> Since when is it OK for governments to sanction people when they are lawfully expressing disagreement with Govt policies or views?
When it stops being a disagreement over policy and becomes a paid job for a foreign government to spread as much malicious FUD as possible.
The former commander of Russian ground forces recently gave a long interview in which he said that the Russian army was on the verge of total collapse in the fall of 2022, when Ukrainian forces were pushing them back during the highly successful Kharkiv counteroffensive. Mearsheimer, Sachs, et al played a vital role in spreading FUD and unfounded fears that led to less military support for Ukraine than was needed. As a result, hundreds of thousands more people are dead than might have been had Ukraine been supported properly.
Mearsheimer alone has done more to deny modern weapons to Ukraine than the entire Russian air force could. In terms of ROI, he has been a spectacularly cost-effective propaganda asset. He has the blood of countless people on his hands and deserves to be hanged. But instead, he will kick the bucket due to natural causes in old age, a luxury not afforded to the children who died in their bedrooms under Russian missile attacks that Mearsheimer twisted himself into a pretzel to enable and justify.
Blaming a YouTube analyst for the slow pace of weapons transfers and not the EU and NATO officials who were actually responsible for said transfers is a spectacular cope. If NATO is getting marching orders from random 3rd parties on YouTube and TV networks then there are a million problems more urgent to address than Mearscheimer's analysis here.
No, the reason for the slow trickle of weapons was because the West got high on their own supply after the successful 2022 offensives and actually thought they could break the Russian line without advanced weaponry. In that way Mearscheimer's message of caution was bang on - Ukraine should have negotiated peace when they had the upper hand, hundreds of thousands of good Ukranian and Russian men would be alive today.
What kind of "peace" would that be? Russia is not interested in peace, or do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
The peace of Ukraine being neutral? Ukraine was officially neutral in 2014 (law from 2010, pushed by Russia), and see how that went.
So again, what kind of peace are you talking about?
Edit: Let me make the problem very clear:
- Ukraine wants a peace deal where Russia can't invaded again. After their experience with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the want hard security guarantees, not just Russian words on a piece of paper.
- Russia wants a peace deal where Ukraine's army is limited, and that doesn't allow foreign troops in Ukraine. Something else is unacceptable for them. In other words, a peace deal that is the perfect setup to invade again.
So again, what kind of peace deal are you talking about?
Go ahead, plan my Christmas Eve. What time I wake up, what time I leave the house, which routes I take, what things I buy. Assign the kWhs of electricity and liters of water and fuel that I'll use up, plan ingredients for my meals of the day.
The belief that a central "digital planning engine" could plan the lives of an entire society is an incredibly naive idea from early cybernetics. This doesn't work even in small thought experiments because of information limits. No central system can access all the local knowledge and constantly changing circumstances.
> I'd argue that communism is the only system of government that guarantees property for all. That's somewhat a core tenant that every member in a communist society collectively owns everything.
This year, I knit a scarf for a friend as a Christmas gift. He already owns several scarves, unlike some other people who own none, but might need one more than he does. How is that collective ownership supposed to work here? Are you going to take that scarf away from me and "assign" it to someone you deem more deserving? I'll resist and you'll have to take it from me by force. And if you do, I'll stop knitting altogether, because why bother if I never get the chance to gift it to my friend. What are you going to do when you need the next scarf, force me to work?
If the answer is "yes", you've just reinvented a communist dictatorship. If it's a "no", then such society will run out of food and goods, and something better will rise to replace it.
Communism doesn't entail owning nothing or being able to produce nothing. It often even has a concept of money to trade for goods and services.
So you could take your earnings, buy some yarn, knit your friend a scarf, and there's no real change in societies.
The difference is that you'd get your money from a state run industry. Your home would be guaranteed. And where you ultimately end up working would be based on your capabilities.
You are free to knit or whittle gifts for friends. What you wouldn't be free to do is setup "mopsi's scarf business" without working through the state. You wouldn't be allowed to take the earning from "mopsi's scarf business" and use them to become a landlord. You could gain social status and benefits by running the scarf business, but those would be limited (barring corruption).
When I say "a communist society collectively owns everything" I'm talking mainly businesses, land, housing.
A mistake that people often make about communism is thinking it means "Everything is free" or "nobody owns anything". That's more of a collectivist approach. Communism is mostly centered around providing minimum guarantees through public ownership.
> You are free to knit or whittle gifts for friends. What you wouldn't be free to do is setup "mopsi's scarf business" without working through the state. You wouldn't be allowed to take the earning from "mopsi's scarf business" and use them to become a landlord.
If my scarves become so popular that even strangers begin offering money for them, I won't be interested in working for the state for basic necessities while the state takes the rest.
I'd rather barter with others for the useful things they produce. My friend, for example, grows excellent tomatoes.
Over time, if we have many friends, we will live comfortable lives, while loners will wither away. Is this an acceptable outcome for you as the dictator of the Bestest Communist Paradise on Planet Earth (BCPPE), or will you do something about it?
> I won't be interested in working for the state for basic necessities while the state takes the rest.
Better contributions lead to better rewards. You might be able to buy more things if you setup an underground business, but you'd still be stuck in whatever house you currently live in (for example). You can get much nicer accommodations and a higher salary with bigger and better contributions to the state. That's the motivation for people to not just be farmers.
> I'd rather barter with others for the useful things they produce. My friend, for example, grows excellent tomatoes.
> Over time, if we have many friends, we will live comfortable lives, while loners will wither away.
Loners would be taken care of by the state. They don't wither.
The place where the communist state would step in is if you moved from simple barter to actually owning and operating businesses (where you employ people, give them a salary, etc). Again, mopsi's scarf business wouldn't be allowed without state approval. But you making scarfs for your community in exchange for the communities homemade stuff would not only be welcome but encouraged.
> Is this an acceptable outcome for you as the dictator of the Bestest Communist Paradise on Planet Earth (BCPPE), or will you do something about it?
I don't understand your snark. I get that you hate communism.
Again, as I stated elsewhere, I'm not a communist. I don't think misunderstanding and misrepresenting the position of communists does you any good if you are trying to convince others that it's a bad ideology.
I should also state that I'm basically just talking about simple marxism. However, I think what I'm describing applies to most forms of communism.
If you like I can give you my critique of communism.
> Loners would be taken care of by the state. They don't wither.
How? Where does the state take scarves and tomatoes from if we only produce as much as we need within our own circle and exchange them solely among friends?
This is not as trivial question as it may sound. In the USSR, where I grew up, this was classified as a crime of "speculation". People were jailed and their property confiscated to intimidate others to work for the state without bypassing the forced redistribution.
The question of gifting a scarf to a friend, when someone else might need it more, is in disguise, the central question of communism. There is no way to preserve my freedom to give the scarf or other fruits of my labor to whomever I please (or keep it for myself) while simultaneously satisfying the needs of those whose needs are unmet. There simply aren't enough scarves to make everyone happy. If you try to coerce me, I won't knit any scarves at all, or they'll be of very poor quality.
This is essentially how and why the USSR stagnated for decades until it collapsed under its own weight. By the end, despite coercion, productivity had fallen so low that people with physical access to goods (like truck drivers) resorted to bartering, while others (like university professors) starved. The all-powerful state that was supposed to "take care of everything" was nowhere to be seen; they were busy bartering tanks for chicken.
This really gets at the core problems with communism as I see it.
For starters I think the only way for communism to actually work would be with robust checks and balances in place to properly address corruption within the government. AFAIK, basically all communist governments have started as autocracies. That's a really bad combo for corruption. The ideal communist state would arise from democracy, but I don't think democracy will ever create a communist state.
Next, I don't really think state control of all markets is a good idea. A good state would be too slow to react market requirements. You really want your population to self sort and organize as much as possible. That's what makes sure everyone gets all the scarfs they want. That said, I think there are fundamental duties that capitalism does not properly handle. For example, building roads or running a fire department. Capitalism, IMO, works best when there is a truly competitive market in place. Food production would be a good example where capitalism works well (but still might need government support since it's vital to survive).
Now to the USSR specifically (but AFAIK a lot of communist states are like this) the other big problem that goes along with corruption is that there aren't really second chances. I have a coworker that grew up the USSR and he mentioned this with schooling. Fail a class, fall behind, or need extra help and boom. The better job is permanently locked out and you have to settle for a crappy job. A chinese roommate of mine describe a similar phenomena in China. As it turns out, all the wealthy chinese families still ended up in positions of power and relationship ultimately mattered a lot more than competence. I think this mostly comes from the state optimizing for the wrong things. They assume that people wouldn't want to work on farms or that farmers would always want to be farmers. One of the benefits of a capitalist society is that, while no trivial, changing professions is accessible to pretty much everyone.
The core problem with the USSR's version of communism is that it concentrated too much power on too few people (well, and the fact that stalin operated by both being drunk and keeping all the heads of state perpetually drunk). People can get weird ideas (like mao's feelings towards birds) and putting too much power in those individuals' hands is doomed to pain for the citizenry. Some problems are best solved by a little bit of market anarchy.
“Private property” in the socialist sense is property which is used for production (note that socialist countries - Laos, Vietnam, USSR before the destruction of socialism - typically have 80%+ rates of home ownership). Collective control of factories, land used for commodity & social (i.e. feeding people) production.
There are many writings that address this misconception. Communist Manifesto https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Man... provides a succinct response. You might also search for what class owns most of the property in the united states.
Lived in the USSR; it is best explored through small business and personal ownership instead of large words and manifestos. The thing is, work is hard. People need an incentive to put in the hours.
If the state requisitions everything above a certain threshold to prevent wealth disparities, as the communists did in the USSR with grain beyond what farmers needed for sustenance, people will not work beyond the threshold out of the goodness of their hearts. Why work extra hours on the fields if you get nothing out of it? Instead, production will drop to exactly meet that threshold. This is how famines were created.
To maintain production while still requisitioning, you will have to force people to work for free.
> USSR before the destruction of socialism - typically have 80%+ rates of home ownership
Actually, less than 10%. Homes were owned by a government housing department. When you finished school, you were assigned a workplace and given an apartment. Often it was just a room in a shared apartment (kommunalka). You could live there as long as you kept the job. If you were transferred elsewhere, you had to pack your things and move. The quality of housing was comparable to the homes of methheads in West Virginia. The temporary and impersonal nature of the arrangement bred crime and other social problems. In short, the USSR was one huge "company town" that you could never leave.
> Meanwhile, the EU just unpersoned a Swiss citizen, a writer, Jacques Baud*, for not taking the European side in the US-Russia conflict. Not for lying about it, but simply for not taking the European side.
He was not "unpersoned", whatever that means, but sanctioned for being a professional Kremlin troll and for spreading lies such as claiming that the Bucha massacre was committed by British and Ukrainian secret services, that the war actually started a week earlier with a Ukrainian offensive that the entire world has suppressed, and so on. This is not even a matter of viewpoint, but a malicious flood of obvious lies.[1] Such superspreaders of lies are exactly the kind of people who should be sanctioned.
In the real world, NATO is a highly exclusive club, which is very reluctant to accept new members and extend its mutual defence clause to them. Ukraine and Georgia sought to join NATO after Russia had already begun violating their sovereign territory, but NATO allies caved to Russian pressure and denied membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. Russia then used this opportunity to invade them without triggering the full arsenal of NATO.
Russia is not a cornered cat, but a nuclear-armed colonial empire that has expanded through war and conquest for centuries, growing from a small city-state into the largest country in the world, exterminating countless native ethnicities in the process:
Yes it is, and Russia is increasingly being recognized by scholars as such.
This is especially visible in the war against Ukraine, which is colonial in nature. Russia has invaded another country on imperialistic justifications ("reunification of Russian lands" etc), is using domestic minorities as cannon fodder to alter the ethnic composition of Russia in favor of Russians, is committing genocide against Ukrainians to destroy them as an ethnicity, and is resettling ethnic Russians into occupied territories to permanently alter Ukraine's ethnic composition.
The whole "NATO expansion" narrative is complete bullshit when the initiative to join NATO has come from Russia's neighbors, who want to gain the protection of its mutual defense clause in the hope that this would deter Russia from invading them.
Russia has been the aggressor in this part of the world for centuries, and the rest is a reaction to that. Russia is the sole reason why Northern and Eastern Europe have militaries at all; if it weren't for Russia, they could be disbanded overnight.
> There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for.
Such as? I honestly can't think of anything.
> It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence.
European education laws prioritize the child's right to education and social development over parental autonomy as an absolute. Mandatory schooling laws have been adopted to ensure minimum educational standards and to safeguard against neglect and abuse, which is especially important when it comes to disabilities. Someone with proper training and decades of experience will educate a disabled child far more effectively than a parent whose only guaranteed qualification may be knowing how to have sex.
I've seen what a complete crapshoot state education is first hand. My god daughter came out of school recently and can barely read and write. I had to suffer through it myself...
I find it amusing that homeschooling is so vilified and stereotyped. All the homeschooled children I know are BETTER educated not worse. Contrary to the stereotype. Schools have massive bullying issues and are often bad environments for neurodiverse people. Schools are very Lord of the Flies.
Home schooling is of course only as good as the people teaching but the same is true of schools. Most state curricula prioritise the state and adoration of the state... funnily enough
Not all European countries have banned home schooling. Not even all members of the EU.
As for neglect and abuse of children, the public schools is where you will most readily find it. Including bullying until children commit suicide. And school shootings. Which is a lesser risk at home. No matter which continent.
No one said all EU countries have banned homeschooling. That is just one issue.
Schools are a haven for bullying, both by students and teachers. I did have some good teachers but some of them were also the most cruel and abusive people I've ever met.
He is not an EU citizen and, as a foreigner, acts as a mouthpiece for a hostile dictatorship. The US has sanctioned similar people too, most notably Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2559
> They are scientists and conservators doing their best
Perhaps they're simply the wrong people for this problem? I'd very much prefer to see how artists would approach painting the figures, instead of scientists and conservators. Give them the tools that were available at the time and let them do their best.
Even if tastes have indeed changed, something that matches our current taste will reproduce the impact of the statues better than a scientifically meticulous and factually accurate depiction that misses the emotional truth.
> Give them the tools that were available at the time and let them do their best.
The end result would surely look better, but how would we be assured it resembled historical reality?
Do we know for a fact in these reconstructions there is no input whatsoever from artists? I know, for example, that paleo-artists are responsible for the reconstruction of what dinosaurs are currently thought to have looked like, and they are mostly artists that work in collaboration with scientists directing their work. Why do we think this is not the case for the reconstruction of colors of Roman statues?
> The end result would surely look better, but how would we be assured it resembled historical reality?
You can be fairly sure that no reproduction would literally resemble the reality, _including the existing reconconstructions_, but you can certainly produce a range of possible reconstructions which would have produced the same evidentiary record, and which would be at least inspired by what we know about contemporary taste that we can derive from surviving paintings and the textual record.
How do you prevent introducing a bias that then becomes what we "know" about how statues were painted? By introducing modern aesthetic sensibilities and present them as plausible, we then reinforce that this is how statues were painted back then, and we don't know.
I think the article is mostly begging the question, and is not particularly rigorous. At most it's appealing to some sort of common sense, and we know how tempting but unreliable common sense can be in science and history.
To me TFA reads mostly as "this reconstruction looks bad, I refuse to believe ancient Romans painted statues like this, therefore it must be an incorrect reconstruction."
> How do you prevent introducing a bias that then becomes what we "know" about how statues were painted? By introducing modern aesthetic sensibilities and present them as plausible, we then reinforce that this is how statues were painted back then, and we don't know.
This is just an argument against doing reconstructions at all. Which I am also okay with. It's not a defense of the existing reconstructions because they have the same problem. You don't want to assume additional layers. The existing reconstructions are assuming there were no additional layers. Neither are valid assumptions, but they are both possible. So present multiple possible alternatives without stating that any of them are accurate reconstructions, only that they are constructions which are consistent with the available evidence.
Surely, if one wanted to produce a "reconstruction" of the Venus deMilo, it would have arms. Even if you don't know what the arms would have looked like. And that you would not reconstruct the arms as just straight lines projecting from the stump and would make some attempt to make them realistic and aesthetically pleasing, even if the end result almost certainly does not look much like what the original arms would have looked like, exactly, it would be more like it in spirit than either the statue with stumps or with some sort of vaguely armed shaped cylindrical attachments.
So let's introduce a bias then, who cares? It's not a mortal offense. It would be cool to see statues painted realistically and non-horribly. And as TFA notes we have frescoes, mosaics, encaustic portraits etc.. that could be used as a guideline.
We do have a non insignificant amount of ancient frescoes, mosaics and even a handful of paintings. As the author has pointed out they generally seem much more appealing to modern aesthetic sensibilities. That seems like reasonably strong evidence than whatever thought processing went into making these so called. "reconstructions".
> To me TFA reads mostly as "this reconstruction looks bad, I refuse to believe ancient Romans painted statues like this, therefore it must be an incorrect reconstruction."
Which I agree is not a reasonably view IF we had no other data. Imposing the garrish 5-yeard old colouring book style is no less biased.
> Imposing the garrish 5-yeard old colouring book style is no less biased.
I don't think they claim this is what the statues actually looked. In fact, the article quotes an expert saying the opposite: "we can never know what they looked like".
These are conservative but incomplete "this is the part we have strong evidence for".
> Or they could integrate it within a wider framework of allyship, or at least let it be, as both of which it has been asking for several decades, instead of advancing towards, ramping up the rhetoric, fueling millitarism, and crossing red lines.
This is exactly what happened and how we got here: turning a blind eye to the destruction of democracy and the growing authoritarianism in Russia, buying oil and gas in the hope that economic cooperation would keep Russians in check out of self-interest at least, ridiculing and belittling the security concerns of Eastern Europe, and ignoring Russia's aggression and wars and constant advances, such as subverting countries like Belarus into dictatorships loyal to Moscow and deploying nuclear missiles and offensive weapons ever closer to Europe.
This approach worked so well that missiles are now raining down on European cities every night, killing innocent people in their homes, with no end in sight, as the Russian dictator relentlessly demands a return to the Cold War era, when half of Europe was a Russian prison camp.
>This is exactly what happened and how we got here: turning a blind eye to the destruction of democracy and the growing authoritarianism in Russia
That was never their problem. The latter not selling out to their conglomerates was (even if that was because local scumbags kept that loot). The elites could not give a rats arse for "authoritarianism", when 'allies' embrace it, like Bibi and his ethnocide, or the new Syrian ISIS guy, they are fine with it. Just a pretext to increase arms spending and gather special powers.
The elites couldn't care less about the direct toll to "innocent people in their homes" either. When that toll specifically and shamelessly targetted an enclosed population of millions, including children, the sick, and the elderly, they kept full diplomatic ties and supported the thing with arms, trade, and other methods of collaboration. (Russia too of course, only a few shining examples like Ireland didn't).
As for the "Cold War era, when half of Europe was a Russian prison camp", funny times those. Are we to believe that, the, no stranger to enslaving people France, still fighting wars to keep its colonies in the 1950s and 1960s, and ever since keeping its grubby hands in Africa, was so heartbroken at the plight of eastern Europe having to suffer "really existing socialism"?
Or, maybe it was Germany who was moved to tears about it, after first having no problem supporting the mustache man for over a decade, ethnically cleaning those same eastern provinces, gassing several million, and voting and maintaining ex-Nazis in positions of power well into the 70s.
With so much democratic sensitivity, it's strange then that most of Europe didn't appear much concerned with several European countries having western-approved dictaroships - anything as long as it wasn't that pesky communism!
That's what I said: the present-day totalitarian dictatorship in Russia was born out of foreign disregard for the deteriorating human rights situation in Russia, willful ignorance of the usurpation of all formal and informal power structures by KGB old-timers, and indifference to the legitimate security concerns of Eastern Europe. Global big businesses in major countries such as the US and Germany were so eager to cooperate on oil and gas extraction that they ignored how a new Hitler was rising as a result of this short-sightedness.
Russia grew into the cancer that it is today not because it had been under imagined attacks from all sides for decades as you claimed (a favorite trope of many dictators), but because of the opposite: Russia was treated like a savage and uncivilized land from which respect for even the most basic human rights was not demanded as a prerequisite for cooperation. Global big businesses were given access to Russian natural resources at below-market rates, and in return Russian kleptocrats were allowed to skim off the top with impunity and park their loot in NYC penthouses.
We can see the same pattern in the current "peace negotiations": Putin is offering Trump and his business partners a chunk of frozen Russian assets and access to natural resources in occupied parts of Ukraine in exchange for the US pressuring Europe to unfreeze the funds and coercing Ukraine to surrender. Big business gets cheap resources and Putin takes another step toward his dream of an empire. What a lovely alliance of big business and Russian imperialism.
Ukraine was not joining NATO. Nor do foreign policy professionals, both in Russia and abroad, consider NATO a threat to Russia. Nor does the war have anything to do with Barbarossa or many other historical comparisons; Russian propaganda generally avoids drawing comparisons to Barbarossa because Ukraine was at the forefront of the invasion and the historical parallels between the invaders would be too obvious. The sudden and devastating attack and siege of Kyiv in 1941 was a major traumatic early-war event that occupies a similar place in Russian mass consciousness as Pearl Harbor does in American consciousness. Instead, Russian propaganda frames the war as a continuation of a civilizational mission: the reclamation of "historic Russian lands" and the reunification of the Russian people.
This is at odds with the propaganda for foreign audiences that presents the war as a modern conflict with NATO, but thankfully, people like you who talk about listening to Russia don't actually know what's going on there and flat out refuse to listen what Russians are saying.
For instance, the commander of the 2014 invasion of Donbas is a prominent public figure, a mentor and ideologue, who used to host lengthy livestreams in which he discussed how and why the war happened. Have you watched any of his long talks about the restoration of the Russian imperial province of Novorossiya through war against Ukraine, or do you prefer to pretend that none of this exists?
Not to mention the entire pre-Putin generation of Russian politicians and diplomats, who are very active on Twitter and readily explain how NATO is beneficial to Russia by imposing extensive standards on its members along Russia's western border.
Putin's own former senior advisor recently got so pissed about dumbasses placing blame on NATO that he published a video on his personal Youtube channel explaining why the entire narrative a malicious misrepresentation of the facts and bullshit from the start. According to him, Putin held secret staff meetings (which the advisor attended) about the invasion of Ukraine as early as 2005, which predates the common excuses for the war by many years.
But no. Instead of listening to Russians, you just repeat hollow Russian war propaganda that echoes across the internet without any real people behind it, believing that you have some insight that others lack.
> NATO itself said they would join the alliance back in 2008.
No. That was merely a polite statement without any timetable or actionable steps, made after the allies had decided at the 2008 summit not to invite Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, leaving both countries exposed to Russian pressure and eventual military aggression.
Nowadays, this is widely considered a severe mistake. For example, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former NATO secretary-general, has on many occasions referred to the exclusion of Ukraine and Georgia as mistakes that emboldened Putin to invade them.
Perhaps you should drop him an email to explain that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that Ukraine was "actually" on the path to NATO membership. So much ignorance in the world, ain't there.
The former commander of Russian ground forces recently gave a long interview in which he said that the Russian army was on the verge of total collapse in the fall of 2022, when Ukrainian forces were pushing them back during the highly successful Kharkiv counteroffensive. Mearsheimer, Sachs, et al played a vital role in spreading FUD and unfounded fears that led to less military support for Ukraine than was needed. As a result, hundreds of thousands more people are dead than might have been had Ukraine been supported properly.
Mearsheimer alone has done more to deny modern weapons to Ukraine than the entire Russian air force could. In terms of ROI, he has been a spectacularly cost-effective propaganda asset. He has the blood of countless people on his hands and deserves to be hanged. But instead, he will kick the bucket due to natural causes in old age, a luxury not afforded to the children who died in their bedrooms under Russian missile attacks that Mearsheimer twisted himself into a pretzel to enable and justify.
reply