Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[sonyc 5,526]

5 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I must confess that I've unintentionally got into the extremely bad habit of not listening to radio much, for no good reason that I can muster, so I haven't been following that. But it certainly sounds interesting and I will definitely have a listen.

Having said that, money laundering in the UK is quite a long-standing issue, and as you've probably gathered, the point that I've been trying to make to @littleyellowbirdie is that corruption has got much worse quite recently due primarily to the actions of our political masters.

But given the title of that programme perhaps the money laundering situation has also got a lot worse??

Been an eye opener for me. The link has all of the episodes and thankfully they last a nifty 14 minutes each 😂 ...sort of "bite size money laundering"

Goes back to the origins post ww2 - off-shoring, today Jersey, tomorrow Londongrad...

Ps. I've been listening more  to radio because I've been decorating (a 'green' project) so it's ideal. R4 content is very diverse imo so often stuff I wouldn't just tune into but I end up learning something anyway. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by sonyc

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

26 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Interesting mini thread / discussion going on about corruption in the UK @Yellow fever @Creative Midfielder and @littleyellowbirdie and I wondered if you've been following the R4 programme each afternoon this week on money laundering in the UK("How to steal a trillion")?

  It explains why the UK has become quite an 'epicentre'.

Link here if not. It has provided a decent historical perspective:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017v71

 

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a listen to that (I'd have clicked like, but I've run out of likes today, sorry!)

Edited May 31, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

You've caught me out (red handed 😉). Haven't heard that yet.

Always amused by people who think we're whiter than white! It's just different / hidden here.

The UK is not whiter than whiter, but it's completely wrong to say it's 'different/hidden' here when there are places where journalists and whistleblowers get killed for their efforts, especially when you've cited yourself cases that have been brought to public attention.  If anything, it's the opposite in that we have a culture that enables whistle-blowing, a free press, and some decent investigative journalists here and there, especially given that digital communications has made revealing hidden information so much easier. Ironically, the impression that things are more corrupt is likely simply down to more corruption being exposed than the true extent of corruption actually growing. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[kirku 1,334]

As Sheva has pointed out in regards to the doctor issue, it was likely payment rather than bribe but there are many cases of similar things that I'm aware of:

• bribes to pass driving tests
• payments to teachers at school
• bribes to pass exams at university
• bribes to judges and police

I certainly made sure not to speak English within earshot of the police...

I believe some progress was made since the Maidan protests and the ousting of Yanukovych. It's no worse than many other developing countries, and as others have pointed out, in the UK corruption is much more hidden but potentially just as, if not more, damaging, given that it happens at a higher level. The number of ridiculous PPE contracts handed out recently is the most obvious example that comes to mind..

But let's not forget the good side of corruption - it's certainly resulted in a much less successful Russian invasion than many were fearing...

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

37 minutes ago, kirku said:

As Sheva has pointed out in regards to the doctor issue, it was likely payment rather than bribe but there are many cases of similar things that I'm aware of:

• bribes to pass driving tests
• payments to teachers at school
• bribes to pass exams at university
• bribes to judges and police

I certainly made sure not to speak English within earshot of the police...

I believe some progress was made since the Maidan protests and the ousting of Yanukovych. It's no worse than many other developing countries, and as others have pointed out, in the UK corruption is much more hidden but potentially just as, if not more, damaging, given that it happens at a higher level. The number of ridiculous PPE contracts handed out recently is the most obvious example that comes to mind..

But let's not forget the good side of corruption - it's certainly resulted in a much less successful Russian invasion than many were fearing...

Funnily enough, I stumbled across a good summary of the PPE thing on Transparency International again, although obviously take it with a pinch of salt given that Transparency International rate the UK as 11th least corrupt country in the world when it's actually probably on a par with Zimbabwe in reality if the rhetoric on here is anything to go by. 

https://www.transparency.org.uk/track-and-trace-uk-PPE-procurement-corruption-risk-VIP-lane

Edited May 31, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Like I said, you don't really get this debating business, do you?  So admirably proven by your initial sentence?

 

And yet again you fail to answer a single point raised. Interesting that you have nothing at all to say about your embarrassing pre-school lack of logic. So let's give you another chance to correct your appalling non-sequiturs:

"So claiming something should happen in Ukraine," (expressed as a view on a football forum) amounts to telling the Ukrainians what they should do?

So suggesting that Dean Smith shouldn't pick Billy Gilmour, (expressed as a view on a football forum) amounts to "telling" the manager what to do.

Staggering. You don't really get this debating business, do you?"

Simultaneously one of the most hilarious and embarrassing things I have ever read on this site. You are the only adult I have ever encountered who has not heard of the principle, that if you genuinely will the ends, you must also will the means to those ends.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The UK is not whiter than whiter, but it's completely wrong to say it's 'different/hidden' here when there are places where journalists and whistleblowers get killed for their efforts, especially when you've cited yourself cases that have been brought to public attention.  If anything, it's the opposite in that we have a culture that enables whistle-blowing, a free press, and some decent investigative journalists here and there, especially given that digital communications has made revealing hidden information so much easier. Ironically, the impression that things are more corrupt is likely simply down to more corruption being exposed than the true extent of corruption actually growing. 

"The UK is not whiter than white, but it's completely wrong to say it's 'different/hidden' here when there are places where journalists and whistleblowers get killed for their efforts"

Exactly -  it's different here! Largely 'white collar' and more hidden!

The rest I agree with.

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Yellow Fever
Oh look! https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/31/lords-standards-watchdog-investigates-tory-peer-over-vip-ppe-contracts

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

"The UK is not whiter than white, but it's completely wrong to say it's 'different/hidden' here when there are places where journalists and whistleblowers get killed for their efforts"

Exactly -  it's different here! Largely 'white collar' and more hidden!

The rest I agree with.

 

Utter nonsense.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Utter nonsense.

Yes your statement was. It is clearly different here to third world or emerging countries. Less obvious but as pernicious as ever.

I really think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes your statement was. It is clearly different here to third world or emerging countries. Less obvious but as pernicious as ever.

I really think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

No your statement that corruption is 'more hidden' is just stupid. Corruption is by it's very nature a deception and concealed; there's no such thing as open, official corruption. It's an oxymoron.

What you probably mean is it has to happen even more furtively owing to the greater levels of checks and balances in our institutions. Inevitably, that will mean the scope of corruption is smaller, hence the whole point of anti-corruption measures such as declared interests.

Edited May 31, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No your statement that corruption is 'more hidden' is just stupid. Corruption is by it's very nature a deception and concealed; there's no such thing as open, official corruption. It's an oxymoron.

What you probably mean is it has to happen even more furtively owing to the greater levels of checks and balances in our institutions. Inevitably, that will mean the scope of corruption is smaller, hence the whole point of anti-corruption measures such as declared interests.

Now you're arguing semantics - concealed vs hidden. You'd be excellent script writer for Johnson.

concealed

adjective

 

1. kept secret; hidden.

   "a concealed weapon"

I thought I was clear enough. The original post was simply we have corruptions here and Johnson by his deeds and actions will have dropped the UK down that table by whatever means you wish to measure it.

Do I think we are as 'corrupt' as say Ukraine. No. Was CM being a bit tongue in cheek when he said it. Yes. Are there some very large corrupt issues needing investigation and rooting out in the British hierarchy. Yes. I'll leave it there.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

On 31/05/2022 at 21:50, Yellow Fever said:

Now you're arguing semantics - concealed vs hidden. You'd be excellent script writer for Johnson.

concealed

adjective

 

1. kept secret; hidden.

   "a concealed weapon"

I thought I was clear enough. The original post was simply we have corruptions here and Johnson by his deeds and actions will have dropped the UK down that table by whatever means you wish to measure it.

Do I think we are as 'corrupt' as say Ukraine. No. Was CM being a bit tongue in cheek when he said it. Yes. Are there some very large corrupt issues needing investigation and rooting out in the British hierarchy. Yes. I'll leave it there.

 

 

Except Johnson's corruption has been exposed, so it's no longer hidden. Corruption is harder to conceal because we have more institutional measures to tackle it, hence we're less corrupt. QED.

 

I'm not sure how using 'concealed' as a synonym for 'hidden', as you've pointed out is supported by the dictionary, amounts to a semantic argument either. 

You'd be an excellent script writer for Father Ted.

Edited June 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Except Johnson's corruption has been exposed, so it's no longer hidden. Corruption is harder to conceal because we have more institutional measures to tackle it, hence we're less corrupt. QED.

You'd be an excellent script writer for Father Ted.

I'll take that as a compliment and let you fathom the error in your argument. Oddly I've only had to edit one press release for a (Tory) minister so far!

Edited May 31, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'll take that as a compliment and let you fathom the error in your argument. Oddly I've only had to edit one press release for a (Tory) minister so far!

Put it this way. By your logic, rape is a bigger problem in Sweden because they have a higher rate of rape convictions. Hopefully that will point out to you the error in your logic.

Edited May 31, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,526]

Edited May 31, 2022 by sonyc
(didn't want to get involved but couldn't resist the Ted thing)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Very apposite. 😆

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

6 minutes ago, sonyc said:

didn't want to get involved but couldn't resist the Ted thing

No worries - I'm done with it. Didn't think there was a factual argument in the first place!

How many more letters will there be tonight? Have we already passed 54 and Brady is just waiting until after the Jubilee for Queenies party? Wouldn't actually be surprised but we'll never know. Concealed or hidden 🙂 .

 

[sonyc 5,526]

7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

No worries - I'm done with it. Didn't think there was a factual argument in the first place!

How many more letters will there be tonight? Have we already passed 54 and Brady is just waiting until after the Jubilee for Queenies party? Wouldn't actually be surprised but we'll never know. Concealed or hidden 🙂 .

 

Oh, I was only trying to lighten proceedings a little. A smile often works but humour can always be a risk. The truth is often right there right in the middle of an argument. Both sides have truth.

Sometimes it's about personality types (you'll have come across them I'm sure...Myers Briggs stuff) and those more in touch with their  feeling and intuition will often not see eye to eye with those ultra logical and who want evidence. I used to recruit folk the opposite of me (as long as they were competent) so that as a team we were more rounded. Yet I sometimes had to work so hard when people approached issues to problems very differently😄. 

In terms of Johnson I believe it's in the late 40s. Hague thinks a new selection is actively being considered.

Drip, drip. And then suddenly it all overflows. As someone said Sue Gray has turned out to be rather a slow fuse timebomb. Only a matter of time. Even most Tories know it. 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Oh, I was only trying to lighten proceedings a little. A smile often works but humour can always be a risk. The truth is often right there right in the middle of an argument. Both sides have truth.

Sometimes it's about personality types (you'll have come across them I'm sure...Myers Briggs stuff) and those more in touch with their  feeling and intuition will often not see eye to eye with those ultra logical and who want evidence. I used to recruit folk the opposite of me (as long as they were competent) so that as a team we were more rounded. Yet I sometimes had to work so hard when people approached issues to problems very differently😄. 

In terms of Johnson I believe it's in the late 40s. Hague thinks a new selection is actively being considered.

Drip, drip. And then suddenly it all overflows. As someone said Sue Gray has turned out to be rather a slow fuse timebomb. Only a matter of time. Even most Tories know it. 

 

I also think there is a lot of positioning i.e Loathsome Leadsom. Wants to be on the winning side whatever that is, so is critical but no letter (as yet ?). Anyway wrong thread.

Sometimes you just find yourself in an argument you never intended by just making an observation! That's life.

 

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

And yet again you fail to answer a single point raised. Interesting that you have nothing at all to say about your embarrassing pre-school lack of logic. So let's give you another chance to correct your appalling non-sequiturs:

"So claiming something should happen in Ukraine," (expressed as a view on a football forum) amounts to telling the Ukrainians what they should do?

So suggesting that Dean Smith shouldn't pick Billy Gilmour, (expressed as a view on a football forum) amounts to "telling" the manager what to do.

Staggering. You don't really get this debating business, do you?"

Simultaneously one of the most hilarious and embarrassing things I have ever read on this site. You are the only adult I have ever encountered who has not heard of the principle, that if you genuinely will the ends, you must also will the means to those ends.

 

"And yet again you fail to answer a single point."  Really?

As for the remainder of the tripe, it's nothing more than just an exhibition of overblown, sententious nonsense.

"...... if you genuinely will (desire?) the ends, you must also will the means to those ends." Is that so? Always? 

Where was that from? Googling for Dummies?

If anything is non-sequential, that generalised nonsense surely is, despite your claim that it is a principle that every adult you have ever encountered is totally au fait with it. I am, though, unable to state with some certainty that it is one of the most hilarious and embarrassing things I have ever read on this site.

Do you realise how silly that all sounds?

Away from pseud's corner and beyond that pettifogging piffle, I remain at a loss to comprehend how expressing a view in debate upon the situation in Ukraine can be seen as tantamount to "telling " the Ukrainians what to do on any credible level whatsoever.

It's an opinion, not an instruction. Get it?

In any case, I shouldn't think that Vladimar Zelensky visits the Pinkun forum very often.

Edited June 1, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

23 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"And yet again you fail to answer a single point."  Really?

As for the remainder of the tripe, it's nothing more than just an exhibition of overblown, sententious nonsense.

"...... if you genuinely will (desire?) the ends, you must also will the means to those ends." Is that so? Always? 

Where was that from? Googling for Dummies?

If anything is non-sequential, that generalised nonsense surely is, despite your claim that it is a principle that every adult you have ever encountered is totally au fait with it. I am, though, unable to state with some certainty that it is one of the most hilarious and embarrassing things I have ever read on this site.

Do you realise how silly that all sounds?

Away from pseud's corner and beyond that pettifogging piffle, I remain at a loss to comprehend how expressing a view in debate upon the situation in Ukraine can be seen as tantamount to "telling " the Ukrainians what to do on any credible level whatsoever.

It's an opinion, not an instruction. Get it?

In any case, I shouldn't think that Vladimar Zelensky visits the Pinkun forum very often.

As a chap speaking yesterday on Radio 4 put it very well, if you're advocating preventing arms supply to the Ukrainians, what you're actually doing is forcing Ukrainian resistance to surrender against its will, or given Russia's track record so far, potentially getting them executed; it's simply advocating favourably for the invaders to prevail at the expense of the invaded. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

8 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"...... if you genuinely will (desire?) the ends, you must also will the means to those ends." Is that so? Always? 

Where was that from? Googling for Dummies?

Oh dear! Your lack of knowledge is quite remarkable. Try reading some Kant (the man considered by many philosophers to be probably the greatest philosopher to have lived). On second thoughts, there's not a chance in hell that you will understand a word of it. So let's make it as simple as possible for you by using your own pathetic example: If you genuinely will that Smith should not pick Gilmour for the team, then you must will it to be the case that something is done by Smith for Gilmour to be not selected. Otherwise there are only two options. First, you don't genuinely will that Gilmour is not selected, in which case you are a liar/insincere. Second, you are too thick to realise you have flatly contradicted yourself by claiming both, that you want Gilmour not to be selected for the team, but also want nothing to be done to bring that state of affairs about.

While you're at it, try looking up the word "pettifogging". It is about as far from triviality as you can get to expect someone to understand the logical implications of the words that they have used; rational conversation depends on it. That's why it is indeed embarrassing for an adult not to understand that if they genuinely will some end to be realised, they are logically committed to willing the means involved in bringing that end about (unless of course they are happy to publicly demonstrate their hypocrisy and inability to avoid self-contradiction). The fact that you declare, " I remain at a loss to comprehend how expressing a view in debate upon the situation in Ukraine can be seen as tantamount to "telling " the Ukrainians what to do on any credible level whatsoever." demonstrates you still do not understand this very simple principle. To will that the Ukrainians should cede the Donbass region to Russia to bring about peace is precisely to imply that Ukrainians should do something to bring that situation about. To be at a loss to understand that simple implication explains an awful lot about why you post such illogical nonsense on this site.

 

 

[Indy 3,301]

All this thread has done is pointed out the Absolutes in views. The reality is very different, if you think Ukraine can take back the Donbas without the support needed from the west in ramping up the arms supplied thus far without Russia declaring war on NATO, then I’d agree, but I believe won’t ever happen!

I cannot see anything other than two ways out, one to play the long game and a diplomatic end to the war, concede territory in the Donbas, draw up the boundary with Russian rule, allowing the rest of Ukraine to be rebuilt and armed to ensure no more territory is never threatened in the future.

OR fully arm Ukraine, watch as Russia declares war on Ukraine and NATO, escalation to the point where Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine and possibly other EU countries, possibly escalation to a full out war!

Now for me I can’t see any other outcome, it’s all well and good talking about morals of this invasion and none of us have ever condoned this, we’ve all been appalled by it, there’s no excuse for this incursion or the Israel’s incursions into Palestinian or any other, they’re all illegal in international eyes, but once it happens there’s has to be a peaceful end to it or the unthinkable is a very real possibility given as the three main players are the deplorable Putin, the confused Biden and I’ll do anything to stay in power Boris! All of them obsessed power hungry and dangerous people!

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Indy

[BroadstairsR 2,174]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Your lack of knowledge is quite remarkable. Try reading some Kant (the man considered by many philosophers to be probably the greatest philosopher to have lived). On second thoughts, there's not a chance in hell that you will understand a word of it. So let's make it as simple as possible for you by using your own pathetic example: If you genuinely will that Smith should not pick Gilmour for the team, then you must will it to be the case that something is done by Smith for Gilmour to be not selected. Otherwise there are only two options. First, you don't genuinely will that Gilmour is not selected, in which case you are a liar/insincere. Second, you are too thick to realise you have flatly contradicted yourself by claiming both, that you want Gilmour not to be selected for the team, but also want nothing to be done to bring that state of affairs about.

While you're at it, try looking up the word "pettifogging". It is about as far from triviality as you can get to expect someone to understand the logical implications of the words that they have used; rational conversation depends on it. That's why it is indeed embarrassing for an adult not to understand that if they genuinely will some end to be realised, they are logically committed to willing the means involved in bringing that end about (unless of course they are happy to publicly demonstrate their hypocrisy and inability to avoid self-contradiction). The fact that you declare, " I remain at a loss to comprehend how expressing a view in debate upon the situation in Ukraine can be seen as tantamount to "telling " the Ukrainians what to do on any credible level whatsoever." demonstrates you still do not understand this very simple principle.To will that the Ukrainians should cede the Donbass region to Russia to bring about peace is precisely to imply that Ukrainians should do something to bring that situation about. To be at a loss to understand that simple implication explains an awful lot about why you post such illogical nonsense on this site.

 

 

I'm quite sure that many of us are familiar with the writings of Kant, if not so much with your shallow understanding of them, to say nothing of your application of them to this particular issue.

You haver even managed to change tack with regard to my Smith/Gilmour analogy.

You must "will the means" becomes you "must will it to be the case that something is done." Two entirely different things, and a clear revelation that when mired in such frantic attempts to be clever you readily get lost in your own rhetoric.

Later we get: "To will that the Ukrainians should cede the Donbass region to Russia to bring about peace is precisely to imply that Ukrainians should do something to bring that situation." Quite a different interpretation altogether and really quite obvious, but nevertheless far from "telling" the Ukrainians that.

Confused? So am I?

I am quite sure that 'pettifogging' is the perfect word to use when describing your trite ramblings, in fact, by raising the point about its use you have just confirmed that to be the case.  

What would you prefer? Pedantic? Or even geeky?

 

By the way, I keep forgetting to ask. What happened to that Scottish character you invented for this forum?  Surely you didn't go to all the trouble of creating that persona just for one single grind of your axe?

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Mr Angry 1,563]

16 hours ago, Sheva said:

Any way your actions and hospitality are very noble, lots of children need refuge at this time, until hopefully one day they can go home again.

 

 

 

 

It’s a bit surreal, I’ve spoken to her husband who is still in Kharkiv-hard to think of anything meaningful to say to someone who may be shelled at any time.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

All this thread has done is pointed out the Absolutes in views. The reality is very different, if you think Ukraine can take back the Donbas without the support needed from the west in ramping up the arms supplied thus far without Russia declaring war on NATO, then I’d agree, but I believe won’t ever happen!

I cannot see anything other than two ways out, one to play the long game and a diplomatic end to the war, concede territory in the Donbas, draw up the boundary with Russian rule, allowing the rest of Ukraine to be rebuilt and armed to ensure no more territory is never threatened in the future.

OR fully arm Ukraine, watch as Russia declares war on Ukraine and NATO, escalation to the point where Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine and possibly other EU countries, possibly escalation to a full out war!

Now for me I can’t see any other outcome, it’s all well and good talking about morals of this invasion and none of us have ever condoned this, we’ve all been appalled by it, there’s no excuse for this incursion or the Israel’s incursions into Palestinian or any other, they’re all illegal in international eyes, but once it happens there’s has to be a peaceful end to it or the unthinkable is a very real possibility given as the three main players are the deplorable Putin, the confused Biden and I’ll do anything to stay in power Boris! All of them obsessed power hungry and dangerous people!

 

Support of one side or the other is a binary thing; you either support the invaders or the invaded. Anybody who claims to be neutral is lying unless they happen to be the child of both a Russian and Ukrainian parent. 

Ukraine is a liberal democracy that has been striving to improve in its implementation of liberal democratic values. The moral case for us, as one of the most powerful liberal democracies in the world, supporting Ukraine over Russia is irrefutable within the scope of reasonable honest argument.

The only question that leaves is an equation of how far you can safely support Ukraine in the goal of completely removing Russian soldiers from its sovereign territory. The answer to that, in my opinion, is as far as you possibly can without actually prompting Russia to start a nuclear war. The reality is that, short of Russia actually being invaded itself, Russia will not launch a nuclear war for the sake of its stupid invasion; there'll be a coup against Putin before that was implemented, because however kamikaze Putin himself may be, you can guarantee most of his hangers on aren't. Either way, the idea that there's an imperative to make the choice as to how Ukraine supported a binary one is a false assertion. 

So all the while Ukraine remains a functional state with people willing to fight for it and the capability to organise its own armed forces, keep the arms rolling to Ukraine in ever greater quantities until Russia moves to a peace agreement that respects Ukraine's right to security and self-determination according to the commitments made by Russia under international law in the Budapest memorandum in 1994. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

I'm quite sure that many of us are familiar with the writings of Kant, if not so much with your shallow understanding of them, to say nothing of your application of them to this particular issue.

You haver even managed to change tack with regard to my Smith/Gilmour analogy.

You must "will the means" becomes you "must will it to be the case that something is done." Two entirely different things, and a clear revelation that when mired in such frantic attempts to be clever you readily get lost in your own rhetoric.

Later we get: "To will that the Ukrainians should cede the Donbass region to Russia to bring about peace is precisely to imply that Ukrainians should do something to bring that situation." Quite a different interpretation altogether and really quite obvious, but nevertheless far from "telling" the Ukrainians that.

Confused? So am I?

I am quite sure that 'pettifogging' is the perfect word to use when describing your trite ramblings, in fact, by raising the point about its use you have just confirmed that to be the case.  

What would you prefer? Pedantic? Or even geeky?

 

By the way, I keep forgetting to ask. What happened to that Scottish character you invented for this forum?  Surely you didn't go to all the trouble of creating that persona just for one single grind of your axe?

 

 

I'm quite sure that many of us are familiar with the writings of Kant, if not so much with your shallow understanding of them, to say nothing of your application of them to this particular issue.

Then you will have no problem explaining Kant's view on the principle, that if you will the end you must will the means to that end. So rather than demonstrate the idiocy of the rest of your post I will let you answer that one question. Meanwhile I will refresh my own "shallow" understanding of Kant by re-reading the PhD I wrote (largely) about Kant. In the meantime I'll let the panel of 5 expert academics know that you think my understanding of Kant is "shallow"; I'm sure they will be grateful for your advice on where they went wrong in passing my PhD first time without the need for one word of correction. Looking forward to your in-depth analysis and explanation of Kant's theory.

[sonyc 5,526]

My belief, given all I've read and tried to understand, is that Putin will declare a Russian victory this autumn. Three reasons:

It's clear that every piece of land and infrastructure is being flattened in those eastern border regions (scorched earth?) and we've seen reports of very concentrated attacks these last few weeks. Zelensky's reports make clear the struggle. Lessons appear to have been learned from the failures of their initial advances in February and March. I get the sense that a new Russian border will be put forward. 

Secondly, the so-called state of Putin's health. I've always had an idea that he knows he is coming to the end of his days and this war for him, in his eyes, cements his status in history, his legacy.

Finally, I reckon that sanctions in the next two months will really start to bite and the Russian economy will enter a deep recession around September/October. The gas supply reduction will make a significant loss of income. Can they continue to resource this war? Already we read that those in their late 40s are being asked to be conscripted. That hints at a big personnel problem.

I don't think any of the above means fighting will end or that Ukraine will give up on lost regions. But, cessation may, may just be the point at which negotiation will start. I cannot see it happening before a 'victory' is claimed.

I don't know anything of course - you can only read from frontline reports and from the broadest range of sources possible - along with your own intuition. Anyone else feel or think the same?

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

All this thread has done is pointed out the Absolutes in views. The reality is very different, if you think Ukraine can take back the Donbas without the support needed from the west in ramping up the arms supplied thus far without Russia declaring war on NATO, then I’d agree, but I believe won’t ever happen!

I cannot see anything other than two ways out, one to play the long game and a diplomatic end to the war, concede territory in the Donbas, draw up the boundary with Russian rule, allowing the rest of Ukraine to be rebuilt and armed to ensure no more territory is never threatened in the future.

OR fully arm Ukraine, watch as Russia declares war on Ukraine and NATO, escalation to the point where Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine and possibly other EU countries, possibly escalation to a full out war!

Now for me I can’t see any other outcome, it’s all well and good talking about morals of this invasion and none of us have ever condoned this, we’ve all been appalled by it, there’s no excuse for this incursion or the Israel’s incursions into Palestinian or any other, they’re all illegal in international eyes, but once it happens there’s has to be a peaceful end to it or the unthinkable is a very real possibility given as the three main players are the deplorable Putin, the confused Biden and I’ll do anything to stay in power Boris! All of them obsessed power hungry and dangerous people!

 

I really don't get why you think Russia would commit suicide by declaring war on NATO. Do you really believe that occupying the Donbass region would take priority over preventing the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city?

If Ukraine were to cede the Donbass region to Russia the very obvious likelihood would be that Russia would saturate that area with multiple tens of thousands of Russian troops, supplied with massive quantities of weaponry, including thermobaric and nuclear. That would provide the perfect strategic base for further incursions into Ukraine and other countries such as Moldova. Ukraine and its allies recognise that to allow this freely to happen would be an utter disaster, and must be resisted despite the human costs. While Ukraine continues to fight in the Donbass region they seriously undermine Russia's attempt to build that area into a strategic military base. 

Diplomacy quite obviously would be the preferred option; that was the whole point of the Minsk protocols that Russia has so brutally transgressed. The "way out" you don't seem to envision is that Ukraine continues to resist the annexation of their territory in a war of attrition, and Russia comes to the realisation that its attempt to annex another country's sovereign land is not worth the cost it is paying. There are various ways in which that might play out, including, for example, the overthrowing of Putin by a coup of military chiefs who refuse to allow the continued mass sacrifice of their troops for an unjustified cause. Or the Russian people themselves might make clear they can no longer accept the costs of such a futile war (see Afghanistan for something similar). Clearly none of us knows how this war will eventually play out, but it is hard to see how Ukraine has any other rational (or moral) option at this moment other than to continue the fight for the integrity of their country's land and borders.

 

[kirku 1,334]

16 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Funnily enough, I stumbled across a good summary of the PPE thing on Transparency International again, although obviously take it with a pinch of salt given that Transparency International rate the UK as 11th least corrupt country in the world when it's actually probably on a par with Zimbabwe in reality if the rhetoric on here is anything to go by. 

https://www.transparency.org.uk/track-and-trace-uk-PPE-procurement-corruption-risk-VIP-lane

Clearly low-level day-to-day corruption is extremely rare in the UK. Most people would not even try to bribe their way out of a police situation, for example.

I get the feeling that at higher levels, though, it's becoming more and more corrupt. Perhaps it's a perception thing but there seems to be a big shift in the wrong direction.

People do tend to overestimate these kinds of trajectories when it comes to relative measures: so because the UK is seemingly becoming more corrupt, they may conclude it is actually more corrupt than it really is.