One of the main things which pisses me off the most, is the way the Western world is cancelling Russia on literally everything: from economics to the arts. — javi2541997

At least I like Russian cuisine very much. It's there with the French cuisine as the hallmark of Western food culture (and I think is even better than Italian cuisine, actually). :yum:



And luckily my favorite Russian restaurant remains open, even if it does show the Ukrainian flag on it's front door and doesn't anymore serve Russian vodka (as vodka is a State monopoly for Putin), but has changed to Ukrainian vodka. (If you are ever in Helsinki, I urge to go and taste the above food Sword of Ivan in Restaurant Saslik!)

It seems to me we might say that imperialists, like the Russians at the moment, want to go into someone else's house, take it over, and tell them what to do and how to do it. The West, on the other hand, mostly just says, if you want to play with us, there are rules.... — tim wood

Do notice the difference!

Ukraine is not some one's else house. They don't even claim all their vast territory but three important provinces: Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. These three 'municipal dumas' have always belonged to Russia, and they have been managed by Russian authorities since the Russian empire. — javi2541997

As did my country also belong to Russia. Until it didn't, when we gained independence. Just like Ukraine got it's independence and Russia did recognize the independence of Ukraine and it's borders. Until it didn't anymore. And that's the whole issue here with Russia. The nah... these countries around me are "artificial"!

It's basically like having a divorce where the husband accepts the divorce but then years after suddenly appears at the front door of his ex-wife, declares that they have made a vow in front of God and thus will be married until death departs them and then attempts to violently rape his ex, because it's his wife.

And then some will say: "Oh but we have to understand the man's side in this case! Didn't the wife also say "until death aparts us", so he has a point, right?"

Ukraine is not some one's else house. — javi2541997

And you were doing so well and being reasonable - and then this? In a sense you are correct, Ukraine is the Ukrainian's house, and that's an end of it! But as you're interested in literature, I refer you to chap. 89 of Moby Dick, here:
https://melville.electroniclibrary.org/editions/versions-of-moby-dick/89-fast-fish-and-loose-fish
Titled "Fast-fish and Loose-Fish. I'll let it speak to you itself.

“Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so” is not a non sequitur. — neomac

Sure. "There was no reason to do so" is a general statement, which I believe true. Clearly I don't mean "any reason whatsoever," as there can always be reasons given about anything. But no (good) reason, no. It's obvious that is implied. But I understand that if you're reading everything literally, like a 10-year-old, it'll set you off into a tangent about what you think are fancy-sounding "fallacies."

“Intellectualizing”? Dude, maybe you are not familiar with the nuances of propositional logic 101 — neomac

Yes, intellectualizing. We’re all impressed that you took freshman logic, I’m sure. You seem to know less about logic than you do about Ukraine, but in any case it’s totally irrelevant since it wasn’t a syllogism. But like with “non sequitors” and the like, you’re just confused. The following is a good example:

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington — Mikie

You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac

First, I’m not literally saying I would “give advice” to China or Russia. So that’s ridiculous.

Second, the statement about reasoning behind the fears refers to the Monroe Doctrine, and how it doesn’t matter if one thinks it is irrational or rational. Why? Because it is, in fact, a policy.

So you completely failed to understand what was written, and then embarrassingly preface your silliness with “let me teach you English nuance.” Lol.

The biggest egomaniacs turn out to be the most delusional. Yours is a good example.

If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake[/b].
— Mikie

Why mistaken?! — neomac

Depends on the goals. I assume starting conflicts and wars isn’t the objective, and if it is it’s wrong. But assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake — and was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons (like getting weapons out of Turkey, which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part).

USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac

That it turned out OK doesn’t make it a good decision. This is a common mistake in decision-making.

That I even have to point this out further shows I’m dealing with an intellectual child.

The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac

Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Mine wasn’t a statement about reality. It was expressing a basic value, and assuming other non-pathological people also share that value. Not wanting the world to be engulfed in nuclear Holocaust is a pretty minimal and non-controversial expectation.

Try to make sure you understand what you’re reading before writing 5 tedious paragraphs. Save yourself time, because I skip everything you write after it’s clear you completely misunderstood.

I rely more on geopolitical analysts — neomac

You rely on one person, your guru Brzezinski— and do so poorly.

BTW, so much for your threat to “leave [me] to it.”

Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to a better conversation with Jabberwock, who at least makes an attempt to understand what others are saying, and converses like an adult.

As did my country also belong to Russia. Until it didn't, when we gained independence. Just like Ukraine got it's independence and Russia did recognize the independence of Ukraine and it's borders. Until it didn't anymore. And that's the whole issue here with Russia. The nah... these countries around me are "artificial"! — ssu

I expected you would have used Finland as an example. But it is obvious that the example of the Finnish are very far away from the Ukrainian, or speaking frankly, 'Kyi' or the 'Kievan Rus'. Oleg set himself up as prince in Kyiv, and declared that it should be the "mother of Rus' cities."

I did some quick research on the history of your beautiful country - I wish one day I can visit it - and the tribes were always ruling on different territories, until the unstoppable expansion of the Russian Empire. Nonetheless, if the following information is not biassed or mistaken, the Russian Empire considered the Duchy of Finland as 'autonomous': In 1809, as a result of the Finnish War, Finland became part of the Russian Empire as the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland. Alexander I did not want the Grand Duchy to be a constitutional monarchy but the governmental institutions born during the Swedish rule offered him a more efficient form of government than the absolute monarchy in Russia. This evolved into a high level of autonomy by the end of the 19th century. https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?rev_t=20151206184816&url=http%3A%2Fweb.eduskunta.fi%2FResource.phx%2Fparliament%2Faboutparliament%2Fpresentation%2Fhistory.htx#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

We can say that Finland was a province of the vast Russian Empire and both sides were aware of the differences amongst the other. Yet, Ukraine is fully similar to Russia, and they were 'born' with the same characteristics: language, religion and culture. Thus, the ethnicity. While the Finnish people have always been a Baltic ethnic group, Ukrainians and Russians come from the same group: Slavs.

The following map is very well drawn, and we can see how Finland has always been different from Russia. While Ukraine - or at least the modern Crimea and Donetsk - was part of Russian origins, clearly.

In a sense you are correct, Ukraine is the Ukrainian's house, and that's an end of it! — tim wood

Exactly. But respecting the Russian sovereignty on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. It is written in the Russian constitution:

Chapter 3. The Federal Structure

Article 65

1. The Russian Federation includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:

Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Altai, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Daghestan, Republic of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Republic of Kalmykia, Karachayevo-Circassian Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, Republic of Tatarstan, Republic of Tuva, Udmurtian Republic, Republic of Khakassia, Chechen Republic, Chuvash Republic;

Altai Territory, Trans-Baikal Territory, Kamchatka Territory, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Perm Territory, Primorye Territory, Stavropol Territory, Khabarovsk Territory;

Amur Region, Arkhangelsk Region, Astrakhan Region, Belgorod Region, Bryansk Region, Chelyabinsk Region, Ivanovo Region, Irkutsk Region, Kaliningrad Region, Kaluga Region, Kemerovo Region, Kirov Region, Kostroma Region, Kurgan Region, Kursk Region, Leningrad Region, Lipetsk Region, Magadan Region, Moscow Region, Murmansk Region, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Novgorod Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk Region, Orenburg Region, Orel Region, Penza Region, Pskov Region, Rostov Region, Ryazan Region, Samara Region, Saratov Region, Sakhalin Region, Sverdlovsk Region, Smolensk Region, Tambov Region, Tomsk Region, Tver Region, Tula Region, Tyumen Region, Ulyanovsk Region, Vladimir Region, Volgograd Region, Vologda Region, Voronezh Region, Yaroslavl Region;

Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sevastopol - cities of federal importance.

"There was no reason to do so" is a general statement, which I believe true. Clearly I don't mean "any reason whatsoever," as there can always be reasons given about anything. But no (good) reason, no. It's obvious that is implied. — Mikie

I already countered such pointless remarks:
1 - “I’m not here to make a survey about your beliefs, I’m here to hear your challenging arguments to support your beliefs, if you have any. If you do not have any, I welcome you to totally ignore me. Now, arguments need premises and conclusions, and it’s on you to clarify your arguments to support your own beliefs, especially those I and you do not share”.
2 -“At most you can argue that there was a ‘very strong’ reason NOT to do so (Russia’s strong opposition). Not that there was NO reason to do so. And reasons are more or less strong compared to other reasons. So the US, NATO, Ukraine may have had THEIR strong reasons to counter such Russian strong opposition (among them, all the concessions they made to Russia)”.
“This objection is particularly pertinent in geopolitics because, as explained, in a domain where there are strong competing interests and mistrust (like during great powers’ struggles), defensive measures (like military alliances) can be perceived as aggressive and can likely escalate tensions.”

Replace “very strong” with “good” or “very good” or “very very very very very good” and still ALL my objections hold (the logic and the geopolitical).
As the logic objections goes, even if you replace “There was no reason to do so" with "There was no (good) reason to do so" (BTW if that’s what you call “English nuance” then it’s evidently false, there is nothing specifically “English” in this nuance, if it’s not what English nuance were you referring to?), it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions.
Aren’t we done yet?!

But I understand that if you're reading everything literally — Mikie

I already countered such pointless claim: “My point wasn’t meant to be pedantic though, but to solicit you to EXPLICIT the IMPLICIT premise”. And that I was able of a charitable reading like you are suggesting is evident since the first time I made that objection: “At most you can argue that there was a ‘very strong’ reason NOT to do so”. Even in this case, that doesn’t make your argument strong enough because, as I wrote, “reasons are more or less strong compared to other reasons. So the US, NATO, Ukraine may have had THEIR strong reasons to counter such Russian strong opposition”.
Replace ‘very strong’ with ‘good’ or ‘very very very very real good’ and my logic and geopolitical objections still hold.

it wasn’t a syllogism — Mikie

It wasn’t a VALID syllogism. And not even an evidently SOUND syllogism, after making explicit the implicit premise, which I did for you (“This premise should sound something like “If Russia feels provoked by NATO expansion, then there is NO reason for NATO expansion” for you to draw that conclusion”).
The fact that you are hopelessly trying to escape from is that you were trying to make an argument. But your clumsy argument is evidently objectionable from a logic and geopolitical point of view. And even grounding one’s arguments on implicit assumptions over what one claims to be “good” for him or the world, doesn’t make the explicit argument more logic or geopolitically conclusive.
On the other side, even if we pretend you were not trying hard to make an argument, just a general claim expressing what you believe to be true, then I’ll repeat it once again: “I’m not here to make a survey about your beliefs, I’m here to hear your challenging arguments to support your beliefs, if you have any. If you do not have any, I welcome you to totally ignore me”.

You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac

First, I’m not literally saying I would “give advice” to China or Russia. So that’s ridiculous. — Mikie

By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. That I was in fact giving a charitable reading of your still questionable claim 2. That you are still overlooking the “English nuance” I was sarcastically referring to. Here is the part you candidly dropped:
“Dude, you have to give arguments to even try to score points, not just make emotional appeals in disguise like “But it's still very real”. What on earth is the expression “it’s very real” supposed to mean for great powers in a hegemonic race? What does it imply? What is the specific nature of the threat? The likely retaliatory consequences if red lines are crossed? The affordable measures to counter them?
You look exactly like a random self-entitled anonymous nobody from the internet advising a young heavy weight boxer who, in his professional carrier, reached the point to challenge the world champion for the first time with something like: “Hey Mike Tyson, I wouldn’t try to test the World Champion , you know, because the risk that he is going to kick your ass badly is very real, so very very very real that one can’t imagine more very very very very very very very very real in the universe of the actual, possible and impossible worlds -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of a World Champion (which obviously means I’m so very very very real objectively reliable)”.
The problem I was pointing out IS NOT the possibility for you to literally “give advice” to China or Russia as much as it IS NOT the possibility for you to literally “give advice” to Mike Tyson, the problem is the questionable confidence you put in having worthy advice given YOUR understanding of what “it's still very real” in a challenging foreign policy (or sport competition) versus China or Russia’s (Mike Tyson’s) understanding of it.
Besides I made this last point very clearly here: “be also careful to not conflate your reasons to fear “the Monroe Doctrine” with their reasons to fear “the Monroe Doctrine”. The nuance here is that without proper arguments grounded on shared assumptions about geopolitical scenarios and implications, your “But it's still very real” remains an emotional appeal behind the appearance of a factual claim over an existing policy like “the Monroe Doctrine”.

Second, the statement about reasoning behind the fears refers to the Monroe Doctrine, and how it doesn’t matter if one thinks it is irrational or rational. Why? Because it is, in fact, a policy. — Mikie

From a geopolitical perspective, OF COURSE it does matter if, in a hegemonic competition against the US, competitors like Russia and China want to assess “What is the specific nature of the threat? The likely retaliatory consequences if red lines are crossed? The affordable measures to counter them?”. And OF COURSE it matters if you want to explain and/or justify the economic/military clash between competitors as function of respective security dilemmas, threat perception and containment strategies.
If you do not care about the geopolitical perspective, then we have another non-shared assumption and we need arguments in support or against geopolitics as a domain of research and analysis. I gave you one argument (but it’s not the only one): The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. So what if geopolitical reality doesn’t work based on people’s preferences? We can’t dogmatically assume it does or it should do. Right? I myself wish the same as much as I wish an incurable cancer of anybody I care to be curable, but I don’t find rational to use my wishes to establish what can be cured or can’t. What is yours?

Depends on the goals. I assume starting conflicts and wars isn’t the objective, and if it is it’s wrong. But assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake — and was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons (like getting weapons out of Turkey, which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part) — Mikie

.

I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support:
- I don’t need an argument for the first one, since I find it plausible enough from a geopolitical point of view: namely states do not pursue war for the sake of it. Ever heard the quote “War is merely the continuation of politics with other means” from Carl von Clausewitz? In other words, war is more a means to achieve objectives than an objective per se. And this might be very well true for Putin, Khomeini or Hitler too. I find such assumption so plausible that I didn’t even see the point in making it explicit, given that I didn’t make any claim nor argument questioning it.
- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake” because, from a geopolitical point of view, this was a proportional (and non-escalatory) countermove against the move made by the US, even under the assumptions that it could be very risky (“game theory” was born to model such kind of risks).
- I need a (plausible enough) argument for “was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons” and “which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part”, because from a geopolitical point of view, nuclear weapons can be (and mostly are) used as deterrent to prevent wars resulting from conventional military aggression by state enemies against homeland. And they seem quite effective in doing this.

USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac

That it turned out OK doesn’t make it a good decision. This is a common mistake in decision-making.
That I even have to point this out further shows I’m dealing with an intellectual child — Mikie

.

Again just statements and zero arguments. Here two objections:
- If wars are bad and especially nuclear wars, why on earth deciding to do something that prevents a nuclear war or de-escalate the threat of a nuclear war is a bad decision?
- It doesn’t matter how confidently you apply two distinct labels like “OK decision” and “good decision” to qualify decisions, which any intellectual senile can do despite suffering from a severe dementia. What matters to me is if you are able to make explicit the criteria to discriminate between the two types of decisions, and to provide the arguments in their support to properly frame GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES. That’s all intellectual children like me care about.

The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac

Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Mine wasn’t a statement about reality. It was expressing a basic value, and assuming other non-pathological people also share that value. Not wanting the world to be engulfed in nuclear Holocaust is a pretty minimal and non-controversial expectation — Mikie

.

Again you have a hard time not only to understand what I write but also to understand what you yourself write. That “it'd be nice”-statements of yours are not about reality is something I clearly acknowledged when I wrote “The problem is that ‘it'd be nice’ is expressing your best wishes, your preferences". Also expressions of wishes and preferences are not statements about reality of wars and states, right? Pointing out that your “it'd be nice”-statements are expression of “basic value” or “minimal and non-controversial expectation” as if you are making a deep remark, doesn’t change the fact that your “it'd be nice”-statements can still express nothing more than wishes, desires or preferences as “it'd be nice”-statements normally do, it doesn’t matter how widely shared and strongly felt they are (yet another English nuance I have to teach you about). Indeed, I too expressly acknowledged that I share them, as much as I can share the wish for anybody I care about to survive a cancer (isn't life a basic value?). Yet the fact that there are shared expectations, basic values, shared preferences, desires and wishes, doesn’t make more evident that what we collectively expect, prefer, wish, desire, hold as a basic value can be achieved as much as the human wish to survive a cancer, no matter how intensely felt or shared by the entire humanity, doesn’t make it more evident that cancer is curable.

I skip everything you write — Mikie

.

And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue.

Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to a better conversation with Jabberwock — Mikie

Hallelujah!

The basic problem simply is that there are no natural boundaries where Russia starts or ends as you have this huge steppe starting from Europe and ending in Asia. The problem starts from geography. This is the first problem anybody neighboring Russia has.

The next thing is that Russia's identity is imperial, there is actually nothing else. Soviet Union was a continuation of the Empire and Russia itself couldn't find another identity for itself, especially after it's present leader see the collapse of the Soviet Union as an "unfortunate tragedy", which assumes it was simply a mistake. The fact is it wasn't simply a mistake. Once countries get idependence that's it, to assume the independence is a "mistake".

The third issue that Russia hasn't understood that it has lost the empire. Permanently. The point of humiliation for the UK and France was the Suez crisis (and for France in Africa perhaps the present). Yet for Russia it might only be this war with Ukraine. Or something else in the future.

The problem starts from geography. This is the first problem anybody neighboring Russia has. — ssu

I agree.

The next thing is that Russia's identity is imperial, there is actually nothing else. — ssu

As well as the British, Spanish, American, French, or even German identity. That's how the world and countries - as we know nowadays - were built in the past. The territories were under the shadow of those vast kingdoms. Some states still have that 'pride' in their DNA, others don't. While Spain gave up on everything in 1898 with the lost of Cuba and Puerto Rico, Russia has always tried to keep their borders safe and controlled. Maybe they are proud of themselves, and we have low self-esteem as a failed Empire.

The fact is it wasn't simply a mistake. Once countries get idependence that's it, to assume the independence is a "mistake". — ssu

I had in mind the same idea, ssu. Not only they believe that the fall of Soviet Union was a mistake, but I truly believe that it was literally, sort of. Because that vast territory splitting apart in different republics was a chaos. It is true that some countries managed the independence correctly, for example: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but others don't, such as the bloody collapse of Yugoslavia.
On the other hand, most of those 'new' republics never really got independence from Moscow or the Kremlin. They became satellite countries, such as Kazakhstan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, etc. And I also consider Ukraine part of this list too.

The third issue that Russia hasn't understood that it has lost the empire. Yet for Russia it might only be this war with Ukraine. Or something else in the future. — ssu

I agree that they should accept that the Russian Empire ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the enter of capitalism in their culture. Nonetheless, I think the Western world should not disrespect Russia as we - not all countries, for sure - since 1991. I say that the fall of the USSR was a failure, but Boris Yeltsein as a President is even worse. He made great reforms in modern Russia, but he also undermined respect for Russia. Frankly, Putin was necessary for Russia's defence from the Western world. They did not - and will not wither - accept being a more 'satellite' state of the USA. They consider themselves as superpowers, and honestly I think they are. Despite the economic block, they remain in the 9th position of the world's largest economies and their geographical position is excellent. They even have some 'democratic' allies which support them silently: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Republican party, etc.

it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac

That wasn’t the numbered statement, which you used to show us all your poor understanding of freshman logic. That was the statement you incorrectly claimed was a non sequitur.

At least try to get that right.

Anyway, the argument stands: the US has been pushing a plan for Eastern Europe for years. That includes NATO membership.

It’s no coincidence that Russia reacted in 2022, especially after NATO training, weapons supplies, military drills and, significantly, the reaffirming the position from Bucharest in September 2021.

If you want to pretend there’s some other reason, fine— go with that. There’s partial truth in it. But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.

By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac

Yeah, because I stop reading after you show you have no clue what you’re talking about.

I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac

Yeah, I’m really not interested in what you consider an argument or not an argument. You’ve shown so far to have the understanding and conversational style of a high schooler who thinks he’s in a debate, and “winning.” The reality is that you’re just embarrassing.

- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac

Then go read a book. I couldn’t care less about what you “need.” I’m certainly not going to explain it to a child who thinks he’s in debate class.

And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac

Says the guy doing nothing except making random claims and bickering over statements he doesn’t understand.

You’re a waste of time. Do me a favor: read a book about logic and Ukraine. You can use it. Then grow up a little.

Maybe repeat “your guru Mearsheimer” for the thousandth time. Solidify your place in the running for goofiest forum members.

After the Serb attack on Kosovo police, Stradner wrote:

Putin is opening up a new front against the West
^{— Ivana Stradner · The Telegraph · Sep 30, 2023}

In the face of mounting tensions, Vladimir Putin’s overarching strategic objective is now clear: to dismantle Nato and expose the alliance’s vulnerabilities.

This plan accomplishes three goals: distract the West from Ukraine, strengthen Moscow’s regional standing, and give Putin leverage over Western powers if they want to keep conflict in the region from escalating.

We have repeatedly said before that, according to our forecasts, there will be fatigue in this conflict, growing fatigue in various countries from this completely absurd sponsorship of the Kiev regime, including in the United States. This fatigue will lead to a fragmentation of the political leadership and growth of contradictions. — Dmitry Peskov · Reuters · Oct 2, 2023

I'm noticing some familiar rhetoric coming from Aleksandar Vučić. Hopefully the Balkans won't catch fire, wild- or otherwise. Anyway, the divide and conquer strategy seems evident. Works better if home can be glued together by the likes of strong nationalism, or perhaps an empire-mindset. Is Stradner on point?

Dmitry Medvedev threatens to strike German missile manufacturing plants
^{— Roman Petrenko · Ukrainska Pravda · Oct 1, 2023}

I suppose some would say that the Kremlin and whatever has become "legitimate targets". Who would want to, though? For that matter, ordinarily, why would anyone want to invade Russia? What has Russia in the crosshairs is more like democracy, better transparency, less regression, less oppression, whatever it all is. Maybe that's what's to the (current) Kremlin's disliking? A resolute "rebellion" against a more progressive, open, free, non-irredentist, diverse Russian society?

The war caused the US/German/Turkish/Australian/other military-industrial complex to make a big buck, not vice versa, the US/German/Turkish/Australian/other military-industrial complex didn't cause the war. The Kremlin continues generous bombing throughout (condemned by the UN and the good baker Jones of upper Negombo, Sri Lanka). As far as I know, that military-industrial complex isn't supplying Russia — supply and demand misaligned — but could be wrong. China, Iran, maybe North Korea, on the other hand...

That being said, one might easily enough argue that weapons manufacturing is morally questionable, unless for defense. If only all manufacturing of weaponry made for homicide could be intentionally ended, then we (humans) would have made significant (moral) progress, but it only takes one. Defense depends existentially on offense, and they say that "the best defense is a good offense".

Long sad story. Won't cease or decrease by concessions to land-snacking authoritarians, that systematically indoctrinate a country's children for stark nationalism and war. Crapping on those that aren't cowards or stand up against this crap might be getting a bit too close to complicity for comfort. (Note, Kim Jong Un is taking notes.)

As well as the British, Spanish, American, French, or even German identity. That's how the world and countries - as we know nowadays - were built in the past. — javi2541997

I would disagree with this. Spanish identity isn't imperial anymore. You don't think the Netherlands is essential of your country. Or Mexico or Cuba. Spanish imperialism is quite well in the past. Last time I think it was the Rif war...

And the Brits? Lol. They have to protect the statue of Winston Churchill when something happens in the US. British imperialism is something that Monty Python mocked pretty well.

You don't think the Netherlands is essential of your country. Or Mexico or Cuba. Spanish imperialism is quite well in the past. Last time I think it was the Rif war... — ssu

I would agree that we do not feel that The Netherlands belongs to us, or it is part of our culture/identity. But Cuba is another different story. I don't consider them very different to the Canary Islands or the rest of the peninsula, and I disagree that sooner or later they will be independent of us. They never got real independence, by the way. Cuba has always been under the pressure of the USA and dictatorships (Batista's, Castro's family, etc.)

We feel that the US robbed us our Caribbean pearl - As well as the Russian perceive that Crimea could be robbed by the Westerns, ha! -. The American State declared war against Spain just to help Cuba to be free, supposedly. This is a big lie, they just wanted to keep promoting their presence on the American continent. Cuba has never been free since it became independent of us.

Mexico and the other nations are irrelevant to us. We know we share the same language, and just it. But, losing Cuba hurt back then, and the feeling remains even though it happened nearly 130 years ago. We even have a saying that goes: Más se perdió en Cuba..., which means that there will not be a greater sense of loss than losing Cuba.

We have repeatedly said before that, according to our forecasts, there will be fatigue in this conflict, growing fatigue in various countries from this completely absurd sponsorship of the Kiev regime, including in the United States. This fatigue will lead to a fragmentation of the political leadership and growth of contradictions.
— Dmitry Peskov · Reuters · Oct 2, 2023

I'm noticing some familiar rhetoric coming from Aleksandar Vučić — jorndoe

It is comprehensible. We are feeling that fatigue too, but the main difference is that our government is reckless and will keep wasting money and resources on Ukraine. I saw it coming - Slovakia's coming PM -, our nations are committing a big job and effort to supply them. But Zelensky doesn't seem to be satisfied entirely. So, the new positions of Poland and Hungary are understandable. If the U.S. is now doubting on keeping the fund, imagine us with fewer resources and poorer economies.

Robert Fico won the most votes in the 2023 parliamentary election with 22.95% of the vote and winning 42 seats fairly. And because he will not be a reckless dude, the Western media is already treating him poorly: He Is ProO RusSiAN!!!1!!1!1!1! https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/01/world/slovakia-election-pro-russia-robert-fico-win-intl-hnk/index.html

These journalists piss me off...

Exactly. But respecting the Russian sovereignty on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. It is written in the Russian constitution: — javi2541997

Who gives a flying F about the Russian constitution? If you think it's worth anything, I have some crayons and I'll draw up some $100 bills that I'll sell you at a discount. Or I can sell you the Kerch Bridge and the land it sits on; I have an official deed right here. It says "official" right on it.

Lest you think me dismissive of constitutions in general, I argue that constitutions have to earn respect. I am not aware that the Russian Constitution has earned any at all.

Ok, then. Have fun going to war until the only side that's right is the only side that's left, I suppose.

it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac

That wasn’t the numbered statement, which you used to show us all your poor understanding of freshman logic. That was the statement you incorrectly claimed was a non sequitur.

At least try to get that right. — Mikie

Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs:
1 - “Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was
considered a red line. There was no reason to do so”
2 -(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake .
Because from atomic propositions one can not infer other atomic propositions in propositional logic.

You keep repeating that I have a poor understanding of freshman logic yet without ever clarifying what is the correct understanding. For the fourth time, tell me what “non sequitur” is supposed to mean in freshman logic (feel free to quote textbooks about logic) and prove from that definition that your 2 arguments, as they are formulated, are NOT “non sequiturs” but correct inferences according to propositional logic. I bet you can't.
And there is no way you can recover from that. So suck it up and move on. And never ever dare to come back to this again. Ever.

But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt. — Mikie

Some more dogmatic claims.

By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac

Yeah, because I stop reading after you show you have no clue what you’re talking about — Mikie

.

Some more convenient chopping.

I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac

Yeah, I’m really not interested in what you consider an argument or not an argument. You’ve shown so far to have the understanding and conversational style of a high schooler who thinks he’s in a debate, and “winning.” The reality is that you’re just embarrassing. — Mikie

Some more dismissive or offensive remarks.

- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac

Then go read a book. I couldn’t care less about what you “need.” I’m certainly not going to explain it to a child who thinks he’s in debate class. — Mikie

Some more pointless advice.

And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac


Says the guy doing nothing except making random claims and bickering over statements he doesn’t understand. — Mikie

Some more delusional accusations.

You’re a waste of time. Do me a favor: read a book about logic and Ukraine. You can use it. Then grow up a little.

Maybe repeat “your guru Mearsheimer” for the thousandth time. Solidify your place in the running for goofiest forum members. — Mikie

Some more petulant whining.

Yawn.

Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac

Because you don’t know what it means. If you do, then you’ve failed to understand what was said. I’m not interested in holding your hand in explanation. You’re worth the minimal amount of time.

But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
— Mikie

Some more dogmatic claims. — neomac

No, just pure logic. But it does presume I’m dealing with a non-pathological adult, so I can see why you’ve struggled with it.

My logic's logialler than your logic 'cos you ain't got any logicalicity, an' anyway your mama...

“Your guru Aristotle” said that.

Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac


Because you don’t know what it means. If you do, then you’ve failed to understand what was said. I’m not interested in holding your hand in explanation. You’re worth the minimal amount of time.

But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
— Mikie

Some more dogmatic claims. — neomac


No, just pure logic. But it does presume I’m dealing with a non-pathological adult, so I can see why you’ve struggled with it. — Mikie

Some more shameless self-serving delirium.

Your guru so fat, if she invaded Crimea it would sink.

I don't find any sense in your remark. Probably my bad. Pease make it clear.

Exactly. But respecting the Russian sovereignty on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. It is written in the Russian constitution: — javi2541997

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and THE EXISTING BORDERS OF UKRAINE. — The Budapest Memorandum

I was expecting that you would have disrespected the Russian constitution because it does not 'fit' in your world. But, dude, it is a bloody constitution approved by the Duma back in 1993 - Putin was not even in cabinet yet - by the representatives of Russia. We cannot do this: an act of arrogance or debunk other people's constitution. You find not reliable how Russians include Crimea in article 65, while I see it as crazy how the American Constitution allows people to possess firearms. If we ever want to criticise others, we have to look at ourselves first. Another example: Spain allows the king to be 'sacrosanct' and he is above the law. Just another abnormality from the perfect Western world...

1. A forced 'Memorandum' is not above a country's constitution.

2. Yeah, the 'existing borders', but these borders - specifically - have always been part of Russia, whether you like it or not, that's the truth. Maybe Luhansk and Donetsk are another different story.

Well, if you have no interest in other countries' views and their security concerns, what situation do you believe you'll end up with other than endless war?

How exactly was the Budapest Memorandum 'forced'? Russia signed it, because it wanted to get rid of the Ukrainian nukes. Moreover Russia has also signed the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, which confirmed inviolability of the borders - was that forced, too?

Also the constitution argument makes no sense at all: those regions were added to the Russian Constitution AFTER they were annexed (i.e. in 2014 and 2022), so in the time of the Budapest Memorandum and the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty the Russian Constitution clearly stated those regions are NOT Russia. On the other hand, according to Ukrainian's constitution from 1992 Crimea already WAS part of Ukraine. Why exactly the Russian constitution is supposed to trump the Ukrainian constitution?

And what about Kaliningrad? Historically it was not part of Russia, can Germans just take it, provided they add it to their constitution after annexation?

Most of the 1990s treaties signed by Russia were forced, or they didn't have a good back-up to Russia's interests or borders. Boris Yeltsein was obsessed with showing to the world that the Soviet Union had ended and Russia started to become a democratic/Liberal country. As I stated to ssu and Tim wood previously, Crimea has always been part of Russia, but the Ukrainians took it forcibly in 1997. So, the Russians got catfished in the new map of their borders.

You state that we should not give credit to Russian constitution, but why we have to do so regarding Ukrainian? It is funny how the Ukrainians expropiate Crimea from the Russians between 1992 and 1997, when that peninsula was part of Russian Empire for centuries. Frankly, the Ukranians acted with bad faith and Putin is taking back all that belong to Russia.

And what about Kaliningrad? Historically it was not part of Russia, can Germans just take it, provided they add it to their constitution after annexation? — Jabberwock

That's a different story. Don't mix up things. We are debating about Crimea. But, if you want to dive in, fine. Provide some data, at least...

[Kaliningrad]
In the context of the Seven Year War, all of East Prussia was conquered and partly occupied by the Russian Empire (1758–1762).Immanuel Kant is famous for having sworn allegiance to Empress Elizabeth of Russia.
The annexed territory was populated with Soviet citizens, mostly ethnic Russians but to a lesser extent also Ukrainians and Belarusians. What a paradise it seems!
In 2010, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a report claiming that Kaliningrad had been offered to Germany in 1990 (against payment). The offer was not seriously considered by the West German government which, at the time, saw reunification with East Germany as a higher priority.

Hmmm... It doesn't seem that the German authorities are as interested in Kaliningrad as Russians are as much in Crimea...

Most of the 1990s treaties signed by Russia were forced, or they didn't have a good back-up to Russia's interests or borders. Boris Yeltsein was obsessed with showing to the world that the Soviet Union had ended and Russia started to become a democratic/Liberal country. As I stated to ssu and Tim wood previously, Crimea has always been part of Russia, but the Ukrainians took it forcibly in 1997. So, the Russians got catfished in the new map of their borders.

You state that we should not give credit to Russian constitution, but why we have to do so regarding Ukrainian? It is funny how the Ukrainians expropiate Crimea from the Russians between 1992 and 1997, when that peninsula was part of Russian Empire for centuries. Frankly, the Ukranians acted with bad faith and Putin is taking back all that belong to Russia. — javi2541997

You should be aware that repeating the assertion does not prove it. Can you provide evidence that the treaties were forced?

And the claim that Crimea has 'always' been part of Russia is wildly incorrect. 174 years is not 'always', is it? It was much longer under the Khanate and the Ottoman Empire than under Russia. And whether you like it or not, Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine 1957, so formally it has been with Ukraine since that time.

Russians have less claim to it as Turks, and they have less claim to it than Tatars. You basically claim that Catherine's conquest somehow made it Russian forever, while all the other changes are irrelevant. That is rather silly.

You state that we should not give credit to Russian constitution, but why we have to do so regarding Ukrainian? It is funny how the Ukrainians expropiate Crimea from the Russians between 1992 and 1997, when that peninsula was part of Russian Empire for centuries. Frankly, the Ukranians acted with bad faith and Putin is taking back all that belong to Russia. — javi2541997

So we agree that the constitution argument is pointless. And between 1992 and 1997 Crimea did not belong to the Russian Federation, It tried to gain independence, but was not formally recognized by anyone. DId Chechenya stop being part of the Russian Federation, because it had self-declared independent government?

In the context of the Seven Year War, all of East Prussia was conquered and partly occupied by the Russian Empire (1758–1762).Immanuel Kant is famous for having sworn allegiance to Empress Elizabeth of Russia. — javi2541997

And in the context of Khruschev decision Crimea has been Ukrainian since 1957. Again, you seem to believe that only Russian conquests count.

The annexed territory was populated with Soviet citizens, mostly ethnic Russians but to a lesser extent also Ukrainians and Belarusians. What a paradise it seems!
In 2010, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a report claiming that Kaliningrad had been offered to Germany in 1990 (against payment). The offer was not seriously considered by the West German government which, at the time, saw reunification with East Germany as a higher priority.

Hmmm... It doesn't seem that the German authorities are as interested in Kaliningrad as Russians are as much in Crimea... — javi2541997

But if they do get interested, they have every right to seize it, is that correct?