The referendums don't really mean anything — jorndoe
this recent counteroffensive carried out by Ukraine is a huge embarrassment for Russia and this is something which adds more fuel to the fire. — Manuel
There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin. — neomac
Should others then stand idle by, if they propagandize (their population) into justifying/eliciting a world war, nuclear war, a(nother) catastrophe? — jorndoe
How about a different sort of talks and negotiations, one that's more direct, persistent, ongoing? Central/involved leaders have a direct line and are expected to talk with the rest frequently, promoting negotiations, perhaps compromises, and initiating putting guarantees on paper (formalized). They'd be recorded or something, so the world could figure out what's on their minds. This would sort of force participants to think about and address things, not just listen to their own generals. — jorndoe
the borderless world is a neat idea, sort of... It's just far from the current world, whether by traditions, cultures, whatever, and doesn't seem feasible, at least not for a good while. — jorndoe
Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed: — Xtrix
But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.
it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu
If you want to give a serious counterargument, how about actually engaging in what I say and not a strawman? — ssu
My point is that Putin invaded Ukraine because of a) wanting to make Russia great again, b) because of NATO enlargement — ssu
Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.
But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia. — ssu
And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu
And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. — ssu
It was never was about NATO membership in the first place — ssu
The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. — ssu
Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu
I find all this bollocks about a 'nation's right to exist' really sickening. — Isaac
Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine.This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false. — Xtrix
How can territorial annexations be less important?I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes. — Xtrix
You should not be biased. The reasons should be the same where ever you look at it. Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity.I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live. — Xtrix
If you're seriously convinced that the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now — Isaac
A few million are currently at severe risk of starvation (according to UNICEF) in Afghanistan.
Off the top of my head, something like 10-20,000 are killed in the Myanmar conflict in a year, a few thousand a year every single year for decades in the Mexican war on drugs. The US supported war in Yemen has killed over a million with a similar annual death toll to Myanmar.
A failure to tackle air pollution kills 100,000 or more people every year in India. Even here in England there are something like 100-150,000 deaths a year from all causes that could be avoided through public health interventions.
There's wars in Ethiopia and Somalia which, coupled with famines, cause thousands of deaths every year. Half a million children are at risk of death from the latest drought and that's barely even made the inside pages of most newspapers, nearly twice that in Sudan… — Isaac
I find all this bollocks about a 'nation's right to exist' really sickening. — Isaac
Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine. — ssu
How can territorial annexations be less important? — ssu
I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.
— Xtrix
You should not be biased. — ssu
Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity. — ssu
You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot? — ssu
Not only that would have guaranteed that Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member, Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful.It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. — Xtrix
If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. It's hostility is the only cause why NATO is enlarging now on it's borders with Finland and Sweden.The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward. — Xtrix
Spanish civil war was truly a civil war: no other country had territorial ambitions on Spain. The Syrian civil war would be more similar.Can anyone see parallels between this Ukraine conflict and the Spanish Civil War 1936-9?
Then as now, via proxy, the various world powers probed each others military capabilities, weapons, and tactics in preparation for the main show to follow. — yebiga
I’m not convinced that “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now”. — neomac
There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin. — neomac
is your conviction that we, the West, should “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world while avoiding to meddle in regional conflicts around the world like in Yemen and Ukraine? Is that it? — neomac
I do not believe Ukrainians are fighting for an abstraction like this, do you? — Srap Tasmaner
to say "self determination" instead is just shorthand for saying they want their families, homes, businesses, friends, libraries, parks, opera houses, and, you know, etc., not to exist only at the mercy of a large group of armed people who don't even live there. — Srap Tasmaner
we can still understand, at least intellectually, why they are fighting, and call that "what they're fighting for". — Srap Tasmaner
I'll also say that I'm betting a lot of Ukrainians are grateful there was already a state apparatus in place, and an armed forces, else they would absolutely be at the mercy of any armed group, whether a foreign government's army or criminals and outlaws. Part of the point of the state, and worth preserving even though it can be abused, as Russia is doing. — Srap Tasmaner
Oh, you see “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now” is the same as "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! I don't: in my claim I didn't just talk about deaths and misery, and "single" wasn't qualifying the "costs".I’m not convinced that “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now”. — neomac
There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin. — neomac — Isaac
Now:Roughly, yes. Where by 'meddle' you mean 'supply arms to'. — Isaac
And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu
Is this assessment influenced by any partisanship? — yebiga
Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. — ssu
If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful. — ssu
izing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.
— Xtrix
If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. — ssu
Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. — ssu
But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you. — ssu
Oh, you see “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now” is the same as "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! I don't: in my claim I didn't just talk about deaths and misery, and "single" wasn't qualifying the "costs". — neomac
How likely is that... — neomac
How likely is that Western citizens members of ethnic minorities (say Ukrainians, Iranians, Taiwanese) will see regional conflicts (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian revolts against the Iranian regime, the China's claims over Taiwan) as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac
How likely is that Western commodity traders and industry who partnered with some state muddled in some regional conflict, will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac
How likely is that the piece of Western economy relying on Western commodity trades and industry will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac
How likely is that Western political representatives and media industry who feed on ideological, religious and national differences and global threats or opportunities will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac
How likely is that Western military and/or geopolitical experts (like Mearsheimer or Kissinger) will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in, especially when allies, strategic partners and Great Powers hostile to the West are involved? — neomac
How likely is that historians would find historically plausible to expect that Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts? — neomac
How likely is that for any of the above subjects “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’? — neomac
How likely is that for authoritarian regimes (like Russia, Iran and China) their “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’? — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.