xzar_monty

@ShadySands, thank you very much, that was very interesting. It is both fascinating and terrifying to note this ability to both hold a contradictory view on a subject and ignore the contradiction -- and in a matter such as this. There is some literature on the subject of people's interior lives within totalitarian regimes (The Whisperers by Orlando Figes being one example), and it is an engrossing subject. @kanisatha, and thanks to you, too. The use of nukes in the endgame does indeed seem like a logical conclusion of sorts. A terrifying prospect, of course.

As I take it that this field is something of a speciality for you, how would you see Putin / Russia backing down from this in the event that Ukraine's defences really hold up well and possibly turn into attack? I'm not saying attack in the sense of seizing Russian territory, but in the sense of driving the Russians back and demolishing the forces inside Ukraine (which of course is not a given but certainly a possibility). The way I see it (as a complete layman in military strategy) is that Putin is in something of a bind. Both your (a) and (b) seem to characterize his mentality fairly well, but then this means that if he's facing defeat, it would also mean an intolerable loss of face. How can this bind be resolved? He does not seem to have the kind of personality that resolves a conundrum like this the same way a very famous German did in 1945.

It would be extremely interesting to hear more about this, especially in two specific ways: 1) How these contradictory viewpoints come up -- like, how close to each other, in what ways, and so on, and 2) How is this contradiction addressed, if at all. Like, is there a sense of "I'm confused about this", or a sense of "There is no contradiction", or what.

Hey, good point! This reinforces my idea of sports being important for Russia in general and Putin in particular, and so this ban does have some sense. The disappointingly mild reaction to Russia's state-controlled doping may have been one of the reasons why Putin regarded the west as weak and not likely to put up much of a fuss if he attacks Ukraine. And to anyone about to whatabout, yes I know Russia is not the only country with doping problems.

Also, and unfortunately, a post-1945 style land-grab, based purely on the notion that a nuclear power cannot be stopped. (As we've established, this is the point the whole conflict hinges on. Without this, and only this, Russia would have been put down already.)

Has to be 300. Thermopylae!

I'm not, and I never did.

There is still an important difference that I think you continue to ignore. I may be wrong, of course. I can easily believe that Canada has glossed over that for quite some time -- after all, I can think of similar instances in my own country. But Canada is not denying it now, because of the overwhelming evidence, and this is the important difference. With Russia, there appears to be no point at which there is readiness to acknowledge that yes, we did this, and it was not ok. There is not even an acknowledgment that the country has attacked Ukraine.

My sense is that the sporting line is taken because Russia has historically placed a lot of importance on sports. Putin also, as a person, has placed a lot of importance on it, too. This may be one reason behind these bans. But I don't know.

(To take another look at this) But then, not really. To take your country as an example: Canada is not currently engaged in cooking up a story according to which, for instance, the country was inflitrated by a group of ruthless murderers who entered Catholic schools and shamelessly killed quite a lot of children in them. And from specific ethnic backgrounds as well. Canada is doing something altogether different, and good for them, too. I wonder if you'd disagree. The selfishness argument can be applied to this, too, of course, but it can be applied to absolutely everything. If there's someone dying on my doorstep and I help him, it can always be argued that I only have a selfish interest: to make myself feel better. This can never be avoided. I would argue, however, that "common sense", that most uncommon thing, can generally distinguish between selfish and unselfish acts.

Wow! Thanks for this. Seems like internal and/or external pressures are becoming literally intolerable, and so people resort to truly desperate measures. One may ask which shows more character and moral fortitude, committing a murder-suicide or continuing as a supporter/puppet of an intolerably brutal totalitarian regime. (I have no answer.)

To an extent, yes. The big difference with Russia (and some other countries, such as North Korea) is that Russia appears willing to concoct any story to support its supposed interests. Germany, for instance, has never claimed that the Jews built their own concentration camps and then annihilated one another in them. Russia is currently doing essentially this.

Precisely this is what I meant. Presenting these two simultaneously is illogical in the extreme. If the ship sunk because of a fire, clearly there is no need for revenge, but as revenge is called for, clearly the ship did not sink because of a fire.

The victory parade (mentioned in the video) and Russia's heroic victory over the Nazis also nicely ignores some extremely important parts of Russian history -- and, as such, yet again underlines how blatantly the country is ready to gloss over its own deeds. Russia started World War II as an ally of the Nazis. This is not something the country wants to remember. The big problem is not in the shifting alliances that may come along in times of extremity. The big problem is in the inherently untruthful approach that the country has taken in relation to itself, and, apparently, pretty much everything else as well.

Ha! Interesting. Thanks. I agree they're cool. You touch upon the subject of what's called localization, i.e. whether texts should be made more accessible for the audience and/or context in which they're likely to be read. My stance, based upon decades of experience, is a firm "no" with the caveat that "context, however, is everything". So maybe I'd agree with the choice made here.

This is interesting. Where did you get this? It is the hedgehog, not the porcupine. The porcupine does not curl into a ball, which is the trick here, used by the hedgehog.

Agreed, that kind of exploring is probably a good parallel. Also, motivation and desire can provide a huge psychological boost that translates into something physiological. A much more harmless example of this phenomenon can been seen in sports, especially endurance sports like marathon: people can stretch themselves far beyond their exhaustion point if there's strong enough motivation to do so, but once they cross that finish line, they're just done. The change in capacity that sometimes occurs in that instant is really quite remarkable. There are, of course, limits. The phenomenon known as John Henryism is one way of trying to explore and explain this (although mostly in circumstances that last longer than wars).

Here's Russia again being illogical and in breach of its own rules, so to speak. Russian and Belarussian athletes have been banned from Wimbledon. Kreml spokesman Peskov is obviously incensed, and according to him, "Once again they simply turn athletes into hostages to political prejudice." Russia has long upheld its stance that politics and sports should be separate from one another. (Which, to a certain point, is a reasonable idea -- but we have gone far beyond that point since late February, 2022.) But, on the other hand and at the same time, KHL hockey teams are essentially ordered to support the war effort in a letter which states, among other things, “We ask you to contribute to this campaign and to support the military together with the fans.” (Most if not all non-Russian teams have obviously already left the KHL.) So, in any moment, Russia just takes whatever stance it regards as the one best serving its own interests, and there need be no logic nor truthfulness to this. It's unfortunate that we are not dealing with an entity that could be brought face to face with its manifold inconsistencies. It would be interesting to see how it tried to reconcile them to a coherent unity. So, cross-examining this "Russia" character in court would probably lead to some fascinating answers.

This contains an interesting question, by the way. What you say is, of course, quite true. However, the operative word is last, and we've got to distinguish between 1) staying alive and 2) being fit enough to fight (in the modern way, with guns and whatnot -- not bare hands). #1 you can indeed do for astonishngly long, but I have no idea about #2. I suppose it must be at least weeks, though. "D'abord, durer." (Completely unrelated, but proper alcoholics can go without eating anything at all for unbelievable periods of time. There is so much energy in alcohol. Of course they lose their teeth and get all the available deficiencies, but many of them don't die.)

Have you seen this? One comment I have seen was, "Monty Python is strong in this one." Unfortunately, it's not funny.

Yeah, that is true. For quite some time, they were able to fly in stuff at night, by helicopter, over the water, but this route was lost some time ago. It is an astonishing battle.

Also, given how Putin's army has behaved in the war so far, it is probably better to die in battle than be taken prisoner. In the first instance, death is more likely to be quick and perhaps even completely painless, whereas the latter may be extremely painful and humiliating and take a lot of time, after which you also die. Russia has ratified the Geneva Conventions but does not care for them. This is just one example of the international treaties it has broken in this war, which is, yet again, more proof of its lack of truthfulness. A country very much not to be trusted. By the way, parts of Russia's behaviour are simply astonishing. The country is behaving like a spoiled child, or something. To give a very recent example: Russia has pointed out that if Finland and Sweden join NATO, there will be consequences and they most definitely should not do it. Now, at this point, a reasonable outside observer might say: Finland and Sweden are sovereign countries, from which it logically follows that whatever Finland and Sweden do (that is in accordance with international law) is absolutely frigging none of Russia's business, so shut up. It appears impossible for Russia to understand or accept this.

At this point, the talk of "imminent defeat" appears both very grim and somewhat humorous, as we've had it going on for a while already. However, this time you're quite probably right. (I am fairly ignorant of military strategy, and you at least appear to know a heck of a lot more about it than I do.)

I have not ignored anything, nor have I flat out rejected anything. I have also made it very clear that much of what I have posted cannot be regarded as confirmed -- just go back and check. At this point, I question your ability to read. I can't see any point in responding to you any further, as your tone continues to be both surprisingly hostile and very inappropriate. If this was a real-life situation (i.e. you being in an administrative position in a shop or something, like you are a moderator here), I'd have a chat with your boss. Here, there is no such option.

Sorry about this, but I genuinely loved this typo. It produced such a wonderfully surreal claim.