-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I have no idea what you're asking there, but it sounds more philosophical than Ukraine related.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Should I be sorry for mentioning pacifism?...
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That did not stop you from jumping into a discussion about pacifism
Only someone not paying attention to 2016’s US election or who had their head isolated in a Bell jar at that time could say we’re immune to foreign invasion. It was pretty close, and it’s not over yet.
Also, IMHO lot’s of recent pacifism and philosophical posts might be happier somewhere else on their own special Pacifism & Philosophy thread.
Last edited:
X Fan
Active Member
Good Telegraph article re: balloons:
www.telegraph.co.uk
No, these UFOs aren’t ‘aliens’. They’re Chinese balloons heralding a new era of warfare
High-tech balloons are cheap, hard to track, and can be kitted out with accurate sensors or destructive payloads for offensive strikes
www.telegraph.co.uk
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
I don't want to derail the conversation too much further, but one distinction that I use is identifying our true enemy. I'll try to apply this to Russia/Ukraine along the way.
I think that it's a bit like medical drugs - military action can sometimes be used to suppress a symptom when it gets out of control, and when the root cause has been ignored too long, it may seem necessary, especially for those who don't understand the source of the health issue or we cannot address the root cause. Or because we refuse the sustainable solution because that requires a change in our own lifestyle; some politicians would rather sacrifice soldiers than let go of power, prestige, wealth.
In my view people are not inherently evil, but we all have the capacity to destroy or create. Our actions may lead to healthy life and growth or death and decay - but sometimes the line is very fuzzy and complex.
Furthermore, our actions are rooted in the narratives we tell ourselves, and philosophies and motivations. This is the true source of conflict. These can and almost always do change over time for individuals, and certainly our understanding changes. So instead of viewing humans as the ultimate enemy, I view certain philosophies and narratives as inherently leading to death and destruction, while others lead to health and life and growth. Everyone has the capacity to change their philosophies and narratives; some grow, become healthier, while others become stagnant or become more one-sided.
A specific but nuanced example of philosophy could be capitalism vs socialism: certain elements of each can lead to healthy life, and each have elements that can be abused and lead to imbalances of power and destruction. I personally think that a mixture is possible and healthy, and I'm okay if some people go farther down either spectrum than me, as long as we're all open to listening to each other and open to seeing the limitations of our model. And recognizing that we're choosing a narrative, and we're free to adjust it if new information arises, or the context changes. Having political parties of multiple stripes working together is healthy and keeps us from blind spots and excesses. (I'm a huge proponent of mixed member proportional representation - it's the healthiest democratic approach I've seen).
A narrative that leads to harm is racial theory (categorize different humans by external superficialities, make evaluative judgments based on that, without giving each one a chance to prove their worth) - while there is a small tribal element that may have kept us alive at one point in history (quickly identify who we can trust), that simply doesn't make sense in modern times.
Another interesting narrative I used to think was 'right' was "no pain, no gain." But through my wife's neuromovement training, we realized that pain actually stops the learning switch in the brain, and forcing outcomes, overriding pain (in health care) rarely if ever leads to sustainable healing. I think this extends to other areas, too, but that could get far afield. A healthier narrative could be: "pain brings awareness that something is wrong - it isn't good or evil, it's a signal that can be helpful or harmful, and should lead us to change".
Russian philosophies around "might makes right", "stealing is fine if you can get away with it" always leads to power imbalances and injustice. Putin is a symptom of a wider societal value problem, and Russian industry is self-destruction under the weight of corruption. There are elements in American society, too - we can see the effects of Wall Street greed on TSLA, the unfair options trading that does not create value on its own (it shuffles wealth around and is a high stakes gambling game). This, if left unchecked, will continue to create a greater wealth disparity.
Unfortunately, Putin isn't the real enemy/source of conflict in Ukraine (it would be easy if he was - just take him out) - the underlying societal corruption is: oligarchism, White Russian/Muscovy dominance, unquestioning hierarchy, etc. Passive-ism (rather than active pacifism) is rampant in Russia as well, allowing corruption to grow. That doesn't change if Putin disappears. Many people that were not passive have left, benefitting themselves and the countries that have received them, increasing passivity and corruption in what's left in Russia. If that trend continues, we're going to see fewer people creating value in Russia - we see it already in the degradation of their military effectiveness.
We have seen lasting positive change in other former soviet countries - Estonia's Singing Revolution was beautiful to a pacifist like me - they changed their societal narrative and chose tools that were creative rather than destructive, but they had to suffer first to get through the change, and I'm sure there are still growing pains. It's hard work for a society to grow.
I acknowledge that I may be too idealistic, but it's what I bring to the table, and if I can help reduce suffering and death a bit by helping address root problems, then I think my contribution to my society is valuable. I admit there may be a time when meeting force with force may be inevitable and necessary - I could be wrong.
Someone asked judging good & evil (terms I try not to use - too loaded) - for me, I think a decent basis is evaluating whether the philosophy/value leads to life or death over time for all; to growth or harm. It still requires discernment and debate, but I suspect that's the closest we can get to a universal principle (endless debate on harm and growth, I guess - that needs nuance, too!). I reluctantly admit we also need to decide as cultures - and hopefully all humans can one day do that work together.
Edit: and in the meanwhile, we can't wait for Russian society to self-destruct or improve when they're actively attacking innocents. So my pacifism is limited, and I don't condemn the soldiers there - genocide is simply not okay and needs to be stopped in the immediate crisis. But the long term solution must be beyond violence and a societal shift has to take place before this gets resolves.
I think that it's a bit like medical drugs - military action can sometimes be used to suppress a symptom when it gets out of control, and when the root cause has been ignored too long, it may seem necessary, especially for those who don't understand the source of the health issue or we cannot address the root cause. Or because we refuse the sustainable solution because that requires a change in our own lifestyle; some politicians would rather sacrifice soldiers than let go of power, prestige, wealth.
In my view people are not inherently evil, but we all have the capacity to destroy or create. Our actions may lead to healthy life and growth or death and decay - but sometimes the line is very fuzzy and complex.
Furthermore, our actions are rooted in the narratives we tell ourselves, and philosophies and motivations. This is the true source of conflict. These can and almost always do change over time for individuals, and certainly our understanding changes. So instead of viewing humans as the ultimate enemy, I view certain philosophies and narratives as inherently leading to death and destruction, while others lead to health and life and growth. Everyone has the capacity to change their philosophies and narratives; some grow, become healthier, while others become stagnant or become more one-sided.
A specific but nuanced example of philosophy could be capitalism vs socialism: certain elements of each can lead to healthy life, and each have elements that can be abused and lead to imbalances of power and destruction. I personally think that a mixture is possible and healthy, and I'm okay if some people go farther down either spectrum than me, as long as we're all open to listening to each other and open to seeing the limitations of our model. And recognizing that we're choosing a narrative, and we're free to adjust it if new information arises, or the context changes. Having political parties of multiple stripes working together is healthy and keeps us from blind spots and excesses. (I'm a huge proponent of mixed member proportional representation - it's the healthiest democratic approach I've seen).
A narrative that leads to harm is racial theory (categorize different humans by external superficialities, make evaluative judgments based on that, without giving each one a chance to prove their worth) - while there is a small tribal element that may have kept us alive at one point in history (quickly identify who we can trust), that simply doesn't make sense in modern times.
Another interesting narrative I used to think was 'right' was "no pain, no gain." But through my wife's neuromovement training, we realized that pain actually stops the learning switch in the brain, and forcing outcomes, overriding pain (in health care) rarely if ever leads to sustainable healing. I think this extends to other areas, too, but that could get far afield. A healthier narrative could be: "pain brings awareness that something is wrong - it isn't good or evil, it's a signal that can be helpful or harmful, and should lead us to change".
Russian philosophies around "might makes right", "stealing is fine if you can get away with it" always leads to power imbalances and injustice. Putin is a symptom of a wider societal value problem, and Russian industry is self-destruction under the weight of corruption. There are elements in American society, too - we can see the effects of Wall Street greed on TSLA, the unfair options trading that does not create value on its own (it shuffles wealth around and is a high stakes gambling game). This, if left unchecked, will continue to create a greater wealth disparity.
Unfortunately, Putin isn't the real enemy/source of conflict in Ukraine (it would be easy if he was - just take him out) - the underlying societal corruption is: oligarchism, White Russian/Muscovy dominance, unquestioning hierarchy, etc. Passive-ism (rather than active pacifism) is rampant in Russia as well, allowing corruption to grow. That doesn't change if Putin disappears. Many people that were not passive have left, benefitting themselves and the countries that have received them, increasing passivity and corruption in what's left in Russia. If that trend continues, we're going to see fewer people creating value in Russia - we see it already in the degradation of their military effectiveness.
We have seen lasting positive change in other former soviet countries - Estonia's Singing Revolution was beautiful to a pacifist like me - they changed their societal narrative and chose tools that were creative rather than destructive, but they had to suffer first to get through the change, and I'm sure there are still growing pains. It's hard work for a society to grow.
I acknowledge that I may be too idealistic, but it's what I bring to the table, and if I can help reduce suffering and death a bit by helping address root problems, then I think my contribution to my society is valuable. I admit there may be a time when meeting force with force may be inevitable and necessary - I could be wrong.
Someone asked judging good & evil (terms I try not to use - too loaded) - for me, I think a decent basis is evaluating whether the philosophy/value leads to life or death over time for all; to growth or harm. It still requires discernment and debate, but I suspect that's the closest we can get to a universal principle (endless debate on harm and growth, I guess - that needs nuance, too!). I reluctantly admit we also need to decide as cultures - and hopefully all humans can one day do that work together.
Edit: and in the meanwhile, we can't wait for Russian society to self-destruct or improve when they're actively attacking innocents. So my pacifism is limited, and I don't condemn the soldiers there - genocide is simply not okay and needs to be stopped in the immediate crisis. But the long term solution must be beyond violence and a societal shift has to take place before this gets resolves.
Last edited:
bobby g
Member
Early in the war we heard of many Russian generals experiencing early demise, but it has been a while since we last heard of similar events. Latest officially reported as a "suicide":
Russian General who persecuted opposition commits suicide in Moscow Oblast
Major General Vladimir Makarov, former Deputy Head of the Russian Interior Ministry's department for combating "extremism", has committed suicide near the city of Moscow.
Russian General who persecuted opposition commits suicide in Moscow Oblast
petit_bateau
Active Member
I don't care which country the tanks came from, the important thing is they are training now, and will take the tanks back with them. (In fact there are some training on their new tanks just a few miles from me right now, but not in Poland. This is a team effort by team-West.)
Major Vadim Khodak, 4th Tank Brigade, originally from Dnipro, describes his experience of training on Leopard tanks in Poland so far.
==============================================
and that data looks like an offensive that is stalling and running out of inputs
Major Vadim Khodak, 4th Tank Brigade, originally from Dnipro, describes his experience of training on Leopard tanks in Poland so far.
==============================================
and that data looks like an offensive that is stalling and running out of inputs
petit_bateau
Active Member
More on the Russian plotting against Moldova. The normal Putin playbook.
www.theguardian.com
Moldova president accuses Russia of plotting to oust pro-EU government
Maia Sandu says plan revealed by Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been confirmed
www.theguardian.com
Just a quick response on the, "RADAR can't seem them" track. I think it's far simpler than building a balloon out of RADAR-transparent materials.Good Telegraph article re: balloons:
No, these UFOs aren’t ‘aliens’. They’re Chinese balloons heralding a new era of warfare
High-tech balloons are cheap, hard to track, and can be kitted out with accurate sensors or destructive payloads for offensive strikes
There's this thing with RADAR: Not only does one get back the reflections from targets near and far, one also gets reflections back from stuff that isn't targets. Trees. Signs. Mountains, Hills, Waves in the ocean. Chunks of ice in the same. The Earth in general. There's a lot of this stuff. It's generally termed, "clutter". Especially when one is running a general search RADAR with a range of hundreds of kilometers, as air defense and civilian air traffic control both do.
The trick is, one can remove clutter. There's at least two methods that come to mind:
- Use Doppler shift. A moving object will reflect RADAR signals with a higher frequency coming back if the object is moving towards one, and a lower frequency if the object is moving away from one. Take the returned signal, mix it with the transmit signal, and use a low-pass filter to get rid of the low-frequency (i.e., stationary) clutter. Ta-da! All one sees are moving targets, or at least targets that are moving faster than "X". Of course, this doesn't do much for targets moving at right angles to the emitter (i.e., moving targets at right angles to the emitter would disappear), but multiple emitters spread out would take care of that.
- Use reflection-by-reflection comparison techniques. Store all the data returned at ridiculously fine intervals. Then, on the next pulse, compare by subtraction with the current received data. Things that have moved will show up like a sore thumb, and will get displayed. Again, some fudge is put into such systems so that things like, say, birds don't show, unless they're falcons or something.
Now, that's search RADAR. Fire control RADAR puts out spot beams. Admittedly, if one is pointing a spot beam at the earth (hello, fighter jets) then clutter rears its ugly head; but if one is pointing said spot beam up then, no problem.
Many moons ago I was at Purdue's Earth Sensing research department on a college tour (not mine) and got an interesting lecture. Earth Sensing, for those guys, is about looking at the wavelengths of light reflected by various crops; like rice, soy beans, corn, wheat, etc. A satellite scanning, say, Brazil, can get a decent idea of how many hectares are under cultivation, with what, what the food situation is going to be, maybe get some crop diseases detected, all good clean research-y fun and good for society. So, this lecturer says, they ran their first few analyses and got back, "XXXX acres of corn, YYYY acres of wheat, ... , ..., , and three airplanes."
Airplanes? What? Turns out that the software they were using had, in the past, been used by some group trying to get a handle on how many planes were in use at airports and the like, and the machine-matching software had been given pictures of planes in a zillion attitudes and types and told to, "go get them". It was running when the Earth Sensing guys were running their code. And, after these guys got informed that there were planes in there, went looking. And, yup, in the couple-of-hundred square miles data set they were experimenting with, there, by gum, were a few airliners flying through at different altitudes and directions.
So.. back to the present. That was nigh on thirty years ago. And those in charge of spy satellites throw out nothing. They.. just weren't looking for balloons, I guess. Now they are. And nothing stops these people with supercomputers from grabbing old data sets and scanning through them to see what they might find.. like that balloon in Central America.
Satellites are fun. But there are different things that bug them. Clouds. Night time. Lack of an IR signature (unlike jet engines, which got lots). But, it's not like these targets are moving that fast. If they're being launched in China, it's a least a couple of days before they make it over to a different continent or two. And now that people and automation are looking for these things, well, the cat is out of the bag.
And, yeah, some of those satellites have radar. A balloon at 40,000 feet up is going to have a Very Different Reflection, sooner, than the rest of the Earth, for an RADAR high up in orbit. Whee!
We'll see.
Can try again but will be even worse with a second go. Also don’t completely count out things not exploding there this close to Ukraine this time.
Russia’s grip on Moldova gets more difficult by the month. Being landlocked between Romania (NATO) and a more capable Ukraine means things looking bad for Putin there too.More on the Russian plotting against Moldova. The normal Putin playbook.
Moldova president accuses Russia of plotting to oust pro-EU government
Maia Sandu says plan revealed by Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been confirmed
I saw through the claims of WMD in 2002 and thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea. I thought the US should be focused on Afghanistan and rooting out al Qaeda, then leaving when that job was done. According to stories the US almost had al Qaeda leadership in the bag, but they slipped away, it the US hadn't been drawing down forces in Afghanistan at that point, they may have had the forces to finish that job.
Richard Clark was the first to see the threat from al Qaeda and convinced Bill Clinton of it. He also predicted someone could hijack an airliner and fly it into a building.
They still serve. I have a friend who was raised Quaker and still holds to the pacifist beliefs, but he was a medic in the US Army.
To be fair that isn't universal of all Muslims, but there are enough Muslims to get violent over that sort of thing to be a danger to peace.
I think discussing the meaning of terms can be useful. People will throw around terms without ever thinking about them, but having a discussion leads to insight.
Something I saw many years ago that stuck with me: "information is the only commodity that grows by passing it around."
The 2016 election was not an invasion, but it was a foreign power interfering in the election and getting someone they felt was their puppet elected. I do agree it's not over yet. Pandora's Box has been opened and something is going to have to break before this mess is over with.
My first principles thinking on this. Let's say another country, for example China, gets a higher GDP than USA and directs a larger share of its GDP towards its military and get's more value for their money, at some point their military will be superior. I am thinking not in soldiers but in drones, think Tesla Optimus holding an assault rifle, think hornet drones with microexplosives, think submarine drones from Ukraine, think baloons that cost more to shoot down than they cost to build. Some combination of these that makes economic sense. Once drones have established control over the country, I would say the country is invaded.
Imo this is probably not too far from China is planning. They hate not being masters of their own fate, of being #2, of being humiliated in the past. And they are taking active steps to secure their future. I recommend this book to understand what China is doing:
For now USA may be immune, but give it a decade or two and this might have changed...
