, yeah, with two world wars just a good couple of decades apart, resulting in, say, 100 million fatalities + impressive destruction, it's no wonder that things had to change. Emperors, dictators and the like were central figures, North America wasn't happy, ...

^{(Imperial Japan started its own campaign shortly before the 2nd world war as far as most historians are concerned, don't know if anyone uses that as a marker for the start of the war instead.)}

:up: Being written in Russian, maybe the article was targeted for Russians. Looked around, but couldn't find the original article, do you have a link handy?

Not all that surprising I suppose, however concerning it may seem:

NATO’s military presence in the east of the Alliance
^{— NATO · Jul 8, 2024}
Czołgi i wozy bojowe na drogach w Wielkopolsce. Ważny komunikat armii (Polish)
Tanks and combat vehicles on the roads in Wielkopolska. Important message from the army
^{— Krzysztof Grządzielski, Milosz Balcerzak · Radio ZET · Jul 29, 2024}
US Tanks, Combat Vehicles Spotted Heading for NATO's Eastern Flank: Report
^{— Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Jul 30, 2024}
Финляндия разместит до 5000 военных НАТО у границы с Россией (Russian)
Finland to deploy up to 5,000 NATO troops near Russian border
^{— Lisa Lambrecht · Deutsche Welle · Aug 22, 2024}

Earlier, Medvedev went on another tirade, making other Kremlinians seem dull:

Medvedev urges to turn life in West into 'permanent nightmare' in response to sanctions
^{— TASS · Jun 13, 2024}

_{(I'm using "they" to give out less personal information)}

He was most likely complaining about "persecution" by his own family who do not accept his sexual orientation. — Tarskian

Well, no, that's exactly not the case here.
Missing family + friends isn't a perk.
Much like neighboring Brunei, and Saudi Arabia by the way, Malaysia is officially Sunnist.
And so Malaysia lost another smart, kind person for (religion-bound state-sanctioned) humanitarian reasons.

Such is the reality on the ground. — above

, I happen to know a Malay homosexual who more or less fled Malaysia.
You wouldn't know they're homosexual without knowing them personally.
(Not that it matters, but I'm heterosexual and married.)
Good thing they're quite intelligent and rational, and managed to make a living in a safer country.
Neighboring Brunei isn't exactly better.
Such is the reality on the ground.

As it stands, the Jewish versus Muslim thing is part of the problem, in particular when both go craz...radical.
Jews continue to be (existentially) threatened, Muslims continue to be treated radically unjustly.
Jews aren't going to eradicate opposing radicals, Muslims aren't going to turn the region into an Islamic theocracy or whatever (and, outside of self-fulfilling prophecy, Christians won't have their second coming).
Both lay religio-historical claims, not really something where you'd expect much compromise.
Supposing that Israel has nuclear weapons, I wouldn't want to be in the region if Israel stands to be run over.
This part of the problem isn't that different from a (deadlocked) religious war, and fictional characters like Yahweh and Allah aren't going to settle anything, though one might wish that both parties would believe so (and leave it at that), or, better yet, ditch their (fundamentalist) superstitions.
Isn't simply telling one group to "Fuck off (and die)" more radicalism?
Anyway, I'm guessing that a solution would require both plausible security guarantees and ongoing justice.

my primary issue is with Western policy (as I'm a Westerner and I mostly affect and am responsible for Western policy) — boethius

obviously "Ukrainian sovereignty" is not the concern of the West — boethius

So, being a Westerner an'all, sovereignty is not a concern?

, I wasn't just thinking of Palestinians, I mean, wild west conditions, really?

What's going on here?

One Palestinian killed as Israeli settlers attack West Bank village
^{— Bethan McKernan · Guardian · Aug 16, 2024}
Dozens of Israeli settlers attack West Bank village, burn cars and kill a Palestinian in violence condemned by US as mediators hold new round of talks to end war in Gaza
^{— David Averre · Daily Mail (+ AP) · Aug 16, 2024}

Whatever those settlers (or whatever they are) think they're doing, around here they'd be prosecuted for serious crimes. If such crap continued, countermeasures would be organized.

In an interview, Vera Grantseva briefly opines (sort of related to that "alternate world" thing):

ENTRETIEN. Guerre en Ukraine : "Humilié, Poutine devient l’otage de ses propres mensonges" (en)
^{— La Dépêche · Aug 15, 2024}

Nord Stream blowback
^{— Stuart Lau, Zoya Sheftalovich · POLITICO · Aug 15, 2024}
Ukrainian military officers came up with idea of blowing up Nord Stream pipeline 'during night of heavy boozing', ignored Zelensky's pleas not to go ahead, and set off blast that 'qualifies as attack on NATO', bombshell report claims
^{— David Averre · Daily Mail · Aug 15, 2024}

Well, it is a genuine concern:

In the near future Russia will take possession of everything the US military and NATO shipped to Ukraine. (— Kim Dotcom · Aug 14, 2024)

I suppose, had Ukrainian support been more decisive, then the concern might not have been much of a factor later. Easy to say in retrospect. And sort of strategically prepared for by the Kremlin.

:up:

Wait, ↪Tzeentch, didn't the thread already establish that "Everyone bad"? — Dec 28, 2022

Not geopolitics for you? (there's a question there)
[...]
And Hiroshima + Nagasaki ☢ 1945...not geopolitics for you? — Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine is a sovereign country (and Crimea part of Ukraine), here here here 2024jul9 2024aug9 ...

That's geopolitics for you. This isn't your average lefty echo chamber where terms like 'victim blaming' are used non-facetiously. — Tzeentch

Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ☢ coming?

There's an obvious distinction between a country and its government, and its civilian population. Countries and governments are not victims, since they are seldom innocent. Kiev made a calculated gamble and it didn't work out. It should not play the victim card but take responsibility for its failed foreign policy. — Tzeentch

Japan during WW2 was a fascist menace. Of course they had it coming. That doesn't mean the nuclear bombing was justified, or that civilians weren't innocent/victims. The Japanese state/government clearly was not.

Not sure what point you believe you're making here. — Tzeentch

Not geopolitics for you? (there's a question there)

Suspect. When it's the Kremlin, it's reduced to geopolitics, heck they're defending themselves (i.e. excused), and hardly otherwise mentioned ("invisible"), despite their bombing, shamming, etc. When the Ukrainians + supporters are fighting to take back parts of Ukraine, then it's another matter, be it evil US deep state theories, Kyiv to blame, ... And Hiroshima + Nagasaki ☢ 1945...not geopolitics for you?

in a way, since Ukraine is a sovereign country, the Kremlin's attitudes themselves were already on a collision course from early on — Aug 13, 2024

It's understandable what the Kremlin wants, and, understandably, it's not theirs to have. A middle ground deal — whatever is compatible with international law — seems hard to come by, from early on at that, and now animosity has (understandably) grown.

In acting so brazenly, Putin is in fact openly trying to upset the international order, replacing it not with some progressive vision of equality of nations, but with a return to a 19th century ideology where might – particularly his might – is right. — David Cameron · ‘High time for peace’, UN chief says, as Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters third year · The UN · Feb 23, 2024

Regress.

, at least there are some concrete suspects, though they're long gone.

communism — Benkei

I'm skeptical. Not so much that there are neat ideas to be found, but of the implementation. Lenin, Mao and others might have thought they had it, but that turned out differently. How would it go? And in a larger, diverse environment?

(ok, don't want to side-track the thread, should perhaps be moved elsewhere)

justified true belief can be much wider than science — Moliere

Sure, make it ...

Doesn't Can't science more or less take the a role of "justified" in knowledge as justified true belief? — Aug 13, 2024

an example — Moliere

I think this might be a sort of standard example from physics:

Aristotle looks around, comes up with a theory of motion → Galileo looks around some more, tests, comes up with better theories → Newton thinks things over, observes, advances/generalizes theories (used to this day) → Einstein, having access to more, improves theories, more complex, used by GPS

The models adapt to accumulating evidence/observations if you will. Might be worth noting that the methodologies became more evidence/observation-driven/dependent, say, in the 1600s. Model-falsifiability is a must these days.
Well, science can redo conventional wisdom, make something counter-intuitive acceptable, and help put rovers and stuff on Mars. :)
With something like sociology or psychology (about ourselves), things become more complicated, and we may have to contend with less accurate/stable theories.

, something to give a thought then? ^{(e.g. 2024jul9, 2024aug9, here, here, here)}


Nord-Stream-Sabotage: Ermittler suchen nach mutmaßlichem ukrainischen Täter
Nord Stream sabotage: Investigators search for suspected Ukrainian perpetrator
^{— Kurier · Aug 14, 2024}

I'm thinking that scientific methodologies are a means for models to converge on evidence/observations.
The models are revisable/adjustable and falsifiable (in principle always tentative/provisional).
So, in a way, sufficiently stabilized/usable models become parts of scientific theories, where "sufficiently" means within some domain of applicability or category of evidence/observations.
That may seem overly depreciative/critical, yet science remains the single most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history bar none, and doesn't carry any promise of omniscience — the forums depend on science.
Doesn't science more or less take the role of "justified" in knowledge as justified true belief?

, there are plenty of differences.
^{(Say, the US didn't try to do away with Nihongo, either.)}
So?

That's geopolitics for you. This isn't your average lefty echo chamber where terms like 'victim blaming' are used non-facetiously. — Tzeentch

Could an Istanbul Deal Have Brought Peace?
^{— Andreas Umland · Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies · Jun 24, 2024}

Are the Russians trembling now that Finland and Sweden joined NATO? Maybe the Kremlin circle is trembling, though it's of a different kind. — Aug 11, 2024

Learned indifference
^{— Kirill Martynov · Novaya Gazeta Europe · Jul 20, 2024}
(the original report, "We Have to Live Somehow" (Jul 8, 2024), by the Public Sociology Laboratory is in Russian)

Apparently, the Russians' concerns are different than the Kremlin circle's "existential threat". The new NATO joiners don't seem to have made much difference.

I'll venture to guess that the Kremlin's concern is simple enough or otherwise straightforward: Control over (parts of) Ukraine, backed by geo-political-power-military aspirations (perhaps with a sense of entitlement/ownership) — well, something along those lines. For example, they've more or less had free reins concerning Crimea, despite it being part of Ukraine. Attempts to change conditions on Ukraine's part or potential loss of control on the Kremlin's part could then elicit whatever response from the Kremlin, with little mind to legalities (or involved parties), and warring is a "natural solution" for them. Russia-wide, at least many are more likely to see the Ukrainians as old southwestern friends with cool vacation spots. Add, say, Putinian indignation with the EU for not swiftly extending cooperation without reservation. Putin's sentiment towards Ukrainian EU membership has gone here and there (the EU isn't military). Thus, in a way, since Ukraine is a sovereign country, the Kremlin's attitudes themselves were already on a collision course from early on.

At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities – I would like to emphasise this – began by building their statehood on the negation of everything that united us, trying to distort the mentality and historical memory of millions of people, of entire generations living in Ukraine. It is not surprising that Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism. This resulted in the participation of Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis in the terrorist groups in the North Caucasus and the increasingly loud territorial claims to Russia.

Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions. — Address by the President of the Russian Federation · The Kremlin, Moscow · Feb 21, 2022

Kiev is not a victim. It made its choices, and carries the responsibility for the consequences. — Tzeentch

(Who's being bombed again?)
I guess, by such logic, Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ☢ coming, some 79 years ago (with a difference of not being a land grab). "That’s geopolitics for you."
Anyway, I thought you blamed the US for it all.

:up:
Without some sort of data expiry, the space usage will keep growing

I've been getting some "502 Bad Gateway" errors lately.
Also a "System error. Please contact us for assistance." today.
Are the forums under heavy load?

, going old school, though not that old school

Hildegard von Bingen, O vis aeternitatis, Liber Scivias (Sequentia · 8m:12s)

, the thread established way back that "Everyone bad". ;)

, right, don't forget to blame the victims for looking to democracy rights transparency freedom (handy, so as to maintain a narrative).
Are the Russians trembling now that Finland and Sweden joined NATO? Maybe the Kremlin circle is trembling, though it's of a different kind.
The EU presents a carrot, the Kremlin presents a stick, the Ukrainians have chosen.


Ukraine and Russia trade accusations over fire at occupied nuclear plant
^{— Tom Balmforth, Yuliia Dysa, Andrew Cawthorne, Josie Kao · Reuters · Aug 11, 2024}
Fire at cooling tower of Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
^{— AFP · Aug 11, 2024}

Whatever is going on, it would be reassuring if the on-site IAEA personnel had done a close inspection and reported. (Or...was it a CIA plot?)

EDIT: links and such

, alternatively, (once again) you deny Ukrainian agency, presuppose that it's not that they want democracy rights transparency freedom and wrestle free from the dominating (regressive opaque authoritarian oppressive) neighbor, joining Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al (and the EU), and take the opportunity to point (conspiracy-alike) fingers at the evil US instead. Incidentally, you're echoing what came out of the Kremlin.^{(also check here, here, here)}

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations,^(33)(34) and repressive anti-protest laws.⁽³³⁾ — Revolution of Dignity

Maybe return once Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al cancel their NATO memberships? — Aug 11, 2024

, I think most readers know your vassal stories by now.
By the way, democracy rights transparency freedom -versus- regression opacity authoritarianism oppression, has come up a few times in the thread (plus proliferation thereof).
Maybe return once Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al cancel their NATO memberships?

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US. — Tzeentch

Here's what they wanted (again):

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,⁽⁹¹⁾ and the influence of oligarchs.⁽⁹²⁾ — Euromaidan

I vaguely remember reading about some old-school Donbas separatists. They had this old dream of their own country (well, or two), that they could craft on a path of their own. Not on offer from the Kremlin, either.

In lesser news, Kadyrov received "a Nobel prize", but then his troops were accused of betraying Putin. Oh well, can't win'em all.
Meanwhile, blasting civilians (again) seems an unusual way of "liberating" them. Wouldn't the invading forces expect a negative attitude towards them?

NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence — Tzeentch

Not independence from NATO, no. (Unless they were to cancel such a membership again.)
The Baltics have (happily) chosen, Finland and Sweden freely chose, the Moldovans are jittery.
You can't speak of independence, without the independence for them to choose.

Meanwhile in other news ^{(tass, independent)}, Ksenia Karelina, who donated fifty-one US dollars and eighty cents to Razom in February two years ago, awaits sentencing. If the prosecutors have their way, she'll face years in prison.
Reportedly ^(forbes), the Ukrainian skies have been seeing old Yak-52 propellers with shotgun-wielding hangers-on chasing drones.

If Ukraine is neutral, and the West shows a sincere interest in peace, I think the Russians could have possibly been persuaded to agree to some sort of special status for Crimea.

But that was back then. Today it is unthinkable they would give back Crimea and the landbridge that leads to it. — Tzeentch

Possible, sure, maybe. Plausible, no. Would have handed the keys back to Kyiv, no, not likely.

DeNazification is their word, one they've been using consistently, and associates with the "Great Patriotic War". (Ukraine generally replaced "Great Patriotic War" with "Second World War" around 2015.) They've accused Ukraine of Nazi rule, and, they say, mean to deNazify Kyiv. Well...Mariupol first. You'll find attempts to justify its use in the thread. But, taking some liberties with your comment, you're right that their rhetoric is "alternate world" ridiculous, though it goes with their irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist rhetoric. Other than that, apologetics (naïveté no good).

, not counting color/blind people, our interaction with our common environment has sufficiently similar results, that become identifiable experiences to each of us.
I suppose it's analogous to the digestion example — when we eat apples, roughly the same reliably happens, they're dissolved into whatever and absorbed by the stomach, transported around the body, etc (unless someone has an apple allergy), and we're less hungry. We (may) learn to associate pain with putting a hand on the hot stove, and hence (better) learn to identify/recognize hot stoves.
Some earlier babbling: 2023Mar2 (image), 2024Aug2, 2024Aug6
(I'm not sure "private" is quite the right word here, we're chatting about them intelligibly after all, but know what you mean.)

@frank, I don't think "Is my red your red?" can make much sense, since the experiences are localized occurrences, a bit like "Is my apple digestion your apple digestion?" also is a weird question.
Maybe Wittgenstein's approach is more fruitful, "The apple is red" attains meaning by common use, it's how we learn to identify red, whatever exactly it all is.

Greenland ice takes up what would otherwise contribute markedly to sea levels. These folk examined interim deglaciation during the Pleistocene, from when the temperature was ≈ 2-3°C above pre-industrial.

Plant, insect, and fungi fossils under the center of Greenland’s ice sheet are evidence of ice-free times
^{— Bierman, Mastro, Peteet, Corbett, Steig, Halsted, Caffee, Hidy, Balco, Bennike, Rock · PNAS · Aug 5, 2024}

Greenland was ≈ 1-10°C in July, largely ice-free tundra. Anyway, anthropogenic climate change could end up seeing some wicked rises in sea levels.

, maybe my wording should have been different/clearer (the links could help).

Do you suppose that the Kremlin would have handed (what they (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv at that time², after 8 years of efforts¹? Perhaps insist on a new Kharkiv Pact⁴? Didn't Mearsheimer (and Drennan⁵ by the way) argue that Crimea remains a critical geo-political-power-military asset to Russia?
Whatever the case, something here doesn't quite add up.

Wouldn't such a supposition also be an admission of sham³? How might that fare (in Moscow, for one)?

This is why they talk about 'denazification'. They mean ultranationalist militias like the Azov Batallion. — Tzeentch

Hmm. Apologetics to make their (deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist) stories fit your narrative? Dubious. Specious.

, Crimea¹ then² ...
Do you suppose that the Kremlin would hand (what they now (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv? Perhaps insist on a new Kharkiv Pact⁴?
Didn't Mearsheimer (and Drennan⁵ by the way) argue that Crimea remains a critical geo-political-power-military asset to Russia?
Whatever the case, something here doesn't quite add up.
And what then of their deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist rhetoric (again)? For show? Propaganda?
Either way, land grab remains what they're enacting⁸⁹ (factual, non-theoretical/hypothetical).
More things that telling a coherent story would have to account for, well, unless you think there are sort of random acts involved, maybe.

@boethius, given their anti-NATO stories — those they want everyone to hear (and propagate) — what plans exactly is it you think the Kremlin has going for Donbas?
Use it as a mined buffer zone to keep the barbarians at bay? Give Donbas independence? Make it into a new iron curtain?
Well, no, they're trying to gobble Donbas up, switch flags entirely, call it their own, expand Russia, and have employed shamming (and :fire: more) to do so.
And, as explained a few times, that does nothing to fix their supposed NATO-phobia.
They already had a border, call it Ukraine's "red line".
So, do you think they did/didn't (do/don't) know that? (I'll just start out with the simplest coherent explanation.)

Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks
^{— T Möller, A E Högner, CF Schleussner et al · Nature · Aug 1, 2024}

Every 0.1°C of warming increases risk, with acceleration above 2.0°C

This one :point: :flower: the flower and the onlooker are both a part of (or "in") the world, by "being-in-the-world" (see Heidegger, [...] — Kizzy

:up: _{(no need to invoke the ol' fella' to talk about the world we're all part of, well, unless ...)}

I guess "it's red" or "it has the property of being red" means it reliably can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances? That's how we learn that stuff anyway.

What exactly red is, may be a different question.

Some summery beachy sounds

Imagine we discover an unknown tribe of humans from some remote island. [...] — Richard B

Real-life example: Marie Curie might have lived longer if she could have visualized radiation with a cloud chamber or sonified radiation with a Geiger counter. Instead, it was her later radiation sickness symptoms that gave her the otherwise absent, delayed sensing of the radiation. :/

The mental phenomena is not the cause of us seeing the colors of the fruit, the cause is the addition of the contact lenses. — Richard B

Hmm... So, there's the experience (the perception, qualia), the perceived (the fruit), and whatever is involved in the interaction (including the contact lenses). Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing? Or, well, for the mental phenomena to occur in this case, we'd first have to see with our eyes, right?

Could we say that the rose and the car have the property of being red since they can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances?

The experience/perception isn't "in the" rose, it's part of the onlooker when occurring. And the rose isn't part of (or "in") the onlooker. What "red" are we talking about anyway? :)

I'd start with some, let's say, observations ...

• for hallucinations, imaginary/dream worlds, whatever, the perception and the perceived are the same
• when the perception and the perceived aren't the same, the perceived can be objects

• perceptions are events/processes, temporal, come and go, occur, are interruptible
• objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, movable, locatable, breakable under conservation

• by interaction one can perceive something without becoming the perceived in part or whole

... and take it from there.

(maybe I'm using the verbiage in a non-standard way)

I'm seeing some openings for category mistakes, perhaps depending on verbiage.
Red could be called one format of perception, typically related to objects we hence call red.
Or something like that.

Has synesthesia come up? Phantom pain? Mary's room? :)