xzar_monty

The gas thing will be interesting. Russia will be in breach of contract if it doesn't accept euros (or dollars). Not that contracts matter at all to Russia. It is currently creating a very interesting image for itself as a country. Something along the lines of, "Don't trust us in anything. We will disregard all of our commitments and signed deals and betray you whenever we can and/or like."

There is no question it will hurt many Western countries. It will probably hurt Russia more, though, given how important the gas money is. Russia is one of the biggest supplies of palladium in the world. Its gas supply is also very important. Other than that, there's not much. Anyone is free to correct me here.

The other day, Russia also tried to pass a notion (or whatever they're called) in the UN concerning the "humanitarian crisis" in Ukraine, completely disregarding what it was about or who caused it. That had to be some kind of world record, as far as cynicism is concerned. It didn't go down well.

It is also my understanding that demanding to pay in rubles in a breach of contract from Russia's side. Which of course Russia doesn't give a damn about.

What I mean by that is that the Russian president is currently doing whatever the heck he wishes, no matter what the law says or doesn't say. @Malcador: I was trying to make it absolutely clear that I wasn't being snarky. Apparently I failed. Apologies. The comment was made in good faith and with good intentions.

My knowledge of political science is woefully inadequate, but I have recently read (from various sources) that the current Russia is much more autocratic than the Soviet Union used to be. The Soviet Union had the politburo, whereas in Russia it is as you say, it's just Putin.

But then, "the Russian President is required by law" no longer means anything, would you agree?

In case you don't know btw (being from Canada), breach of airspace is something that the Soviet Union also used to do to its neighbours. In Europe at least, this is quite widely known, and perhaps you know it, too. But just in case.

Agreed. However, I still think it's both madness and criminal on at least two levels. 1) A message like that is absolute overkill. The planes on their own were a clear enough message. 2) Sweden is a sovereign country. What it does is none of Russia's business. And here, of course, we come to the crux of the matter. I believe both of my points are perfectly valid and would be agreed with by a country that behaves with at least a modicum of common sense. Russia is not that kind of country. Russia used to be a kleptocracy, but it is quickly becoming something altogether more alarming. Just look at they way they are actively legislating for the reduction of intellectual and educational standards, and you're starting to see a new North Korea being born.

Why on earth would they arm those planes with nuclear bombs? I mean, trying to look at it from whichever perspective I choose, I can only see madness in it.

I agree it's possible. However, I'm not going to read much about this subject anymore, and I wonder whether the horrors of, say, the Chilean or Argentinian juntas can be topped. This is a particularly grisly topic, and while you can be correct, I'm prepared to hold on to the idea that the Soviet or the Russian army isn't that much worse than what other groups or armies have previously done in other locations. Some of this stuff is old, such as the "trentuno reale" of the Renaissance era, and some of this stuff is even older than that. Again, please don't think that I have any sympathy whatsoever for Russia.

While I have zero sympathy for the Russian side in this war and believe in nothing it says, it is also true that this particular cruelty has been a part of nearly every war, whenever it's been possible. This strategy is very, very old.

Here's another example of just how vile Russia is: the airplanes that recently breached Swedish airspace were armed with nuclear weapons. Plenty of sources for this. Now, my knowledge of Sweden's recent policy is not particularly good, but surely nothing warrants this. This is sheer madness, absolutely. Russia obviously wants land from Sweden (Gotland especially), but still, still...

Ok, right, I understand now. You can indeed look at it like that. But I don't think that's the whole story. Even if an action is merely selfish, shall we say, it can still be good. For example, the whole purpose of Marshall Aid may have been to increase the influence of the US among the countries that received it. But even if this is so, it was still a good thing. Or, in a much smaller context, even if the only thing Arnie wanted to get from his speech on Ukraine was more attention, it was still a good thing to do (although an almost meaningless good thing, in all probability). Mark Twain once wrote a book called What Is Man, in which he argued that there can never be any other than selfish motives for anything a person does. This view is entirely logical and coherent, because you can always relate everything back to self-interest. Like, I help you because my ultimate goal is to feel good about myself. But I would argue that even if the help I give you is motivated by self-interest, it is still a good thing. However, it is also true that if you ask why such-and-such country doesn't act as cynically or rudely as another, larger country, the answer may well be: because it can't.

Yep, I've also got the game downloaded but haven't even begun to play it yet. Will be happy to wait until at least early summer.

Well, no. I agree that some are. But that's just a worthless and a very cynical generalization. I agree the current Canadian prime minister appears to be rather silly and mightily misinformed about a lot of things, but quite a lot of countries are actually doing rather well: social cohesion is strong, people are generally doing well, they trust each other, education levels are high, their governments are fairly good, pretty much everything is an awful lot better than it has ever been in the history of humanity. Take a look at Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark or Germany, for example. There are problems in all of them, but to say they are run like and by sociopaths is just... foolish and wrong. Btw, I tend to feel ever so slightly uncomfortable whenever I'm in the English-speaking world. I haven't been to Canada, but I have been to the US, England, Ireland, Malta, Australia and New Zealand. The politics and attitudes are strangely insular in their apparent globality -- quite possibly because it seems that so many people in the English-speaking world don't speak other languages. Like, at all. But this is just a feeling and I wouldn't to claim anything because of it.

It is very unreasonable, in fact, although the US does indeed have a very mixed track record. As @BruceVC quite rightly points out, the US has been involved in an awful lot of positive things, which of course doesn't excuse its failures and its dark side. But to say that the US only operates in a spurious and morally questionable way is either plain dumb or extremely cynical(*) -- and in either case, it's quite plainly wrong. (*) One interesting thing about cynical attitudes is this: if a person takes the stance that other people operate in the world only or predominantly from a cynical standpoint, it would be good for this person to recognize that the chances are very high that he himself is the most cynical person in this equation.

All of the above, and more (i.e. "other reasons", too). Some of it was almost certainly due to being fairly well informed on one aspect of the situation (like, finances, geography or somesuch) but very badly informed on others. One of the most (unintentionally) dangerous characters is the one who really knows quite a lot about his field of expertise and then concludes that this constitutes expertise in other fields as well.

There is no such obvious implication. Of course it is perfectly all right for moderators to participate in discussion. That was not the issue. The issue was one of professionalism, i.e. not being snide and not deliberately misconstruing other people's words.

It most certainly is not. The whole international scene is much more volatile and fragile now, and that in turn means various doomsday scenarios that weren't as obvious as recently as a few months ago, and the US won't be happy with that at all.

I think that to an extent this is true. But to the extent that it is true, it reveals a rather startling fact: Russia is in effect a developing country unable to fix its problems -- there is no "adult" or trustworthy government, legislation, court system, commercial system, (almost) anything. That's how dire its situation is. Contrast this with the fact that when it comes to literature, painting, classical music or drama, Russia beats the United States hands down, and you get a pretty startling picture of the country. Of course the United States is a newcomer and Russia is a lot older, but still.

By which conceivable logic are you able to conclude that I regard myself as other than human, or otherwise exempt from the group "humans"? I must say I would expect at least a little more professional attitude from a forum moderator (not unrealistically, in my view).

Astonishingly, this attitude is fairly widespread among those leaning to the left. It can appear in people who are otherwise quite well informed and reasonable. The key tenet seems to be this: Whatever the United States is involved in cannot, by definition, be morally proper. I am by no means a "fan" of the United States (a country so full of contradictions it just boggles the mind), but this kind of thinking is sheer idiocy. My take is that it stems from the all too human need for simplicity: life is so much easier if you accept facile generalizations, instead of trying to approach every situation on its own. Interestingly, and kind of paradoxically, Vladimir Putin has recently demonstrated that whatever Russia says should never be trusted. There is no getting away from this: his betrayal and dishonesty has been so blatant and far-reaching. And since losing trust is extremely easy but regaining it is very hard, I suppose it'll take quite some time before Russia regains trust in international politics. Like, decades at least. Btw, if you ask Russia, it really hasn't attacked anyone. Seriously. What do you mean war in Ukraine? What are you talking about? We are not bombing cities, we are rearranging architecture. We are not killing civilians, we are making alterations in their life expectancy.

An officer who supports the war was also shut up for daring to suggest that people may be dying. It's beyond Orwell. Check it out:

It's amazing to find Russia apologists in a situation where the mere mention of war on the street can lead to you being taken away instantly, or the mere mention of things not being quite right can lead to a sentence of up to 15 years. I mean, if things are NOT very wrong, then why would bringing this stuff up be a problem for Russia or Putin? Russia's attitude is also evident in the way its embassies in its neighboring countries have specifically asked Russian nationals to report all negative treatment of or comments about Russians to their respective embassies.