It's almost as if @schopenhauer1 did not believe liars and equivocators. How dare he, seeing all the hard labor you put into your work?

We agree here.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always.

What I have gathered from this thread is that some people do not want to accept this, because it would justify US and West European actions and put especially the US in a positive light, giving help to a country that has been attacked. For them it is more important to be critical about the US and it's previous actions and meddling around the World. Somehow it's too much to stomach for them that the culprit for this war isn't the US. And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. Yet when you are just critical about about one country and stay silent about the ill doings of another, there is an obvious bias.

And that's what I find so irritating in this World: you cannot be both critical in certain occasions and also give support for other actions when they are justified. As if objectivity is impossible. There's a lot that should be discussed about the ill-fated trainwreck that was the war in Afghanistan and basically how the West trampled it's own values in the "War on Terror". However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card.

Fortunately there is sanity in this thread, like @RogueAI shows:

NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this. — Tzeentch

No, it isn't. Putin tried for the easy land grab and it's blown up in his face. — RogueAI

It's a bit ironic that Vladimir Putin was earlier the most popular politician in Ukraine. If he hadn't annexed Crimea, the World would be really, really different. Putin would be sitting in the G8 and the West would continue to dismantle it's armed forces. And Ukraine and Russia? Talk about a relationship between two peoples that has been broken.

If Russia continues in the path it has taken, Russia will likely also alienate the Belarusians also.

It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book). — ssu

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others.

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. — Isaac

I can't account for your overactive imagination. — Isaac

What's the balance here? You both ask for imagination and condemn it throughout this thread. Is it only when it fits your narrative that imagination is needed and when others use it you call it overactive and wrong? I guess consistency isn't your strong suit.

:clap:

Putin is doing his best to fail this war. I'm worried more about the resilience of the West, and in particular about the political instability of the Americans.

Worse then this. Since Isaac claims: "Let's say there are two conflicting narratives on a subject theory A and theory B, but they are underdetermined by the evidence such that it cannot be said which is the case. My position is A and yours if B. You have claimed that my A is mistaken, you propose the alternative B. I'm not claiming your B is mistaken. I'm only countering your claim that my A is mistaken. That's not the same. I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken."
So if one can't rely on evidence to discriminate between conflicting theories, then how to discriminate when imagination is too much or too little? wrt what?

For those who are interested, there are these lectures given by Timothy Snyder (a historian specializing in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe) under the title "The Making of Modern Ukraine" and published in Sep 2022, which I find extremely interesting and well presented:

I'm not sure what you're having trouble with here. One can over water one's houseplants. One can under water one's houseplants. Do you find the concept of two extremes difficult for some reason?

if one can't rely on evidence to discriminate between conflicting theories, then how to discriminate — neomac

Exactly. Now you're getting somewhere above adolescent positivism.

So if one can't rely on evidence to discriminate between conflicting theories, then how to discriminate when imagination is too much or too little? wrt what?
You still didn't get anywhere with your senile anti-positivsm though.

The main point here, for me, regardless of how the attacks were carried out, is that this has increased military offensive, as we are seeing daily with this missile barrage. They have a right, no doubt, to fight in every part of Ukraine. I think they have to be careful in what choices they carry out. Russia still has plenty of missiles, which can and likely will be used against Ukrainians.

I wouldn't gamble on the point of the "red line", it seems pretty serious to me and obviously to many leaders, which is why it is practically the dominant topic on international affairs. I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda".

It's not so much that the West tells Ukraine to do whatever they want, and Ukraine must do it, it's more in line with, we are giving you weapons, so you better fight the Russians to the end, don't focus on negotiations, as Johnson said, for instance. He was almost surely following the US/NATO line.

The focus should be on de-escalation, but we don't see that happening right now. You seem to be of the persuasion that Russia can be defeated completely and kicked out of Ukraine and that's it. I really doubt that's how it's going to play out. We will see who ends up being right.

I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda". — Manuel

This is a point which bears emphasis. Russia take a generally anti-Western position. It's in their interests to publicise any errors or injustices that Western governments might perpetrate.

If every comment that coincides with Russian talking points is ruled out by that alone then we are quite unequivocally saying that criticism of our governments is now to be treated with automatic suspicion.

As if our governments didn't already have enough influence over dissent...

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees, but agreeing with them doesn't make one a "supporter" or a "hater".

Of course, all this gets magnified significantly during wartime.

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees — Manuel

Putin changes his stories pretty frequently, though. You get to the point where you're not second guessing him or wondering what he really meant by such and such, you just discount everything he says because it's all lies.

Yes, Americans lie too, but the only American I know of who lies the way Putin does is Trump. I don't advise believing anything he says.

, returning to your comment and my followup, did you then confirm/deny any of this...?

no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations) — jorndoe

straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

↑ Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia — jorndoe

[NATO] limiting their [Kremlin's] free movements/actions

After all, context, perspective, all that, right?

Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO?

(like Sweden and Finland since)

Ukraine has received a fair amount of help, adding to the story.

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always. — ssu

I think that's the rudder for a lot of folks. They react specifically against the idea of the US showing up in a positive light.

I think all political entities are better conceived forces of nature. You get closer to the truth that way, I think.

you just discount everything he says because it's all lies. — frank

That's just draft. Why would Putin lie all the time? So you're saying if America did something terrible Putin wouldn't tell the truth about that? He'd lie and say they didn't do it, just because... What?

Liars lie because they want a particular narrative to be taken as true. Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully. I mean, this is obvious stuff.

I had in mind Russia (the Russian state) in general rather than Putin himself, who does have most of the power.

Netanyahu is a compulsive liar, Bolsonaro too, Bush junior was pretty bad and so was Blair, not to mention whoever is in charge in North Korea.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them. — Manuel

That's true. My point was just that doubting Putin is kind of like doubting Trump. The total disregard for truth is unusual in both cases.

Why would Putin lie all the time? — Isaac

There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog.

↪Tzeentch
, returning to your comment and my followup, did you then confirm/deny any of this...? — jorndoe

None of it seems all that relevant to me, but if you want to hear my thoughts anyway:

no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations) — jorndoe

Sounds like a value judgement to me, which aren't very useful when trying to understand a political situation. What does it matter what you and I want? It has no impact on what is happening and why it is happening.

straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking

Sure.

Why would Russia be special in that regard? Isn't there distrust of the United States, or China? I don't see Russia as a nation that behaves particularly terribly when compared to others. The United States takes the cake for being the most destructively meddling nation in recent history. Unprovoked invasions, de facto genocides and indiscriminate killing, sowing chaos and destruction, we've seen it all before under the American flag, so I'm just not buying your one-sided "Russia bad" narrative.

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

↑ Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia — jorndoe

The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. Now they've started a war over it, just like they said they would. At some point maybe you'll have to accept that they were serious when they said that, and instead of more "Russia bad", try to understand why Ukraine is so important to Russia that they were willing to start a war over it.

But honestly, it doesn't seem like your point of view allows for a rational analysis. You seem to desire a black and white picture of good guys and bad guys, and the western propaganda narrative delivers it to you.

There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog. — frank

I see. So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine (that isn't true) in this recent crisis as part of this 'always lie' strategy. I'd be interested to see it in action.

Alternatively, let's say evidence came to light that American bombed the bridge, not Ukraine (just a hypothetical example). You're saying that Putin would keep schtum about this game-changing bit of propaganda because it happened to be true and he's committed to always lying?

So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine — Isaac

I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians.

I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians. — frank

I don't know. That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action. Something where the truth benefits Putin's interests but he lies anyway, even though that works against his goal.

That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action — Isaac

The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to.

The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to. — frank

I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true.