I can see why the US might want to destroy Nord Stream, but I would expect that if Russia really thought they had then Russia would milk the situation propaganda-wise and threaten all kinds of retaliation on US infrastructure if anything similar happened again. All Russia has done is deny their own involvement, which is suspicious for me.The US went so far as creating sanctions against Germany because of Nord Stream. They would love to destroy it and have been the secondary suspect for the German public since day one.
Good post.This is such a strange and abstract way of looking at war. Yes everyone agrees that war is horrible and humans are utter twats for perpetrating it but, as has already been explained to you, 'peace' is not a universal term. The peace that follows and indeed the relationships between warring states post war, depends on how the war has gone. The 'peace' that has been ongoing since the annexation of Crimea for instance and conflict in Georgia has led us to where we are now.
Ukraine isn't fighting on because of some weird fetishisation of war and love of the fact that their cities and infrastructure is being destroyed, they're fighting because the nature of their country is at risk. Perhaps they'll ultimately 'lose' (which of course may mean different things for different people) but very few people will accept an unjust peace. In those circumstances, it breeds resentment, which inevitably leads to conflict down the line, either in terms of traditional conflict (ie WW1, WW2) or asymmetrical warfare (Gulf War 2, Israel/Palestine, Soviet Afghan war) etc etc.
I think Ukraine will feel that they've already tried your tactic of not escalating and seeing how Russia respond back in 2014 and its gotten them to this current spot.
I had to look up what this means. I guess there is always a silver lining. I get to learn a new word.
defenestrations... nice word. Anyway wiki has this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths#List_of_deaths
That's not true. Victory is far more than the absence of war/ thecreation of peace. It is also the nature of the peace itself that matters. Compare how Germany came out of WW2 with how Russia came out of the Cold War. Which peace turned out better?It means that peace is the only victory - end result - which ever has been brought about by war. It's all that "victory" ever is (even including every scenario of "total defeat").
I never said it was. Again, being from Northern Ireland, you object to the parallel not because it isn't true insofar as consociationalism and peace goes, but because you think NI so particular that it cannot transcend your personal experience of it in structural, and general, terms (which it does).
How, you've just repeated the same truth I've stated and then disagreed with it? All wars to ever have been fought, all mass murder events as it goes wherein rape and somehow even worse are normalized and people often get medals for it, (do it for money in normal conditions, and you get a heavier setenence), well, they have all ended in peace. All wars currently fought will end the same way. That is the only "victory" you can achieve in a false-state called "war" but which in actuality is "mass murder normalized", "rape", "abuse of every kind", and all for power "games" and "profit".
Thousands of years we've been putting up with this. About time it ended, I think.
Someone said it was nice that I looked at it from a "humanitarian" point of view. I think it's tragic that the truth of the matter is considered "humanitarian" with overtones of "naivety". For, in reality, you have lost all sense of truth and are become as a nihlist if you think the above to be humanitarian in any sense other than "true description of war".
it is, as it goes, though I don't say Ukraine is responsible. for by what other means does russia invade? and by what other means is that invasion made acceptable except via the very same propaganda apparatus which makes mass murder, rape, and so forth, seem like something other than it is? that ukraine responds to it, rather than initiates, doesn't mean it isn't fighting against the same thing (which the Russians didn't invent either, but which they certainly make use of).Ukraine isn't fighting on because of some weird fetishisation of war
(in war) victory is the absence of war. you get there either by negotiation before total defeat or by neogitations which avoid the necessity of total defeat. what has been the aim of any state to ever go to war except to establish peace (on their terms)? i don't know of any. that would include the tyrannies as well as the democracies. i.e., remove the idea of "victory as the imposition of peace [on "our" terms]" and what else has ever been the aim of war? or the result?That's not true. Victory is far more than the absence of war/ thecreation of peace. It is also the nature of the peace itself that matters. Compare how Germany came out of WW2 with how Russia came out of the Cold War. Which peace turned out better?
well, i'm not trying to sound clever. i didn't invent the truth, nor do i own it. i just referenced orwell. he didn't use "big words" but he did address their usage. i don't take this to be personal, but many others do. i.e., a structural way of countering my argument, would be better placed rather than "bollocks" or whatever else just goes back to some idealized form of the person you have rather than the content of the argument itself.bollocks
This reads like something produced by a word randomizer, you must have done really well at uni when it came to hitting the number of words for the essays.it is, as it goes, though I don't say Ukraine is responsible. for by what other means does russia invade? and by what other means is that invasion made acceptable except via the very same propaganda apparatus which makes mass murder, rape, and so forth, seem like something other than it is? that ukraine responds to it, rather than initiates, doesn't mean it isn't fighting against the same thing (which the Russians didn't invent either, but which they certainly make use of).
it's not a weird way of looking at it. War is insane. It's car-crash-economy made to appear as something else. anyone who views war as something other than that, or tries to pursuade people it is other than mass-murder, is the one who is truly lost (for now, anyway).
it hasn't changed since Orwell wrote about it. and it was true before Orwell, too.
That's not true. Victory is far more than the absence of war/ thecreation of peace. It is also the nature of the peace itself that matters. Compare how Germany came out of WW2 with how Russia came out of the Cold War. Which peace turned out better?
Yep, Russia is definitely the prime suspect, it's very unlikely that someone else would be responsible.I can see why the US might want to destroy Nord Stream, but I would expect that if Russia really thought they had then Russia would milk the situation propaganda-wise and threaten all kinds of retaliation on US infrastructure if anything similar happened again. All Russia has done is deny their own involvement, which is suspicious for me.
I've no idea who did it, just trying to follow your thoughts through.
Alpha version of chat gpt.This reads like something produced by a word randomizer, you must have done really well at uni when it came to hitting the number of words for the essays.
This reads like something produced by a word randomizer, you must have done really well at uni when it came to hitting the number of words for the essays.
defenestrations... nice word. Anyway wiki has this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths#List_of_deaths
it is, as it goes, though I don't say Ukraine is responsible. for by what other means does russia invade? and by what other means is that invasion made acceptable except via the very same propaganda apparatus which makes mass murder, rape, and so forth, seem like something other than it is? that ukraine responds to it, rather than initiates, doesn't mean it isn't fighting against the same thing (which the Russians didn't invent either, but which they certainly make use of).
it's not a weird way of looking at it. War is insane. It's car-crash-economy made to appear as something else. anyone who views war as something other than that, or tries to pursuade people it is other than mass-murder, is the one who is truly lost (for now, anyway).
it hasn't changed since Orwell wrote about it. and it was true before Orwell, too.
I said structurally. Two groups of people hating each other. Pretty similiar. The reaction is expected. Not so many South Africans here, but would have expected them to say the same thing.
btw, it was literally a sectarian civil war. catholic became shorthand for repulican and protestant for unionist. the contrast i was making was the consociational peace deal which will be mirrored in the end in at least Crimea if not the other two states, as well.
Seeing as there haven't been a year when some (quite substantial) part of humanity haven't been at war yet I'd say that the idea to end all wars is more of an utopia than "the truth of the matter". It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it but it's certainly not something that we have been able to achieve as of now.Someone said it was nice that I looked at it from a "humanitarian" point of view. I think it's tragic that the truth of the matter is considered "humanitarian" with overtones of "naivety". For, in reality, you have lost all sense of truth and are become as a nihlist if you think the above to be humanitarian in any sense other than "true description of war".
I don't think it is utopian. You could just as easily say there hasn't been a year when we weren't polluting the world with carbon monoxide from combustion enginees. That the latter will stop, eventually, isn't utopian but simple and true economic reality. The easiest way to strive for it, is just to remember what it is when you talk about it. As simple as it sounds, that's the truth. To not let it be presented in terms other than it is (mass murder for war, eventual species death for climate change/emissions). That shouldn't offend anyone here for the mass murder event wasn't started by Ukraine?Seeing as there haven't been a year when some (quite substantial) part of humanity haven't been at war yet I'd say that the idea to end all wars is more of an utopia than "the truth of the matter". It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it but it's certainly not something that we have been able to achieve as of now.
Partially. In this conflict, that's definitely part of the point. But not something I'm going to insist on because it should have been done already inasmuch as it was there to be done. That it hasn't just points to issues with it on every side. I.e., no one is ready yet, they're going to continue until they feel like they, each I'd guess, has a better platform to negotiate.If your overarching point is that those who think peace can only be achieved following a total Ukraine victory are misplaced, then you may have a point. That may of course be preferable, it may be what would be better for Eastern European countries, the baltics etc, for a lasting peace. But it may not be realistic. Then I'd understand. But your point seems altogether much more abstract and over arching than that?
That wasn't the point. I referenced it not for the Northern Ireland-specifc value but that part of it which is universal. It's as if someone brought up World War Two as a comparison for Putin and someone else said "You do realize that we're talking about two different wars". Yes, the person who makes that comparison understands that, too, I think. They aren't saying it's the same thing, they're saying there's an overlap insofar as they make the comparison. I never said, for example, that this was a civil war. That's a willful misreading of my post. Or I might just have written it poorly?isn't a civil war
No one has done that.Imagine quoting Orwell not for denouncing totalitarisms, but for advocating a ceasefire strategically convenient to a totalitarian regime.
You could say that but then you’d be lying.I don't think it is utopian. You could just as easily say there hasn't been a year when we weren't polluting the world with carbon monoxide from combustion enginees.
That all war will end? I think it will. I'm not looking at next year, or the next five years, but ten or thirty down the line. Seems to me that the way the economy is going to go, there isn't any necessity, or excuse, for keeping it. I don't see the next generations accepting it, the same way many in previous generations didn't accept segregation. Would have seemed utopian to say that the United States could have a black president, too, or any number of things which have happened but seemed, at a point, to be beyond happening.You could say that but then you’d be lying.
No, I was answering to the very literal point that you’ve made and I made sure to quote it.That all war will end? I think it will. I'm not looking at next year, or the next five years, but ten or thirty down the line. Seems to me that the way the economy is going to go, there isn't any necessity, or excuse, for keeping it. I don't see the next generations accepting it, the same way many in previous generations didn't accept segregation. Would have seemed utopian to say that the United States could have a black president, too, or any number of things which have happened but seemed, at a point, to be beyond happening.
Yes, but anything which can be, is better, but isn't, has, generally, been called "utopian". When the new economic order presents itself, and the necessity for foreign power declines, relative to control of resources, I do, indeed, believe that you will see exactly what you refer to, except I don't take it as utopian. It just makes far too much capital sense. It's an economical discourse, yes, but it just refers back to what is true in the most capitalist of senses; the idea that you can trade and that every state will have a roughly equivalent means of production, and government which reflects this (despite obvious geographical differences). I see that coming. If you think it utopian, that's fair enough. I don't. It's either that emerges or we die, in the long-term, and despite everything I think history demonstrates that whilst we get pulled back into events like these, and often spend a decade or more arguing something simple, we do generally tend to evolve. But only when the economic means present themselves. Which will happen over the next decade but, you're right, aren't all that obvious now.The wars will end, if you want to argue inside the economical discourse, when we won’t have to fight for resources — and the future where humanity literally has every resource that it needs can and usually is described as utopian.
In any way, I adore your optimism and obviously hope that you're right and I (and other doomers) am wrong. Still, as much as I want to believe, say, Pinker's ideas of enlightenment & rationality eventually eliminating war & conflicts altogether in his particular case a lot of data is cherry-picked to fit the argument and I haven't seen any other research of similar caliber that would show that we are at least on the way to getting rid of senseless violence.When the new economic order presents itself, and the necessity for foreign power declines, relative to control of resources, I do, indeed, believe that you will see exactly what you refer to, except I don't take it as utopian. It just makes far too much capital sense. It's an economical discourse, yes, but it just refers back to what is true in the most capitalist of senses; the idea that you can trade and that every state will have a roughly equivalent means of production, and government which reflects this (despite obvious geographical differences). I see that coming.
Citing people familiar with the investigation, Spiegel reported that a Western intelligence agency had found material in Moscow's possession that came from the BND and contained intelligence on Russia.
The suspected double agent was the head of a unit in the BND's technical reconnaissance department, Spiegel said.
Yeah, it all remains to be seen. Though I would say this: there can be no englightenment insofar as war-economy accounts for 2% of the world's GDP for that means, simply, that we say, and I understand the reasons it is said, "this is acceptable" (the reasons always having to do with any given state's national security which typically just refers back to capital). Anyway, we are pre-enlightenment insofar as war continues except as anything but an exception (as exceptional as someone being burned alive because they are a witch, for example). If I didn't see it, I wouldn't be optimistic. If I didn't see the economic conditions present to dispatch the perceived necessity of foreign imposition instead of a simple, but far more effective, trade-based equilibrium. But it's also true that without me demonstrating that which I see, it's very difficult for people to understand what I am saying. So, I too await someone of necessary calibre to formulate the argument. There to be done, but it must be - I would think - an economist or polymath who goes about it.In any way, I adore your optimism and obviously hope that you're right and I (and other doomers) am wrong. Still, as much as I want to believe, say, Pinker's ideas of enlightenment & rationality eventually eliminating war & conflicts altogether in his particular case a lot of data is cherry-picked to fit the argument and I haven't seen any other research of similar caliber that would show that we are at least on the way to getting rid of senseless violence.
That wasn't the point. I referenced it not for the Northern Ireland-specifc value but that part of it which is universal. It's as if someone brought up World War Two as a comparison for Putin and someone else said "You do realize that we're talking about two different wars". Yes, the person who makes that comparison understands that, too, I think. They aren't saying it's the same thing, they're saying there's an overlap insofar as they make the comparison. I never said, for example, that this was a civil war. That's a willful misreading of my post. Or I might just have written it poorly?
