Europe at War

[Gurn Blanston]

FYI, I removed Todd's reply to BV's post on the grounds that it was absolutely non-responsive and nothing more than a tedious repetition of previous taunts. The fact that it was Todd's post shouldn't be taken to mean he is the only one who gets out of bounds, since those who lack the maturity to disengage from such a fruitless situation often post things that make it worse rather than better.  Disagreement over the topic is what we are here to work out. "Owning the libs" or conversely,  trying to enforce political correctness on people who don't agree with you,  may have their place in the larger political discourse in the world,  but it's not what is going to happen here. Frankly I'm tired of the bullshit,  and I highly doubt I am alone. Consider before pressing the 'post' button..

GB

[Todd]

FYI, I removed Todd's reply to BV's post on the grounds that it was absolutely non-responsive and nothing more than a tedious repetition of previous taunts.

A serious question: do you think that any posters on GMG are able to make accurate psychological diagnoses of anyone based on press reports?

[Todd]

Back to the Russo-Ukrainian War specifically:

BBC: Ukraine war: Fighting set to slow for winter months, says US intelligence

Graun: Vladimir Putin better informed now about Ukraine war, says US

Hopefully, US intelligence is correct, is being accurately reported, the Ukraine suffers fewer civilian casualties over the winter as a result, and negotiations ensue shortly now that Putin is better informed.

[Gurn Blanston]

A serious question: do you think that any posters on GMG are able to make accurate psychological diagnoses of anyone based on press reports?

Nobody was making any diagnosis. Don't you know anything at all about context? In the context of a casual discussion about someone's abnormal behavior,  for any civilized person to say to other civilized people that the person in question acts in the manner of a person who has a particular disease or defect is NOT a diagnosis. And if such a statement has to be qualified any time it is made would be ludicrous. The alternative would be to forego any attempt at qualifying terms and simply resort to saying "he just a nutcase" whenever his actions are discussed.

In any case,  in the extremely unlikely case that you are correct,  this is not the time or place to correct people's perceptions of mental illness,  especially when your motives are suspect.

GB

[prémont]

The fact that it was Todd's post shouldn't be taken to mean he is the only one who gets out of bounds, since those who lack the maturity to disengage from such a fruitless situation often post things that make it worse rather than better.

It's just that the other posters react to Todd's trolling because he aims to present his views in the most provocative way (which is the very definition of trolling). The best thing would of course be if posters could refrain from responding, but that probably requires them to refrain from reading his post or put him on their ignore list.

[Harry]

It's just that the other posters react to Todd's trolling because he aims to present his views in the most provocative way (which is the very definition of trolling). The best thing would of course be if posters could refrain from responding, but that probably requires them to refrain from reading his post or put him on their ignore list.

Which I said already many times, but to no avail.

[Todd]

Nobody was making any diagnosis. Don't you know anything at all about context?

I am keenly aware of context.  I am also keenly aware that people inaccurately using scientific or at least scientific appearing terms to attack someone politically is standard partisan and/or ideological behavior all around the world.  There are many examples historically and online today.  It is marginally more pervasive now than in the past.  Saying "(s)he just a nutcase" is a much more appropriate way to go precisely because it drops pretensions to some type of superior knowledge.

[drogulus]

     I would not refuse to take a relative to a shrink on the grounds that he hadn't been diagnosed, or that his bizarre behavior was gossip.

     Trump behaves like a sociopath regardless of whether he would submit to a diagnosis.

     I don't think Putin is insane. That is not because I'm gossipy about his mental state. He doesn't exhibit the traits of a mental disease that would require that he seek a diagnosis.

     Oh, yes, it's the appearance of symptoms first, then a diagnosis may follow. It's not a diagnosis first and then the sickness.

[Karl Henning]

It's just that the other posters react to Todd's trolling because he aims to present his views in the most provocative way (which is the very definition of trolling). The best thing would of course be if posters could refrain from responding, but that probably requires them to refrain from reading his post or put him on their ignore list.

As they say: Don't Feed the Troll.

[Karl Henning]

I would not refuse to take a relative to a shrink on the grounds that he hadn't been diagnosed, or that his bizarre behavior was gossip.

    Trump behaves like a sociopath regardless of whether he would submit to a diagnosis.

    I don't think Putin is insane. That is not because I'm gossipy about his mental state. He doesn't exhibit the traits of a mental disease that would require that he seek a diagnosis.

    Oh, yes, it's the appearance of symptoms first, then a diagnosis may follow. It's not a diagnosis first and then the sickness.

Indeed, he has character defects which cannot be mitigated by putative insanity.

[Todd]

He is, though, of course missing the elephant in the room: Putin is a war criminal, by any definition.

Demonstrably incorrect.  I have posted in this thread that Putin is a war criminal.  I have also posted that the probability that he is held accountable is essentially zero.  Leaders of great powers are not held accountable in the current so-called rules-based order.  Only leaders of small, weak countries are held accountable, and to date most have been African.

I have also pointed out that the US is directly responsible for establishing the conditions that led to Russia's military actions in Ukraine that began in 2014 (the actions of this February have been mislabeled an invasion), that NATO is the primary non-financial tool the US uses to exercise hegemony over European vassal states, and that the US itself is the most destructive country in the world not only this century, but in the entire post-war era.  People take exception with these assertions, despite the existence of incontrovertible evidence for some of the claims (eg, the civilian body count from US led wars). 

[Florestan]

It's just that the other posters react to Todd's trolling because he aims to present his views in the most provocative way (which is the very definition of trolling). The best thing would of course be if posters could refrain from responding, but that probably requires them to refrain from reading his post or put him on their ignore list.

Very true. Nevertheless, I owe Todd an apology for a very uncivil post of mine (which I just removed), so here it is: @Todd , I am sorry for my rudeness.

[drogulus]

    Macron says negotiations should include a guarantee of Russian security. That would be making explicit what is a fact. The US won't countenance an invasion by Finland or Ukraine. China, though is a bridge too far. Russia is on its own.

    The US wants Russia to survive losing the war. The world might not be as lucky this time as it was when the Soviet Union broke up. There needs to be a central authority that controls the nukes.

[Todd]

So when you say 'demonstrably incorrect', what you mean 'he is a war criminal and I've been calling him that for ages, and so saying I've missed that 'elephant in the room' is incorrect'?

Putin is a war criminal.  I have posted about it before in this thread.  I also posted about his dictatorial tendencies in 2014 and 2008.  I am under no illusions about Putin.

That the rules of International Law were pretty much invented and used against Germany in 1945/6 says, to my satisfaction: "Don't get comfortable, Russia or USA. They can be used against you too, eventually". That's all the assurance about International Law I need.

This is pre-Trinity and pre-Joe 1 thinking and therefore incorrect.

And your second paragraph is just nonsense

Incorrect.

[Todd]

For the rest of your nonsense: buffoonery.

Incorrect.  For instance, how would external powers be able to hold Russian senior leaders or American senior leaders accountable in a manner similar to the Nuremberg trials, or even using existing international courts?  Trials in abstentia don't cut it at that level.

It is quite common for Europeans or transplants to Europe, in particular, to bristle at their countries' subservience to the US.  That is understandable.  But the fact is that European security is dependent on the US - something UK leaders remain keen to keep in place, and something the Finnish PM just stated publicly - and that Europeans cannot effectively engage in economic war without direct support of the US.  Most of the time Europeans require US guidance in this arena.  Indeed, European governments are the only governments to slavishly follow US economic policies in this war, even when it does not necessarily serve their national interests.  Germany is probably the best example of that.  I suppose one could try to characterize that as putting up a united front, but it isn't really working.

[Todd]

Buffoonery.

That's certainly one response, but perhaps you could take a stab at answering my question.

[Todd]

Nah. What you type is buffonery. No response required.

Very good.  I hasten to add that I look forward to more false analogies in the days/weeks/months/years to come.

[Todd]

Buffoon.

The impressive swiftness of your reply amplifies its effectiveness.

[Todd]

I know.
Buffoon.

Now add exclamation marks.

[Todd]

Nah: for you, I don't really need them.
https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-smiley-ball-image11728565

Maybe next time.