Look who's been studying a little climatology. :victory:

think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective — Manuel

True, but sometimes the best general is discovered in the middle of the war. That happened in the American Civil War. His name was Grant.

But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win". — Manuel

I think they would probably just like to get to a negotiation table. Putin will put that off as long as he can, I guess. He's a scumbag.

It is what it is.

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster. — Manuel

Supposedly they aren't used to this kind of warfare. It takes a while to get up to speed.

do you think he'll run again? — Baden

I think he'll have to. Harris can't beat Trump.

That story hasn't appeared in the sources I follow. That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

Biden's looking like a rock star. Couldn't Putin have waited a couple more years to do this?

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

They'd probably tell Putin he has to give up all nuclear materials or face attack. He wouldn't give them up, and Russia would be attacked. It would be fucking horrendous, illogical as it may be.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.
— frank
But does Benkei feel the same way? — ssu

I don't know, but Joe Biden does. That's what matters.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.

It depends on how you define that. I'm firmly on the side of the victims here, i.e. the Ukranians. I just have different ideas about how their long term interests might be served. A war of attrition would be low on my list. — Baden

:up: :up: :broken:

Here is an Associate Justice. — 180 Proof

:up: I really like her.

:heart:

But you don't want to talk to anyone who describes it as such? It's not a judgement but an observation btw. — Baden

Have a good evening/night. :halo:

It's not a controversial statement by any means. — Baden

I didn't say it was.

traditional adversaries such as the US and Russia. — Baden

I think this tells me all I needed to glean from your perspective. Thanks for the discussion.

The missle placement is clearly a direct threat to Russian power. You can add layers to that if you like, but there is no fundamental reason for Russians to be happier about having American missiles piled up along their borders than Americans would be having Russian missiles piled up along their borders. Again, there are lots of other layers and nuances you can add, but I don't know why that basic fact is hard to grasp or agree on. — Baden

The problem is: this presupposes conflict instead of explaining it.

Obviously the UK doesn't feel threatened by American missile placement. If Russia does, then what is the basis of the conflict?

Again, my goal was to understand your statement that NATO sees Russia as an adversary.

I think the missile placement issue is more about Putin's objections to American foreign policy decisions. He has bemoaned the way Americans leave instability and cell-structured terrorism in their wake, which happens to be his backyard.

He believes he would deal more effectively with turmoil in the middle east, and I think he's probably right. American efforts to install democracy have been disastrous.

Putin wants to maintain his big gun. — Baden

Of course.

Would you feel threatened if Russia became friendly enough with Mexico to allow it to place missiles there? I suppose most, if not all, Americans would. And your government certainly would and would act correspondingly. — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general feel threatened by the US?

Do you happen to have some data that shows that?

And this from a Russian angle could read as:

"Why would Russia prepare to attack the U.S.? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?"

So, why did NATO expand, why plant missiles in Eastern Europe?

Simply invert your perspective and you answer your own questions. — Baden

No. If the US placed missiles in Eastern Europe to threaten Russia, there has to be a reason for it.

I'm not making normative judgements about whether Russia should feel threatened or not. I'm simply trying to help lay out an explanatory framework for their actions/reactions — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general have felt threatened by American missile placement? Or is it just the Russian govt?

If so, we can probably drop "NATO" here, right? It's mostly just the US.

And the present invasion of Ukraine is related to this apparent aggression.

I think there's probably a kernal of truth in there, in that, without the USA or EU, Putin wouldn't need to invade. He could just send in his drushina and kill Zelensky.

:up:

You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What? — Baden

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia.

At this time, China is threatening the vision of some Americans as having a divine mission to rule the world. Only a fucking moron would say: "Look! That's evidence that China is antagonizing America! (Not that you're a fucking moron, I don't think that).

Everybody has some responsibility to look at the world objectively, including Putin.

So, funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle. — Baden

Is it spin? The problem I have is that it makes sense that the US would ready itself to bomb Iran. Iran has been hostile toward the whole region. It's a sectarian issue.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. — Baden

Historians say that perception actually ended with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. This was the real basis of the cold war: Stalin felt vulnerable.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed — Baden

Their economy was in shambles. The US gave aid to Russia, for fuck's sake.

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In — Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it.

And the following calculus doesn't really make sense: Putin's an evil madman + Putin has half the world's nuclear weapons = No need to care about Russia. — Baden

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power.

I was asking specifically about NATO's antagonism of Russia, the basis of it and the form it has taken.

I can investigate myself, I just thought you would know about it.

I'm not saying they make that explicit in their documents. It's my wording. As I see it, NATO represents an expanded pre-cold-war block and Russia a diminished pre-cold-war block of countries that were on friendly terms for about five minutes before reverting to pursuing separate and often conflicting interests. Putin has been more open about talking about this than the Western side who are a little more coy. I could probably dig up some quotes from him. — Baden

I don't think Putin's concern is NATO. It's the US. He wants the US to go down a notch in global importance, and for Russia to go up a notch.

But instead of approaching it like a 21st century neoliberal, he's going at it like he thinks he's Peter the Great.

That's my half-assed assessment. The US, on the other hand only cares about Russia because they interfered in American elections, and they're sketchy to deal with on Middle Eastern security issues.

The US government cares about China because they're prepping to take over half the world.

See why I'm confused about the Idea that NATO is pestering Russia? I don't see how.

Can you explain it?

I hope so — Baden

:grimace:

Not if you're the meat in that sandwich. I mean just to be concrete about it re the current situation: if the war continues, NATO can feel it's winning by bleeding and weakening Russia, which it sees as a strategic adversary — Baden

Ok, hold on. I didn't know this. Why does NATO see Russia as a strategic adversary? I'm asking for real.

Maybe I could come back to the rest of your post later.

Maybe Benkei isn't getting any, so he keeps fantasizing about you and I. I guess he swings in multiple directions.

But if you have a problem with a certain power, what's the alternative to applying a counter power? Isn't that pretty basic?

IOW, just being anti-power is pretty much the same as being suicidal, except it takes an application of power to follow through.

Always fun to watch liberals get hard-ons for authoritarianism when the going gets rough. — StreetlightX

I think all contemporary democracies allow temporary dictatorship during war. Don't you know why?

but in a democracy you have to be really careful of authoritarianism. — ssu

During a war it's better to ditch democracy because it's sloppy and inefficient. Come back to it after the war is over.

The pundits are saying this is going to be a very long war, tho.

Right. The error might have been to put the aspiration to membership in the constitution, perhaps hastingly. It's not technically what a constitution is for, more of a foreign policy option which ought to be open to debate and reviseable through policy change I think. Note how in your article, it is manifest that Zelensky cannot really say what he thinks about NATO, because the Ukrainian aspiration to membership is not up to him: it's in the constitution. That'd be why all the interviewed Ukrainians in the article keep saying: "it's in the constitution" like a mantra. Because they can't say anything else, otherwise they would be anti-constitutional.... — Olivier5

I don't know why it's in their constitution, maybe @ssu knows?

The Russian president can override the constitution. I don't know if Ukraine's is similar.

Trump seemed to think the US constitution is like that. It's not.

So what Zelensky says as a soundbite is entirely meaningless. — boethius

Not entirely. But kudos for noticing the constitutional situation. Very reasonable of you.

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural. — Olivier5

Ah. So I did know Zelensky had tried to emergently join, and I thought it was obvious why.

He's since let that go.

Zelensky's soundbite there is all over the news. I specifically picked an article that mentions it in the context of the Ukrainian constitution. Pundits say interpreting that statement (which is directed to Ukrainians) requires that context.

And he didn't state no hope of joining but he would consider letting the plan go if it would avoid war. — Benkei

Ok.

In any case, Zelensky's statement can't set aside the constitution or change established NATO policy. — Benkei

Correct.

Sorry guys, but if you wanted to discuss this sanely, you should have demonstrated that earlier. I can't deal with either of you.