Yet, Scandinavia's free market system is still capitalism. — Christoffer

You''re just playing with words, and the global "capitalism" that Scandinavia is still a part of is destroying the entire planet, so doesn't actually contribute to quality of life in Scandinavia.

Scandinavia is not a capitalist system, and the argument to keep health care private, money in politics, unequal education resources to children, destroy the environment ... all because you can still point to something in Scandinavia and call it capitalism and so take credit for quality of life here due to social institutions and money out of politics, built by socialists, is a pretty bad argument.

Using Scandinavia as some form of apologetics for capitalism generally speaking (that is killing the entire planet as Russia kills some Ukrainians, the former a far worse crime by pretty much an infinite factor) is nonsensical. An honest analysis would look at what policies are the basis of Scandinavia success (free and large investments in public education, public health care, insanely strong union protections, regulation of everything to be confident "free market" actions are not harmful, public transportation, defended by the "as socialists as you get" conscription system) and who advocated those policies: private equity and CEO's? Or socialists and anarchists of one form or another?

But it's also way off topic. The criticism of US, NATO and EU policies in the current war in Ukraine is not some vague criticism of "capitalism" it's a criticism of their actions right now.

That "someone is worse" doesn't matter. Can I kill 100 people just because someone has killed 101 people? Or let people starve even if I have the means to do something easily ... because, technically, other people created that starvation situation?

I live in the EU, I can affect EU policy, and if it's just letting Ukrainians die for politicians to masturbate each other on television and advertise the effectiveness of their arms industry, I'm going to complain about the actions and decisions of my "leaders" because there's a point to doing that.

Hating on Putin accomplishes nothing and, the whole Western media doing that for 2 decades, is what leads to a situation where Western leaders don't care about any sort of diplomatic process with Russia to avoid human suffering, because their friends in the arms industry will make bank due to "conflict" with Russia and there's zero consequences as people actually truly believe that counter productive policies that result in war and starvation are justified as long as you it comes with a little #KillPutin and social media circle jerk around that equally counter productive wishful thinking (that, if anyone did it, could easily result in some worse outcome).

The reality is that the Ukraine you're talking about fighting for is more corrupt by independent indices of corruption than Russia. — Isaac

Russia is worse for the climate, tho: all those hydrocarbons they export for burning. Russia is destroying the environment, so the should be nuked immediately.

Russia is worse for the climate, tho: all those hydrocarbons they export for burning. Russia is destroying the environment, so the should be nuked immediately. — frank

It's the people that buy it that burn it, and it's far cleaner Russian gas and crude than tar sands and fracking, could actually be a credible "bridge" to a renewable system there was a credible plan to have actually done that and good faith cooperation with Russia (which is what Russia wanted until 2014, alternatives to SWIFT were created after not before).

Russia didn't spent billions on Nord Stream 2 as some sort of trick.

It's completely irrational from a peace making or clean energy perspective to not use that new pipeline to displace coal. If Ukraine loses out on some transport fees (that are "free" money that go right into keeping the politics in Ukraine corrupt), it could be supported with far better development policies that put pressure on corruption.

Furthermore, not all hydrocarbons are equal. You need flexible and variable natural gas turbines that can rapidly compensate large variations in the grid due to renewable energy unpredictability, if you want more renewable energy.

Russia has what the EU needs to implement it's anti-Russian clean "independent energy" policy.

Once you actually have a significant amount of renewable energy, with variations compensated by natural gas, then you can start to invest in energy storage to displace natural gas.

There's really only one way to do this, and we need Russia help.

Global environmental catastrophe creates strange bed fellows.

It's the people that buy it that burn it, — boethius

Well they could hardly do that if Russia wasn't making it available. They're definitely a significant contributer to climate change, so per Isaac's theory, we'll have to sacrifice them for the greater good.

Well they could hardly do that if Russia wasn't making it available. They're definitely a significant contributer to climate change, so per Isaac's theory, we'll have to sacrifice them for the greater good. — frank

I'm pretty sure that's not Isaac's theory, but, sure, nuke Russia, US and China to implement your world saving policy if there's no diplomatic way to achieve those ends from your point of view.

Nuclear war, at some point, is actually preferable to continued environmental destruction. At least there's trees around Chernobyl.

Nuclear war, at some point, is actually preferable to continued environmental destruction. — boethius

As long as it kills all the humans, that's correct.

That’s silly. But it’s also silly to “consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern”, to stockpile bio weapons, in labs in Ukraine. No amount of sarcasm will alleviate that one.

Nuclear war, at some point, is actually preferable to continued environmental destruction. — boethius

With the war slowly escalating global nuclear war is becoming more likely each day. The advantage of nuclear war over environmental destruction is that nuclear destruction is quicker to solve the environmental human infestation problem. Fortunately cockroaches will survive to carry on their species.

You''re just playing with words, and the global "capitalism" that Scandinavia is still a part of is destroying the entire planet, so doesn't actually contribute to quality of life in Scandinavia. — boethius

I'm still not talking about capitalism, that's what you brought up. I agree with you on the point of it destroying the planet, but that has little to do with my point on true democracy being the superior form of government in terms of peace and quality of life for the people.

The criticism of US, NATO and EU policies in the current war in Ukraine is not some vague criticism of "capitalism" it's a criticism of their actions right now. — boethius

US, NATO and EU don't do anything with Ukraine right now. Everyone tries to help Ukraine in any form that isn't military. What are the actions by them right now you are criticizing? That they don't do enough or that they help Ukraine with material and the refugees?

That "someone is worse" doesn't matter. Can I kill 100 people just because someone has killed 101 people? Or let people starve even if I have the means to do something easily ... because, technically, other people created that starvation situation? — boethius

That wasn't what I said now was it? I objected to the simplistic conclusion that capitalism leads to corruption. I objected to it because corruption needs other failures of government before capitalism can corrupt it. My argument was that a state with strong constitutional power of democracy, with free speech, free press and elections that aren't manipulated by the parties involved can have a capitalistic system and still not become corrupt. That capitalism alone doesn't corrupt.

But you seem to confuse what I say with it being some defense of capitalism. It's entirely possible to point to grey areas of a matter without going into a black and white fallacy. I can dislike capitalism and still point out a faulty causality in an argument about it.

I live in the EU, I can affect EU policy, and if it's just letting Ukrainians die for politicians to masturbate each other on television and advertise the effectiveness of their arms industry, I'm going to complain about the actions and decisions of my "leaders" because there's a point to doing that. — boethius

What has this to do with what I said? And what is it that you want them to do exactly?

Hating on Putin accomplishes nothing and, the whole Western media doing that for 2 decades, is what leads to a situation where Western leaders don't care about any sort of diplomatic process with Russia to avoid human suffering, — boethius

They've been "hating" on Putin because he has created a corrupt government and limits people's free speech. He imprisons opposers, poisons others, shuts down state critics. There are tons of reasons why he deserves criticism, just as we've been criticizing Trump and other bad politicians and governments. That this is some unjustified "hate" is bullshit. Of course people in power who misuse and abuse should be criticized. Appeasement mentality leads to things like Nazi Germany.

You cannot be diplomatic with someone who acts under other ideals than diplomacy. There have been plenty of peace talks now, plenty of diplomatic hands reaching out, but he and Russia don't care.
What exactly do you think leaders of the world have been doing when talking to Putin? Nothing works, he repeats himself over and over with no diplomatic balance other than "give me what I want and I'll back down".

That's not diplomacy, that's an ultimatum. If you want diplomacy, tell me how to be diplomatic with someone who's not diplomatic during those talks. You ask for the west to be diplomatic, but when Russia isn't acting according to diplomacy, what are you going to do?

It becomes the equivalent of a crowd shouting"What do we want? WE WANT PEACE! How do we do it? WE DON'T KNOW!"

But you've yet to address the fact that people in Russia are all much happier than people in Ukraine.

... See what we can do when we just make shit up! — Isaac

Jesus. You are really are out of ammo. As if the reasons why I have said that Ukrainians want to join the West is something that I've yet not addressed.

Why do you think the Ukrainians had the Maidan, the Revolution of Dignity?
Why do you think they have had earlier the "Orange Revolution"?
Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections?

The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, but you seem not to get it. I have said over and over again that the Ukrainians have been fed up with the corruption and the poor state of the economy, and this is the reason why they have looked at joining the West. Because the other possibility is to accept Putin's imperialism. It hasn't been some astro-turf operation conducted by the US.

I'll repeat again. The politicians leading Poland or other EU member states have not stolen billions of dollars of their nations wealth and then continue as if nothing. A reason why they have had so much hopes for the EU.

Enough with your bullshit.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse. — ssu

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. Times have changed and we have to act with more dedication of defense than before. I mean, it doesn't matter if we're in Nato or not if there's a nuclear war. It's not like bombs all around us won't destroy us anyway. So any defense against traditional warfare is better than risking us being the next "proxy nation in order to keep Nato away".

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. — Christoffer

When we both send arms to Ukraine and have already NATO troops training in our country (and B-52s training to mine potential invasion beaches), I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. Huge portion of Finnish members of Parliament are afraid to yet to say anything about their own view about joining NATO.

I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. — ssu

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really.

The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, — ssu

I have no interest in why (some of) the Ukrainians want to remain outside of Russian control. I'm not questioning a Ukrainian. I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. It's ludicrous to just say you want them to because they want to. Putin (and some Russians) want to occupy Ukraine, do you support them because they want to? And do you honestly think there's not a single Ukrainian who wants to accept the terms. Not a single Ukrainian who want to be part of Russia, even? So it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.

You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side.

It hoped that economic growth would create a striving middle class that then would "naturally" lead these countries to join West. — ssu

As subservients of course, judging by the rhetoric alone.

You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side. — Isaac

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor.

Totally agree, that's my anarchist dream for sure. — boethius

There is another view, possibly inherent in the worlds' religions, some of them, that wars and the human condition are actually a process of growth and self-actualization or purification in some way, a sort of spiritual evolution that involves in pain, sacrifice and death.

I am being very vague here, I do not want to highlight any religion.

To put it another way, war is a crash course that forces us to look at deep moral questions. It is learning by trial and error, better no war, but at least we learn who we are.

Here is a thought:

And the place to begin, says Grayling, is to recognize the fact that the very idea of war is far too easily and thoughtlessly accepted. Alas, war is not the exception but the rule. If war were genuinely the exception, it would not be a “permanent presence in the budgets, decisions, and attitudes of states.” — Grayling

Progress...

There is the other thought, a great theme for a sci-fi novel, of an 'invisible war' where people are conquered and enslaved silently and secretly through ideas and propaganda of hostile nations. Maybe it has already taken place.

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

How about supporting the right for a nation to defend itself? How many nations can defend themselves against an invasion? The Swiss, for example, I have read, have each citizen trained to fight:

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[3]).

Thousands of tunnels, highways, railroads, and bridges are built with tank traps and primed with demolition charges to be used against invading forces; often, the civilian engineer who designed the bridge plans the demolition as a military officer. Hidden guns are aimed to prevent enemy forces from attempting to rebuild.

However, the same article states:

Since 1989, there have been several attempts to curb military activity or even abolish the armed forces altogether

I don't get it.

How about supporting the right for a nation to defend itself? — FreeEmotion

I support that. :up:

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

All of Ukraine are the aggressed. Do you think all 41 million of them think the same thing, have the same priorities, the same plans, the same ideas about where they want to be and how they want to get there? No. No matter how extensive your sources, you're only going to be sampling a very small and highly biased cohort of the entire population. We know opinions vary in Ukraine because some Ukrainians are actually fighting on Russia's side.

So it remains that sides are being picked. It's nothing to do with 'siding with the aggressed' that's just bullshit virtue signalling. If people naturally sided with the aggressed they wouldn't buy their fucking t-shirts sewn by 8 year old debt slaves would they? They wouldn't buy their mobile phones with cobalt mined by 5 year old kids. They wouldn't buy their cheap fucking crap from Amazon despite their factories treating workers so badly they actually have a measurable death rate. No, I think it's been tragically established that the world's current crop of humans don't give a fuck about the oppressed, they do, however, show a sickening concern for conforming to whatever Facebook say they should now pretend to care about. Yesterday it was covid victims, today it's Ukrainians. Maybe, if they wait patiently enough the 700 children who died from poverty just in the time you and I have been writing these posts might get a small corner of the front page, but I won't hold my breath.

Sigh. Tobias this thread is a prime example. — Benkei

I do not follow threads on the Ukraine crisis written here. I go to TheInternationalrelationsforum.com or Theconflictresolutionforum or Themilitaryhardwareforum

An incomplete Guide for the perplexed on possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine

All of Ukraine are the aggressed. Do you think all 41 million of them think the same thing, have the same priorities, the same plans, the same ideas about where they want to be and how they want to get there? No. — Isaac

Of course not, but they don't need to be all clones for one to feel sympathetic to them. Why side with the aggressor?

Why side with the aggressor? — Olivier5

I can't think of a single reason to side with the aggressor.

Why then, not side with the aggressed?

Why then, not side with the aggressed? — Olivier5

Again, can't think of a single reason why not.

Joining NATO to be taken as a separate discussion and agreement. — FreeEmotion

It seems to violate Putin's vision (not his eyes) and likely the same for some old-school Russians. But, hey, if they're genuinely scared of NATO, then OK, a concession, to reach a more stable (perhaps even prosperous) situation...?

An amendment? (peacekeepers = :up:)

• Russia ends its military presence in Ukraine, including Ukrainian airspace
• Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
• the Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member
• Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine
• Ukraine agrees to UN peacekeepers
• if Russia insists on an investigation into bio-facilities in Ukraine, then the same is to take place in Russia (perhaps under WHO/UN supervision)
• Russia recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign state
• Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine, Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians

The victims of the invasion/bombings are still the Ukrainians on the ground, not Putin or his Kremlin generals, or other Muscovites.

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

Correct. And this tendency is exploited by all propaganda operatives worth their salt. Hence the almost automatic recourse to claims of "genocide" on both sides. The inevitable result is that, irrespective of the facts, whoever happens to shout "genocide" loudest, or has the better propaganda machine, will tend to attract the most attention and support ....

Again, can't think of a single reason why not. — Isaac

Why then do you question @ssu about why he's chosen their side?