Hey Chris, be aware that people living in very secure conditions often don't care about the risks others are incurring. So take a guy like @Streetlight. He lives in Australia. The Ukrainian resistance to Russia may mean a number of things to him, e.g.: 1) high oil prices; and 2) a risk of nuclear war. So from his very secure viewpoint, the Ukrainian resistance is a bad thing, because it may endanger his own security. And Sweden's joining NATO would also be bad for him, for the same reasons.

From his POV, if only those damn Europeans could stop their ridiculous fighting, so that the security of Australians is not endangered and oil prices could go down, now that'd be nice.

He doesn't give a flying rat's ass for what is good for Sweden. In fact, what is good for Sweden might be bad for him.

Hey Chris, be aware that people living in very secure conditions often don't care about the risks others are incurring. So take a guy like Streetlight. He lives in Australia. The Ukrainian resistance to Russia may mean a number of things to him, e.g.: 1) high oil prices; and 2) a risk of nuclear war. So from his very secure viewpoint, the Ukrainian resistance is a bad thing, because it may endanger his own security. And Sweden's joining NATO would also be bad for him, for the same reasons.

From his POV, if only those damn Europeans could stop their ridiculous fighting, so that the security of Australians is not endangered and oil prices could go down, now that'd be nice. — Olivier5

Yes, we should remember that if ever China or North Korea starts waging war in the pacific. Then we'll see just how moral the rhetoric is from our side to their existential arguments.

Indeed, if China ever tries to invade Australia, I won't care much, and you probably won't care much either.

Like the Aukus partnership. Why are they poking the Chinese dragon? :shade:

Why do you think getting into a security alliance is important to be done now and not after Russia rebuilt its military capability? — Christoffer

That's the thing: I don't. Because believe it or not, I think sharpening antagonisms leads to - you'll never guess, ever ever - more antagonism. I realize this is really hard to understand for those conditioned to see anyone who does not fall into line with American interests as an enemy who must be destroyed or put down. But that's something for you to wrap your head around. The only reason Ukrainians are dying day-in and day-out is because of people like you who figured that 'security' meant continually making the world less safe. As it so happens, I think this is a bad idea. This has nothing to do with moralism and everything to do with not being a cheerleader for death.

Also I sometimes wonder what it is like to be a sociopath who cannot fathom the idea of holding views that do not follow from one's own direct interests, but it is nice to have people like Olivier around as specimens of such.

If Ukraine had joined NATO earlier, the invasion wouldn't have happened. Finland and Sweden see this and want to join now.

Makes perfect sense.

If Ukraine had joined NATO earlier — frank

If Ukraine had attempted to join NATO earlier Ukraine would have been invaded earlier.

I guess it makes sense if you like your dead Ukrainians with an earlier dead-by date.

Anna Politkovskaya: 'Putin doesn't like people. We are a means for him'

The journalist from Novaya Gazeta, Russia's last independent newspaper, published her book 'Putin's Russia' in 2004, two years before she was assassinated on October 7th, 2006, the day of Putin's birthday.

Today, everything that she warned the world about 18 years ago – tragedy, bloody violence, the war that Putin was leading to – has happened... Here, we present an extract from her book.


https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/11/anna-politkovskaya-putin-doesn-t-like-people-he-believes-we-are-a-means-for-him_5983066_4.html

You can't seem to understand what's compared here. Bombings should be criticized, everything the US did should be criticized, but it's not comparable to multiple Russian troops systematically raping and executing civilians from village to village, town to town. — Christoffer

Again, you seem to be simply assuming some kind of threshold. Why is the number of children starving to death acceptable, but the number of children bombed not?

Plus you're noticeably avoiding putting any figures to any of your ramblings. How many rapes? How many executions? Because the US have certainly raped, certainly executed. So it seems to be a numbers game for you, yet lacking in actual numbers.

The difference here is the intention, what they actually do, systematically in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Exactly what I've been arguing. The intention matters. So the mere fact that Russia have brutally invaded Ukraine is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of brutally invading Finland.

Just as the fact that the US 'recklessly' (to use your judgement) invaded Iraq is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of 'recklessly' invading Finland.

All we have by way of intention is that Russia intends to carry out a military response if Finland join NATO. So using intention as your guide, the one thing to avoid would be joining NATO.

The question was why Finland wants to join NATO

The answer was implied in my response;
“Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.”
If Finland were in NATO this would be less likely to happen in Finland.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat

I don’t accept this premise (although, I would agree if you were referring to a full military invasion of Finland by Russia). It’s true, I doubt at the moment that Finland is under threat from a Russian invasion in the current circumstances. But that is not necessarily why they want to join NATO.


Regarding the infiltrators, it cannot be proved either way what role they have played in “the special military operation”

Caught On Camera: Russian Ambassador Attacked With Red Paint At Victory Day Event In Poland (May 9, 2022)

, Sweden/Finland joining NATO might even have a positive influence on NATO. :up:

Again, you seem to be simply assuming some kind of threshold. Why is the number of children starving to death acceptable, but the number of children bombed not? — Isaac

Because of the intention of the act. If the intention by the US was to directly kill and starve children that is totally different from carpet bombing an area with civilian casualties. The Russian troops actively and systematically raped, looted, tortured, and executed civilians in masses, including fucking shooting children execution-style. These are not collateral damage, these are intentional acts by the Russian troops and not at all in isolated cases. They've been reported in different regions which means it's systemic. But you can't understand these differences. You cannot seem to understand that while both should be criticized, one is sloppy, irresponsible, and careless while the other is intentionally brutal, cruel and vile.

So it seems to be a numbers game for you, yet lacking in actual numbers. — Isaac

For me? It's you people who argue with numbers comparing 20 years of a multinational conflict with three months of Russian troops in a small number of cities and villages that's systemic in nature. It's you who require a number to value the atrocities.

Exactly what I've been arguing. The intention matters. So the mere fact that Russia have brutally invaded Ukraine is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of brutally invading Finland. — Isaac

You talk just like people talked before they invaded Ukraine "they would never" was the argument. Your argument is insufficient ground for it not to happen. Seeking security is about never letting it happen in the first place.

We're not flipping a fucking coin because of your amateur analysis of our situation. That's fucking laughable.

Just as the fact that the US 'recklessly' (to use your judgement) invaded Iraq is insufficient ground for belief that they have any intention of 'recklessly' invading Finland. — Isaac

The troops' actions are systemic since it's not happening in isolated cases. The brutality is fucking obvious and the recklessness is fucking proven by how they acted around both Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia.

You ignoring the blatant evidence of how the Russian military actually acts is not sufficient or logical to conclude it not be just as reckless in invading Finland or Sweden.

All we have by way of intention is that Russia intends to carry out a military response if Finland join NATO. So using intention as your guide, the one thing to avoid would be joining NATO. — Isaac

We have no guarantee they will not invade anyway. Joining Nato would deter them from doing so since it's an attack that becomes an existential threat to them.

You simply don't understand how these things work. They can't invade if we're part of Nato, that would be suicide for them. Invading before that would however be exactly like Ukraine as there's no guarantee for us to get help from other nations. Therefore we seek security.

Your uneducated and simplistic analysis of our security situation is fucking hilarious. You have no clue what you're arguing about when it comes to our nations.

Sweden/Finland joining NATO might even have a positive influence on NATO. — jorndoe

Yes, since the Russian apologists here seem to be totally ignorant of the democratic factor within Nato and the level of diplomatic power that Sweden has had for over two centuries, we can actually contribute to cooling down the more war-mongering nations within Nato. To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic.

To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic. — Christoffer

The assumption from some here is apparently that, if you're not anglo-saxon, you have no agency whatsoever.

To think that we and Finland would just bow down and kiss the US's ass is fucking moronic. — Christoffer

Yeah! Why would Finland do that when you can just argue for ... *checks notes* Finland bowing down and kissing US ass?

The assumption from some here is apparently that, if you're not anglo-saxon, you have no agency whatsoever. — Olivier5

Except we pretty much ruled over Great Britain back in those days so we have more agency than them it seems, we formed them.

No offense, but that was a long time ago.

BTW, I really enjoyed the series Vikings, as well as the Last Kingdom, which is more pro-Brit while Vikings evidently focuses more on the Viking side of things.

No offense, but that was a long time ago.

BTW, I really enjoyed the series Vikings, as well as the Last Kingdom, which is more pro-Brit while Vikings evidently focuses more on the Viking side of things. — Olivier5

Yes, but what I mean is that most people in Britain today who's been pretty much native since those days have relatives from over here, so that's the irony of it.

Outside of that, while Vikings influenced the culture of Britain, Christianity and Britain killed the entire culture of Vikings so there's that. We only have a few pagan traditions left, mostly without anyone knowing where they came from.

We only have a few pagan traditions left, mostly without anyone knowing where they came from. — Christoffer

Well then, watch Vikings. I believe it's quite well done from a ethnographic standpoint. Of course it's entertainment and not a history book but there's a brave attempt at reconstructing a pagan, nordic worldview in that show. It's based on the sagas about Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons.

Well then, watch Vikings. I believe it's quite well done from a ethnographic standpoint. Of course it's entertainment and not a history book but there's a brave attempt at reconstructing a pagan, nordic worldview in that show. It's based on the sagas about Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons. — Olivier5

Yes, I've seen it. It's a good representation of the subjective view of the culture, but it's inaccurate from many historical perspectives. It also takes place before Vikings ruled much of Great Britain and the end of the Viking age was mostly a slow death of Viking culture replaced by Christianity. In Sweden, the most notable "end" was when all the Jarls decided on the first Swedish king, Eric the Victorious. That's where Swedish history as a Christian nation really began and the Viking age was definitely over.

There were other offshoots, way beyond the national (Swedish) tale of origins. E.g. the Normands were offered a solid chunk of France which became Normandie, and from there, with a little help from the French they invaded England, and later Sicily...

I am ambivalent about the idea of a pagan revival. The Nazis had this fascination for Siegfried and shit, and look where that led them.

It seems they're not sending their best. — Streetlight

And also, you're cross-eyed. And your nose is shaped like a colon polyp.

I am ambivalent about the idea of a pagan revival. The Nazis had this fascination for Siegfried and shit, and look where that led them. — Olivier5

The Nazis were uneducated fuckers who picked and chose whatever they felt was cool looking. Like teenagers scrambling together some metal band trying to find cool-looking symbols and mythology. A truly pagan revival excluding the blood rituals and such would focus more on a symbiosis with nature. Vikings were farmers and traders far more than conquerors and invaders. It's just that media... and the Nazis, blew those proportions up because it's "cooler" with warriors and valkyries than someone in harmony with their crops and wildlife.

Also your mother named you Gago.

The Nazis were uneducated fuckers who picked and chose whatever they felt was cool looking. — Christoffer

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. As an atheist, I think it is tempting to just throw off our Christian tradition, like he tried to do, now that we don't believe in gods anymore, but what do we replace it with? The cult of the leader? Some übermensch delirium?

Christianity had the advantage of protecting the poor and powerless, somewhat. I think that's why it was so popular. To 'come back' to pre-christian paganism would mean very little and would deny this advantage. We absolutely need to keep this aspect of Christianity -- compassion -- as we move on to other creeds.

It doesn't offer any justification for the invasion Russia launched, but it's total hypocrisy. And dangerous. — Manuel

NATO has aimed to draw Ukraine into its orbit from the beginning because when it shifted its defense line eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it started to move its European center of operations to the east, from Germany to Poland. Adding Ukraine to Poland is a perfect replacement for Germany, not only geographically but also in terms of manpower as the combined populations of Poland and Ukraine equal the population of Germany.

Biden has said that America has 100,000 forces in Europe “because we are the organizing principle for the rest of the world.”

Remarks by President Biden During Visit with Service Members of the 82nd Airborne Division - The White House

If that isn't American imperialism, I don't know what is ....

He also said that America is “helping train the Ukrainian troops that are in Poland” (though I don't think he was supposed to have divulged this) :smile:

President Biden Announces his Budget for Fiscal Year 2023 – YouTube

Similarly, Boris Johnson said:

I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles

Ukrainian soldiers training in UK to use British armoured vehicles - The Guardian

Poland criticized Johnson for revealing a “military secret”. But it shows that Poland has taken a central position in this conflict:

The Republic of Poland is rapidly becoming the critical member of the NATO Alliance in its increasing efforts to deter Russian military threats and counter Moscow’s attempts to subvert European democracy. … It is spending more money in terms of a percentage of GDP than other NATO countries. The Polish military has a serious modernization program underway that over time promises to make it a serious counterweight to the Russian Army. Poland is also the obvious place for NATO to base its defense of Europe. This is the primary reason why the U.S. has deployed heavy combat forces in that country and plans to significantly increase its presence in the next few years.

Poland: The Most Important Member of NATO (Thanks to the Russia Threat)? – National Interest

It also explains why NATO is concerned about Ukraine to the point of hysteria and it doesn’t want to lose it to Russia: Ukraine is a central part of NATO’s expansionist plans as it aims to extend its territory as far east as Central Asia and China.

I don't write here with dual personalities, so notice what I say. I don't think Russia will destroy Finland. — ssu

I'm not so sure about your "dual personalities". As for Finland, Boris Johnson has promised to come and save you, so you've got nothing to worry about :grin:

People have a right to take steps to defend themselves. — Olivier5

No one said they haven't. It still doesn't follow that Putin wants to "destroy Finland".

. It still doesn't follow that Putin wants to "destroy Finland". — Apollodorus

Strategic thinking is not about what will happen tomorrow, but what may happen 10, 20 or 50 years from now. Putin is temporary. He will soon be dead, but Finland will forever be located next to Russia.

We don't know that "Finland will forever be located next to Russia". What if NATO occupies Western Russia?

And does your "strategic thinking" entail planning to invade Russia because it might decide to "destroy Finland" in "50 years from now"?! :grin:

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. As an atheist, I think it is tempting to just throw off our Christian tradition, like he tried to do, now that we don't believe in gods anymore, but what do we replace it with? The cult of the leader? Some übermensch delirium?

Christianity had the advantage of protecting the poor and powerless, somewhat. I think that's why it was so popular. To 'come back' to pre-christian paganism would mean very little and would deny this advantage. We absolutely need to keep this aspect of Christianity -- compassion -- as we move on to other creeds. — Olivier5

I think you give Christianity too much credit. I'd say any religion is a root cause for the destructive. Nietzsche wasn't the root of Nazism, it was his sisters stupid version of his teachings that she presented directly to Hitler that became the root cause when Hitler combined it with Eugenics and his teenage-like fascination with Nordic religions.

Rationality, logic, science, and moral philosophy can replace religion since all religions have been the substitute to that during an era of human civilization where no clear guidelines for how to rationally think about the world existed. I have no problems being in awe of how the universe is, as it is, without spiritual or supernatural elements being added. The dreaded nihilism that Nietzsche was worried about only appears in people who just think they're free from religious and spiritual driving forces while people truly disconnected from such outdated world views have no problems arriving at balanced morals and a sense of harmony with existence. When I see atheists around me I mostly see people denying their own faith and struggling with actually being free of such faith. All it takes is a nudge to push them into whatever belief that is given to them. The number of true atheists in this world is extremely low and that is a testament to how irrational the human being really is. To be truly free of the influence of our stupid side requires an extreme ability of observational capacity; to see the irrationality in others and one self and truly reject it.

And does your "strategic thinking" entail planning to invade Russia because it might decide to "destroy Finland" in "50 years from now"?! :grin: — Apollodorus

You are good at misunderstanding, when you want to misunderstand. And I could also pretend to misunderstand you, but life is short. So by all means, do keep telling the Finns what they ought to do, for all they care.