The war itself is one big atrocity, so if atrocities are not the issue, there is no reason to stop the war. Logic anyone?

The problem towards peace isn't the atrocities themselves, it's relevant parties using those atrocities as an excuse to do nothing. — Benkei

No comment -- this speaks for itself.

You connected them in order to discredit your opponents. — Baden

My opponents, as you say, are parroting the FSB and Carlson. I ask them to do better than that.

Your ridiculous denials are amusing but eventually you will have to address your opponents' arguments on their merits or you will simply be seen as someone who has no ability to do so. Your choice. — Baden

Thanks for the advice. I've been doing just that but apparently you didn't pay attention. I conclude that nothing I can do will ever stop you from misjudging me.

Didn't Oliver connect the rhetoric similarities, not the people, in order to show how the rhetoric, their actual arguments, and opinions share similarities? — Christoffer

Exactly. @Baden is confusing a topical argument with an ad hominem.

LOL

But is Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius! — Isaac

Not smearing, just pointing out that you spit out the same lies as they are. It could simply mean that you all live in the same parallel reality.

And least we forget, the bear suckers are not content with barely sucking bears. They also suck the American extreme right.

False and conspiratorial narratives pushed by some American conservative politicians and media figures about Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine have bolstered and created synergies with the Kremlin’s legendary disinformation machine, experts on information manipulation say.

But even though Russia has embraced and promoted American disinformation, as well as the Kremlin’s own much larger stock of Ukraine war falsehoods, both brands have been widely debunked by experts and most media outlets, underscoring Moscow’s setbacks in the information war.

Led by Tucker Carlson at Fox News, a few Republican rightwingers in Congress, and some conservative activists, a spate of comments that have disparaged Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and echoed other Russian war disinformation have been recycled by Moscow, say experts.

A feedback loop between the Kremlin and parts of the American right has been palpable since the war’s start in February, which Moscow falsely labeled as a “special military operation” aimed at stopping “genocide” of Russians in Ukraine and “denazification” – two patently bogus charges that drew widespread international criticism.

Still, the influential figure of Carlson has pushed several false narratives to millions of Fox News viewers that have been eagerly embraced and recycled by Moscow and parts of the American right. Last month, for example, Carlson touted rightwing conspiracies that attempted to link Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, to a discredited allegation that the US financed bioweapons labs in Ukraine.

On a separate front, two Republican congressional conservatives, Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene, delighted Moscow last month by condemning Zelenskiy without evidence in conspiracy-ridden terms that sparked some bipartisan criticism. Cawthorn called Zelenskiy a “thug” and his government “incredibly corrupt”, while Greene similarly charged that Zelenskiy was “corrupt”.

Further, the former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, last month attempted to soften and spin Putin’s onerous crackdown on independent media in Russia, where reporters and other citizens now can face prison terms of 15 years for not toeing the Kremlin’s Orwellian war line and for spreading what Moscow deems “fake” news about its Ukraine invasion. Gabbard made the wild claim that “what we’re seeing happening here [in America] is not so different from what we’re seeing happening in Russia”. — the Guardian

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of @Benkei, @Isaac or mage @boethius.

Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire. — Benkei

And fuck the bear suckers.

Your elements are meagre. Economies are interconnected and derivatives are a small market. One could mount a reverse argument that New York is controlled by Paris because of all the French cheese they eat there.... It's just blah. The US and the UK are sinking into mass stupidity, while the EU keeps developing. .

Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war?

why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions. — boethius

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge.

it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum. — boethius

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think.

And why was it put in the constitution? — boethius

Good question. I did some research (from wiki):


On November 22, 2018, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine green-lighted a presidential bill to amend Ukraine's Constitution regarding the strategic course of the state for obtaining full membership of Ukraine in the EU and NATO (No. 9037). The same day, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the bill in its first reading. A total of 334 deputies of 385 registered in the session hall supported the law.

The Verkhovna Rada is composed of 450 "deputies" in total. Some posts are vacant due to Russian occupation of Crimea and independentists in Dombass. A new crop of deputies were voted in in 2019.

The law voted by the previous legislature proposed that Ukraine's irreversible course toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration be stipulated in the preamble of the Fundamental Law along with the confirmation of European identity of the Ukrainian people; that Article 102 be supplemented with the provision that "the president of Ukraine is the guarantor of the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"; and that Article 116 is amended with a new clause, according to which the Cabinet of Ministers "ensures the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the [EU and NATO]."

These provisions effectively carved in constitutional marble a 'west-friendly' foreign policy orientation -- a very odd feature, possibly an overreaction to Yukashenko's efforts to cosy up with Moscow -- and forced any new administration to implement it.

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied.

So who voted for this law? Most deputies of the previous legislatute. It was a presidential bill, emanating from Petro Poroshenko, and voted by (among others) his party, then name the 'Petro Poroshenko Bloc' that had won 132 of the 423 contested seats in the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election, more than any other party.

Poroshenko's domestic policy promoted "the Ukrainian language, nationalism, inclusive capitalism, decommunization, and administrative decentralization."

In 2018, Poroshenko helped create the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, separating Ukrainian churches from the Moscow Patriarchate. His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira (English: army, language, faith).

In the 2019 presidential elections, Poroshenko obtained 24.5% in the second round, being defeated by Volodymyr Zelensky. There was no true consensus in the expert community on why Poroshenko lost, with opinions ranging from opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency [and other factors]. His loss apparently came as a big surprise to commentators.

Outside government, Poroshenko has been a prominent Ukrainian oligarch with a lucrative career in acquiring and building assets. His most recognized brands are Roshen, the large-scale confectionery company which has earned him the nickname of "Chocolate King", and, until its sale in November 2021, the TV news channel 5 kanal.

He is still a member of parliament. But a new crop of deputies was elected on 21 July 2019. Zelensky's totally new party (called Servant of the People... :-)) won a strong a majority, coming out of the blue.

So this constitutional amendment was done by a previous crop of leaders, rather nationalist and possibly quite corrupt. Those Zelenskyy ran against and defeated.

This means Zelenskyy has no legacy to defend here, and can propose new ideas eg the referendum one.

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO. — boethius

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it.

Not if the EU is dominated economically, financially, politically, and militarily by America. — Apollodorus

Good thing it's not

I'm not sure what "Antiquity historians" has got to do with this, [...]

1. The Roman Empire was a predatory entity — Apollodorus

"Antiquity historians" had to do with folks who keep talking of the Roman empire again and again.

IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population ....
1h — Apollodorus

Add me and most pro EU folks to that list. A strong EU provides an alternative to a unipolar world.

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death. — boethius

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency.

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia?

I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white... :-)

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime. — Apollodorus

Maybe because one is bombing folks, and the other isn't. This may come as a shock but people don't usually appreciate being bombarded, not as much as being traded with.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, — boethius

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"?

I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. — Benkei

Not at all. It's your stupidity that has this effect. If all you have to say here is that you don't care about Ukraine, and care much more about Yemen, then feel free to get out of here and start a Yemenite thread.

But somehow I have the feeling that as the aggressor is the US backed Saudi coalition, there wouldn't be such nonsense declared on that thread.

However in the case where the agressor isn't US backed... :sad: — ssu

Very astute. :grin:

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? — Benkei

Folks here don't care about what disturbs you or not. This is not about you. If you don't care about Ukraine, by all means shut up about it, and write about Ethiopia or Yemen instead.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A21997A1128%2801%29

if we could enter into association agreements with Turkey, Moldova and Albania, we sure as hell could've done the same with another corrupt regime. — Benkei

And sure as hell, we've done the same. Since 1997, the EU's political and economic relations with Russia have been based on a bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The trade-relevant sections of the PCA aim to promote trade and investment, as well as to develop mutually beneficial economic relations.

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion …. — Apollodorus

I am not sure what law is broken when countries sign trade deals with the EU, or what harm is done to anyone. To the extent that the EU tries and contribute to stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation, it is doing good work.

Whose skin would be peeled off whose nose if Ukraine joined the EU, pray tell? Antiquity historians?

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate. — boethius

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded.

And it has zilch to do with a war going on or not.

Philosophical debates are not really geared to reach a deal, as when two businessmen debate some deal they both want to strike. In philosophy debate is more a way for each debater to develop his or her views, to present them under different facets, to see how arguments are attacked, and hence how they can be improved.

Your argument was just pulled out of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. And that's all I have to say about it.

A moral discussion would be circling back to issues such as how many Nazi's would justify invasion, to be confident it's not Russia who has just cause. — boethius

And lo and behold, we have found it quite possible to have this discussion here, in spite of the war going on, so I don't see the link between a war going on, on the one hand, and a moral debate, be it on first principles, on the other hand. These are two very different things and I can see no causal mechanism between them, where one would prevent the other...

Camus wrote the Letters to a German Friend while WW2 was still raging. He didn't find it a problem. Why do you?

it's difficult to really get into [a moral discussion] because of the war and events moving forward. — boethius

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur.

Not different, just less anti-american.

If the bloodshed stopped, then there would be plenty of time to debate the morality from first principles and what longer term policies may prevent and minimise wars in the future, including policies with respect to Russia. War crimes should be investigated, for various reasons, including that it hopefully dissuades more war crimes in the future. — boethius

No reason to expect the bloodshed to stop, nor to wait for the bloodshed to stop first before we can debate morality.

There's no such thing as a nation of angels.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.
— Olivier5

I meant people like that in general. — frank

Sure, and among people like that, some of them do it for the money, but of course your question of why do they defend Russia arises only for those who do it for free.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss.

Yep, someone needs to denazify Russia...

So nothing to do with the comment you cited then. — Isaac

You are thick.

It had to do with this comment of yours, where you made it look like Zelensky and the West are war criminals, and you conveniently left the Russians off the hook:

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. — Isaac

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea. — Isaac

It has got something to do with the fact that it's not the Ukrainian government who is killing those children, nor the 'West'. It is Russia. And that they would go as far as killing totally innocent and defenseless people to "apply pressure" on the Ukrainian government (to use a phrase our local mage @boethius likes a lot) says a lot about who they are: they are slaves, used to submit to force, and unable to even understand the concept of revolt against force.

But their use of force against the weakest of the weak is backfiring. They THINK that the more hospitals they bomb, the more submissive the Ukrainians will be, but the opposite is happening: it makes the Ukrainians more angry. And now the Russian foreign minister complains that the Ukrainian side is 'difficult' in those negotiations. Oh yeah? What did you slaves expect?

Maybe there'll be a tech miracle that pulls our chestnuts out of the fire, or maybe it won't be as bad as we think it will be. — RogueAI

Or maybe it will be worse.

How important is 'The New Atheism' in connection with the historical belief in God within the Judaeo- Christian tradition and other traditions and philosophies? — Jack Cummins

It's late to the show but useful for Americans who didn't pay much attention to atheism until now.

It's new for them, hence the label. In Europe, atheism is old news. Got ist tot, remember?

Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. — Isaac

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. Russian heads will have to roll now.

Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. It goes with the territory. — Bitter Crank

That's true but let's not trivialize war crimes either. To execute civilians with a bullet in their head, dozens or hundreds of times over, are the kind of things the Nazis were doing.