You'll find it rather more difficult to justify other minds than the ground you walk on — we walk on.
I don't walk on experiences-of-the-ground, I walk on the ground, and experience doing so.
What is the ground if not "physical"?
Believing those other minds you've become familiar with means believing "physicalities".
Isn't it kind of extravagantly self-elevating to reduce all to mental monism?

We usually go by established scientific models — it's not that the models = the modeled, but good enough for many situations — among the most successful epistemic endeavors in history (the Internet, GPS, cholera eradication, Mars rovers, type 1 diabetes, long list).
Science doesn't derive morals, art, the Kama Sutra, ... But has a few things to say about the ground. And walking.

Solipsists, speak up. :smile:

There are any number of reasons that others distrust Russia. I'm sure many others have reached the same impression through years of observations.

A new strategy for Moscow During this year’s State Duma race, Russia’s ruling party hopes to split the opposition, deceive inattentive voters, and (as always) mobilize state employees (Mar 26, 2021)

Nine Million Russians 'Deprived Of Right To Be Elected' (Jun 23, 2021)

No OSCE observers for Russian parliamentary elections following major limitations (Aug 4, 2021)

This Is a Uniquely Perilous Moment (Mar 12, 2022)

Humorous...sort of... :)

Doppelganger Dirty Trick In Russian Election Spawns Online Mockery (Sep 8, 2021)

(would have raised some eyebrows/investigations in the countries I call home)

Russia is a prominent (nuke-wielding) power on the world stage, apparently seeking respect. Yet, not so interested in building trust, which would go a long way to improving things, unlike fear. Not about others imposing their cultures onto Russian people, but about Russian relations, friendships, trying. What's the deal...? Would Russians see willingness to negotiate, compromise, seeking friendships, as a weakness, and that's enough...? Don't know, but some have suggested such like.

Wouldn't it be great if both parties ran out of bombs? Not likely to happen.

Military briefing: is the west running out of ammunition to supply Ukraine? (Jul 11, 2022)
Ukraine claims arms depot attack in occupied Kherson with Himars rockets (Jul 12, 2022)

A private company had 64 howitzers lying around; probably made a fortune off them.



Yeah, no end in sight. :/ The Ukrainians aren't likely to give up (earlier posts); Putin's Russia has become committed, seemingly to take over as much of Ukraine as they can (earlier posts).
Ukraine, even if well-armed, is a bit like sitting ducks, the defenders, nowhere else to go; Russia, the attackers, aren't being invaded, have a certain freedom of movement, and they're learning to use it, or will.

Diplomatic avenues have been fruitless.
For Ukraine, it would be like going half way to giving up, heavy concessions, and with what guarantees/consequences? It seems they're not down with repeating history nor with Putin; previous concessions didn't stop the bombing anyway.
For Russia, why talk when you can take? Putin, Peskov, and team might as well hire some good actors as diplomats; whatever they say will be dictated by military feasibilities in any case, Kremlin war strategists.
For diplomacy to have a chance, something would have to change.

As it looks, Putin's Russia has the moral low ground. At least someone is standing up to the bombing bully.

Next week, I will be the first president to visit the Middle East since 9/11 without U.S. troops engaged in a combat mission there. It’s my aim to keep it that way. — Opinion | Joe Biden: Why I’m going to Saudi Arabia (Jul 9, 2022)

Hmm... Misleading? By own statement, there are at least US troops engaging al-Qaeda and ISIS in the region.

The law of identity just states that whatever exists is self-identical, like an ontological assertion.
(I guess, in terms of propositions, whatever proposition implies itself.)

When we start talking about Hamlet or the Moon, then we've already presupposed identity.
Otherwise, what would we be talking about? Meaning would be lost; meaning presupposes identity.

Not that the world has to oblige, though.

Going the other way around, we could say that tautologies are true by definition.
Well, actually, we do.
Within some (logical) system, a proof of a proposition could be showing that the proposition is related to a tautology via bi-implications.

Kazakhstan is apparently taking an opportunity to sneak off?

Kazakhstan withdraws from CIS agreement on currency committee – UNIAN (Jul 10, 2022)

I guess Georgia left a good decade ago.

Marc Bennetts opines:

End of the bromance: why Xi is wary of going to Moscow (Jul 7, 2022)

Not sure I'd be so quick to assess. Besides, maybe Xi just doesn't like anyone. :)

Messy.

COVID: China's Shanghai says new Omicron subvariant found (Jul 10, 2022)

With more data and studies coming through, more preprints are becoming available:

Effectiveness of vaccines in preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19: A multicenter hospital-based case-control study, Germany, June 2021 to January 2022 (Jun 29, 2022)

The decline of COVID-19 severity and lethality over two years of pandemic (Jul 2, 2022)

Understanding the impact of disease and vaccine mechanisms on the importance of optimal vaccine allocation* (Jul 3, 2022)

Inferring the differences in incubation-period and generation-interval distributions of the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 (Jul 5, 2022)

Quantifying the impact of vaccines and booster doses on COVID-19 in the U.S. (Jul 6, 2022)

Overall, there are a few lessons learned; I'm sure there will be more.

The end of the "inglorious stupid clown" who is responsible for tens of thousands of lives in this senseless conflict in Ukraine. — Oleg Deripaska (Jul 7, 2022)

The clown is going. He is one of the main ideologues of the war against Russia until the last Ukrainian. — Vyacheslav Volodin (Jul 7, 2022)

Do not seek to destroy Russia. Russia cannot be destroyed. You can break your teeth on it - and then choke on them. — Maria Zakharova (Jul 7, 2022)

the logical result of British arrogance — Dmitry Medvedev (Jul 8, 2022)

:brow:

Well, obviously it's Russia being attacked, not Ukraine, Russia is the victim here, and Johnson is a murderer of Ukrainians, it's others that are arrogant, not Putin, but all will fail. (Nevermind who's doing the bombing on the ground, and what happens to other voices.)
People don't have to like Johnson, many agree he's a clown already, to see through the propaganda. Broad targets, mothers of Russian soldiers, Ukrainians, ... I predict it'll be taken in, lapped up, and propagated.


Maybe it's a thing of his?

Putin Challenges the West (Again) (Jan 27, 2022)

Putin challenges West to fight Russia on the battlefield: ‘Let them try’ (Jul 8, 2022)

Wouldn't it be more fruitful/forward-looking to try building relationships?

Let's call it a court of philosophy (and ethics, humanity) first, not like those rooms frequented by the chief SCOTUS, if you will, then legalities secondary. :)

^{Stuff like this would be a study on its own...
• Laws | The Embassy of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Washington DC)
• Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia)}

relatives of the convicts told Important Stories that they began to recruit prisoners from the St Petersburg colonies to travel to the Donbass as part of the Wagner PMC
After that, about 50 convicts were taken from colonies No 6 and No 7 to the Rostov region, the publication wrote, citing sources — gulagu.net: prisoners with “combat experience” were taken out of colonies in the Nizhny Novgorod region and Mordovia (Jul 8, 2022)

A Moscow court sentenced deputy Alexei Gorinov to 7 years in jail for criticizing Russia’s military actions in Ukraine (Jul 8, 2022)

"Special operation", not "war", dammit. (Yeah, children have been among the casualties.)


According to the Donetsk People's Republic, 2356 have been killed in action and 9713 wounded in action, in 2022:

Review of the social and humanitarian situation that has developed on the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic as a result of hostilities in the period from 02 to 08 July 2022 (Jul 9, 2022)

(The wording here isn't exactly unbiased, take with a grain of salt as usual.)

, just relaying that they have no legal definition of "witch" (reported by whatever sources).
Unless they have laws against killing, I guess anyone is fair game, or if they do, I guess they're set aside (discretionary), something to that effect.
I wasn't planning on dragging them to a courtroom in The Hague (or Medina, "The Enlightened City"), but will get a good legal team if I do. :)

Immoral - check
Legal - undefined
Appalling - check
Slippery - check
Unjust - check
Decency - negative
Ridiculous - check

So, your sister got some tarot cards with nifty illustrations on them, next thing you know she's in jail. Someone said she cast evil spells on them. No more electronics studies at King Saud's. The cards were later sold on eBay by a clerk at the police station.

Miscellanea ...

KGB archives document Red Army’s atrocities against Ukrainian village in USSR after 1945 (Paul A Goble; EP; Jan 5, 2021)

It took Red Army ‘a decade’ to subdue Western Ukraine after 1945, Russian specialist on Ukraine warns Kremlin (Paul A Goble; EP; Jan 21, 2022)

Russia’s Brutal War in the Donbas Proves Ukraine Can’t Win (Daniel Davis; 19FortyFive; Jul 5, 2022)

High death tolls in the past. A bulging Russia doesn't seem to sit well with Ukraine. A Russian takeover isn't peaceful, and what follows could be...not so good. Don't think they're likely to just give up. As some Russian commentator mentioned, they're not fighting for a person, Zelenskyy, or to attack other nations, they're fighting to repel the invaders.

, , there's been a few of those probes ...

2011 Americans' Beliefs in Paranormal Phenomena (Infographic)
2014 Superstition: Do you believe the following, or not?
2015 18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost
2018 ‘New Age’ beliefs common among both religious and nonreligious Americans
2019 United States: Do you believe any of these superstitions?

Not sure how informative they are.
I'll take seat 13 on the plane if at half price. Actually, I'll take row 13 off your hands for the price of a seat, just say the word. ;)

, according to some sources, Saudi Arabia does not have a legal definition of "witch", and no particular legal safeguards. Cases do not follow international law (rather the opposite here), are discretionary, justice system actors have no particular accountability. But they do have a state-sponsored corps of witch-hunters. Don't know of any sources contrary to that. Examples include someone saying that the accused magically caused a jinn to make them sick, someone in possession of a book deemed witchcraft, ..., foreigners have been executed as well.

Suppose we took the examples and made them into a law; for that matter, we could just declare it retroactive to cover past decades. That'd be making a mockery of law (international included), of doing the right thing, of conscience, decency.

Don't know if the the endlösung was legal back there-then, but it was immoral; if it was legal, then that'd be a mockery of law. — jorndoe

Technicalities/legalities aside, it's an assessment anyone can make; various information and factors mentioned earlier. "Ridiculous" might be an appropriate word. The kind of thing that history books might record as examples of what not to do, as repugnant.

The Saudi regime is is a brutal dictatorship with a cloak of piety, propped up by the West. — unenlightened

Right. (I'm just sticking to the opening post.)

, and other examples could be:

(∀) "photons don't decay", "all life is DNA based", scientific models
(∃) "there are extraterrestrial aliens", "the Vedic Shiva is real", observations

↪RussellA, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). — jorndoe

Why should it be women only who shoulder the responsibility? Men need to step up to the plate. — Agent Smith

I think the vasectomy option came up earlier in the thread.
Legislate female bodies, legislate male bodies, seems fair.
Watch pro-life males complain (whine) loudly. ;)

Along the lines of ...

Caren White opines:

DeSantis Is Changing Florida Schools’ Curricula Again (Jul 2, 2022)

Seems like Goldwater's prophecy is materializing?

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. — Barry Goldwater (Nov 1994)

Witchcraft exists at least to the same extent as prayer exists. — unenlightened

Right. The word can mean different things. And some are self-professed witches, others kill who they deem witches. Killing is up there among the most severe sentences; the Saudis must deem it a rather severe offense (unless they have no respect for humans, over the top indecency, but that's uncharitable).

Legal penalties are whatever the law says are the penalties. In that view, the executions were perfectly fine because in accordance with the law (presumably). — Benkei

I'd replace "perfectly fine" with "perfectly legal". And I'm thinking the law would depend on morals; the other way around doesn't make much sense. Don't know if the endlösung was legal back there-then, but it was immoral; if it was legal, then that'd be a mockery of law. Anyway, side-track.

Maybe the most straightforward response is to requir...ask the Saudis to make their case, sufficiently, proportionally, with relevance. They already invested in a state-sponsored corps of witch-hunters. Other factors could be mentioned slippery slope, asking what (demonstrable) harm is done justifying execution.

ask the Saudi Arabian accusers/authorities to prove their case — jorndoe

There's a mountain of history, precedence, international works and documents, plain decency, whatever to go by already. I don't see how anyone can't find it disgusting — look over cases yourself. Not hard to come up with analogous scenarios that would seem absurd. But, the executions are happening (and someone voted "Not guilty"), so maybe there's a strong case to be made?

So are you saying that all religious grounds are 'false'? — unenlightened

Nayh. (Actually, I'd prefer the thread sticking to the topic; various religions have enough troubles as it is. :wink:)

You are right that to say that the proposition "there is such a thing as supernatural witchcraft" requires verification, but it follows that the proposition "there's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft" also requires verification. — RussellA

Not quite, which was the point of linking that other thread; that stuff goes back to John Watkins, Karl Popper, those people. We might ask: what exactly would evidence of x being fictional/imaginary look like...? (something's not quite right)

In the general case we're talking an indefinite/infinite domain/scope.
You can verify an existential claim ("look, there it is"), but you can keep trying to falsify indefinitely without having falsified the existential claim.
You can falsify a universal claim ("here's a counter-example"), but you can keep verifying indefinitely without having verified the universal claim.
That is, existential claims are verifiable and not falsifiable, universal claims are falsifiable and not verifiable.

So, that's why the onus probandi is anchored with the claimant of the (original) existential claim, and not much else is applicable, in this sense at least.

Here in the real world we often enough go by more fallible methods.
In this case, we tend to ask the (original) claimant, which strands on (unverifiable) anecdotes, or we can sometimes narrow the domain/scope to something more manageable, which, granted, would change how my statement is worded.
If nothing comes through, then both the (original) existential claim, and the contrary (my statement), have the same status, stating one is as hypothetical as stating the other.

↪RussellA, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). — jorndoe

By the way, metaphysics tend to be both unverifiable and unfalsifiable; earnesty seems to mean provisional/tentative, or maybe a difference that makes no difference.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that "Guilty" should mean war. Isn't sentencing a separate thing anyway? Come to think on it, maybe some sort of inclusive approach, having them take related responsibilities for all to see would help some, get them to do some soul-searching:

Again: Saudi Arabia Elected Chair of UN Human Rights Council Panel (Sep 20, 2015)

Don't know. It was a controversial move:

Why Is Saudi Arabia Heading a UN Human Rights Council Panel? (updated Apr 14, 2017)

, maybe "unjust executions" works?

Sample cases and efforts listed (check) some history with outcomes (check) precedence (check) international responses available (check)

I'm kind of reminded of argumentum ad baculum. :)

Rather different context, same result for the accused/victim, both "unjust executions":

Christian zealot beheads teen for practicing witchcraft (Nov 2, 2014)

Some don't subscribe, some have their own version, some parts could use an update here and there, yet the spirit thereof is clear enough, great document:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec 10, 1948)

, hmm I thought it was reasonably clear. Here's some background, context, precedence:

• Witch trials in the early modern period
• Modern witch-hunts
• Nuremberg trials

International organizations have Saudi Arabian cases on record. I'd think most humans would find it disgusting, unjust, wrong, gratuitous, with mentioned slippery slope.

Admittedly, I don't have the technical/trained legal background to take the authorities to court, to run a case. It's not my case in particular anyway.

This stuff shouldn't block voting, right?

I don't think my opinions on what changes to Russia would turn it into a more preferable state are in any way relevant to the question of Ukraine, and how it could have been avoided. — Tzeentch

Want me to repeat what you were asked? (Nah.)

You are referring to yourself that called me a Kremlin propagandist, I assume? — Tzeentch

I did? Nah.

(Maybe I should forget about expecting you to honestly respond.)

, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). Shouldn't prevent you from voting, right?

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

OK, well, FYI I tossed something together over at: Defendant: Saudi Arabia (poll)
A start anyway. There are also topics like heavy patriarchism/female rights, Sunni versus Shia, exploitation, Yemen, etc. If the poll says "Guilty", then there's at least some consensus here to question relations with Saudi Arabia, and that includes the US — *gah* the unholy mess of oil + economies + Middle Eastern situation + politics + sponsorships — *ough* could go up in flames.

^{Posted in Humanities and Social Sciences; wasn't really sure if that's the best spot.}

so I must be a Kremlin propagandist? — Tzeentch

Nope.

What are you expecting me to respond to that? — Tzeentch

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. (Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing.

Evidence, please. — RussellA

Uhm ask the Saudi Arabian accusers/authorities to prove their case.

Until allegations can be justified, relevantly (and proportionally), which has never materialized, the Saudi Arabian authorities consequently stand accused.°

This is a case where existential verification, not falsification, applies; I'll just keep denying their superstitions unless they come through, as others have done before, and as I'm sure others will once I'm gone.
(Other than that: get real. :wink:)

, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else.

Just FYI, I personally witnessed the optimism, friendships, the events, openness that followed, in the 1990s. People want(ed) to become friends, to cultivate positive relationships. Heck, I think it made it into popular culture/entertainment in the US. (Though I'm sure this could be construed as propaganda by the so inclined.)

Russian election: Biggest protests since fall of USSR (Dec 10, 2011)
Worldwide Protests Against the Russian Duma Election Fraud (Dec 12, 2011)
Robert Conquest: Russia's Election Protests and the Soviet Past (updated Nov 14, 2017)
Moscow Protesters Stage Series Of One-Person Pickets In Call For Free Elections (Aug 17, 2019) "illegal mass gatherings"

(at some point I'm going to quit all this recall, might be futile here anyway)

And so, here it is again (again):

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, and how changes might foster increased optimism, trust, further and closer relations, etc, then so be it (talk about tunnel vision). I can tell you with some confidence that a few Europeans would welcome this and be happy to build on it; yep, it's happened before, until the regressive moves reached a threshold.

, here it is again:

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ... — jorndoe

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ...

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better? — Tzeentch

No, you can't have missed it or you skirted past (straight to the requisite party line). Quoted above. It's now about:

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think?

Keep in mind that "two wrongs don't make a right", not going to take your bait to futilely defend the US, the thread already established that everyone's evil remember?

^{(Part of this isn't some off-the-ground abstraction but more straightforward; how about you go to Moscow and set up comprehensive criticism of Putin right there, and then go to London and do something similar with respect to the UK? What might be the difference (if you ever make it to London)?)}

Macron riles Russia with documentary releasing content of Putin calls (Le Monde; Jun 30, 2022)

What happens in Paris does not always stay in Paris.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States. — Tzeentch

Maybe?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

Presumably you're not among those few?

Connect the dots, there's a sufficient reason, it's hardly new or anything, now with rattling of nukes and missiles too, ...

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize?


Ukraine/Russia: Violations of cultural rights will impede post-war healing – UN expert (OHCHR; May 25, 2022)

If Mexico and China oddly set up a defense pact, then the US couldn't do much about it. But the US would surely react if China were to set up nuclear weaponry in Mexico.

^{(went over a tedious bunch of Kremlin/Putin↗ statements/actions and some commentaries from analysts again)
Feb 20, 2014: Russia grabs Crimea
Feb 24, 2022: Russia invades Ukraine
Jul 05, 2022: blasted bombing of Ukraine ongoing}

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗?

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; some have sought a NATO shield. Say, Hungary and Ukraine haven't sought protection from each other. Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? Invading Russia isn't in NATO's charter(†), defending against Russian invasion is. Ukraine was + is like a sitting duck, and is being blasted.

^{(†) not that attacking nuke-ratting Russia seems like a good idea anyway}

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation?

all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored — Tzeentch

It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread?

limit Russia's influence in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Middle-East — Tzeentch

So, a land grab it is?

^{(From memory, Putin and compadres haven't complained much about Ukraine/EU relations, at least not as an excuse for invading/bombing Ukraine. By the way, the opinions/analyses of Mearsheimer matter as well, giving more angles; that being said, they're not the be-all-end-all of the situation.)}

:/

A 10-Year-Old Girl in Ohio Was Forced to Travel to Indiana for an Abortion (Jul 2, 2022)

So that's what's going on, eh.

Russia attacked Ukraine precisely because it tried to join NATO. — Tzeentch

The Kremlin line. Others apparently bought it wholesale. Portrayed like this by some:



It's worth keeping in mind that Ukrainian NATO membership would primarily mean limiting Russia's ability to move/act freely. And anti-missile systems in Ukraine would mean a decreased nuclear threat from Russia — defensive again, a constraint on the feasibility of Putinian ambitions.

Sure, Ukrainian NATO membership might have been seen as a threat to/by Russia, or some Russians. (Odd how Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland didn't/don't consider NATO a threat, though?)

When Putin and compadres started rattling the nukes, NATO responded by dropping Ukraine's NATO membership application, and, after a bit of whining, Zelenskyy conceded the membership. On public record. The NATO excuse stopped being much of a reason a while back. Dropping it hasn't changed much on the attackers' part — they've kept the blasted bombing up, and that affects the Ukrainians on the ground.

Sweden and Finland seeking membership as protective measures (like Ukraine) have been met with a casual, yet vaguely ominous, response from Putin.

NATO as an excuse, a pretext, carries more weight than NATO as a viable reason. But I'm re-repeating, much like others.

The Ukrainian side can stop everything before the end of the current day, we need an order for nationalist units to lay down their arms, an order for the Ukrainian military to lay down their arms, and we need to fulfill the conditions of the Russian Federation. Everything can end before the end of the day. The rest is the thoughts of the head of the Ukrainian state. — Peskov (Jun 28, 2022)

It is ridiculous to think that if Zelensky gives such an order, the people will lay down their arms. People are fighting not for Zelensky, not for the president. Like some. — Evgeny Vladimirovich

And the president said that we do not need Ukrainian territories. — Victor B

, hmm, dang, well at least it was little bit positive. :)

Some ramblings and goings-on in the trenches...

Five killed, 22 injured in Ukrainian artillery attacks in Donetsk, Russian-backed separatists say (Jun 14, 2022)
The Ukrainians are shooting back. Civilian (and whatever) casualties are bad whoever does the shooting.

Ukraine: Russian warplanes pound Kyiv after weeks of calm (Jun 26, 2022)

Revenge?

The Kremlin claimed it is possible to end the war by the end of today and suggests capitulation (Jun 28, 2022)
^{(has link to original Russian source)}

Peskov says: Ukraine, just give up, and no more bombs (with a smile). :D Doesn't seem like the Ukrainians want to lie down and die, or kneel to Putin, though. (Who would?) Suppose Ukraine was to all-out capitulate. Realistically, what then? A number of resistance groups would likely form (to be labeled "terrorists" by Kremlin of course), and shooting would change some, but not quite cease. Anyone speaking of freeing Ukraine or suggesting resistance would be "dealt with". Kremlin would seek as many collaborators as needed/feasible, place puppets in strategic positions, happily collect weaponry supplied by foreigners, the usual. Would take time, but Putin's ambitions would be (at least partially) satisfied, and other neighbors of Putin's Russia would likely get (additionally) worried.

Russian missiles kill at least 21 in Ukraine’s Odesa region (Jul 1, 2022)

^{Losing sight of the simplest of facts can lose sight of things that (also) matter.
Ukraine was interested in joining NATO - protection against Putin's ambitions was as good a reason as any - and they sought membership (Sweden and Finland followed). With Putin's threats (and rattling the nuclear weaponry), Ukraine and NATO dropped such a membership. Threats worked. Bombing ongoing. Hopefully, we won't see the same with the Baltics (already NATO members), Sweden, Finland.
Ukraine is interested in joining EU, and closer trade relations. Still on the table. (Hey, UK's spot became vacant, though they still seem to argue about that on the isles. :smile:) Could be a win for Ukraine, more cooperation, import/export/exchanges, improving internal matters.
Ukraine seemed to be on a trajectory towards internal improvements, even if slowly in some areas. Political, social, open enough with international peers to consider internal changes. The materialization of Putin's ambitions put a halt to such likes, a setback.
Ukraine didn't choose Russia over others, but looked elsewhere, and also didn't threaten Russia. Putin chose bombs, potential friendship apparently off the table.}

The thread having established that everyone is evil, maybe we should include some positive things as well?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed the Finance Ministry to initiate an agreement on providing financial assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Russian government will conclude an agreement on financial aid with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Mar 2, 2009)

Abkhazia to receive 2.36 billion rubles ($68 million) from the Russian federal budget and South Ossetia 2.8 billion rubles ($81 million)
[...]
South Ossetia would also receive 8.5 billion rubles ($246 million) to rebuild — Russia signs financial aid deals with Abkhazia, South Ossetia-2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mainwhile ...

:o

Statement on Roe v. Wade Decision

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe. V. Wade, ending the 50–year Constitutional protection for abortion. This reversal opens the door for what will likely be over half of the states in the U.S. restricting and even outright banning abortion and bodily autonomy — human rights and essential healthcare services.

Nearly 1 in 4 women (24%) in the U.S. have an abortion by the age of 45. Taking away safe and accessible facilities and care will be catastrophic — particularly for rural, poor, Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ people. This decision does not end abortion. It will end safe abortion for many across the country, restricting access to critical reproductive health services at a time when the United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates of high-income countries.

This decision sets a dangerous legal precedent for states that plan to restrict and take away women’s essential right to making important decisions that affect the health and well-being of themselves and their families.

This decision also paves the road for further limiting the rights and autonomy of all Americans, and it damages the United States’ global standing on human rights – weakening its ability to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights and legitimizing other governments’ actions to restrict rights and access to care.

We stand with experts, scholars, and activists in our commitment to safe abortion, accessible healthcare, and bodily autonomy. — ICRW

(EDIT wrong comment)

The conduct is unprofessional, since is introduces the potential for excluding some students on religious grounds. The coach should have been aware of that possibility, and hence his behaviour was negligent. — Banno

:up:

One more thing about the "praying" football coach. Let's be really clear that this isn't about personal prayer. It is about a uniquely Christian intention to use "prayer" in a public place as a means to evangelize.

Ever notice how it's only ever evangelical Christians who insist on being permitted to practice their religion through expressions of public prayer, with captive audiences? Using public microphones, using influence as an authority figure, desiring not only to pray, but to do so publicly, in classrooms with students, at secular sports events, when everyone is still around, etc? Have you ever heard of a Christian suing for access to prayer when there wasn't a public audience involved? The true desire is not prayer, but evangelism.

I'm a Christian. I can pray personally anywhere I am, at any moment. Silently, or out loud if I'm alone. And I do, every day. It's easy. But what they are doing is pretending that the only possible way for them to pray privately is to hijack the microphone publicly, which enables them to exploit the trust and access that their public secular role affords them. ***The possibility of influencing others isn't a byproduct, it is the point.***

By enshrining this behavior as constitutionally protected religious practice, the government is now perpetuating - establishing - the Christian trojan horse strategy of rebranding evangelism as prayer. And it does so at the expense of mutual respect, autonomy, and healthy boundaries between authority figures and members of the public, in public spaces. — Tom Ryberg · Jun 28, 2022

(EDIT moved part of comment)

:D

The Borowitz Report: Trump Fears Putin Is Too Distracted by Ukraine to Help Him with 2024 Campaign