I fear not 'opposing view points', although mass murderers and their apologists are indeed creepy. — Olivier5

Apologising for what?

I have pointed out, according to our own Western idea that appeasing the original Nazi's was a mistake and should have been proactively attacked (I agree), that, if this idea is true, some level of Nazi is enough to justify invasion. That this part of Russia's argument is of a valid form according to our own Western ideas.

I have then simply asked the question of how many Nazi's is too many Nazi's with too much power in Ukraine. If people believe that appeasing the Nazi's the first time was a mistake (even if they were not "a majority" of Germans, as is often repeated), then presumably it's a mistake now, and if there is not enough Nazi's in Ukraine, then such an argument presupposes knowing a level of too much Nazi.

I ask for this knowledge, people claim to have. I thirst and people claiming they have water give me nothing to drink.

People here say "yes, there are Nazi's in Ukraine, but not enough to justify invasion" ... well, ok, that's a statement that presupposes one can say what "enough" would be.

My own position on the subject is that we could likely debate the subject for decades (those of us who don't like Nazis).

Pointing out people have parts of their argument missing (what is "enough Nazi's"), is not apologist for Russia. Maybe there isn't enough Nazi's, but what is "enough" and how to measure it?

The rebuttal to this question is pointing out there's Nazi's in every Western country ... but that still doesn't answer the question, maybe then that's also too much and every Western country would be justified to invade.

In other words: analysis and criticism on a philosophy forum, of which people have opportunity and time to respond to and prove their point.

People then say "What Nazi's? What Nazi's? What are Nazi's? Who's a Nazi?"

I post our own Western media (who we're now told to believe on face value repeating "information warfare" of Ukraine) ... investigating these Nazi's.

Where as your response explaining these aren't the Nazis you're looking for?

Or then explaining your standard of what "enough Nazis" would be, and that what's in these videos is clearly "not enough of them"?

The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.

Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS. — boethius

And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation? — boethius

And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing: — boethius

January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.

The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".

But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.

[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]

Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — boethius

Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".

And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters:

""
We're Aryans, and we will rise again
"""

But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side). — boethius

This one's just adorable.
""" — boethius

Is reposting the Western media establishment own reporting your idea of "professional propaganda"?

Is reposting the Western media establishment own reporting your idea of "professional propaganda"? — boethius

Yes, it's an important part of it, of course, when carefully chosen. Reposting Kremlin lapdog media won't work quite as well.

Yes, it's an important part of it, of course, when carefully chosen. — Olivier5

So ... pointing out the Western media accidentally undermining it's own propaganda today (because no one got the memo that Azov battalion was "hands off" at the time, so people naively assumed Nazi's was a bad thing) ... is itself propaganda.

But ok, let's play your game, you say the material I post is carefully chosen, feel free to provide the things I've omitted to make the "true picture" according to you.

US is one player, but when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, it's a minor reason. — ssu

As you keep reiterating and I have clearly stated why I disagree with it. It goes nowhere. It's fine though, I don't mind disagreeing with you and I understand why you believe this. You put a lot of weight on things I believe can be discounted.

Let's do that. Because Putin might be viewed really then in different light as before. — ssu

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs.

feel free to provide the things I've omitted to make the "true picture" according to you. — boethius

I tend to feel free, generally, and do not need your authorization for it.

For instance, you've omitted the presence of a nazi-like ideology in Putin -- he's clearly a nazi himself -- and the fact that the Wagner group funded by Putin is headed by nazis.

I tend to feel free, generally, and do not need your authorization for it. — Olivier5

Sure, great.

For instance, you've omitted the presence of a nazi-like ideology in Putin -- he's clearly a nazi himself -- and the fact that the Wagner group funded by Putin is headed by nazis. — Olivier5

This has not been omitted, but already been discussed. If Putin was too a Nazi, or supporting Nazi's, and so on, then that would only make him a hypocrite, not change the situation in Ukraine and the questions I've asked.

It's also been discussed at length that Naziism is a form of authoritarianism, but not all authoritarians are Nazi's, nor even, necessarily, bad.

Where did you mention the fact that Putin is himself a Nazi?

Where did you mention the fact that Putin is himself a Nazi? — Olivier5

I don't see the evidence for it ... and it seems incompatible with the idea Putin is a KGB soviet reactionary ... so I don't see how it's supposed to even fit in "information warfare" campaign.

However, noted that "anyone you don't like", such as Putin, can be called a Nazi without evidence for it. Lot's of flavours of authoritarianism, doesn't make every authoritarian a Nazi nor that other forms of authoritarianism can be bad in themselves, on their own merits, without also therefore being Nazis.

But people who literally tattoo swastikas on themselves and call themselves aryans and have SS symbols on themselves and their flag ... reported as Nazis for years by multiple media, big and small (that we're now told to trust, at least the big ones, on face value in their repeating what Ukraine says everyday), is "controversial" to call Nazi's today.

Pointing out: the argument that just war justifies lies, that can always be repackaged as "myths", begs the question of whether the reasons for the just war itself is a lie ... is not "pro" anyone; it's first order analysis of what people say.

If the ghost of Kiev was a justified "information campaign" to boost Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian morale ... maybe the just cause reasons for the war are likewise false and only myths. Certainly discovering the war is not just would be bad for morale ... so, can't have that if the war is assumed to be justified.

Which is the problem of the justified lie: why trust the reasons for that justice in the first place?

I don't see the evidence for it ... — boethius

The extreme nationalism, the invention of a grand national destiny, the banalisation of violence and love of brutality verging on sadism, a hatred for representative democracy, suspicion towards Jews, extensive use of propaganda, all these are quite typical. And there's the explicitly pro-nazi Wagner group, which you keep 'forgeting'.

The extreme nationalism, the invention of a grand national destiny, the banalisation of violence and love of brutality verging on sadism, a hatred for representative democracy, suspicion towards Jews, extensive use of propaganda, all these are quite typical. — Olivier5

All these qualities can be in other forms of authoritarianism. Jihadist extremists I would say have all these qualities. You may quibble that something like "Islamic State" is not a "nation", but want to recreate a supra-national pan-Arabic caliphate ... well the Nazi's too had a "pan aryan" view of things and creation of a "Reich" far beyond the borders of the German "nation".

However, jihadist extremists, whether better or worse than Nazi's, represent a distinct ideology to Naziism. Authoritarian ideologies often share a lot in common ... doesn't make them the same thing.

But where have your goal posts even moved to?

How many Nazi's is too many Nazi's with too much power, is an independent and stand alone question.

Once answered, we can then evaluate if Ukraine has too many Nazis and also whether Russia has too many Nazis.

If Ukraine and Russia have too many Nazis, then maybe them fighting it out is a good thing for Nazis to die on each side, and it's very clever to pump in as many arms as possible to ensure as many Ukrainians and Russians die as possible: that both sides are wrong, and therefore it's good that they fight each other and maintained in mutually destructive combat forever: defeat the Nazi's in Ukraine by giving them the tools of their own demise.

It could be a coherent argument.

But, to make any argument about it at all, we need this threshold of too many Nazis. People, including yourself, have stated the threshold isn't met ... ok, should be easy to say what the threshold is then.

Maybe Wagner group is both Nazi enough and passes the hypothesized threshold, which people here claim to know but never deliver the goods.

You have all these ad hominem attacks against "Russians" such as:

The extreme nationalism, the invention of a grand national destiny, the banalisation of violence and love of brutality verging on sadism, a hatred for representative democracy, suspicion towards Jews, extensive use of propaganda, all these are quite typical. — Olivier5

Which ... noted, you seem to be saying here Nazi's were only "suspicious" towards Jews.

and,

It's happening now in Ukraine. Torture. Rape. Murder. That's what Russians do. Violence is the only language they will understand. — Olivier5

While also supporting Ukrainian "myth making" or whatever you want to call it.

How do we know these ad hominems against the Russians aren't likewise myths justified by the "need" to boost Ukrainian morale?

I haven't said anything about thresholds. Russians can be as nazi as they want to; no problem for me, as long as they don't invade their neighbours.

Acts matter more than thoughts. The Russians act like Nazis; they kill, torture and rape like Nazis. That matters to me, more than whether or not they have paid their annual subscription to the Nazi party.

I haven't said anything about thresholds. Russians can be as nazi as they want to; no problem for me, as long as they don't invade their neighbours. — Olivier5

You're really asserting you have not supported the idea there are not enough Nazi's in Ukraine? Just fringe, Nazi's in every country, etc.?

Be that as it may, doesn't this also apply to Ukraine and their invasion of Dombass after they declared independence? Spearheaded by Azov battalion, isn't this Nazi's--granted, being as Nazi as they like--literally invading their neighbour's in Dombass?

What about these actions? Shouldn't Dombass have the right to self determination and to make defensive alliances with who they wish? Shouldn't Russia honour such alliance just as NATO should honour it's commitments to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO (which it isn't)?

I'm just pointing at what I perceive as an important difference between other "Ukraine antagonists" here and you: they are amateurs, while you're a professional, IMO.

MINSK, Belarus (AP) — Belarus’ authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko defended Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press, but he said he didn’t expect the 10-week-old conflict to “drag on this way.”

He also spoke out against the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine but wouldn’t say if Russian President Vladimir Putin had plans to launch such a strike.

Lukashenko said Moscow, which launched the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 — partly from his territory — had to act because Kyiv was “provoking Russia.”

“But I am not immersed in this problem enough to say whether it goes according to plan, like the Russians say, or like I feel it,” he said, speaking at Independence Palace in Minsk. “I want to stress one more time: I feel like this operation has dragged on.”

[...] in his comments to the AP, Lukashenko said he and his country stand for peace and repeatedly called for the end of the “war” — a term the Kremlin refuses to use, calling the invasion a “special military operation” instead.

[...] “We categorically do not accept any war. We have done and are doing everything now so that there isn’t a war. Thanks to yours truly, me that is, negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have begun,” he said.

Lukashenko said using nuclear weapons in Ukraine was “unacceptable because it’s right next to us — we are not across the ocean like the United States.”

“It is also unacceptable because it might knock our terrestrial ball flying off the orbit to who knows where,” he said. “Whether or not Russia is capable of that — is a question you need to ask the Russian leadership.”

Russia “can’t by definition lose this war,” Lukashenko said, noting that Belarus is the only country standing by Moscow, while “as many as 50 states have joined forces” on Ukraine’s side.

He added that Putin isn’t seeking a direct conflict with NATO, and the West should ensure that one doesn’t happen.

“He most likely does not want a global confrontation with NATO. Use it. Use it and do everything for that not to happen. Otherwise, even if Putin doesn’t want it, the military will react,” the Belarusian leader warned.

Lukashenko called Putin his “big brother” and said the Russian leader doesn’t have “closer, more open or friendlier relations with any of the world leaders other than the president of Belarus.”

Their relationship has been particularly close recently but was rocky in earlier years. Before a disputed 2020 election sparked mass protests and a domestic crackdown by Lukashenko, he often accused the Kremlin of trying to force him to relinquish control of prized economic assets and abandon his country’s independence.

Faced with tough economic sanctions after he brutally suppressed the protests, the Belarusian leader started emphasizing a need to jointly counter Western pressure and met with Putin regularly, stressing their close ties.

Lukashenko’s support of the invasion has stopped short of deploying his own troops there, but it still has drawn criticism from the Belarusian opposition and calls for more sanctions on him and the country. Opposition figures say ordinary Belarusians don’t support the invasion. Hundreds of them who live in Ukraine have been affected by the war, and some have become volunteers, fighting alongside Ukrainian forces.

Top Belarus opposition activist Pavel Latushka dismissed Lukashenko’s calls for peace on Thursday, saying they “look absurd after more than 600 missiles were fired from the territory of Belarus, and the country became a platform for aggression.”

He added: “Minsk deserves the harshest Western sanctions.”

Opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya echoed Latushka’s sentiment, calling Lukashenko a “co-aggressor” and saying he is “trying to change his image of an arsonist into that of a firefighter and peacekeeper.”

Lukashenko told AP that his country poses no danger to others, even as its military conducted drills this week.

“We do not threaten anyone and we are not going to threaten and will not do it. Moreover, we can’t threaten -- we know who opposes us, so to unleash some kind of a conflict, some kind of war here ... is absolutely not in the interests of the Belarusian state. So the West can sleep peacefully,” he said.

He blamed the West — especially Washington — for fueling the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

“The U.S. wants to seize the moment, tying its allies to itself, and drown Russia in the war with Ukraine. It’s their goal — to sort out Russia, and then China,” he said.

Lukashenko said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was taking orders from the United States.

“Today it’s not Zelenskyy who’s running Ukraine – no offense, that’s my point of view, maybe I’m wrong,” Lukashenko said, adding that if U.S. President Joe Biden said so, “everything will stop within a week.”

I'm just pointing at what I perceive as an important difference between other "Ukraine antagonists" here and you: they are amateurs, while you're a professional, IMO. — Olivier5

Ah yes, by promoting peace and being appalled at Ukrainians dying and children being traumatised (and also dying) and wanting the horrors of war to stop by some negotiated peace ... I am "antagonistic" to Ukrainians.

Wanting peace is the real violence in this sordid affair?

But remind us again, the advantages to Ukrainians of NATO fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, and the disadvantages of dialogue and peace.

You have a problem with Zelenskyy, obviously, and while you say you want peace, you fantasize at length about the potential use of nukes against Ukraine.

Lula also wants to break free from US dollar hegemony, which is of course the exact rational response to the American abuse of power:

https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/04/brazil-lula-latin-america-currency-us-dollar/

Which means of course, that there will be a coup attempt backed by the US relatively soon after he wins power, if he does. — Streetlight

Yeah, I give him a week before there's a "spontaneous" uprising. They'll have to ship the Nazis in from overseas though, this time. I think Brazil's a bit short.

this follows China's recent meeting to look into how to detach from the USD as well: — Streetlight

Yep, and the Saudi's are now considering accepting Yaun for oil sales to China. Having a read of the right-wing press having a temper tantrum over it makes for an entertaining evening's reading though.

I will never stop laughing at Christoffer's insistence that everything is 'really nuanced and subtle', which apparently means: NATO and the US are entirely blameless and the only agent which must be punished is Russia and literally anything else means you are an agent of Putin. — Streetlight

Yes, I'm now thinking Star Wars might have gone right over my head if "It's all Putin's fault" is "nuanced". The Emperor was the bad guy, right?

you are arguing has nothing to do with what I wrote since it's about what you are interested in. — Christoffer

You wrote...

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. — Christoffer

...in response to...

if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. — Baden

A comment about someone's level of criticisms of NATO in "the thread" was met with a comment that "some" cannot criticize NATO and condemn Russia.

So "what you wrote" is directly about "some" people being unable to criticise Russia in addition to NATO. What I'm arguing is directly countering that critique. We are not 'unable' we choose not to because we have other interests in posting. That counterargument does not require you to care about what my interests are. You brought it up. It's your usual apostasy to now feign disinterest. If you weren't interested in my (and other's) approach, then I suggest you don't keep bringing it up.

if we are discussing this from a moral perspective it is entirely necessary to determine guilt — Christoffer

I don't see why. If party X has behaved immorally, that in itself is a moral discussion. There's no requirement to discuss the moral culpability of co-conspirators. I'm not attempting to adjudicate a competition - again, you have your hobbies, don't expect everyone else to join in.

"It's all Putin's fault" is "nuanced" — Isaac

You wouldn't get it it's too sophisticated for you. I know a couple of bright 5 year olds who think this way though.

What does this mean? One ought to give concessions when force is threatened. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sometimes, of course. Surely this doesn't need explaining.

I don't think that NATO now has any desires of "out of the area" operations in Asia or Africa. — ssu

Yes, but what you think isn't relevant is it? The argument is that America ought to have known that it's sabre-rattling might provoke Russia into something like this. That you personally are unconvinced of any non-defensive intention of NATO is not the point (unless you're thinking of invading somewhere?). Te argument only requires that Russia might plausibly have reached a different conclusion and that America ought to have acted on the possibility.

I think there's two major reason why the US has such a dominant position in the World — ssu

The reason is immaterial. If you accept that America does have a dominant position then your counter-argument against the Mearsheimer/Kennan position is weak, at best. Clearly it is relevant.

That's the problem. It considers something and acts as it retake it's Empire and have a sphere of influence, even if countries aren't willing to go with it. (Authoritarian Belarus didn't have that trouble) — ssu

Again, no-one is still in the dark as to what Russia have done wrong here. The point of contention is the culpability of America and Europe. All we get in response is this tiresome repetition that Russia are the aggressors. We all know that. The question on which we are disagreeing is whether America, knowing how volatile Russia was becoming, should have acted differently to best maintain peace in the region.

Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument. — Isaac

Is it???

I think it's quite relevant. My country is in a position that it has to decide which sphere to take. — ssu

Yes. Which is probably why I said it was "irrelevant to the argument", not just irrelevant in general. It is irrelevant to the argument about the culpability of America and Europe.

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs. — Benkei

Please stick to the thread. Where the West will go is another matter.

What happens to Ukraine (or Russia) is the topic of this thread. Making a thread of the "Ukraine Crisis" something else than Ukraine or the war is inconsistent and basically what one side, Russia, wants it to be.

And on that note, I think Ukraine should be given a chance to join the European Union, but it make the requirements for that and adapt to EU norms just like Finland did. We'll be all happy together bitching about Brussels, as we do. Ukraine can change and leave it's former past away, just like the Baltic States did.

Like other British "aristocrats" at the time, his father was conveniently married to the daughter of Wall Street financier Leonard Jerome. — Apollodorus

So how many husbands did the girl have exactly, and did they all get some nookie or was it mainly a polyandrousness of convenience.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too. — Isaac

What the NATO troll forgets to say is that "Keep the Americans in, keep the Russians out and keep the Germans under control", was NOT what Europeans said but the British who did not consider themselves part of Europe.

The British attitude toward Europe was very clearly expressed by Churchill and others:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

Of course the British wanted the Americans in Europe to keep the Russians out and the Germans down as it served Britain’s interests. But the Germans, for example, were under Allied occupation and didn’t even have a military of their own.

Moreover, European views of America differ significantly from country to country. For example, in 2003 only 43% of French and 45% of German people had a positive view of America. It’s usually small countries like Sweden and Finland that are more pro-American and, of course, the political classes who are enablers of US imperialism.

Don’t forget that the US government spends a lot of cash on propaganda, disinformation, and psychological manipulation of European countries.

So how many husbands did the girl have exactly, and did they all get some nookie or was it mainly a polyandrousness of convenience. — unenlightened

Good question! :grin:

She was married several times in addition to affairs (or rumors of affairs). But what I meant is that it was a trend in those days among impecunious British aristocrats to marry wealthy Americans.

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs. — Benkei

Good point. It's well and good to talk about wars, but if we're discussing Russia we also need to discuss the West. We mustn't forget that Ukraine before the war was controlled by oligarchs (= a kind of super-rich mafiosi) with links to the West including the US. Who controls it now and in the future no one can tell, but it does look like rule by oligarchs is the general trend in Europe.

The argument is that America ought to have known that it's sabre-rattling might provoke Russia into something like this. — Isaac

Look, the thing is that Russia would have done something similar like this even without the expansion of NATO. Or do you genuinely think that Russia would be peaceful towards Ukraine and other state in it's near abroad, if there wouldn't be a NATO? Do you genuinely think that if Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? Of course not! Just think for a while who is the active part in joining NATO and for what reasons here.

Just think about what it means when Putin says that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Just stop for a moment and think what that means. Just think how Russia has approached other ex-Soviet states.

Something that Austria never did with Hungary or other state that had been been part of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Something that other former Empires have not done afterwards. But somehow, Russia is given this right to "naturally" be a bully as if it would have the right for a "sphere of influence".

Even the US picks it's fights to the weakest and smallest in America. It has absolutely has no ability to occupy the larger Latin American states as Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela or Mexico. It can be a bully with small countries like Grenada, Guatemala or Haiti.

You wouldn't get it it's too sophisticated for you. — Streetlight

Yep, just here flailing around among the sea of intellectual giants.