AlexL

Thank you for the reference. 1. "Yaron calling Israel's conscription "evil"" a. This is not all that Yaron ever said about conscription, the Israeli one in particular. In general, Yaron has called for the abolition of mandatory military conscription in all countries. He believes that voluntary militaries are (a) more efficient and effective, and (b) that they respect the individual's right to self-determination. b. Yaron: 2. UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark all rely exclusively on volunteers without any element of conscription currently.

🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣

I go by facts, not by phantasy. Thanks for your - involuntary - compliment ! I understand: you mean the objections are too good to be mine. 😁 No, the objections are mine, but the facts are not mine. Do you want to change from yours to mine? No, mine doesn't hire stupid and immoral bastards.

Sevastopol is not RF's, can't you understand this ??? And RF has no a priory right to the ability to control the Black Sea, to make it its "pond"! Why shouldn't it be Turkey's "pond"? Or Romania's? Or Ukraine's? Or Bulgaria's? Whose "pond" is the Mediterranean? Observing Putin's Russia, I would prefer the Black Sea be NATO's "pond". NATO/US never brought dictatorship to a (semi)free country, but Russia did. Besides, I showed that Putin could have the Black See as his "pond" even without Sebastopol, and even envisaged such a move, but this is an inconvenient truth for you. HOW hungry were NATO etc.? Was there a document, an official statement published/leaked about this? Why isn't it all over the Internet, or at least on the Kremlin site? So: bring out proof and not idle speculations. But this would be an absolute première, so that I am not holding ma breath

I did not write "massively". But a change there has been. No, you didn't write "massively". But you should have, because a few percent of a population "observing, introspecting and changing their minds" does not mean a change in culture or mentality you were taking about as a reality in today's Russia. Therefore, if you still believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it by facts. You mentioned only one: To which I commented: Therefore I am waiting for a true proof of your claim.

Correct. Then, if you believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it.

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook

Breaking News -- Israel Under Attack

Because they and their economy were just beginning to do well. i.e. there was and is a lot more personal freedom than before. 1. Beginning to do better - yes, starting from about 1998 and only some. Russia's economy was stagnating at least since 2012; 2. They were given some personal freedom (first by Gorbachev, by mistake), it did not result from a (mythical) "distaste of fearful obedience to the state". A. Rand had, without being a Racist, a very bad opinion about the Russian mentality and culture of submission and collectivism. If you consider that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively observed, introspected and changed their minds, then prove it.

This jumps out at me: [Not because of NATO expansion], "but because he believed NATO was weak..." Oh, you then DO accept my challenge of showing that at least some of ISW's 40+ claims are factually false ! OK, I am getting my popcorn ready!

OK, be my guest, question it. Based on facts, for once.

Wrong. For the public, the causal order of events has been regularly reversed or neglected by propagandists, here, to make Putin's acts "an illegal annexation". Corrected: An ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup -- rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv. Calm down: 1. I did not challenge the termination by Putin of the leasing agreement(s). As Crimea, in Putin's view, no longer belonged to Ukraine, the Leasing Agreement had no object any more. 2. What I wrote is the exact justification Putin provided in the Federal Law "On termination of agreements relating to the stay of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the territory of Ukraine". Here is the relevant part: They say nothing about an ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup that rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv. They simply say that the Lease Agreements are obsolete because Crimea does not belong anymore to Ukraine, but to Russia.

It is the concept of ... democracy. Heard of it? People get to choose their political dispensation. Let's specify which concept of yours we are talking about. It is this: And you approve this !!! Well, I am speechless.

The significant fact of MY comment was that your claim that without Sebastopol proved to be false. It became evident that Russia had indeed alternative options to Sebastopol along its 700 km long Black Sea coastline, with Putin as my witness. Indeed, soon after a Ukrainian President, in or shortly after 2005, declared that the lease would not extend beyond its expiration in 2017, construction began on an alternative military port in Novorossiysk, on Putin's order. In essence, Putin had alternatives to Sebastopol, was aware of them, and immediately initiated preparations for an alternative, with the latest possible target date being 2017. Therefore, the argument that it was inevitable for Russia to permanently lose access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean for naval and trade routes is unfounded. Furthermore, the recent news highlights the importance of the Novorossiysk port, as a dozen major Russian military vessels were urgently relocated from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk due to its perceived safety from potential Ukrainian threats. As for whether Putin regrets or not having stopped the construction in Novorossiysk in 2010, your hypothesis that he halted it because the Ukraine-friendly President Yanukovych successfully pushed for a 25-year lease extension is plausible. However, if this assumption holds true, then Putin made a grave error in 2010. Here's why: Even in your own quote from Wikipedia regarding the 25-year lease extension, it is briefly mentioned that "The agreement... roused much controversy in Ukraine." However, the situation was much more more serious than that. Ratification faced violent opposition, with police having to intervene aggressively to quell protesters outside the Parliament, where up to 30,000 people gathered over several days. Inside the Parliament, "The adoption of the law was accompanied by protests from deputies of opposition parties. A massive fight broke out in the session hall between supporters and opponents of ratification. The Speaker of the Parliament was pelted with chicken eggs..." "Despite the protests and unrest, the Parliament adopted the Law... with 236 deputies voting 'for,' just above the required majority of 226 votes." This means that if just 6 out of the 450 deputies (1.3%) had changed their votes, the extension of the Sevastopol lease to Russia beyond 2017 would not have occurred. Putin was acutely aware that ratification could have easily failed, and he should have drawn the necessary conclusions. If he intended to maintain a substantial military presence in the Black Sea, he couldn't rely on the volatile nature of Ukrainian politics. If he did indeed draw these conclusions, it would have been unwise to halt the expansion of Novorossiysk based on the fragile foundation of a 25-year lease. Therefore, either he made a misguided decision, which seems unlikely, or he already had more ambitious plans in place to mitigate this risk, as mentioned in a previous comment. The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

What are the facts that suggest that Russians have acquired a distaste of fearful obedience to the state? For example, does their (sad) history confirm this?

About the leasing of parts of Ukrainian Sevastopol to Russian Federation you write: I am glad you brought this up. Tell me more about the facts. You seem to know nothing. But you can prove me wrong. For example: Ukraine and Russia signed the first Sevastopol leasing treaty in 1997, valid until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko (January 2005 – February 2010) the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would NOT be extended at expiration and that the Russian fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017. What did the Russian President do? Did he kill Yushchenko, the neo-Nazi? Did he invade Crimea? Did he bomb Kiev? Not at all ! He budgeted with several billions the extension of the already largest port at the Black Sea, the port of Novorossiysk. which was on the Russian territory. Thus, in 2005 it was announced that until 2017 two new military naval bases will be created in Novorossiysk, substantially larger than Sebastopol's. The large scale construction project was started. The Black Sea Fleet was to be moved from Sebastopol to Novorossiysk by the end of the leasing. So much about Russia "losing the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time" and having "no other option" than snatch Sevastopol and the entire Crimea immediately! The other option was to build or extend one of the other ports Russia had at the Black Sea along the 700 km coastline. Novorossiysk was probably the best choice, but there were also other ports : Sochi and Tuapse, as well as smaller ones like Anapa, Temryuk and Yeysk. The Novorossiysk project was abandoned : Putin had larger and bolder projects, of geostrategic scope, so that Novorossiysk, a replacement of Sebastopol, was not needed anymore...

So: THIS is your concept of legality !!! It is perfectly stupid (incidentally, it is the opposite to even the Putin's Russia concept of legality - at least for Crimea). Besides being illegal, it is also illegitimate, that is unjustifiable by moral-political considerations. UN observers: UN election observation are often criticized over lack of transparency, inconsistent methodology, and potential political biases in evaluation and endorsement of results. And I doubt that UN will agree to supervise (which implies endorsement) referendums/elections in an country occupied by foreign army which overthrew the previous government... It would mean endorsement also of the overthrow... UN will never do this. Nor any other multinational organization. Not even BRICS or BRICS++ 😁

It is very easy to establish that ISW study says what it says only because they are "paid-up, ideologically neo-con, think tanks, set upon covering for their bosses' terrible blunders and evasions: cleaning up the record for posterity" and not because they are based on facts: just take 5 of their 40+ claims and show that they are factually false.

Of course the Putin's attack on Ukraine was not because NATO posed a security threat to the Russian Federation's security or territorial integrity! I am, however, surprised, that so many people realized and expressed this. (Thanks for that, @whYNOT) The well know Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) published just a few days ago a highly interesting study on this subject, entitled Weakness is Lethal: Why Putin Invaded Ukraine and How the War Must End. This study discusses Putin’s motivations for the invasion and the events that led up to it. Putin’s goal were to expand Russian power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO. He believed that NATO was weak [hence the title Weakness is Lethal] and that the West would not intervene if he invaded Ukraine. Putin’s decision to invade was also influenced by his false assessments of Ukraine’s millitary capabilities. The authors prove their claims with facts. The study provides over 70 references. Here is a summary of the key points from the article: Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 not because of NATO expansion, but because he beleived NATO was weak and he had an opportunity to establish control over Ukraine. He had been trying other means unsucessfully for years. Putin's goals have always been to reestablish Russian power, break up NATO, and exert control over Ukraine and former Soviet states. He saw NATO and Western influence as undermining Russia's sphere of influence. In 2021, after failures of other methods, Putin likely decided a ful invasion was needed to accomplish his long-held goals of controlling Ukraine and weakening NATO. He was emboldened by perceptions of Western weakness. Putin issued ultimatums to Ukraine and NATO in 2021 rejecting any compromises short of destroyng NATO and forcing Ukraine to submit to Russia. The invasion plans were already decided. Putin's objectives remain unchanged - he seeks a pro-Russia government in Kyiv, neutralization/weakening of Ukraine, and recognition of Russian control. No talks short of Ukrainian surrender will satisfy him. A ceasefire now would just be "Minsk III" allowing Russia to rebuild and try again. True peace requires Ukraine to defeat Russia militarily and rebuild strength to deter future aggression. Compromise now stores up bigger risks. In summary, the article analyzes Putin's actual strategic motives and objectives in invading Ukraine, which have been consisstent and maximalist in nature, seeking control rather than defense. It argues a settlement now would not bring real peace.

It is simple. „The other way around” with respect to: is: - first organize LEGAL [*] referenda in the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions and, if people opt for independence and, afterwards, for joining Russia - then and only then take control, including military, of those region. You got it? [*] as defined by the Russian's "Parliament" itself(!) in connection with the annexation of Crimea (in its document "Legal bases for the recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation"). Further explanations – only on demand; but I guess you won't be interested... as usual. Because facts are your worst enemy and you sense it somehow.

But Odessa, Nikolaev, etc. would have to demonstrate their majority willingness to secede to Russia - by referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview, when the time comes. 1. There is nothing there about "majority willingness" or "referenda" in the words of the Vice-Speaker of Russia's "Parliament". On the contrary, he uses the verb "вернуть", which means return · restore · bring back · recover · get back · take back something which rightly belongs to Russia. Neither the Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council and former Russia President, Dmitry Medvedev, mentions "majority willingness" or "referenda", he simply states that "[in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia." Note the unconditional "will be attached". The previous experience suggest that this will happen by Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda". And not the other way around. 2. "referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview" About this - only after finishing with # 1. One subject at a time.

On today's Russian's news aggregator Yandex: "Russia, apart from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR), should also reclaim its other territories - the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, believes the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma [Russia "Parliament"], Pyotr Tolstoy." РИА Новости "On September 30th, the anniversary of the reunification of the DNR, LNR, Kherson, and Zaporozhie regions with Russia is celebrated." РИА Новости "According to the results of processing 100% of the ballots in the DNR, 99.23% of the voters expressed their support for joining the Russian Federation, while in the LNR, it was 98.42%, in the Kherson region - 87.05%, and in the Zaporizhzhia region - 93.11%." РИА Новости "The Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council [and former Russia President], Dmitry Medvedev, stated that ' [in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia.'" Московский Комсомолец Sources: RIA Novosti, Moskovsky Komsomolets

Guess what is the source of Clayton Morris' claim that "Ukrainian forces quitting by the thousands", more precisely that "Approximatively 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered [in the last less than 3 months]"? It is TASS, the state-owned news(?) agency of the Russian Federation (minute 4:24)! No other source is given. Similar news and images can be seen and heard on the Ukrainian state channels, starting with more then a year ago, saying the exactly same thing about massive RUSSIAN surrenders! Why should anyone trust a governmental source of ANY warring party??? Only militants, those interested in broadcasting a specific thesis instead of verified facts. Besides: today (September 29) RIA Novosti reports the above "news" by referring to the above Clayton Morris show, which in fact reproduces TASS ! Thus, RIA Novosti presents this information (?) as stemming from an independent Western source ! This trick was massively used during the Soviet times... but in a somewhat more refined form.

Don't waste everyone's time: I quoted for you the exact part of your post which does constitute an ethnicity-based "argument". Go away!