So if someone punches you in the face because they don't like your race, that's a racist act. If they punch you in the face just because you are really annoying them, it's not. In this case, that is the relevant analogy. — Baden

A punch in the face is however a "neutral act". But a person can also be annoyed by someone's race, ability to understand language, or presumption of lower intelligence based on stereotypes without knowing it themselves, claiming "I just got so annoyed by him, that's why I punched him". Is that not racism as well? In a way that's basically what drives most cops killing innocent black people in the US. They act upon racial stereotypes as the driving force behind their acts.

People can get annoyed by others just for them being a certain race, speaking a certain way, or presumably not being as fluent in a certain language, but letting that, knowingly or unknowingly, drive to a certain action against that person or group, should be considered racism, no?

People can get annoyed by others just for them being a certain race... letting that, knowingly or unknowingly, drive to a certain action against that person or group, should be considered racism, no? — Christoffer

Yes.

People can get annoyed by others just for... speaking a certain way, or presumably not being as fluent in a certain language, but letting that, knowingly or unknowingly, drive to a certain action against that person or group, should be considered racism, no? — Christoffer

No.

Again, there's no necessary connection between being annoyed at someone for speaking a certain way or not being fluent in a certain language and racism. Can't you think of a million non-racist examples of someone being annoyed at someone's speech?

I've said all I'm going to say on this anyhow. Please get back on topic.

, I doubt things would be (or are) so black'n'white for involved parties.

For example, it seems unlikely that an attack on the occupiers would go ahead and level Melitopol, despite Russian troop concentrations. Too many civilians, maybe too much infrastructure or whatever.

Also seems unlikely that anyone would be marching on Moscow (or flying). A good many things would precede anything like that.

But maybe you're right.

I must possess all, or I possess nothing! — Skeletor

I had in mind more how NATO would get directly involved - if they ever did. They've said that it wouldn't be a good idea to go nuke for nuke - in the case in which Russia uses one in Ukraine. They said they would use conventional weaponry to destroy the Russian army, which NATO can do, without too much trouble. Of course, I'd think if such a thing were to happen, they would probably avoid killing too many civilians.

I think that Russia's reservist army might be put to use in December - January at the latest. Here, we don't know how far they'd go. As you say, I don't think they would flatten Kiev. But it won't be pretty.

Point is, NATO was correct in reacting how it did in Poland. Even though complete certainty isn't available in the empirical world, the odds of going to war with a nuclear power is still one of the worst possible gambles in all of international relations.

, yeah, the mercs have a bad rep (and there are a few extremists in those circles). If Izium and Bucha are indicative... :/

Anyone who thinks making a living out of hiring themselves out for contracted murder is a good idea, is insane.

Please get back on topic. — Baden

:smile:

Hi Benk.

ain't none of us perfect! — Baden

Some are more perfect than others though, like our boy @Benkei here. He understands Zelensky more perfectly than anybody else, and if you disagree with him, he might perfectly delete your post. He's the perfect putinista.

. If understanding English leads to wild misinterpretations, then just imagine trying to formulate a rock solid conclusive message in a language you don't even speak natively :scream: — Christoffer

We should all speak French, it would be much easier, and more precise. :-)

Pending that, native English speakers should make an effort and try to understand airport English, which is what the rest of us speak, including Zelensky.

Pending that, them natives could decide that philosophy is inherently British, and therefore non native speakers are not allowed on TPF.

Or perhaps they could just talk among themselves, the english-speaking elite, and let the rest of us unwashed masses talk to one another. That would actually be useful: it would allow us to filter out all that anglosaxon 'analytical' noise about Mary in her room with the red p-zombies.

We don't know what he knows, though. — Olivier5

Hasn't seemed a barrier previously to you waxing lyrical about Putin's intentions, Biden's intentions, Macron, Draghi... Since when have you once considered the need to not surmise what a political or scientific figure might know a barrier to commenting on their likely intent? Is there a reason Zelensky gets special treatment here?

I think one could be forgiving of a certain rashness in judgment, under the circumstances. — Olivier5

What circumstances? He's not on the front line. He's jetting around the world meeting leaders in plush hotels. As I said before, if he's not prepared to have his decisions held to account he's in the wrong job. We don't excuse global sabre-rattling because he had a bad day. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can handle a few internet posts criticising his behaviour.

What furores? Haven't seen that. Last time I checked, we don't know who did it. Isn't it irresponsible to publicly declare a culprit, on no other ground than some kind of 'gut feeling'? — Olivier5

That's the point. This is exactly the line trotted out against, for example, Jeffry Sachs when he declared it was clear that the US did it. The standards are not being applied consistently, which is an indicator of bias. Bias in favour of what is already the world's most powerful nation is very dangerous. Power need to be held to account.

I'm entitled to my opinions and to not seeing them branded as some sinister backslash. — Olivier5

I'm pointing out that your opinions are naive, boot-licking, ill-informed and dangerous. I never said you weren't entitled to them. The point is that you're applying double standards - a clear sign of bias. When Zelensky expresses an 'honest feeling' that Russia conspired to cause this event, you say it's OK to hold serious discussions on that level. When people talk about their feeling that the US orchestrated the Euromaidan coup, you imply they ought not because it's not something that's been proven beyond doubt.

I am just pointing out how such an explanation for the Russians' flight from Kherson is not based on facts, and likely biased. Call me intolerant. — Olivier5

Neither is Zelensky's claim that it was not a Ukrainian missile and that it's a Russian conspiracy. If it's OK for him to make such claims publicly. and we ought not criticise, then why is it not OK for us to make claims about back door negotiations, with as little evidence? One rule fro pro-mainstream opinions, another for those opposed.

You realise the mainstream opinion has quite enough support already, right? It's backed by the most powerful nation the world has ever known and the largest, richest and most powerful corporations that have ever been. You can afford to ease up a bit, put your feet up, I don't think the US corporate hegemony are on the ropes just yet.

We don't know what he knows, though. — Olivier5

I don’t know 100 percent — I think the world also doesn’t 100 percent know what happened,... We can’t say specifically that this was the air defense of Ukraine. — Zelensky speaking to the New Economy Forum in Singapore

It's not a fallacy to contest another poster's interpretation nor method of argument. Benkei says he knows best what Zelensky meant, "in the context", because we're not native speakers. That's a ridiculous claim. — Olivier5

I was trying to be charitable by assuming there was a language issue, especially since you got the meaning of good faith wrong already, but we can go with "knowingly maintaining a wrong interpretation".

Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died. Please accept condolences from all Ukrainian brothers. Poland, the Baltic states. it's only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further. We must put the terrorist in place. the longe Russia feels impunity, the more threats there will be to everyone who can be reached by missiles. To strike with missiles NATO territory isa Russian strike on collective security. It's a significant escalation. Action is required. I now want to tell our Polish brothers and sisters - Ukraine will always support you. free people won't be broken by terror. Victory is possible when there is no fear. And we and you are not afraid. — Zelensky

This is what he said. He qualified it as a "strike" on NATO territory knowing full well the article 5 obligations (it has no added meaning otherwise, as he could have left it at "Poland"), qualified it as a "significant escalation", raises the spectre of the Baltic States and Poland being subject to Russian terror going further than a missile strike and then his call to action in that context isn't "have an investigation" or "keep sending arms". He's not asking them to answer another party's escalation with "keep doing the same" because he already got that, so that doesn't qualify as "action". So yes the context is quite clear. But happy to have that discussion based on a French translation source.

It's also funny how we then have this scripted propaganda when he realises he fucked up:



"We shouldn't jump to conclusions after I did exactly that."

raises the spectre of the Baltic States and Poland being subject to Russian terror — Benkei

@Olivier5@Christoffer

He went further on Twitter, saying...

Ukraine, Poland, all of Europe and the world must be fully protected from terrorist Russia, — Zelensky

That's one hell of a no-fly zone!

Yo miss!

You 're reading too much into this. Maybe you need to open a dictionary and read the entry for "action", rather than try and impose your skewed interpretation.

So, at this point in time, I'm going with "Ukraine accidentaly hit Poland while defending against a Russian barrage" as the most rational position. — Benkei

This seems to be the most likely scenario. And that Zelensky had a stupid gaffe that he is now backtracking.

And one should note, this wasn't the first time thanks to the war flying objects came out of Ukrainian airspace. It was the first time that somebody unfortunately got killed. Had the missile landed just few hundred meters somewhere else, it might not even had broke the global news media threshold.

I wasn't aware that the missile actually killed two people.

It seems unlikely that a stray modern air defense missile hits something it wasn't supposed to and also kills two people, across the border of a neutral country no less. Unlikely in terms of statistical probability, but also due to the fact that the S-300 system makes missiles self-destruct when they miss their targets.

It's not impossible, but also not a conclusion I would accept without serious evidence.

I'm pointing out that your opinions are naive, boot-licking, ill-informed and dangerous — Isaac

You haven't actually done that. That's what you dream of doing perhaps, in this fantasy world of yours where you are a hero. What you have done here, consistently and on countless topics, is to confuse yourself while attempting to confuse others.

It seems unlikely that a stray modern air defense missile hits something it wasn't supposed to and also kills two people, across the border of a neutral country no less. Unlikely in terms of statistical probability, but also due to the fact that the S-300 system makes missiles self-destruct when they miss their targets. — Tzeentch

I had also been thinking about the odds on this. Poland is also in the opposite direction.

Of course, Russia has hit targets close the Polish border, so the setup isn't difficult to believe (of an AA missile chasing something towards the Polish border), but the odds of both AA missiles malfunctioning in addition to killing people rather than landing in some random field, is pretty low.

If it was done intentionally, sending two missiles would make sense if the story one has in mind is one was Russian and the other was chasing it. You'd want to do this for the plausible deniability that the Russian missile was missed by radar and so of course there's only the radar signature of the AA missile.

Two missiles is a liability if the US then insists neither came from Russia, as two not only malfunctioning at the same time but coming down in the same location and killing 2 people, creates this head scratching odds questions. Much easier to say one in a fluke than two. There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'

If it's a rational plan, you'd have to bet US actually wants to escalate to go with the plausible deniability story that no one can prove the second missile wasn't Russian.

If you have no reason to believe that, then it's just a desperate plan with significant risks.

There's also the circumstantial evidence to consider.

Missiles have been flying all over the place for over three quarters of a year, none of them falling in Poland, and shortly after Zelensky is warned of "ally fatigue" by the US ... "collective security" is directly attacked.

There is certainly motive and opportunity in any rational consideration of the evidence we have so far.

Maybe you should look what "context" means in a dictionary? What other "action" than a further escalation was he alluding to according to you? Christoffer already mentioned a no-fly zone which is a huge increase in risk towards nuclear escalation. Which is a bad enough interpretation and precisely why I think that Zelensky's uninformed/informed accussation was made in bad faith with the potential to ruin even more lives than this war is already doing. What else? Enlighten me what kind of action Zelensky meant in the context of his little speech because all I get from you "that's not what he meant" but you're entirely unclear what he then did mean with "action".

Also important is that the notion it was a Russian missile came from an unnamed "senior U.S. intelligence official" who AP are still refusing to name despite the fact they they were obviously fed false information.

The question is why the US would deliberately feed false intelligence to the press, then later deny the veracity of that information.

A split over strategy, perhaps?

What other "action" than a further escalation was he alluding to according to you? Christoffer already mentioned a no-fly zone which is a huge increase in risk towards nuclear escalation. — Benkei

Answer your own question, please. What is your interpretation of what Zelensky meant by his 'action is needed'?

I wouldn't say that my trust in Zelensky has been shattered. Would you? — Olivier5

An unnamed diplomat from a NATO country has just told the Financial Times...

This is getting ridiculous. The Ukrainians are destroying [our] confidence in them. Nobody is blaming Ukraine and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile

The question is why the US would deliberately feed false intelligence to the press, then later deny the veracity of that information.

A split over strategy, perhaps? — Isaac

Definitely also a curious aspect of the case.

However, even it was a US intelligence official it may have been a legitimate leak of someone who legitimately didn't actually know. Also, it could have been just leaking what Poland then claimed that it was a "Russian produced missile", maybe AP even got the same info but left out "produced" for click bait effect.

In any event, doesn't need to have been any deliberate decision by the US administration. If it was a genuine surprise then some confusion is reasonable to go along with that on the US side. Intelligence agents may also have their own agendas, biases and sense of a lack of accountability anyways, opportunity to stoke tensions because why not. Has been known to happen.

maybe AP even got the same info but left out "produced" for click bait effect. — boethius

That could well explain why they're now refusing to reveal their source.

Their own editorial guidelines state that an anonymous source can only be used if the information is sound and a clear byline to that effect is in place. They adhered to neither in this case, so the theory that AP played this up themselves seems plausible.

That could well explain why they're now refusing to reveal their source. — Isaac

Could also be that Poland was gearing up for a big splash with "Russian missile!", and AP got the information when that was the actual plan.

Perhaps at the time Poland thought they could walk that back to "Russian produced" later, but then got cold feat when they realised that would make them look stupid, they have no idea how the US (not to mention Russia) would react to that, so better just stick to common sense justifiable statements navigating an event that could potentially lead to nuclear war between two super powers.

Poland's statements definitely look like they were originally written to say "Russian missile" but then someone added "produced" when they actually sat down and asked themselves if jumping out with "Aha! never said owned and operated by Russia!" later, was a good situation to be in.

literally cite the claims I'm rebutting that you just continuously deny ever making. — boethius

I never denied making the claim you literally cite (quote where I did). I continuously denied that you literally understood my quotes and I still do ("taking into account the deterrence means they both had" is the "precondition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue" (like the NTP and prior to that the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ). So "precondition" refers to a rational requirement for the US and Soviet Union to take into account their deterrence means while pursuing their agreements (like the NTP and prior to that the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ).).
Again I'm responsible for what I write not for what you understand.

It hasn't deterred Russia right, but Russia is paying and might pay more. So I'm not sure that what you presume is correct. Russia now knows better the costs of its adventurism. — neomac
Do you see Russia stopping the war of their own accord? — boethius

So what? There are three reasons your question is failing to take into account:
1. We are in the middle of the war so we don’t see the end of the war nor the full consequences of such war. The Soviet–Afghan War lasted 10 years, could anyone see the end of it and the following collapse of the Soviet Union while they were in the middle of it back then? No, because they didn’t happen yet.
2. Russia was complaining about NATO enlargement since the 90s, did Russia see NATO enlargement stopping for that reason? NATO/US can be as determined as Russia to pursue their goals in Ukraine at the expense of Russia. And since Russia, especially under Putin, took a declared confrontational attitude toward the hegemonic power, Russia made sure that NATO/US will deal with Russia accordingly as long as they see fit.
3. The end game for NATO/US involvement in this war doesn’t need to be to stop Russia or overturn its regime. But to inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power (in terms of its economic system, its system of alliance, its capacity of military projection outside its borders, its its technology supply, its military and geopolitical status) to the point it is not longer perceived as a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West.

So, what would be the reason to assume they are not willing to pay the same cost in the future? — boethius

But will it is not all that matters, what also and primarily counts is the actual material and human resources one country has to achieve its geopolitical goals.

So, "rationally" it would be nice to have some better reason, such as the US nuking Russia on behalf of Ukraine and being deterred that way. The only problem is there's no rational reason for the US to sign up to that, much less actually do when called upon.

Which is the core fallacy of Zelenskyites: that whatever is good for Zelensky to be true (at least according to him) we should also believe is true, or at least nevertheless support whatever he wants and is trying to get in saying whatever we agree isn't true. — boethius

Zelenskyites: Sure, maybe. But that's just all rational decision making that we should support and encourage escalation, if that's what Zelensky wants, it's just clever to use the missile issue to try to escalate. You see, he "believes it" so it's ok to say what you believe even if you have no evidence for it. — boethius

You keep generically mentioning people without quoting them: who are the Zelenskyites ? Can you quote them? Given the twisted way you literally processed my claims I prefer check their claims by myself. And if you can not quote them nor prove that they claim what you are attributing to them, your argument looks like a strawman.

The reason to believe Russia won't just re-invade is exactly as you describe: it's costly. — boethius

Since you can perfectly understand that there are implied and increasing non-negligible costs, especially when it’s matter of sunk costs and its psychological effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect), talking about actual willingness or hypothetical willingness in conjectured scenarios doesn't suffice to reason about this matter. And for that reason I’m not sure that Russia could rationally want to aggress Ukraine again.
But assuming that Russia wants or could want to do that (rationally or irrationally), then the West must damage Russian resources to pursue that goal as long as possible and with most enduring consequences as possible, if they rationally believe that Russia constitutes a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West and as long as they have means to do that.

a potential scenario that makes clear the ornamental nature of any "guarantees" to any peace deal concerning Ukraine. — boethius

If "ornamental" is meant to suggest that it's irrational for Ukraine to look for “security guarantees” (or NATO membership for that matter) and claiming otherwise shows "completely ignorant understanding of international relations" because an avg dude like you can conjecture random scenarios where these “security guarantees” aren’t effectively pursued or deterring enough, then that's bullshit. As I said:

— neomac

• International relations include a legal framework based on voluntary acceptance by acknowledged independent nations. Within this legal framework one can implement “security guarantees” (https://www.academia.edu/16541504/Legal_Notion_of_the_Terms_Security_Assurances_Security_Guarantees_and_Reassurances_in_International_Security_Law).
• The primary involved parties in the Ukrainian war are clearly interested in such “security guarantees”: Putin urges West to act quickly to offer security guarantees. (https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1067188698/putin-urges-west-to-act-quickly-to-offer-security-guarantees). And Ukraine showed interest in having one, given the consequences of the Budapest Memorandum about “security assurances” (https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/stvorennya-mehanizmu-bezpekovih-garantij-dlya-ukrayini-stane-76129).
• To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. The reason to me is obvious: the international legal framework increases transparency and trust, given the coordinated and codified procedures/roadmap to monitor and measure commitment and implied costs.

So I agree a quick ending is unlikely, but not impossible. — Olivier5

Any possible military success in that direction is conditional on the military support the West provides to Ukraine. And I'm not sure the West will continue as Ukrainians may hope.