In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5
But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history? — Manuel
And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment. — Manuel
But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now. — Manuel
The Ukrainians don't think it is a proxy war. — Paine
His priorities are not the same as yours
— Agent Smith
His relationship to Madame Truth is conflictual. It seems to be about beating her into submission. — Olivier5
In war, truth is the first casualty. — Aeschylus
. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward. — Mikie
"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs." — Mikie
Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I’m against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc. — Mikie
However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics. — Mikie
But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. — Mikie
So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it? — Mikie
But why expand NATO, if Russia was so different then? It was NATO's goal to be the balance against the Soviet Union, so when it fell, why keep it around? What's the threat? — Manuel
I see your point, and think you are wrong. — Manuel
You talk with them, because they are the one you are dealing with. Iraq had to talk to the US after the invasion did it not? That war was pretty ugly but nobody in the West ever said it was a bad idea for Iraq to talk with the US, as they should and did.
That's the world we live in. You don't like it, I don't like it, but we deal with what we have not what we want. That's politics. — Manuel
What makes you think he will move again? — Manuel
And will continue dying, unless this war stops short. — Manuel
I believe sensible people should understand that giving up pieces of illegally, criminally obtained land (and this is what the borders of ALL nation states are, regardless of the state) would prefer to give a bit of land, for thousands of lives. — Manuel
Will this be good news for those in the annexed territories? Of course not. How can you satisfy all the people in a country that large? It's impossible. So you try to find the least worst option, and make a case for it. — Manuel
You are seriously misinformed and confuse the symptom with the cause. And stop with the hypocritical holier than thou attitude. — Manuel
Plenty of criminals in the US and Europe, many of them far worse than Putin (Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, etc.). But if you can't see that because of some strange notion that we are better because we have more freedoms, then yes, we do well to stop here. — Manuel
It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other. — Manuel
Very well put. :cheer: :100:The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.
Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form. — Christoffer
Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. — ssu
The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. — Christoffer
3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity — ssu
Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game. — jorndoe
Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point? — Mr Bee
The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.
— Mikie
It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid — Olivier5
It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective. — Mearsheimer
akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. — Olivier5
A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place". — Olivier5
Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective? — Olivier5
Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point. — Mikie
So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands. — neomac
No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. — neomac
So the implicit win-win bargain for European countries to the US was roughly something like: you give me security and I’ll give you an integrated/peaceful market for your products and technology. — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.