Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

neverdie said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Is there a word for it when someone gets stoned, goes all abstract/philosophical and won't shut up?
 
harms said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

africanspur said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

But aside from that, the overarching point had to do with someone's reply who questioned whether war ever ended in something other than victory and if victory was ever anything other than "peace" (on the terms of whomever imposes it). It's not that abstract. It would be more abstract if it weren't general and generally true. It was only abstract here because the person asked a question that could not but be returned except in abstract terms. (What is "war" and what is "peace").

stevoc said:
isn't a civil war
Click to expand...
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?

Krakenzero said:
Imagine quoting Orwell not for denouncing totalitarisms, but for advocating a ceasefire strategically convenient to a totalitarian regime.
Click to expand...
No one has done that.

This is a "straw man" (many times over). Where it's easier to attack a fake constructed version of the person giving an argument than it is to deal with the very basic arguments being made. Orwell's argument, by the way, wasn't restricted solely to totalitarian regimes. It was also a warning to democracies. But this really is abstract now?

Just finally, this idea that "big words" and "verbosity" is somehow bad is surely the most self-depricating thing you can post. These aren't big words. No one here is stupid. It just becomes a way of trying to deal with the person and thus avoid the point, even if you could just as quickly dispatch the point. I'll never understand that. You run yourselves down and try to form solidarity along the premise that "we can't understand these words" even though none of them requires a degree in physics or even a degree in literature. I've quoted many who have gone for the point and tried, generally, to avoid anyone who has gone for a falsely constructed idea of the person (strawman) delivering the point.
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...
You could say that but then you’d be lying.
 
harms said:
You could say that but then you’d be lying.
Click to expand...
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.

Whatever a person's individual opinions here, I doubt anyone would argue that we're looking at the emergence of a new world order. And that, you could argue again, and it has been, on the previous pages, this war cannot be removed from that order, depending on which interpretation you take. Even if we say, it was "against" democracy that Putin invaded, or "against" (the death of) the petro-economy, it all points to an order that is emerging and reactionary tendencies in various states to accept that order. But if the order is true, or generally good, which I think it is, and will become more obviously so in years to come, then even the reactionary states will accept it. Like post-USSR collapse except this time I don't see any hegemony surviving nor a multipolar world order being the alternative.
 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I was answering to the very literal point that you’ve made and I made sure to quote it.

As for the idea that all wars will end at some point — you may believe that, you may not but even you state that this is clearly not something that’s going to happen now or anytime soon (so it’s not really relevant to the discussion about the ongoing conflict). 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.
 
harms said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

So I can see where your critique comes from because it's an obvious one and I don't deny it must seem utopian. But, again, it's only utopian insofar as it is beyond the possibility of happening. And this isn't (I'm not looking at the world holding hands around a tree and dancing, only trading along a generally established baseline which respects national integrity but also overlaps with a supranational economic mode). Marxist in its analysis, but neo-liberal(ish) in its outlook. I.e., "you cannot speculate on these things [in which war is one of those things]" but speculate away on all the rest. It will make too much sense, even to the richest, for it not to happen.

But I take your point. Until I can show you what I mean, which could be a long time, (I'm waiting for it to come from elsewhere, but Ukraine/Russia is one bellweather), then it will seem as if it is utopian. That's fair enough.
 
Last edited:
Heard multiple accounts now of Russian ammo shortages around Bakhmut, nice to see after the constant stories of Ukranian shortages and lackluster western efforts to supply.

Although, its not the first time we've heard this sort of thing. What followed next in Kharkiv and Kherson was a general Russian retreat, though I don't think AFU is prioritising this area, just holding the line there.

 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I'm also not a fan of picking just one discourse to discuss global stuff like economics — for example you've had a wonderful video on YouTube that explained Russian invasion to Ukraine from an entirely economical perspective (explaining some insightful stuff about gas & oil reserves and delivery routes) but it completely missed the fact that Russia has crippled itself economically (both directly and indirectly) in a way that's never going to be compensated back by that supposed future income (that will never happen but even if it did). This was wasn't started because of economy and Putin has shoved economical (and other rational) reasons aside many times already... so we can't expect this war to end because it doesn't make any economical sense.
 
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.
Click to expand...

 
harms said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

But I think we agree on the principle but disagree on its certainty, which is good enough for me!
 
neverdie said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm aware on both points. Which highlights the point I was making that these two conflicts are barely comparable.
 
Fighting in Ukraine is currently at a deadlock as neither Ukraine nor Russia can make significant advances, the head of the Ukrainian military intelligence agency has said, while Kyiv waits for more advanced weapons from Western allies.

"The situation is just stuck," Kyrylo Budanov told the BBC in an interview. "It doesn't move
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


I thought we were being told that they were running out of such missiles.
Unless they are firing them all before the Patriot Anti Missiles arrive.

Anyway. Such despicable actions by a despicable country ruled by a despicable cowardly leader.
 
Russia's proposed "peace" deals are laughable, as if there is any chance Ukraine let Russia keep the stolen lands, surely even Kremlin knows this, so whats even the point?

Not to mention, they are not in a position to make demands, they likely wont hold the annexed areas.
 
Rajma said:
Click to expand...

These things are never true since when stuff like this happens in Russia, it never leaks through “official” department communication documents. It’s simply not how it works (and this guy’s arguments in the comments are laughable).

If this will happen (I don’t think it will since they can simply print more money, it’s not like they care about inflation or other economical consequences), it won’t be leaked in this way.
 
Buster15 said:
I thought we were being told that they were running out of such missiles.
Unless they are firing them all before the Patriot Anti Missiles arrive.

Anyway. Such despicable actions by a despicable country ruled by a despicable cowardly leader.
Click to expand...
I think running out strategically doesn’t mean that Russia only has 100 rockets left — it’s that they have significant shortage (without much income) and they won’t be able to keep it up for many months.

They were always going to increase the volume of missile strikes close to the New Year’s Eve — it’s the most important holiday in post-Soviet states and since the goal is to terrorize the civilian population as much is possible, having them freeze without power during it seems like the cruelest (= the best in their eyes) thing to do.
 
Last edited:
harms said:
These things are never true since when stuff like this happens in Russia, it never leaks through “official” department communication documents. It’s simply not how it works (and this guy’s arguments in the comments are laughable).

If this will happen (I don’t think it will since they can simply print more money, it’s not like they care about inflation or other economical consequences), it won’t be leaked in this way.
Click to expand...
Anders Aslund loves sensationalism.
 
harms said:
I think running out strategically doesn’t mean that Russia only has 100 rockets left — it’s that they have significant shortage (without much income) and they won’t be able to keep it up for many months.

They were always going to increase the volume of missile strikes close to the New Year’s Eve — it’s the most important holiday in post-Soviet states and since the goal is to terrorize the civilian population as much is possible, so having them freeze without power during it seems like the cruelest (= the best in their eyes) thing to do.
Click to expand...
Also it makes sense to fire as many as possible before even more air defense systems arrive and before winter becomes worst if you want to maximise the terror effect.
 
harms said:
I think running out strategically doesn’t mean that Russia only has 100 rockets left — it’s that they have significant shortage (without much income) and they won’t be able to keep it up for many months.

They were always going to increase the volume of missile strikes close to the New Year’s Eve — it’s the most important holiday in post-Soviet states and since the goal is to terrorize the civilian population as much is possible, so having them freeze without power during it seems like the cruelest (= the best in their eyes) thing to do.
Click to expand...

Understood.
 
Morty_ said:
Russia's proposed "peace" deals are laughable, as if there is any chance Ukraine let Russia keep the stolen lands, surely even Kremlin knows this, so whats even the point?

Not to mention, they are not in a position to make demands, they likely wont hold the annexed areas.
Click to expand...

This much is obvious. Not only can Putin not be trusted to comply with any negotiations, he also won’t be able to hold on to any gains he’s made.
 
Raoul said:
Thats pretty ominous
Click to expand...
Obviously there is a very ominous subtext there but it would be ironic if it caused a bank run and crippled their domestic banking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.