• Ukraine Crisis
    The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased)[…]So yes, the people. — Jabberwock

    Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient.

    Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, — Jabberwock

    And I think you’re underestimating it.

    As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — Jabberwock

    And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.
    — Mikie

    Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it     — Jabberwock

    I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort.

    which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over? — Jabberwock

    Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time.

    Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades. — Jabberwock

    Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

    Your inability to see why Russia would consider this threatening is in keeping with your general dismissal of their concerns, since you’ve convinced yourself that it’s mostly nonsense. But that prevents you from seeing what our own ambassador saw:

    In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

    […]

    Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    And what Putin said at Bucharest:

    if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7

    Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this.

    I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact.

    Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
    — Mikie

    I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it?     — Jabberwock

    The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. — Jabberwock

    Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people.

    I will not argue about that — Jabberwock

    Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.

    The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so.

    Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it.
    — President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006

    Is he joking or is he pushing?     — Jabberwock

    And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.

    Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. — Jabberwock

    It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008.

    So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one — Jabberwock

    No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.

    Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
    — Mikie

    Not exactly, the two are not even simliar.     — Jabberwock

    Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else.

    Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd — Jabberwock

    Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse.

    signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. — Jabberwock

    The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify clearly Ukraine’s strategic objectives and priorities in pursuit of its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and to provide a strategic framework for existing and future NATO-Ukraine cooperation under the Charter. In this context it will be periodically reviewed.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm

    Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock


    Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.

    Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?

    Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one. — Jabberwock

    Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.

    You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that. — Benkei

    :up: :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Once again, international law, as well as morality and decency, go completely out the window when a major power gets hit by a weaker power. Same occurred after 9/11.

    You can’t claim you care about children and civilians and then turn around and kill them yourself.
  • Climate change denial
    I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest we may have crossed a tipping point. — unenlightened

    I too hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re correct. The Amazon and Arctic aren’t far behind.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that. — Jabberwock

    I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.

    Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.

    The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years.

    But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, — Jabberwock

    Alright, so what is US involvement if not imperialism? Diplomacy and good will?

    Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. Or that it wished to conquer Mexico and this was the proof.

    Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal isn’t conquest or re-forming the USSR.

    If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different.

    I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change in favor of NATO.

    I don’t like Russia or what Russia is doing. But I’m a US citizen, and I don’t like what we’ve done — and are doing— either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. — Jabberwock

    No, he was ousted by an uprising with plenty of social engineering and funding from the US — which had been happening for years, in fact. To the tune of billions of dollars (with a B).

    You can blame Russia for this — fine. I don’t care to squabble. I’m happy to blame Russia. But again, if we’re interested in their perspective — in what they consider threats, in reasoning for their actions, etc — it’s good to know the full story. Turns out there’s some truth to it.

    In any case, whether it was solely Russia’s fault for the uprising is irrelevant— maybe they did push too far, etc. Doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we’re discussing here. Yanukovych’s overthrow was not something Russia wanted or liked, and they considered this a time when they could lose Ukraine completely to Western influence— the EU, NATO, etc. So they invaded Crimea. Shouldn’t have been a surprise.

    Now it’s true a story has been fabricated since then, about Russian imperialism and Putin’s ambitions and so forth— wanting to take over all the old Soviet territories, etc. But that’s only been the official Western-propagated story since 2014, and ignores a great deal of history. It wasn’t the story in 2008, when they pushed for NATO membership and started the ball rolling with our current situation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality? — Jabberwock

    When Yanukovych was in office, no. When he was thrown out? More so, of course— but still not the main driver.

    Still hardly non-existent or irrelevant, as you’ve claimed.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament? — Jabberwock

    But that’s not what happened. Crimea occurred after the coup, not before and not during. Once it was known that Yanukovych was gone and replaced by a pro-Western leader — yes, they had reason to annex Crimea at that point.

    I’m not saying their reasons are “good” reasons or that I agree with them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Well, I have evidence why it would not be very relevant - Ukraine has pledged neutrality and Russia did not mention NATO when it has invaded Crimea. On the other hand, you say NATO was definitely a factor, because you say so. See the difference? — Jabberwock

    Except that’s complete nonsense:

    Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this. — Putin, 2014

    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Address_by_President_of_the_Russian_Federation_on_the_reunification_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea_and_the_city_of_Sevastopol_with_Russia

    So yes, it was very much a factor. EU expansion was also a factor. US-backed coups was also a factor. Add it up, and US influence is all over these events.

    But we’re supposed to believe Russia shouldn’t have been worried, that their fears were completely unwarranted, and that NATO was irrelevant — because you say so.

    Sorry, no.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You have given no support why we should think Russia would not attack — Jabberwock

    This is again a strange request.

    I do have support: it didn’t happen. What did happen is attacks during a period of US involvement.

    So as long as we’re asking for ridiculous things: you’ve given no support that Russia would have attacked WITHOUT US influences.

    No, Russia attacked after it has messed up, because its meddling has sparkled a popular uprising. — Jabberwock

    A US-backed/funded uprising, yes.

    Without Russian meddling Yushchenko would remain in power and Ukraine would be militarily neutral, just as it was decided by the parliament. — Jabberwock

    Without US meddling, you mean.

    However, given that you have acknowledged that it was not the main factor for the agression, that is all I need to reject your argument: given that NATO expansion was not the main factor in starting the conflict, all we have to do is to consider whether that main factors have ceased to exist before the further escalation of the conflict (which has never ceased, contrary to your claims). And the answer is, of course, no - Russia still had the same reasons, so it started the full-scale war. — Jabberwock

    It was certainly the main factor in 2022.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    NATO is one line of US influence, and an important one. There are others. Why does the US want to expand NATO, support overthrowing a president, etc.? It's part of a very clear strategy for eastern Europe.
    — Mikie

    Sure, that is the US strategy, but that does not mean the US is the main cause of the processes. That is what you got completely wrong.     — Jabberwock

    My claim is that NATO membership, after years of training, arms supply, and drills, was the main cause of the invasion. There are others, of course. The US has many reasons for its actions in Eastern Europe, as do the Russians.

    France has supported the American Revolution, provided weapons and even troops to Americans, because it suited France's interests in the conflict with the British. Yet if I wrote that France has organized the American Revolution, therefore should be blamed for it, nobody would take me seriously. — Jabberwock

    A better analogy would be: were the British responsible for the revolution, given its actions leading up to it? I’d say yes.

    Mikie: 'Russia would not attack if Ukraine did not want to join NATO!'
    Jabberwock: 'Russia has attacked Ukraine in 2014 precisely when it has abandoned its NATO aspirations.'
    Mikie: 'Let us talk about something else! How about 2022?'     — Jabberwock

    Russia attacked in 2014 after the US-back coup, yes. NATO did not abandon its plans after 2014. In fact it increased its involvement— now under the invented “imperialist ambitions” cover.

    Your thesis that Ukraine abandoned its NATO ambitions in 2014 is proof that Russia would attack Ukraine no matter what, and that NATO was just the latest cover story, confuses two things: 1), US influence, and 2) one such influence: NATO. You also ignore the fact that the NATO threat was in the background since 2008. It did not disappear as a threat simply because one leader was against it. But when that leader is removed, with US support, in favor of the pro-EU and pro-NATO, US-approved Poroshenko — yes, I’d say NATO is still a factor in Russian decisions.

    Again, the actions of Russia took place AFTER the coup, not before— so I’m really not seeing your point that NATO couldn’t possibly factor into Russian aggression in Crimea. Sure, it wasn’t the main factor in this case— and I never said it was — but it was not irrelevant either.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I keep seeing the Hamas attack described as "unprovoked," as if Israel has not been occupying, dispossessing, blockading, and besieging a population. The attack is morally wrong but let's be honest about what its causes are. — Nathan Robinson
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    I don’t think this gets to the problem with Crash, which is utterly consistent. — Jamal

    Okay, but something still stands out. Is it really some generalized tone, or certain parts?

    My issue is the boring description. I can see something unenjoyable staying with you, but not something boring.

    Can something initially boring become interesting? I think so. I felt that way about 2001: A Space Odyssey. So maybe you’ve reassessed what you saw, or enough time had passed to make it interesting.

    But maybe I’m losing the plot. You didn’t say “uninteresting,” after all.
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    But notice that my metaphor (which I disagreed with) was pizza vs. turnip soup. The latter is good for you, but hardly a gourmet meal. — Jamal

    Right, so good for you but unenjoyable. Like plain broccoli.

    Again I think it’s best to think of artworks in terms of parts. Maybe most of it is boring, but certain parts stand out or stick with you. Certain scenes in a movie, certain chapters in a book, certain melodies in music, whatever.

    Perhaps that’s a way to square this circle.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪unenlightened


    20,000 children displaced per day.

    But it’s okay, because Bjorn Lomborg says it’s not a huge deal.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    For the satirically-challenged, I emphasise that this post is intended to be humorous, provocative, and tongue-in-cheek, and has no philosophical value whatsoever. It should not be taken to reflect the views of the forum moderators, supposing that they are sufficiently intellectually developed to have any, and may or may not reflect my own views, to the extent that I am capable of consistently holding any for five minutes together.

    I am not a US national and I do not live in the USA. I am an outsider looking in. Considering his record of non-achievement, I am at a loss to understand why Trump appeals to so many American voters. Can somebody explain this to me? He had four years in office, but just look at some of his big-ticket promises, and consider how many he failed to deliver:

    - Did the miners go back to work? No.
    - Did the wall get built? No.
    - Was the swamp drained? No.
    - Did the USA win the trade war with China? No.
    - Did the US economy boom? No.
    - Did his peace plan bring peace to the Middle East? No.
    - Did he resolve the Iran question? No.
    - Did the US get an infrastructure renewal program? No.
    - Did North Korea de-nuclearise? No. (In the aftermath of Trump's "negotiations", they actually accelerated their strategic weapons development program).
    - Did the US get a new health-care program? No. (For four years he promised "we'll have something for you in the next few weeks" and, after four years, nothing. Squat).

    Mind you, there were some positive achievements:

    - Did moving the embassy to Jerusalem increase tensions in the ME? YES!
    - Did his trade wars against China and the EU increase consumer prices in the US? YES!
    - Did his trade wars against China and the EU reduce US export trade? YES!
    - Did his abandonment of the Iran treaty grant Iran a de-facto license to resume nuclear development? YES!

    So it isn't all negative.

    With a CV like that, how can he NOT be re-elected in 2024? Well, of course, we all know that it will be down to electoral FRAUD ON A MASSIVE SCALE!! The Swamp, the Deep State, the Black Transgender Marxists, are using JEWISH SPACE LASERS to RE-PROGRAM OUR PATRIOTIC ELECTORAL MACHINES!!!!!

    Of course, it's always possible that in two hundred years' time, the received historical wisdom will say that Trump was just another Washington suit, with a snake-oil formula, who mouthed and gesticulated, while the real machinery of government - the civil service - worked around him as best it could.

    Nobody can deny that, for sheer entertainment value, US politics is the gift that keeps on giving. We are witnessing a Titanic contest: the last of the dinosaurs, faithful to the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, committed to dignity, honesty, courtesy, integrity in government, and at least a token commitment to the values preached by Jesus Christ, versus the modern generation of reality-TV, win-at-any-cost, screw tradition, and utterly amoral...

    @alan1000
  • Ukraine Crisis
    War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians. — Tzeentch

    And running drills, and “reaffirming” the commitment to Bucharest in 2021, etc.

    Funny that it’s so difficult to understand the reaction from Russia when US responses in a similar scenario would go unquestioned.

    “Putin evil” doesn’t allow it, I guess.
  • The Mind-Created World
    The subject-object relationship is a fact of life, even in simple life-forms. — Wayfarer

    It’s a conceptualization. I don’t think of myself as a subject or the world as an object when a I’m cooking dinner. I don’t see how any microorganisms are seeing the world that way either.

    But I think I’m digressing from your main point, so I’ll leave it at that.
  • Unenjoyable art: J. G. Ballard’s Crash
    Were you aware that Cronenberg made a film adaptation of the book? I wasn't aware that it even was a book — Moliere

    I’ll jump in here just to take it a step further: I didn’t even know who JG Ballard was, and had to Wikipedia him. There, I said it.

    But I’ve enjoyed this thread nonetheless. Challenges some beliefs I’ve had for probably too long about “art” and “entertainment.” I confess it’s something like the gourmet meal vs. McDonalds view that @Jamal mentions (I’m paraphrasing), so it’s worth re-examining.

    I’m struggling to come up with any example whatever of something I’ve watched or read that I found utterly boring that also stuck with me in some way. I feel that’s almost contradictory. Maybe certain parts of a book or a film that is otherwise a bore will stay with me, or get me to question things, etc— but I’d say those are just that: interesting parts of a generally boring work.

    :chin:
  • The Mind-Created World
    ↪Wayfarer


    Great article. Well done sir.

    Two things.

    But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis ¹. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object.

    Is this not assuming the subject/object dichotomy? I have a feeling you’re quite beyond that, but this paragraph left me unsure.

    Secondly, a lot of this sounds like Kant, who you reference and credit as developing this “central insight.” Can you flush out a little more how what you’re saying differs from him?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    This isn't funny. — baker

    Then don’t laugh.

    I find it hilarious.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    b1cow7n8e99ecewv.jpeg

    Lol!
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪unenlightened


    “Your guru Aristotle” said that.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac

    Because you don’t know what it means. If you do, then you’ve failed to understand what was said. I’m not interested in holding your hand in explanation. You’re worth the minimal amount of time.

    But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
    — Mikie

    Some more dogmatic claims.     — neomac

    No, just pure logic. But it does presume I’m dealing with a non-pathological adult, so I can see why you’ve struggled with it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac

    That wasn’t the numbered statement, which you used to show us all your poor understanding of freshman logic. That was the statement you incorrectly claimed was a non sequitur.

    At least try to get that right.

    Anyway, the argument stands: the US has been pushing a plan for Eastern Europe for years. That includes NATO membership.

    It’s no coincidence that Russia reacted in 2022, especially after NATO training, weapons supplies, military drills and, significantly, the reaffirming the position from Bucharest in September 2021.

    If you want to pretend there’s some other reason, fine— go with that. There’s partial truth in it. But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.

    By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac

    Yeah, because I stop reading after you show you have no clue what you’re talking about.

    I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac

    Yeah, I’m really not interested in what you consider an argument or not an argument. You’ve shown so far to have the understanding and conversational style of a high schooler who thinks he’s in a debate, and “winning.” The reality is that you’re just embarrassing.

    - I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac

    Then go read a book. I couldn’t care less about what you “need.” I’m certainly not going to explain it to a child who thinks he’s in debate class.

    And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac

    Says the guy doing nothing except making random claims and bickering over statements he doesn’t understand.

    You’re a waste of time. Do me a favor: read a book about logic and Ukraine. You can use it. Then grow up a little.

    Maybe repeat “your guru Mearsheimer” for the thousandth time. Solidify your place in the running for goofiest forum members.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    “Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so” is not a non sequitur. — neomac

    Sure. "There was no reason to do so" is a general statement, which I believe true. Clearly I don't mean "any reason whatsoever," as there can always be reasons given about anything. But no (good) reason, no. It's obvious that is implied. But I understand that if you're reading everything literally, like a 10-year-old, it'll set you off into a tangent about what you think are fancy-sounding "fallacies."

    “Intellectualizing”? Dude, maybe you are not familiar with the nuances of propositional logic 101 — neomac

    Yes, intellectualizing. We’re all impressed that you took freshman logic, I’m sure. You seem to know less about logic than you do about Ukraine, but in any case it’s totally irrelevant since it wasn’t a syllogism. But like with “non sequitors” and the like, you’re just confused. The following is a good example:

    Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington — Mikie

    You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac

    First, I’m not literally saying I would “give advice” to China or Russia. So that’s ridiculous.

    Second, the statement about reasoning behind the fears refers to the Monroe Doctrine, and how it doesn’t matter if one thinks it is irrational or rational. Why? Because it is, in fact, a policy.

    So you completely failed to understand what was written, and then embarrassingly preface your silliness with “let me teach you English nuance.” Lol.

    The biggest egomaniacs turn out to be the most delusional. Yours is a good example.

    If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake[/b].
    — Mikie

    Why mistaken?!     — neomac

    Depends on the goals. I assume starting conflicts and wars isn’t the objective, and if it is it’s wrong. But assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake — and was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons (like getting weapons out of Turkey, which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part).

    USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac

    That it turned out OK doesn’t make it a good decision. This is a common mistake in decision-making.

    That I even have to point this out further shows I’m dealing with an intellectual child.

    The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac

    Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Mine wasn’t a statement about reality. It was expressing a basic value, and assuming other non-pathological people also share that value. Not wanting the world to be engulfed in nuclear Holocaust is a pretty minimal and non-controversial expectation.

    Try to make sure you understand what you’re reading before writing 5 tedious paragraphs. Save yourself time, because I skip everything you write after it’s clear you completely misunderstood.

    I rely more on geopolitical analysts — neomac

    You rely on one person, your guru Brzezinski— and do so poorly.

    BTW, so much for your threat to “leave [me] to it.”

    Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to a better conversation with Jabberwock, who at least makes an attempt to understand what others are saying, and converses like an adult.
  • Climate change denial
    Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Yep, including Big Oil and corporate America.

    The very short counterargument is that individual acts of thrift and abstinence won’t get us the huge distance we need to go in this decade. We need to exit the age of fossil fuels, reinvent our energy landscape, rethink how we do almost everything. We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.

    But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:

    British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

    The main reason to defeat the fossil fuel corporations is that their product is destroying the planet, but their insidious propaganda, from spreading climate-change denial to pushing this climate footprint business, makes this goal even more worthwhile.

    From the article above.

    Again, nice to see even when you pretend to care about this issue you can't help but repeat stupid propaganda from BP. :up:
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪Michael


    Seems a ridiculous thing to do. But if he did so on purpose— fine. Prosecute.

    It’s just hilarious that MAGA wants to scream about it. It’s just pure vengeance and hypocrisy, since they don’t care about the rule of law anyway.
  • Climate change denial
    If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Yeah, except no one is advocating that. It’s just another mental block you can’t seem to overcome.

    This will not be solved individually. We need collective action and governmental action. You announcing that you’ve fallen for the BS oil propaganda isn’t surprising, but isn’t very interesting either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    “Non sequitur” is a Latin expression not English — neomac

    I know what non sequitur means. You apparently don't. You've also proven my point about misunderstanding English nuance.

    everyone with a functioning brain, including Russia, are aware that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO” is about Ukraine and Georgia’s perceived historical threats coming from Russia. — neomac

    I'm not talking about Ukraine or Georgia's perceptions. I'm sure they have their reasons, which I respect. To argue it was mostly about "historical threats" is at best haIf-truth. But try to stay on topic.

    I'm talking about Russia's perception, right or wrong. Everyone knew they considered NATO expansion a threat.

    but because Brzenzinski was an actual prominent national security advisor of American administrations, — neomac

    And this is a reason to take him more seriously?

    You do you.

    By analogy, if YOU want to sensibly claim it’s US/West/NATO’s fault to provoke Putin because he perceives Ukraine joining NATO as a security threat, then YOU (not the Russians) have to provide strong reasons to support such threat perception. — neomac

    I already did. China making the exact same moves in Mexico that the US/NATO has done in Ukraine, and you bet your ass the US would react. I would consider that playing with fire on China's part.

    And I don't have to give reasons for the threat perception, any more than I have to give reasons for Georgian threat perceptions of Russia. I simply look at what they say, and if it makes some sense, I take it seriously. In this case, it seems to me Russia has some reason for concern. But in any case, it's not what I think -- it's what THEY think. Which I've repeated several times.

    What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference? — Mikie

    I noticed you couldn't answer this. Too bad.

    Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington
    — Mikie
    .
    To assess if your fears are rational, you have to be at least able to reconstruct the reasons of your fears.     — neomac

    Good god, can you read?

    I'll repeat: Regardless of what *I* myself believe about the Monroe Doctrine, it is in fact a foreign policy of the US. So the question isn't about "rationalizing" fears, especially not my own. If you had taken a few extra seconds to read what was written, you'd quickly see your response was irrelevant.

    And again you don't know what that means — Mikie

    And again you don't know what “non sequitur” means — neomac

    :snicker: How original.

    (1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
    (2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake.     — Mikie

    I'll make it clearer how embarrassingly poor your reasoning is from a logic point of view, step by step. Ready? — neomac

    :lol: I can't wait.

    In the second case, the propositional logic form of your comment is something like: “p ⊢ q” or “q (syntactically) derives from p”. In other words, from the premise p one can syntactically derive q by applying transformation rules governing logic propositional operators. — neomac

    lol. Oh how smart! I guess you're really showing me a thing or two!

    So, in propositional logic, your argument would be definitely false (q doesn’t follow from p, non sequitur). — neomac

    You really are embarrassing yourself.

    I'll repeat, again, what was said:

    (1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
    (2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake.

    The numbering was not meant to imply this is a syllogism. What I'm saying is obvious, but let's change the labels:

    If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake.

    If you're struggling with WHY it's a mistake, I'll tell you: because it'd be nice not having World War III. In the case of Russia, it'd be nice not having Russians and Ukrainians killed and billions of dollars spent on weapons.

    Now maybe it would have happened without NATO involvement, as Jabberwock seems to believe, but at least the US would be nearly blameless.

    too ignorant about logic to understand how logically confused your claim is. — neomac

    Intellectualizing something rather straightforward doesn't have the affect you think it does.

    It makes you look like this guy:

  • Ukraine Crisis
    To which I have asked how do you know that. I am glad now that you do admit that you cannot know that. — Jabberwock

    So your entire argument rests on the fact that I can only give an opinion, not definitive proof, of what might have happened. An odd line to take.

    Yes, you got me. Maybe had I not driven to work yesterday, my car would have still run out of gas. I can’t definitively prove otherwise — but I view it as unlikely.

    NATO was the most convenient pretext this time for increasing the ongoing hostilities. But as we know from the Russian invasion of Crimea, any other pretext will do. — Jabberwock

    Why pretext? A pretext that was known and warned about for years, and such even several experts agreed would likely happen if such activities continued?

    Seems like a very elaborate ruse.

    Let me sum them up: you carefully ignore the fact that Russians got hostile at Ukraine in 2004, then in 2008 NATO supposedly provokes Russia, but Russia does nothing but protest (even though provoking Russia with NATO expansion supposedly causes wars - if it was worth the war then would be the time!), then Russia takes a break from being threatened and provoked by NATO expansion, invades Ukraine for related but distinctly different reasons (without even mentioning NATO expansion!), then goes back to being threatened by NATO expansion and invades again in 2022.

    If that summary somehow misrepresents your views, please correct me.     — Jabberwock

    Appreciate the effort.

    NATO is one line of US influence, and an important one. There are others. Why does the US want to expand NATO, support overthrowing a president, etc.? It's part of a very clear strategy for eastern Europe.

    President Yanukovych was elected earlier this year, vowing to end Ukraine's Nato membership ambitions and mend relations with Russia. — BBC

    As I understand, from your suggestion that I read about his position, you have a citation where Yanukovych says something completely opposite? Can you provide it? — Jabberwock

    When did I say that? Your citation is correct: he was against NATO membership. Very clear. I don't see where the confusion is.

    Was there a Russian invasion of Ukraine prior to the NATO provocation of 2008? — Mikie

    Was there a war after the 2008 provocation? Because if the war in 2022 is the reaction to 2008 provocation, then it must be... how you put it? Oh, yes: 'Quite a delayed reaction'. — Jabberwock

    There were two aggressions after 2008, yes. 2014 and 2022. That doesn't prove that they wouldn't have occurred anyway -- but it certainly doesn't disprove that Bucharest didn't have lasting impacts. Which it did.

    There were other impacts as well. Remember, NATO was one part of US strategy in the region. Just happened to be the "red line" for Russia -- which you disregard.

    So why was there such a delay? Because things changed and escalated. First, Russian military capacity changed. Second, the US supported pushing out a pro-Russian president. Third, and leading directly to all-out invasion, NATO provided training (for YEARS), weapons, and conducted drills -- and then, to top it off, in 2021, reaffirmed its position from 2008.

    So if that seems like odd timing, you're just not paying attention. In fact the Russians were screaming about this for months, if not years -- to no avail. Because they're just liars and thugs, after all, so who cares what they say or think? Besides, everyone knows NATO is "defensive," and is no threat to Russia. "Just look at the Baltics." And so forth.

    If Russia invaded Ukraine in 2005, my position would be wrong.
    — Mikie

    Well, by that logic, given that Russia did not invade Ukraine right after 2008, your position is also wrong.     — Jabberwock

    Ok, I'll put it this way: if they invaded at any point from 2000-2008, or especially after 2004-2008, I'd be wrong. If they cited NATO expansion, that would be very odd. They could have cited US influence, however.

    I care about Putin's pretexts of post-USSR conflicts (because there were many) about as much as I care about Bush's pretexts of Iraq's second invasion. In today's world attacking other countries without casus belli is frowned upon, so they always try to come up with something. — Jabberwock

    True, and we should listen and see if there's any truth to it.

    What you, in my opinion, fail to see is that the conflict runs much deeper and NATO expansion is just one of the points, not decisive one. The underlying issue is that Putin is no longer willing (or cannot afford) to allow losing Russian influence in the former republics, even against the will of their populations. — Jabberwock

    Of course it runs deeper. Of course there are complexities. To argue the Ukraine invasion of 2022 had IittIe to do with NATO is simply ignoring the facts, in my view. If China were training troops and conducting military driIIs in Mexico, and then China announces it would push for a pact -- despite warnings of the US -- I think the response by the US would be not that surprising, and one would say China's involvement was a decisive factor indeed. True, we could aIso make up other stories, and of course there'd be some truth in them, but to ignore the gIaringIy obvious just isn't serious.

    So when BBC wrote that Ukraine 'effectively rejects any ambition to join Nato', they were completely wrong. I see. — Jabberwock

    So military training, weapons, Operation Sea Breeze, and the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership (September of 2021) -- aII of this we should ignore because at some point the BBC said -- God knows when -- that Ukraine rejects any ambition to join NATO?

    Again, this just isn't serious.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    Insurrection versus accidentally pulling a fire alarm. It’s a wash.

    The cultists sure are desperate these days.
  • Climate change denial
    Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint — Agree-to-Disagree

    Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker.

    Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook
  • Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
    I'm pretty sure those attacking it have no idea what it is or much appreciation of academic thought in general as they seem incapable of formulating a coherent argument that might discredit it. — Baden

    Yeah, it’s just a catch-all term for “everything we hate,” real or imaginary. Mostly imaginary.
  • Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
    Critical race theory. :lol:

    The latest engineered outrage from the right, trickled down to internet trolls.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    long before any talks of NATO resurfaced again — Jabberwock

    This is incorrect. Which is why I asked about NATO activities after 2014. If you’d like to move on to that now, I’d be happy to. Because it’s very relevant to the 2022 invasion and thus what’s happening today.

    NATO never “resurfaced” because it never went underground. It was there all along — in fact more so after Crimea.
Home » Mikie