Obviously, Zelensky is a professional actor, but unless this is some kind of US-UK deception, it looks like Zelensky – or the oligarchs behind him – has more sense than some “philosophers” on here. — Apollodorus

Thank fuck someone even remotely professional is in charge and has the head to think above the clamour of adolescent LARPers we have the privilege of sampling here.

Would you still support Russia if they escalate and detonate a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

Would you still support Russia if they escalate and detonate a tactical nuke in Ukraine? — RogueAI

What makes you think I support Russia? As I said to @Christoffer, the site has a quote function for a reason. If there's something I've said that you want to ask about, find it, quote it and then ask your question. I'm not into amateur dramatics, I'm afraid.

You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO. — Isaac

There was no evidence for a full-scale invasion either. But I guess you trust the Russians more.

If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst. — Isaac

Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight.

No, they won't. They'll get better.

See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously. — Isaac

Speculation or analysis based on current events? How many quotations refer to the current events and the possible repercussions of it going forward? Or are the current events irrelevant to a statistic that is made before the current events? Yeah, where did you pull that logic out of?

Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure. — Isaac

Based on previous data. Are you unable to change a conclusion when new data gets added? I sure am. All it takes is an ability to actually use information up to date for up-to-date conclusions.

It's like you pull out a paper on a theory disputing the Higgs boson particle AFTER it was discovered in CERN and then scream about how many quotations it has and therefore you are right. That's not how things work. This war is new data, the situation for both the Russian and Belarus people has changed.

There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK. — Isaac

You just pulled a statistical analysis of people's lives in Belarus and you are now saying that it's impossible to conclude anything from the sample sizes of what we've so far heard from the people of Ukraine? What's it gonna be?

And it's not just specific voices for the defensive actions by the Ukrainian people, it's also the LACK of voices speaking against Zelenskyy and the authority of Ukraine. Right now there are over two million refugees and so far I've yet to hear reports of demonstrations against Zelenskyy or any such acts that inform of a great dislike of Zelenskyy campaign to defend Ukraine from Russia.

Can you find any single sign of anything other than the overwhelming support and unity among the Ukrainian population? Where are the witnesses, the outcries, the demonstrations, the refugees crying over Zelenskyy's bad decisions? Where the fuck is it?

Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it. — Isaac

You literally make an argument against the people of Ukraine supporting the cause to defend against Russia. In an attempt to prove a point that the people of Ukraine and Zelenskyy should lay down weapons and stop the defense in order to save lives, when they actually don't want to do that. Do you want me to quote pages after page of your writing arriving at those conclusion? Stop try to spin your words. :shade:

Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war. — Isaac

Social media is one part of the information flow. There's more data to draw conclusions from the hundreds of global media outlets and social media accounts from within Ukraine than any of the support you claim to have for your conclusion.

Stop trying to speak for the Ukrainian people with your delusional ideas! They don't care about you or what you think is best. Your arrogant dismissal of all the people reporting out of Ukraine, all the people speaking from within Ukraine is fucking sickening.

No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts. — Isaac

And Russia won't stop shelling civilians while they try to do that. You know, you have to keep defending yourself while peace talks are happening. And Zelenskyy has asked for talks with Putin over and over and he just returns with silence.

So your method is not working, it is not realistic by evidence of how things have gone so far. Fucking get that already.

Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative. — Isaac

So civilians ASKING for weapons to defend themselves is a war crime. Are you seriously speaking of war crimes while Russia is actually conducting war crimes? Why don't you report it to The Hague court then? Oh, yes, they're busy actually investigating Russia right now. You know, because if the aggressor doesn't conduct war in a way that is considered by international standards, then you as the defense, as the people defending yourself can't follow those rules either.

Stop blaming the Ukrainians for how this war is going.

At every fucking turn you spin things towards the west, towards the Ukrainians, and away from the Russians. It's actually sickening to read. The blatant arrogance of you speaking for what Ukraine "should" do while they defend themselves against a low-IQ force of Russians firing at nuclear power plants and shelling civilians in evacuation corridors.

Can anyone become more disgusting than you in this thread? I'm done answering your bullshit now, you are delusional.

https://youtu.be/w7HZukJuBEk

What percent of the blame do you think Putin deserves for invading Ukraine?

Sweden is traditionally neutral (though a good lot of Jews found safety in Sweden during Nazi times).
Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but Sweden and Finland also have fairly close ties with Norway and Denmark.

^{Jan 7, 2022 • Foreign Policy • Swedish Foreign Minister: Joining NATO Is Up to Us
Mar 3, 2022 • Newsweek • NATO Issue in Sweden, Finland Pits Anxious Public Against Cautious Politicians
Mar 5, 2022 • The Brussels Times • Sweden plans to deepen ties with NATO amid Russian aggression}

Anyway, if Putin is going to start posturing at Sweden and Finland, perhaps even invade, then things are going to take a turn for the worse (still).
I suppose it might present two separate fronts for Russia, at least in the (seemingly unlikely) event that Putin makes a move towards Sweden and Finland.

What percent of the blame do you think Putin deserves for invading Ukraine? — RogueAI

Blame is not something people deserve. It's a tool. Censure, condemnation... It's a political weapon to bring about political ends. Who I blame depends on who I'm talking to, who I think I've got most chance of influencing.

Right now, tyrannical dictators in their bomb-proof bubble of yes-men aren't very high on that list. My government and their allies are pretty near the top, so that's where I'm focused.

If you're wanting some kind of grand summing of all the actors from WWII on, I honestly haven't a clue.

Right now, for us lowly pundits, all that matters is what movements we put our support behind and the virtues and consequences of that support. I live and work in England, so the movements available to me are all English-speaking, Western world ones. Right now there seems to be a strong momentum to egg on the Ukrainians as if they were the Rebel Alliance in a terrible Star Wars remake. I think that's really dangerous, for the Ukrainians now, and because of the whitewashing of American imperialism it involves, in the long term, so I push back against it.

Blame is not something people deserve. — Isaac

Sure it is. Our whole justice system depends on accurately blaming parties and meting out punishment. What kind of punishment do you think Putin deserves for his decision to invade Ukraine? If he was on trial, and you were the jury, what sentence would you give Putin for the crime of invading Ukraine?

Our whole justice system depends on accurately blaming parties and meting out punishment. — RogueAI

And you believe there are no political ends there? Who makes the laws?

What kind of punishment do you think Putin deserves for his decision to invade Ukraine? If he was on trial, and you were the jury, what sentence would you give Putin for the crime of invading Ukraine? — RogueAI

What a bizarre question. Juries rarely sentence and the ICC don't use them. The ICC has a theoretical maximum sentence of 30 years, so I guess I'd go for that, but I'm not a Judge.

BTW, Russia’s embarrassing performance on the ground in Ukraine seems to be explained by the widespread corruption that has resulted in billions invested in the military being syphoned off by oligarchs and other criminal elements who have been buying themselves yachts and villas in Cyprus and elsewhere. Hopefully, a few heads will be rolling which can only be good news for the shape of Russia’s armed forces.

Russian military’s corruption quagmire – POLITICO

IMO this shows that Putin isn’t really a dictator, because if he was like China’s Xi or North Korea’s Kim the military failures in Ukraine would never have happened.

Speaking of Cyprus, Ukrainian oligarchs in Zelenzky’s entourage have multiple nationalities. For example, Kolomoyskyi is a national of Ukraine, Israel, and Cyprus. The way I see it, Israel needs Russia on Iran and Syria, so it may put pressure on Zelensky and his oligarchs to come to some kind of agreement with Russia.

At the end of the day, Zelensky's government isn't particularly experienced in statesmanship and it needs some proper advice from someone with more experience and expertise in the field. The Israelis would be the right people for the job.

Israeli Mediation in Russia-Ukraine Conflict Stands to Help Bennett and Putin – Foreign Policy

PBS interview with Finland’s president Sauli Niinistö on the occasion of his Washington visit, Mar 04, 2022:



Looks like a balanced and lucid analysis to me, coached in careful language.

Looks like a balanced and lucid analysis to me, coached in careful language. — Olivier5

I think that for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO because the US and the EU will engage militarily with another invasion. That would be my guess, anyway.

Zelensky's government isn't particularly experienced in statesmanship and it needs some proper advice from someone with more experience and expertise in the field. The Israelis would be the right people for the job. — Apollodorus

That would make a nice movie. The title could be: Rebirth of Ashkenaz. Gal Gadot would play the lead MOSAD agent. She would meet with her grandma who stayed back in the shtetl...

I think that for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO because the US and the EU will engage militarily with another invasion. That would be my guess, anyway. — frank

Verba volant, scripta manent.

I don't think the NATO response to a second invasion would be because of some treaty. It would be because Putin would start to look like Hitler, not that he's in that category at all at the moment.

The US let Hitler do whatever he wanted, though.

Without a NATO membership, Finland would be left alone to fight an hypothetical invader. Just like Ukraine today will have to fight all by itself. NATO's doors are open but they do exist (the doors). I.e. it does have a meaning, who is in and who is out.

Well, it's a moot point anyway. After failing to hold Ukraine, he probably won't try to take anything else.

I agree. He's got enough of a fight already.

That would make a nice movie. The title could be: Rebirth of Ashkenaz. Gal Gadot would play the lead MOSAD agent. She would meet with her grandma who stayed back in the shtetl... — Olivier5

:grin: Well, at this stage anything is possible. Sometimes it takes more courage to make peace than to make war.

In any case, if the conflict goes on much longer, most Ukrainian Jews (and, apparently, many non-Jews) will soon be in Israel where the weather is better and Cyprus is closer. And Kolomoyskyi will be in Miami plotting his next coup ....

IMO this shows that Putin isn’t really a dictator, [...] military failures in Ukraine would never have happened. — Apollodorus

How do you figure?
But, sure, not "omnipotent", there is a parliament and a few players after all.
He's up there, though.



On the mad speculative side, if things start going south for Putin, his double-double-secret operative could secretly supply al-Qaeda suicide-bombers with a tactical nuke and have it detonate strategically, with plausible deniability of course, and he might be able to spin a victory out of the rubble. Not exactly likely, rather risky, I know, but, hey, he might have gone over such a scenario with his most trusted military officer.

his double-double-secret operative could secretly supply al-Qaeda suicide-bombers with a tactical nuke and have it detonate strategically, with plausible deniability of course — jorndoe

Exactly what location for this detonation did you have in mind, jorndoe?

How do you figure?
But, sure, not "omnipotent", there is a parliament and a few players after all.
He's up there, though. — jorndoe

If a president has no control over billions of dollars that he invests into the military and that gets stolen from under his nose by corrupt officials, then he can’t possibly be a totalitarian dictator.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish (a) between someone being labelled “dictator” by political opponents and the media, and actually being a dictator, and (b) between a dictator in a Western context, and a dictator in a Russian context.

For example, Wikipedia describes Russia’s form of government as “federal semi-presidential republic” and North Korea’s as “one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship”.

Obviously, there is a big difference. Russia has never had anything like a Western-style liberal democracy, which means that Putin cannot be described as “dictator” in a Russian context.

Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine.

Al-Qaeda with a Russian tactical nuke would instead probably use it in Russia (either Moscow or at a Gazprom pipeline chokepoint) or one of the Russian Federation countries – either as payback for Chechnya.

It's not about whether they're forced. It's against international law to have combatants who are not clearly uniformed or otherwise identifiable as military targets — Isaac

The law exists for a purpose. When civilians start shooting, all civilians become suspect. In this case their lives become much more dangerous, let's say. It has happened before.

Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight. — Christoffer

I am curious as to how you view the Battle of France.

The sixty remaining French divisions and the two British divisions in France made a determined stand on the Somme and Aisne but were defeated by the German combination of air superiority and armoured mobility. German armies outflanked the intact Maginot Line and pushed deep into France, occupying Paris unopposed on 14 June. After the flight of the French government and the collapse of the French Army, German commanders met with French officials on 18 June to negotiate an end to hostilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France — Wikipedia

Haven't personally verified (darn thing is a good 70 pages)...

Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem (US Dept of State, Aug 2020)

Isn't the threat of being shot control enough? — Isaac

Not necessarily shoot. But (authoritarian) oppression, yep. Remove the rest. — jorndoe

Have the Kool-Aid "crafted Kremlin lines" dominate the airways, go viral, be spread, the news du jour, and they just have to keep the rest under wraps, minimal, inconsequential. Standard procedure, propaganda, control narratives, "seed" population, much better than shooting people is to have them on their side, ... Don't know how effective some such is in Russia; others have tried, though.

, , hmm, the story could use some improvements, and crafting it has barely begun. Maybe a blast in Donbas could set something off.

Every government will try to protect itself through being selective with the facts, or pushing of certain views. As far as I am concerned the above article is part of the United States propaganda department.

Quote:

These concepts speak to Russia’s strategic formulation that it is in a state of perpetual conflict with its perceived adversaries. — U.S. Department of State

"perceived adversaries"

Doesn't explain the protests. Were they misinformed?

Tucker Carlson on FOX News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PC7DzTRS7A

Partial Transcript:

18:06
INSTEAD, TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
18:08
PROUDLY CENSOR ANY INFORMATION
18:10
THAT MIGHT "UNDERMINE TRUST IN
18:12
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT."
18:13
REALLY?
18:14
SINCE WHEN ARE REQUIRED TO TRUST
18:17
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OR ANY
18:19
GOVERNMENT?
18:20
DON’T ASK.
18:20
BY THE WAY, OVER THE WEEKEND,
18:21
BECAUSE EVERY THING IN AMERICA
18:24
IS UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS,
18:26
"NEW YORK TIMES" ATTACKED
18:28
VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR CENSORSHIP.
18:29
TRY TO CONTROL WHAT IS PEOPLE
18:33
CAN READ.

Have the Kool-Aid "crafted Kremlin lines" dominate the airways, go viral, be spread, the news du jour, and they just have to keep the rest under wraps, minimal, inconsequential. Standard procedure, propaganda, control narratives, "seed" population, much better than shooting people is to have them on their side, — jorndoe

Isn't it just.

Don't know how effective some such is in Russia; others have tried, though. — jorndoe

They have haven't they...

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

https://trofire.com/2017/04/11/big-pharma-owns-corporate-media-americans-waking-fighting-back/

https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization

... Oh, you were probably only referring to the 'bad guys'...