↪boethius Likewise, if you want us to believe that the Russian government gives a rat's ass about the lives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, do try and explain why Russian forces are bombing so many ethnic Russians in Ukraine... — Olivier5

Sure, yeah, I don't see how the proposals are mutually exclusive.

My basic thesis in this discussion is that two sides of the story are needed to reach a diplomatic solution.

Now, if Ukraine is going to win, and you care about Ukrainians, ok, no need for diplomacy, just let them "win" as the vast majority of Ukrainians seem to be in favour of fighting and winning and support Zelenskyy

However, if Ukrainians aren't going to win, the diplomacy now is almost always better than diplomacy tomorrow in this sort of situation.

Likewise, fighting to a stalemate ... only purpose is to then have a diplomatic resolution, so still requires both sides of the story (whatever we may morally think of any particular point or who's right and who's wrong or who's more right and who's less right and so on).

Russian state-controlled media is still pushing the "biolabs" story. — SophistiCat

Nuland literally answers this question about biolabs with with a non-no answer. If there was no bioweapons Nuland would just confidently state there's no bioweapons. Just like if she was asked if Ukaine had nuclear warheads and ICMB's ... she would just say "no, Ukraine does not have nuclear warheads and ICBM" as obviously it doesn't.



Things are not necessarily how they appear ... even the above video could be some deep cover Russian plant; difficult to tell, nothing is clear cut.

I don't see how the proposals are mutually exclusive. — boethius

Honestly, you don't?

Honestly, you don't? — Olivier5

I mean the idea NATO doesn't give an actual shit about Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or whoever, in Ukraine ... doesn't exclude the possibility that the Kremlin also doesn't give much of a shit about ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

First, certainly the Kremlin position is any ethnic Russians still in Ukraine fighting Russia are traitors, just like the Kremlin position is any ethnic Russia in Russia in anyway opposing the war is a traitor. So, unlikely they care about ethnic Russians fighting the war.

For ethnic Russians on Russia's side, likely the Kremlin does care about them (whether genuinely or for propaganda purposes, feel free to decide), and for these ethnic Russians Russia would likely state they started the war super soft to get everyone a chance to leave and also cities and towns that are pro Russian to give up (which does happen) and the "humanitarian assistance" that Russia is at least bringing some stuff ... compared to the West pulling out of Afghanistan and cutting all food and and child care funding and just letting those children starve to death.

Obviously Taliban will do a little corruption with whatever is given to Afghanistan, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't distribute food if we sent it, nor allow NGO's to distribute the food directly, nor any reason to believe that's not the right thing to do even if Taliban somehow stop any food getting to anyone; but would that really be politically viable for the Taliban, that we send food and they simply throw it in the sea? And ... West has pulled out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban take-over ... so it's not like there's some political demand or reason for sanctions.

NATO just straight abandoned their Afghanistan people and their allies (all those hearts and minds they did manage to win over) and have now let them starve.

And, think of the budget that would be spent to keep NATO in Afghanistan even a few months longer and how must funds it would take to keep getting food into the country?

There's no longer interest in getting food to our Afghanistan "friends" because there's no more arms sales related to the issue.

unlikely they care about ethnic Russians fighting the war. — boethius

Also unlikely that they care about ethnic Russians NOT fighting the war either, because the civilians being bombed in Mariupol are in majority ethnic Russians.

You understand now? Putin lied when he said he cared for the lives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It was not a 'legitimate grievance', it was just an excuse.

There's no longer interest in getting food to our Afghanistan "friends" because there's no more arms sales related to the issue. — boethius

That just isn't true. Read, listen and learn.

Take from the hungry to feed the starving’: UN faces awful dilemma
Agencies forced to cut back aid in Yemen, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Ethiopia despite growing need as funds go to Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/17/hungry-starving-aid-agency-face-dilemma-ukraine-yemen-ethiopia-sudan

and here:
https://www.channel4.com/news/youre-asking-me-to-choose-which-children-live-and-which-children-die-says-wfp-head

A roughly remembered quote from the 3min segment:
" No child should die from starvation today, given the 430 trillions of dollars around the world".

Also unlikely that they care about ethnic Russians NOT fighting the war either, because the civilians being bombed in Mariupol are in majority ethnic Russians. — Olivier5

Maybe, but I'm sure they would say "liberating" Mariupole from Azov brigade is for the greater good of ethnic Russians.

But how do you know what Putin feels? And it's a legitimate grievance any oppression, such as language suppression, of ethnic Russians, regardless of what Putin feels about it, his concern in negotiation is how it will play out for the Russian people who obviously do care about ethnic Russians.

Legitimate grievance just means there's a valid argument based on at least some facts that do exist, and not some bullshit made up argument.

But sure, you can criticise Putin, the Kremlin, the Russians all you want, doesn't suddenly white knight Ukrainians or the EU or NATO.

As I've explained, even a murderer, confessed to murder, can have legitimate grievances about a fair trial or sentencing or treatment by police and in jail. Having a legitimate grievance does not make a party "right" or "more right", only that it needs to be recognised, perhaps for moral reasons if we agree about the grievance, but for sure in the context of a negotiation. For instance, if the police suddenly need a murderer to testify against his mob boss or whomever, and the murderer has a bunch of legitimate grievances about conditions in jail ... maybe police are going to need to sort that out if they want a deal.

Of course, prisoner may push beyond what's legitimate (like a helicopter and 1 million dollars) and will obviously be turned down on those requests because they are not legitimate.

The first point about a legitimate grievance is that it matters to the counter party, so you obviously have to respond to it if you want something from the counter party, like a deal. Of course, then there's negotiation and a deal is reached or not, it's only the very first step which is trying to understand the counter-party's point of view and what they are complaining about and what they want and what they can offer.

Of course, if police don't want anything from a prisoner, and that prisoner is being mistreated, but there's nothing that prisoner can do ... then likely to just stay that way regardless of this mistreatment being a legitimate grievance.

Nuland — boethius

Oh for fuck's sake :roll:

Don't bother tagging me, I am not reading your ignorant bullshit.

Don't bother tagging me, I am not reading your ignorant bullshit. — SophistiCat

It's her own words, even specifies whatever these biological materials are, shouldn't fall into enemy hands.

We wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't a senatorial hearing.

People here have tried to argue things like "lab could mean anything" or then it's just normal bio-research or then it is bio-weapons research but that's totally legitimate and normal for defensive purposes.

But if you have a better explanation of Nuland's answer, feel free to debate that point of view on a debate forum.

Maybe consider the Western media attitude on this point that it can just be ignored ... is because there's no good answers that account for the facts and what's already admitted to by the US, not just Russia suddenly throwing stuff up on the internet.

Same problem with the neo-Nazi's, it's not just Russia claiming stuff, Western media has documented these guys since 2014, there's all sorts of reportages on them by all sorts of credible journalists ... in addition to what they self publish about themselves!

Totally agreed that anything coming solely from the Russians can be seriously doubted, no way to know if it's true or fabricated, the problem is the stuff coming from Western media and Western institutions. We can't just ignore what "our own side" says simply because it's inconvenient for hating the Russians more. And, of course, what "our own side" says makes the best propaganda for Russia ... doesn't mean Western institutions exposing or admitting to some problems or corruption or totally illegitimate intelligence operations, can't be discussed as that undermines the idea that only Russia is bad now, everyone else good, all Western policies and wars of aggression fought or backed we can just ignore the morality of now, the West pure now.

Putin is beyond a revanchist. He’s an old school communist, nearly a Bolshevik-an apparatchik- who still thinks history is trending towards”workers of the world unite.” He prefers his history Stalin style, of course, with himself as the vanguard for the revolution.

Thus, a disturbing, psychotic, visceral reaction explains his invasion. It isn’t just his wistful witness to a fading empire or anger over an encroaching NATO or paranoia of western influence that became his casus belli.

He invaded principally after Ukraine proper proclaimed a decommunization of its society. That was the straw that broke him. It is one thing to lose territory, to lose influence or to lose even power. But no true communist, those who see themselves forever as agents of social Utopia, can long endure the death of their spirit-the finality of their ideological soul.

He will not rest.

Putin is beyond a revanchist. He’s an old school communist, nearly a Bolshevik-an apparatchik- who still thinks history is trending towards”workers of the world unite.” — Reshuffle

No he's not.

But if you have a better explanation of Nuland's answer, feel free to debate that point of view on a debate forum. — boethius

We can not exclude that there are competing views within the American establishment toward this war. Some maybe want to escalate the conflict between the West and Russia. Others do not want to escalate it further. Maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland is dog-whistling to the Russian propaganda and intelligence on purpose, to galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless. In other words, Nuland and the piece of establishment she represents could be doing their dirty job by exploiting such ambiguous declarations in public hearings.

We can not exclude that there are competing views within the American establishment toward this war. — neomac

Nuland is not commenting on the war, she's answering the direct question of whether there are bio-weapons in Ukraine.

And, this theory:

Others do not want to escalate it further. Maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland is dog-whistling to the Russian propaganda and intelligence on purpose, to galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless. In other words, Nuland and the piece of establishment she represents could be doing their dirty job by exploiting such ambiguous declarations in public hearings. — neomac

Is just more example of how bizarre apologetics for Nuland need to get to actually fit a theory to the facts.

Yeah, sure, maybe Nuland is trying to "galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless."

Certainly a good tactic, but the problem is that this is really not a good way to do that, as it obviously will play well to the Russian supporters of the war and consolidate support for the war, which makes the war less reckless.

Furthermore, if you did hatch such a plan, you wouldn't do the taunting in a senatorial hearing; the classic strategy for what you propose is to feed Russia false intelligence that can be easily disproved, denied or just ignored later.

So, maybe some elaborate prank ... always possible, or maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland just wants to do what she claims and fuck the EU by orchestrating a coup with neo-Nazi's, setting those neo-Nazi's up with means and resources and then institutional legitimacy, and then setting up bio-weapons labs for this neo-Nazi cesspool as she feels that's a good way to "fuck-the-EU" which is her stated desire.

EU has gotten fucked, has it not?

The first point about a legitimate grievance is that it matters to the counter party — boethius

How do you know that it matters to them?

Ukraine's presidential advisor Mykhailo Podolyak about the Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities:

“It’s a paradox: it wasn’t Western Ukraine that was bombed — the main devastating blows fell on the cities of Eastern Ukraine, where more or less pro-Russian sentiments existed until February 24. Massive strikes were carried out in residential areas where the Russian-speaking population lives. Do you understand the absurdity? "We will now make you fall in love with the Russian language by bombing." It just looks ridiculous."

she's answering the direct question of whether there are bio-weapons in Ukraine. — boethius

If they wanted a clear & unequivocal answer from Nuland, they would have asked for such an answer. But they didn’t, and also that can be seen as suspicious.

it obviously will play well to the Russian supporters of the war and consolidate support for the war, which makes the war less reckless. — boethius

Feeding the Russian propaganda with half truths to increase Russian support will facilitate e.g. Russian use of chemical weapons in a "false flag" attack against Ukraine [1]. This would be an example of being more reckless.

the classic strategy for what you propose is to feed Russia false intelligence that can be easily disproved, denied or just ignored later. — boethius

I’m referring to a war of propaganda and how the Russian intelligence resources might be invested to feed the propaganda machine.

"fuck-the-EU" Nuland just wants to do what she claims and fuck the EU by orchestrating a coup with neo-Nazi's, setting those neo-Nazi's up with means and resources and then institutional legitimacy, and then setting up bio-weapons labs for this neo-Nazi cesspool as she feels that's a good way to "fuck-the-EU" which is her stated desire. — boethius

I’m just saying that one part of the American establishment might find some use in feeding the “neo-Nazi”, “bio-weapons”, “Russian genocide” narrative in a way that on their side grants plausible deniability while on the other side it can contribute to escalate tensions between Russia, Ukraine and EU.

EU has gotten fucked, has it not? — boethius

As much as Russia, its useful idiots and its useless troll army.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-may-use-chemical-weapons-false-flag-attack-not-more-broadly-western-2022-03-11/

If they wanted a clear & unequivocal answer from Nuland, they would have asked for such an answer. But they didn’t, and also that can be seen as suspicious. — neomac

The senator was totally shocked that the answer wasn't no, and changed the subject to his next question (aka. damage control) that any chemical attack we can know ahead of time is like totally Russia, which Nuland then stops what she was saying to joviently declare chemical attacks Russia's MO.

Feeding the Russian propaganda with half truths to increase Russian support will facilitate Russian use of chemical weapons in a "false flag" attacks against Ukraine [1]. This is for example what I would consider more reckless. — neomac

It's not feeding Russian propaganda with half truths, it's a completely legitimate conversation about something "fuck-the-EU" Nuland said, and as someone who lives in the EU, I think it's pretty relevant to evaluate her testimony as potentially revealing her "fuck-the-EU" strategy.

Of course, any legitimate criticism by EU citizens of US official operating in the EU, will also be used for propaganda purposes by plenty of parties, doesn't render legitimate discussions "half truths feeding the propaganda"; indeed, it's only so amazingly awesome for propaganda purposes because it's a legitimate discussion. If it was out of context, minor official, nothing burger, then using it for propaganda can easily blow-back when the nothing burgerness is established. What's shocking in the Nuland testimony is there's no contextual ambiguity, she's a high official that would know, and she even disambiguates what she means by clarifying that what she's talking about shouldn't fall in the hands of the Russians and they're working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

I’m referring to a war of propaganda and how the intelligence resources might be invested to feed the propaganda machine. — neomac

Yeah, obviously there's also a propaganda or "information" war going on, but the problem with ignoring legitimate issues of debate because talking about something may "help the bad person" is that ... how do you even know who's good and bad if truth is off-limits. I'm not advocating we should peddle in half truths, I'm advocating we should deal in truths. Obviously, any given truth is going to help certain people more than others and, indeed, could be extremely embarrassing to certain people and not others. Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

’m just saying that one part of the American establishment might find some use in feeding the “neo-Nazi”, “bio-weapons”, “Russian genocide” narrative in a way that on their side grants plausible deniability while on the other side it can contribute to escalate tensions between Russia, Ukraine and EU. — neomac

That's what would normally happen. What's so unusual is there isn't plausible deniability. On the question of neo-Nazi's the West and Ukraine defence ministry had the assurance to everyone that "volunteers" (aka. Azov brigade) weren't doing any fighting and, sure, aren't "really Nazi's". Journalists went to record them fighting (which would mean, if US was following its own policies, that Ukraine should not get weapons and training support). The spokesperson of Azov brigade itself clarified they only have "10 to 20%" members who are Nazi's.

Then, this testimony of Nuland you'd think would have some plausible deniability, but she clarifies she's talking about stuff the Russian's shouldn't find and they need to work hard to make sure the Russian's don't find it ... which is alarming and also just weird as to why they didn't take care of it if they knew the war was coming as US intelligence publicly claimed.

This is what's so odd in these subjects, is that you'd expect plausible deniability, which then, sure, whatever, who knows, but these issues don't have plausible deniability.

As much as Russia, its useful idiots and its useless troll army. — neomac

I do not claim the war is good for Russia. EU getting fucked doesn't exclude Russia getting fucked as well. But at least Russia is achieving something and getting at least whatever military gains they do get (even if it doesn't compensate the losses and sanctions, they'll at least get something).

What does the EU get? More or less the collapse of its immense soft power position in the world overnight, and nothing in return, except of course Russian gas.

You keep complaining about the low level of public discourse.
However this Ukr. situation ends, one thing looks certain: afterwards, in the West, this low level of public discourse will be cemented as the norm that everyone must comply with.

The Russian demands fall into two categories.

The first four demands are, according to Mr Kalin, not too difficult for Ukraine to meet.

Chief among them is an acceptance by Ukraine that it should be neutral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has already conceded this.

There are other demands in this category which mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side.

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them. — BBC

Indeed, perhaps it's enough for Zelensky to just publicly say neo-Nazi's are bad and should not have their own paramilitary brigades and bases, where they publicly said they'll kill the government if the Ukrainian actual military came for their guns.

The rest of the article is interesting as well on the other category which was the land issue.

Still, President Putin's demands are not as harsh as some people feared and they scarcely seem to be worth all the violence, bloodshed and destruction which Russia has visited on Ukraine.

Given his heavy-handed control over the Russian media, it shouldn't be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major victory. — BBC

Which is a pretty good insight on part of the state owned media the BBC.

President Putin's demands are not as harsh as some people feared — BBC

Some Kremlin PR hack drafting respectable-sounding diplomatic soundbytes to feed to the media, meanwhile Putin's army is destroying entire cities full of non-combatants because his troops are too incompetent to win on a battlefield.

Take a look at what Putin's army is doing to Kharkiv.

Some Kremlin PR hack drafting respectable-sounding diplomatic soundbytes to feed to the media, meanwhile Putin's army is destroying entire cities full of non-combatants because his troops are too incompetent to win on a battlefield. — Wayfarer

This is literally the BBC ... yes, state media, but the British state media last time I checked.

Yeah, I get that, but, you know, actions speak louder than words.

Yes, one might suppose the level of destruction might disrupt the vision of a negotiated space.
I suppose we will have the luxury of determining the limits afterwards. Forensics work best on dead people.

What does the EU get? More or less the collapse of its immense soft power position in the world overnight, — boethius

In your cryptosoviet dreams.

↪boethius Yeah, I get that, but, you know, actions speak louder than words. — Wayfarer

The BBC and other Western media are starting to "prepare" people for a negotiated settlement ... whether to encourage that to happen or then it's already been "more or less" worked out behind the scenes. Keep in mind Russia and US still have the "nuclear emergency phone" so may have been having a totally parallel top level negotiation all this time.

We certainly don't know the facts on the ground, but Russia and US certainly have a pretty good picture. If Ukraine can't win, then both Russia and US certainly know that, and they may have already worked out "a deal" of some sort.

Negotiation between the big powers is always secret and they can always "horse trade" all sorts of stuff, certainly to the disapproval of everyone here.

At the end of the day, Biden wants to be reelected more than he hate Russians, and so he's "pro Ukraine war" when that boosted his ratings, and now that there's not only blowback but potentially a lot more blowback if the war continues, he / administration maybe willing to work out a deal with Russia (there's all sorts of diplomatic channels to "feel things out", but the nuclear phone would be the most "dramatic" and I assume has been used in all these nuclear escalation talks).

The big liability for Biden if the war is not resolved is that supporting Ukraine and denouncing Russia has played well in this phase, but if Ukraine loses then he looks weak, which is worse in American domestic politics and all these international relations considerations.

So, at this particular moment of the war, everyone, in particular US and Russia (the people with all the nuclear weapons) can call it quits and still say they won.

As I said previously, Zelensky is entirely dependent on NATO, therefore the US, to supply his army, so will accept whatever deal US tells him to accept.

I want to see a resolution because I don't like people dying. Morality questions are easier to discuss with people that are still alive.

In your cryptosoviet dreams. — Olivier5

This is literally what has just happened with cold war 2.0.

It's not a Soviet dream ... soft power didn't matter much in the cold war, but mattered a lot after the cold war, and again doesn't matter much in the new cold war.

EU doesn't have hard power, NATO does and it's lead by the US (which isn't even in the EU), so, as the worlds largest economic block, the EU had a lot more soft power in the global integrated economy as it existed before this war in Ukraine and schism in said globally integrated economy.

The senator was totally shocked that the answer wasn't no, and changed the subject to his next question (aka. damage control) — boethius

I see zero shock on Senator Rubio's face, voice, posture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvRpntmUIxs). The next question is just reinforcing the narrative that Russia can use the Ukrainian bio labs for a false flag operation similarly to what may have happened in Syria & Chechnya.

she's talking about shouldn't fall in the hands of the Russians and they're working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. — boethius

What is ambiguous may be that she didn’t say simply “no” right away. However the explanations she gave were enough to make clear that whatever was in that lab could have been weaponized by the Russians against the Ukrainian civilians (as it is claimed to have happened in Syria and Chechnya). And that also why she didn’t simply say “no”. Still the Russians and its troll army could try to play it against Ukraine b/c whatever can be weaponized against the Ukrainian civilians can as well be weaponized against the Russian army or philo-Russian civilians.

which is alarming and also just weird as to why they didn't take care of it if they knew the war was coming as US intelligence publicly claimed. — boethius

They took care of it.

What does the EU get? — boethius

Unity against a common enemy (Russia) and question their subordinate role toward an unreliable US. This awakening may be essential for EU's future survival and prosperity.

Any fact in this sea of confusion? Any salient idea, even? It reads like a long, clumsy propaganda piece, honestly. Your rhetoric is as empty as the Kremlin's.

EU doesn't have hard power, — boethius

LOL. Any European coalition can beat this Russian army flat out. The Italian air force all by itself would blow those Sukhois out of the sky in a day, and then be able to bomb Moscow day and night. Not to speak of the French or the Brits. Even the Germans should be able in a few years to beat Russia single handedly.

If they can't beat the Ukrainians, they can't even beat Belgium.

Any fact in this sea of confusion? Any salient idea, even? It reads like a long, clumsy propaganda piece, honestly. Your rhetoric is as empty as the Kremlin's. — Olivier5

Don't bother with him. I'm beginning to think there are people in here that are truly part of the Russian propaganda machine, apologists for Russia and this war. It's disgusting really. It's one thing to try and be unbiased, but I think that people have lived far too long in a world that's super-grey, with extremely complex variables making everything hard to figure out. And then something like this hits the world and people can't seem to think within something pretty crystal clear. It was long ago since we had someone so clearly the bad guy as Putin and people have such a hard time grasping that idea that they can only compare it to some Hollywood simplification. Well, it really isn't. The whole thing is complex as a piece of causality, but the players on the board right now aren't. I guess it was the same around Germany in the 30s, lots of people trying to point out the pretty clear reality of what is going on while some people just couldn't accept it. Especially after WWI and everyone trying to intellectually cope with the fallout of all empires collapsing and who to blame in that mess. So now people try to understand something without looking at what is going on right in front of their eyes.

Putin is a piece of shit.