So NATO is careful about who joins them as well, some sort of a balance. — FreeEmotion

Exactly why NATO didn't just let Ukraine in a month ago when a invasion "might" happen and "NATO's Ukrainian friends" could have easily been helped without any loss of life at all.

NATO can't have it both ways and say they care "oh, so, so much about Ukrainians", enough to supply weapons and expend the massive political energy to sell Germany on F-35's and chnage the entire posture and financial position of NATO overnight (which doesn't save a single Ukrainian life, but is obviously the priority and 99% all the actual big boy talk intra-NATO) ... but doesn't care enough about Ukraine to let them in the alliance, because that would be irresponsible (so why bait them with that in the first place again? someone please remind me), which is basically what the argument is, nor put much energy to negotiate in the interest of any civilians or Ukraine itself (just cheer on social media for Ukrainians to die to demonstrate the effectiveness of NATO weapons for the purposes of the arms sales that have already happened, are happening and will happen due to NATO pumping in arms into Ukraine to demonstrate their effectiveness and simply leads to Russia to escalate indirect fire, the reasonable tactical response to infantry that make themselves a nuisance--that any commander on the entire planet, including every single NATO officer, would do without question, which causes more collateral damage (which last I hear NATO doesn't even bother keep count of) that can easily be used to justify sending more shoulder launched systems to cause even more escalation and prolong the war causing vastly more death and trauma to, most of all, children.)

you don't get to decide if someone invades you or not, — jorndoe

Imagine you have bully on your block, do people on that block moderate their behaviour to avoid getting punched by him? Of course they do. So conversely it must follow that if you actually want him to punch someone, you'd know pretty much exactly what to do to get that to happen.

Putin is a ruthless tyrant who's made no secret of his views about the proper place of the Russian empire in the world. My first years could haved worked out exactly what behaviours would light his touch paper, imagine what professional consultants in international relations could come up with.

Imagine you have bully on your block, do people on that block moderate their behaviour to avoid getting punched by him? Of course they do. So conversely it must follow that if you actually want him to punch someone, you'd know pretty much exactly what to do to get that to happen. — Isaac

And when a woman gets raped by that bully, it must follow that she did exactly what one needs to do to get raped, right?

And when a woman gets raped by that bully, it must follow that she did exactly what one needs to do to get raped, right? — Olivier5

Exactly. She was a woman!

She shouldn't have existed, hence then the rapist bully wouldn't have raped her.

She asked for it, evidently. The bully is entirely predictable by others, like a machine would be, and has zero responsibility for his own acts. So if he raped her, it must be that she pushed him to it. Ergo she asked for it...

She asked for it, evidently. The bully is entirely predictable by others, like a machine would be, and has zero responsibility for his own acts. So if he raped her, it must be that she pushed him to it. Ergo she asked for it... — Olivier5

And of course, it's bad what the bully did. But she really shouldn't have existed in the first place.

After the bully had abused @Isaac, our friend looked back at the bully with dovish eyes while arranging his trousers, and said: "Thank you! Now I understand what I was doing wrong."

He wandered home wondering if he had any frozen peas in the freezer to nurse his black eye, and since he'd crapped his pants, should he wash them? Or just throw them away?

“Damn NATO", he mumbled.

Although the bully analogy is useful for the intended purpose of imagine I tell you guys I got a whole group of marines going to back you guys up, totally for sure, we're buddies, to go take on that bully. And then you guys channel your righteous rage that this bully is also a rapist or will soon be a rapist, and go to beat down on him (by which you mean me and my marine buddies that can easily do so).

Obviously, first you just start just pissing him off with symbolic gestures, like an SS battalion emblem as even though he's a bully he really hates neo-Nazi's as they killed his gandma ... ok, you pissed him off and he starts coming at you, and you guys start backing up like the raised arm batman meme waiting for me and my marine buddies to jump in front of you and take care of business, any moment now ... any day now ... gonna happen ... we're gonna do this. This is it. Today's the day. Any moment now.

Instead, my marine buddies and me toss you a few sticks to defend yourselves, which you totally have righteous cause to do and we get crazy mad likes for backing you up where it counts (to us personally in our ability to "slay puss", as us tough guys refer to copulation): social media.

That would be the analogy in evaluating the NATO's moral position. Definitely NATO starting "the process" with Ukraine and Georgia was a "we got your back bro" statement ... or then a deceptive tactic to bait Russia into a war to restart a cold war at their expense. One way to tell: does NATO actually have either Georgia's or Ukraine's back?

While you ponder that question, what "having someone's back means" (only talk and slipping them a shank in a fight they'll lose count?) ... perhaps consider there are also two sides to the story. How are we sure it's not Ukraine that's the real bully refusing to let people have their "right" to democratic self determination?



Deep cover Russian agent social media provocateurs?

I don't have any righteous rage. This is nothing new. Same shit different day.

I don't have any righteous rage. This is nothing new. Same shit different day. — frank

Ok, well then re-imagine my little bully story but you're not motivated to do anything at all about the situation except for some purely academic analysis on the internet.

frank

Ok, well then re-imagine my little bully story but you're not motivated to do anything at all about the situation except for some purely academic analysis on the internet. — boethius

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure that on the basics, we agree. Maybe we differ on strategies for dealing with bullies, but we're still on a dead rock hurtling through nowhere on the way to nowhere for no reason.

As we pass into oblivion we whisper into the darkness: "we did the best we could..."

As we pass into oblivion we whisper into the darkness: "we did the best we could..." — frank

As @Cuthbert implied -- very philosophically -- about nuclear annihilation: it's not that bad; there is always the possibility that we will fail better next time.

Although the bully analogy is useful for the intended purpose... — boethius

It is also useful for the non-intended purpose of showing how immoral you guys are.

Vlad Putin is up against a monster a lot bigger than himself. The Left. Its goal to eliminate all perceptions of harshness, which includes males, is set to rule. A vulnerability in the democratic election process to let this happen. Ukraine the last military stand by a conservative dictator, conservatism in its death throws regardless of who wins.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure that on the basics, we agree. Maybe we differ on strategies for dealing with bullies, but we're still on a dead rock hurtling through nowhere on the way to nowhere for no reason.

As we pass into oblivion we whisper into the darkness: "we did the best we could..." — frank

Very possible out positions are close. If you're sympathetic to @ssu position, then we are mostly debating different sides of the issue. Obviously he recognizes the Russians could win, and I recognize the Ukrainians could win, just by some big surprise we don't know about. My analysis is mostly based on the assumption that the arms Ukrainians have can't really assault Russian positions.

And, I'm sure with your experience you experience of the true scale of the carnage and trauma; if more can be avoided by talking then I think that should be attempted, and talk requires mutual understanding, so, in this case, understanding the Russian perspective as well as Ukrainian.

Of course a stalemate is possible, or peace deal happening at anytime, and who really "won" is up for a debate. A good peace deal mid-war, both sides can claim they won. For instance, both Soviet Union and Finland could make a legitimate claim to having "won" in WWII, and it's that kind of peace deal that is more stable than a WWI armistice type deal that humiliates one side.

I do indeed hope we both can say we do the best we can.

As Cuthbert implied -- very philosophically -- about nuclear annihilation: it's not that bad; there is always the possibility that we will fail better next time. — Olivier5

:blush:

It is useful also for the non-intended purpose of showing how immoral you guys are. — Olivier5

Things are perhaps not as black and white as you believe.

Understanding the history, nuances, perspective and what in negotiation we call "legitimate grievance" is essential for a diplomatic solution. Likewise, the evaluation of the military situation influences whether one believes diplomacy is even "necessary" for your aims, and, if so, then what a reasonable deal would be considering the military situation (of which, we don't really know the true state of things on the ground, but need to make deductions from larger events and considerations).

Recognizing someone's legitimate grievance does not mean agreeing everything they say.

To bring up the example of police negotiators, if they are talking to someone who they are certain is the suspected murder, and the suspect asks for a coffee ... they are likely to provide it as it's a legitimate grievance to be denied a coffee as a police captive, likewise food, and, likewise, indeed, the murder itself can be motivated by legitimate grievances and police negotiators will recognize that to get the suspect to talk and admit to the murder and so wrap up the case with far less resources as well as satisfy their own and other people's desire to at least understand the motivations and events.

And, it's these police murder suspect negotiators videos that you can find plenty online, as it becomes public evidence in trial, that are probably the best examples of negotiation that are accessible. Corporations and governments also have good negotiators ... but they tend not to film it and post it online afterwards.

One of the key themes in these police negotiations is responding to legitimate grievances and opposing non-legitimate grievances (for example: avoiding a question). It's the only way to have a constructive conversation with a counter party regardless of the moral context. Even higher stakes is hostage situations which can be available online as well.

So, in the situation in Ukraine, just so happens that neo-Nazi's is a legitimate grievance. Now, as already discussed with @ssu a response to legitimate grievance doesn't mean "agreeing"; a legitimate response to a legitimate grievance can be proving it's not true, or then exaggerated or then arguing about it; recognition just means acknowledging it's important for the other person and that they have valid feelings about the issue that warrant engagement, not-recognizing would be just ignoring it (for example, maybe there simply is no coffee left and I can't have a coffee; ok, that would be a legitimate response and good faith if it's true, but not-recognizing my grievance about a coffee would be just to completely ignore my asking for a coffee). So, EU could "prove" there are no neo-Nazi's and the Azov brigade didn't do any active fighting as a paramilitary force, would be one response, just bad faith if there are neo-Nazi's and Azov brigade was doing parallel paramilitary fighting in Dombass outside a legitimate chain of command. Likewise, Russia's grievance about being threatened by NATO with nuclear Armageddon is also a legitimate grievance, as is our grievance of Russia's threat to us of nuclear Armageddon.

So, in the situation in Ukraine, just so happens that neo-Nazi's is a legitimate grievance. — boethius

Says who, and to whom? There's no grievance without an aggrieved party.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/volodymyr-zelensky-says-ukraine-wont-join-nato/ar-AAV5q1d

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

That is one heck of a realization and rather late in the day. The nation of Ukraine at peace with its neighbor Russia will be in a secure and strong position to build back better and profit from the outpouring of sympathy worldwide, which will put pressure of governments to invest in Ukraine and sell them arms. I can already see the "Buy Ukrainian" signs coming up. What's not to like about this?

"For years we've heard the opposite, open doors, However, it is not," he said according to Ukrainian news outlet, Trukha. "Our people understand this, and we are beginning to count on our own strength," he added. — MSN News

Says who, and to whom? There's no grievance without an aggrieved party. — Olivier5

Russian's are legitimately aggrieved by the neo-Nazi's killing Russians in Dombass. You can engage in apologetics for the neo-Nazi's, but that doesn't change the Russian's perception of them being neo-Nazi's and their perception of them killing Russians in Dombass and elsewhere since 2014.

But, you clearly haven't understood what the basic concept even is. I'll need to continue tomorrow, but maybe someone else will re-explain it to you

Russian's are legitimately aggrieved by the neo-Nazi's killing Russians in Dombass. — boethius

So the Russians decided to kill ethnic Russians in other parts of Ukraine, outside of Donbass.... Makes things more even, right?

So the Russians decided to kill Russians outside of Donbass.... Makes things more even, right? — Olivier5

Russian's really don't like the original Nazi's or neo-Nazi's, and the Russian government nor the Dombass breakaway regions have any evidence of any institutional integration with neo-Nazi groups nor any evidence of tolerating such groups existing in the first place.

We've already dealt with this strawman and also deflection from the self-described neo-Nazi's in Ukraine.

You have a point. It's not fair that ethnic Russians are killed only in Donbass. So someone had to start bombing ethnic Russians in Odesa, Mariupol etc. Aren't you glad Putin is making things more even and fair now?

I would urge people to listen to a thoughtful discussion with Princeton history professor Stephen Kotkin, who has written on Russian and Soviet history. He has written a biography of Stalin. It's one of the nuanced discussion of the NATO expansion and Russia and about the war. Also is discussed the link to China and Taiwan and the differences with the China-Taiwan problem. The discussion is more than an hour. (The interview was done on day 8 of the war)



I assume that people on this thread know the general history of events, so the discussion isn't too complicated. (And obviously an American view)

Russian Ground Forces consist of only 280 000 troops. — ssu

That's the number of active duty troops as of 2020 per Wikipedia, but that would include both conscripts and professionals (Russia has both). By law, conscripts are not supposed to be deployed abroad, although there is evidence that the military are getting around this rule by any means possible. Still, there's been an outcry in Russia, and even an official acknowledgement that conscripts have been sent to Ukraine "by mistake." Some of these 18-19-year boys have only had a few months of basic training before being sent into battle!

I think this is sound advice, well argued too, but I will refer to our resident specialist in surrendering @Isaac for an expert opinion...


Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tells Russian soldiers to 'surrender'
MIKE SNIDER | USA TODAY | 52 minutes ago

"I know that you want to survive," Zelenskyy said during an address Tuesday. "We hear your conversations in the intercepts, we hear what you really think about this senseless war, about this disgrace and about your state."

That is why Russian soldiers should consider surrendering, he said. "If you surrender to our forces, we will treat you the way people are supposed to be treated. As people, decently. In a way you were not treated in your army. And in a way your army does not treat ours," Zelenskyy said.

You keep setting up these fake contradictions for yourself. "Biological weapons are not particularly good as military weapons," and "biological weapons can be highly effective at killing civilians," are not mutually contradictory.

Weaponized anthrax would work great at causing mass death used the right way, e.g. feeding it into the ventilation system of a crowded building, crop dusting a crowded sports stadium, etc.

It does not work particularly well when the target is dispersed military units who are outdoors, particularly if they are expecting an attack. Your crop duster will easily be shot down by MANPADs or your shell will disperse way less effectively out doors. You might kill some people, but a conventional shell likely would have done the trick too.

I suppose biological weapons could have a very effective military use, but the scenario there would have to be something like sneaking a spy into the enemy organization and having them somehow get access to a barracks air conditioning system, or something of that nature.

till, there's been an outcry in Russia, and even an official acknowledgement that conscripts have been sent to Ukraine "by mistake." Some of these 18-19-year boys have only had a few months of basic training before being sent into battle! — SophistiCat

Imagine what the outcry is if they seriously try to then press reservists into going to war, those who have done their military service and haven't made any kind of contract with the military in this situation. Their moral sure will be high, especially when they aren't the age of the "average Fox viewer in the US". :roll:

https://worldbeyondwar.org/statement-by-the-ukrainian-pacifist-movement/

World BEYOND War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.

World BEYOND War was founded on January 1st, 2014, when co-founders David Hartsough and David Swanson set out to create a global

movement to abolish the institution of war itself, not just the “war of the day.” If war is ever to be abolished, then it must be taken off the table as a viable option. Just as there is no such thing as “good” or necessary slavery, there is no such thing as a “good” or necessary war. Both institutions are abhorrent and never acceptable, no matter the circumstances. So, if we can’t use war to resolve international conflicts, what can we do? Finding a way to transition to a global security system that is supported by international law, diplomacy, collaboration, and human rights, and defending those things with nonviolent action rather than the threat of violence, is the heart of WBW. Our work includes education that dispels myths, like “War is natural” or “We have always had war,” and shows people not only that war should be abolished, but also that it actually can be. Our work includes all variety of nonviolent activism that moves the world in the direction of ending all war.

Nice thought.