This all sounds familiar.

There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce, and the women and children of course were strewn all along the circular village until they were dispatched. Right near the flag of truce a mother was shot down with her infant; the child not knowing that its mother was dead was still nursing, and that especially was a very sad sight. The women as they were fleeing with their babes were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed. All the Indians fled in these three directions, and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed wounded should come forth and they would be safe. Little boys who were not wounded came out of their places of refuge, and as soon as they came in sight a number of soldiers surrounded them and butchered them there. — Lakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee

People have evolved since then, since that some primitive societies found these things acceptable.

All I can say is that it is was all made up, not true.

Putting that aside, I think is it useful to think what will probably will happen (if it be too awful to contemplate):

1) The air campaign will continue until they find it safe to mount a ground operation against Hamas who are part of a population without food, water, electricity. I believe its called siege, as in siege of Leningrad.

2)Israel will take control of the Gaza strip and occupy it totally, or leave it as a lesson for future generations, as they see it.

Any guesses?

Insightful, and given the circumstantial evidence, highly probable. What I find hard to accept that a human being could entertain such a though.

Are you suggesting that the Prime Minister of Israel allowed his citizens to be killed in order to have an excuse for killing Palestinians? That sounds incredibly crass for a Prime Minister of a 'modern nation state' as they say.

His replacement may be worse. He could step down. In any case withdrawing troops and staying in power maybe a good may be an attractive alternative. Someone should explain that to him. Why could't they hack the Ukranian elections instead?

This is still going on since my last post, after I predicted it the conflict would end on Victory Day.

Someone discussed Russia's options. Russia has pulled out troops from some areas. Why not simply pull out completely, admitting defeat or whatever the need may be? It will save lives, and that can't be bad.

Here's the idea:

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to find a diplomatic solution for the conflict in Ukraine based on a cease-fire and the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, the chancellor’s office said on September 13 after the two leaders spoke by phone.

https://www.rferl.org/a/scholz-putin-ukraine-ceasefire-russian-withdrawal/32032075.html

Russia should offer an ceasefire and peace treaty. Ukraine ceases all military action, leaves the east alone and Crimea to boot, and gets to rebuild its shattered nation.

Russia could launch another 'special operation' if the ceasefire is broken, but this time I don't think Ukraine will have the will to get into a war again just when it is rebuilding. Russia gets to get on with its life or death or whatever it was doing before 2014.

Covert operations are always an option like for the US. But you knew that.

Surely Empires are the ugliest of beasts.

Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go. Pericles

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/empire-quotes

The price of empire is America's soul, and that price is too high.

J. William Fulbright

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/empire-quotes

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy[2]

This is coming to America?

Russia will likely lose this contest in the long run — StreetlightX

Looks like it, but I guess he has to try. Again I put forward my test:

(1) Could Russia's national interests be met by non-military means?

If not

(2) is Russia not justified in using military means?

I personally believe (1) could have been achieved. I am a pacifist I guess.

considering that we are two years away from the neofascicts resuming power in the US, and that now it's effectively illegal to protest in the UK.

Philosophically speaking, aren't all political stances equally valid, or can we rule out some, and on what basis?

Illegal to protest in the UK? I missed that, and also if you could explain Boris Johnsons' actions - I am a little behind the curve here.

The West acts with impunity, destroying democracies and assassinating world leaders all over the globe, while supporting dictators and mass murderers on the regular, and now someone who isn't them does it, — StreetlightX

Maybe Western Values have triumphed in the mind of President Putin? This is a ideological victory, surely? I do not see anyone celebrating though.

All thanks to the genius of Vladimir Putin. — ssu

He is not a genius if he cannot find and destroy these things (or capture and sell for Rubles -there is an idea) - Russia does not even have spy satellites to track movements. Superpower and all that.

Can imperialists be Pariahs? I vote for this one.

What is interesting is the balance between politics and correctness: for example, an earlier IMF program may have been economically beneficial, but if it turned out to be not necessary, would have had a high political cost.

I have been looking at the concept of de-growth as put forward here. It is a tough sell, and I would think politically impossible.

What is degrowth?
Degrowth is an idea that critiques the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction.

https://degrowth.info/degrowth

Another option is to fund wind and solar energy which will have a net savings and make those loans very payable from savings on oil purchases.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/sri-lanka

Good article, except that tourist arrivals are up

https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/the-world/south-asia/5235-crisis-ridden-sri-lanka-negotiates-for-an-imf-bailout

https://tradingeconomics.com/sri-lanka/tourist-arrivals

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.
— Baden

I am not enjoying it. Trust me on this. — Olivier5

Can we agree that this is not what an effective defense of a country looks like? At what point does it become a failure to defend? 50% 60% 70% of the infrastructure, the population, what is it?

The Chinese government put a lot of money into that infrastructure, they must be very upset.

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war. — EricH

If the United States wanted it that way, as in "Russia is not he enemy" , Ukraine could have existed as some sort of a West-leaning buffer state. Clumsily, as usual, they went too far in engineering a coup. This is not diplomacy.

There is hope, however, I will not name any names, but there are politicians over in the United States who have a more peaceable approach, at least before being elected. Then something seems to happen to them.They have to get elected though.The hope is that in the next election the issue of arming Ukraine, of how the entire crisis was handled, is sure to feature in the debates, and then it will be time for the American people to decide: however, if they vote out of fear, and the instinct for self-protection, vote for war, then I think the status quo would continue.

There is open discussion on how to 'defeat China' militarily, I hope this is not a majority view, the desire to go to war with China. If it is, then you are in trouble.

A review of RAND Corporation's
'War with China: Thinking
Through the Unthinkable'

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/review-rand-corporations-war-china-thinking-through-unthinkable

How will this end? I think it depends on President Zelenzkyy, and if enough destruction is wrought enough times he is bound to give in, I think that is what President Putin in trying to do.

May 9th seems to be a nice date to end it all. I do feel very very sorry for Ukraine, and very upset with Zelenskyy's line. If this is defending a country, then defense is not a good idea at all.

I won't mince words, President Zelenskyy's best option would have been to negotiate with the Russians, re-arm and fight back in some sort of insurgency. No doubt experts here have better ideas on how this could have been avoided, but that is my view.

I think this piece sets out very well why Sri Lanka is in the current situation .

The pain became more severe because the country’s main foreign earnings dried up; tourism came to a halt, and migrant remittances declined. Garment, tea and rubber exports held up to a degree. But the country’s trade deficit only grew as imports cont...

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/sri-lankas-crisis-the-disaster-of-economic-dependency-1098125.html

The country needs to shift away from the structures of dependency – including financialisation, trade liberalisation and tourism – that led to this crisis. The need of the hour is a democratic social contract with people based on immediate relief, fo...

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/sri-lankas-crisis-the-disaster-of-economic-dependency-1098125.html

Assuming that is true, is this the IMF method, structural adjustment, or is it something else?

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction? — EricH

Personally I think the decent, good-hearted people we know as Americans are not running your government. Have you seen Bill Moyers 'Secret Government?".

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start.

It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time, and China has had to move to clarify after the recent invasion. It's now repositioning it as "a gaurentee against nuclear weapons," which still has relevance for Russia's first use "escalate to descalate" doctrine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I like China. I also like their 'no first strike' - if they can survive a first strike, then, maybe lose a few billions, they can seize the moral high ground forever. How to excuse a first strike...let' see:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-vulnerable-to-chinese-electromagnetic-attack-experts-say

They are really smarter than I thought : I can see the headlines - The Pentagon reported today that a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMMP) destroyed .... 'high probablility' orignating from Beijing....

If you are a Devil and don't mind killing for your country you do have a lot of options for patriotism I must say.

China has pledged since 1964 that it would not be the first party in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. The South China Morning Post reported in October that Beijing had reiterated its “no first use” policy, despite some officials urging a rethink.

The United States has repeatedly refused to adopt a “no first use” policy, but has vowed not to use nukes against countries that do not have them.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/top-general-china-could-spring-surprise-nuke-attack-on-us/

And...

https://warisboring.com/step-by-step-heres-how-to-defeat-china-in-a-war/

I wonder about Russia's policy.

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead... — Isaac

I think a case can be made that the most powerful nation was using its power to obtain greater power. Always ask 'who benefits'. At least I agree that there was a possibility.

Greece shows a dip to 70% of per capita real GDP and then back up again. A dip in per real GDP is something that we are all expecting.

There are two other charts I will present there are differing views on how to get out of this.

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/unemployment-rate

https://tradingeconomics.com/sri-lanka/unemployment-rate

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so. — ssu

What I meant was that I see Russia as having one last chance to survive as a sovereign and independent nation. I am fine with living in a vassal state, but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence. I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two. Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth. England had 'colonised' about 80% of the world, before those in power realized their mistake.

Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations? I think the little freedom it as a superpower diminished with the break-up. After all, superpowers have super powers, being able to see things others do not see, and able to leap over the edifice of international law and treaties in a single bound.

I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the clarification, I missed the Chines nuclear gaurentee?

Military hardware is one thing, but military personnel and higher officials - do they have to have different make - up from the rest of us? They have to be able to bring themselves to take actions which would incinerate large numbers of civilians at the touch of a button - do you have to lose your soul first?

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma; trauma that is compounded by factors such as proximity to the victim and the type of weapon used.

One of the factors that Grossman explores in detail is distance. If the victim is far away and out of sight, the mental impact of the act of killing is far less. When soldiers can’t see the victims it is easier to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201402/death-becomes-us-the-psychological-trauma-killing

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

Just what is slipping up from them? — ssu

Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this.

The only way there is probably us the US and Russia negotiate a non-intervention treaty — Benkei

That's a nice thought but I think it will have NATO laughing all the way to the bank. I think it is time Putin made a sarcastic statement that he was ready to discuss the terms of Russia's subjugation to the West and its final dissolution to a sort of a Russian speaking Iceland.

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad? — ssu

Imperialism is bad, fighting against it is good, but costly, might as well give in. What I see before me is Western Imperialism. One response is for Russia to surrender - I suggest Versailles as the location, hopefully the same railway carriage is there but if it is any consolation the Nazis will be on the winning side.

I don't think it's they simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I missed that completely, thanks for pointing that all out: it's easy to use nuclear weapons when no-one else has them and they are low yield in effect. No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.

If the use of nuclear weapons is so problematic, one wonders why the USA is still respected. — Benkei

As I have explained before, when the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, they were on the side of many of the nations of the world that were actually attacked by Japan: China, India, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia. Those bombs were dropped from our side, the Asian side, by the allies who were protecting the east actively, and sacrificing their lives.

Ukraine did not attack India and China, and they are not at war with Ukraine. If bombs fall on those we support, or sympathize with, we say it is bad. If bombs are dropped on a nation that saw it fit to carry out a massive imperialist drive across oceans land and attack us, then we think that is good.

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West.
— Benkei
I'm not so sure about that. Likely the West would put sanctions on those countries that carry on as if nothing had happened. — ssu

Doing business under a nuclear discount "I will be paying for Russian oil in Rupees, you nuclear junkies"

The Russian's have to wake up sometime to understand that the empire has gone. Perhaps a disastrous war will help them with this. — ssu

I see it this way: Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the Western Elites (WE) not the United States (US).

With the use of nuclear weapons, I think the obvious response would be widespread condemnation of the act and a global cry for imminent cessation of the hostilities. You would see it everywhere, even on this forum, how shocked people would be...and how they would get over it as the "new reality — ssu

Any use of any nuclear device would lose Russia whatever respect it still has on the world stage, this would be the last straw that every nation in the General Assembly will not fail to condemn.

The general public does not differentiate between 'tactical' nuclear weapons or 'low yield' nuclear weapons. My feeling that Russia would embarrass every single one of its trading partners and it could cost them all the political capital they have just to trade with them. Oil and gas for as compensation - free oil and gas - would be one measure that would satisfy the nations of the world as being at least a partial compensation for a nuclear attack on Ukraine. The images would really be worth looking at.

President Putin might as well pour in all his conventional weapons into the battle first, and that I what I think we have to watch for.

One alternative is that it's only Putin's successors that will make a peace-agreement with Ukraine. — ssu

President Putin did put in a successor before - Medvedev, so it need not involve high drama. It would be a good tactical move. "Putin did it - he is now powerless, deal with me"

Since 2010, they have also had an explicit first use policy of "escalate to descalate," which calls for using tactical nuclear weapons if they begin losing a conventional war, and face existential threats. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Makes sense, if they are going to lose anyway, but it will cost them everything but the land they are standing on. Come to think of it, it may just be to the advantage of NATO to push them into this situation.

Same with China, a 'provocation' that results in an exchange with China, and which China backs down, would be the ideal situation tactically. It worked with Japan.

But I think we can all agree this is an awful situation — and exceedingly dangerous. — Xtrix

Welcome to the human race- by which I mean the race of the powerful in the nations of the world to die with the most toys in their hands.

But yes, extremely dangerous. Stupid (and criminal) from Russia, the West ain't helping much either. — Manuel

I just would go with dangerous, predictable for Russia, and the 1% of the West trying to gobble up all the resources in sight. A sort of real life Pac-Man. Shades of Hitler's attempts to expand his empire for his people no less. That, too, was a small group of fanatics media-manipulating the people, if I remember correctly.

So I'll go to my original position, that it is incompetence combined with unhelpful demands from IMF and others. — Banno

I think it is risk taking - but nevertheless, is the remedy then competence combined with helpful demands from the IMF? I am less sure of the latter.

Is it not true that finally the poorest section of the population will endure hardship as they did during the pandemic?

The suggestion of using nuclear weapons is useful as a propaganda tool, but not much else. If nuclear weapons are used, no amount of pre-deployemt discussion is going to help anyone, maybe some contingency plans and shelters might.

It is precisely the talk of Russia using nuclear weapons ( no-on else will, right) that is vitally useful to Zelenskyy and his allies for several reasons: to demonize Russia, to take all sorts of extreme measures such as expanding NATO to include Mars colonies, to increase defense spending, to increase economic measures and to justify any economic hardship (he said he would use nukes so what are high gas prices) and all sorts of things, in other words to justify the war effort. It will justify the all other measures and the supply of all other weapons. Good cover story.

That is how I see it, anyway. I simply assume President Putin will not use nuclear weapons, and it won't matter if I am wrong will it? It does clear the mind assume the situation will end more conventionally.

I summarily dismiss any stories not confirmed by both sides, for example, if a both sides say a ship sank, then I accept that it sank.

I was already writing this before I saw your last post, I will include a link at the bottom. I’m not saying this is actually happening. But there are numerous reports in the media. — Punshhh

What's your advice on handling 'various reports in the media?' Ignore them or filter the ones beneficial to your cause?

Having trouble threading together these two narratives myself. The threat of Russia driving countries into the arms of the world's largest military alliance for protection apparently comes from the same Russia whose incompetent command, out-of-date weapons, and brainless rank-and-file are being outmatched by the world's 22ndth largest military. — Isaac

There are, it seems, different ways of argumentation, which we should be aware, those supported by facts, those by emotion (images) and by ideology. There is no point trying to convince, but meet the argument best we can.

2. Types of Arguments
Arguments come in many kinds. In some of them, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and these are known as deductive arguments. In others, the truth of the premises should make the truth of the conclusion more likely while not ensuring complete certainty; two well-known classes of such arguments are inductive and abductive arguments (a distinction introduced by Peirce, see entry on C.S. Peirce). Unlike deduction, induction and abduction are thought to be ampliative:the conclusion goes beyond what is (logically) contained in the premises. Moreover, a type of argument that features prominently across different philosophical traditions, and yet does not fit neatly into any of the categories so far discussed, are analogical arguments. In this section, these four kinds of arguments are presented. The section closes with a discussion of fallacious arguments, that is, arguments that seem legitimate and “good”, but in fact are not.[2]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/

Yes, I posted this earlier, however it looks like people don't read all the posts and maybe that is a good thing.

The Agreement refuses to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, and promises to Ukraine to put extreme pressure on Russia until they get it back. Read the agreement.

Putin was worried, and said so in an interview, that if Ukraine joined NATO, then, under the cover of protection, launched an operation to re-take Crimea, he would not be able to do anything. So, the story goes, he had to act now.

Also, he knows as, if I know it, that Ukraine, that passed laws limiting the number of Russian books to be brought into Ukraine, and other anti - Russian policies and epithets, he was sending troops into a nation of Russian haters, and would not be welcome.

Many of the statements here are 'unsupported assumptions'. I have underlined mine.

It is a good time for everyone in Sri Lanka to think of where they want their country headed, but if they cannot agree on why we got here, what the situation is, at least there are fewer options left as to how we can get out of this economic crisis, and maybe simpler for all to comprehend.

In a Democracy, the drive for the opposition to seize power is also a factor, considering the favorable exchange rate.

Possibly due to the political distance, the discussion here is very different from the discussion in Sri Lanka, which is heavily politicized.

This is much appreciated, however there are some some factual issues in the news reports that, innocuous as they may seem, need to be addressed.

Inflation is at an all-time high of 17.5%, with prices of food items such as a kilogram of rice soaring to 500 Sri Lankan rupees (A$2.10) when it would normally cost around 80 rupees (A$0.34). — The Conversation (Article quoted above)

The inflation rate chart is here: you can see for yourselves that it had reached 25% in 1980 and 22% in 2008.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LKA/sri-lanka/inflation-rate-cpi

Rice is available at Rs 200 per kilo, I obtained this information yesterday from people who are living there and from a supermarket in Sri Lanka - Keells :

https://www.keellssuper.com/product?cat=4&s=~RICE

However, that article goes on to adress the China problem (China is a problem to the West, not Sri Lanka). This is lost on many Sri Lankans, especially those who enjoy news programming in the West.

Many believe Sri Lanka’s economic relations with China are a main driver behind the crisis. The United States has called this phenomenon “debt-trap diplomacy”.

The irony.

Defaults over China’s infrastructure-related loans to Sri Lanka, especially the financing of the Hambantota port, are being cited as factors contributing to the crisis.

But these facts don’t add up. The construction of the Hambantota port was financed by the Chinese Exim Bank. The port was running losses, so Sri Lanka leased out the port for 99 years to the Chinese Merchant’s Group, which paid Sri Lanka US$1.12 billion.

So the Hambantota port fiasco did not lead to a balance of payments crisis (where more money or exports are going out than coming in), it actually bolstered Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange reserves by US$1.12 billion.

There are other experts who have voiced the same opinion saying loans from China were not the problem, but this is item is being pushed, and it seems hopeless to resist.

If lies are dangerous, then we have continued trend of inaccurate or weaponized news channels once again, in the arena of Economics this time. Buyer beware.

Russians are just marketing and blunt large force, but no brains.
— Christoffer

I agree. Even their war disinformation efforts appear amateuristic. — Olivier5

I look forward to evaluating this when it is all over, like Afghanistan. History will be harsh, and will be written by not the victors, but by the worlds only superpower.

I like my disinformation unsophisticated, so it is easy to sort out, hence RT and Sputnik News.

This caught my attention, because in my line of work, to deploy is the same as to launch. But of course, that's not what it means. — jamalrob

I read that the same, and I thought it was a good strategy, I mean did the Ukrainians not 'deploy' anti-ship weapons? These journalists are sloppy.

They have to be careful not to slip the surly bonds of credibility. There is a limit to credibility I think once you pass that you are in the land of the incredible.

Last night, Western officials said Ukrainian reports of the operation were ‘credible’ and the attack demonstrated their ability to strike the Russians in areas where they assumed they were invulnerable. — The Daily Mail

So they wait until Ukraine is invaded, 'genocide', widespread destruction that will take years to build. It is all according to plan. They assumed they were invulnerable because NATO never supplied the 'needed' weapons. All according to some Master Plan of sorts.

Here is a thought.

After all, no one can deny that everything that Russia has done in Ukraine, the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given such, how about having joint war crimes trials — ones in which both Russian and U.S. officials and military personnel are tried together?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/04/13/why-not-joint-war-crimes-trials/

It would be nice reunion for President "Russia Is Not the Enemy" Bush and President Putin.

While it is a crime to call for the assassination of the President of a certain country by its own citizens, apparently leaders of other nations are not covered my this law, but the existence of the law proves the seriousness of such statements. Not sure if it is a war crime.

So was it sustainable, and were the regional geopolitical undercurrents relevant here? Globalization? Malaysia, for example, was targeting NIC status by 2025 I don't know if they will make it.

In the 1970s and 1980s, examples of newly industrialized countries included Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Examples in the late 2000s included South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey. Economists and political scientists sometimes disagree over the classification of these countries.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/newly-industrialized-country.asp