The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political union between 27 European countries.
[...]
What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning many different policy areas – from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration.
Russia is here forever. There should be no doubt about this. There will be no return to the past. — Andrey Turchak (May 2022)
In this video from a liberated town in #Kharkiv region, east #Ukraine, Ukrainian soldiers removed a Russian propaganda poster saying “We are one people with Russia”. Only to reveal a poster with national poet Shevchenko’s verse “Fight and you will win”. — Alex Kokcharov (Sep 10, 2022)
I have no objection to the modern nation state. I think it's an excellent, pragmatic way to organise governance. I object to the ludicrous notion that it has some moral value. It has none. If moving a border saves lives, move the border. Hell, if moving a border makes the trains run better, move the border. It's a nothing, a trivial bit of bureaucracy. It's absolute insanity to reify it to something worth dying in the thousands for. — Isaac
if the premise is true, that doesn’t logically prove the definition. — neomac
Nope. Indeed it doesn't.
that premise is compatible with other arguably more plausible definitions like “Ukrainian is a person with Ukrainian passport”, incompatible with the definition you provided: indeed not all persons under the rule of the government of Ukraine are Ukrainians, likely the non-Ukrainian foreign professional, tourists or residents located in Ukraine. — neomac
It is, yes.
the claim “Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine” doesn’t logically follow from your definition of “Ukrainian” unless “Ukraine” in your conclusion is understood NOT as a territorial entity but as the government of Ukraine. — neomac
That's right..
Other irrelevant facts about my post are that it contained 114 words and doesn't once use the letter 'j'... if you're starting a collection . — Isaac
The argument is that control over the people of Ukraine is in the hands of the Ukrainian government.
The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). What is controlled is people not land , and the way people control people is primarily via a government making laws. So the only matter in consideration is what government controls which people, and by what means. — Isaac
The argument is that there's no 'natural unit' of people who all have some single homogeneous set of needs so the grouping used has no bearing on the life of any given member. — Isaac
Each individual ukrainian might be better off sharing their control over their government with other Ukrainians, or New Yorkers, or Parisians. — Isaac
There's nothing about the border of Ukraine which makes the people within it better off sharing control with each other than with people outside that border. — Isaac
Your comment here makes no sense at all. Nowhere is the word 'clarified' clarified., nor what you mean by 'supposed to mean'. In fact your whole post is just garbage. What do you mean by "make any sense" in the first sentence. You've not provided any measure of what 'making sense' would constitute, nor a method for how we'd judge it. And "play any other role" is ambiguous. What is a 'role' here, how do we determine whether something is or is not 'playing a role', your argument is just nonsensical unless you can define these terms and how we'd measure them. Then there's "arguably more plausible". How are we going to judge if something is, in fact, arguable? Or plausible? Without these things defined first we can't possibly make any sense at all of what you've written. "Likely". How likley? You've got to be specific here otherwise we can't judge. Is 80% enough? Baysian or frequentist likelihood? How will we measure it?
It seems you've got a ton of work to do before anyone can make any sense whatsoever of your post. Alternatively, we could act like reasonably intelligent adults and accept that although some terms have fuzzy definitions we need not clarify every single one in advance of making any point. — Isaac
But then it seems absent of asking for definitions, you've nothing to say. — Isaac
Since the ;deadly' we'd be avoiding by concession is also war, I can't see much in it either way. at least war later can be mitigated, war now is killing people right away. — Isaac
Why not? — Isaac
The Romanian president is right. Over the last years, NATO hasn't concentrated enough on the Black Sea. We had all our eyes on the Baltic Sea, where we also see Russian aggression, but the Russian war against Ukraine has now put the Black Sea in the center of our attention. Yes, we have to be much more active in the region, but I think that it's a signal that we're having the NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Bucharest, also the Munich Security Conference is hosting the Munich Leaders Meeting here for the first time. I think that the president's wish to draw more attention to the region is actually now being heard by partners. — Christoph Heusgen
They are trying to blackmail, they are trying to regain Moldova in its sphere of influence and that's why we have to support Moldova by all means, but particularly now, by economic means. — Christoph Heusgen
So you'd have no objection to France taking over the UK? That would make trains run better alright.... — Olivier5
None whatsoever. And if I ... was the sort of person who cared what flag flew over my parliament — Isaac
I would be a monster to expect thousands of people to die bringing my personal preferences as to flag colour about. — Isaac
A governance can be more or less authoritarian. Polity can be more of a cooperative involvement of relatively autonomous people, or a system of coercion executed by less autonomous people. To struggle for that autonomy is not the same as establishing borders. It often involves that dynamic, especially when the coercive authority has no regard for the people they invade.
To view all armed resistance as a fetish ignores the natural revulsion to coercion and degradation. A model of a pragmatic 'modern state' without this being recognized is not very useful. — Paine
Concession would mean strategic victory for an aggressor who used nuclear weapons to achieve their aim. Nuclear weapons already have excellent utility as a deterrent; if they are proven useful by Russia as a weapon of aggression, everyone will take note. Nuclear powers will all see new opportunities to settle regional scores, and non-nuclear powers will be further incentivized to join the club. At some point an aggressive nuclear power will have to be confronted. — hypericin
The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine. — Tzeentch
You're seriously suggesting that all the countries America have fucked over haven't even thought about America's massive nuclear arsenal when considering whether they 'let them get away with it'? — Isaac
the invasion of Ukraine would be impossible without nuclear weapons, since it would otherwise almost certainly trigger engagement with NATO. — hypericin
You can utilize what kind of discourse of vassalization whatever about the EU or being in NATO, but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship where speaking of a war as a war can get one long prison sentences... and a country which has either gone to war or created frozen conflicts with three of it's neighbors.he US controls NATO. NATO countries are vassals of the US, because they rely completely on the US to keep them safe.
The EU demands an even greater sacrifice of autonomy, because it also gets legislative power inside EU countries. It's purpose is/was to become a "United States of Europe", essentially, of course still completely dependent on the United States for protection.
So lets not harbor illusions about countries in NATO or the EU being sovereign. — Tzeentch
.. , but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship ... — ssu
↪Olivier5 It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later. — Tzeentch
vassals — Tzeentch
even greater sacrifice of autonomy — Tzeentch
lapdog — Tzeentch
overlordship — Tzeentch
overlordship — Tzeentch
The true anarchist is always outnumbered.
Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? — Nov 19, 2022
Think for a while about it. — ssu
↑ this is propaganda'ish'esque, hyperbolic spin (on one page alone, like on a mission) — jorndoe
this fantasy in which the United States is some spreader of peace and love — Tzeentch
the foolish notion that countries in the EU and NATO are sovereign — Tzeentch
French is hard to learn. — Olivier5
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.