And, who's the aggressor? Ukraine has been shelling Russian citizens for 8 years. — boethius

Are you Russian?

It's not about learning but about preventing it.

Russians aren't cheerleading a war, they are fighting a war. — boethius

So what is the MOST disgusting of the two behaviors: to aggress your neighbour in such a war, or to cheerlead and help the victims trying to defend themselves? And which behavior is the LESS disgusting of the two?

You have to promise. Positively so.

Only if you promise that you will try to understand.

I find cheerleading a war to continue and for arms to be poured in [...] disgusting — boethius

Just to be clear, do you find Western sympathies for the Ukrainian side, their occasional cheerleading and their arm support more disgusting than the Russian aggression and indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine, or less disgusting?

No, this thread is to bash NATO, bash the West and eagerly report anything bad they do, like "supporting bioweapon labs in Ukraine"!!! — ssu

And it's also a place to jerk, and be horny... For some.

I can't decide if it's just rhetoric or if you genuinely are so grossly narcissistic that you can't even contemplate the idea that it might be you who are actually wrong. — Isaac

I'm talking facts. You guys talk rubbish. There's a provable difference.

For instance, I just asked you to refrain from using sexual terminology to describe this war, and you deflected to something else that's reproachable. Instead of responding on the issue of the use of sexual language.

For instance, by pretending to take seriously Putin's excuse to invade Ukraine, ie the lives of them poor russophone Ukrainian brothers who he is bombing so mercilessly. This paradox was pointed to you many times and never answered.

For instance, you pretend again and again that there is some gag on you guys, while you are free to share your lies at length. That's an obvious contradiction which is never addressed.

So...just so I understand what's missing, would you quote for me an example of you 'trying to reach understanding' with any of the posters here opposing your position (me, boethius,, benkei, streetlight...). I just want to see how it's done. — Isaac

Many posters here have been patiently explaining the most obvious things to you and the other serial misunderstanders for days now. You are either very slow on the uptake or you pretend to misunderstand. In your case my money is on the former.

You: you're a "war cheerleader". — Benkei

Moi? I have been accused of war cheerleading here more often than I care to count. The words roll off the tongue of your buddies day and night. And when for the first time I return them the compliment, I'm the one to blame?

That's called a double standard.

Maybe find a log cabin so the two of you can keep jerking either off. — Benkei

Now that's classy. What is it with Putin sycophants and their constant horniness and jerkicity?

There's a theory that Putin and Trump express obvious lies as a means of domination. The relentless bullshit creates a fog of abuse. — frank

Yep. It's about manufacturing confusion and doubt.

Note how frequently some posters misunderstand what we say here. It's done on purpose, evidently. They don't seriously try to reach understanding. That's not their goal.

I find cheerleading a war — boethius

You are the only war cheerleader here.

the war horny trance — boethius

Can you at least stop using obscene words like that all the time? I find it disgusting.

but little old me on an obscure (no offense) internet forum mustn't stray for a second from 24/7 condemnation of him and him alone lest my failure be interpreted as tacit support and bring the whole project crashing down. I didn't realise I was so influential. — Isaac

Don't flatter yourself. Nobody cares that you post here 24/7.

there's clearly a big backlash to the neo-Nazi's — boethius

Indeed, the Hitler-wannabe failed Anschlusser is being dragged in the mud by media the world over. You won't see any of that from St Petersbourg though.

His "allure" in the West hasn't "declined". — boethius

Oh it has, among the European left and even in the extreme right. Sympathy for the Kremlin is much lower, if there at all nowadays, in the rhetoric of a guy like Mélenchon in France, for instance. And for the first time for decades, the US, NATO and the EU appear vaguely competent, and more attractive than before Mr Putin's failed Anschluss on Ukraine.

Fill the air with lies so nobody knows what to think. That's what the exploiters do to control the public. — frank

It's just damage control, I suspect. The idea is to combat the rapid depreciation of Mr Putin's allure in the West and elsewhere, as swift as the ruble's on the currency market.

They do it for profit. Some cumquats do it for free. :lol:

I agree there's a variety of motives here.

How do we deal with that? — Amity

Through revolutions, like we did in the past.

:fire:

I'm gona steal that...

Should we not negotiate with America either? — Isaac

You can negotiate with whoever but know who you negotiate with.

So what? — Isaac

You are really unable to put two and two together, aren't you?

A private conversation does not make it more difficult to sign a peace deal, not the same way as a public speech may do. What is private does not feature in peace negotiations, and cannot play any role there.

Both are speech acts. So evidently they can be equated. If they're dissimilar in some way significant to your argument then you'll have to state it. God knows why you feel the need to resort to arguing by Delphic aphorism.. Just state your case for Christ's sake. — Isaac

They are dissimilar in that one is public and the other private. I thought this would be obvious.

I've provided examples. — Isaac

Nope. One private discussion between two Jews is not to be equated to a public speech at a rally.

So your argument fails then. You've failed to distinguish the harm (to peace talks) of Russian faith-based, fight-against-genocide, propaganda, and Ukrainian, faith-based, repel-the-evil-tyrant rhetoric.

They both invoke religion, they both essentialise, they both talk about universals — Isaac

They don't, unless you have examples to provide.

the only war criminal convicted since WW2. — FreeEmotion

Err... no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda

You could say democracy and freedom from tyranny were universals. — Isaac

I could say that, yes. But tyranny in Russia and democracy in Ukraine are facts right now.

None of Putin's rhetoric implies he's going to wipe out the 'evil' Ukraine either. He talks a lot about how they are his Russian brothers. The 'evil' he's talking about is Neo-Nazisism, imperialism, genocide etc. All clear evils, not Evil capitalised. — Isaac

He's certainly trying to fight all the way to Kyiv, though. Plus imperialism or nazism are universals, not specific evils.

Each side needs to have a 'wrong' they can offer to right, otherwise they'll be no deal. — Isaac

More confused BS. A negotiation is simply about finding mutually agreeable terms. A lot of push and shove happens but the Ukrainians should not, in my view, follow your advice and bomb Russian cities or fund separatist movements in Russia just in order to bring more 'wrong chips' at the bargaining table.

Putin is killing people who - he claims - belong to the same nation as Russians. — neomac

Yes. He's bombing them to free them from fascism. It does work in a perverse way: corpses are free from a lot of the trouble living people have.

Peace requires a deal of some sort, and a deal of some sort requires both sides to give, which means both sides accepting some wrong. — Isaac

That is simply not true. In such a deal the parties just have to agree on their future relationship. They don't need to agree on who was right or wrong in the past.

The point was that it becomes difficult to do so if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight here, for the Ukrainians, is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow.

How is that any different. "ultra-brutal and totally immoral" just sounds like a synonym for 'evil'. — Isaac

What's evil is the invasion, the bombing of civilians, etc. Again that is a fact. It IS evil to do these things. Facts don't make peace difficult.

Naked, unprovoked aggression makes peace difficult. It is detrimental to the common good, immoral, and forbidden as such by international law. It follows that the liberation of Ukraine from such aggression would contribute to the common good. But this doesn't make a liberation struggle 'essentialist' in that it's still not a crusade of cosmic proportion between the forces of good and evil. It can end as soon as the invasion ends.

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful. — Isaac

The implication is NOT that something or another is 'unhelpful' per se. It is that essentializing a conflict as good vs evil has a cost: it makes it harder to make peace. This cost may or may not be worth paying depending on the circumstances. It was certainly a good thing to see the fight against Nazism as a fight against evil, for instance. There was no peace to be made with Hitler.

That Putin is morally responsible for this war is a fact. He started it, from a position of strength, of dominance. He bears the moral responsibility of thousands of deaths, among Russians too. This should be recalled regularly since so many seem eager to forget it and because it is important to understand the Ukrainian government position and communication: they do not say that they are on a crusade against evil. They say that they are defending their land against a ultra-brutal and totally immoral invasion.

And that is true. It is not essentializing anything, just saying the truth.

And truth does not make a peace deal more difficult to strike.

How does it influence which strategy we might advocate? — Isaac

To all holy warriors including Putin, the advice might be something like: If you want to be able to get out of a war at some point through a peace deal, then maybe don't essentialize it as being between Good and Evil. Cause that makes it harder to sign a peace deal, eventually.

You mean, what use could a policy maker make of this indication?

I suppose it's meant as an indication about Putin's psychology and intent.

We can't advocate negotiation with Putin because he's invoked religion... — Isaac

That is not what he said, again. He pointed out that holy warriors often find it difficult to make peace with their enemies.

Ah, yes. Wyylde. Motto - Join the Pleasure Party. "Wyylde is the first social network where you can express your sexuality freely." — T Clark

Sounds like a plan.

by all means carry on with your Putin exceptionalism — Isaac

@ssu did not say Putin was exceptional in that, though. He just said that holy warriors aren't known for signing peace deals, so Putin is unlikely to seek peace in Ukraine.