defenestrations... nice word. Anyway wiki has this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths#List_of_deaths
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths#List_of_deaths
All wars that end, end in a peace, the idea that the end of all wars is the same is nonsense.
I had to look up what this means. I guess there is always a silver lining. I get to learn a new word.
This is a bit of a disingenuous point, in that peace will obviously always follow war because peace is the natural state of things. An eternal war is not possible, but that does not mean that the peace that arrives at the end is all the same.
The peace at the end of World War II was different to the peace at the end of the American war of independence, which was also different to the peace that came at the end of the American civil war, which is then different to the peace that came after the fecking Mongolian conquests or the crusades.
Had the axis powers not been stopped during WWII, or had Kyiv collapsed within a week during the 'special military operation' then there would also have been peace. That does not mean it is a good thing, or the kind of peace that anyone wanted.
So, your opinion seems to be that the Germans are right again and we should blame someone else about everything, correct? Perhaps we should also blame the US and the UK for Schröder's and Merkel's love for and collaboration with Putin? The problem is that multiple US and UK administrations were warning the Germans it is not a good idea, but ... Oh well, never mind, I know, somehow the US and the UK are to blame for this, too.
They just need to keep stalling this war until next presidential US elections. Then a conservative republican will be elected and Russia will finally have more leverage on USA.
Apparently it's just Russian propaganda; the omnipotent force that has also gotten to Amnesty, Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, and explains why non-Western developing countries don't particularly care about a European war.
It depends who. Trump or a Trump wannabe, sure. An old school conservative (someone similar to Romney for example) would be harder on Russia than Biden was.
But kind of agree that if it is a GOP president it is gonna be Trump or someone similar.
IMHO next president might not going to be an extremist this time, unless Trump or other of his disciples decide to go Gung Ho and follow a politic route against their own party. But without MAGA votes, republicans will not win next elections, that's a sure thing.
Even if a "regular" republican gets elected, they have to keep the pro-russian republicans happy. Not saying they will stop supporting, but the support will certainly drop.
No, we Germans tend to be overzealous and miss the point about everything. If we start a war we do it properly and make it a World War, if we dislike people we make a full blown genocide and if we don't want war we happily ignore an ongoing war and the question if we should get involved.
That was meant as an explanation, not stating that that's how it should be.
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".
'All wars end in peace' does not mean much more than 'all hurricanes end on calm weather’. Factually true, but it means nothing at all. You still have to take shelter during the hurricane and you still have to defend yourself when some imperialist country attacks you.
I’m a bit lost here. Implication seems to be it’s not Vlad. So who is the next suspect? Who would stand to gain?
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.e., the cessation of the normalization of mass murder described and fetishized as something other than mass murder (for profit and "control"; war-as-game/war-economy, to be precise).
And there is also this difference: humans have the capacity to decide whether mass murder and much worse should be allowed to exist in this day and age, but do not have the capacity to determine hurricanes (as of yet).
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.
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 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.
Good post.
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?
Using big words doesn't make you sound more clever, it just sounds like you're trying to hide the fact your argument is a load of bollocks. Furthermore the surfeit of "quotation marks" is both a highly unstylish way of writing and simultaneously very patronising I think.
If you'd tried to draw a parallel between for example Israel and Northern Ireland I would have entirely been on board, I think there are a lot of parallels, as well as obviously some key differences. Simply using the fact there has been fighting in two regions doesn't make it useful or interesting to draw any type of parallel between them.
Maternity hospital is being shelled in Kherson:
Definetly bizzare seeing the sort of drone I enjoy building being used in a warzone.
'Low Battery' betaflight software
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.
(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?
take this case. for the Russians, peace would have been the imposition of their will upon Kyiv. control without the necessity of war (if all agree that Putin expected a repeat of 2013/14 which seems to orthodox opinion, but true even if that wasn't the case, you just add "without necessity for further war").* for the Ukrainians, it is clearly not that. but the countering of that exact force which leads to the idea, literally manifest, of "peace is victory on our terms which sees us regain that which Russia has taken".
* which is a Russian ideal of total defeat insofar as they sought/seek to control Kyiv and thus defeat that regime.
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.
How can Russia, for example, invade Ukraine (or anywhere else) except that the idea of “invasion” and “war” are “thinkable” rather than “unthinkable”? How, except insofar as everyone is inculcated, regardless of nationality, into a false economic mode, is any such invasion made possible? In a sane world, none of these things would exist as anything other than a history which has been left behind. They would be no more normal than burning witches at the stake. No more normal than – and analogies run out because nothing is as insane as war. It cannot be compared. All the horrors of the world are present in one cancerous centripetal force wherein all the world’s capital is pulled, directly or indirectly, and thus infected (socially, too, for capital is always social even when it appears other). Well, the distinction is simple. If war is “there” (distant) it is also, by ordinal factor, “here” (not distant at all). And you see it in internal divisions of all body politics not directly involved in war but indirectly involved for they cannot but be other. You see it in this discussion. That is how capital works, and how society works insofar as it is infected by the disease, which is war-economy, but not how it need work. It doesn't even make sense in capital terms, looking some twenty years down the line (or even ten).
I'm not trying to sound clever. If that's how it comes across, it isn't intentional. Whatever truth there is in the above is not mine. I've taken it from other people, many, who have worked longer and harder at it than I have. It's also common sense. But above all else, I don't come here to rile people up. That, unfortunately, is also just what war does even when we don't necessarily even disagree. It's madness.
And just on the cyncial note, think it was Africanspur. I'm not that cyncial. I take the opposite view. I believe people, the overwhelming majority, are good. Even tyrants produce excuses when they go to war to rationalize it to their own people. If most people were not good, even those living under tyrannies, you would see no such justifications or attempts to propagandize. The tyrant would simply go to war and expect no objection. In this case, the very fact that Putin made excuses, for example, tells you something (good) about the majority of people in Russia. That they don't like war and must be lied into consenting, tacitly or explictly. And that generally holds for most wars, too.
Last edited:
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.
Imagine quoting Orwell not for denouncing totalitarisms, but for advocating a ceasefire strategically convenient to a totalitarian regime.
This. Not any peace is neccesarily desirable. That's esentially why wars exist. And this particular war will continue until one side achieves its goals, one side capitulates, or if there's no resources or will to fight anymore.
This. Not any peace is neccesarily desirable. That's esentially why wars exist. And this particular war will continue until one side achieves its goals, one side capitulates, or if there's no resources or will to fight anymore.
Yep, Russia is definitely the prime suspect, it's very unlikely that someone else would be responsible.
Alpha version of chat gpt.
That post was a great example of saying a huge amount without actually saying anything at all
It''s a lovely word. The first defenestration on record happened in Prague apparently...
OK I mean.....that's great but what does that have to do with my post or indeed your initial points?
Nobody is saying war isn't insane. Nobody is saying that war isn't mass murder. Of course it bloody is. You have maybe one or two nutters on here who genuinely seem to enjoy the war porn but 99.99% of people on here will think war is crap and insane. However, Ukraine did not choose to enter this war, nor the annexation, nor the SE conflict since 2014.
Most people however quite rightly make a distinction in terms of the morality of such actions if they're being done as a war of aggression (and perhaps even conquest), compared to a war of independence or a defensive war.
So that's perhaps why it feels like a bit of a pile on because, despite very verbose posts, it's not particularly clear what your point is. That war is bad? No disagreement there. That almost all wars inevitably lead to some kind of peace? Again sure. But there could have been peace in 1940 if Europe just put down their arms against Germany. There was peace after Rome crushed the Carthaginians and destroyed their capital city and civilisation for good. There was peace once the Europeans wiped out enough of the native Americans so that they couldn't fight back anymore. Probably not a peace any of those groups were happy with though?
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?
They're not similar at all, you don't seem to understand the nature of the conflict in Northern Ireland known as the troubles. It was a 'civil war' in a sense but there was much more nuance to it than that which there's no need to go into in this thread. There are also no similarities between the Good Friday Agreement which ended the troubles and any potential peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.
The war in Ukraine started by Russia's invasion isn't a civil war in any way shape or form. And from it's start it's primarily been about Russia trying to assert dominance over Ukraine and it's people. Plus probably an effort to steal more of Ukraine's territory to make a land bridge to Crimea.
I'm going to build a hotel in Dubai that caters to Russian oligarchs by providing perfectly safe windowless hotel rooms.
More screen of death than the OG windows.
@neverdie, what are you actually trying to say, what's your point?