The war affects everyone. Some people die, some suffer because they are under shelling or occupation, some suffer cause their loved one die. But those outside war zone suffer as well. Due to broken food chains, crazy economic inflation and general political instability. For sure it's as bad as when you're dead because of the random shell hitting your home, but still.
When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent just because he can, this creates instability inside the country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the power and who knows what happens next.
I understand that a lot of events in the world might have potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.
I don't understand why people are so scared specifically about Putin's nukes. He's not the only murderous dictator with a big red button, but he's the only one I hear people worrying about. Xi + the CCP is just as much, if not more, of a threat.
And due to the way things are going, they're testing the waters in cooperation and friendship.
For all of China's faults, the country seems less reliant on hard power for survival. Russia is a country with three tricks only: fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and destabilizing democracies.
China is a manufacturing and technology powerhouse.
Unlike Xi, Putin and his propaganda machine has literally threatened to use the nuclear power if they have to. Multiple times.
Yes, it is considered as a bluff. And most likely it is. However so was all the military "exercises" before the invasion to Ukraine in 2022. Only a few really believed it, unfortunately it actually happened.
I already posted this in another thread here. This particular change is not because isolationism. Most likely.
Russian government added Hetzner to the list of companies who must move their infrastructure within Russian borders in order to operate with Russian citizens. Few years ago they introduced a law on how companies have to process personal data. (It is kinda similar to GDPR, but the government might abuse it in the way to get access to data government needs). Obviously Hetzner doesn't want to create infrastructure on Russian soil. It was quite risky even before the war.
You can find the full list of "lucky" companies in here -- https://236-fz.rkn.gov.ru/agents/list (sorry, it's in Russian, but google translate should help you out).
There is nothing to do with intelligence. They got on radar of Russian government. Which wanted Hetzner to follow Russian law and move all Russian data to Russia in order to operate with Russian citizens. Means literally Russian government expects companies to open data centers within borders and keep all the data inside the country (they even issued a law for that). Obviously Hetzner doesn't want to do so.
You can find the full list of "lucky" companies in here -- https://236-fz.rkn.gov.ru/agents/list (sorry, it's in Russian, but google translate should help you out).
This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior.
Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate?
Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter?
Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer?
I bet you don't.
PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine :(
>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad
Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.
Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN.
Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result.
Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.
That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine.
The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer.
Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.
I don't hold an opinion on this worth sharing, I was merely stating what I have heard from people beforehand as reasoning.
I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources. What source do you get the 20% from?
As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it.
Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope that you can help further my understanding.
The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0].
> As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it.
The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it.
You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest.
More explanation from Carnegie[2]:
> The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September.
I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window.
> Based on the personal attacks at the end,
Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I am reading it now but wanted to respond in a timely manner. I do try to keep my opinion on important events informed, but have been finding it increasingly difficult since Jan 2020.
I lean towards promoting a solution that doesn't turn this invasion into WW3. Preferably a solution that results in fewer deaths. That does also include worldwide deaths that for example may stem from the financial fallout of the war itself. As well as a comparison of lives saved/saveable using the money being spent.
I'm very aware this is a privileged position that I can justify while living in Canada. Knowing I would find it incredibly difficult if not impossible to maintain my position if the conflict was localized. I like to believe I would still lean to societal benefit, but for that I have zero confidence.
I primarily ponder on the options allowing for an eventual de-escalation being limited or even non-existent. Is there a route to an end of the invasion that you see as viable? What is needed to get there and who do you think could make it happen?
Thank you again for the informative response. I've come out with better information than I had this morning.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond, especially given I hadn’t made it clear as toward whom my ire was directed.
Unfortunately, because Putin has gone all-in with this war, he has backed himself into a corner. There is no off-ramp that he can now take to save face. I think the hesitance of the western powers in arming Ukraine has been an attempt to provide Putin with off-ramps and minimise both civilian and military casualties on both sides. They have slowly begun to realise that Putin has no interest in diplomacy, which is why they have stepped up arms shipments.
The way this ends is in russian military defeat. That might not happen before they lose about half a million soldiers though, and we’re about 20% of the way there. It might also end sooner if the Ukrainians are able to expel all russian forces from all of Ukrainian territory, and then build sufficient defences so that further border skirmishes are futile. The Ukrainians need a whole load of equipment for that though.
What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''.
Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move).
Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly.
But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.
Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at its peak... and growing.
It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)
Of course the will be outliers and edge cases for most of the advice you receive. This observation from Derek is more or less a guideline, not an iron rule. He's not advocating to forgo common sense when dealing with people.
I think that the fact that Derek found this interesting enough to write about and people find it controversial to discuss about here kinda proves that his wish is the outlier and the norm is arguing with bad faith actors or people who have made up their mind and want to convince you, not really learn anything.
Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.
It's not just recipes. There are tones of questions I often search which have a very specific and short answer. E.g. "how many kangaroos are there in the world?".
Ideally I would expect a page with my question and a number with link to the source. However in the real world I get various pages with somehow related title and tons of text inside I don't need. Often times without the exact number I'm looking for.
I guess that most likely nobody wants to maintain such a resource since it might be hard to make it profitable. Still it might save a lot of time for collective humanity.
When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent just because he can, this creates instability inside the country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the power and who knows what happens next.
I understand that a lot of events in the world might have potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.