The article he refers to here:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ — tim wood

https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/

Maybe someone could verify this to be the translation but, yeah... my estimates of insanity on Putin's part is pretty much verified with this one. That they even speak of "The New World Order" and how they will unite Ukraine with their true nature RUSSIA shows just how delusional the ideas are.

If people thought my ideas sounded like some Hollywood fiction, then read this crap.

Oh yes, I forgot that this thing called communication exists. Clearly, once a nation asks, NATO just has to let them right the fuck in if they fit the bureaucratic criteria. That's clearly, totally how things work, and not a fucking cartoon picture. — StreetlightX

Are you unable to write in a normal way or do I have to use your rhetoric since you don't seem to understand when I write how it actually works?

Jesus Christ. Listen. I've come into alot of money recently because my uncle is an Australian prince from the Irwin dynasty, and he left me all this money in his will, and I need someone to store it for me while I sort out some accounting stuff. If you give me USD $50,000, I promise I will give you like, USD $2 million in return. It's just for a bit. If you can DM me your account details, that'd be great.

I just figure if you actually believe this utter naive bullshit that you wrote, I may as well give this a go. — StreetlightX

Does this fit the criteria for low-quality posts? Because I see nothing of value here. You don't answer in the slightest to the question I asked, which I did in a methodical way in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion from your side since you're all over the place. But I see now that you're just trolling.

I'll tell you how it doesn't expand - it doesn't expand by countries asking "hey can you let me in?" and NATO going "mmmm, OK since you asked so nicely, yeah totally". It's not a fucking gentlemen's club. It's a strategic decision — StreetlightX

Strategic by the nation asking or NATO, there's a difference there.

and ideally, one not made by morons who, knowing full well that Russia has literally been to war over this very issue before, think, ah fuck it, lets keep arming Ukraine and making moves to expand the European sphere of influence Eastward. — StreetlightX

So, nations who are worried Russia would invade them are morons because they seek security as a member of NATO?

This notion of an innocent, doe-eyed NATO (and EU) just waving people in willy nilly because they asked nicely is just as stupid as your Harry Potter theory of Mad King Putin. — StreetlightX

I didn't say that. Anyone can seek membership in NATO. They accept so long as it's a unanimous decision to accept as well as the nation being a stable nation that is also dedicated to helping other members of NATO, primarily, have shown good diplomacy with these nations in the past. NATO is also wary of the border to Russia, that's why it hasn't been easy to get Ukraine into NATO, because first, they have not been internally as stable as a nation for very long (and still has a long way to go), as well as some members of NATO being wary about them joining, primarily because of the threats from Russia (which isn't really any of Putin's business, since he doesn't own Ukraine, whatever he believes).

This is how NATO operates with getting new members. I'd like to hear a better rundown on how you think it actually works, beyond your childish rhetoric for which, there's not much substance.

Yeah, and I bet they also hand out free rainbows and unicorns to those who write nice letters to them too. — StreetlightX

Yet, you don't really explain how it "actually is" beyond your bullshit. Can you actually do that or are you just full of shit? Because I won't engage with someone who just writes like an angry child.

I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. — FreeEmotion

But, there were acts of influence through social media to influence the election, therefore they got criticized. There have been numerous doping scandals, therefore they got criticized. There has been a lot of disinformation to help Russian (Putin) interests through channels like RT, therefore they got criticized.

I don't think anyone disagrees with him feeling threatened. The question, however, is if it's someone else's fault that he acts out with aggression based on that feeling. No one can be blamed for Putin's actions, because the reasons for him feeling threatened are not aggressions against him or Russia, but against bad acts on his and Russia's part to begin with. It's no one else's fault that RT spreads disinformation.

I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. — FreeEmotion

Sanctions are there because of his actions, to begin with. What sanctions have been placed on Russia that wasn't a reaction to acts like the annexation of Crimea?

In reality the acceptance into NATO has to be unanimous , there are some dissenters out there. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but if the narrative that's presented by many in here, is for the US to push against Russia, and this is the primary goal for NATO. Then why don't the US just demand NATO to accept Ukraine?

This is my point. The false claim that NATO is controlled by the US and that NATO is there to push against Russia is just plain wrong. NATO is a defensive alliance that accepts anyone who wants to join who both are accepted by all members of NATO and also shows itself to be a stable nation. There's no "cold war battle between NATO and Russia", it's Putin who fears NATO's expansion because the nation's who are bordering to Russia want to join them in order to be safe from Russia, which would block Putin's plans to claim these independent nations.

None of that is NATO's or these nations' fault, it's Putin being an aggressor, forcing his neighboring nations to seek protection within an alliance that can balance against the military force of Russia whenever Russia attacks them. NATO has and will never attack any other nation if that nation didn't attack them first. It's stated over and over and over ad infinitum by Jens Stoltenberg when people ask why they don't help Ukraine.

So preventing them from joining NATO and allowing this catastrophe was the better choice? Is it really?
How could anyone argue against preventing an invasion without anyone getting killed? By the way this would have stopped my presumed hero, Putin. — FreeEmotion

By saying "allowing this catastrophe" you are blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine. The problem here is that no one knows if Putin would have attacked anyway, risking conflict with NATO. NATO must evaluate the situation in that if Ukraine joined and Putin still invaded, that would lead to WWIII. If you had that choice on your table as a leader of NATO. What would you do? You can't ask Putin if he will attack or not if you let them join, you don't know. So they had the door open. At the same time, Ukraine wasn't the most stable nation in around 2014-2016, it's just the past few years that Ukraine has shown improvements in the areas that made them unstable. This might be a reason why Putin invaded now, before Ukraine became a valid nation for NATO.

But again, NATO didn't "allow" for this disaster. This is Putin's actions alone.

The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? — FreeEmotion

And we don't live in these times anymore. The first world war collapsed most of the empires, it's by some called the "end of the age of empires". Then the second world war was pretty much an attempt for some (obviously most notably Nazi Germany) to create new empires, which of course failed when trying to exist in this new world that doesn't really have empires anymore. The rest of 20th century has been a long deflation of any empire thinking and international laws, UN, EU, NATO and other alliances were invented as measures to keep world wars from happening again.

Only despot dictators and delusional authoritarian leaders who still dream of the "age of empires" would conduct geographical invasions to "expand the empire". North Korea and Russia are the most notable for having this attitude and politics while China have started to move away from it, still not able to fully leave it behind. While all else, all those previous empires like UK, and "modern empires" like the US don't really act in this way anymore. They don't claim lands for their own, they instigate proxy wars and conflicts to gain influence and resources and all of these acts are really bad, but they don't act in terms of an expansion of empire taking over nations and planting a flag. They have realized that collaborating and investing in other nations is better than planting a flag. Might today is better unseen within a capitalistic machine... because if you act like the old days, it's gonna create dramatic consequences like what we see now.

Maybe Putin is living in the past. — FreeEmotion

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

This is what every single expert on Russia and Putin is saying. At least every single one I've heard and found through my own research.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Which other nations have they threatened into NATO? And if new members must be a unanimous decision, how could the US both threaten a nation into "submission" as well as have everyone on board with the decision to let that nation join? This is why the narrative that US controls NATO is wrong.

I really would like to hear anyone give examples of NATO members who were forced into joining and how it happened.

Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals? — FreeEmotion

He can say whatever he wants, unless it's an aggressive threat like the one about nuclear readiness, since that is... you know, not an opinion but a threat, just like threats in a free speech society isn't considered protected under free speech.

If he was a leader who want to expand his borders back to the roots of the Russian empire, without bloodshed, invasions or wars like back in those days. Then he would have lobbied for the neighboring nations to vote to be part of Russia. If they decline, vote no or whatever, he could still continue lobby for it, but nothing happens until the free and independent nation he wants to join, accepts that offer. This is how things are done peacefully today. And here's my take on all of this: he's old, he doesn't have time to try and convince these nations that they should join him and most of them don't want to, so he want to bypass that time and instead invade and just claim these nations. He's been trying to do this for so long, but NATO has made it into a stalemate, it hasn't been easy for him because of NATO, that's why he's desperate. And that, of course isn't NATO's fault, they kept the balance and peace otherwise Putin would have invaded every single one of these nations whenever they had a time of crisis, in order to maximize success. That he invaded Ukraine now is probably because he's seen how well prepared they've become and didn't want it to go any further and make it impossible to invade and claim (which might be the case now)

Might as well ask the Ukranians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but I don't think he cares. Most Russian soldiers seem to be young men who don't even know why they're there. Putin is an authoritarian leader of the old style, those who throw cannon fodder into the frontline in order to starve the enemy through attrition.

Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. And, as I've said earlier, the best way to stop the war is for him to die. How, that's another question, most likely by the hands of his own people, security personnel or whatnot who are fed up with his actions towards Ukraine, but especially his own people and Russia.

I even got confirmation that I'm not alone in this thinking. Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations said this in today's news:

I wouldn't rule out an internal attack. Putin is extremely protected, but it's realistic that, for example, someone in his "lifeguard" (security personnel) put a bullet in him, maybe because that person saw his son burn up in a tank in Ukraine.

Yep. That's why you are campaigning so hard for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, or for Turkey to return North Cyprus .... — Apollodorus

You don't know what I campaign or support outside of this discussion. What the fuck kind of argument is that other than being incompetent in making actual arguments?

And of course NATO is run by America. Everyone knows that. It isn't my fault that the news hasn't made it to the Finnish outback yet ... — Apollodorus

Provide support for that claim. I don't give a flying fuck what you think is the truth. Show me where Jens Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs.

What? I just asked you for sources to back up the claim that "this is all Putin". — Isaac

I responded to the way you fragment out points out of context of a whole argument. This is a way to effectively strawman through formatting. I don't fall for that.

but then your response doesn't make any sense because I asked you about your treatment of the portion of blame the US and Europe must shoulder. If your phrase "this is all Putin" was merely rhetorical hyperbole, then the question remains unanswered. Why shoot down all the attempts to talk about the extent to which the US and Europe are culpable? — Isaac

I answered that after your re-iteration of that question.

Yes. I'm not an historian, nor a military strategist, so I don't consider myself to have the necessary skills to interpret raw historical documents and military pronouncements in context. I defer to experts to do that. — Isaac

Opinion-writers are not experts. Especially not at the political extreme bias, which you can find by searching for evaluations of those sources.

You don't have to be working as a historian to read history and form arguments based on it. The difference between a historian and someone who puts a lot of time into reading history is that the historian gets paid for the time. The problem is not what job someone has, the problem is an inability to research properly and unbiased or lack logic in reasoning, or fail to address holes in logic pointed out.

The only reason I could make sense of is that you thought they shouldered no blame at all (hence my taking your "this is all Putin" at face value). If you don't think that, and you agree they share some of the blame, then why the constant shooting down of any discussion about it? — Isaac

You aren't making the argument that they share blame, you make the argument "it's the west's fault". You haven't shown in what way Putin's actions are the west's fault and I've shown that the west's actions may have triggered Putin, but it's still Putin's actions. He doesn't own the nations he wants to claim, if they join NATO for instance, it is THEIR choice, it's never done by NATO, and Putin gets triggered by them joining NATO and acts aggressively because of it.

Your reasoning is like saying the person who seeks security from someone threatening them with violence, is the one responsible for the aggressors' violence. That the act of "hiring security" and that triggering this violent person makes you and the security firm partly to blame for the violent person's actions. This is fundamentally stupid reasoning. The same kind of reasoning that abusers of women have, gaslighting them into thinking it's the woman's fault they hit them.

All sources are biased — Isaac

No, all sources are not biased. You can research which are and which aren't by their rating and you can use published papers as a source that has much greater unbias than anything else since they go through a process that's basically there to make them unbiased and fact-based. That you don't know this shows just why you fail in your arguments.

I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. So yes, all my sources are biased in that direction. Bias doesn't equate to lies, it's just a filter through which facts are viewed. — Isaac

This is a fundamental error in reasoning. It makes you unable to form any logic and pushes you to opinion rather than valid, informed and rational conclusions.

That argument has been made elsewhere. You simply asked me for my sources so I supplied them. — Isaac

No, you blast sources that don't include the context of the argument. It means nothing to show a source that isn't part of any counterargument to what I wrote. I asked for sources that support your actual counterargument, you have not shown the connection or how it supports against anything I said.

We don't 'all know' that at all. Are you seriously presenting the theory that NATO does absolutely nothing but sit back and wait for counties to join. That no diplomacy, deal-making, financial incentives, political alliances or cross-border events play any part at all in the process? — Isaac

Show me an instance where Jens Stoltenberg has done this towards Sweden and Finland. And that it's not Sweden and Finland's independent choice to ask for membership. I don't care for your emotional speculation when it's about facts on how NATO operates, that should be quite clear.

Fuck's sake. I've repeated the argument a dozen times at least. Any solution involves the US so the US's prior behaviour in these kinds of events is relevant to a weighing up of how to use them and it's important that they are made as aware as possible that we're watching them, that they can't get away with the sort of shit they tried last time. — Isaac

That is not an argument. Learn what the fuck a proper argument is. Premises, logic, deduction, induction. I asked for an argument in order to make your logic clear because you are all over the place. With a clearer argument, it becomes easier to understand your ramblings.

See now you being obtuse. Are you now saying that there are no other reasons than Putin for the invasion? If so, then my request for sources is completely reasonable. You've provided no experts at all claiming that there's no other cause of this invasion than Putin himself. — Isaac

If you read the sources you provided, the ones support my run-through of the reasoning Putin has for the "re-building" of the Russian empire. You will understand the "reason" that you ask for. If a published paper and a historian comment are no unbiased expert source, what is?

You still don't haven't provided a clear "other reason" or "cause" for Putin's invasion. Your sources are about the risk of influence of neonazis in Ukraine around 2014. How does that in any shape or form relate to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or his reasons for aggressions over the course of his rule of authoritarian power?

How so? — Isaac

Because it's a fucking research institute on the subject of Russia and Putin.

That's an article from 2017 and all it shows is Putin's objectives, which no-one here has argued against. Your point is that "this is all Putin". again, without the 'all' claim, you're just saying that some of the cause is Putin's ideology, a claim absolutely no-one is disputing. I'm asking why you're pouring cold water on attempts to examine the role of the US and Europe. If you're not arguing that they have no part to play, then I can't see why you'd want to oppose discussion of that role. — Isaac

So far, the only "cause" that can be confirmed is that Putin is triggered by NATO expanding. To make this a clear "fault" and "cause" of the west or the US or to apply equal blame requires it to be proven that NATO's purpose is to support the US while being run by the US as well as NATO able to expand through pressuring nations into joining. NEITHER of this has been proven by you in any shape or form.

Therefore, the existence of NATO as something that blocks Putin's empire expansion dreams, is not a cause, but a trigger for Putin. Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation
Putin's actions, regardless of whatever he feels are the reasons, are not the same as the reasons or causes you point out to be from the west. There is no proven link in the manner you describe them. If there are, show them, with absolute logic, otherwise you are wrong.

Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused. — Isaac

It was a reversal of your argument to show you your own rhetoric.

You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer.
— Christoffer

To remind you...

this is all Putin.
— Christoffer

Explain in what way that's a "balanced view or multi-reason answer". Or for that matter, when you say... — Isaac

Because it balances the facts. You are just biased in order to keep governments on their toes. You have no interest in balanced views. You said so yourself:

I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. — Isaac

That doesn't sound like someone who seeks any answer based on facts, that sounds like someone who can't agree with "this is all Putin" when that could very well be a sound conclusion for this topic. You, not wanting that to be a conclusion because you think that is too simple, is irrelevant.

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac


Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.
— Christoffer

If none of those factors come into play, then what exactly are the 'multi-reasons' to which you refer? — Isaac

I ask again, how are they related to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine or threatening NATO and other European nations? You aren't connecting anything, you just say A is true therefore B is true. It's a logical fallacy. Connect the dots, connect the premises to form an argument instead of just... saying stuff and thinking there's a correlation or causality.

How can the guilt of the west be invented if they are not innocent? — Isaac

Because you connect the guilt of something else to Putin's actions. You talk about bad things the west have done... therefore Putin. Again, Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation. You invent a guilt that is connected to Putin.

Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt? — Isaac

Where have you connected Putin's guilt to be partly the west's?

I gather it's a combination of a distaste for democracy and an unwillingness to cede strategic advantage which could be leveraged to obstruct economic expansion. — Isaac

So in your reasoning, how is that the west's fault? Are others not free to make their own decisions for their own nations, to form their own alliances and so on, as long as they don't act as aggressors against Russia? And if Russia fails to play the investment game internationally, that's still not the west's "fault". Blaming others for their own failure does not equal the other's caused the failure.

A combination of the extant global threats, diplomacy, political deals and direct advocacy. — Isaac

Can you give an example where Jens Stoltenberg has done this and forced another nation to join them? Are you saying that Sweden and Finland are being forced by NATO to join?

Yes — Isaac

So, that means they can join the EU and NATO if they get accepted by them?

No. I can't see how that could even be possible, let alone plausible. I suspect, like most tyrants he's surrounded by a cabal of associates who benefit from mutual objectives. — Isaac

Of course, like Hitler, he has friends, but did he allow the associates to rule equally with him? No? So why do you think Putin has given equal power between him and his associates? Did it look like his associates had any power in that live video that went viral?

it is run by America in America's interests. — Apollodorus

So Jens Stoltenberg is acting to further the US interests? How do you support such a claim?

Have a vote? You mean like China did before annexing Tibet? — Apollodorus

Like a proper democratic vote. That is what they should have had, not what they got, as precisely what I wrote.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Your answer seems like you didn't even read anything.

NATO works by constantly expanding and not giving a dime about anyone else. Plus, it was created by America, and it is run by America in America's interests. But maybe things look differently when seen from the Finnish outback ... — Apollodorus

Can you source ANY of these claims? And you still don't understand HOW NATO expands. Are you illiterate? Seriously, if Sweden want to join NATO, how does that equal NATO expands as a choice by NATO? Your logic's in the toilet.

Those fools only vote for their own selfishness. Trust me, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are far away from Spain-Catalonia context. My country has always been so soft towards Catalonia — javi2541997

You don't see the context I brought that up? It doesn't matter what the details are, the context was that if borders were to be redrawn under modern international laws, it has to be a democratic process supported by the people, made in an uncorrupt democratic way. Who cares what those fools want, that was not the point.

How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended. — FreeEmotion

The world isn't a football game and there is no conflict with Russia like your analogy here describes. Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly.

It is more rational to actually say it how it is. After someone threatens you with imperial ambitions, breaking national air and water borders, pushing you with military unknown intentions through this behavior (which is something Sweden has been dealing with for a long time), while annexing other places illegally, talking about imperial borders that would include nations that are considered free and independent to be part of that empire and so on. -Do you feel threatened by that behavior? Would you then consider joining a defensive alliance that would help defend your borders if this aggressor would ever make reality of those threats, those actions, those ideas and behavior... just as Russia has now done with Ukraine?

If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions. — FreeEmotion

We can also turn this around. If as many in here are arguing, NATO is interesting in just pushing east and threatening Russia, why didn't they just welcome Ukraine with open arms? It doesn't really fit with the "aggressive NATO" narrative many write about in here.

The thing is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but NATO doesn't allow unstable states.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17767225/ukraine-nato-explained/

As of February 25, 2022, countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine – are considered “aspiring members.”

This status is afforded to non-member nations that have “made significant contributions to Nato-led operations and missions," such as Australia and Sweden.

However, continued Ukrainian instability – including its proximity to war-hungry Russia – makes it unlikely that their request to join the organisation will be accepted any time soon.

Since NATO is a defensive alliance, they need to keep things within the realm of stability. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins. On top of that, Ukraine has just begun to become a stable nation, actively working with anti-corruption efforts and stabilizing the nation. In a few years it could have become a member. This is also the reason why Russia never became part of NATO, which Putin wanted early on under his rule. He just wanted to join without adhering to the rules of the engagement, typical authoritarian standard for him. This doesn't fly with NATO.

But Sweden and Finland, we are within the parameters of joining and that has nothing to do with any bullshit US imperial ambition reasons. It's because our airspace and sea borders are being harrassed all the time by Russia while they keep indirectly threatening us. Are we not free as nations to seek defense alliances against that?

Also, NATO isn't specifically focused on Russia, it's just that Russia is a military superpower with an aggressive authoritarian leader who acts accordingly, which is a security threat and of course gets alot of attention. But let's say North Korea started bombing NATO members, that would mean all NATO members collaborate in dealing with that threat.

Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other? — FreeEmotion

I don't think the US (America includes Canada) have any interest in "trying to be better". USA has an American exceptionalist problem, they think they're a world police, they think they have the role of fixing problems in the world, but that is not the same as trying to actively fight someone to show themselves better. They also have economical interests by heavy investment and influence in other nations, while conducting proxy wars in others to claim resources. This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it. The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders.

I think people are unable to see the difference of intentions, so they mix together everything as "the west against the east" with simplifications that are more in-line with the "off brand "Marvel-movie" reasoning that I've been blamed for. It's a pattern I see, people saying that me calling Putin an authoritarian leader in the same shape and form as Stalin or Hitler, being simplistic, while they themselves talk about "the West" with the same anti-capitalist simplifications in arguments as stoned homeopathic hippies.

Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think. — FreeEmotion

Really? So if you have a gang leader (Putin) who keeps harassing your house and family, saying that he owns your house and you should give it up to him. You don't want to have a security force guarding your safety? Especially when you know that you have nothing against his thugs if they started firing at you. Which is basically what this is. NATO is not acting as a gang, Putin acts as a "gang". It's why people even call Russia a mafia state. Have you ever seen the US threaten Sweden and Finland in the same way?

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role. — Apollodorus

Uhm... like Eu? Like UN? You do know there are forms of unions that are based on a mutual plural rule as a parliament. In which a mandate period is being held by a leader from different nations each time.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic. — Apollodorus

You mean free like Ukraine? And what do you mean by continent? All of Africa is one giant union? That hasn't happened yet. And what about freedom to join a union of defense? Like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Is that a free and independent choice by each of them? Or doesn't that count because of how you think NATO works, which is how exactly?

This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian. — Apollodorus

By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. Borders in the modern world are respected in another way than pre-world war eras and post-Soviet eras. When the Soviet Union fell, the borders began to be drawn. Crimea became part of Ukraine and any idea that Crimea belongs to Russia is just in line with the delusional imperial reasoning of Putin.

Borders in the modern world are redrawn based on democratic movements. If people want to break away or join another nation, that is a process of democracy where the people initiate a vote to redraw borders. This is what the Catalonia Parliament has been voting for, to be set apart from Spain. But that didn't happen.

To invade and claim a part of modern Ukraine on the idea that "it was ours to begin with" is a crime against modern international laws. It doesn't matter what delusional idea that formed such a decision, but the process should have been a democratic one. A functioning Russia would have asked the Crimean people if they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine, if the opinion was strong that they wanted that, they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
It was a sham, a theatre, a spectacle as usual from the Russian side, forcing them into an outcome that was not democratic in any sense of the word.

The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships. — Apollodorus

That is due to the current conflict, NATO has never threatened Russia. Defensive actions aren't threats and Turkey can act on their own accord without it being an action made by NATO. It doesn't seem like you understand how NATO works. It's similar to Russia being part of the UN and your reasoning would be that the invasion of Ukraine is an act by UN because Russia is a member state.

Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia. — Apollodorus

Turkey's actions are their own. If they act with NATO, that is a decision among all members of NATO. Turkey can't act by itself under the flag of NATO without consent from NATO and NATO is still not an offensive alliance, so NATO would never approve of any offensive acts. You never seem to understand this, and all your reasoning is based on this imaginary NATO threat.

Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America. — Apollodorus

Are you actually delusional? What the fuck do you think Putin has been doing during this conflict? Every day he's threatening, with nuclear options, threatening anyone who aids Ukraine, threatening Sweden and Finland for even thinking of joining NATO. On top of that you say that "the west" threatens Russia, but all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works.

Just about any US foreign intervention will do. — StreetlightX

Another question I want a simple answer to from you:

Can you pinpoint which foreign interventions that US has done that complies with the definition of genocide?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

I want to have simple answers from you:

How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?

And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO?

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here.
— Christoffer

The citations you should have provided to back up claims like

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...

You still don't know what is going on right now.
— Christoffer

I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens.
— Christoffer

Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?
— Christoffer — Isaac

Fragmentational dilution of my writing like this becomes a childish way of discussing a topic. I won't fall for cheap tricks like this, ugh...

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf — Isaac

Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices.

My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771 — Isaac

Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. The far-right neo nazis are an insignificant speck on the political spectrum in Ukraine today, but you use this event as some justification for Putin's denazification propaganda reasoning for invading Ukraine?

What is your point? What is your actual argument? Because all I see is you blasting biased sources without any connective lines through any kind of argument with any kind of conclusion that actually focuses on my core argument.

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac

Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.
— Christoffer

No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid. — Isaac

Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor? — Isaac

Either you are just not mentally capable of doing internet research, or you don't know how Google works, or just try to rub my argument in the mud with an ill attempt at a childish response. Either way you only do research to fit your narrative, you don't bias-check.

The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. If you then seek sources for what I write about Putin's true ambitions then what you should do in order not to have a biased and irrelevant point of view is to search for research papers published. Like this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/vladimir-putins-aspiration-to-restore-the-lost-russian-empire/C0099C205BCDBA970CB699AFD534CBE5

Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481

Meanwhile, the country was led by Yeltsin, an irascible drunkard in fragile health. The situation was desperate, but Putin had a plan.
"I cannot cover all the tasks facing the government in this speech. But I do know one thing for sure: not one of those tasks can be performed without imposing basic order and discipline in this country, without strengthening the vertical chain," he told the assembled parliamentarians."

He spoke the language of a man who yearned for the lost certainties, who longed for a time when Moscow was to be reckoned with. He did not say it explicitly, but he was clearly stung by Russia's failure to stop Nato driving the forces of its ally, Serbia, out of Kosovo just months previously.

His domestic policy was to restore stability, to end what he called the "revolutions", that had brought Russia low. His foreign policy was to regain Russia's place in world affairs.

Here's a quote from it that I firmly agree with since people don't listen in here:

Those two core aims have driven everything he has done since. If only people had been listening, none of his actions would have come as a surprise to them.

"I think it became absolutely clear when Khodorkovsky was arrested, that Putin was not going after the oligarchs to reassert the power of democratic civil society over these titans. He was doing it as part of building an authoritarian regime,"

"Putin has really painted himself into a corner by destroying every independent source of power in Russia. He now has only the bureaucracy to rely on, and must keep increasing its funding to keep ensuring its loyalty," says Ben Judah, the British author of Fragile Empire, a study of Putin's Russia.

Putin has succeeded in building a version of the country of his childhood, one that can act independently in the world, and one where dissent is controlled and the Kremlin's power unchallenged. But that is a double-edged sword, because the Soviet Union collapsed for a reason, and a Russia recreated in its image risks sharing its fate.

All of that from 2014. Which means that the events since then up until now have further pushed his impatience with building his empire. All of this is perfectly in line with what I've written about Putin's ambitions and his journey from the fall of the Soviet Union, his KGB roots up until now.

That NATO has expanded towards the east is also a false narrative based in the very fact of how NATO expands. Answer me this... how does NATO expand? Are they forcing themselves onto nations, invading them and establishing NATO bases? Or are they rather existing as an allience with open doors to nations wanting to join?

Since we all know that it is the latter, then why do people say that NATO "expand east and put pressure on Russia"? Isn't the true nature of such an expansion, an extension of each nation's will? So the question of expansion as an influence of US imperial influence makes no sense based on a simple fact of A) NATO is not US alone and B) Nations joining NATO do so by their own will, not NATO's. Why do Ukraine want to join NATO? To be a puppet state under the US? No, since NATO doesn't work like that. Do they then want to be part of NATO in order to be safe from Russia? Of course that is the reason. The same reason why Finland and Sweden has this option on their table as well: since Russia, or rather Putin, keeps acting aggressively towards us.

So any narrative of NATO being an aggressor or responsible for Putin's actions are just plain wrong. Putin acts to build his empire, NATO acts as a defense alliance. When nations close to Russia feel threatened by Putin, they lean towards or join NATO to be safe from Russian aggression. In Putin's mind, this is an obstacle to building his empire, which means he views NATO as a threat and spins his propaganda to talk about NATO as an offensive force rather than defensive.

And you've still not answered my very simple question.

What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour? — Isaac

What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer. You are only interested in concluding the West and US imperial ambitions to be the reasons for every bad thing.

The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west", with lose connections, biased opinion pieces etc. does not connect actions of the west with Putin's action in this conflict or his build-up of modern Russia.

You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. When every respectable historian of modern Russia keep concluding that Putin has built up a Russia that is entirely under his rule and authority, then how is it "movie villain" to pinpoint this conflict to be by the hands of one man: Putin?

There's something called logic, reasoning, deduction, induction. If the facts point in one direction, then I am fully capable of making my own conclusions based on the facts that I am gathering as long as I'm careful and minimizing biased sources. Those facts must also be directly connected to the things I'm talking about. The problem I have with people pushing opinions as you do, is that you demand that I find a source that writes out "the truth" in big large letters so it is impossible to dismiss them. Any kind of interpretation or any kind of analysis or inductional reasoning on my part is met by direct dismissal because you don't have those large big letters by a man called "truth teller". So, you don't engage with what I actually write, you don't read it carefully, you don't think about what I write before answering, which leads to a simple dismissal on your part and a parrot circular reasoning where you just re-iterate the same thing over and over. That is failed reasoning on your part.

So once again, answer me this:

What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? In practice, how does NATO expand itself? Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how?

I've answered all of that, many times. But I want you to answer those questions as well, because those are the key points in my argument that you need to counter in order to counter-argue my conclusions. Everything else you do is just noise with no relation to what I have actually argued.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth stems from overestimating US power. It's a form of fetish, an illusion of omnipotence that anglo-saxons are often subject to these days; well, those who still live in the fifties. — Olivier5

This.

I think that those criticizing American exceptionalism by blaming the US for everything are unintentionally being the ones believing in American exceptionalism the most themselves.

Then he should attack Ukraine as hard as possible now. Obliterate Kiev. The problem there is that he'd have to then occupy Ukraine (with American troops taking up residence).

Nah, he's going to have to retreat. — frank

This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die".

I don't think so. He's been really good for Russia (up u til last week :rofl:) — frank

No no, he is still the best for Russia, he says so himself and all the media also says so. If someone says otherwise in his close proximity, they will just be corrected by him so they can arrive at the truth that he is still best for Russia, he is the best. Russia can never have another best leader than Putin. If the world says otherwise he will show them his nuke and then everyone will love him and his big nuke.

He's going to have to pull back. — frank

He won't, it's too embarrassing.

...if he doesn't cook up a really good story for his state media to spin so his people won't unity in hanging him outside Kreml.

Russia almost has a tradition of revolution as intense as the French so I wouldn't be surprised if Putin gets fucked by his people at some point.

I thought Russia's debt would keep this from happening. — frank

With the rate this is going, he won't be able to access anything soon. I just have hope that his and his Oligarchs money gets transferred into help-aid in Ukraine. I would have a celebration if Anonymous hacked that into reality leaving some embarrassing message on the servers.

The ruble is worth less than one cent. This shit is getting real. — frank

Putin can stop it. He could spin the news however he wants, make it look like he "won and withdrew all the brave saviors of Ukraine" and then push to remove the sanctions. But he won't, because he doesn't care about his own people, his economy, or anything other than the creation of his glorious empire.

Even in his talk with Macron he mentioned the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine as his reason. If that were just bullshit propaganda, it's odd that he uses the same rhetoric in a private call with Macron. It hints at him actually believing his own lies. If you lie long enough you start believing the lie.

So he will probably sacrifice his people's economy, sacrifice Russia before admitting any kind of defeat.

"What if [wild speculation]? [ I totally don't make shit up]." — StreetlightX

Just explained how I work on my speculations, but you ignore that and just blah blah blah

The 'immediate threat' has been underway for years, but because you seem intent on plugging your ears at any mention of the US or NATO, you're structurally incapable of framing any solution in any terms other than immediate blame, and, it seems, sheer escalation. — StreetlightX

Chill down please. I've explained in length exactly how US, NATO and Russia/Putin ended up where we ended up. All that threat and danger was all there, I'm just pointing out that US exceptionalism ideals and imperialistic goals or economic proxy wars has little to do with the ambitions driving Putin to the actions we see now. They've provoked him through it, but not as aggressors, but as a hindrance to his empire dreams. But you can read all of that if actually read what I write instead of talking about how "structurally incapable" I am. If you want to act childish it's up to you.

On the one hand, you claim to be looking for solutions, on the other you focus on attributing blame. Let's suppose for arguments sake, this is 100% Putin's fault. Now we are precisely zero steps closer to finding a way to deescalate the situation. — Baden

That was in response to Isaac, since he countered all my speculations on solutions with "the west and US is to blame".

But since we are on a philosophy forum, we can try practical philosophy. What could we do? Seriously, what could we do in the situation the world is in with Ukraine and Russia?

I don't know. You want easy answers, and then get mad when the world doesn't offer them to you. — StreetlightX

No, the "answers" or rather speculations I conduct are not easy answers. They're just in a compressed form. Why do you think papers are hundreds of pages? I'm not gonna write an essay form length answer just to convince people who cry "everything is the west and US's imperialistic's fault" as an answer to "how do we solve this?"

But no one seems interested in actually discussing this. So it's hard to deep dive when people just want to talk about "the west's fault".

I'm quite willing to admit that 'what needs to be done' is the kind of thing more suited to others better versed in the situation. Some principles of action include minimizing harm, stopping war, and deescalating as much as possible - how they can are are translated, I'm not so sure. — StreetlightX

Good, this is what I'm talking about. Practical philosophy. So how do we deescalate and minimize harm when dealing with someone like Putin?

But what I know for sure is that it is not suited to fatasists like yourself who dream of putting Putin in the Hague, or paint him like a cartoon villain who 'shoots staff to blow off steam'. — StreetlightX

Hague is a real possibility. They're investigating the invasion as it unfolds. That's not my "fantasy". And "shoot staff", well maybe not shoot, but he poisons people on a regular basis. People have been killed. What if he actually is as delusional as some speculate, as some have speculated on analyzing his behavior the past weeks. I don't grab these scenarios out of my ass. I think it's more likely that you picture all of this in a cartoon way and downplay the seriousness of a delusional madman with the power he has.

Your need for some kind of 'punishment' or 'payback' and 'blame' - which seem to be the principles animating what you say - is literally genocidal. — StreetlightX

I don't care about punishment or payback. Whatever makes you reach that conclusion is totally up to you. Why I'm talking about Putin getting killed or removed or end up in a Hague court, that is not "punishment" but the removal of an unstable power from office in order to not have some trigger happy madman holding parts or the world hostage with nuclear threats and murdering people in the name of the empire. It's YOU who interpret what I say in this way because you cannot seem to grasp the fact that violence in this in this situation of war is a solution. Of course, the following events can be chaotic, but the immediate threat is happening right now.

No one who treats the world like a fucking Disney movie ought to be offering any opinions whatsoever. — StreetlightX

That's your interpretation of what I say and you also just pointed out that I should be silent, I should shut my hole because you don't agree with your own wildly inaccurate interpretation of what I'm talking about. It's not a good sign when you ask for better quality and give that as a response.

I don't know, I haven't yet had the opportunity since you've offered zero citations to support the notion. Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'. — Isaac

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment. Like how things changed drastically when nuclear weapons came into talks. I'm doing my own analysis and if I were to publish a paper of course there would be citations on a whole other level.

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?

As you allude to - the killer, poverty, social exclusion, gun control, parenting, schools, video games, erosion of social value, government deafness, corporate dehumanising...

And what would we discuss in such cases? Not the killer themselves, there's nothing we can do about that, some people just go wrong. We'd discuss everything else... The bits we can actually do something about. — Isaac

But you're the one who keeps talking about who's to blame for all of this, so who is it? I'm the one who speculates about solutions. But I've also speculated that Putin might as well be fucked in the head, delusional, living in a fantasy of power, much like terrorists like Breivik, but with much more power under their thumb. But you keep returning to blaming the west and the US and NATO. What is it? Who's to blame?

If you want to create some fabrication where none of those factors apply then you're simply asking "if the only person to blame is the killer, then who's to blame?" That's just definitional, the question is whether this is such a case. — Isaac

My scenario was an analogy in order to find out who's to blame. Putin came from KGB, with great power during the Soviet era, then it collapsed. Then Boris Jeltsin started reforming and getting drunk, dancing around Bill Clinton. Even if the economy started recovering, when Putin came into power, the seed of his will were already planted. He must have felt embarrassed to see Russia in the way it was in the 90's. His ambition to build the empire back has nothing to do with the US or NATO. US imperial crimes and all the shit they've done is another discussion, there's no disagreement there that the US has blood on their hands and is guilty of a lot of shit, but none of that has anything to do with Putin's ambitions other than challenging his ambition. He might have seen the US expansion, trade, influence as a threat to his inflated idea of a new empire, and since USA is part of NATO, of course he felt that its expansion was a threat. But NATO is an alliance of defense, the "police" in my analogy (it's just an analogy for security). Russias "friends", the former other nations of the Soviet Union, had no ambition to be part of Putin's delusional ideas, but they knew that they can't just say no. They knew that they would either conform and surrender as a puppet (like Belarus), be invaded and assimilated, or have the option to join NATO in order to feel secure from Putin's aggression.

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.

I have yet to hear exactly what the form of "the west's" fault fit the narrative of Putin? Did "the west" push influence and western ideas into Russia after the wall fell? Probably, and probably because that was a natural reaction to the corrupt propaganda machine that fell with the wall (and was later built up again) opening up new channels of info and communication to the rest of the world for the people of Russia. There's no wonder that Putin has the strongest supporters among the oldest generation people in Russia while most young people are against everything that Putin is doing, wanting a more open society, more communication and collaboration with other people in Europe.

So I ask again, who's to blame? If not Putin and his embarrassment and will to rebuild the Russian empire? If not Putin and his delusional skewed image of the rest of "the west". Every time I hear people talk about why Hitler did what he did, it's like the biggest question of the 20th century, the "nature of evil" etc. Why would Putin be any different? Can he not be exactly as delusional in his own ambition and goal just as Hitler was in his? How is that not a perfectly plausible conclusion to Putin's action? Why would "the west's fault" be any more rational as a conclusion? Because my conclusion (as well as many researchers as I mentioned) is too similar to "an American off-brand Marvel movie"? Maybe just take out that Occam's razor and look at the facts.

First, the compromise will be reached, and things will come to normal as it was before Russia invaded. — Number2018

Likely, we will know what the talks led to at any minute now. But it will not return to normal, the west has lost trust in Putin and even if the worst sanctions get lifted, the trading sphere might be damaged for a long time.

Second, Putin will be ousted from power. — Number2018

If sanctions do their job and the war is a bloody stalemate for Putin, the people of Russia will not let Putin off the hook. This is what I hope for, not the bloodshed in Ukraine, just one person's blood, by the people of Russia who had enough of this shit.

Third, Putin will stay, and there will be a profound transformation of his regime and the world’s geopolitical order. — Number2018

This is the most likely outcome. Putin is too stubborn and Kreml has spent years creating an image of him as a tough guy. So he will try and spin the narrative so that a loss is still a win in Ukraine and then because of the broken trade and probably some sanctions left as a punishment for his actions, he will isolate Russia more, going in the direction of North Korea's relation to the world.

Fourth: He will never surrender, never ever, ever. He will not go out without a bang and he orders nukes on big capitals in the west. Either people just accept his order and do it, or they refuse, as has happened during the cold war. He will then spin the narrative in some way, or shoot some of his staff to blow off steam.

If you construct such a bomb, you know what it can do. — EugeneW

So, the person taking the scientist's knowledge and making their own bomb. Is he to blame? Or still the scientist? If the knowledge is out in the world and someone chooses to construct and use that bomb. Is he innocent?

You could secretely roll a stone ball up a mountain. And release it. But if you are seen doing it, people will stop you. How to stop Putin from waging his war? Trying to stop him literally, by taking him captive, or killing him? What will happen? — EugeneW

So the person pushing the stone is innocent because he isn't seen?

We see the killer, do we stop him? Or let him do whatever he wants? If he shoots up the mall, killing innocents, children, maybe even blowing up the bomb, should we be proud in waiting it out, not doing anything? I mean, if it was his parents' fault, his upbringing, maybe that is enough? If we blame them and ignore the killers actions, that might be enough to make us feel that we did our best?

But who was to blame? Is Oppenheimer to blame for Putin's action? Or who's to blame for what Putin is doing?

The scientists who invented the weaponry. — EugeneW

Sure, they can be blamed for opening the door to the severity of the situation. But even if he didn't have a bomb, he still had the gun. If he didn't have a gun he could have used a kitchen knife. If not any of that, he might use his own hands or picked up a rock. Is the rock to be blamed?

...maybe let's not engender more people suffering getting killed? — StreetlightX

And how do we do that? By staying silent and letting Putin do whatever he wants?

A position literally no informed commentator holds. — Isaac

So, you basically mean that whenever you hear someone actually saying it, you can brush them off as being just uninformed, convenient.

There's debate around just how much culpability the US and Europe have. — Isaac

I guess Ukrainians won't have time sitting at the table discussing this at the moment? So, while we're at it here's an analogy...

Who's to be blamed when a rampage killer shoots up a mall? Let's say that the upbringing was both tough; with borders and discipline, but also loving, inviting, leaving room for the killer to have options in his life. But he chose to kill, shoot up the mall, kill children and adults, security guards, and the police. Then he says that if anyone interferes he will blow up a bomb somewhere in the city. Who's to blame here?

If the upbringing was harsh, really extreme, getting beat down and tortured, it would be easy to see the deterministic causality towards the events. However, if the upbringing was perfectly loving, everything as perfect as possible, then many would argue there isn't a strong causality between that and the act, which would mean the killer was broken, some chemical imbalance or something. But if not that, if the upbringing was balanced, strict, but also loving, would that mean there was a choice? Choice or chemical imbalance?

Do you mean that Russia has been treated unfairly? The Soviet Union collapse wasn't really "the west" fault, it happened from the inside. So what then? Did we treat them badly in that we fucked their economy? No, that was a natural consequence of a state that fell. The economy started to recover over the years. Was it "the west" fault that when Putin came into power he consolidated the wealth and power into him and the oligarchs?

Now let's say that this killer had friends. These friends don't really like him that much, but they're still his friend and he, their friend. They have some chats sometimes, but even more, their relatives and other friends love each other. Everyone is like a big family, brothers. But then the killer really just wants these friends to be with him all the time. They, however, have grown into adult independent people who want to have their own life, but the killer doesn't want that, he wants them to live at his place, like the good old days. All their surrounding friends and relatives get confused, they just want things to cool down, but the killer gets angry and he beats them all up. No one likes it and they don't want to be with him anymore. They feel so threatened by him that they file for police protection. This is something the killer really doesn't like, so he threatens everyone, he threatens his friends, he threatens the police, he threatens any bystander, any civilian including children, and people he doesn't know at all. So he starts the killing, he kills them all.

Who's to blame?

Understand why you feel strongly about this, but a solution will come from a sober analysis. If you don't try to understand your opposition's perspective, you won't be able to deal with them effectively. It's like being in a poker game and thinking throwing your cards in your opponent's face is going to help you beat him. — Baden

I feel strongly about passive attitudes where the only thing going on is circular arguments that boils down to "all of your solutions are wrong because others are also bad in the world" or "all your solutions are wrong because we cannot do anything - all hail Putin!"

I've asked for additional solutions when someone thinks mine is "simplistic" or "stupid" or whatever label I get, but so far I get no solutions.

In a time when theoretical philosophy becomes totally irrelevant and practical philosophy is everything. What's the practical thing do to here? Because so far all I've heard seems to be Putin apologists trying to justify what's going on in Ukraine, and it is downright disgusting to hear.

I would like to hear some practical solutions to Ukraine, how to deal with the nuclear threat, how to deal with Belarus getting nukes, how to deal with the fallout of economic sanctions, how to deal with China's relation to Russia, how to deal with Putin himself.

It might be that my proximity to these events makes me more passionate for a solution, but I'm so sick and tired of passive attitudes and nonchalant dismissal of the current suffering. Can people just stop making their arguments with the prefix of "I know people are suffering and getting killed but...."

And there it is - the Marvel comic book picture of international politics. — StreetlightX

I asked for your solution and it was just a bunch of nothing. This is then your response.

Yeah gee, who gives a damn about continental crisis, how passe right? And who knows what the 'solution' is? Maybe part of the problem is wild bloodlusty agitators happy to crank up tensions with a nuclear power because they need to feel like they are 'doing something'. I know that it may come as a shock that the world is more complex than 'bad guy bad' and 'is good when good guy hurt bad guy' but that's kinda how things are. — StreetlightX

You mean that the actions "the west" is taking here are just "bloodlusty" agitations? Yeah, helping Ukraine defend themselves against murderers trying to claim their nation for themselves is "bloodlusty". And let's look at the Russian army of kids, not even sure why they're there. Cannon fodder for the grinder, yeah, don't do anything, don't try anything, don't make any effort to try and pressure Putin to back off.

This passive "solution" is really great, it really helps everyone! And after they've murdered the president, after they've killed all opposers, after all of it we can just lean back and switch on our Netflix binge and relax. I mean it was nothing, some civilians got killed, a nation was taken, the Russians are now stronger. Also, let Belarus get some nukes while we're at it, let him play with that as well. Who cares? As long as we don't risk fascism rising, we can never stop pushing that back, because we are unable to do many things at once. Yeah, no, let's just put up our feet, take a deep breath and just, smell that nice clean air of our own farts.

Give me a fucking break.

Oh yes, case closed, Putin invaded a country so no critical thinking so what if power prices surge through the roof and fascism is given an accelerant and ordinary people everywhere are hurt; your bloodlust must be satisfied now. — StreetlightX

Who gives a shit about power prices increasing when people are getting killed in Ukraine? Increasing fascist movements is always a concern that is always being battled.

Nothing of that is any solution to the situation. How do we deal with what is going on in Ukraine? How do we help stop it? Or are you just ok with letting them be killed? Are you ok with the Wagner Group reportedly being in Ukraine for a month before the invasion preparing to kill the Ukraine president? Should just not give a shit about any of that? What's your fucking solution?

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though. — StreetlightX

So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.

Russia is viewed now as it has been since it emerged out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union in December 1991 - as a broken, if sometimes petulant, vestige of a once-mighty superpower.

Of course, because the corruption didn't disappear, because the despots didn't disappear, because the propaganda didn't disappear. If almost every parameter of the Soviet Union is still there, just with new clothes, how else would we view Russia? They've made no efforts to battle any of it, it's just a more open country to be able to play on the modern geopolitical and economical arena. Without that, it's going back to its roots once again, which is what some are speculating will happen now, Putin isolating Russia further from the world.

Which apparently you are totally OK with exacerbating because Putin bad and fascism we can deal with later — StreetlightX

He invaded a country, killing civilians right now as we speak, and threatens others with nuclear weapons. Case closed.

Are you saying that we should keep debating, keep just not doing anything, just let them suffer and die by Putin's hand until we've solved the fascism thing first. Seriously, sometimes I think people are unable to tackle a critical crisis where every minute counts.

What's your solution to all of this? How would you help Ukraine? How would you deal with something like nuclear weapon threats?

Oh? Tell me how to interpret this: — StreetlightX

As a balance to what you said? Not everything is a downright conclusion of factual end-point events.

Survival? I mean everyone here seems to want a weak, diminished Russia without any say on the worldwide stage, maybe like Great Britain after it lost its colonies. Well at least it did not try to take them back. I am for the status quo (pre -2014) but no-one likes that. — FreeEmotion

Survival? By taking Ukraine? In what way is that survival? Please explain what the actual threat is? All those nations, including Ukraine, want is to be their own nation. Putin and Russia is huge, no one has any interest in obliterating Russia, even many Russians themselves don't want any of this. So if it's not survival, what is it then? I really want some strong argument for the survival angle, like, actual threats to Russia's existence. And how they cannot exist in the normal nuclear superpower as it is right now.

I mean, if Putin wasn't a big bag of shit and if the nation wasn't built on propaganda, Russia would be a tremendous alliance partner and prospering nation in all sectors. How is this not just the fault of purely Putin and Russias corruption problems? Survival? In what way?

"let's just talk about Putin and nothing else" — StreetlightX

But this is not true. Right now we're in a thread about this conflict and of course, such events, especially in Europe create such media coverage because it's of huge consequence to Europe. It's also a huge economical consequence to the entire world.

It's like it becomes a competition or a kind of "equality of conflicts".

Doubly especially when your response to the threat of a rising fascism is "oh don't worry they'll implode on their own account". Which is of course, literal insanity. Much like fantasizing about Putin in the Hague. — StreetlightX

I didn't say it will implode on their own I said that it's not that black and white that fascism will surely rise more. You handle these things with the same level of simplicity as you try to criticize me for. If your only deduction of my response was that "don't worry about fascists they will just fizzle out on their own" you clearly just interpret what I write with the least amount of effort possible. Basically strawmanning.

All blame must be placed on Putin, the madman who must be stopped at all costs. What gain does this polarisation serve? — Isaac

You have continued to push this argument while people have answered you many times. Here's the thing, there are nations who are independent nations that were previously part of the "Russian empire" and Soviet. Putin want these nations back, because he is a delusional fucker who wants to be a Tsar in the glorious Russian empire. Since most others realize that Russia keeps getting these morons in power, most nations that were part of the Soviet Union, but are now independent nations, just want to be left alone, to be their own nation. Putin doesn't own these people or nations, even if he thinks he does. So these nations ask to be part of NATO in order to have a good defense against the risk of being invaded and claimed by a delusional despot. Some nations have much less balls, like Belarus, who bend down for Putin instead. So the choices for these nations are either to join NATO, bend down for Putin or get invaded and killed. Ukraine thought too long about joining NATO and they won't bend down for Putin, so they get invaded. Also, NATO isn't US. US is a part of NATO, but NATO is an alliance, there are many nations within NATO. But in your mind that just means they are "brainwashed" by US. The thing is that the US might very well have economical imperial interests through NATO, but that is not the collective mindset of NATO.

So, yeah, this is all Putin. This is part of the Russian tradition of being assholes to whomever they think is their possession. To argue that "the west" pushed Putin to this is a fucking delusional point of view.

Today it's Russia, yesterday it was Islamic terrorism, before that Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi... The existential threats painted as justifications for economic imperialism are an unbroken line in which Russia is just the latest. — Isaac

You still don't know what is going on right now. What's the economic gain for Russia by invading Ukraine? Explain please

China has years. Look, I'm just saying, this isn't some internet RPG where people get to takes sides in some kind of black and white manner. The assumption that making Russia (more) of a pariah state will automatically translate into more support for the West is very wrong. And it is good that it is wrong. — StreetlightX

I'm not saying it isn't complicated. Since everything is speculation, it ends up being very broad strokes.

At the moment, the crisis is also in Yemen and Israel. It just so happens that Ukraine aligns with Western interests to make this the cause du jour. And the idea that when or if this crisis 'ends', the West will give a shit about Yemen or Israel is laughable. — StreetlightX

No, it just happens to be that this is a large invasion by a superpower that could lead to extreme consequences for the entire world. Especially when Putin threatens with nuclear strikes. As I've mentioned, I don't think people realize what is really going on here. For example, I've been debating against Israel's actions against Palestinians for years now, but that conflict is a decades-long crisis that while it needs to have the focus of the world, it doesn't change the fact of the immediate crisis of what is going on at the moment and the severity of it.

I really don't understand when arguments boil down to "yeah, but what about everything else that's going on?" In my opinion, that's not really a valuable way of dealing with all of this. We could very well be discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the argument "but what about Ukraine" would pop up.

That the west doesn't give a shit about any of it is just a blanket statement. "The west" is a lot of nations. Sweden for instance, has a lot of support for Palestinians. So, if one nation of "the west" doesn't give a shit, that doesn't mean another nation does the same.

a price hike will hit the working class first and foremost as the price of living will shoot up considerably (more). As it stands the people who stand to benefit from this are nationalist identitarians everywhere, and it's not clear that the neoliberal elites of Europe will be willing to pay that price. And this to say nothing about the new wave of refugees that is about to hit Europe, already having a 'migrant crisis'. — StreetlightX

Depends, many of the fascist parties have also been taken into the normality of parliament, which means many of them are now showing how incompetent they actually are with normal day-to-day politics. In Sweden, we have former neo-nazi fascists as the third-largest party in parliament playing innocent politicians and since they've grown so large, people demand them to solve normal problems, which they can't because they are fundamentally incompetent. And the migrant crisis isn't the same this time around since more nations are willing to take on more migrants so it spreads more than before where Sweden, for example, took in a much larger portion than most others.

So the complexity doesn't end just with risks with increased fascism, there are also movements against it. A lot of movements also relied on Russian propaganda machines helping them to rise up, that's not gonna happen in the same way after this.

and the new type of nuclear reactors are not entirely ready to be used either. — ChatteringMonkey

We've had the technology for many decades. The only reason it's not fleshed out is because there wasn't any weapon capability as a byproduct. You know, if you have a normal nuclear power plant, you could use some of the nuclear matter used for nuclear weapons as a side gig. Thorium is too good for bad nations.

But I know Finland has been looking at it. There's a growing interest in it as the need for nuclear power still needs to meet the risks they have.

fusion is still 50 years into the future even with recent improvements — ChatteringMonkey

Not really, the recent improvements are recent, as in... like two-three weeks ago. Timeline hasn't been updated since they're still evaluating the data. But the timeline is always based on predicted development. Predicted development never takes into account fluke accident major breakthroughs. But I agree that fusion is nothing we can rely on as a solution yet, I'm just saying it's closer than people realize. And the will to solve it is huge, throwing money on solving it is a priority, especially if one nation solves it and starts exporting power, that nation will be filthy rich.

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, because as you scramble to stay afloat, the last thing you want to do is make big investments in future-oriented transitions. — ChatteringMonkey

It's a push in that it demands another solution. And "scramble" to stay afloat is not really true. An economic crisis may look like the one in 2008, but did that "scramble to stay afloat"? There's still plenty of capital to invest in new solutions, it's just that the financial world always need to balance the entire economy so as to not break regular folks. However, since regular folks seem to not care about climate change and politicians are not willing to do what it takes, a crisis that pushes everyone out of their comfort zone will lead to hard times in the short terms, but better times after a few years. Also remember the jobs that gets created by investing in new technologies.

I agree on nuclear, if they are ready, but you need large coordinated investment for that. — ChatteringMonkey

And this is what I think gets pushed when we can't rely on oil and gas. People feel the ground shake under them and they will start investing much quicker.

Just think of the semi-conductor shortage. Because everyone was just in their comfort zone ordering chips from Taiwan, no one cared for what a shutdown would look like or mean to the world. Only after the crisis did both EU and Intel start expanding into new factories to be able to cover future needs.

Crisis always leads to some type of opportunity.