Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted a month without US involvement. — Mikie

If there would be NO assistance, perhaps an arms embargo on Ukraine ...for some reason, then I guess
the only response would have been an insurgency.

But do notice that Europe combined has actually given more than the US. And apart of Hungary etc. there isn't this whimping out from supporting Ukraine like in the GOP in the US.

(Kiel Institue, 7.9.2023) Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large. A main reason is the EU’s new €50 billion “Ukraine Facility,” but also other European countries have upped their support with new multi-year packages. For the first time since the start of the war, the US is now clearly lagging behind.

Yes, this is more of the European's war and not an American war. So just thinking this is a "proxy war for the US military-industrial complex" not only disses European agency, but actually the reality, political and military, on the ground.

This is claimed to be part of the 10 points of Instambul Communque:
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan — neomac

Neomac, notice what @Tzeentch argued:

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

Where is this kind of argument was my question. Please read what I say.

Gaza Health ministry has revised the death tolls downwards to ~22k with 13k of those being Hamas according to the IDF by the way. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is here talking, Gaza Health ministry (the remnants of it) or the IDF?

I would treat palestinians like an enemy population. — BitconnectCarlos

That tells everything.

For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians.

But I guess some here on even a Philosophy Forum think otherwise.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

I don't recall hearing this. But please give an actual reference on it. And what happened to the "denazification"?

Besides, this isn't on the anymore.

It's not a proxy war to them. But who cares, it seems.

Seems to me that "lost its independence in [...]" is a wee bit exaggerated, — jorndoe

Wee! :grin:

When the Finnish Parliament voted at 188 to 8 to apply for NATO membership, some might think that nearly like in North Korea. But there weren't US troops in the Parliament when deciding this, unlike as there were when Estonian Parliament decided to join the Soviet Union. :smirk:

(Estonian Parliament making the unanimous vote to join the Soviet Union in 1940. )

The Kremlin hints at negotiations.

(Euronews, 12th April 2024) A draft Russia-Ukraine agreement negotiated in 2022 could serve as a starting point for prospective talks to end the fighting in Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Friday.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the draft document that was discussed in Istanbul in March 2022 could be “the basis for starting negotiations.” At the same time, he noted that the possible future talks would need to take into account the “new realities.”

“There have been many changes since then, new entities have been included in our constitution,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

This can be intrepeted many ways, but I think the new entities refers to the Oblasts annexed.

And naturally Russia disses any peace negotiations that Ukraine has proposed, I guess in Switzerland in June:

Russia has dismissed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s peace formula calling for Moscow to withdraw troops, pay compensation to Ukraine and face an international tribunal for its action.

↪ssu Amen. But I like to think that in every debate there is either a right answer or at least the better answer. — tim wood

If you have a right answer, you are dealing with mathematics and logic.

If the answer is better (or worse), then the next question is better for whom? Unfortunately the "better for everybody" becomes difficult to get now days.

Of course it is not an absolute restraint, but no gun-nut I've engaged with in any way will allow the conversation to get anywhere near questioning just what "shall not be infringed" actually means. — tim wood

Well, it's the typical modern day argument method: there is no room for any conversation. You simply repeat your line no matter what and simply ignore what the other one says. Any deviation from your line is like "giving your little finger to the devil". To say "This thing is this way, however..." is too complicated, too lax, as if you wouldn't have a firm opinion. Anyway, these people don't debate, they just are supporting their stance and making it clear to everybody.

It's like try to ask either a pro-choice or a pro-life person if they have exceptions to their rule. Good luck with that.

Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong: — 180 Proof

:lol:

Now that's the spirit!!!

The shortest answer I feel comfortable to give is that I take “justification” as a normative claim which one appeals to in order to ground beliefs so that they do not appear arbitrary. Therefore, the will of the people needs to be grounded on a justifying system of beliefs, which is what I think we normally refer to when talking about “the narrative”, in order to not appear arbitrary, especially to those who do not share such will or worse have to lose. — neomac

Well said.

And here we find the problem that the narratives diverge so much that they simply don't meet. At all. Nor there's any willingness to listen to other sides narrative.

One might wish to say that both Israelis and Palestinians may find an agreement for a peaceful however unjust resolution (since narratives remain incompatible) but, so far, they didn’t manage to. — neomac

Actually I think it was really close when the Cold War ended. Palestinians had angered the Gulf states by siding with Saddam and as the Cold War ended, Israel thought once the Cold War ended and the Soviet threat evaporated, the US wouldn't care much of it. Hence all the drive from Madrid talks to Oslo Accords.

But then Likud and Netanyahu understood that the US-Israeli relationship and the very successful lobby it has is also a domestic issue in the US, not a foreign policy issue. And the Arabs came back to give aid like Qatar to Hamas. So why make that "unjust" lousy negotiated peace?

The Israeli Palestinian situation is a reminder that for example in Northern Ireland they really can be happy about the Good Friday agreement. "The Troubles" could have continued even to this day.

Whatever agreement decision makers may have found at some point, they weren’t able to enforce them on either sides. — neomac

To guarantee peace, you have to have a functioning state. Egypt is one. Even Jordan is one. Yet Lebanon is a failed state. Syria has become one.

Above all, Israel would need a reason to make a peace agreement. It doesn't have any, Likud's objective of a state from the river to the sea is already quite close. And extreme Zionists can believe that they are getting there, settlement after settlement. Hamas can also look at the Oslo Accords as utter failure. Both sides can reassure themselves of the wickedness of the other side.

But I have not found a single one who will even respond to any question as to anyone who should not have a gun. — tim wood

Well, the gun nuts are not angry about the existing limitations like this:

18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison.

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests? — Moses

What larger death tolls?

War in Ukraine has larger death tolls, but it hasn't such high amounts of civilian deaths or death of children. And let's remember how few people are in Gaza and that this war has been going on for a shorter period time (aside how long the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on). Sudan has 46 million people.

Question for you, Moses: Would you be OK if the Israeli army continued it's fight against Hamas, but did allow freely food to be transported to the civilian population (which would be naturally inspected)?

The US did this in similar battles it fought in Iraq, even if it clearly understood that some of the food would end up in the bellies of the enemy combatants, yet decided that to starve civilians would be more counterproductive. And it tried to kill the insurgents by other means than hunger. As the US fought Al Qaede and Isis, it did also try to look after the civilian population when the battle was still ongoing. Or is there something wrong in the way the US did it?

And then

Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up: — 180 Proof

amen :pray: — Wayfarer

Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion.

You can't compress a random sequence of characters or a random collection of objects, you can only describe it, and that description will be 1:1. — Wayfarer

That's what I tried to say, but that's a better way saying it. And the statement describing "information" is basically about this inability of compression. I guess.

- chaos doesn't contain or convey information of any kind. — Wayfarer

I think the problem is that the meaning of "information" here is quite specific and doesn't relate to what we usually think of "information". Perhaps using the term "raw data" would be more appropriate. Data refers to "things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation", so that isn't helpful either. I think people would understand the difference between "information" and "data" better.

And if someone thinks that a random sequence if continued to infinity has the all the information in the World, shows just how difficult it is for us to grasp infinity.

In a statistical mechanics book, it is stated that "randomness and information are essentially the same thing," which results from the fact that a random process requires high information. . . . .
But, later it says that entropy and information are inversely related since disorder decreases with knowledge. But, this does not make sense to me. I always thought that entropy and randomness in a system were the same thing. — Gnomon

Perhaps "the randomness and information are essentially the same thing" simply means that you cannot compress something that is random or you will lose information (about the random sequence). At least that is the way I understand it.

If you have a random sequence, the only accurate way to model it perfectly is by writing the sequence in it's entirety. If you have a sequence that isn't random, let's say Tolstoi's War and Peace. I can refer to it and not copy paste here the whole book. An accurate shorter version is just to refer what book, when printed and perhaps which translation in what language from Russia.

The disorder decreasing with knowledge is quite another issue.

if all that matters is what people believe, how is it possible that the age of certain ideas which are part of people’s belief systems and, actually, help justify and identify such belief systems doesn’t matter? — neomac

Perhaps I may have asked the question in a difficult manner.

Do historical aspects justify more or is it the will of the people? Which justifies more?

As having studied history I understand the role of history here quite well: history is usually used to push an agenda by focusing and giving importance to the details that makes the agenda important. Thus history is usually done from a national point of view that justifies the existing state and all little details that have made it so. If history is a tool for this, it still is a tool. Existence of a state and a desire for an independent state is a lot more.

Finally, if Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel while not recognising Israel, then also Palestinians don't want a two state solution. — neomac

Umm... they did recognize Israel. At least the PA did. (Do you know the Oslo peace accords?)

Following the Oslo I Accord in 1993, the Palestinian Authority and Israel conditionally recognized each other's right to govern specific areas of the country.

This is the reason why Netanyahu just loved so much Hamas that he even financially supported them. For him the Palestinian that cannot be negotiated with is the Palestinian that he wants to have. Far more easy to ethnically cleanse when the other side are "human animals".

(And naturally many Israelis want to uphold the idea that they cannot negotiate with the Palestinians, that Palestinians just want to drive them to the sea. Or something like that.)

The problem for you is that unless you want to deny the goings-on surrounding the negotiations, they directly contradict pretty much your entire narrative. — Tzeentch

If my narrative is that negotiations for a ceasefire have failed, how much does that contradict my entire narrative? :roll:

You are just building your own strawmen here.

Are you serious? — Tzeentch

Yes, I'm serious. There were negotiations that didn't go anywhere. They failed. Not even a moments cease-fire.

So you are whining over about spilled milk.

But this is very typical. To uphold the pro-Russian stance here and in order to try to make the US culpable of everything, a very selective and illogical narrative has to be used along with "what-if" type hypotheticals like this. It becomes the mantra to be repeated over and over again.

If standing up to them is "the abyss" (as in "not to be done"), then think about what you've forfeit. ssu mentioned deterrence having gone out the window, and it goes further than so, as history indeed tells us.

People can figure such stuff out on their own, without somehow having been tricked by the US. — jorndoe

Why this is so hard to fathom is curious to me as this should be evident. A belligerent wants a peace deal only if a) the belligerent has gained it's objectives (won the war) or b) if the objectives cannot be reached AND continuing the war leads to a worse situation.

Option b) is what people refer to a true negotiated peace or cease-fire while option a) is just the victor seeking legalization of the victory and normalization of the situation.

This idea of "a negotiated peace should be reached because people are dying" is a view that a third party can have, but it's not how the belligerent sees it. Yes, wars shouldn't be fought. Anti-war sentiment can have an effect especially in democracies. Yet when the aggressor is authoritarian state, puts into jail people who oppose the war, the ways that in a democracy people can oppose a war and thus influence their governments actions isn't going to work. Also when the aggressor is transforming it's economy to a wartime economy, it isn't interested in international relations and thus sanctions don't work... especially if it can feed it's people and has the natural resources and an weapons industry to continue the war.

In other words, Arafat with his nationalist narrative managed to emerge thanks to the USSR financial, military, intelligence and propaganda aid. — neomac

And Israel's first backer was actually the Soviet Union. At the birth of the state it was quite leftist and the US wasn't actually supporting it (the FBI was searching for Jewish arms smugglers, for example). Hence one of the first aircraft IAF had were Czech built Me-109s (Avia S-199).

The historical Ukrainian nationalism is much older than Palestinian nationalism there is no question about it. — neomac

Much older? At least Ukrainian identity is now molded to a new level. But how much some Bohdan Khmelnytsky was an Ukrainian nationalist is an interesting question (especially when he allied with Russia). Present nationalism is a quite late idea, yet to think that nationalism didn't exist prior to the 19th Century is wrong.

But here's the real question to you. The Zionist idea of Israel is very young. And so is the idea of independent Palestine. But the age of the idea doesn't matter, it's how many people genuinely believe in that cause. There is absolutely no prestige, no larger credibility or justification on this age issue. This is just the nonsensical debate that parties who want to thrash the other side in the Palestine/Israel debate. I don't understand at all the reasoning for this debate or why should it be important. The Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't want a two state solution.

We've actually seen just now a coming and going of one idea, an Islamic Caliphate in the form of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh come, emerge and be squashed in the region. This isn't anything new, actually. Hence likely that the region hasn't seen the end of new nation forming. Likely in the year 2424 the map can be totally different from now. And those states will trace their glorious history back to our time and beyond to older history.

What's your grounds for simply ignoring these accounts? — Tzeentch

It didn't happen, hence this is crying over spilled milk. Remember that years have gone from this.

And especially after Putin annexed more Oblasts, Ukraine lost interest. Annexation of parts that Russia even doesn't all control tells quite something else than a desire or willingness for a negotiated peace.

When have I ever mentioned accepting Russian demands? — Tzeentch

Five months ago here. It's the typical idea that Russia would have (somehow) accepted a negotiated peace... but it was the West that fumbled it by "standing firm".

But let's just look at the text of the Istanbul Communiqué:

We didn't get a Russian proposal, but the proposal had this line:

Proposal 2: These international security guarantees for Ukraine would not extend to Crimea, Sevastopol, or certain areas in the Donbas. The parties to the treaty would have to define the boundaries of these areas or agree that each party understands these boundaries differently.

That leaves the territories quite open. And this is the proposal for the Russians. And lastly, what is there for Russia to wait a few years and then continue the annexations? There already were the Minsk agreements. Just think for a moment about this...

First there was the Minsk Protocol...

...and that ended when Russian forces took Donetsk INTL.

Then there was Minsk II in 2015...

...but that didn't end the fighting. The frozen conflict continued, until 2022 it was "Denazification time"!

In your eyes, proposing to negotiate for a diplomatic solution is "accepting Russian demands", "appeasement", etc. — Tzeentch

Real peace or armstice happens only when both parties are incapable of military victory and understand it. Now Russia doesn't see it this way. It simply hopes that the US gets bored and that it can still get a military victory. So there really is no incentive for Russia to seek a negotiated peace.

Both times Finland was negotiating with Russia, notice what was on stake for Russia. In the Winter War in 1940, there was the genuine possibility that Soviet Union might face both French and British troops. Soviet Union didn't want this to happen. During the Continuation War in 1944 the assault on Finland had stalled, Finns had even made counterattacks and putting more troops to the Finnish front would be away from the major theater and hinder the effort in taking Berlin. And Finland still had behind the frontline it's Salpa defensive line. Stalin was worried that the Western allies might get there first if he continued the fight with Finland.

In both cases the option for a negotiated settlement was better for the Russian side.

You fight to win until you make a settlement if/when you can't. You don't do it like the Americans in Afghanistan: fight, but declare simultaneously a deadline for your departure.

Exactly. You believe the Russians were lying about their security concerns. That's precisely my point. — Tzeentch

Again no. They are not lying!

Does the US lie when it talks about democracy and humanitarian rights? No. The simple fact is that sometimes realpolitik goes over these issues, like when it comes to certain allies, yet it doesn't mean that the US would be lying about democracy and humanitarians rights. So I don't know where you get this strange idea to assume there lying. Besides, Russian imperialism has always been defined by defense of the realm, just as Catherine the Great said:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

.

Similarly situation with Russia and NATO expansion. Even in the Russian military doctrine published years ago before 2014 NATO expansion was defined as threat number 1. So surely they are not lying what they see as their security concerns. Yet what I commented to @jorndoe, is that to think that NATO expansion this is the only objective, even the prime objective, is wrong. If NATO wouldn't have expanded, then taking Ukraine would have been far more easy to Russia.

The nonchalance with which you speak about turning your own country into a nuclear wasteland to deny it to the Russians, one would think you were a Ukrainian rather than a Finn. It's downright uncanny how eager you already appear to be for war. — Tzeentch

Well, seems you don't have any idea what deterrence is about. Deterrence has to be credible and deterrence is to keep the peace. And luckily that deterrence was reinforced by joining NATO. And also Sweden joining NATO.

The nonchalance with which you speak of accepting Russian demands as a solution to get "peace" shows how naive your thinking is.

You understand this is exactly the type of sentiment an actor like the US will use to put you infront of its wagon? — Tzeentch

You understand that Finland not being in NATO would put Finland in a far more precarious situation than now? Obviously not. And as I've said many times, it's unlikely that Russia will use military action against Finland, but there are 1001 other ways to pressure our country. It would be far more worse if a) we wouldn't be in the EU and b) we wouldn't be in NATO.



And I think Finns have a far more realpolitik view of allies. The last so-called ally was Hitler's Germany, which we had to fight immediately once we made armstice with Russia. Proper Dolchstoss, I would say.

Except that none of this is actually part of my argument.


I'm not making any arguments about whether Russia's security concerns are justified, which is what you are doing. — Tzeentch

It's not about the justification, it's about what the real objectives here are. Does Russia have the right to annex territories is the justification part. But it has done so, hence this isn't about NATO enlargement.

I'm making the argument that when Russia speaks about existential security concerns and red lines for a decade-and-a-half, one should take it seriously. — Tzeentch

And Ukraine wouldn't have been a NATO member. Naturally NATO cannot go against it's own charter and basically add to it "countries hoping to be members have to have the permission from Russia to join". Hence Ukraine wasn't joining NATO. Period. Hence the motive for the invasion lies somewhere else.

Well, we have seen what comes of that: the destruction of Ukraine.

That's why I have asked you whether you would be similarly careless if it were Finland paying the price of war. You have yet to answer that question. — Tzeentch

Wrong. I've answered it. My grandfathers fought the Russians and so would I, even if I'm quite old. Their generation lost a lot more killed than the this Ukrainian generation has seen. Finland lost in WW2 2,5% of the total population. 96 000 soldiers died from 3,8 million people. Civilian losses were surprisingly small.

Now ask yourself: has yet 2,5% from the Ukrainian people (or basically 5% of the men) yet been killed?

And I think you don't understand Finnish mentality on the subject. They have made consistently polls about the attitudes towards the defense of the country by asking the same question again and again for decades: "Would you defend your country in war, even if the outcome would be questionable". Hence the question is if would you defend your country, even if there's a real possibility of losing the war. The vast majority of Finns have said yes, they would. Still do. I would also.

And if Russia nukes all the cities in Finland and ethnically cleanses out the rest surviving Finns, then take as many of them out with you and good luck with that barren nuclear wasteland then. And when likely it wouldn't come to that, defend your country to get then a better deal... like staying independent. But you get that only when the other side sees a negotiated settlement better that the continuation of the war.

Yet, to distinguish Palestinians as a specific nation within the wider Arab ethnic group, Palestinians should also be able to see themselves as distinct from other Arabs, not simply as Arabs living in Palestine fighting against the Jews. — neomac

I still think that their history makes them quite different from Jordanians, Egyptians or the Lebanese. As I said, Swedes and Finns are both Europeans. Both are majority Christians and share a common past. Yet for example the Swedish speaking Finns do not consider themselves Swedes, but Finns who just happen to talk Swedish. (And btw. this has been a huge reason why there isn't any rift between these two ethnic groups in Finland)

And let's remember that Pan-Arabism was tried and it crashed. Just ask the Syrians how well did that experiment go with the Egyptians having a one-Pan Arab state. And the relations between the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) member states who all are also members of the Arab League show how brittle these relationships are.

This is a poor analogy. Independent Ukraine is 33 years old, Ukrainian nationalism and sentiment has definitely a longer history, much longer than the Palestinian nationalism. — neomac

And how was it shown in 1945-1991? Yes, there is a history of Ukraine, but so has Palestine even a longer history. And Ukrainian nationalism emerged only in the 19th Century. And do notice that Palestinians had the Arab revolt in 1936-1939 against the British, where actually the Jewish fought alongside the British and gained military experience and competence (the Haganah just didn't sporadically emerge from refugees from Europe). And prior to that they were part of the Ottoman Empire, just as everybody else.

I simply get to the plausible roots of Israelis’ skepticism about Palestinian nationalism. — neomac

There is an understandable motive for the Israeli skepticism about Palestinian nationalism. It's quite similar to the skepticism of Ukrainian nationalism by the Russians.Ordinary you don't give credence to the enemy you are fighting and his objectives. Actually it's quite natural. And this goes vice versa: the talk of Israel as an "colonial enterprise" is a way to diss Israel.

Yet as you mentioned about the state of Israel and Zionism, it's actually the Israeli's themselves that give credence to having a very young state. Yet I think the Israelis have the right for their country just as the Japanese or the French have for their own. It isn't about how long your nation has existed.

That’s not my argument, though. My argument is that Palestinians and Israelis have to fight for their right to the land if their demands are incompatible, because there is no way to consistently ground both demands on the same justifying narrative. — neomac

This is well said. Actually it reminds me of what Noah Hariri said: Israelis and Palestinians could easily live together, but not with the narratives they tell themselves. For a one state solution the problem is basically Zionism and democracy. If the state of Israel has more non-Jews than Jews, what kind of homeland for the Jews is it?

What I care to focus on is to what extent Palestinians can see themselves as a distinct nation from the larger Arab community. I think the way they have been treated by other Arab governments and people may have contributed to a reciprocal estrangement which reinforced Palestinian Nationalism. — neomac

In 1948 yes, the neighbors didn't care a shit about Palestinians. But now I think it's different: nobody wants to be responsible of 7 million Palestinians. So OK for them to have their own country...as it's Israeli territory, anyway.

Lessons learned? Not learned? — jorndoe

The lesson that should be learnt is that Russia isn't a state that basically is happy with it's borders and has severe problems to be a nation state... because it isn't one. And the West cannot do anything about this.

Even if the Soviet Empire collapsed, Russia is still not a nation state. It's only 71% Russian and the 29% other minority groups. Russia has nearly two hundred minorities and 270 languages and dialects are spoken in the country. And these people aren't immigrants, but varies people that the Russian Empire subjugated, many surprisingly late in the 19th Century. Hence Russia truly fears "decolonization" and it breaking apart. This is the basis of Russian insecurity. The only reason we seem not to understand this is because it's a continuous landmass, not something separated by sea. Yet present day parts of Russia are as "normal" as would be a France with Algeria as it's intergral part (as we should remember that Algeria wasn't for the French a colony, but part of France).

The basic problem is that many in the West have thought, just like @Tzeentch and others like him here think, that everything that Russia does is an reaction to what the West does. This leaves to flawed thinking that if left alone, Russia would be peaceful and coexist peacefully.

This isn't the case, especially because of the leadership.

One has to understand Putin's point about the collapse of the Soviet Union being the worst thing that happened in the 20th Century. The collapse happened because Russia itself, under Yeltsin, didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union after the Putsch. This made it all so startling. This would be similar if England and the English would demand independence from the UK and say fuck to everything British. In that case, hardly the Welsh, the Scots or the Northern Irelanders would choose either to live in hollow United Kingdom. They would simply find themselves being independent countries. And likely afterwards some English politicians would start thinking that being British wasn't such a bad idea and thus try to regain that UK in some form. And likely they would view Whales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as "special case" with a lot jealosy if other countries made close relations with the former members of the UK.

This is the reason why Putin acts this way and how Russia sees it's "near abroad". This is also why for example the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact members wanted right from the start to get under the cover of NATO. They had this brief "window of opportunity" to detach from Russia.

Yet the actual NATO members of the Cold War didn't see it this way. They saw the Cold War ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union and didn't assume the inevitable Russian rebound and thought that a new era had begun. Hence the biggest problem for NATO was to find a new mission, because the OG Cold War NATO was antiquated. Or so it was thought.

And afterwards many think, that it was the NATO enlargement that was the reason. But for Russia with it's imperial past, it's authoritarian system, it's fears of further collapse of "decolonization", it has other reasons to act as it has. And in Ukraine it really has shown it's true colors here.

This is what you're proposing: that we assume Russia is lying about the security concerns it voiced for over 15 years, and that they can therefore safely be ignored and antagonized. — Tzeentch

This is laughable.

What security concerns made Russia to annex Crimea?

What security concerns made Russia to annex later Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts?

What security concerns made Russia to start Russification programs in the territories it occupies?

What security concerns made Putin talk over and over again how important Ukraine is to Russia, how they are historically together and how artificial an independent Ukraine is?

It would be totally similar if the US invaded Cuba because Cuba's close ties to Russia and then annexed the Island with the US president saying that Cuba is a natural part of the US as it had been earlier and the independence given to the Island in 1902 was a huge mistake from earlier administrations. And the US president would say again and again that Cuba was a natural part of the United States because of the historical ties. And not only Cubans would be given US citizenship, but also English would taught in schools in hope to replace Spanish. When all this would happen, a person with similar reasoning like you would blame Russia for this invasion, and say it's all because of Russian adventurism into the American continent and the US would have been forced to do so. The US had to react like this! Why didn't Russia listen???

How ridiculous would for this person to totally disregard the annexation part, the rhetoric of Cuba being a part of US, the actions taken in Cuba and to deny this being an act of literally classic imperialism? But but but...security concerns of possible Russian troops and missiles like in the 1960's! Nothing else matters!!!

And then when people would counter him and point out that the US annexed the Island, hence it's desires and objectives were far more than just keeping the Russians out, this guy would just insist that all this happened because of Russian policies and the US had to do what it did. And even if others would have nothing against the fact that Russian ties did play part here, it would naturally would look to be more of a fig leaf for the invasion than the primary cause, when you look at the actions taken.

That's how crazy your argumentation is.

In other words, when a former, nuclear-armed great power talks about existential security threats and red lines for fifteen years, ignore them and assume they are lying.

Genius. — Tzeentch

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Just as the US speaks of humanitarian rights and democratic freedoms all the time, so does Russia about NATO expansion. Are both lying? No, of course they care about their pet issues. But you have to look twice at the reason for starting wars. But seems that you are not willing to even to consider this. Somehow the World has to have these unitary reason.

And then just strawman about ignoring them and assume they are lying.

Besides, please give us the reference where Putin has said himself before 2022 that Ukraine itself poses a threat to Russia.

Genius.

In other words, you're saying the Russians lied to us for 15 years and their warnings should have been ignored, as they were? — Tzeentch

They might be unhappy of NATO enlargement, but as you should notice that the enlargement of Sweden and Finland didn't actually get much if ANY response. The whole thing was a non-event. Why? Because it's a minor point, just like humanitarian issues and democracy is a minor issue to the US, but it still talks a lot about those issues in it's foreign policy discourse.

Hence to think that the reason to attack Ukraine was to avoid NATO enlargement is simply false. That (to deter Ukraine from becoming a NATO partner) was already done actually by the show of forces with large military exercises on the Ukrainian border. Besides, the whimsical idea here is to think that what countries the US Presidents says to become members would really become members de facto laughable. That it took two years for Sweden to get into NATO should tell that. No, the real reason to invade Ukraine was to gain territory, create that landbridge to Crimea, create that Novorossiya. This is not speculation, it's a fact: Russia has annexed more territories, some that it even doesn't have control. This, plus the russification efforts done in the occupied territories, should make this really clear.

What is now becoming very clear that Putin was lead to think that the invasion would be quick and similar to what happened with Crimea. And the West wouldn't be a problem... just as earlier in 2014 it hadn't been

Another question; suppose Finland is next on the chopping block. Would you also favor this strongman attitude of no negotiations or diplomacy with the Russians? Fight on till the last Finn, as it were? — Tzeentch

If Russia makes territorial claims then yes, absolutely, my attitude would be the same of my grandparents generation. If it comes to fighting, fight like they did.

It is absolutely delusional and outright deadly to go and accept the Russian demands and think that will give you peace. Just ask that from the Estonians, the Lithuanians or the Latvians how great it was to accept the Russian demands last time. What the Kremlin would want is would be the "Finlandized" Finland during Kekkonen's era. Or that at least for starters. Hence I'm glad that the social democrats took us to NATO, and we got Sweden there too!

But I guess it's something you cannot fathom as you think that Russians are so 'reasonable' in their demands. (Just like the denazification of Ukraine) :roll:

Oh... How odd then that the Russians insisted for over fifteen years that it was an existential security threat and marked it as a red line.

And what a genius plan to ignore such warnings!

How strange that Ukraine ended up in the position that it did.

How very odd, indeed. — Tzeentch

What genius says things like the above.

There's nothing odd with that. Russian imperialists see Ukraine as the existential part of the to make them a great Power. This isn't any new news. Even others agreed with this:



Ukraine's fault was to think that Russian leaders would stay as reasonable as the (ex)-Soviet leaders that peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union. Ukraine's second error was to trust that by giving away it's nuclear deterrence and to trust the written promises given to it by Russia. And the third error was that many thought foolishly that the aspirations for Ukraine were just about NATO expansion. Well, Putin's bizarre historical ideas should have obviously shown that this isn't just about not, but really about Russia itself. As if Crimea didn't already show that.

(Many years earlier, far before the 2022 invasion, the objectives were there to be seen...)

Second, your complaint can be easily retorted: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on the US's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at Russia. And if that is what makes me pro-US, then the opposite argument, namely the exact argument you just made makes you pro-Russian. You take Russia to be a lesser evil than the US. I take the US to be a lesser evil than Russia. To call mine a bias and yours not a bias, you have give compelling arguments, so far you offered questionable arguments. — neomac

:100: :up:

Everything has to be put into context and scale. Ukraine didn't threaten Russia, Russia has made crystal clear it's imperialistic territorial ambitions in Ukraine and is still delusional in wanting purge Ukraine from the "neo-nazis", who it says control Ukraine. Now perhaps 70 000 Ukrainian soldiers 11 000 Ukrainian civilians and over 100 000 Russian soldiers have been killed, hence this isn't a minor issue.

What mistakes had been done by the West, it simply doesn't erase the fact that Putin decided to escalate a frozen conflict to a full scale conventional war with the objective of continuing the land grab it started over in 2014. Those are the facts and thus stating that somehow "Russia was forced to act" and the war is actually perpetrated by the US is simply false.

And then if we focus on what mistakes the West has done, that's actually an interesting question which doesn't go on the biased line propagated by the Kremlin, where everything was manipulated by the US and Ukraine and Ukrainians aren't actors in their own country. (As they are so artificial, anyway)

The real critique of the US could be the too little too late doctrine in supporting Ukraine, as the US didn't from the start think Ukraine would have a chance to defend itself so successfully. The assistance became a show in micromanagement of individual weapon system transfers...as if some units would be a silver bullet in a large scale war. The fear of (nuclear) escalation worked to cow the US from giving assistance when it could have been very effective, when Russia wasn't yet entrenched behind the Gerasimov line and was still claiming that this was only a "special military operation".

Somehow the Cold War era wars in Korea and Vietnam didn't come to mind here: at least the Superpowers did understand that assisting someone who is fighting the other Superpower isn't a direct act of war. But this seems to have been forgotten and the nuclear talk from Putin and Medvedev cowed the West.

I wrote an article on this a while back for 1,000 Word Philosophy, although they weren't interested in the topic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting read. I think there's one absolutely fundamental issue here at play to this discussion: as you point out in Introducing the Scandal of Deduction, conclusions have to be implicit in the premises. It's all quite deductional and as you say, "no new information is generated by deduction".

Randomness cannot be so. Something random creates that "information" all time when the random process/string is continued. In fact I'm coming to the conclusion that something random has to follow a certain rule that it achieves Kolmogorov-Chaitin randomness/algorithmic entropy. The rule/algorithm is also used in the Turing Machines example or other undecidability results: negative self-reference. This can be seen from the complexity strings.

A rational number like 7/11 in decimal form is 0,3636363636... and it has a very low complexity. To write it the decimal form you have the rule "After zero and comma, write 36 and repeat it forever". Another rational number has also has low complexity, but isn't as easy to write as 7/11 has the rule for it's decimal representation "After zero and comma, write all the telephone numbers in the 1973 Seattle telephone book in the order they are listed and repeat it forever". Again a rational number with low complexity as that above rule wasn't long to write.

For a random string there cannot be any algorithm that gives all the information of the number with less complexity. A random string can be presented only by itself in it's entirety to have all the information. So how can that be then done? Only a sequence that doesn't repeat itself can be random. Hence it has to self reference itself on the negative: if you start from an arbitrary point, then what came before cannot be repeated later or define what later comes. Hence the negative self reference.

So basically the question is what are those Gödel numbers that are undecidable? At least part of them are all the numbers that are random and quite unique to themselves.

This is my brainstorming and the above can be easily wrong or not easy to follow. I do hope some remarks, though.

As you said in the piece "Likewise, our knowledge of mathematics comes from experience. Axioms are experimental truths; generalizations from observation.", this is the real question here. Are our axioms correct? Or are we mission some "self evident" things in mathematics. In my view we obviously are: there simply is a realm of mathematics that is uncomputable, where easy deductive proofs aren't possible. Would thus there be an axiom for this?

I think there could be one.

First question here is of course cui bono? Who is the Central Clearing Party and how much power the pension funds themselves have? Then what's at stake for the sovereign states now having basically their monetary policy in the Euro-system handled by the ECB. Basically we have learnt from past financial crisis is that the market is let to act as if free markets when things go up and in a crash those that have power and influence will have their asses saved as "too big to fail". And likely it will happen so the next time: the rules are one in good times, in crisis few people decide how to bail out "the system". And then anything goes, hell with the free markets or laws covering them.

Hence it always irks me when someone tells something is "as good as money" as money in this current global monetary system isn't so great (except if you are a rich borrower investing it in something profitable).

This works fine in normal markets but not in stressed markets. The risk that they cannot transform their bonds, is what is called the transformation risk. — Benkei

So basically what your idea is that this ETF would work better in that situation?

So, one solution I was now thinking of is the following and I wonder whether it will work:

What if the CCP creates an actively managed ETF with a certain basket of high-quality bonds (that all pension funds have) and simultaneously forces its clearing members to accept ETF shares as variation margin? — Benkei

Who will manage this and what are their incentives in picking "high-quality bonds" or determines what "high-quality bonds" are in the first place? Especially if such as large investors as pension funds have to use the ETF? Would this be a way to dump some toxic Greek debt to the pension funds as just paint lipstick on it and call it high-quality bonds?

And since @kazan dug this up after eight years, perhaps first question is if this is still current. What has happened in the last eight years?

To the extent nations are cultural phenomena, they ALL are artificial construct. — neomac

One can say so, but the people aren't artificial.

1. its ideological roots are in pan-arabism and pan-islamism, both of which are broader ideologies than the idea of a Palestinian nation-state — neomac

I think that Palestines and Palestinians ideological roots have more to do with how the "Jewish Palestinians", the Israelis have gone with their own nation building.

2. Palestinians didn’t branch out as a separate nation from within the Arab world, as the Ukrainians branched out from the Russian empire — neomac

Independent Ukraine is only 33 years old. And many Russians are totally confident about the utter artificiality of the country as you are of the Palestinians...when compared to the Israelis.

Yet it's very typical in a world made of nation states, people think that there must be something wrong with the people that don't have their own country. Either they are weak, incapable or not actually genuine. This silly argumentation on who has more moral right to the land where they now live and have lived for generations shows this.

I think however that there are other factors that Israel can’t discount: 1. How the Arab states’ questionable attitude toward the Palestinians (and Palestinian refugees) may reinforce the Palestinians’ aspirations to a distinctive Palestinian nation-state. — neomac

As I've said, Palestinian aspirations are reinforced how Isreal treats them, starting from the thing that Israel never was for them in any way.

Yet is it questionable that Arabs now see Palestinians differently from them? Finns and Swedes are surely European, even Nordic, but two different countries and people still. Are Palestinians then Jordanians?

Well, remember Black September 1970 in Jordan. Then actually when Israeli Israeli tanks entered Lebanon in 1982, Lebanese people were at first clapping their hands for Israelis to do away with PLO fighters (yet that was short lived as Israel showed how ruthless and violent they would be and hence you have now Hezbollah there, thanks to the Israeli occupation.)

This article offers a critical reading of such comparison with the Americans fighting in Iraq and Syria: https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-devastation-of-gaza-was-inevitable-a-comparison-to-us-operations-in-iraq-and-syria/ On the other side, other Western articles share your concern about the post-war scenario: https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/remaking-mistakes-in-gaza/ — neomac

Which is more pro-Israeli and which would be more neutral? Just asking.

What is the present Europe is happy about? — neomac

Hmm... prosperity, peace, integration. When compared to Middle East, which is the more happy story?

What is so confusing in calling for “pivot to Asia” by American ‘pivot-people'? — neomac

Because the US is already there in SE Asia. So continuously repeating about "turning to Asia" that focus isn't here but there. What is message you try to say here? That's the thing confusing.

Well, Putin can hope the "Pivot people" get their way and the US pivots to Asia from I guess everywhere else (except North America). And from the astonishing success of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, Americans should learn what the impact to alliances, or fighting a war, if your Presidents keep on every possible opportunity declaring that they are going home, withdrawing from the war. Well, the Taleban listened to you and they got their Emirate back, now with full control of Afghanistan.

Especially after Trump, Europeans really do think about the possibility that the US will just leave Europe, leave NATO and dismantle everything it's built and go to bilateral defense agreements. That is a potential, if still unlikely option now discussed seriously.

And if Americans think that NATO is a burden, well, look at the South East Asia. SEATO didn't fly, it broke up and is now history. And your strongest allies there, South Korea and Japan, aren't as great friends as Germany and France. To put it short, unlike in Europe, there's no commitment for US allies to oppose together China because there is no NATO equivalent after SEATO. There are only bilateral defense agreements. There's just chatting organization and AUKUS, which has only ONE country, Australia, that is actually in the region. Hence the only thing AUKUS is basically bilateral defense agreement with Australia also with UK, which did naturally had already a defense pact with it's Commonwealth partner.

It seems that the US simply has either lost it's capability or it's appetite to form actual alliances and coalitions. It's just acting on itself and looks if it get some to come with it.

Pi contains the information about the ratio of diameter to circumference - I'm not convinced of the other type of information. — flannel jesus

At least that pi is a transcendental number means you cannot square the circle as it otherwise could be possible, if it would be rational number (or Real Algebraic number). So there's that information (if I got it right).

Here perhaps the separation of 'information' and simple raw 'data' might help.

A random string might have by random (how else?) a string of data that looks similar to 'information'. Like the binary string “01000001" is the digital code for "A". And we might find in some random sequence
“01000001" and say "Hey! This random sequence has "A" in it."

The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences. — Benj96

?

If you take pi or the golden ratio or eulers number for example, eventually it will detail your entire genetic sequence from start to finish. Statistically, given its randomness and infinity, it mist contain this information at some point in its course. — Benj96

Ah, I think that this is the finding that infinite strings as being infinite also then do have the text of Tolstoi's "War and Peace" written in binary code...because there infinite.

But this is a statistical probability. And notice when you have something infinite, then you have a problem with statistical probabilities.

Yet this "information" on a random sequence is simply useless, because of the simple fact that you cannot handle infinite sequences. You can handle only finite parts of any random sequence. Thus finding your genetic sequence or Tolstoi's "War and Peace" in binary form or both from some finite part of a random sequence is, well, we can round that probability to 0, even if it's a very small positive number. Even if finite parts can be quite big. Now finding an exact sequence in very large finite strings is an interesting discussion itself...

And can there be a random sequence that doesn't have your genetic sequence and Tolstoi's "War an Peace" in binary form? I guess so. Can I prove it? Absolutely not! With randomness you slip easily to the part of mathematics that is unprovable, uncountable, etc. Yet it's still math.

Hence this is a bit of an illusion, I would say.

The modern West is predicated on double standards. We can freely criticise certain groups without shame/stigma but not others. Only certain types of pride are allowed. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think that this is our biggest problem. Public discourse simply can be annoying some times.

I can't help but shake the sense that the US is in decline. — BitconnectCarlos

If it helps you, you have a way to go still in that fall. So just enjoy the decadence. The Titanic sailing for the iceberg is still just being built...

Main problem about this hypothesis is how to contain potential devastating effects caused by scientific progress. — SpaceDweller

Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress?

Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint?

So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now?

I did agree that stopping research is not an option and so does the linked paper say it's unrealistic and costly, so this is not a solution, global governance and policing is a better solution but not popular, so we seek something better than that. — SpaceDweller

Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology?

Many times these problems actually need very nuanced and specific solutions, not radical and dramatic solutions like "World government".

Fire was first invention to prepare meals followed by stoves and now wait until food replicator is discovered like the one in star trek series. — SpaceDweller

Yet we won't get "food replicators", at least in the way in Star Trek, without new scientific insights.

And there are ample amount of global problems where science and technology would help. And just implementing current technologies globally would help. For example, the second largest exporter of food after the US is actually tiny Netherlands. Hence if other countries had as advanced agricultural sector as Netherlands, then there would be ample space for wildlife and nature and still everybody would be fed. Still, for example famines have eased even with the current development.

The point is that scientific progress leads to potentially devastating technologies. — SpaceDweller

So we agree that it's the potentially devastating technology, or the use of this tech, which is the real threat.

Because otherwise it's a bit difficult to say "Stop Science! It may discover things that can potentially lead to devastating use of technology." Once when you stop science, then there's not even the harmless technologies to help us. Everything will be just engineers improving current machines and concepts. But once you have developed the pencil, the written book, the spoon etc. there's not much to improve there. Spoons and books have stayed the same for quite a while. No incentive or reason to improve a technology that works so well.

Spoon from the Roman period, 4th or 5th Century. Looks quite the same as I have in my kitchen and likely used the same way as now:



When we don't have any new technologies, the problems that our current technology cannot be solved will mean that there likely won't be any solution for the problem. And that's why earlier societies collapsed as they didn't have the capability to deal with the changes that happened.

If science is just a means to technology, and science is funded almost entirely by a desire for technology (or other forms of power), then science is not about speculative knowledge in any real sense. We have seen science moving in this direction for hundreds of years now.

You are right that in theory science should be this separate, autonomous thing. But in practice it turns out not to be. — Leontiskos

A lot of people do think that science is just one part of the process of how our technology will improve and that tech is just there to improve our lives. But talk to a scientist and you will notice that they are actually interested in science itself. That isn't something irrelevant.

And then think about what science was hundreds of years ago: A tiny cabal of men that had the ability to think about science and not simply to work to feed themselves and their families. If they were aware of each other, likely they were writing to each other. Even at the start of the 20th Century the scientific circles were small.

Just look at this picture from 1926 of the "Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons". That's what a "golden age" of science looks like: a tiny cabal of people that we now know from the names of the various theories and models that make Quantum Physics.



There are 28 men and one woman in that picture. Now you couldn't take a picture of all scientists that are working in the field, even of those that really are just doing the science part. At the time of Newton, if such a conference on Physics/Mathematics in general would have been held and there would have been 29 participants, I think there would be nearly all of the people at that time studying these issues.