If you want people to take you seriously here, you'll need to take the strawmanning down several notches. — Tzeentch

How is my comment an example of the strawman argument? You charged that the Ukrainians have to accept one set of conditions or another. You say that neither possibility involve choices they are making for themselves. You pour crocodile tears upon them with:

It's not a matter of agency. It's a matter of power, which they have comparatively little. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world works. — Tzeentch

It doesn't get more imperial than that.

I am still curious if you have a particular objection to Lough's actual argument.

So, what sort of verification would compel you to take these charges seriously?

Can you explain the long term consequences of this war?

The criticism of the U.S. is fair on many levels but it often becomes too U.S centric in itself. — Paine

In what way is this too US-centric, rather than, say, just exactly US-centric enough?

the following paragraph points to an element studiously avoided in Mearsheimer's argument: — Paine

And what do you think is the cause of this 'studious avoidance'? Is Mearsheimer losing his mind? Paid by the Russians? I mean Mearsheimer obviously doesn't think he's studiously avoided it. He thinks he's covered it (or that it's not relevant), so what's the cause of this discrepancy?

the merit of Lough's approach is that he considers developments between Europeans left out of the U.S. centric narratives. — Paine

In what way is this the 'merit', rather than, say, the flaw? Obviously Mearsheimer didn't consider developments between Europeans relevant (or he thought he'd covered that), otherwise he would change his position. Since he's more expert than you, you're not really in a position to judge whether the inclusion of these developments is meritorious or mistaken. You can only decide who to believe and you don't have sufficient expertise to do so on technical grounds.

There are several expert-informed arguments regarding this war that have been put forward, many opposing each other. None of us here have sufficient expertise to decide between them on their technical merits, so we must be doing so by some other means. I've been trying, for the last 400 pages, to get at what some of those reasons are. All I've got so far is that whatever they are, people are so embarrassed about them that they'll try literally anything to avoid talking about them.

How is my comment an example of the strawman argument? — Paine

I never referred to the Ukrainians as "soulless" - that's a misrepresentation of my argument and a tasteless one at that, aimed specifically at framing me as anti-Ukrainian.

You say that neither possibility involve choices they are making for themselves. — Paine

I stated specifically that the Ukrainians have a choice between fighting or surrendering.

It doesn't get more imperial than that. — Paine

It's the reality. Sugarcoating won't do the Ukrainians any good.

I am still curious if you have a particular objection to Lough's actual argument. — Paine

His point is that no formal promises were made, and Russia isn't the USSR.

I've already given you my objection to that sentiment.

I am still curious if you have a particular objection to Lough's actual argument. — Paine

This is classic example of what I'm talking about. There's no 'argument'. Lough makes two points...

Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.

...and...

while the Russian Federation became the de facto legal successor to the USSR after the latter’s collapse, Russia existed in different borders and its security interests were not synonymous with those of the USSR.

These are both certainly possible alternative ways of looking at the issue.

One could say "only formal guarantees matter" or one could say "no, informal guarantees and implications are equally important explanations"

One could say "the modern Russia is not the inheritor of guarantees made to the former USSR" or one could say it is.

Neither are matters of fact, like gravity or 1+1 being 2. They are alternative ways of looking at the issue. So the question remains as to why one would choose to look at it that way and not the other.

For me, the most cogent challenges to his view come from writers Jan Smoleńsk and Jan Dutkiewicz. — Paine

Thanks for the article. It nicely exposes the willful ignorance and parochialism of westplaining Ukraine. One phrase strikes a false note though:

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine several times attempted to assert and defend its westward course, including in 2004 and in 2014, both times to great resistance on the part of the Kremlin. There is no point in denying that the West actively intervened in this. But so did Russia. — Jan Smoleńsk and Jan Dutkiewicz

This suggests some sort of parity between Western and Russian intervention in Ukraine over the last 20 years. But that's blatantly false. I am not even sure what they meant by Western intervention, other than the West just being there as a major presence on the world stage going about its business. That can't be ignored, of course, but that in itself doesn't usually merit the characterization of "intervening." As far as anyone knows, Western dealings with Ukraine were open and consensual. It's not like they strong-armed and corrupted Ukrainian officials, penetrated the military and security apparatus, attempted assassinations, played power games with gas supply, issued threats and ultimatums, and finally intervened militarily - Russia provably did all of those things.

On the matter of agency:

Given that the only combatants on the ground are Russian invaders and Ukrainian defenders, the implication that this is a battle between the U.S. and Russia over influence is ridiculous. — Jan Smoleńsk and Jan Dutkiewicz

It is pretty insane to think that Ukrainians defending their country against Russian invasion are merely doing someone else's bidding. Now, if we look at Russian fighters, there is some truth to that characterization. By all accounts, when Russian soldiers were ordered into Ukraine on February 24, it came as a shock to them, as it did for the rest of the country. They had a very vague idea of what they were fighting for, and still do. And that is reflected in the poor troop morale on the Russian side, which just about everyone acknowledges. The difference with Ukrainian defenders is stark.

Besides, Ukraine is a very different country than Russia. Whereas Russia has been living under a progressively more repressive autocratic rule for the last 20 years, Ukraine has had two democratic revolutions over the same period. Even during the most oppressive years of Yanukovich's rule, they still had opposition representation in politics, and a lively and diverse media landscape. And since Yanukovich's fall they have elected and then voted out one president and voted in another. Who wasn't doing so great before the Russian invasion, by the way: Zelensky's ratings were pretty low going into 2022. So to assert that Ukrainians are fighting for Zelensky is just as insane as to assert that they are fighting for NATO.

Hope both Ukrainians and Russians got into 2023 without too much carnage. Not sure if there are any here on the forum.

On the chess board, the frontlines haven't moved much recently, despite much blighting.

Roughly four questions of relevance ...

1. How is voluntary exposure to so-called "Western culture" destroying Russia? Is this up to Putin to decide for all Russians anyway...?
2. What has Kyiv done and continues doing to be labeled a Nazi regime? Needing to be liberated/assimilated by Russia, under Moscow/Kremlin control?
3. What dire existential threat is NATO to Russia? Say, is Russia doomed to destruction, can't go on, without Crimea being a part of Russia?
4. What warrants depriving Ukraine (the chance) to develop via (further democratic) self-determination/governance?

Inquiries (not answers), derived from public statements, including supposed rationale for war.

Say, is Russia doomed to destruction, can't go on, without Crimea being a part of Russia? — jorndoe

Russia as a great power would cease to exist for the foreseeable future if (parts of) Ukraine were to become militarized by an anti-Russian military alliance.

I've gone over the reasons for this several times, but most importantly Crimea and southern Ukraine is what connects Russia to its strategic allies like Iran and Syria, and they're also what connects the Russian heartland via rivers to the oceans through the Sea of Azov (Volga / Volga-Don Canal / Don / Sea of Azov).

, right, Russia with Crimea is in a stronger power position than without. And a land corridor helps.
That's disregarding Ukrainian defense/resistance, which weakens Russia.
I suppose something similar would hold for other areas; Crimea stands out for mentioned geographical-political-military reasons.
Russia without isn't doomed for destruction, though, but militarily (and resources-wise) weaker.

Kyiv International Institute of Sociology released the results of the latest telephone poll, which it has been conducting periodically since May: Dynamics of readiness for territorial concessions for the earliest possible end of the war: results of a telephone survey conducted on December 4-27, 2022

The sample did not include residents of territories that were not temporarily controlled by the authorities of Ukraine until February 24, 2022 (AR of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts)

In other words all the people who are likely to think otherwise.

Imagine if Northern Ireland policy were decided entirely by consulting only the population of England. Or more accurately for Ukraine...ignoring the population of Northern Ireland, but consulting the population of Switzerland.

Imagine if Northern Ireland policy were decided entirely by consulting only the population of England. — Isaac

Somehow I doubt one could do a poll in Donetsk right now.

Somehow I doubt one could do a poll in Donetsk right now. — Olivier5

No. I don't suppose they could. Nothing in which difficulty renders a poll about ceding territory which doesn't even consult the people living in the fucking territory concerned anything less than a sham.

That such polls are done is entirely understandable.

That they're cited by people not even involved in this war to prop up the blatant war profiteering of the most powerful nation on earth is not.

a sham. — Isaac

Why the outrage?

Well, we are still replying to each other. So that should tell something.

Can you explain the long term consequences of this war? — frank

Obviously we haven't gone over some tipping point in the war where the outcome would be obvious. Hence the long term consequences are totally up in the air. Countries can have dramatic humiliating losses in war and still continue as if nothing, with no true change of policy or any critical self reflection: just look at how the US has nearly forgotten it's longest war in it's history, that finally ended up in a humiliating withdrawal that caused an immediate collapse.

As long as Russia has it's imperial ambitions and it's leaders see the dissolution of the Soviet Union as an unfortunate accident, basically North and Eastern Europe will see it as a potential threat (some even as an immediate threat) and this will create the tension independent of the outcome in Ukraine.

The British understand that they don't have an empire anymore. Any Brit calling the UK to invade and annex Ireland back to Great Britain would be seen by others to be a crazy person. The Austrians understand it too: nobody is having dreams to bring back the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The French still behave as a colonial power in Africa, but try to hide from their own population and others.

Yet the Russians see still Imperial Russia as what Russia is. That's the basic security problem that Russia creates for Europe.

Well, we are still replying to each other. So that should tell something. — ssu

Ha! I wouldn't say we're replying to each other. Technically, maybe, but in spirit, no.

There's two types of post from the pro-US contingent, either spam-posting pro-US news stories, or dismissing anti-US posts as being pro-Russian (or worse).

We could pretend to be experts, analysing the data as if we knew better than those who've already done that work...but short of a ego-stroking LARPing game I don't much see the point. Which leaves the only real matter for discussion our ideological bases. The reasons why we choose one expert over another (presuming we've rightly eliminated from serious discussion those who can provide no expert support for their positions).

In my view, a discussion between laymen on this subject can only really consist of idle speculation (sometimes fun), or ideological conflicts and their exposition. What we have here is neither. Facebook nation has twisted every discussion into nothing more than a crude exercise in tribal taxonomy.

I think the problem is that you make a juxtaposition between pro-American and anti-American. And there's not anything else.

You simply don't see that Nordic or Eastern European people would (or could) have ideas of their own in this case. And to simply forget the role of the Ukrainians in this war is, well, condescending. Because this war is a matter especially between Ukrainians and Russians, not the West Europeans and the Americans.

We could pretend to be experts, analysing the data as if we knew better than those who've already done that work...but short of a ego-stroking LARPing game I don't much see the point. — Isaac

Likely for you the issue is so distant that it's some kind of LARPin game. And of course, the war might be something that absolutely doesn't affect your life.

I can take my car now, drive 20 kilometers to the Russian border and see the closed shopping mall where my family could go shopping high end products and eat, but now has gone bankrupt thanks to absence of Russian tourists because of the war. The border crossing is now even more empty than it was during when there was the Soviet Union there. That was thirty years ago.

Surprise surprise...

Pro-Putin operatives in Germany work to turn Berlin against Ukraine

In Germany some are clamouring for a change in course on Ukraine. Key figures in the campaign have links to the Russian state or far right, a Reuters investigation has found.

By Polina Nikolskaya, Mari Saito, Maria Tsvetkova and Anton Zverev

Jan. 3, 2023, noon GMT

... Reuters found that some of the loudest agitators for a change in German policy [towards Ukraine] have two faces. Some use aliases, and have undisclosed ties to Russia and Russian entities under international sanctions, or to far-right organisations. ...

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-germany-influencers/

I think the problem is that you make a juxtaposition between pro-American and anti-American. And there's not anything else.

You simply don't see that Nordic or Eastern European people would (or could) have ideas of their own in this case. And to simply forget the role of the Ukrainians in this war is, well, condescending. Because this war is a matter especially between Ukrainians and Russians, not the West Europeans and the Americans. — ssu

You're framing it as an error, or an oversight without arguing the case. Yes. I'm ignoring (largely) the role of the Nordic countries, the Eastern European nations and the Ukrainians. Not because they don't have a role, but because it's not radically different to the US's. Big industry lobbyists push political agendas which serve their interests. they do so in the US, Europe, Sweden and Ukraine. Influence over media agendas manipulates a proletariat, the support of which is then used to justify the original objective. There's little point in discussing which flag they operate under, especially considering most are multi-national companies.

The notion of independent nation states with their own culture and unique objectives belongs to a colonial era of World Wars and imperialism. But it's hellish convenient when the arms industry needs another war.

So if you think it's an error, argue the case. Why do you still believe in nation states? What leaves you unconvinced about the massive influence corporate lobbying has over foreign policy? Why should we believe polls and vox pops are anything but cynical attempts to manipulate data to appear favourable to powerful interests.

Here's what we have...

1. American (and other) arms industries and energy companies are making a fortune from this war. Plus a swathe of American industries will benefit from the crippling of Russia. American senators and representatives are open about the fact that it's in America's interests to fight Russia in Ukraine.

2. American government and corporation have several channels, both legitimate, and clandestine, through which they can manipulate global affairs, and they're one of the most powerful forces in that game

Nether (1) nor (2) are even contested, they're taken as established facts.

You're asking us to believe that despite (2) being true, (1) just happened anyway, by chance. That despite having the power to bring X about and X being in their best interests, they didn't actually bring X about, but it just happened anyway.

Imagine if I could compel you all to write "Isaac is great" for your next posts, we all know I have the power. Then you write "Isaac is great" for your next posts, and I say "I didn't do it, it just happened anyway". Would you find that default position remotely plausible?

Everything that's happening in Ukraine is happening almost exactly in a way that benefits powerful interests who we know for a fact have sufficient influence to steer events such as these. And benefit them, not just in an ordinary way, but to a level virtually unprecedented in history. Profit margins the likes of which have barely been seen before. And you want me to believe they just got lucky. They nobly restrained themselves from exercising the power no-one disputes they have and were rewarded by God for that restraint by getting the thing they wanted anyway?

It's just absurd on it's face. If very powerful interests benefit massively from something they had the power to bring about, they brought it about.

Yes. I'm ignoring (largely) the role of the Nordic countries, the Eastern European nations and the Ukrainians. Not because they don't have a role, but because it's not radically different to the US's. Big industry lobbyists push political agendas which serve their interests. they do so in the US, Europe, Sweden and Ukraine. Influence over media agendas manipulates a proletariat, the support of which is then used to justify the original objective. There's little point in discussing which flag they operate under, especially considering most are multi-national companies. — Isaac

If you think "the proletariat" in these countries are so high on the opium of media agendas, I would beg to differ.

First and foremost, on a thread about the war in Ukraine to ignore the Ukrainians is something I would think being an mistake as they themselves surprised the West ...and of course Putin too.

Then for example the change in Sweden and Finland, where any discussion of joining NATO wasn't going anywhere before, suddenly a huge reversal from a small minority to a huge majority happened basically overnight left the politicians to desperately to change their stances and react. (For example after 24th February our social democrat prime minister first proposed that NATO membership should be discussed in the social democrat party meeting in the summer, then had to backtrack and had to start immediate negotiations with her party's members of Parliament and with other parties.)

Or then we could go and discuss just how unprepared the "military-industrial complex" was with the events. Prime example would be Germany, with it's huge problems in rearming even if it wanted to do it.

Yet, if you ignore all above and other issues just because "their role isn't radically different to the US", then that just doesn't give an accurate answers to what is happening.

But I guess that doesn't interest you, because it seems to be the typical tankist view. And all other talk is just pro-US propaganda.

The notion of independent nation states with their own culture and unique objectives belongs to a colonial era of World Wars and imperialism. — Isaac

Sorry, but we aren't as post-nationalist / post-nation state as you think (or hope) we are. Try not to think of other people as being like you. (And weren't you from the UK? Didn't you have Brexit some time ago?)

And Russia is the example of classic imperialism in this case, btw. The world is far more similar to the 20th and 19th Century you imagine.

asking us to believe that despite (2) being true, (1) just happened anyway, by chance — Isaac

Well, it all goes further still ...

CNN Exclusive: A single Iranian attack drone found to contain parts from more than a dozen US companies
^{— Natasha Bertrand · CNN · Jan 4, 2023}

our position is very clear: Infineon condemns the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It is a blatant violation of international law and an attack on the values of humanity. [...] apart from the direct business it proves difficult to control consecutive sales throughout the entire lifetime of a product. Nevertheless, we instruct our customers including distributors to only conduct consecutive sales in line with applicable rules. — Gregor Rodehüser (Infineon)

While reading ...
Exclusive: The global supply trail that leads to Russia’s killer drones (via MSN)
^{— Stephen Grey, Maurice Tamman, Maria Zholobova · Reuters · Dec 15, 2022}
I was vaguely reminded of ... — Dec 15, 2022

Stop funding Russia’s nuclear weapons
^{— Henry Sokolski; The Hill; Nov 13, 2022} — Nov 14, 2022

Florida, Hong Kong, in addition to US/EU funds going to Rosatom, ..., the plot thickens. — Dec 15, 2022

The workings of capitalism, free/open enterprising, redistribution/resale, globalization, etc, ...
All it takes is one threat or aggressor (or fear), and we find ourselves in a predicament. I guess the fearful can DIY or pay others. If such initial threats could be done away with, or perhaps sufficiently minimized, then the predicament wouldn't be much of a concern.
The quote above, though, converges on conspiracy theory. Whether such a nefarious conspiracy exists or not, threats and predicaments persist just the same. :/
Don't forget tensions between democracies and autocracies/dictatorships here.

Exposed Outpost Russian Threats to Baltic Security and Transatlantic Responses
^{— Vasquez, Akturan, Shura, Li, Rajski, Sarkes, Castro · European Horizons, University of Chicago}

The war in Ukraine is all about democracy vs dictatorship
^{— Kacper Szulecki, Tore Wig · Review of Democracy, Central European University · Apr 9, 2022}

(don't think the Finns are into doing a land grab :grin: hey @ssu, up for grabbing Kaliningrad, or, heck, Estonia?)

While I agree with the idea that big business likely fits into this picture somewhere, it must also be noted that in the modern age of globalization it is almost unavoidable that the markets of opposing nations end up supplying each other. I think a fair part of that is completely unintentional.

The real "conspiracy" is probably found in the various lobby groups that influence US policy through means which are perfectly legitimate within the American system. And the same likely happens in Russia, but I suppose we know less about Russia's lobby groups.

If you think "the proletariat" in these countries are so high on the opium of media agendas, I would beg to differ. — ssu

Go on then. Differ. For what reason do you think they're not?

First and foremost, on a thread about the war in Ukraine to ignore the Ukrainians is something I would think being an mistake as they themselves surprised the West ...and of course Putin too.

Then for example the change in Sweden and Finland, where any discussion of joining NATO wasn't going anywhere before, suddenly a huge reversal from a small minority to a huge majority happened basically overnight left the politicians to desperately to change their stances and react. (For example after 24th February our social democrat prime minister first proposed that NATO membership should be discussed in the social democrat party meeting in the summer, then had to backtrack and had to start immediate negotiations with her party's members of Parliament and with other parties.)

Or then we could go and discuss just how unprepared the "military-industrial complex" was with the events. Prime example would be Germany, with it's huge problems in rearming even if it wanted to do it. — ssu

You're just reverting to your preferred narrative again. this is pointless. Experts disagree. If experts disagree, you are not qualified to determine which experts are right and which are wrong, you can only choose which you believe. Therefore the only matter for discussion is why you made the choice you made. That matter cannot be the technical grounds since you're not qualified to determine the technical grounds.

So do you want to discuss the reasons why you choose to believe that narrative, as opposed to the alternatives? Or do you want to pointlessly keep pretending that a couple of laymen can actually judge which of these experts are right and which are wrong - as if we knew?

if you ignore all above and other issues just because "their role isn't radically different to the US", then that just doesn't give an accurate answers to what is happening.

But I guess that doesn't interest you, because it seems to be the typical tankist view. And all other talk is just pro-US propaganda. — ssu

...and we're back to square one.

When was the last post you voluntarily posted that was critical of US policy toward Ukraine? When was the last post in which you registered anything but unwavering support for the US? I can't think of a single post. So you are ignoring US-issues (relating to Ukraine). I'm ignoring non-US issues. I've given an explanation for why I'm ignoring non-US issues. What's your explanation for why you're ignoring US-issues?

Again, you're trying to make this one-sided. As if focussing on the US were the only ideological move. Painstakingly avoiding focus on the US is no less an ideological move.

Sorry, but we aren't as post-nationalist / post-nation state as you think (or hope) we are. — ssu

Go on. In what way does the power of the nation state over-rule that of the corporation? What examples do you have of the populace restraining the will of the multi-national? In what part of the world are multi-national corporations struggling to get by because the will of the people is so dominant?

Yeah, fascists and tankies often make cozy bedfellows, even as they try to make bogeymen out of each other. In the post-Soviet Russia the relationships between various flavors of communist/socialist and far-right nationalist/neo-fascist groups have been so incestuous that they are sometimes collectively referred to as the Red-Browns (after brownshirts). Unsurprisingly, in Europe and America both the far-right and the far-left are Putin's closest allies.

Which makes all this "denazification" rhetoric all the more insane on its face. Timothy Snyder characterizes Putin's regime as schizo-fascism.

Unsurprisingly, in Europe and America both the far-right and the far-left are Putin's closest allies. — SophistiCat

You don't seriously think anyone is stupid enough to fall for that?

Step 1. Define anyone opposing the centrist policy as a 'Putin ally'.

Step 2. Voilà. Non-centrists are automatically Putin allies by definition.

Unless you're about to furnish us with a definition of 'ally' which hasn't just been hand crafted to fit your propaganda.

Unsurprisingly, in Europe and America both the far-right and the far-left are Putin's closest allies. — SophistiCat

Why yes, anti-democratic forces in general.

Experts disagree. If experts disagree, you are not qualified to determine which experts are right and which are wrong, you can only choose which you believe. — Isaac

Hilarious argument. And quite high a pedestal you again put experts. And especially we are talking of here and now and the future, not 19th Century history, where indeed an expert (called a historian) could show his expertise on domestic politics of various countries. But this isn't a discussion of history.

Go on. In what way does the power of the nation state over-rule that of the corporation? — Isaac

Start with sanctions. Start with how Western Corporations have withdrawn from Russia, for starters. It's a bit backwards (but typical from you) to assume a war started by Putin and a small cabal around him, has actually happened because of the Western military industrial complex. An industry, which actually isn't at all developed to arm this kind of conventional war and basically has, just as the American political elite, focused on China.

When was the last post in which you registered anything but unwavering support for the US? — Isaac

Unwavering support for the US? Lol.

I've posted quite many times about the American policy of constantly trying to reboot the US-Russian relations without really thinking how this did increase Russia's appetite. And for example, earlier when Russia kidnapped an Estonian intelligence officer, which in case even then Finland and Sweden condemned, the Obama administration stayed mute. So could the US have done something to prevent February 24th 2022? Likely a stronger response after the annexation of Crimea could have prevented this enlargement of the war.

I can't think of a single post. So you are ignoring US-issues (relating to Ukraine). — Isaac

Well, you're ignoring a lot. Really, ignoring Ukrainians in a discussion about war in Ukraine is a bit hilarious. :smirk:

Yeah, fascists and tankies often make cozy bedfellows, even as they try to make bogeymen out of each other. — SophistiCat

Listen actually to what they say and notice how their world view is actually very close, especially when they depict what they are against. It's not an accident that it was national socialism that was the most ugly combination of an ideology.

And I think there actually isn't anymore the similar ideologies present as in the 20th Century, but typically neither the radical right-winger or the radical leftist has such historical knowledge of the past of their movements. Both extremes (left and right) are experts on rebranding themselves.

In the post-Soviet Russia the relationships between various flavors of communist/socialist and far-right nationalist/neo-fascist groups have been so incestuous that they are sometimes collectively referred to as the Red-Browns (after brownshirts). Unsurprisingly, in Europe and America both the far-right and the far-left are Putin's closest allies. — SophistiCat

Actually in the 1990's the "extreme left" and "extreme right" in Russian politics was the other way around than here.

There's something very sinister when people start to march with many different kinds of flags around. It's a sign of the political system collapsing and fringe groups taking power.

Which makes all this "denazification" rhetoric all the more insane on its face. Timothy Snyder characterizes Putin's regime as schizo-fascism. — SophistiCat

Well, it all starts with having the largest conventional war since WW2 in Europe being forbidden to be called as a war, but having to be called a "special military operation".

The basic problem is that Putin simply loves the insane rhetoric. Why, the Soviet Union was built on that. We called it here "the Lithurgy": meaningless talk just to prove you are obedient to the system.