Will Russia invade the Ukraine?

[Potter]

I expect that if the human race ever gets to the point where it stops promoting tribalism, then it may look back on things like this thread and cringe at the ultra-nationalist chest-beating quinquagenarians and boomers totally blinded by western fundamentalism.

Free thinkers you are not.

[weeksy]

I expect that if the human race ever gets to the point where it stops promoting tribalism, then it may look back on things like this thread and cringe at the ultra-nationalist chest-beating quinquagenarians and boomers totally blinded by western fundamentalism.

Free thinkers you are not.

I think if the human race ever used this place to gauge humanity/society we're already fucked

[Hoonercat]

Oh btw - she was held for fourteen hours and released with a fine.
I got more than that for fighting with a very willing opponent outside a pub in the north of England.

She knew full well she'd just get nicked and just get a fine.

You really have to stop believing the shite you get fed in western media.

Looks like she’s now being charged (according to the Times) with being a British spy. I see a lengthy spell in gulag in her future. Not sure it was ever in doubt really.

I don't think she's been charged (yet). Just an accusation (without any proof) from the news channel she worked for at the time.

[irie]

Just a "few more" deaths than the ~500 officially claimed by the Kremlin.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russian-troops-dead-ukraine/

Pro-Kremlin media says 10,000 soldiers dead in Ukraine war but article gets swiftly deleted

A pro-Kremlin newspaper briefly reported that almost 10,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the invasion of Ukraine - far higher than official tolls.

Komsomolskaya Pravda swiftly took down the online article but screenshots of the report still exist.

Terrible slaughter on both sides.

As said before, both sides will lose this war, but Russia will lose far more. If continental European countries finally stop buying Russian oil and gas thus indirectly financing this war, then it will be game over for the Russian economy with GDP expected to more than halve.

[Potter]

I don't think she's been charged (yet). Just an accusation (without any proof) from the news channel she worked for at the time.

I think you're right, but I fully expect that it's being investigated.
There are people in the UK jailed simply for communicating with people on the internet, they call it a conspiracy, and it's likely that this lady conspired with others to engage in organised subversion.

But either way, she will probably have a trial, which is more than Shamima Begun got, or the UK/US citizens sentenced to death by a closed process and then assassinated (along with their wives and children) by drones, or taken out by single target operatives.

The problem with chest beating and squealing about Johnny-Foreigner not being fair, is that it often falls down when you hold a mirror up to it.

[Potter]

As said before, both sides will lose this war, but Russia will lose far more. If continental European countries finally stop buying Russian oil and gas thus indirectly financing this war, then it will be game over for the Russian economy with GDP expected to more than halve.

Or India, China and Russia finally has enough of America and they agree to hold hands, then it's game over for everyone else.

America are balls or bust, if Russia comes out on top here then the USA is finished as a world power, if anyone does anything stupid over this then it will be the yanks in their death throes.

[DefTrap]

Free thinkers you are not.

Lolz.

I think we'll look back on this as the era when fear of being "a sheep", falling for "fake news" or that anyone with authority is definitely lieing, despite evidence to the contrary, drove the common man into the arms of conspiracy theorists and what-if Barrys - because if you read it on Facebook or a ruddy faced gent who looks like you says it, it's probably true right? It's the era when Farage can be anti-lockdown because he's "tired of the science", using the same sort of zero-fact argument he did with brexit and Joe public can say "oh yeah me too".

I'm not sure "you're blinded by Western fundamentalism" really works on people with a brain. You need to try harder and actually present evidence and if it has any legs it'll get picked up. But that rarely happens, it hasn't happened on this thread for starters - lots of mumbo jumbo on the origins of covid and then changing tack when called on it.

Either way, I don't think it's really helpful when trying to determine the truth.

[Potter]

Free thinkers you are not.

Lolz.

I think we'll look back on this as the era when fear of being "a sheep", falling for "fake news" or that anyone with authority is definitely lieing, despite evidence to the contrary, drove the common man into the arms of conspiracy theorists and what-if Barrys - because if you read it on Facebook or a ruddy faced gent who looks like you says it, it's probably true right? It's the era when Farage can be anti-lockdown because he's "tired of the science", using the same sort of zero-fact argument he did with brexit and Joe public can say "oh yeah me too".

I'm not sure "you're blinded by Western fundamentalism" really works on people with a brain. You need to try harder and actually present evidence and if it has any legs it'll get picked up. But that rarely happens, it hasn't happened on this thread for starters - lots of mumbo jumbo on the origins of covid and then changing tack when called on it.

Either way, I don't think it's really helpful when trying to determine the truth.

Brexit.
The End.

[DefTrap]

Well, there are similarities old chap.

[Potter]

Well, there are similarities old chap.

My point is the truth didn't matter in things like the Iraq war, the last financial crisis or Brexit, the public were rinsed by misinformation.

So to argue now that it's definitely not happening, "no sir no way, we're all too clever and we'd see right through it - and anyone that says otherwise must be a paranoid nutter" seems like a strange position to take in my book.

As soon as the news tells me to look left, I immediately look right for the thing they didn't want me to see.

[Potter]

[Potter]

If we all live long enough for the truth to eventually come out then you're all going to have to apologise to Screwd

Edited..."The New York Post's columnist Miranda Devine says the real take-away from the Hunter Biden laptop scandal is the serious claims the US president has been "compromised" by the money and gifts given to his son by Ukrainian and Chinese interests.

Among photos of Hunter indulging in illegal drugs, there was potentially criminating information about payment and gifts given to him by foreign interests.

There were indications in the emails that Joe Biden may have also received some of the money and gifts, although this has not been independently verified.

Despite the Post's story having significant public interest ahead of the 2020 election, all the major media outlets dismissed the story and social media giants banned it from being published." - Sky News

[Screwdriver]

I expect that if the human race ever gets to the point where it stops promoting tribalism, then it may look back on things like this thread and cringe at the ultra-nationalist chest-beating quinquagenarians and boomers totally blinded by western fundamentalism.

Free thinkers you are not.

Evolution is a long game. While Homo Sapiens quickly became the dominant, apex predator due to its relatively large brain case, that was only 50,000 years ago. Whatever base instincts and behavioural traits were baked into that fearsomely complex organ to allow H. Sapiens to dominate (or even assimilate) Neanderthal hominids, it is still there.

Our brains would allow us to easily share a camp fire with so called stone age man. We would easily be able to communicate and any one of us would quickly come up with a "sign language" for "please don't kill me". These small bands of itinerant humans would also quickly form gangs, develop alliances and of course, you soon learn not to argue with the biggest meanest fucker. That evolved behaviour is what has allowed us to dominate our environment.

Now of course "we" do not sit around a campfire, the sheer weight of numbers has outgrown the development of our built in "survival" instinct. We have had to invent laws, superstitions and yes, religion to artificially subdue those base instincts we all share. Not only that, our technology has massively amplified certain detail behavioural traits we might classify as "psychopathic" or "empathic".

Every time a human is born into this world it is pre wired with this ancient behavioural code but dumped into a massively complex, technology driven society and expected to learn those "manners" which allow it to fit in. FWIW I don't think there is a conspiracy or secret society behind the scenes "pulling the strings". I think it's just a reflection of human behaviour, base animal instincts let loose in a world where one man can sit next to a big red button that could annihilate the only planet we know of with a human friendly environment.

So no I don't think either promoting or censoring "tribalism" is the issue here. You run what you brung. I think the problem is more to do with the fundamental psychology of individuals. Why for example are vastly more psychopaths prevalent in positions of authority or running large corporations than in society at large? I suggest it is because their behaviours are rewarded and they are more successful than weaker more empathic people.

When a psychopath like Putin rises to the top of an organisation or a "brilliant" asset fund manager acquires vast financial resources (you don't have to be a psychopath to work here, but it helps), they do so because our society rewards exactly those types of behaviours within the artificial construct of our modern world. I think this has happened at an accelerated rate, especially with the advent of social media which taps into our primitive base instincts.

"“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them."

[Hoonercat]

Just a "few more" deaths than the ~500 officially claimed by the Kremlin.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russian-troops-dead-ukraine/

Pro-Kremlin media says 10,000 soldiers dead in Ukraine war but article gets swiftly deleted

A pro-Kremlin newspaper briefly reported that almost 10,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the invasion of Ukraine - far higher than official tolls.

Komsomolskaya Pravda swiftly took down the online article but screenshots of the report still exist.

Terrible slaughter on both sides.

Same playbook as Putin's wars against Chechnya. Play down Russian casualties by further censoring the media in an attempt to stop any discontent in Russia, never refer to the conflict as an invasion, indisciminate shelling and bombing of civilian areas (which killed ten of thousands of civilians) and deny everything.

[Potter]

I think the problem is more to do with the fundamental psychology of individuals. Why for example are vastly more psychopaths prevalent in positions of authority or running large corporations than in society at large? I suggest it is because their behaviours are rewarded and they are more successful than weaker more empathic people.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to argue a point on this with any strength.

It's obvious to me that individuals that are not keen to conform to the group psychology are more likely to end up leading the group, but is that psychopathic? You can argue it is because they're fighting against the group psychology (i.e. going against the group social conformist behaviour), but I don't think it's what most people mean when they use the term psychopath.

If I'm a psychopath because I don't follow normal group behaviour then I'm ok with it, although I'm not sure I'd agree that I have a chronic mental disorder...well not one that's worse than the average human being.

[Count Steer]

'Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor ...'

[Cousin Jack]

When a psychopath like Putin rises to the top of an organisation or a "brilliant" asset fund manager acquires vast financial resources (you don't have to be a psychopath to work here, but it helps), they do so because our society rewards exactly those types of behaviours within the artificial construct of our modern world. I think this has happened at an accelerated rate, especially with the advent of social media which taps into our primitive base instincts.

"“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them."

Not all successful managers are psychopaths, perhaps too many, but by no means all. In the long run psychopaths often get hung out to dry by their own teams.

I tried hard to remember that, as a manager, I had a team of people. Some things I could do better than most of them, some of them could do other things better than me, what was always true is that all of them together could do a LOT more than me. My job was to coach the bits I could do really well, let others do (and coach) the stuff they could do better, and manage the team to deliver together. Sometimes that meant me doing the boring/trivial/stupid stuff to let the team perform well without distractions.

[Greenman]

the most telling thing for me is that "one side" is trying to shut down all dissenting information, the other is wondering why there is so much obfuscation and secrecy.

They're not trying to shut anything down, just ignoring it because there's no evidence and to constantly discuss it just because "it's not fair" is damaging to the current situation - get everyone vaccinated, get back to normal.
Come back with some evidence other than "it must be lies". It's easy to throw shade on the notion that scientists can't prove 100% that covid was naturally occurring because it's actually pretty effing difficult to show the pathway - there's plenty of precedent for that. But lab leak? accidental or otherwise? There isn't any. Find some, I'm all ears.

A better conclusion than your "there's no hard evidence either way" is "what's the most likely explanation?", coupled with "people are really, really shit at keeping secrets". You have to try harder to make breakthroughs, that's the way it is I'm afraid.

Currently the "covid was purposely released from a lab" theory is in the same pile as "the twin towers was a set-up by the us government".

Id have agreed with that sentence a while back, there is no way we as humans can keep such secrets in such times with all the social media etc etc etc, but look at all the peadphile cases in the Royal family etc and the recent Cressenda Dick case here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-60340525

This proves that a lot of info is being kept under wraps by people in powerful positions. The info is then being released to you when it is convenient for them to do so, or not at all!

I think it all also depends on trust, who do you actually trust. This is such an individual choice hence the extreme difference in opinions. Do you trust the gov/ do you trust the media? do you trust what you hear from frank the crack head down the road? where does your trust lie when trying to find factual information?

[Yambo]

It's subtle, if you want to look for it but it's there.

About 15,300 Russian troops have now been killed since the start of the war, Ukraine's Ministry of Defence has claimed in its latest update.

The ministry also lists 509 tanks, 1,556 armored combat vehicles and 252 artillery systems among Russia's military losses since it invaded Ukraine on 24 February.

The BBC cannot verify any of these figures.

Russia has only once provided a figure on the loss of its troops - 498 deaths as of 2 March - while the US recently estimated that about 7,000 Russian troops had been killed in the conflict.

Of course, it could just be shit reporting or writing but when the BBC cannot verify any of the Ukrainian figures but doesn't say the same about the Russian figures . . .

Here's one way it could have been written (maybe better):

About 15,300 Russian troops have now been killed since the start of the war, Ukraine's Ministry of Defence has claimed in its latest update.

The ministry also lists 509 tanks, 1,556 armored combat vehicles and 252 artillery systems among Russia's military losses since it invaded Ukraine on 24 February.

Russia has only once provided a figure on the loss of its troops - 498 deaths as of 2 March - while the US recently estimated that about 7,000 Russian troops had been killed in the conflict.

The BBC cannot verify any of these figures.

[irie]

It's subtle, if you want to look for it but it's there.

As posted earlier, official Kremlin media seems to have (accidently?) posted Russian loses, or may have been hacked.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russian-troops-dead-ukraine/

Pro-Kremlin newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda swiftly took down an online article revealing thousands of troops had died and over 16,000 were injured, but screenshots of the report still exist.

It led to questions over whether the outlet was hacked or if it obtained true figures and managed to post them.

The article said 9,861 soldiers had died in the invasion, which has turned into a now month-long war.

That figure is far higher than the toll of 498 given by Russian authorities at the start of March