We can only have so many different systems in place. Either everyone governs themselves, or everyone tries to govern the entire society, or a small group governs everyone, or people choose representatives to lead them, or someone leads everyone, or a machine or other being rules everyone. Or some combination between them. How do we give the most good for all within these systems — Christoffer

First, nothing forces us to chose one system at the expense of another. As you say, we can combine them. Take capitalism and socialism: they can be combined into any form of social-democracy. In this view, the values of socialism are combined with those of capitalism as a sort of ying yang. The same applies to political systems: they can mix up various elements of strong leadership vs broad representation and consultation. What is important to realize is that our values as human beings are varied, and any society must find ways to combine sometime competing values, such as freedom vs equality. So this is about a combination of philosophies, rather than committing once and for all to one political philosophy only. That is what I was highlighting when i spoke of the first generation and second generation human rights: any manner of synthesis and variation is possible.

It's probably not one size fit all, all the time.

The second point is that Russia right now lives under an oligarchic, cut-throat capitalist system bordering on organized crime, the worse form of capitalism on earth. So for them, if they want to reach a better balance, they should try and be more social, less capitalist, and more democratic.

That's not a plan, it's just a priori wish of pretty much any engagement. — boethius

Everything indicates it was the plan. You do not need to defend the strategic blunders of the Kremlin.

Of course, if Zelenskyy simply capitulated or then Ukrainian forces just surrendered, that would have been preferred. — boethius

Exactly, and that plan failed disastrously. And then they couldn't even start to bombard Kyiv because they were repelled.

there's is no actual reason to assume Kremlin has ever wanted to actually conquer Kiev. — boethius

That is truly an absurd statement.

Sure, but pulling back lift cbecause it's a debacle?

Or pulling back because they achieved their core goals through force? — boethius

They haven't achieved anything of note around Kyiv except losing a quarter of their own force. The capital is almost intact. It seems glaringly obvious that they failed to take Kyiv and are now pulling back. No need to invent bizarre convoluted explanations if there is a perfectly simple and good one at hand, fitting everything we know including what the Russian side itself has said and done.

Why is the Russian plan a debacle? — boethius

Because they are now pulling back, objectively.

You don't "have" to trust anyone. — boethius

You do if you don't want to turn crazy.

No issue with the rest of your post.

I'm sure some soldiers were convinced it would be a cake walk -- but does that include high commanders and Putin himself? Who knows. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case, but I'm truly uncertain. — Xtrix

Of course one cannot know what is in the head of people, by it is an established fact that the troops thought it would be very easy. Hence 'the Russians' thought it be easy.

There's also the oped they pulled off after bloging it out by mistake, saying in essence 'it's over now after this short fight and Ukraine is reunited with Russia, God bless.'

Combined

So what qualifies as 'an established fact', according to you?

I don't trust entire media sources. — Isaac

BTW, this implies that it is absolutely not obvious to you that one has to trust some secondary sources.

What are you trying to say?

No, it's my 'normal aggressive' way of undermining your attempt to imply people have said as much by writing as if you were responding to them. — Isaac

I don't know about you, but when I write something down, it is not necessarily to refute something that was said by someone else.

So you agree with me that we have to trust SOME secondary sources. This may be an obvious point, but it is an important obvious point, because it follows from it that you too trust some sources, including journalistic ones. And that my friend, is a less obvious point here on this thread. It is not clear to me, in particular, which media you trust and which you don't trust.

You follow the reasoning? My problem is that, if I try to convince you that fact X is indeed established, I would need to refer to sources you trust. And I don't know which ones you happen to trust. Nor if I trust the ones you trust.

Now if you were kind enough to share a list, I could try and see if there's any professional credible source in there which I trust as well, and then we could use it to settled factual disputes.

Alleged strike on Russian fuel depot hurts peace talks - Kremlin — BBC

Nice precision hit. No civilian victims, just a slowed down enemy.

why (since no one had argued the contrary and it's blinding obvious) you felt the need to say such a thing. — Isaac

Is that your passive aggressive way of saying you agree with me?

There's a variety box media sources I trust. Generally, I check that they have some accepted qualification in the field they're talking on, check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest, then I see if their overall narrative is similar to mine and trust them, or not, on that basis. — Isaac

And I do the same, just better. Hence I don't need to travel all the way to Ukraine to get a good sense of what's happening there.

Your claim was that it is an actual established fact. — Isaac

Indeed, it is a fact, established by sources I trust.

Who said anything about trusting no one? — Isaac

I said it was next to impossible. So whom do you trust, if you don't trust 'the media'?

did you go to Ukraine yourself, talk to the soldiers there, gather that intelligence directly. — Isaac

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who ever debated a holocaust or climate change denier: "You weren't there during the great glaciations or WW2, so why do you trust historians or climate scientists?"

Why do people trust other people? Perhaps because life would be next to impossible if one trusted no one. E.g. if we trusted no one, we could not debate with anyone about anything. And I note that @Benkei trusts the press enough when it criticizes the French democracy.

Who do you trust, and why?

New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this? — Xtrix

It is an established fact that the Russians thought it would be a ride in the park.

There are testimonies of arrested or kidnapped Ukrainians who report that their Russian captors argued with them about pretty much the same things argued on this thread: " But but but why are you resisting? We are only fighting NATO. Why do you hate us so much?"

And similarly, many Russian POW and intercepted calls say the same thing: they were very surprised by the Ukrainian resistance.

Russians hand control of Chornobyl nuclear plant back to Ukraine, IAEA says
THU, MAR 31 2022
Kevin Breuninger, CNBC

KEY POINTS
Russian troops that took over the Chornobyl nuclear power plant have transferred control back to Ukraine, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

The IAEA said those Russian troops moved two convoys toward Kremlin-allied Belarus, while a third convoy left the nearby city of Slavutych, also toward Belarus.

The agency added that it "has not been able to confirm reports of Russian forces receiving high doses of radiation while being in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone."

The IAEA said those Russian troops moved two convoys toward Belarus, while a third convoy left the nearby city of Slavutych, where many of the nuclear plant's staff live, also toward Belarus.

"In addition, Ukraine reported that there are still some Russian forces on the Chornobyl NPP site but presumed that those forces are preparing to leave," the IAEA statement said.

----

The irradiation story comes from the plant staff who reported that a Russian convoy left Chernobyl through the 'Red Forest', a highly radioactive zone.

I mean, of course there's a way to make a society without capitalism that still has a strong foundation in freedom, freedom of speech, and so on. — Christoffer

So this was the real question: can a modern and free society avoid the ills of capitalism? Which BTW is a question not just for Russia.

Excellent!

But wait... Were the others that bad.... :chin:

And this seems to be the crux of the problem. When we see nation's who's transitioning to have better quality for their citizens, their well-being, their rights, their freedom in society etc. they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures. — Christoffer

I think the problem is a logical one: if one defines 'western' as a society enjoying 'their rights, their freedom in society' then by definition all such societies are 'western'.

Historically, the notion of human rights 'appeared' in certain places: the US and France, during two near simultaneous revolutions. Other places back then did not have them and rejected them. Pretty much all Western European kingdoms rejected them. So the idea was not 'western' then. It was just progressive, and stronger here and weaker there by historical accident.

Then a number if things happened which led to all sorts of things including two world wars. At some point Germany, one of the most modern European society, opted (?) for Nazism, following Italy for fascism 10 years before. Again, these modern, industrialized western states did not accept human rights.

It is tempting to subsume history within geography. 'Western' is a geographic notion. But human rights are a cultural concept or practice. They appeared somewhere, as these things usually do, and then they spread elsewhere, as good ideas generally do.

Agriculture appeared historically in the Middle East (and a few other places independently, but the 'West' got it from the Middle East. Does that make agricultural European societies 'Middle-Eastern'?

Is there any nation in the world that has millions of citizens with all these positive human rights and functions that still aren't western in cultural form? — Christoffer

There's India, Senegal and other democratic states in the 'southern hemisphere'. Of course, their democratic 'form' and processes are originally western (representative democracies with parliaments) and there is consumerism in both places.

Yes, but what about the question of a society in the world right now that functions as an example of being good for the people without being a western country or culture?

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms? — Christoffer

So you are looking for a frugal, exotic (non western) yet free society. I think a lot of hunter gatherer societies fit the bill. In fact I wonder if those 'god given' or 'natural' rights aren't some instinctive tropism towards the political system that presided over 99% of our evolution time: that of men and women living in roughly equalitarian societies, albeit with an alpha male (and/or an alpha female) leading the group and screwing more than average.

Often, women don't have the same rights as men, in such systems. I think gender equality is a modern concept, and still mainly western (with plenty caveats).

How can basic human rights be put into the constitution of Russia while keeping western culture out? That is the question. What societies in the world are not western societies, but still has the same human rights as western culture takes for granted?

The question is basically, if Russia were to fix their problems of corruption, if they give their own people human rights, freedom of speech, free media, and the ability to choose their own path as a person, then what type of culture exists with all that, but at the same time isn't western in nature? — Christoffer

Legally speaking, human rights are not Western anymore since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948. Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained [BYELORUSSIAN SSR, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, POLAND, SAUDI ARABIA, UKRAINIAN SSR, UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, USSR, YUGOSLAVIA], and two did not vote [HONDURAS, YEMEN].

The UNHR was crafted by an international committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It consists of 30 articles, focused on so-called first generation political rights, inspired from the French revolution's declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen, and on the US bill of rights.

Other declarations were later adopted on economic rights = so-called second generation rights (eg right to food, to a decent life, to work), under the pressure or leadership of the USSR and other communist states, i.e. those that abstained on Eleanor Roosevelt's list,promoted their own 'rival' list of rights. And the US most often abstained from those votes, and still today does not recognise economic human rights.

This last point is important for your question: while first generation rights are what most people in the West associate with human rights, they are not the whole of it. Historically, second generation rights were the contribution of the USSR to this international debate on human rights. And it is a positive contribution IMO.

The general line of argument from communist states and authors has been: freedom is nothing to a hungry man, so all these political rights mean nothing as long as the poor can't eat or lodge themselves. It's a good argument, IMO. It goes back to Marx' critique of the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen as bourgeois ideology.

If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards? — Christoffer

Usually I would say: it's their country, their life and their responsibility, not ours. But now their midget of a fürher threatens us with nuclear holocaust every single time he has an anxiety crisis, which is often. This makes the rest of the world interested in getting rid of that insecure nuclear blackmailer ASAP.

quoting a reasonable-seeming speech by Putin — jamalrob

'Reasonable-seeming' is a rather low bar, as it depends on how hard one looks at what seems. A more ambitious criteria would be 'reasonable'. The speech you posted includes this contradiction you highlight between nostalgia for the USSR and aspirations to democracy. That makes it less than reasonable, I think. It most probably is just another propaganda piece.

To the extent that studying propaganda is interesting, a review of all his speeches and the evolution of his rhetoric over the years would be more instructive than just focussing on one speech.

And then, one could compare the rhetoric to facts on the ground. Never lose sight of reality when studying professional liars, least you start to believe their lies.

You've been far more obscene than me.

Please do

It's not from me.

Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.
-- Nicolas Boileau

Do you think that a trawl through the last few hundred pages is going to reveal a stream of insults from our side and a Gandhi-esque model of respectful patience from you? — Isaac

Yes, I do.

it seems more likely that their ideas are meagre. — Tom Storm

Yes, what is conceived clearly is expressed easily.

I avoid dead metaphors like the plague and never use them in any way, shape or form. — Cuthbert

:-)

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

-- TPF guidelines

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate. — Benkei

You and others here have made any conversation impossible by constantly insulting the other side, page after page, and by showing only contempt for us.

Calm down. Stop insulting people. Show respect and pay attention. Read. Then maybe you will be worth talking to. Or you can go back to sucking bears, for all I care.

I see that the bear suckers are getting all excited.

After a month of sucking, maybe the bear has finally reached turgidity?

This thread is proof that a breakdown of moderation -- in both senses -- leads to cacophony and to a breakdown of the discussion.

we've got reports that the planes that broke into Swedish airspace had nuclear weapons on board — Christoffer

Yes, they are nuclear-blackmailing the whole world now. It's "me or chaos", nuclear style.