deal when, according to your analysis, the full military might of Russia might be just around the corner and sanctions are working just as well as the military defense they'd be giving up?

So in Ukraine, Russia are...

having [their] military humiliated, having 5,000-12,000 KIA in two weeks, leveling large areas of cities, losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy (according to the ratings agencies) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet...

Ukraine is quite poor and lacks the ability to sustain the defense posture it has now — Count Timothy von Icarus

...and...

Given the current situation, what is to stop Russia from deciding that the Ukrainian state has become "too Nazified," in five years, and launching another invasion? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is it? Are Russia so weak (economically and militarily) that they're about to be defeated after barely two weeks, or are they so strong that only full NATO membership will hold them back from just taking whatever bit of Ukraine take their fancy?

It's difficult to see which cartoon of Russia you're going with here, the useless humiliated ex-bully or the evil Empire complete with Darth Vader and death star.

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. Whole libraries devoted to bad feelings and positive international outcomes. — StreetlightX

Ha, indeed! One only need look at the massive improvement in global inequality which came about after Bin Laden's humiliating defeat...

...One might have to look quite hard of course...

...Perhaps a microscope...?

Imagine observing the current events and thinking: "we need to aggressively address Putin's feelings. This is very important - the most important - and totally not bad fiction writing for edgy teen novels". The brain-rot it must take. — StreetlightX

Yeah, it's this vacillation between war being the crisis to end all crises on the one hand and then immediately pivoting to war being so trivial as to be considered a useful tool for the ritual humiliation of people we don't like and the defense of 'sovereignty'.

If they must treat international politics like a game of dungeons and dragons they could at leat make the effort to stay in character. Is it anti-war peacenik or nationalist hawk.

To recover territory and scare the Russian army for a long time, as already explained. — Olivier5

No, not 'explained'. An explanation goes from cause to effect. You've 'said', not 'explained'. Why do we need to recover territory, why is scaring the Russian army (if we even believed in such nonsense) necessary for us when we can apparently cripple Russia with sanctions instead? And why do we need to be scaring the Russian army using Ukrainian forces anyway, we have NATO, a force I've been assured has no realistic threat of being attacked?

It's not you and me fighting there, it's them. And they fight for their own reasons. — Olivier5

For a start 'Ukrainians' aren't fighting as if one entity, the Ukrainian military and some civilian men are. The women, the children and the remaining men in the 41 million strong population are not fighting and you've absolutely no idea whether they even want to.

But if its all just Ukrainian private business then why are you even taking part in this discussion, you're not Ukrainian? All I'm saying is that we in the west didn't ought to be encouraging Ukraine militarily or through social media, to continue the war rather than sign the peace deal available.

If you agree with that sentiment then we have nothing to argue about. If you disagree with it then it's you I'm discussing with, your motives, your reasons, not the Ukrainians. Why do you support the continuation of the war?

I don't think a single person here is Ukrainian, so everyone opposing the current peace deal is doing so for reasons other than those arising from being a Ukrainian. I'm disputing those reasons.

there is an objective need, from EU residents perspective, to scare Putin into a less bellicose posture. — Olivier5

Right. But your claim is that sanctions can cripple Russia. So why do we need Ukraine to send it's young men in after them? Sign the peace deal, cripple Russia with sanctions (not to mention arrest Putin for war crimes). Why continue the actual war?

Putin needs to know that he can lose wars, and he needs to know how it feels, to internalize it, to learn his lesson. — Olivier5

Why? If we can cripple Russia with sanctions, why do we care? Is our schadenfreude at seeing Putin humiliated worth hundreds of Ukrainian lives?

as long as Russia controls so much of the gas trade to Central Europe, Germany and even Italy, they have a huge lever that they can use against us. — Olivier5

So which is it, Russia on the verge of bankruptcy crippled by our sanctions, or Russia so powerful economically that it has leverage against even so powerful an economy as Europe?

it is in Europe's long term interest to diversify its gas suppliers. Hence it is vital to European long term, strategic interest that Ukraine takes back Crimea. — Olivier5

Then why the fuck aren't Europe doing it? Your argument sounded callous enough when it was putting Ukrainian economic interests above Ukrainian lives, now you're arguing we should put European economic interests above Ukrainian lives? What kind of sociopathic position is that?

Because Poland is part of NATO, of course. — Olivier5

That doesn't answer the question. Poland's membership of NATO doesn't somehow lead to missile bases by some law of physics. Why has America chosen to place one there?

Yes, in large part I agree with your assessment. Ukraine want some military security in the region, and they want control of the gas market.

What I'm not seeing is why anyone outside of Ukraine should be encouraging the pursuit of those objectives at the expense of people's lives.

No objective security concern would justify the current bloated US military. It is more a question of how the militaro-industrial complex is phagocytating the US budget. — Olivier5

The original issue I took up with @ssu was his argument that Russia had no legitimate security interests because they are a massive superpower. I asked, if that were the case, why a) we'd encourage Ukraine to fight them, and b) how come America has legitimate security interests in the region if Russia don't.

You've answered (a), though I disagree with it as justification (even a 4:1 Ukrainian forces are just under what's required against Russia). What I was next asking about was (b). According to @ssu's logic, and your 4:1 ratio, America, by virtue of its enormous military, should need to take no part in any military action, planning, installation, or intervention anywhere in the world. Its defensive force is so large that it has no legitimate security interests.

So why's it got a missile base in Poland?

Sanctions will cripple Russia whether or not they murder or otherwise brutalize folks in Donbass. — Olivier5

So what's wrong with Ukraine accepting the current deal?

Donbass regions will be independent, probably heavily influenced by Russia, but if Russia get too heavy handed in that influence we can apparently cripple them with sanctions. So it sounds like the people of that region are going to suffer a lot less under the current peace terms than under another week, month, year of war.

Military types say you need three or four attackers for every defender, so it does make a huge difference. — Olivier5

Interesting. So what 6 and a half million strong military are America legitimately concerned about?

Whatever happened to the long term? If Ukraine agrees to keeping the present government, staying out of NATO "forever" (who would have thought Putin would request to join NATO?) and peacekeepers to babysit the Neo-Nazis, Ukraine will be a hugely advantageous position: supported by the world, and with Russia under crippling sanctions, rocked by protests. Who could ask for more. Maybe they will — FreeEmotion

Absolutely. Given the response to Russia from the West thus far, Ukraine has little to lose by the current deal. They weren't going to join NATO anyway, no way they were ever getting Crimea back and the separatists regions were locked in a bloody internal war beforehand, independence might even help.

As for being 'under the boot' of Russia - it's ridiculous to suggest that continued fighting could somehow eliminate the Russian threat on one hand, but on the other claim that their involvement in those regions would somehow result in some totalitarian dystopia.

This is a theme we see over and over in this. When talking of resistance Russia are painted as weak, about to crumble, sanctions on the verge of bankrupting them, humiliated, Putin's support crumbling... Yet when talking about how it might be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent (but we assume influenced by Russia), Russia becomes this unstoppable behemoth, whose iron grip cannot be loosened by any force in the world.

Seems like a contradiction to me - but perhaps I simply lack the 'Street Wisdom'. Maybe @Olivier5 or @ssu could patiently explain to one so unwise in the ways of the street how sanctions might cripple Russia now, but would miraculously have no effect whatsoever if it intervened in an independent Donetsk and Luhansk with too heavy a hand?

Because defense is much easier than attack. — Olivier5

I grant that, but that doesn't qualify the scale of the difference.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. Notwithstanding the fact that my main point in all this (which @ssu deliberately ignored) is that if powerful nuclear nations have nothing to fear by way of attack, then how exactly is NATO a purely defensive organisation. Against whom is it defending?

They contradict themselves constantly — Olivier5

You think they do. I think they do. Others don't think they do. Can you somehow demonstrate a contradiction? Do you seriously think that what seem clear to you is just how the world is, that you (and you alone) have some kind of 20/20 vision into reality that others lack? What seems like a contradiction to you, does not seem like a contradiction to others.

Do you have good reasons to mistrust them? — Olivier5

Yes. Look at their funding sources, their political agendas... Some sources are simply smart enough to conduct their propaganda by deciding what not to publish, by controlling the narrative, using context, blending opinion and fact... That doesn't make them more trustworthy, it just makes them less likely to outright lie.

So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983 — ssu

I expect they did, as opposed to just let them walk in. The point isn't the word used (as you well know) the point is against whom they're fighting the Military Government in Granadia were fighting the US military. They weren't fighting some other military the US keeps only for attacking places, it's 'defending places' military being an entirely different branch.

You were on the one hand saying the Ukrainians stood a good chance of victory against the Russian military and on the other saying that the Russian military were so strong no-one would ever present a legitimate threat to them. The same military. So which is it. Are they so strong no-one presents a legitimate threat, or are they so weak the Ukrainians have a good chance of defeating them outright?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? — ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians.

It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do. — ssu

Really? So never negotiate with enemies is your strategy - fight to the death every battle and remain armed to the teeth in case of any invasion - you think that's a route to world peace?

You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded. — ssu

I've just explained what the choice is. There's a four point deal on the table right now which Zelensky is quite rightly considering. No-one's asking whether we like the choice.

I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now. — ssu

Why? This is the bit that really interests me so if you answer nothing else, do me the favour of answering this. Why is it more preferable? What does it achieve that we might want as an outcome of this involvement in social media? What are we going to gain by asking what the choices are for Russia - a country run (as we're constantly reminded) by an authoritarian dictator who simply bans media unfavourable to his position and shoots dissenters - what is to be gained from discussing what choices they have?

I think it is good advice to point out that certain sources are untruthful, such as FOX for instance. Someone who generally trusts FOX, unwittingly, could be made a little more cautious if you alert him — Olivier5

Really? How exactly do you see that working? Take Joe Bloggs, a Fox News watching bod. "He's seen CNN say Fox are lying, he's sen his politicians say they're lying, he's seen his liberal colleagues say they're lying. Some bloke he's never met and doesn't know from Adam off of the internet say "Fox news aren't trustworthy" and he's thinking "hey, hang on - if random people of the internet think it's not trustworthy, then maybe I ought to take a step back...". Explain the psychology you imagine going on there.

How do you spot a liar, usually? It's not rocket science, just check some verifiable facts mentioned in the source against the reference material you happen to accept. — Olivier5

And if I happen to accept Fox News as reference material?

Check against the Guardian, le Monde, El Pais, Die Zeit, Aljazeera... (not too disreputable sources) — Olivier5

See, all you're doing is giving me the list of sources you trust. Why would I trust the sources you trust. I don't know you.

Just to save you responding in future, other's have prepared this short video summarising your advice.

You straight admitted that you don't care about the truth. — frank


Word of the Year 2016 (Oxford Languages), post-truth (Lexico) — a cultural failure.
Actually just a failure. — jorndoe

Yeah, this is what I mean by not caring about truth.



Look at the transition from before the 'post-truth' era to after 'post-truth. Look closely. Notice the change?

No, neither did I.

So all that golden era truthiness we apparently relished in before the dreaded post-truth world achieved exactly...let me see...fuck all.

'Post-truth' is an obsession of neckbeards in coffee shops. The poor are fucked over just the same regardless of whether Fox news blames the corporations, the Democrats, the Russians or the fucking lizard men from the centre of the earth.

Let me get this straight: you think nobody ever lies, or that journalists never consciously lie in their reporting — Olivier5

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? The issue is not whether people lie, it's that no-one is going to knowingly get their information from a liar, so there's no point saying 'make sure your source isn't a liar' as a piece of advice. In any disagreement, you'll think your source isn't a liar, I'll think your source is a liar. Establishing who's a liar is no less fraught than establishing what's a fact in the first place because "John is a liar" is a fact.

How am I going to establish whether "John is a liar" is true? I'll do as you say, and check with my non-lying source Bob - Oh no, someone said Bob's a liar, however will I check that? Not to worry Olivier's here with some useful advice, simply check with a non-liar like Jim. Thank goodness, except... John says Jim's a liar. All we have to do is verify "John's a liar"...

That there are facts is indisputable, it's establishing them that all the fuss is about.