Ukraine Crisis
The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
Comments (18084)
Huh? Support for Ukraine has been something, both "in spirit" / goodwill in general populations, and materially. Have you checked the reactions all over...? It's not just some elite highups in Washington and Brussels.
If Russia was to just take over, say, Donbas and Crimea, then their anti-NATO thing would still apply. Less so if they'd taken over Kyiv and captured/killed the government, I might add. As an aside, without a secured route to Crimea via Berdiansk/Melitopol, they'd still have a route via Kerch. There are whatever plans at work, possibly changing now and then, some possibly rushed or pushed out.
By the way, the referendums are only valid in some corner of the Russian system, despite the handshakes and (theatrical) fanfare by Putin in Moscow. They serve only to justify Russian incursions/conscriptions/whatever, to have a formality/declaration to stand on, to the Russian populace. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians continue on to take their land back.
(I'm guessing you're not serving in Kherson, . :smile:)
Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes.
Yes. The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period
And yet the holocaust took place, largely in Poland, after Poland officially surrendered to the Germans.
And fight.
Would-be philosophers busy trivializing war crimes... Figure that! Students of Heidegger perhaps.
When in my country's parliament ministers tried to call the war in Ukraine "our war", it raised a lot of eyebrows.
Given the large economic hardships (rampant inflation and energy scarcity) that are coming for much of Europe, it is my impression that support for Ukraine is very thin, and mostly something that is expressed in media and politics, but not felt among the population.
But that is admittedly just an impression I have.
Quoting jorndoe
Ukraine becoming NATO and Russia annexing the territories it now occupies would be a very flimsy solution indeed. Without a proper buffer, conflict is almost guaranteed. But trust is needed for this buffer to be re-installed, and that is non-existent. So the Russians have taken the approach that even during conflict their position in regards to Crimea must be 'safe'.
And the issue is of course access during times of conflict. The Kerch bridge would probably not survive day 1 of any future conflict.
I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons.
I'm American, and would give my life in defense of my country. I still condemn it pretty regularly. It's a stressful balancing act that I'm used to. I think maybe some haven't mastered the technique, so they enter into ambivalence where they really know better.
That's my theory, anyway
Not really, or perhaps to Russia as a regime. They are sympathetic to the Putin regime, not to the Russian people.
As if Russians are not known for their ethnic cleansing penchant in the occupied territories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars
My theory is that it's because Russia stands opposed to the West. The enemy of my enemy?
I've been thinking a lot lately about how people who are hateful are trying to deal with their own wounds. It makes them feel better to be mean.
I get that there are actual psychopaths, but that's not what's usually happening. It's mostly walking wounded, trying to pass their wounds on to somebody else.
Both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of summary arrests and torture in the contested regions prior to the wars. Read the fucking reports before mouthing off with your pseudo-psychologising.
Quoting Olivier5
No one is trivialising war crimes. Some are using them to spit out lazy virtue signalling instead of actually considering the situation seriously.
Quoting Olivier5
Go on then.
Quoting neomac
The question was...
Quoting Isaac
Try reading first, commenting after. If you have anything to contribute about what course of action is most likely to REDUCE the severity of war crimes then let's have it, because I don't know if you've noticed but continued war doesn't seem to be doing that.
Except where Putin has succeeded in gaining a military victory: In Chechnya, the Chechen Republic. Of course, Russian officials and Putin and Kadyrov have declared the war to be over. However:
And that there are Chechen fighting on both sides in Ukraine tells something about this conflict, even if it can be declared to be a victory for Putin.
But the war crimes? They are simply called human-rights violations nowdays:
(See here)
If only we could tell. :/
The Ukrainians want the invaders to quit the bombing killing ruinage and leave. They're apparently not just going to give up. They're looking to affiliations other than Putin's Russia; their choice to make.
What does Putin want...? To de-NATO and de-Nazify...? Hard to tell exactly, though statements speeches history whatever suggest broader ambitions. Consequences over some time, not really easier to tell.
[sup](Plato, Tacitus, Burke, Mill, Niemöller, Wiesel had some comments, by the way)[/sup]
One could at least hope for talks, diplomacy, more transparency, more bona fides signs, even cease-fire, etc, it just seems strained at the moment. :/ How to end warring?
In other news, max seddon reports ...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1577567483812249601[/tweet]
Quoting Tzeentch
India?
Quoting Tzeentch
Hm "get out more"? It sure ain't just some elites in Washington and Brussels.
Quoting Tzeentch
Putin took "the approach" of invasion nuclear-threats bombing killing ruinage land-grabbing + conscription.
Jesus. Can none of you read?
Quoting Isaac
REDUCE. Reduce. Reduce.
Not sure if all caps, bolding, or underlining works on you people so maybe all three. We're discussing which approach might reduce the amount of death and destruction. Pointing out that there is still some war crime activity in occupied territories is not an argument that there is more war crime activity in occupied territories than there is in the actual war.
I think the wound you speak of is the idea that politicians are all equally bad, and therefore that there can be no hope from politics. This idea is painful to hold, as it tells us we are powerless collectively. Especially so when one sees other folks still believing in a collective or another, and fighting for a cause.
It's cause envy.
Raw nihilism trying to blot out what is perceived as hope, because it hurts too much to see hope killed one more time.
gulp
Would the West still be supporting the war in Ukraine under say, a Republican US president and a right-leaning (read, anti-EU) Europe?
Quoting Isaac
Isaac the apologist seems to be on the roll, again.
When a war is over, there should be NO killings, no war crimes or human violations. But somehow when Putin is fighting the war, the killing doesn't end with the proclaimed victory.
In my view the two Chechen wars resulted in what can be described as a genocide or genocidal warfare. Remembering that Chechnya has a population of 1,4 million, the death toll is staggering.
Somebody with that kind of track record might usually apply same methods that previously have been so successful.
I suspect it would hurt them even more if hope triumphed.
Did converse, like here, here. :shrug: (doesn't mean just running with your story and call it a day, this ? dismissal ain't it, responding "unknown" is fine too)
Quoting Tzeentch
Who knows, but (again) ...
Say, would ...
... be worthwhile?
The demands couldn't have been clearer and were delivered pretty near the beginning of the war. No NATO membership, independent Donbas, Russian Crimea.
Unless Ukraine fight even harder than they have been (or NATO finally pull their finger out of their arse and get properly involved instead of just seeing Ukraine as a lucrative arms market) it looks likely that this is what they're going to end up with anyway... Just with thousands of innocent dead in addition.
If Ukrainians want to fight to the death for their flag, that's up to them. Doesn't make it morally right, nor advisable.
So not even all caps worked? Shit. I've run out of ways to communicate the word 'reduce' with any more clarity.
Yes.
Wasn't (or isn't) the current UK administration right-leaning (read, anti-EU)?
Who are against the support of Ukraine are usually the right-wing populists who have gotten money from the Kremlin. And those that have issues with the US (Turkey) or the EU (Hungary), for example.
It's scary how easily the caricatures are cemented into narratives which then build support for actual policy.
The evidence isn't even hard to find, the reports of Ukrainian human rights abuses, far-right violence, slavery, corruption and illegal arms trading are still online. It's not as if some shadowy cabal have hidden them away to rewrite history, they've just told everyone to pretend it isn't the case and that's enough apparently. Now Putin is the devil, Zelensky is a saint. It's always been that way. And that's that.
But then one quite corrupt, violent nation invading another slightly less corrupt slightly less militaristic one, as a story, doesn't sell weapons for nearly as long as the story of the world-dominating embodiment of evil invading the harmless Ewoks.
The wars in the middle east have been proxy wars to prevent pipelines going down. The US and Russia have been at it ever since the end of the Cold War. It will not end well for Europe as a whole unless … well, I do not see a way out tbh. I can easily see a tactical nuke being dropped and I doubt the US would do much … other than continue doing what they have done for half a century.
Personally I think if they want to fight they should do it over the ocean between their countries rather than playing tower defence across the whole of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Yes, at best it can only be sold as a failed war aim. Earlier in the war Russia had opportunities to secure Ukraine's neutrality, which it ignored.
My argument is against the tankie delusion that the war was somehow a defensive response to NATO encroachment.
, so, your proposed "solution" to your question is to cease the foreign aid to Ukraine and see what happens. Or did I misread?
[sup](I suppose this might be where those quotes of old have lessons to teach?)[/sup]
Quoting Isaac
Sure, as are their foreign affiliations other than Putin's Russia.
Why?
Quoting Tzeentch
So there is a reasonable conclusion that this risky mission was warranted to secure an airbridge as part of a lightning attack and you can’t come up with reasons for why this would instead be the optimal move as part of a mere feint.
Who does such logic about Russian intentions serve? :chin:
No. There is nothing reasonable about that conclusion. Airlifting in battalions worth of troops only several kilometres from the frontline when you even have a land connection available is quite the opposite of reasonable.
I would expect any kind of offensive, feint or otherwise, to include the capture of every possible airstrip in the area. It says nothing about their intentions regarding Kiev, which is what you tried to argue.
By that token, Belgian atrocities in Congo do not count - because Belgium was not at war with Congo at the time. Neither do Soviet and German mass killings of Poles count.
If you're going to have the indecency to talk about me in the third person at least read what I fucking wrote first.
The question was about the relative change in war crimes (or human rights abuses) following peace negotiations compared to those committed during the actual war in question.
Only a fucking moron could read that and assume the question was "does anyone ever do anything bad outside of war".
(Oh, and just to correct your historical inaccuracies, the Poles didn't negotiate a peace treaty, the Polish government continued in exile, the Polish army surrendered, but don't let any facts cloud your biases).
The point, for anyone with a post-kindergarten level of interest in the subject, was that there's no good reason to believe that atrocities would continue at the same level in Russian controlled territories. They haven't committed atrocities on this scale in other occupied territories, and most, if not all, peace negotiations have lead at the very least to a reduction in those sorts of human rights abuses.
Considering the enormous harms of continued war, anyone not playing out their Star Wars fantasies would need an extremely good reason to justify continued war. The idea that it will cause less atrocities isn't even a moderately good one on average. With this particular situation, where Ukraine are no angels themselves, it's hard to argue there'd be much difference. Look at the human rights reports on Donbas before the war. There's barely a hair between the abuses of occupying Russia and those of Ukrainian forces and militia.
This is correct. Which is why we have to be clear about what we are fighting for.
I believe we ought to be fighting for a global order that accepts some set of basic human rights and which thus provides a productive framework within which sovereign states can freely compete.
The prevailing world structure was far from wonderful, but it made things like collecting crates of gold teeth beyond the pale. It accepts war as justified, but wants some sane rules around such contests.
This is a global compromise, but it is the best that can be hoped for. And of course the rules were largely written with a large dollop of US self interest after WW2. But who else was in a position to push some kind of understanding through?
The main problem with the US version of a global framework was it was all about fossil fuels and free trade. A new kind of competition to see whose national system could create the largest per capita ecological footprint. It wasn’t actually a sustainable vision under which to unite humanity.
So the big picture view of Ukraine - the true realist position - would factor in both Putin’s erosion of the old US global staus quo and some new world order that does a good job recognising the state of the world as it is fast becoming.
Human rights start to tumble down the list or priorities as our atrocities reach global ecological levels.
At this level of political realism, Ukraine is just a massive distraction. Putin must take full blame not just for the human atrocities he is responsible for, but also the disruption to the fragile world order and its willingness to battle climate change, or at least create some kind of equality in the suffering we’ve got coming.
The US also deserves all the criticism for its part in climate inaction. Big oil is a historical crime given that green tech - especially for America - was a viable option.
So sure, geopolitical realism demands that we make these cost-benefit calculations. Human suffering is coming in ways that makes crates of gold teeth chickenfeed.
When I see so much needless destruction of social and economic infrastructure, forgive me but I think about the ecological footprint involved in any rebuilding.
But the question here has been about Putin and his intentions. Are they large or small? Do they point the planet towards new solutions or drag us backwards in terms of a pragmatic global system of order?
The best commentary I have heard paints Putin as the head of a crime mob who has become stuck in escalation mode by his miscalculations. Partly Ukraine is just about staying domestically popular. But also, he actually does seem to have a personal and irrational hatred of the West’s imposition of a global rules framework, so would be happy to smash it.
Putin may not actually have planned to go further than smash the emergence of such order right on his own doorstep. Maybe Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, could all be left as no kind of real threat to the Russian kleptocratic, fossil fuel, crime syndicate at all.
Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what its people believe. And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protects the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity these past 70 years.
Such a calculation is of course impossibly utopian. But that is what a philosophical discussion should be for.
Meanwhile stop with the bullshit about feints and Russian competence. Stop with the whataboutism when I don’t see anyone claiming the US doesn't act self interestedly. Anyone who has studied modern history knows that setting up a global free trade environment was as self serving for the US as it was altruistic.
And that is fine. The question now is who is going to lead the world towards its next as-altruistic-as-possible rules-base framework?
China put up its hand at one stage, Now we have Xi. But these are the interesting discussions to be had. Not repetitions of “Mearsheimer says Putin’s grievances are legitimate and pushing Ukraine to surrender is even in its own best interest.”
There are others of these. Conscripts complaining of being given no training, no equipment, no food, and being sent to live outside on the border, old, sometimes non-functional weapons, and no armor.
Speed running the Russian Revolution, no joke. "Lets just force a bunch of men to leave their jobs and families, give them weapons, and then send them to live unsupplied in squalor. Then order them to fight for us. What could go wrong!?"
IDK, maybe it's all an advanced psyop, I'm sure that's the explanation being given either way. Or there are Wagner patches, so maybe it's a hit job in an internal fight with Russia.
Ahh, ok. Here we have some interesting material to talk about, very much pertinent to philosophy too. It's a solid post, some excellent points raised, others quite dubious in my eyes.
As you have taken your time to post that, I will do the same probably tomorrow. This is something worth exploring.
By stating what is absolutely obvious to anyone whose conception of war isn't based on newspaper articles? Ok! :grin:
• Newsweek (Sep 26, 2022): Mobilized Russians Asking How to 'Surrender' Through Hotline: Official
• Business Insider (Sep 27, 2022): Russians are calling up the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense asking how to surrender, Ukraine says
• New York Post (Oct 5, 2022): Thousands of Russian soldiers calling ‘I Want To Live’ surrender hotline: Ukraine
1000s?
Originally opened around May 21, 2022...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1527999468712472576[/tweet]
I guess, why not?
• Al Jazeera (Jul 11, 2022): Putin expands fast-track Russian citizenship to all of Ukraine
My choice is between understanding what I can glean from named public sources or believing some random internet “military expert” pushing apologist talking points. The decision isn’t hard. And you keep making it easier.
Published sources agree that US intelligence warned there would be an assault on Antonov airport to establish an air bridge. US intel proved itself good enough that is would have warned in the decapitation plan was a feint.
The Russians would of course have to have suppressed the Ukraine air defences before the transport planes could land. The Ilyushins have flares and electronic countermeasures, showing they are intended to have some chance of landing in defended forward areas. But the Russian assault started with a missile bombardment meant to help neutralise the AA.
The problem was that the same US advance warning allowed the Ukrainians to shift everything before the softening bombardment and the Russians were left blasting empty fields.
Things went to shit for the Russians rapidly after that. Hostomel was a key target because there was a decapitation plan. It was not a feint. But the paratroopers couldn’t gain control and the Ukraine air defences were intact and so landing the Ilyushins would have indeed been suicidal and so was aborted.
This is publicly available history now. But keep up with your bogus military analysis for which have failed to provide a shred of credible support.
SEAD strikes to facilitate landing large, slow-moving cargo planes on the frontline?
What scale of suppression do you have in mind? A nuclear strike on Ukraine?
You understand that even MANPADS, IR AA or unguided AAA batteries would be having a turkey shoot?
Quoting apokrisis
"Some chance of landing"?
Such measures are intended to give the plane a slight chance of getting away in case it gets engaged, not to land under fire. You're absolutely crazy if you think a cargo plane would be doing such things intentionally.
They're flying piñatas. And you're suggesting to land 18-20 of them under fire while loaded up with battalions worth of men and material. Oof.
Quoting apokrisis
No. Your choice is admitting you're way out of book, or continuing to pretend you're not and fencing with newspaper articles. :roll:
And for the record, you can continue linking articles that state experts supposedly said things - those have zero value. Link instead to the actual expert saying it, accompanied by that which they base themselves on.
OK, let's clear up a few potential blocking differences.
Firstly, death is death. If your loved one dies from childhood cancer it's not somehow less emotionally painful than if they die in a cluster bomb attack on a school. They're no less dead, it's often not even any less physically painful. Dead's dead. So a 'world order' as you put it, in which (for example) the EPA can be given backhanders to approve chemicals they know have a risk of cancer such as to cause, on average, 100 more deaths a year than otherwise, is no different to a world in which an aggressor uses cluster bombs in their annual war and kills 100 children in a school. 100 children needlessly dead in both cases.
Secondly, Ukraine is not part of the same 'world order' as the West (in terms of the freedoms and benefits you're talking about). It comes out below Russia on many Human Development Indices, it's around the same level in terms of political corruption (though better than Russia in this case), it's the world's main hub of illegal arms dealing and it has a huge far-right problem. Ukraine fighting Russia is not New World vs Old World. It's Old World vs Old World. To establish a new world order there we'd have to overthrow both governments. Getting one to beat the other is irrelevant to that project.
Those aside, I agree with the thrust of what you've written, that some kind of system needs to be in place to ensure peace and that system needs to be enforced against infraction, by (often) war.
But that's not what's happening here. As @boethius mentioned way back (some hundred pages at least) if the UN or NATO had pulled their finger out of their arse earlier and stopped this thing in its tracks (either full NATO membership fo Ukraine, or perhaps even troops on the ground), then we wouldn't be here. We're here because the new world order doesn't really want to establish peace at all, it profits from war. It's in their financial best interests that Russia is tied up in a long protracted war and that Ukraine have only just enough ability to resist to keep acting as a lucrative market for weapons. It's not remotely helping 'fight the good fight' to have an army just about strong enough to hold off the enemy but not quite strong enough to repel them, and keep it that way for as long as possible. If we're serious about stopping Russia, then stop Russia. Put 100 battalions of UN/NATO troops on ground to enforce a peace and see how many atrocities get committed under that watch. But we're not serious about stopping Russia. We're serious about dragging out the war long enough to cripple them.
Quoting apokrisis
This I agree with in the most part. We might quibble about the proportions of motivation, but I think broadly this is right.
Quoting apokrisis
Absolutely. The argument is about method, not outcome.
Putin needs to be prevented, not only from committing more war crimes, but from running his kleptocracy in which human rights are serially abused. The question is whether a continued ground war fought using Ukrainian troops with a drip feed of US weapons and a global propaganda effort is the best method.
The reasons I don't think it is, are;
1) The pre-war Ukrainian regime was barely better then the Russian one. The regime post-war isn't likely to be an improvement. so getting Ukraine to fend off Russia does little to prevent the aspects of Putin's regime we want to stop, and prolongs rather than foreshortens the commission of war crimes.
2) For whatever reason, Russia put on the table an opening demand that was barely any different from the status quo. Ukraine could have agreed to it and noticed almost nothing. So (again, not knowing the reasons Russia made such a mild offer) there is an opportunity for an enforced peace on those terms. Enforced peace is almost universally a less harmful state of affairs than war.
3) Even in the worse case scenario that Russia had some card such that a peace deal on those terms gave it some control it didn't already have, dealing with the human rights abuses in a state controlled by Russia is no harder than fighting a ground war against them. We haven't made the situation any worse. We still need to achieve the same thing, only now we get to do it not in a war zone. It is universally easier to manage any situation outside of hostilities than it is whilst they are ongoing.
This is so bizarre.
Ukraine get's a say in what its individual citizens believe?
What's Ukraine other than just the collection of individual citizens? at least when it comes to beliefs and saying things?
And you mention freedom all the time ... isn't freedom of thought the first and most fundamental?
Quoting apokrisis
And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protect the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity.[/quote]
Thanks for finally confirming the obvious, that proponents of the Ukrainian war effort do not evaluate Ukrainian well being, but rather a larger "international order". That you want Ukrainians to fight for an entirely new international order, rather than protect the existing one, is definitely an interesting spin.
But if I understand you correctly, your argument is meant to solve the problem that a forever war with Russia, never compromising in order to weaken the Russian state (which I have no issue accepting it does), is obviously not in the interests of Ukrainians by simply overlooking their interest by simply saying Ukrainian state speaks for Ukrainians and says what they believe (certainly no one else is talking about Ukrainian beliefs, seen as the opposition parties and media have been banned) and the Ukrainian state wants Ukrainians to keep fighting (without ever any compromise), so that serves your objective and Ukrainian state clearly agrees to be a tool in this wider "international order" game, and so all is well.
Quoting ssu
Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. Of course, always "possible" as you note.
Making gains at the very edges of Russian occupied territory is extremely debatable in significance.
Russia is certainly focused its defensive efforts most in the land bridge from Russia to Crimea to the Canal. Taking Kherson, as I've stated far before this new offensive started, would only be step 1, and a long way to go from there as you note.
The actual status of the military situation I think boils down to what cost for the Ukrainians have these gains come at and if such losses are sustainable.
Quoting ssu
It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well.
The actual front line is the entire border, which allows tactical moves such as flanking the forces in Kharkiv by an offensive coming to their North as well as strategic moves of a salient somewhere in the North again.
Certainly human, political and material costs have been high for the Russians, which the media points out in fine detail, but what is left out of Western media is the costs to the human and material costs to the Ukrainians, and political costs to the West.
The key point will be the winter and it seems to me that the Kremlin and Russian forces has succeeded in "keeping it together" until then.
Political pressure with Russia is definitely reached a maximum (but clearly not a breaking point), but there is also the other side in that pressure is also mounting within EU countries, and winter hasn't even arrived yet.
I agree that the Russia plan is likely exactly as you say to see winter through and then launch a winter / spring offensive before the melt and testing the EU's appetite for another year of the war.
Nuclear threats remain, fortunately for now, clearly in the deterrence "utility" of downward pressure on the amount and kinds of arms to Ukraine.
Russia is also a democracy, and arguably a bit more democratic than Ukraine at the moment, to the extent you can argue Russia hasn't banned as much opposition parties and media.
Also, Ukraine stopped the fundamental freedom of movement of military age men essentially day 1 of the war, whereas Russia has not. "Voting with your feet" has been multi decades war cry of supporters of the status quo in the West, particularly the US, and that way of voting has been denied to a large section of Ukrainian society.
You may say "but of course the Ukrainian state doesn't want men to leave!" but that's a totalitarian argument and not a democratic one.
There is also not much controversy over the opinion that Putin is supported by a majority of Russians.
Compared to the US senate, that's a "point for democracy" in favour of Russia.
Sure, the Russian state makes use of propaganda that affects the opinions of Russians, but the idea the US state doesn't do likewise would be laughable, and the idea Ukraine isn't also propagandising its own citizens would be a total break with reality.
"Who's more democratic" between these 3 parties is not some truism you can just throw out there, and Ukraine is certainly not a contender for "exemplary democracy".
Apologists for Ukraine when it comes to their language laws, banning opposition media and major parties, purging any dissidents, banning men from leaving the country, will say that of course they need to do these things to fight Russia.
Maybe so, but the corollary is they are not fighting for democracy, but for totalitarian principles.
And "extreme nationalists" (aka. Nazi's) in Ukraine are quite coy about saying the war is good for society as it allows them to reduce "friction".
LOL
What criticism of Russian democracy does not also hold for Ukraine? Or for the US for that matter.
If you say some people think Russian elections are fixed ... I hate to break it to you, but some people say US elections are fixed, and that "Trump won" for example.
But, you don't even need fraudulent elections for minority rule if you have a setup like US electoral college and senate anyways.
And the whole idea of "fighting for democracy" is completely laughable when the US / NATO is allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia and various other kings, despots and tyrants.
If the West was going to "democratise the world" Russia would be far down on the list.
Of course, the first step would be changing the policy of overthrowing democratically elected governments that have policies "against US interests", and I think it's safe to say we're a long way away from that.
If people want to refer to WWII allied idealism ... then "we had elections even in a war and kept freedom of movement and freedom of speech and didn't ban opposition parties and so on (well, kept to freedom quite a bit anyways)" was a big part of that argument that the allies were fighting for democracy against tyranny.
The Nazi argument for tyranny was that it makes a more efficient war fighting machine.
So, anytime Ukrainian sympathisers excuse Ukrainian anti-freedom policies in that it's needed to fight the war, that's literally what the Nazi's said.
That the same guy heads the country for decades.
That most opposition figures have been killed or jailed, and their parties persecuted.
That all free press is banned from the country.
That entire regions have been massacred like Chechnya.
That one can go to jail for 15 years for criticizing the war, even if only by wearing a tshirt.
I'm not going to repeat the argument that @boethius has already made against the distinction you're trying to make. Though I will emphasise the main point that Ukraine is not currently a democracy, so claiming that supporting Ukraine is supporting democracy is just factually inaccurate.
What I'll add is that what makes a difference 'in your book' is irrelevant to your argument here.
Fine, the democratic process is top goal in your book, Ukraine was slightly better than Russia on that front according to some official measures. In your book, that makes it an important victory if Ukraine defeat Russia here. In your book.
Your argument, however, is not that. Your argument here has always been that alternative views are ludicrous. Not that they just have different top goals. That they are so wrong as to be apologist, Putin's supporters, or even fucking FSB agents!
If all you've got to support your argument is that, in your book, democracy is the number objective, then you've no ground at all on which to argue that alternative views must be apologist. We simply have a different number one objective. For me, it's human rights. On that score, Ukraine is a hairs breadth different from Russia, and a Ukraine in mountains of debt to the US would probably be even worse.
Democracy is not a cure for human rights violations because its essentially nationalist and populist and does nothing to prevent off-shoring human rights abuses to minorities or foreign nations.
Just produce evidence to back your speculation.Quoting Tzeentch
No one suggested that. So strawman. Step 1 was suppress air defence and secure the runway and its surrounds. Step 2 was fly in the troops and gear when it was reasonably safe. Or given Russian competence, just take a chance or two.
Again, the counterfactual is that no one in any of the reporting raised this as something making the Russian plan impossible. But I’m sure you will construct some further conspiracy story on that.
Quoting Tzeentch
You can’t even link to a single media report. Surely Russian media might help you there?
What kind of argument is this?
Merkel was Chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021.
Also, the whole point of introducing term limits in the US was so that someone genuinely popular with the people (due to serving average people's interest rather than elites) couldn't be in power so long as to be able to implement effective policies. It's completely anti-democratic that someone who's popular cannot stand for election.
Quoting Olivier5
Sure ... and that's not true for Ukraine? And, in both cases the argument will be the same that they are foreign controlled operators.
And again, isn't this the bread and butter of the CIA to get rid of political opposition, democratic or otherwise, around the world?
Quoting Olivier5
Same as Ukraine.
Quoting Olivier5
Isn't the Ukrainian war on the Donbas since 2014 an exact analogous situation?
Furthermore, this has nothing to do with democracy. A people can be for war. US has massacred whole countries, literally millions dead, with democratic support.
... Indeed, I seem to remember the US having their own little internal disagreement that resulted in far more dead than in Chechnya, and that the whole American civil war thing is one of the greatest example of democracy "winning".
Quoting Olivier5
Again, is it more free in Ukraine?
Likewise again, if a majority of Russians are in favour of such policies, it's still democratic.
The equating "democracy" with "anything I think is good" is not a sound argument. Democratic process (to one standard of democracy or another) can result in things I think are bad ... but it's still democratic.
An argument against people staying in power too long, nominating puppets to reign in their place, and changing the constitution to retain power beyond set limits. Power corrupts.
Quoting boethius
Nope. A lot of independent journalists operate there. Likewise, Ukrainian opposition has not been persecuted, and the war in Dombass has nothing to see with the mass killings in Chechnya.
That isn't speculation. You don't seem to be aware of what SEAD is, how it functions and the obvious issues it faces when targetting non-emitting anti-aircraft platforms.
Quoting apokrisis
Oh, what is this then, and I quote:
Doesn't sound like these "expert" sources assumed any intention by the Russians to wait until the area was "reasonably safe", does it?
Quoting apokrisis
Likely because they have absolutely no clue of what they're talking about.
Experts telling us the Russians "intended" to sail cruise ships up the Dnieper to stage an amphibious assault on Kiev?
What a bunch of dummies, those Russians. :lol:
Aren't we glad we have these "experts" telling us all about their silly intentions.
So you're saying Robert C. Byrd serving in the US senate over half a century (51 years) establishes US is not a democracy?
Furthermore, your argument is simply that there's flaws and corruption in the Russian democratic system ... but that's true for Ukraine and the US.
Quoting Olivier5
What are you talking about?
[quote=Financial Times;https://www.ft.com/content/176c0332-b927-465d-9eac-3b2d7eb9706a]Ukraine shuts TV channels it accuses of spreading ‘Russian disinformation’[/quote]
Quoting DW
Is the exact opposite of journalists being "free to operate there".
Jeez. You really don’t do good at argument. Russian aviation soon discovered just how bad they were at SEAD and had to stop sacrificing planes. But I guess you will say the early phase of them taking unacceptable losses was just a “feint” and not another miscalculation. :grin:
Got any more expert sources to share with us, bud?
Enemy operatives spreading propaganda cannot be classified as "free press". They are on a mission to disinform.
Again, why have paratroopers ring a cargo airfield unless you planned to use that airfield pretty soon. You think it would have been held long by the assault force? And for what purpose?
I realise it is pointless stating the obvious all the time. You have your talking points and can’t deviate from the script. I’m finding it quite amusing,
Was there due process that they were actually "enemy operatives" or then what is the classification "enemy operatives" based on?
Likewise, what's the definition of "enemy propaganda" other than anything the Ukrainian state doesn't like?
More to the point, since when did freedom of the press not include the freedom to propagandise?
Since WW2. It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press.
With. Due. Process.
And "hateful lies" is not even enough to be convicted of hate speech or slander.
Where's the proof, in a fair court, these 3 TV stations were spreading "hateful lies"? And what law was even broken.
Again, in the "name of freedom" no fundamental freedom is worth preserving in Ukraine for that fight.
And how exactly did you envision GPS-guided cruise missiles taking out MANPADS and mobile anti-air platforms? Bomb every single building, ditch or treeline in and around Kiev?
Also, cruise missiles? Are you sure about that? What can you tell me about the use of cruise missiles in SEAD operations?
Quoting apokrisis
The question is:
- Whether they were going to use it to land cargo planes, and the answer to that question is obviously no.
- Whether that proves they were intending to occupy and hold Kiev, which is what you argued and why you mentioned this in the first place.
Quoting apokrisis
I'm having trouble hearing you from inside that hole you're digging for yourself.
How many journalists were assassinated by the regime, or jailed, or beaten up? How much if their equipment was confiscated?
According to RSF, there's vast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists.
And what exactly do you think Putin said about the press he banned? That it was spreading the truth but he didn't like it?
The point of a free press is that it is free from the government it may criticise. That is not the case if it's that same government who gets to unilaterally decide if what they're publishing are 'hateful lies'. I would hazard a guess that's close to the exact wording Putin used about the press he banned.
Fixed that for you.
600 to 1,000 casualties a day, and you're talking about a few beatings and some stolen kit?
I am talking about freedom of press, as you know. It is an important democratic principle. It's not about 'kits'.
Ukraine is ranked 126 and Russia 148.
Ukraine has a score of 36,79 and Russia 43,42.
This is in the context that the top score, Finland, is 6,38, and the bottom Eritrea scores 84,83.
I fail to see the "vast difference" between Russia and Ukraine on this ranking.
And Reporters Without Borders being a Western organisation with head quarters in Paris, it's certainly not biased towards Russia, so stands to reason bias could easily account for a the 5-6 point difference, if not more.
No. You were talking about freedom of the press, then @boethius pointed out that many of those same repressions were active in Ukraine so you pivoted to a report about beatings and stolen kit.
If you want to go back to the general point about press freedom, then address the issue of Ukraine unilaterally banning opposition press without due process.
The same guy appears in several. Mixed in with the poorly equipped conscripts are guys in balaclavas who seem better equipped, and many have Wagner patches. It seems like an attempt to foment dissent, or at least simulate it for public consumption.
Prior videos were downplayed and accused of being fake in the pro-Russian milblogger space, but these are being boosted by Wagner and Kadyrovite aligned accounts.
Obviously there is more explicit infighting, with Kradyov calling out Lapin, and now the response:
"Kadyrov said that I should be demoted to the rank of private, stripped of all awards and sent with a machine gun in my hands to the front line to wash away my shame with blood. And all this for the fact that I allegedly holed up in Lugansk, 150 kilometers from my units. Well, I took an example from Kadyrov, who sits thousands of kilometers away from his units on a luxurious sofa, sitting on this sofa he has repeatedly taken Kyiv and even prepared for an attack on Poland*.* I didn’t have such a luxurious sofa in Luhansk and I gave orders not on Tik-Tok broadcasts, but via special communications."
It's a bit worrying because the open infighting and attempts to win public support suggest that leaders now feel they need some sort of wider support outside their status in Putin's regime. I think it is an underplayed risk that Putin might be toppled, or simply die or be disabled by health issues, and that even more reckless and hardline leaders take control, or that there is an actual fight for power given there is no clear successor, especially as Putin's popularity falls.
Yep. @Olivier5 really takes those 6 points very seriously. Apparently they're worth sacrificing thousands of innocent lives for in a massive land war. As opposed to, say, a modicum of diplomatic pressure which could achieve the same 6 point gain.
I shudder to think what action he'd advocate for Eritrea!
Well, when you've framed things as Hitler vs. The Buddha, it might be hard point of view to introspect from.
You go to war with the points you have, not the points you wish for.
Yes, a typo which I already corrected.
Well, it's a good job we haven't just flooded the world's largest black market arms trader with a shit ton of untraceable weapons. That would be a disastrous thing to have done in such an unstable region about to experience a power vacuum.
Oh no wait, that's exactly what we've just done.
Opposition press is NOT banned in Ukraine. They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube.
And in Russia?
Is your claim that the Russian bans are in any meaningful way more draconian. Are there literally no anti-Putin outlets left. Is YouTube not broadcasting anti-Putin content?
If either Russia or Ukraine's public estimates of each other's losses were reflective of reality, we'd see a lot fewer functional units able to engage in operations.
Before the war, Ukraine was at 68 on the Press Freedom Index, Russia at 51, "problematic" (3/5) versus "very serious," (5/5).
Ukraine fairs worse on corruption indexes though relative to Russia, but Russia still does worse. Suprisingly though, Ukraine actually has fairly low inequality, which I always found surprising, but it's also significantly poorer than Russia.
Again, how is that freedom of the press?
Moreover:
[quote=Freedom of the press in Ukraine, Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Ukraine]
Banned journalists, media, websites
The Ukrainian government and President Petro Poroshenko have banned journalists, media and websites.[83] The new sanctions in May 2017 targeted 1,228 people and 468 companies.[80] The decision was condemned by Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Committee to Protect Journalists.[82][71][83][/quote]
Which, notably, is press and journalist banning 5 years before the war, reported by a source you cited as authoritative a few posts ago.
You also simply ignored completely pretty much the most anti-democratic move possible which is straight-up banning 11 opposition parties including the second largest party in the country:
Quoting Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties? - Aljazeera
I agree, but the exact figure wasn't pertinent to the point. One would hope no sane individual would even see a tenth on those deaths as being a worthwhile sacrifice for a 6 point rise on the press freedom league tables.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yeah, one picks one's metric I suppose. But I still think the point stands that the idea of defending Ukraine (at enormous human cost) because it's some kind of beacon of democracy and enlightenment is ludicrous.
The Ukrainian's themselves may well fight for national pride, but the idea of Westerners cheerleading that fight because of shared values is obscene.
If we (those keen on freedom, human rights, etc outside of Ukraine) had an interest in the region it could not, under any rational metric, be to ensure that territory remained in Ukrainian hands rather than Russian. The difference is minimal in those terms (for us) and certainly not worth sacrificing a single life for when improvements can be made using less violent methods.
Another strawman. They aren't fighting a war to improve their press freedom index, they are fighting because Russia, a state that perpetrated a massive genocide against them in the 1930s, and another large scale repression after WWII, invaded them and has been raping and pillaging in areas they take.
Who said anything about why the Ukrainians are fighting? Read what I've actually written, not what you expect your little caricature of me to write. I even underlined it.
The question is about what legitimate interest we (as a group of freedom-loving, compassionate westerners) could possibly have in who controls what territory in that region.
I'm sure if Germany invaded Russia, the Russians would fight back too for the same reason. Would we legitimately want the disputed territory to remain in Russian control? No. It would unequivocally be better in German control.
The fact that nations defend their borders against attack is not alone justification for us to unreservedly support that fight. We ought not put the integrity of their territorial boundaries above the well-being of their population even if they do. We do not share their national pride and it's obscene to pretend we do.
It comes down to Biden, I think. Biden led the sanctions drive. I think if Trump was the president, the EU would have had a more muted response with the the US actually cheerleading Russia's conquests.
I don't quite get why Putin did this while Biden was president. Maybe he thought Biden was old and so he wouldn't respond?
Why running out?
Quoting Tzeentch
I think that's right. I can't believe even Putin would have been reckless enough to attack NATO, and yet may not have wanted to risk an invasion without the veneer of justification. So Ukraine poised to join NATO, but not yet in it, was perfect.
Of course, seeing as this invasion has served US interests so perfectly, it's very difficult to believe the US didn't know this and drag that state of affairs out as long as possible for this exact reason.
There's two ways I can see to defend a border against malicious aggression; either offer too little to gain, or offer too much to lose. Presenting an ever increasing threat of NATO membership without actually bestowing the defensive benefits is exactly the opposite of either.
After 2014, it was clear that the situation with Ukraine's neutrality being at odds and Crimea being cut-off from Russia was not a long-term solution, and that war was looming.
In light of that, the United States started to support Ukraine financially and militarily, furthering the threat of a pro-Western flip.
At least since January 2021 U.S. support for Ukraine became official policy; U.S. Security Coorporation with Ukraine
It was a matter of time before Ukraine was armed and trained to such a degree that would make a limited war for southern Ukraine unfeasible, and even moreso the threat of Ukraine joining NATO, which would have made any invasion pretty much impossible.
I don't think it has in the long run. It's demonstrated Russia's military weakness and economic vulnerability. That's bad for the region in terms of stability.
It's made Russia more of a client state to China.
The US infrastructure could have used that 19 bn, but that's how it always goes.
So it was now or never. Makes sense.
Total and irrevocable surrender. Ukrainian should pay for all the material and human losses Russia has suffered up this war, give up on their national identity, let Russia annex whatever they want on the terms they want, condone rapes, killings and destruction perpetrated by Russians, and refrain from denounce future oppression. And believe from now on that whatever the Russians did to the Ukrainians during the special operation was meant for their good, since Ukrainians are their brothers, as everybody knows since ever. And whenever the Russians feel like to kill rape and destroy Ukrainians it is always for their good, nothing worth to fight against, or even sacrifice a minute of their life to worry about because the evil is the imperialist-capitalist-colonialist-globalist-world-mongerist-america and all its ludicrous cheerleaders (like the all ones you are objecting to in here). This would be the most likely way to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes.
The latter has a comparison table that includes a few other countries: Press freedom scores as perceived by Freedom House
A more detailed analysis would include the (supposed) rationale in the various cases.
In the same round, an apparent/expected trajectory might be informative, moves and trends and deterioration/improvement and such. Isn't that one of the things that matters? Where things are going?
Hand-picking a couple of select cases isn't really the best way to go about it.
Russia doesn't really come through better than Ukraine.
However, I think they are now realizing how self-defeating the 'official truth regime' is. The understand better now what some of us have spoken of here: that constant lies pollute the world view of the liars, detach them from reality and lead them to take very bad decisions. So on Russian TV, where they used to lambast the 'defeatists' who originally cautioned against the war, now they lambast those who report too rosy a picture, those who 'fail to take ful measure of the seriousness of the situation'. It's quite the U turn... :-)
Pride? What is being shared is the desire to exist as a people and to defeat an organization that is really good at erasing such people. That is why borders are defended.
This makes sense, but much reform needs to be made, in particular to the United Nations, which is currently quite limited by the Security Council.
Quoting apokrisis
In theory. In practice it wasn't applied, or if applied, it was done so in a quite selective manner. Russia is correct in stating that France, the US, U.K and others basically use human rights as toilet papers when it comes to the wars they participate in, I don't think I need to mention them much as they are so obvious and large, Algeria and so on. Not that Russia used that phrase, but the idea is correct.
However, Russia is wrong in concluding that because these powers do as they wish, they can do so too. That does not follow. None of them should ignore human rights, yet all of them do.
Quoting apokrisis
I think you are correct on the topic of climate change. This war is a massive set back for the issue of global warming, which after Nuclear War, is the most serious issue we face as a species.
And yet, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US are also at fault here, as you mention. And others too, China, India. Nobody comes clean here, though the moment of the war is tragic.
Quoting apokrisis
Stopping or not stopping Putin does not change the world order. Now, it is likely he will lose. What are the consequences? A far stronger NATO that Putin could have dreamed of. So in that respect too, the war was a massive mistake, not to mention a crime.
Suppose something completely unexpected happens and Russia wins. What happens to the world order? Does Russia have the capacity to challenge the US seriously both in economy and militarily? Not even close: just take a look at the amount of US military bases around the world and compare it with Russia. It's not even close.
When Russia annexed Crimea, the world order didn't freeze, it continued as is. It wasn't even an issue for the US or Europe, outside of Ukraine, of course.
The only "equalizer" here are nukes. But nobody wins that war.
From a Real Politic perspective, what does China gain by "stopping Putin"? They have the Taiwan issue to worry about, and they would like to have allies and not become isolated in that case. Regardless, they are getting cheaper oil and other products due to the sanctions. As does India.
Quoting apokrisis
This here does irritate me, the so called "whataboutism". Russia invaded Ukraine, that's a crime. NATO is helping Ukraine win the war, without the US, NATO would not exist.
AT THE SAME TIME this war is happening, Afghanistan is starving to death due to the US not releasing the money they owe to the country. This is equally a crime, happening now and nobody is mentioning it. What's the deal with condemning Russia and Putin to hell, when a situation which is arguably worse is happening due to US actions? How can the US claim moral status when it is destroying a country it was war with for 20 years?
That's simple hypocrisy.
The worry about Ukraine is because it could lead to a Nuclear Armageddon. If Russia had no nukes, this war would not have nearly as much coverage.
As long as there are massive power asymmetry, speaking about leading the free world or so on, is meaningless, unless changes are made to the UN or some other international organization.
You and I may have a very different idea of what US interests are. You seem to be working on the interests of the country, I'm assuming the interests of the ruling class. They're not the same.
I agree that if China take their place, a weakened Russia is not as much use. If only there were some event on the horizon that might also serve to challenge China's influence... Oh look, what another astonishing coincidence.
The money from the aid packages has gone directly into the pockets of the arms industry which in turn pays its dividends directly to the very people responsible for deciding on it. If anyone wants to be so naive as to think that's just a fortuitous accident, then there's nothing I could ever say to dissuade them. As to to rest of the aid, it basically makes Ukraine a vassal state to US trade interests.
I'm struggling to see any disadvantages. But I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just link me the appropriate returns showing that the American politicians and business leaders have actually got poorer this year because of the sacrifices they made to help Ukraine. I'll gladly eat my hat.
What nationalistic claptrap. So when Great Britain's border extended to India and half of Africa they were about the Great British people wanting to all exist 'as a people' (whatever in hell that means). Bullshit. They were about one ruling class occupying as much resource rich land as their military power could defend. That's why borders are defended.
People are the same the world over. We're not divided into races and we're not divided into nations. Such rubbish is there to justify wars, not resolve them.
Yes, I spoke too broadly on that. But my point is that what is shared is horror at what Russia is doing.
Arms dealers and elites profit off every military action since Noah's dog was a pup. They grease the tracks for war. Wars can't be distinguished from one another by pointing to this factor.
https://www.rainews.it/video/2022/10/carro-armato-russo-si-arrende-con-bandiera-bianca-intorno-a-kherson-c5bacdff-1fbc-4ab0-b6ae-07ba732ff681.html
We all (hopefully) share a horror at what Russia are doing. My point was to distinguish between what may be the Ukrainian objectives and what ought be our objectives as concerned outsiders. The Ukrainians themselves may well have some nationalistic sentiment and consider their borders a priority (as well as their natural concern for the well-being of their citizens). As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. That means that we (the western world) and the Ukrainians may well be at odds as to which solutions we'd want to endorse. Where we might consider solutions which involve territorial changes, they might not.
As such it's not correct to say that we ought to support the Ukrainians in whatever they choose. We don't have any obligation to share their concern about their national identity, we do have an obligation to share their concern about their welfare.
This is relevant because if ceding territory to Russia ends the war and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare, then we ought to support such a solution, even if the Ukrainians themselves don't.
The aim was not to distinguish. I agree that pretty much all wars serve this purpose
Think about what would have happened if Trump was president when Putin invaded. The US wouldn't have supported Ukraine. But we have Biden, so the US did.
In this case, the outlook of the US Commander in Chief is the deciding factor, not the lust of arms dealers, though yes, they are a material cause of the war, as their kind is for all wars.
If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually).
Your opinion of what would have happened in a hypothetical situation doesn't then constitute evidence for your theory. Evidence for theories comes from actual situations, otherwise the argument is circular (you think Trump wouldn't have supported Ukraine because your theory is that world leaders are instrumental in making such decisions). If we allow theory-informed hypotheticals, then I'd say Trump would have supported the war because his cabinet would have been sufficiently influenced by the arms lobby to see it as a politically astute move (after they explained to Trump what the word 'astute' means).
I don't think world events are significantly determined by world leaders because the world has continued on one almost unerring trajectory in terms of the concentration of wealth and power for decades and yet leaders come and go every four or five years.
Quoting frank
I agree here. The most the arms lobby can do is opportunistically take advantage of situations which present themselves. That's so far been sufficient, however, to keep the US almost permanently at war for the last hundred years, so they don't seem to be short of the requisite opportunity. Either that's enormous good luck or something is tipping the scales in their favour.
That's the sticky wicket there. How can the good faith be extended to the Russians in this regard when Putin has played so many for fools for doing it in the past?
I don't really see it as a matter of good faith so much as a pragmatic decision under uncertainty.
What we know is that Russia at war is truely awful. We have a little idea of Russian-occupied territory in this region from Crimea and even though the abuses there were unacceptable, they are less than the atrocities being perpetrated in the invasion.
We also know that territory held by Ukraine is also subject to unacceptable human rights abuses.
So the decision (for us) is whether a peace deal followed by occupation would likely yield fewer abuses than a war followed by a return to Ukrainian control (or worse, one of the freshly armed far-right militia from either side)
I don't think that yields an obvious answer, but human rights abuses are universally easier to deal with outside of a war zone than they are within one, so if whomever gets the territory does, in fact, continue the sorts of horrific crimes we've witnessed thus far, I don't see how we'll be any less capable of acting against them in Russian annexed territory than we would be in Ukrainian war zone.
I don't think events are always determined by lone individuals, but sometimes they are. I remember being a little shocked to learn how the whims of powerful people can profoundly impact the lives of millions of people. I didn't want to believe it at first, you know, you want to think there's planning and strategies and counter strategies.
In general, I agree that large scale events happen because of a soup of diverse agendas, some of which ally with each other.
The reason wealth continues to become concentrated is that some people are just acquisitive by nature. In any time they're born to, they'll discover how to become rich. Only a system that forces redistribution will keep them in check.
That's my two cents worth anyway. :nerd:
How does this pragmatic approach get started when one side is run by a man in a bunker calmly loading his revolver for the final scene? You make it sound like something his opponents could initiate by themselves.
And anyone with a post-kindergarten level of understanding Russian/Soviet actions understands that it will happen. Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war, but still in a way that anyone clear headed would call it a war. The first the Russians will deny is the existence of a war or insurgency, if they can. I guess you have absolutely no idea how long the Lithuans fought against the Soviet invader after WW2, well into the 1950's. Or that the last "Forest Brother" were killed in 1970's in Estonia. Yet if there were a small number of insurgents, partisans, the Soviet response was quite chilling:
Lithuanian Forest Brothers fighting Soviet troops in the 1950's:
And if well over 100 000 killed Chechens from a population less than two million doesn't make you see it, nothing will wake you up from your blissful ignorance. You won't be thrown out from here because you aren't an apologist to nazism, just making the points Putin does. And believing his stories of Nazis ruling Ukraine.
At least when it comes to your own country, the UK, they (the British Army) have had the decency to call afterwards the events in Northern Ireland an insurgency (if during the time it was referred to "The Troubles"). But the British at least upheld the common law and what the UK stands for, hence the IRA perpetrators of most deadly attack on the British armed forces were not charge because there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them. The other one died later when compiling another bomb, yet the other one lived (or lives) as a free man. That is how a democracy fights an insurgency. Russia doesn't fight it that way. As @SophistiCat pointed, in Russia the war stops when the leader tells it stops, not when the fighting stops.
I think that is an exaggeration. The counterfactual is that without some international checks and balances, like the Geneva Convention, their behaviour would be much worse.
And then there is the line between pragmatic and disciplined violence versus barbaric and indisplined.
Western violence is extreme - the democratic doctrine of total war - but it is also organised to be maximally effective. Torture and revenge are seen as wasteful and corrosive of achieving war aims.
Russian violence has never been as well organised. And the ill discipline shows.
Quoting Manuel
I would ask the question of who really believes in human rights. It is a nice to have. And even - as I argue - important to the highly successful enlightenment model of human social organisation. But it is still a pragmatic and context dependent choice back in the messy real world.
An effective global system has to recognise pragmatism even if its bosses want to stand up making ringing moralistic speeches at the UN.
Quoting Manuel
Yep. To the degree the war could be foreseen, it should have been avoided. The issues involved were irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
And now that there is war, where is the action to at least limit damage to the climate? Should Germany be financially bailed out because it at least was trying to lead a green transition even though it had neither good sun or wind resources, and it’s chemical industry depends on gas as its feed.
I mean it is fantasy. But what if wars had to be carbon neutral as a planetary bottom line? That could be quite funny. Imagine greenwashing the carbon footprint of an Abrams tank or any jet fighter.
And then nuclear war might come out differently as well. I’m sure there would be arguments about the geoengineering fringe benefits of filling the sky with dust clouds.
I joke. But only to show how much larger the perspective on the rights and wrongs of this particular war should be. And if folk can’t be honest about what is happening on the ground in Ukraine - all the whataboutism meant to deflect from serious analysis - then there is no hope of useful debate about the big picture geopolitics.
Quoting Manuel
I wasn’t aware they “owed money”. I will have to google up some sources.
But I’m not defending state control of the news cycle. Believe me, I’ve spent my whole life dealing with that as a working journalist in a number of countries.
Ukraine is an example where the US and Ukraine are doing all they can at the official level to keep the media spotlight on the conflict. The use of social media has been exemplary. Those videos of drones dropping grenades on trenches and down hatches. The perfect narrative of the plucky underdog.
So Russia has the covert social media disinformation covered, and US/Ukraine have the overt gripping narrative - the gamer’s perspective. The later is the truth you can see with your own eyes. But as you say, it all amounts to information autocracy and a failure of true democratic ideals.
We live in a shitty copy of our dreams, no argument. And yet, as a journalist, I know there is still freedom to investigate in the Western system. It just takes a considerable effort.
Only “obvious” to you for some reason. I wonder what that reason is?
Meanwhile back in the real world where one would want to apply logic in navigating conflicting views, the central question remains. What is the military value of taking some random airfield and ringing it with troop protection?
As a feint, does that seem the wisest investment of that particular force? Please answer showing this was the obvious option above every other that was available in the Kyiv region that morning.
Then why does every media report find the airbridge story to be plausible? No one rules out the talk of establishing an early airbridge as “impossible” due to AA defences, just risky and likely another miscalculation like pretty much every other aspect of the Russian invasion.
So we continue to have the mystery of why secure a working airbridge in a forward area when there was never a desire to actually use it?
If you don’t realise how dumb your unsupported claim sounds, there are only two things that can explain your persistent refusal to answer that question directly.
I’d like to see the analysis for military expenditure when your mission is to be the peace keeper rather than the war winner. A huge investment in a global standing army, navy and airforce - by the one client in the best position to pay the bill.
Making that the default US mission was surely more profitable for the US defence industry than promoting any particular wars?
Although the industry wins both ways. The game is rigged in favour of the house. :grin:
Andrey Kartapolov, a senior Russian lawmaker called on military officials to tell the truth about developments on the ground in Ukraine following the string of bruising defeats.
Kartapolov, who is the chairman of the lower house of parliament's defence committee, told a journalist from state-run media that "we need to stop lying."
"The reports of the defence ministry do not change. The people know. Our people are not stupid. This can lead to loss of credibility," Kartapolov added.
------
This war may have at least one virtue, if it reconciles the Russian elite with the importance of telling the truth.
Unfortunately this is instead in line with the standard practice of deflecting the blame away from Putin and towards all those who let the glorious leader down. It is time to make more examples of drunk and cowardly generals.
The official story is being adjusted so the public is moved in the direction of this framing.
The whole information autocracy thing is fascinating - Informational Autocrats - Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.4.100
It is a deliberate tactic that the Kremlin has dissonant voices and conflicting messages out in public so that the public is confused and seeking answers. Then they can be nudged towards the narrative that best protects the central power.
No doubt. That mission was the fallout of the demise of the British Empire, which had the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade prior to WW2.
Sometime around 1949 a secret study was performed by the US govt to determine the cost of taking the place of the British. The study said the figure was uncountable, so they mulled over whether they could do the job of the British with nuclear weapons.
At the time, they thought the Russians were like some kind of super-efficient insect hive that would far outstrip the US in terms of production by the year 2000.
They were a little clueless, but anybody in their shoes probably would have been.
I think your first two sentences are true, but for different reasons, I don't think that it's necessarily the Geneva Convention that limits state behavior in war, but domestic populations, who have grown to see war as an evil. So the Vietnam War was much worse than Iraq, in terms of methods employed and war crimes, yet the Geneva Convention applied to both.
People just don't stand for these extremes as much, unless they are fed intense propaganda and even here, it's hard to justify chemical weapons. Sure, Israel and Syria use them, but it's very bad PR, not to mention criminal.
I don't know. I mean, Baghdad was shattered, Kiev is not (at least yet). What is better? Is the fact that Kiev still a running city a reason as to why the Russians are so violent? It's not so clear.
Quoting apokrisis
You are on to something here, to a large extent. Because even if we get out of this one "safely", we cannot keep playing the same high-risk games for ever, because a nuclear mistake will inevitably happen. And even if it doesn't, then the climate catastrophe will surely crush a good deal of the global population.
The "whataboutism" is tricky. It's quite true that it can be used as a diversion and serves to, for instance, justify crimes, such as Putin speaking of the precedent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a pretext to use a tactical bomb. Very misleading and dangerous.
But then there are cases which are illustrative. I mentioned the Afghan case, which you can look up. It illustrates to me the double standards "the West" has in its proclamations of "freedom and democracy". And since it is happening right now, it has an entry into the discussion, as does, say, Taiwan or several other conflicts which are as bad as Ukraine, some worse, like Yemen.
Quoting apokrisis
I had the impression you were a science guy - we talked briefly, or better stated, you gave me your views on Peirce. Very interesting job to have.
Quoting apokrisis
Yes, it is surely better to be a journalist (and many other professions) in countries other than Russia or China and others now belonging to "the West". Then again, the propaganda system in our countries tend to be very sophisticated compared to authoritarian systems.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
For Tzeentch, the question of intent and planning seems to be on hold until the day documents and investigations can prove one view against the other. He has ruled out any reports presently available to us as being valid. Also, he has said that he is not providing a competing assessment of actual intent but only offering 'speculation' of what might be the purpose of the operation.
So, his or her claim that using airborne troops to secure an airport in order to establish an airbridge is simply inconceivable in this situation is not an argument for an alternate purpose. By the rules of evidence being demanded by him or her, that cannot be stated.
Evidently, the Ukrainians aren't giving away self-governance and sovereignty, and have had some successes in repelling the invaders. Their choice, as is their foreign affiliations. Staking a lot of people and future on such a reason (unjustified at the moment), speaking on their behalf, is a bit bold (perhaps presumptuous, especially if it's not your children that have to live with that decision), at least it seems that way to me. Think you can squeeze some guarantees out of Putin? Err...useless. :D Putin's (alleged) NATO fears would then become Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia's Putin fears; the nuclear threats and what-not don't help.
Peace would be achieved by following this ...
Quoting Putin · Feb 24, 2022
Quoting Zelenskyy · Aug 30, 2022
;)
• The Ukraine War in data: Russia acknowledges nearly 6,000 war dead (the real figure is probably much higher) (Sep 22, 2022)
• Ukraine Situation Report: Advances Cripple Russian Efforts To Replenish Forces (Oct 5, 2022)
To nit-pick, that would have been different – a forerunner model in terms of fleets and bases, but focused on protecting sea routes connecting the UK's own far-flung empire. But then there might have been "mission creep" as there was also the value in making the British pound the world currency. Confidence in the empire as a friend was a pragmatic goal.
The US wanted a stable world after WW2 more than the free trade, which it didn't really need. It was a way to hardwire a more peaceful set-up that could also pay for its own rebuild. The self-serving part of the deal was killing the pound and nixing an actual world currency, leaving the way clear for King Dollar.
But then also corporate America developed fast on the back of free flowing oil and the US baby boom. The US could replicate that part of the UK empire model on an even more planetary scale.
So yep, history repeats. Just on bigger scale. China's belt and road is the attempt to weave Asia and Africa into a sphere of influence in the "coming multipolar world", which seemed a thing even recently. The EU-Nato were going to be the third power as the US retreated back into its North American fortress under Trump and Biden.
Another geopolitical scenario that may have been derailed by Putin's existential gamble.
Quoting frank
Any source on that? I've read quite a bit about the UK to US power transition. It is quite fascinating as it was what was happening in real time when I was a kid in Hong Kong and Singapore. I got to feel the imperial oppression of two empires. Stereo instead of mono. That may explain something. :razz:
Right. None of which makes any sense of his desire to participate in some random political thread on some random philosophy website.
But he does make bold claims, like AA making an airbridge "impossible", without documents or investigation. We are supposed to believe his personal authority as an anonymous "military expert" with a list of talking points.
I say, put up or shut up. But I also realise that is not how things work on the net.
Quoting Paine
Again, he did make a positive claim. AA always would have made the airbridge an impossibility. Hence we ought to believe "feint".
He just jumps back behind his "cautious" demands for "real evidence" when he gets pressed in an uncomfortable fashion.
Most people in the US govt thought the British and French Empires were going to come back after WW2. It took a while for it to sink in that they weren't.
The idea started to take root that communism would grow until the British and Americans had no one to make a profit off of but each other. That was the genesis of the idea of the US taking the place of the British Empire.
Quoting apokrisis
The Fifty Year Wound, Derek Leebaert
Yes, I see the dance between claims regarding particular circumstances. My point is only to say that once one has retreated from arguing what the actual planning happened to be by means of providing evidence for it, further discussion of what is conceivable or not is no longer germane to the original question.
And that problem of using the language of inconceivability reminds me of scenes in Princess Bride.
Sure, that is true. It was once enough for a population simply to hear their leaders stand up and make the promises. Embedded journalists with camera evidence meant the population had to be actually seeing the promises were somewhat true on the ground.
The Vietnam images of little girls being napalmed certainly changed attitudes on Vietnam.
By Iraq, the US knew it had to get in first with its grainy video of precision munitions surgically taking out the tanks and trucks. The suitably distanced view that set the narrative of surgical strikes on anonymous targets.
Quoting Manuel
I earlier posted how Kyiv is rather sacred to the Russian people as their historic civilisational centre. It wouldn't play well with the home crowd.
Quoting Manuel
I guess I just take the double standards as already the well understood context. I haven't paid particular attention to what's been happening in Afghanistan after Biden's abrupt withdrawal as it seems only the everyday level of geopolitical dysfunction.
Although it would perhaps tell something of Biden's mind when it comes to dealing with crisis. Did he show his senility, or did he show hawkish judgement? Just drop the small problems. Focus on the big ones, like a chance to dissolve Russia back to its constituent particles for a second time running.
Quoting Manuel
I'm a science guy too. But I always knew how much fun being a journalist could be. And while doing science, I looked at my professors and decided I didn't want to be constrained to studying tiny slivers of the big picture the world has to offer. Journalism is training in being an outsider who gets to go inside anywhere. You can follow your curiosity endlessly. And get well paid. It was the ideal vehicle to get access to the whole of the human story.
Quoting Manuel
I posted above about information autocracy. Putin exists because the propaganda system has evolved on that side of game as well.
Again, do you have a particular source? I'm genuinely interested.
Quoting frank
Same book?
Yep. It's an excellent book. He also explains the lengths the CIA went to to kill Castro. It's worth the read just for that.
You grew up in HK?
Quoting frank
Yep. Early 1960s. You have a connection?
The Fifty Year Wound
I don't have a connection. It sounds fascinating though.
We can try to psychoanalyze leaders like Biden, Xi, Lula, Macron and Putin, yes they surely are different in terms of how they think and what they believe, but at the end of the day, it's what they do that matters. So if Putin really believes that Hiroshima is a good pretext for another bomb, fine, so long as he doesn't launch it.
I agree focusing on large problems should be paramount. For me, in the case of Ukraine, it's important to try and stop a nuclear disaster, which, though not certain, is within the realm of possibility. That trumps everything else. If that is safely taken out of the equation, we can focus on other stuff, still of high importance, but slightly less than annihilation of the human race.
In the case of Afghanistan, I think it would be a good idea to give them the money they are owed. Yes, very few people like the Taliban, they are barbaric beasts. But they govern the country, so we deal with them. I don't think disliking the Taliban is a good reason to allow millions of people to die of starvation. That's a big issue, with a solution.
Quoting apokrisis
Sure and it would be surprising if such regimes did not adapt with the times. The old Soviet-Style (now North Korean) system of indoctrination is very clumsy. Nonetheless, one big difference between "Western" propaganda systems and authoritarian ones, is that, for the most part, these authoritarian systems very much depend on the use of physical force.
That is, by and large, absent from Western societies. I doubt these other systems would be nearly as effective if they did not resort to force, which I believe shows a slight deficiency in that propaganda model. If you can get people to support a war without force, that's a mighty achievement given all the horrors of the 20th century.
Yeah. I had viewed it as a low probability we would even see a tactical nuke. But that has shifted a lot in a few weeks.
The US seems to have good inside information though. They would have a sense of what to do. But maybe so many Gasprom execs have fallen out windows that the intelligence is drying up.
Quoting Manuel
I agree. But imagine how the Republicans would spin it. Another reason Biden would just want everyone to forget about it.
Well, if Putin or his representatives aren't available for talks, then clearly no deal can be made. Do you have some reason to believe that's the case?
Could have stopped there. Any reason why you'd oppose moving to a less ferocious situation from a more ferocious one?
Let me guess, is it borders? National identity? Are we going to get the whole Rivers of Blood speech or just the highlights?
Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.
Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia.
No one is speaking on their behalf (well the Ukrainian government are, but that's their job). We are supplying weapons, training, finances, propaganda, intelligence and moral support. Did we ought to supply those things unquestionably to whatever end Ukraine choose?
If Russia asked us for help with their objective, ought we supply similar aid to them, and when the likes of you question their goals I could say "who are you to speak on their behalf, the Russians know what's best for them and if that involves invading Ukraine, then we've no right to tell them they're wrong".
No.
If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals.
Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal.
Maybe they are re-discovering glasnost, though.
We are not supporting Ukraine for humanitarian reasons, but to protect ourselves.
Well, if you think that then the action is even more reprehensible than my interpretation of war profiteering. Using Ukrainians as a human shield against a threat to us is positively evil.
What it's called is irrelevant. We're talking about the moral judgement of it.
So, to get this clear, your new claim is that there's zero moral reason for us to help Ukraine, but we ought to do so because it's the smart Machiavellian move in terms of geopolitics.
I don't see how that does anything but dodge the question. My question is about the "many excellent moral reasons to help the Ukrainians". You dodged that by claiming our aid was solely a Machiavellian move to use Ukrainians as a human shield. If you now want to go back on that claim, then tell me what the moral reason is to retain sovereignty for one people over one territory. As I said, sovereignty is not a humanitarian goal. It has zero moral dimension, no-one morally deserves control over some piece of land to the exclusion of others.
I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that.
Quoting boethius
With what troops, that's the question. The newly mobilized troops can basically formed into battle capable formations likely for some spring offensive. Now the question is to avoid Russian forces to be pocketed in the Kherson region, so I guess the few troops they have should go to stop the Ukrainian advance.
Forget NATO. Here on TPF, who cares about the Uighurs? Nobody.
We care about Ukraine because we identify with them, because we could very well be next. This is exactly what Zelensky says, he perfectly understood that.
People who speak with contempt of Machiavelli haven't read his book. He is a more subtle thinker than cretins think, eg he says that in politics, na?ve boyscouts often do more damage than shrewd calculators.
So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation".
No? :snicker:
Let me guess. That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). :smirk:
Quoting Isaac
Oh now it's just humanitarian goals, and hell to Westphalian sovereignty?
So I guess you are against the UN charter then.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/714502
Oh look. It's one of the people who've been critical of all the pro-western cheerleading, what a surprise.
Quoting Olivier5
Bullshit. America, France, Engalnd are unequivocally not next on Putin's hit-list. Such a notion is daft beyond measure.
Quoting Olivier5
Uh huh. None of which counts as evidence for which side you're on of that divide. But I do like this dramatic u-turn of yours from moralising to real politik, it makes a change at least.
That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. The idea that full on land war is the only way to combat human rights abuses is not only stupid, but dangerously so. We do not need to go to war with every tyrant to depose them. We can use diplomatic means, sanctions, revolution... there are many tools at our disposal.
It also may not have been a solution. The circumstances may have been such that war was necessary.
It's utterly absurd to point to one set of circumstances where war was a necessary option and say "well that proves that war is always a necessary option"
Did we do wrong during the cold war? Should we have just invaded Russia instead of all the negotiations, deals, and posturing we did to avoid armageddon? No.
In some cases war is necessary, in others negotiation and concession is better.
You can't just dodge the question of which is which by pointing out that one sometimes is.
Do you have access to his hit list? Personally I don't, and I consider that Poland, Germany and France could very well get threatened in the future if Russia wins in Ukraine.
Quoting Isaac
He mentioned them like I mention them, in passim.
As I said on the other thread, if you want to embarrass yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England is about the same as the difference between modern Russia and modern Ukraine, then I'm not even going to contest it. It's such a ludicrous claim that it doesn't even deserve comment, you crack on.
...
No.
I've got nothing in response to that, we'll just leave it there for posterity.
Although... You do know that minimisation of the holocaust is a crime in some countries, right? I don't know what jurisdiction TPF is in, but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland.
Of course you don't. Humanitarian concerns are not the primary reasons why the 'West' helps Ukraine. We are doing so out of perceived self interest, first and foremost, and that is perfectly natural and sane: Macron, Biden or Scholtz were not elected by Ukrainians to protect Ukrainian interests. They were elected by French, Americans and Germans to protect these nations' interests.
Nice. Bit of jingoistic nationalism. Very much in keeping with the slide into the far-right Europe has recently taken. I think we finally have a good grasp on where you're coming from.
And how many of the British Jews that would have saved? At the start of WW2, there were about half a million jews living in the UK. Add the over 50 000 that escaped to the British Isles.
And how many you think would have been deemed as enemies of the state? In a country with strong liberal roots, guess how many Britons would have been a problem for the new regime?
You're idea that surrender may well have saved lives is simply false. The fact is that the Jewish community in the UK outnumbered the deaths that the United Kingdom actually suffered during the war tells this obvious fact. You simply are delusional if you think that Nazi machine would stopped at killing only the British jews.
The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens".
Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. Poland never officially surrendered, but were beaten in battle.
Did their experiences of the resulting occupation differ?
Did France's actions have any significant impact on lives lost by surrendering and continuing its resistance unofficially? At worst, no impact at all, at best they may have saved thousands by avoiding battles they couldn't win.
None of which has any bearing of course on the completely different question of occupied Donbas. Ukraine is not France. Russia is not Germany.
Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have an actual example of an actual territory annexed from Ukraine and you're avoiding using it as an example, but instead reaching for the worst case you can find.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden
https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/britain-adolf-hitler-dictator-admiration-appeasement-relationship-britain-germany/
Cracking on, sir, as ordered.
AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer:
The Vichy government a) sent Jews to extermination camps, b) fought against the resistance and the Free French, c) fought against that allies too in Northern Africa. Hence had there been a "Vichy Government" for the UK, similar things would have happened. Hence your idea of the UK surrendering to the Nazis may have saved lives is delirious.
The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion.
[quote=Reuters; February 24, 2022;https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-economic-defences-likely-crumble-over-time-under-sanctions-onslaught-2022-02-25/]
Analysis: Russia's economic defences likely to crumble over time under sanctions onslaught
[/quote]
Moreover, I think Reuters clarifies themselves their meaning 4 days later:
Quoting Reuters, February 28th, 2022
However, if you don't accept "crumble" as a synonym for "collapse", the following paper was published on the 27th of February, which we could split hairs about being within 48 hours of the invasion, or second full day, or then "pretty close" anyways.
Quoting 1945
And if you take other synonyms of "collapse" then the scope is much wider:
Quoting Foreign Affairs, February 25th, 2022
There are all sorts of headlines along these lines, with "Mistake" or some variation.
However, the main message at the time was "Russia's Afghanistan", and we debated that a lot here in the early days of the war.
Quoting Brookings institute, February 25th, 2022
However, the point of mentioning that people were literally predicting collapse on day 2 is to emphasise just how long this collapse narrative has been going on. If we consider the first month of the war:
Quoting CTV news, youtube
Quoting TLDR News, youtube
Quoting Bloomberg Markets and Finance, youtube
Quoting The Atlantic
Quoting The Spectator
Quoting Forbes
This is by no means a systemic search, and these talking points usually first emerge on television which is harder to search, but this idea Russia will collapse being predicted literally from day 2 and that narrative being sustained is well supported.
Of course the mechanisms of collapse change, from economics to morale to military, but that is simply necessary when the previous predictions of collapse don't come true; if you want to keep saying Russia will collapse then you need to continuously come up with new reasons.
The sad fact is that if Putin had ended with Crimea and not had started a war with Ukraine for Novorossiya, likely the World would have de facto moved on. But I guess the mass graves and torture chambers don't tell anything for you.
Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse.
That Putin's Russia has now more political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during later years is very telling, something you aren't picking up.
Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The thinking was that Ukrainian could only fight successfully with an insurgency. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point.
Quote:
Notice the wording of "resistance". When you compare to what is happening now, it's not about an Afghan type resistance.
This is not an article that portrays the Ukrainian army to be a clear match on the battlefield for the Russian juggernaut.
Are you seriously suggesting that a few rallies makes us basically the same as being run by Nazis. That some public meetings are much the same as the putsches, expulsions, beatings and legal disenfranchisement of the Jews?
As I said. Crack on.
How? You've not even addressed the question. Did Poland (or the Western regions of Russia) have a better time of the war because their governments didn't accept terms? Did the resistance of their governments to negotiations actually render any improvement at all in the welfare of their citizens? If not, then the best argument you can make is that surrender made no difference at all. Whether it saved lives from battles not fought is speculative, but whether it cost lives is not.
The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.
That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them.
You've no argument that occupied Donbas will be worse than Donbas at war.
I know bolding doesn't seem to help your lamentably poor reading skills, but I tried.
Denying its use to the enemy, securing it for future use, etc.
The issue is, airfields are incredibly important in war, and any occupying force would prioritize securing these, regardless of their future intentions. Not in the least part because the Russians during this time probably did not know exactly how the war would proceed.
Also, what would air assault troops be using an airfield for? Landing helicopters perhaps? Small, low-flying, the types of which could operate more closely to the frontline?
Sounds a lot more plausible to me.
Quoting apokrisis
The fact you don't land cargo planes carrying battalions worth of troops under the enemy's AA umbrella should be obvious to anyone with a shred of sense.
Quoting apokrisis
Because they're clueless or propagandists, or possibly both.
Quoting apokrisis
Not risky - suicide.
Remember those big, slow-flying silhouettes in the air, the last time you drove past an airfield?
Now imagine you're a Ukrainian sitting on a mobile AAA platform that fires at ~4500 rpm like this one: 2K22 Tunguska, looking at 18-20 of these fifty-year-old unarmored piñatas, filled to the brim with troops and equipment.
Quoting apokrisis
There is no mystery. They didn't intend to create an airbridge to fly in cargo planes. If any "airbridge" was intended, it could for example have been to supply (BY HELICOPTER) the air assault forces in follow-up operations.
Quoting apokrisis
I'll chalk that up to your persistent refusal to read my posts then. :ok:
As I mention in my comment, the main narrative at the very start of the war was "Russia's Afghanistan", which links up to the collapse narrative if the parallel is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is linked to that. However, a longer term process.
The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact.
Another illogical reply. Just bomb it if you need to deny its use.
And what future use do you now have in mind? And long would a gang of paratroopers be expected to sit around the edge of a runway while a war was going on?
This was a feint, remember? Your story was there was no intended future use at all. Kyiv was a ruse to fix Ukrainian forces who might otherwise head for the Donbas.
So why would Russia fly crack paratroopers to the front line with the very important job of protecting a transport airfield so no one with bombs might decide to hurt it.
Your claims of military expertise are just so laughable. Quoting Tzeentch
Yes. Helicopters are famous for needing long runways designed for cargo planes. How did I miss that?
I'm saying that Nazi supporters are basically Nazis.
Yes.
A government of a country with Nazi supporters in it, though, is not, thankfully, a Nazi government.
Hence the very significant difference between Germany and England in the late 1930s.
Ukraine and Russia, however, have quite similar governments, particularly in the East where Ukraine were fighting the pro-Russian breakaway factions. Similar in levels of corruption, similar in human rights, similar in press freedoms, similar in approach to ethnic and national minorities within their territory.
Hence the notion that a comparison between the current situation in Ukraine and 1930s Europe is daft.
"pragmatic decision under uncertainty"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/745864
Pragmatic reasoning based on your ideologically-inspired goals, questionable as anybody else’s.
"As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. (The whole reasoning)"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746063
What is the well-being of the people? Don’t I show compassion for the well-being of “the people there” if I show my support for a Ukrainian feelings against Russian oppression, humanly perfectly understandable? Why should I “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there, to prove that I’m a compassionate outsider? Either solely or nothing: why are you talking in terms of out-out? How come there is no third way here? How do you think is capable to “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there? States as agents of a geopolitical power struggles as Mearsheimer sees them? Random anonymous armchair chatters on a website as you and me are?
“If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals. Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746064
But it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights.
Yes, that's right.
Quoting neomac
That's up to us to decide. Personally I think the notion of human rights is a good starting point.
Quoting neomac
Not in isolation, no. The Russians could be liberators come to free the people from tyrannical rule, they'd still be the invaders. You have to have some clear notion of the relative harms to pick sides, it's not sufficient just to say one side is being invaded. We've no good reason to care about the outcome of that unless the invaders are significantly worse than the invaded. We do have good reason to care about the process though.
Quoting neomac
You are free to have whatever concerns you wish. I'm arguing about the moral authority of our governments.
Quoting neomac
I'm not struggling with that, personally, so you'll have to explain a bit more about the difficulties you're having.
Quoting neomac
How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty.
As if bombing things is the only way to deny the enemy. :brow:
Besides, we've already established that airfields are important strategic targets. Why bomb things you may need later? We're talking literally the first day of the invasion here - no one knew what course the war would take.
Quoting apokrisis
Incorrect. I had no story at all.
I challenged your story that the Russian attempt to secure an airfield somehow proved the Russian intentions towards Kiev - something for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence.
You attempted to support that position by claiming they were going to airlift BTG's by plane, which is absurd.
That's what I've argued.
Quoting apokrisis
And how does such a task exclude the taking of airfields?
I've also mentioned that the drive on Kiev had a different primary purpose, and that it's secondary purpose may have been a feint.
Quoting apokrisis
And how do you suppose paratroopers would stop bombs from being dropped on the airfield?
Also, why don't you answer some of the dozens of questions I have asked you and you have never answered?
How were you going to take out all of those MANPADS, IR AA and mobile AAA batteries with GPS-guided cruise missiles again?
Quoting apokrisis
Weren't you about to land 20 cargo planes in the crosshairs of enemy AA claiming they had "flares and electronic countermeasures" supposedly showing they had "some chance of landing"?
I'm sure the optically guided AAA batteries would have enjoyed the fireworks. :rofl:
You are so funny. Making shit up off the top of your head. Read and weep….
I disagree. I see compassion as a supportive feeling we have for other people’s suffering, it doesn’t presuppose an accurate or wider/est calculation of relative harms.
[quote=“Isaac;746158”]I'm not struggling with that, personally, so you'll have to explain a bit more about the difficulties you're having.[/quote]
You are not proving to be “solely” concerned of the well being of the people there, by engaging in anonymous armchair chattering about “people there” on a website. I don’t even think it’s a reasonable expectation since we are human being too physically, socially, intellectually and morally limited to be unconditionally determined by such a goal. So I deeply doubt that it make even sense to prescribe we should “solely” be concerned of the well being of the people there. And states according to a realist view that you seem to share with Mearsheimer don’t care about people’s feelings or moral, they are self-preserving geopolitical agents in competition for power. So your prescriptions about compassion sound cheap (because from an armchair) wishful (because unrealistic from an individual and collective p.o.v) thinking.
Quoting Isaac
I didn't equate representation and sovereignty anywhere. I was talking about pre-condition for the implementation of state institutions that support human rights. State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory.
You believe this is evidence?
Apparently you do not understand what constitutes evidence. But since I would not wish to wrongfully dismiss your story, I did an actual search for the evidence myself. (Next time, be a good lad and don't make me do work that you should be doing to support your arguments)
The 18 IL-76 story seems to be based on a Twitter message. This Twitter message. In which a journalist supposedly cites (no actual citation is produced) UKRAINIAN government sources.
No evidence is produced here. Just a Twitter message full of completely inverifiable claims, made by potentially highly biased sources.
Also, where is that explanation of cruise missile SEAD strikes?
- Expansion of NATO (Sweden and Finland) possibly Ukraine
- End of economic cooperation between Russia-Germany (destruction of North stream)
- Militarization of Europe
- Western Russophobia & military humiliation of Russia
- Besides boosting American companies selling weapons and shale gas, of course.
Now Biden is ready for peace and the "armageddon" argument comes in handy.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/07/demands-peace-talks-intensify-biden-says-putin-nuclear-threats-risk-armageddon
A healthy exercise! for those of us who appreciate the hellscape we live in, anyhow.
Quoting neomac
Sweden has essentially zero military significance.
Finland in NATO doesn't really change anything as there's extreme low probability that Finland would house NATO nuclear missiles or be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia, which is also unlikely to happen anyways.
The only military scenario where Finland in NATO is relevant is if Russia planned on invading either Finland or then NATO countries, which again is very low probability.
Quoting neomac
This is arguably much worse for Germany and the EU and NATO than it is for Russia and its friends, in particular China.
So what end of economic cooperation between Russia and German harms or benefits, very much depends on your point of view.
Quoting neomac
Again, if there's not really a future scenario where Russia and NATO do battle in conventional means, then militarisation of Europe means nothing but wasted funds (that may lead to further European economic troubles and breakup).
Quoting neomac
The Russophobia seemed at fever pitch before the war, with the whole Russia-gate thing.
As for military humiliation, the war is not over.
The Russian strategy, seems to me, is to wait until winter and see how long and how much European citizens are willing to suffer in order to support indefinite war. As Bill Gates has recently drawn attention to, the difference between a mild and severe winter is a factor of three in terms of gas requirements.
Quoting neomac
Higher energy prices cause severe economic harms to Europe and also harm the US economy, contributing to both economic problems and domestic political instability.
The West is promising that they are "handling it," but that remains to be seen.
And, again, the extent to which there is real pain and disruption doesn't change the immense competitive advantage to the rest of the world that hasn't sanctioned Russian energy, in particular China and India.
The idea that US energy companies profiting from a war ... is somehow good for the US / NATO and bad for Russia in any geopolitical sense is foolish. It's basically making the argument that the war is good for war profiteering.
Quoting neomac
Debatable if Biden is now ready for peace. He certainly doesn't say anything along those lines.
Rather, the previous idea of trying to deter Russia's use of a nuclear weapon with a non-nuclear retaliation obviously makes no sense and is not a deterrent, so they have simply made the logical step of now threatening nuclear retaliation.
In realpolitik terms obviously the US would not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon, it's simply impossible to justify.
The mention of armageddon could be just empty talk, or then it could be simply preparing to deescalate the situation. The US administration has gotten what it wants from the conflict (ending cooperation between Russia and Germany, militarisation of Europe, boosting energy profits, is very doubtful good things for NATO as a whole, but it is certainly good for Biden's donors), so "averting nuclear war" is obviously a good rational to end the conflict in one way or another if it's now simply becoming a headache to deal with.
Yes that was the point I was making.
Quoting boethius
NATO can be repurposed also defend the West from the Rest. And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine.
Quoting boethius
It doesn't need to be over to assess how poorly Russian are military performing. Even they themselves are complaining about it in their national TV.
Quoting boethius
Well Indian, Chinese, Russian, and anti-Capitalist should be happy then. The US and the Western American-led oppression of the rest of the World is on a path of self-destruction. That's why they should absolutely continue to support Ukraine to fight Russia.
Good to see we agree here.
Quoting neomac
There is a big difference.
First, there is basic political stability. No one would entertain the notion that some faction of the Finnish military or intelligence would "cause trouble" and actively try to start a war between Russia and NATO. Even putting aside recent history, Finland is stable and predictable whereas Ukraine is not, so having a 1000 km border with an unstable country that is apart of NATO is a recipe for trouble making.
However, there is also another big military difference in that Finland does not host any Russian naval bases, whereas Ukraine hosted one of Russia's most important ports.
There is a lot of pretty common sense reasons Russia would view Ukraine in NATO as a major threat to its security, which has no parallel with Finland. Of course, "never say never" but I seriously doubt anyone in Russia, Finland or the whole NATO seriously believes in any conflict between Finland and Russia, with or without Finland in NATO.
Quoting neomac
For now. Things can change. Now, if you say this is one negative for now, then we agree.
However, there are also negatives on the Ukrainian side. The "humiliation" only exists insofar as Ukraine can sustain military gains on the battle field.
Although I would never exclude some brilliant deceptive operation, it seems pretty unanimous that Ukraine is suffering heavy losses in these offensives. If that is simply unsustainable then the offensives will burn themselves out and Russia will reverse the tide.
Also, from my observations over the years, Putin, the Kremlin and the Russian military run a very different information game (call it propaganda or public relations -- same word to me), since they know that they can't actually stop the West's propaganda (maybe learned something from Soviet times) or maybe they just have a flare for the dramatic, but whatever the reason, they often let negative speculation run wild and then simply accomplish the task or present their case much later. For example, a lot of what we've witnessed in the information battle in this war happened nearly identically in Russia's intervention in the Syrian war.
For example, weeks and weeks of ATGM's taking out Russian tanks almost verbatim reproduction in Ukraine, the West crying from roof tops of Russian incompetence, can't even take an airfield, can't even take Aleppo ... or then only with siege tactics etc. Putin, Kremlin and the Russian military did not respond to all this "embarrassment" (running to show many tanks survived, many were decoys, and I expect many were staged since video proof was needed for funding and propaganda of these groups).
So, if Russia is confident that Ukraine cannot sustain this offensive, then the greater the despair the greater the catharsis and euphoria when the tide is reversed. And such an observation is not "copium" but psychology 101 and hinges on the "if" statement. If Ukrainian gains are sustainable then the greater the despair the greater pressure to start use tactical nuclear weapons or justify some other policy shift.
Point being, simply because the US brings out general after general to say "things are fine" right up until the day "allies" are falling of US cargo planes to their death, does not mean we should expect the same from the Kremlin.
Whether by design or just his personality, Putin's way of dealing with repetitive propaganda from the West (which Russian's aren't exposed to same as us) is long, detailed and fairly exhaustive presentation of his point of view and asking any question journalists ask. I am happy to believe it is a staged performance, but it is good communication none-the-less as the West's propaganda machine doesn't get into these nuances or rebutting anything Putin says, so leaves Putin with the "last word" so to speak (only in Russia).
Globally, Russia is officially China's "friend", and whatever meaning is in that, China isn't trash talking Russian internally. Indian, Africa, and South American media has been fairly Russian sympathetic, and I definitely get a a sort of "pay back" for colonialism vibe from such sources.
Most importantly, even the Western media is forced at some point to recognise Russia is "winning" if they clearly are. This was what was happening before these offensives. Ukraine was "resisting" heroically around Kiev and the withdraw from the North was a huge victory for Ukraine and Embarrassment for Russia, war crimes rinse repeat, but after some time even the Western media had to recognise that Russia was winning, especially after Ukraine retreat from major centres like Donetsk.
Point is, embarrassment based on how things appear to be or then what Western media is saying now, doesn't have any long lasting value if thing turn out differently.
Indeed, embarrassing can actually backfires as it removes the whole "if Ukraine falls, Poland and the Baltics are next!" and "fight them there so we don't fight them here" overall justification, without which it can be hard to sustain support for the war within NATO for long. If the war has proven Russia is not a threat to NATO, then there is no actual NATO based reason (being a defensive organisation) to supply arms to Ukraine, and some members may start to take the point of view this is a regional border conflict that doesn't concern them seeing as it is evident Russia cannot take all of Ukraine, much less all of Easter Europe.
This is why I say it's a "call me in 300 years" thing. How history will ultimately view this war is anyone's guess.
All I know for certain about how history ultimately cares about things, is rarely as much as the people living it at the time, wars in particular.
For myself, I empathise with the people suffering now and I would rather see people harmed in their pride by the trenchant words of compromise than be harmed in their bodies and souls.
In particular the children of Ukraine who I do not believe will grow up to care about the war, but why global society (most of all us Westerners) allowed environmental catastrophe to unfold.
The argument that this war is finally the "kick in the arse" Europe needed to transition to renewables all along, is not a good argument, it simply establishes we have been led by traitors to European citizens and all of humanity and all life all this time.
And if it was a good argument, then if Putin's actions makes such good things to happen, that would simply make Putin a good man.
Well, NATO expanding into Sweden and Finland probably is a problem for the Russians. The only way they can interpret it is as a decidedly anti-Russian move. But they weren't in any position to object.
Further, the difference between Sweden, Finland and Ukraine should be obvious. Sweden and Finland have no strategic relevance to Russia at all, while Ukraine is the most important region for Russia outside of Russia proper.
Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all?
Europe now sees what it means to let the United States dictate their foreign military policy. Russia's invasion is a direct response to US meddling on Europe's doorstep. The US is now exchanging nuclear rhetoric with Russia, with Europe as its pawns. What a time to be part of NATO.
Sure but we're talking about objectives, not suffering. It's the Ukrainian objective you're expressing support for, not merely empathising with their suffering. If I see a person with a sharp object in their leg I might be moved to tears at the thought of their pain, it has no bearing at all on my response if they say "I'm going to take it out", I'd still be strongly opposed to the idea for their own welfare (my understanding of first aid being that one is supposed to leave embedded objects where they are until the experts get to it). My sympathy with their plight has no bearing on my opinion of what course of action is most likely to get them out of it.
Quoting neomac
The intention is not to 'prove' it.
Quoting neomac
I don't agree with Mearsheimer on that (assuming that's what he thinks). States ought to be concerned with the welfare of all humans the interact with, as should anyone. I think nationalism is a cancer on human societies.
Quoting neomac
Yes. But it doesn't matter which. No-one is contemplating leaving Donbas as no-man's land.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. You really think people were disappearing prior to the Russian invasion? Why don't just refer to that. What Amnesty International criticized Ukraine was about police using excessive force and how they handled the Euromaidan protestors, during the student protests. But I didn't know that dissenters were disappearing in Crimea / Donbas prior to the war.
Quoting Tzeentch
But is interested in Finland and Sweden. You are just making things up. You really have no clue what you are talking about.
But when a person here genuinely thinks that it would have saved lives for UK to surrender to Nazi Germany, repeat SURRENDER, not just to try staying out of the conflict and have diplomatic relations Germany, than to fight the war until victory was obtained. I think I should stop responding to such nonsense.
I think there was far more belief in the strength of the sanctions. But I guess someone than predicted the dire situation that Russia would be now six months ago was then simply correct.
For Russia this war is going as well as the Russo-Japanese war. (Which btw went on for over 1 year and 6 months)
This is crucial to understand and it is very easy to gloss over in favor of well-meant, but often ill-advised action.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/4455/2016/en/
The fact that you don't know this speak volumes about your biases.
Incorrect.
"Operation Demetrius was a British Army operation in Northern Ireland on 9–10 August 1971, during the Troubles. It involved the mass arrest and internment (imprisonment without trial) of people suspected of being involved with the Irish Republican Army (IRA),"
"The policy of internment lasted until December 1975 and during that time 1,981 people were interned;
...
"The interrogation techniques used on some of the internees were described by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976 as torture"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius
The latter ruling was later controversially revised, but this was no common-law holiday camp.
Oh, and here's the most interesting part from the joint Amnesty, Human Rights Watch report...
.
Blaming the reporting of their abuses on Russian disinformation... Well...
And for the removal of doubt about the scale. This one from the OHCHR report...
As an aside, related to the so-called de-Nazification thing:
Ukraine crisis: 'Thousands of Russians' fighting in east
Reported Aug 28, 2014, a few months after the Crimea grab. Putinian insurgency.
Now there's a...mixed crowd of some 20,000 fighters (allegedly, I'm guessing less):
International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine
That's gotta' be...something to deal with.
Anyway, if, for a moment, we disregard self-governance/sovereignty, then it seems most/everyone's good with a neutral Ukraine. Actually no, Putin and Peskov have mentioned demilitarized. At what point can the Ukrainians feel safe, retain (at least non-military) self-governance/sovereignty, pursue international affiliations, get on with life? At the moment, with what's come out and happened, I don't see the Putinian cosa nostra holding back in a way that matters, no bona fides signs for that matter.
Just in ...
Quoting Francis Scarr · Oct 6, 2022
[sup]Kremlin Spokesman Says No Mobilization Despite Ukrainian Counteroffensive Success (Sep 13, 2022)
Putin mobilizes 300,000 troops for war in Ukraine and warns he’s not bluffing with nuclear threat (Sep 21, 2022)[/sup]
Your argument is so under water that all I can hear is the bubbling.
It's honestly bizarre your insistence on Russian military incompetence.
What I find most interesting about the incompetence narrative is that's it's needed to support the idea there should not be any negotiation strategy (unlike every other example provided of a smaller country fighting larger ones: most Finland and Isreal ... the list maybe small for a reason that's worth reflecting on).
However, although debating specific battles maybe fruitful, as has already pointed out deception is involved in warfare.
A better consideration for such a debate I think is simply the progress of the war to date:
Does not look to me like the advance of an incompetent military.
Nor recent losses some sort of total disaster.
Furthermore, what the Russian military has done was predicted as a "good move" before the war, which I posted citations from 6 months ago:
Quoting boethius
Now, you may say Zelensky did plead for NATO help and has gotten NATO help ... but this is debatable. What Zelensky was pleading for at that time was a no fly zone, which didn't come.
Rather, events seem very consistent with my drip feed hypothesis, that Ukraine gets just enough support from NATO to not lose outright but not enough to seriously threaten Russia's objectives or cause Russia to actually escalate to nuclear weapons.
Or as I usually put it:
Quoting boethius
Who says that?
Everyone agrees about the surprising degree of Russian incompetence, but who says that is the reason not to negotiate. It would seem that all the reverses strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position. The only issue is whether Putin has rational demands given his inchoate anti-West rants.
I like this calm summary for the reasons behind Russia’s systemic military incompetence….
You are saying that, insofar as you've been supporting Ukraine's choices to fight while having zero diplomatic position.
More importantly, Zelensky is saying that most of the time, and recently in literally declaring he will "not negotiate" with Putin.
Quoting apokrisis
Everyone? You're literally debating right now the issue with 3 other interlocutors who disagree.
And, read the analysis the paper I cited (published December 2021):
Literally the first paragraph states:
[quote"Putin's Military Options ;https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine%20Invasion%20Forecast%20Series%20Part%202%20ISW%20CT%20December%202021.pdf"]A full-scale Russian invasion of unoccupied Ukraine would be by far the largest, boldest, and riskiest military operation Moscow has launched since the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It would be far more complex than the US wars against Iraq in 1991 or 2003. It would be a marked departure from the approaches Putin has relied on since 2015, and a major step-change in his willingness to use Russian conventional military power overtly. It would cost Russia enormous sums of money and likely many thousands of casualties and destroyed vehicles and aircraft. Even in victory, such an invasion would impose on Russian President Vladimir Putin the requirement to reconstruct Ukraine and then establish a new government and security forces there more suitable for his objectives.[/quote]
So it's not a surprise Russia has suffered serious losses in such an ambitious undertaking as "Sub-COA 1c: Create a Land Bridge from Rostov to Crimea".
That is not a sign of military incompetence. The issue of whether it was politically wise, or the task is even doable are separate questions to that of military incompetence.
Looking at the anecdotal minutia is of literal analytical significance. Ukraine fronts have crumbled many times as well ... and currently Russia holds far more territory of Ukraine than vice-versa.
"Shit happens" and to evaluate any particular battle we need to know exact casualties and losses on each side. Simply taking territory is not "winning" if the costs are unsustainable, the offensives burn our and the tide turns the other way only with far less capability to defend than before the offensives.
Obviously, both sides want to both hide and deceive the other about losses.
What we can analyse is major strategic locations that we are sure both sides are equally committed to.
For example, we know Russia is committed to Kherson because it is a major city and bridge head over the Dnieper river, which is a major strategic advantage to have forcing Ukrainians to commit sizeable force to defend any offensive coming from there. To what extent there's an advantage of controlling both sides of the river I don't know, but if nothing else is a buffer Ukraine must deal with if it wants to create a bridge head of its own and retake the canal.
We know Russia is committed to the land bridge to Crimea.
And we know Russia is committed to holding Crimea itself.
Currently, only Kherson is being threatened, fighting not even at the city yet, and, notably, Russia can still lose West of the Dnieper and still maintain the canal (I assume; maybe there are complicating engineering details I haven't heard about).
So, Russia successfully accomplishing what Western analysts viewed as an ambitious plan of "Sub-COA 1c: Create a Land Bridge from Rostov to Crimea" is clearly competent military planning and execution.
In terms of air power, incompetence would be Ukraine currently having air superiority, supremacy or even comparable effectiveness (even within an order of magnitude).
Incompetence would have been a failure to even exit Crimea because Ukraine was competent and blew up the bridges and heavily defended any bridging attempts, or failed to successfully siege Mariupol, or failed to take Kherson.
If you read the analysis cited, what actual experts believed before the war was that an invasion would be costly, involving thousands KIA and significant armour and airframe losses.
Creating the comparison standard that Ukraine was some small essentially unarmed country in no way prepared for an invasion and should have fallen in a few days, is a Western media myth.
Ukraine is huge and distance itself is a significant strategic obstacle for full scale invasion, compared to a small country, and Ukraine has been fighting a war since 2014 and completed several steps of NATO partnership, arms and training and military and intelligence "advice".
Furthermore, NATO has needed to pour in billions of Euros of arms and economic aid in addition to essentially full US intelligence support (systems that are that are worth tens of billions if not hundreds of billions), simply to keep Ukraine "in the fight".
Once you pour in tens of billions of arms, intelligence and training, in addition to Ukraine being a large country with a smaller, but not tiny, population willing to fight, the Russian military performance is far from incompetent.
Of course, competence does not imply ultimate victory.
As I've responded above to @apokrisis, Western media simply relaying anything "Ukrainian intelligence" says is not a basis of evaluating Russian military performance.
Russia has conquered, occupied, pacified, and defended strategically important territory for 7 months now while inflicting, by any count I've seen, several factors more casualties on Ukraine than suffering itself.
That's clearly military competence.
Large scale warfare is largely a statistical thing. In WWII tank survivability once in battle was measured in minutes and so quick were tanks destroyed that all sides downgraded the quality of their tank builds because they simply didn't last long enough for durability of most mechanical parts to matter.
Russia has definitely lost a lot of tanks, but so too Ukraine. However, we're now at a point in the war where Ukraine has lost all of its initial tank stock and is now nearing critical depletion of all the Soviet tanks NATO could scrounge up and send.
Which is why there's been a lot of talk in both the media, but more importantly Ukraine asking for tanks and US saying "no", of sending Western tanks to Ukraine. A recent US press briefing about the latest arms package, simply answers to this question about tanks that it would be so problematic to integrate Western tanks as to be counter productive.
However, my thesis from the start of the war has been Ukraine cannot mount successful offensives without armour (at the time heavy weapons were a no-no so the theory was Ukraine could "win" with only small arms and shoulder mounted missiles) has definitely proven true in these recent offensives, where Ukraine has used significant tank forces.
Of course, they're also losing tanks. If it's simply impossible to resupply those soviet tanks because they aren't being built anymore, then the war will return to slow moving fronts where Russia leverages its artillery, air power advantage and, seems now, drone advantage.
If the situation is simply Ukraine cannot possibly sustain these attacks to accomplish and hold any major strategic objective, then Russia's response of tactical retreat is a perfectly competent one.
Of course, losses still happen in a tactical retreat, just not as much as the force your tactically retreating from, which Western media and all sorts of indicators seem to say Ukraine losses are significant.
Also, notice that Ukraine advances are measured in square kilometres but Russian advances simply in kilometres, which obviously is a massive numerical difference in appearance.
Where the kilometres (for example to an objective) are significant is that you need to multiple your losses per kilometre by the amount of kilometres you need to go to reach all the key military objectives.
Ukraine has simply not gone all that far and the reported casualties are immense. It's of course possible that it's some kind of giant ruse, but I think that's unlikely because the reports of Hospitals filling up all the way to neighbouring countries would be difficult to fake and there's also no reason to believe advancing through artillery, missiles, rockets, mortars, mine fields, and air strikes could possibly be low-casualty for Ukraine (a successful fake casualty operation was the UK reporting high casualties in the wrong locations of German V2 strikes which would encourage more strikes wildly off target that did little damage, but these were special circumstances where Germany had little to no human intelligence on the ground and were relying on UK newspapers to correct their fire; so, does happen, but in this case seems unlikely reports of Ukrainian high casualties are part of a deceptive operation).
And, precisely because any rational analysis concludes the cost to Ukraine of trying to retake all the territory is simply unsustainable, that it must be assumed that Russia will somehow militarily, economically, politically collapse somehow in order to justify continued warfare without any realistic diplomatic position.
What is your source for this?
Pravda?
Russia officially becomes 113,000 square kilometers larger
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/154246-russia_new_territories/
Ah yes, forgot to mention plausibly independent source, so not Ukrainian or Western Intelligence.
Starts by noting:
Or,
Quoting War in Ukraine: Can we say how many people have died?,BBC
But independent analysis often focuses on Zelensky's own admission:
Which seems just a base line, "everyday", kind of thing, without any fierce battles happening.
At one point he mentioned 200 dying.
Per month 60 KIA per day is 1800 per month, 100 per day is 3000, and 200 KIA per day would be 6000 per month. 500 wounded per day is 15 000 wounded per month.
If this range is indicative of the 7 months of the war, places Ukrainian KIA at 12 600 to 42 000 KIA, and 105 000 wounded.
Of course, Zelensky's comment could be a lie to inflate Ukrainian KIA and casualties, but it's difficult to find a justification for that. Honestly seemed a moment of candour, perhaps regret at the loss of life and frustration with NATO (which he expresses from time to time, and Western media simply ignores).
Considering the immense artillery and air power advantage Russia has is not really in question and fairly easy to confirm, these numbers are easy to believe and it's difficult to come up with a mechanism Russian casualties would be anywhere close. And that doesn't really seem in dispute. That was even the Western narrative for months, that Russian fires 10 times more artillery shells than Ukraine.
Again, "incompetence" is the only possible basis for believing that you fire 10x more shells, conduct hundreds of bombing sorties a day / night, but not only fail to match casualties but actually suffer more.
And usually that's not really proposed. The proposed major source of Russian KIA and casualties is the Northern offensive, which I fully believe was Russias highest losses. However, during the same time Russia completely encircled and destroyed or captured the garrison of Mariupol as well as significant troops that fell back to Mariupol. Ukraine conducted a lot of harassment and ambushes, but they had no operation like encircling an entire Russian army group and its fairly standard military theory that encirclement is easily an order of magnitude higher loss than retreat.
Retreat sounds bad, but it's far better to retreat than find yourself encircled and besieged.
And if you want something "Western Media", the Washington Post report on casualties in these recent offensives if not bleak, certainly doesn't give the impression Russian's are suffering more losses in these engagements:
Quoting Wounded Ukrainian soldiers reveal steep toll of Kherson offensive - Washington Post
I wasn’t talking about anonymous keyboard warriors of course. I meant credible public sources.
Quoting boethius
The two ain’t exactly mutually exclusive. Indeed they are evidence that a kleptocracy now getting sentimental about lost imperial promise is a generally incompetent structural setting.
Quoting boethius
That is true. And it is also true that the degree of military incompetence was a surprise to these same analysts. Indeed a happy bonus from a hawkish US perspective as it created the chance to mire Russia in its own backyard Afghanistan.
Putin’s ineptitude looks to be delivering the US’s every defence policy wish. NATO expanded overnight. Russian oil gone. Putinism destined to die the death of a thousand cuts.
All they have to avoid now is nuclear escalation and the US finally wins biggly in a proxy war.
Quoting boethius
But the Russian collapse is delivering more tanks and ammo to the Ukrainians in a few weeks than the west supplied in seven months. Of course the quality isn’t so great. But you know. Russian incompetence. :confused:
I would like to reassert my previous point that arguments about the intentions of the Hostumel operation are not evidence for or against a 'feint'.
An argument for the 'feint' needs an identification of the forces who would have headed east if not held at Kiev. No such identification has been provided. My attempts to find sources on this point have yielded nothing so far.
The use of airborne forces does suggest it was part of a particular plan. On the other hand, the Russians have demonstrated so many bad tactical practices, easily confirmed by the ubiquitous explosions of tightly grouped armor vehicles, that arguing that another tactic is incomprehensively stupid is no guarantee that it was not attempted.
I don't know, linking to a source that says it does not know does not inculcate confidence.
A competent feint would be as convincing as possible while consuming as little men and material as possible.
Now if there were credible evidence that the Russians were happy to sacrifice the paratroops to a mock “airbridge” operation, then sure. We could start to take that more seriously. But detailed accounts of the assault give good reason for why the follow up landings of a heavier force had to be hastily cancelled, even while the transports were in the air.
What caps it for me is the ludicrous way Russia propaganda still had to pretend a successful airbridge operation took place. It seems that this brave and bold image of Russian competence was so important to morale that it had to be faked for domestic consumption.
Oh the ever compounding irony.
I figure future accounts will confirm your view. All airborne infantry missions are very risky. Many have failed.
Until that time when more has been revealed, Tzeentch's argument amounts to saying nobody could be that stupid to try it. And when that becomes the measure of what is conceivable or not, we are forced to compare that action with other actions and notice that a lot of those other tactics are stupid.
EU relations/membership is another matter (though subject to Putin's rhetoric just the same).
Finding (ad hoc) fault at everyone is easy enough, and is a distraction, a diversion.
A self-determining Ukraine wasn't in Putin's cards.
Standard procedures are underway ... Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022
You already know it isn't. I am and always have been in favour of negotiations mediated by a third party with some meaningful power (the US, Europe, or UN). I think that such negotiations should consider the ceding of territory to Russia (on the grounds that I've previously explained - who has sovereignty over what is not a humanitarian consideration and so should be irrelevant to that third party, only the swiftest cessation of violence is a priority)
The fact that the West are financing this war in its entirety means that they can pull the plug any time. As such they can force Ukraine to the negotiating table. They have no such power over Russia, which is why it is so recklessly callous to turn down the rare offers Russia has made in that direction.
We are now in a worse situation than we were before when Russia first offered its four demands. Thousands more a dead, and instead of an independent Donbas, Russia are now annexing it, making it even harder to win back because Russia can leverage a set of weapons they couldn't before under the guise of a 'Special Operation'.
The same thing has happened here as happened with other cause célèbre in the recent past. Powerful interest groups have done what they always do - lobby as hard as they can to get their interests satisfied by policy. What none of them are equipped for is the power that social media gives them to achieve their goals. It's like pushing really hard on a door you expect to be jammed only to find it wide open. You tend to go barrelling through at a pace you didn't anticipate.
The arms industry lobby as hard has they can for a drip feed of weapons to a 'forever war' somewhere offshore, that's their ideal. They expect to have to fight hard for that against a media and a populace who are naturally resistant to such a horrific notion so they push their message through those channels as hard as they can - only nowadays, that message gets amplified by social media algorithms rather than suppressed, so a hard push becomes a tidal wave and here we are - they've got their 'forever war' to a truly horrific degree that I suspect even they didn't expect.
I believe this issue stems from something I've tried to address before.
It seems a lot of western military experts had a terribly inflated view of the Russian military prior to the invasion. Western academic sources were linked in this thread, claiming Ukraine would stand no chance and that Kiev would fall in a matter of hours.
Probably these sources also underestimated the extent of military aid that Ukraine has received from the United States, turning their military into a respectable force.
If one assumes the invasion would be a one-sided landslide and then sees the Russian military having to fight for every region they occupy, then one may easily chalk that up to Russian incompetence, instead of reconsidering their own conception of the balance of power.
Even as the actual situation began to unfold, western analysts in their analysis of Russian actions implicitly assumed that the Kremlin shared their inflated view of the Russian military. That's why they assume the Russians went into this war intending to invade all of Ukraine, conquering Kiev, etc.
What we know of the Russian force composition and their actions to date seems to imply the opposite. That the Russians aimed for a limited war with the south of Ukraine as its initial goal.
US support for Ukraine has been official US policy since at least January of 2021. Covert support has probably started around the invasion of Crimea. The Russians knew they were going up against a US trained, US armed force, yet they started the war outnumbered by roughly ~50,000 men. That speaks volumes. 200,000 men are not going to occupy all of Ukraine fighting outnumbered against a capable opponent, nor did they have the manpower to spare to occupy and hold Kiev while simultaneously securing strategic areas in the south.
Further, the fact that they managed to go on the offensive while outnumbered implies that they are not incompetent. To state as much would be a harsh insult to the Ukrainian military. After all, if the Russians are so incompetent then why weren't the Ukrainian forces able to defend against them when they had a numerical superiority on the battlefield?
These are simple, rational arguments based on contemporary military logic, in light of which much of the popular narratives can be dismissed outright.
If the army had been so competent, why has Putin fired so many of his generals?
We'll continue our conversation as soon as you elaborate on your ideas about cruise missile SEAD strikes.
Take the stage, bud. We're all ears.
Stuck in a foxhole for three days on the edge of a runway as the second wave couldn’t land and no equipment arriving until ground forces showed up. Only survivor in his platoon.
However correct, your argument is far from being conclusive for 2 strong reasons: 1. if Crimea was the issue, Russia could have clearly stated that the problem is not NATO expansion, but the control over Crimea. Talking generically about NATO expansion and Russophobia (think about Russian minorities in Baltic Regions), signals generic aspirations over territories and people Russia perceives as “theirs”, no matter what NATO countries have to say. 2. Finland and Sweden inside NATO and militarisation are relevant for the control of the Baltic Sea which is of unquestionable strategic importance (https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/russias-strategic-interests-and-actions-baltic-region). And evidently in line with Russian expansion trends (under Putin) to encircle Europe, given Russian militar and threatening presence in north Africa, in the Mediterranean Sea (bridged by the control over the Black Sea) and Baltic Sea (see Kaliningrad). Besides Russian aren’t certainly short on pretexts or motivations hostile to the West (see the wild resentment and grievances against the West exposed in their State TV).
Quoting boethius
Things can change, but the blow to Russian national pride hurts now in this world, not in possible future world.
Quoting boethius
Propaganda is not for free, it has its material and human costs and its unintended consequences. So I wouldn’t bet much on Russian masterminding Western propaganda at this scale of confrontation on a world stage. Besides since the bites of humiliation are entering national TV in Russia, we can no longer consider it just “Western” propaganda. The usage of nuclear weapons will be a further confirmation of Russian weakness because it will mean that Russia didn’t prove capable of defeating Ukraine backed by Westerners on conventional war grounds.
Quoting boethius
The more Russians are mobilized to the war or flee from Russia and sactions+economic recession bite, the more Putin’s last word risks to fade away (inside and outside his circle), if military performance on the battle field proves to be as poor as it was so far.
Quoting boethius
Your speculation has some merits, but in so far as it’s a broad and one-sided prospect of possible future scenarios not only it has little chance to weigh in the decision process of Western governments, but it should not weigh even in the decision process of ordinary people, precisely because the lesson for anti-Western forces (Russian and beyond) would be that broadly assessed possible future threats (no matter how likely) would be enough to persuade Western general public to recoil and question their governments’ decisions.
Quoting boethius
Putin and China are questioning the West-backed world order. The West must respond to that threat with determination. That’s why Putin unilateral aggression must fail in a way however that is instrumental to the West-backed world order. If this war is not just between Russia and Ukraine, then it’s not even just between the US and Russia, it’s between whoever wants to weigh in in establishing the new world order, either by backing the US or by backing Russia.
Same response:
Quoting neomac
Just so we're clear, I don't pretend to have conclusive arguments. Observers like us are probably only seeing half the picture, and the best we can do is make educated guesses.
Quoting neomac
Crimea only becomes a problem as a result of NATO expansion. With a neutral Ukraine, there is no threat of Crimea being cut off, since they'd have to be crazy to try it.
With Ukraine in NATO however, Ukraine becomes a potential pawn in a NATO-Russia power struggle.
As I stated in my last reply to you, NATO expansion in general is an issue to Russia. How could it not be? It is essentially an anti-Russian alliance.
Quoting neomac
Strategically, economically and geopolitically, yes.
However the Russian position in the Baltic Sea is extremely fragile in case of war. The Gulf of Finland, and especially the Danish straits are too easily blocked, which is why any breakout into the Atlantic has historically been planned through the Norwegian Sea and the GIUK-gap. This is also why the main naval base of the Northern Fleet is located in Severomorsk (and not for example St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad).
In other words, in a military conflict with NATO, the Baltic Sea would play a secondary role. NATO's position there is simply too dominant.
So by "everyone" you actually mean "not-everyone".
Quoting apokrisis
The point was that successfully invading, occupying, pacifying 20%, and defending of Ukraine is not military incompetence. Even if Russian losses were greater, that would be expected in an offensive operation.
The domestic political and geopolitical wisdom and ultimate outcome is a different matter. However, Russia has not collapsed internally, has survived sanctions, and has maintained its "friendships" so I fail to see any incompetence on those levels either.
Of course, competence does not necessitate victory. Two competent attorney's can go head-to-head or two competent football teams or two competent mountain goats, and one side still may win and the other may lose.
Quoting apokrisis
Can you cite any of these analysts claiming Russia military is incompetent?
From what I've read, Western analysts were surprised that Russia did not employ Western shock and awe tactics and blowup Ukrainian civilian infrastructure on day one, in particular the power and communications and keep those turned off, as that's what NATO would do, nor did Russia "take the gloves off" even after it was clear Ukraine would not capitulate.
Here's an interview of Michael Kofman, a pretty respected analyst of the Russian military.
He gives a slight edge to Ukraine on the long term war prospects, but that is contingent on continued Western support (economic, arms, intelligence etc.). Likewise, basic view of the current situation is exactly the same as mine, that what matters in these recent offensives is sustainability.
Quoting apokrisis
The expansion of NATO is a "wish" in order to sell more arms for the US arms industry.
More members has both pros and cons. Being a consensus driven organisation even a few dissenting members can cause serious problems (as a tool of US foreign policy).
The fact we're discussing NATO expansion ... when Finland Sweden aren't even in NATO yet, due to Turkey using it as leverage, underscores this point.
As for what Russia clearly actually cares about, Ukraine in NATO, even Zelensky has admitted NATO told him that would never happen, but there would be a public position that the door is open ... but the private position is never.
Quoting apokrisis
Russian oil is not gone, it's going to China and India and decrease in any flows has been mostly compensated by increased in increase in price.
Quoting apokrisis
For sure, in terms of relative power dynamic with their main geopolitical competitor (Europe) US has won, but this may turn out to be at the cost of helping other competitors such as China, if not also Russia in the long term as well.
European economic turmoil increases Russia's regional influence, not decrease it.
Quoting apokrisis
Stop for a moment to reflect on what that would mean if it was even true.
If relatively small gains on a small and least defended regions of the front have resupplied Ukraine with more ammunition and tanks than it has gotten from the West in 7 months, it would stand to reason that what Russia has on the entire front, rear area and reserves is several orders of magnitude greater and Ukraine is doomed in any sort of war of attrition.
If Western zeal and support cannot match what Russia leaves behind no relatively small areas of the front, that is a not a "good thing" for Ukraine.
I never said it was conclusive. I literally state in my argument that "never say never" there's just no actual evidence now that Finland and Sweden in NATO matters.
If you assume Finland will never actually invade Russia, host nuclear missiles, or host a NATO invasion force, then Finland in NATO is easily a net positive for the Kremlin and it just as easily plays as a security threat for Russia (thousands of kilometres of border with NATO) as it does in the West ... without actually being a threat requiring any investment to deal with than what is already there.
Quoting neomac
People do plan ahead you know. In these recent offensives there are material and troops costs to Ukraine and territory gained and large propaganda value. If the costs in material and troops are high enough, then the propaganda value is tolerable.
The "negative" press also served as justification for Russian partial mobilisation. Of course, that has a political cost but will have a military benefit.
We'll see how things play out. My assumption is Russia's basic plan is to see what affect the winter has on both Ukraine and the EU in terms of appetite for more war; the severity of the winter will also be a major factor.
Quoting neomac
What's with this obsession with any explanation of Russia actions other than "irrational" means the idea is some mastermind genius level ploy.
And if your only argument is propaganda has unintended propaganda ... all we hear from Ukraine is propaganda, what they want us to see, only negative things about Russia and very little transparency about their own losses, logistics problems, capability limitations, and so on.
You don't need to be a "mastermind" to know that when your opponent is running their mouth and talking shit and making promises they can't keep, that if you know the situation will reveres itself that there's no reason to talk back. It is even more embarrassing later for the party talking shite, and a confidence builder to your own crew to just say nothing, if of course things do indeed reverse later.
Honestly, I feel a lot of people say they've gone to basic "school of the street", but that sort of scholarship often seems to be lacking in these kinds of conversations.
Quoting neomac
Sure, we'll see what happens. A lot of people who leave in a panic return, a lot of people keep working at a distance, and a lot of services can be done at distance nowadays.
I'm honestly not convinced about these economic factors being all that significant. Russia state gets most of its revenue from fossil fuels, not taxing a tech based economic base.
Quoting neomac
It's not speculation, it's literally what was happening during the summer as Russia took key towns and made gains, even Western media was forced to describe this as "winning".
Now Ukraine has taken ground, it's euphoric Ukraine is "winning", but if the tides turn again, may take time, but reluctantly Western media can't deny facts on the ground indefinitely.
Quoting neomac
I'm not sure what you thought I was arguing, but my point was simply that all the negative press today can turn positive tomorrow if gains start to reverse. That a lot hinges on whether recent Ukrainian gains are sustainable or not. If Ukrainians gains aren't sustainable then they burn out, the front stabilises as a consequence.
As a general principle, however, definitely decisions should be based on what's likely to happen in the future. I fail to understand how that wouldn't apply here. I drink water because it's likely to keep me alive (in the future), and I avoid falling off high structures as it's likely to get me killed (in the future), even putting aside exceptions, the basic decision making process is what's likely to happen in the future.
Quoting neomac
We agree that with the premise that Putin and China are questioning the West-backed world order.
However, it is of course up to debate what the West "must do".
In my view, the US / NATO actions (even if Russia retreats) are already a disaster for their geopolitical position.
The US, and the West in general, post-WWII, were (in my opinion) a very much soft power based imperialism centred around "peace keeping".
Brokering a deal with the Russias would have maintained that soft-power privileged position and the soft-power leverage over Russia in gas revenues, and the prosperity of America's "partners".
Everything Western media points to as "bad for Russia" and "good for NATO" is extremely simplistic view of things.
Geopolitically, my view of things, is this action by Russia is rearguard action for China's rise as a economic and geopolitical equal to the US (obviously with different strengths and weaknesses), and in such a scenario having Europe as a relevant and going concern with economic ties (aka. leverage) to Russia is a major difference to the current situation.
The US, at the end of the day, is not a conquering based Empire and its military is therefore nearly by definition not the basis of US imperialism.
US power was based on maintaining the global economic framework, and fracturing the global economic system (in my view) is a blow to American power that is foolish to underestimate.
It's amazing how people can fail to grasp this basic fact.
OK let’s do a step forward and ask: where do you think human rights are better supported: in Western countries (e.g. the US, the UK, Germany, France) or in the countries hostile to the West (Russia, China, North Corea, Iran)?
I think Western countries have institutions that support human rights within their territory (certainly for their citizens) better than in countries hostile to the West, no matter how imperfect and corrupt. And for that reason I personally would prefer to live in the US, the UK, Germany and France, than in Russia, China, North Corea and Iran, even if I were to be materially richer in the last non-Western countries, then I would be by living in some Western country. Therefore I’m open to share the standard of life I’m experiencing in the West with those people who are open to share this standard of life cooperatively.
Quoting Isaac
All the worse. If you set challenges to others (“as compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there”) which look grounded on unrealistic expectations about how we human individually or collectively can act, your challenges doesn’t sound that compelling.
Quoting Isaac
It’s irrelevant what you think States ought to be, a realist view is about how States actually act in the geopolitical arena. I also think that Russian ought to respect international law and withdraw from Ukraine all together and the US or NATO didn’t do anything illegal from an international law point of view to support Ukraine (and certainly nothing as criminal as Russian aggression and annexation of Ukrainian territory), but then you can claim that according to a realist point of view Russia perceived NATO expansion as a threat to national security and therefore they would have reacted accordingly no matter the costs. And again, according to a realist point of view, no States can act compassionately in the way you prescribe as “concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there”. Additionally, while I can see how enforcing a certain international legal order can be within the means of great powers, I hardly see how great powers can enforce people to be “solely concerned for the well-being of the people there” as compassionate outsiders.
Quoting Isaac
Yes it does. Because depending on the context there are political elites one can trust more or less for being up to the task.
That'd be great.
I doubt negotiations would be accompanied by a cease-fire, though. Doing so would give whatever parties room to replenish, settle, impose, prepare, etc, instead of bona fides peace. We've seen/heard plenty bullshit already. Diplomacy would likely have to be in parallel.
What the Ukrainians want has come up a few times - for the invaders to quit the bombing killing ruinage and leave. What Putin wants isn't quite clear - a demilitarized zone has been mentioned, shams, removal of Ukrainian culture and self-determination have been observed, down to elementary school (in some ways by the same playbook as the "Uyghur [cultural] genocide").
Would a neutral Ukraine be acceptable? As it stands, I'm guessing not acceptable to Putin. Otherwise I'm guessing yes.
[sup]• On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians (Vladimir Putin; Jul 12, 2021)
• Moscow's ethno-cultural war (Vladimir Rozanskij; Apr 12, 2022)
• Putin Aims to Triumph in Battle for ‘Cultural Supremacy’ (Bloomberg; Sep 6, 2022)
• Putin Is Trying to Turn Ukraine Into a Culture War (Lionel Beehner, Thomas Sherlock; Sep 9, 2022)[/sup]
Misc recent briefs ...
[sup]• Zelenskyy on 'impossible' talks with Putin (Oct 4, 2022)
• Ukraine regains control over Russian occupied areas (Oct 7, 2022)[/sup]
They pulled the "terrorist" card out. :D Not surprising I guess, though a bit of pretense goes into that.
We can still discuss why your argument is not conclusive based on educated guesses. Hence my comment.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then there is no way to downplay the importance of having Sweden and Finland in NATO as Putin tried to do. And again, NATO's mission was essentially an anti-Russian alliance, but this alliance's objectives can be revised or replaced according to the current security global challenges (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/29/national/japan-nato-china/).
Quoting Tzeentch
As much as Sweden and Finland only become a problem as a result of NATO expansion.
In other words, if Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda states that NATO expansion at the expense of Russian sphere of influence is an issue, then also Sweden and Finland entering NATO is an issue for Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda.
If Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda states that “denazifying” Ukraine means regime change and this is not what is happening, then this is an issue for Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda.
If Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda states that “neutral” Ukraine means Ukraine not in NATO, then increasing the likelihood for Ukraine to enter NATO is an issue for Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda.
If Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda states that Russia is just a special operation that will last days not months, but duration and Russian mobilization contradict this, then this is a problem for Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda.
If Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda states that Russia is the second strongest military in the world, but it performs as poorly as they did up to now, then this a problem for the Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda.
The more you nuance or rephrase the Russians' stated reasons and objectives to match what Russians could actually achieve so far, the more overblown the Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda sounds.
The Scandinavian countries have been part of mutual defense agreements for over a decade, so what exactly do you believe has changed that would make this so significant?
Quoting neomac
What I tried to make clear to you is that the poor position of Russia in the Baltic Sea is a fact with or without Sweden and Finland, and as such, whether they're part of NATO or not isn't a major factor in anything.
Likely the Russians have been downplaying it because it was in the line of expectations.
Quoting neomac
I don't know what else you'd expect from propaganda. My advice would be, don't watch it, whether it's Russian or western propaganda.
I never said you said it was conclusive. As long as you keep reasoning with one-sided hypothetical future scenarios I expose my counter-arguments. What kind of actual evidence are you looking for? How come you ask me for actual evidence when you content yourself to hypothesize future scenarios? How come you say "never say never" and one line later you write "If you assume Finland will never actually invade Russia" ? Finally, the way I see it: the problem is not Finland expanding in Russia, but Russia expanding in Baltic sea.
Quoting boethius
"negative" press is shitty justification then: a "special operation" shouldn't have required such a mobilization, and how calling Russian general idiots or claiming "Moscow should consider the use of low-intensity nuclear weapons in Ukraine given the recent setbacks it has suffered on the battlefield", can justify throwing in there more Russian soldiers in the battlefield is hardly understandable.
Quoting boethius
OK then take your time to quantify the "likelihood" of all your ifs in your previous couple of comments.
Quoting boethius
All right. Now that the toy is broken, what would be the best course of action by the West according to your possible future scenarios? What is their likelihood? What are your actual evidences to support them?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/oct/08/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-fire-engulfs-part-of-kerch-bridge-between-crimea-and-russia#top-of-blog
Any other offers on who done the bridge? It does look like, and is claimed to be, a truck bomb. In which case it is most probably be Crimean resistance or some Russian faction. Can we expect more?
The new commander in Ukraine is Army General Sergei Surovikin. At 55, is a veteran of the civil war in Tajikistan in the 1990s, the second Chechen war in the 2000s and the Russian intervention in Syria launched in 2015. Until now, he led the group of "Southern" forces in Ukraine, according to a Russian ministry report from July.
Thanks for the correction, Baden.
Quoting Isaac
Learn what prior to means. And then correct your own biases.
The rail line is extremely important to Russian logistics. Russian supplies depend on rail. Seems that it is quite repairable.
Again with switching the burden of proof. The claim, mentioned many times here on this forum and for months in Western media, is that Finland and Sweden joining NATO is some major strategic blow to Russia. If people want to support this claim, they should have evidence for it.
Quoting neomac
I've posted lot's of evidence in the course of this discussion to support the claims I've been making. However, if someone makes an unsupported claim then it is quite usual to ask the evidence for it.
Quoting neomac
Obviously because something no one expects may happen in the future, maybe Finnish politics radically changes and becomes convinced invading Russia is necessary or there is some calamity and a general free-for-all.
Quoting neomac
Because people maybe assuming that. It both may describe what people in the Kremlin and NATO for that matter actually think, but it's also simply another way to express risk.
For example: assuming this water is not poison then it may satiate my thirst. Now, if there's evidence the water is poison then what follows would be weighing the probabilities and consequences. If there's no evidence the water is poison then it is simply a true statement but nothing really to evaluate risk on; sure, it "could be poison" even if I have zero reason to believe that, but I'm assuming it's not and so I drink. Likewise, if the Kremlin is assuming that Finland in NATO doesn't change the security situation (as Finland is a stable country unlikely to invade Russia or change it's current defence policies much anyways) then it may explain that the Kremlin has taken little action over it.
Quoting neomac
Why would Russia mobilise if press was fantastic?
Quoting neomac
Obviously they are doing so and obviously they are justifying doing so due to the recent setbacks resulting in bad press people can see.
I'm describing a factual chain of events.
Quoting neomac
Again, the burden of proof is on people, here and elsewhere, claiming that these recent Ukrainian offensives resulting in positive press coverage in the West and usually focusing on the key word "humiliation" to describe Russia, is something that matters.
When a claim is made without supporting evidence, outlining the alternatives is a good way to try to either solicit the evidence (why they think their proposal is more likely) or then highlight that the proposal has no supporting evidence at all.
Furthermore, in these sorts of events it does not follow that we can assume each possibility is equally likely. When it comes to nation states, they are fairly resilient to collapse (actually rarely happens) and do not have a tendency to spontaneously collapse, in particular due to bad foreign press. So there's a fairly high burden of proof if you want to argue that things are different than usual, and bad Western press and social media really may bring down the Russian state somehow.
So, what I find likely is that the negative press at the moment does not matter much, the war is not waged on social media, and if the Ukrainian offensive is not sustainable then successful Russian offensives later will once again swing the mood-pendulum in another direction. Of course, the war maybe far from over even then.
Quoting neomac
For myself, I cafe little for nation states, my view of nationalism is that it is an ersatz sense of identity for the lost and bewildered, frightened and alone.
Indeed, the bigger the country one feels apart of the more lonely you can be as the larger a void can be filled.
However, let us say you wanted to preserve Western preeminence, which is what I understand your "what would be the best course of action by the West":
A few basic facts are required to understand first.
To start, the entire premise that buying Russian gas is financing "Russia's war machine" is a simplistic view of things. The foundational assumption of "liberalism" is that economic exchange reduces the reasons for and intensity of war; and assumption that seems to have been demonstrated in the war being intimately connected to the Nord Stream pipelines, and severe sanctions causing a complete diplomatic schism leading to global economic schism.
So, in starting to wage economic war (reason to prevent Germany from approving Nord Stream 2 being US can sell EU gas now with fracking and LNG), rebuking economic exchange as a foundation of peace (at least between the major nations that can defend their interests to some extent in the system), we are in fact witnessing, I would argue, the cannibalisation of the values and premises the Western way of doing things is based on.
Russia has options: it can sell to China. However, it is the West that talked itself into a rhetorical corner by making parallels to WWII and a "fight on the beaches and so on" and "never surrender" in that it's simply not remotely that kind of conflict ideologically, politically, economically or militarily.
In military terms, we can't go and "defeat the Hitler/Putin" even if the entire West thought it was justified due to nuclear weapons, and Russia is not actually presenting any serious risk of invading "the West" anyways and whatever Russians believe on average or Putin represents it is not some ideology that like Naziism that challenges our own mental comforts in the West.
Economically, Russian commodities being sold to Europe is called "added value" being created in Europe, where you want to be in the value chain and essentially guaranteeing European economic dominance over Russia. Again, the US has some donors that gain short term by destroying European prosperity both in terms of war profiteering and capital gains but also in severely undermining European policies that are less destructive / profitable.
Which is the key thing to understand, that "the West" is not some monolithic entity, and US and European interests can differ and this way of ensuring US dominance in Europe is a bad thing for the whole Western enterprise. There are different political structures with different interests.
So, what should the US do? Realise its ecocidal corrupt mania is destroying the planet and placing us all in danger, including Ukrainians (far more than Russia currently is; it's unclear to me why a project that has the known consequences of potentially destroying civilisation as a whole gets a "free pass" on the genocidal mania spectrum).
What should Europe do? Ukraine of course can fight the Russians if they want, it is Ukrainian business at the end of the day. There is simply zero European interest served by pouring arms into the situation, or letting arms traverse European territory, nor any European interest served by creating this schism and antagonism with Russia.
European policies should be the same as with respect to US bombing some random place: nobody cares.
Of course, morally, neither the US nor Russia "should" extort smaller countries by force, but they both do, and after decades of the US justifying everything it does as "in our national interest! National security!" it's not suddenly a change of heart and on some purely altruistic mission in supplying arms to Ukraine.
The Churchillian propaganda overwhelmed European political discourse, but it was not in European interest to simply believe on face value. It "sounds good" to "standup to a bully" ... but if you aren't actually about to go standup to the bully and put troops in Ukraine and match your rhetoric with actions, then it is propaganda having those unintended consequences that you mention.
Now, that does not mean abandon Ukrainians (even though I think that's entirely morally acceptable: you get yourself into a war ... defending your "agency", well, go ahead and use that agency to get yourself our, go "win the war"; I do not see how it's my business as a non-Ukrainian and where I live having no interest in a war with Russia: and, to be clear, "support" without the "fighting with" part is not an alliance, the West is not "allied" with Ukraine, why Zelensky had to say "de facto" alliance in making a "rapid application" to NATO only to then be immediately humiliated by a "yeah, no" with love, from NATO).
Even if morally acceptable to stop sending arms and support to Ukraine (there is no moral principle that obliges arms shipments, and it's a truly tours-de-force of US propaganda, in service of the arms industry, to make that now some sort of moral imperative), it is not necessarily politically expedient.
What would be politically expedient is making peace with the Russians by forcing a compromise. Europe has significant leverage with both Ukraine (both negative leverage in both stop arms shipments, but block and interdict arms shipments from the US, as well as positive leverage like EU membership) and of course leverage with Russia (sanctions, stop arms shipments to Ukraine and so on). It's also in the interests of actual Ukrainians compared to more total war because it plays well on Tictoc.
For any politician who is not a complete coward, peace is not so difficult to achieve. Of course, social media will bitch about it, but then life goes on.
Do you refer to them being EU members or what?
The whole point of the land bridge to Crimea was that there's not a single point of failure in logistics to Crimea that the actual bridge represented.
The Crimea bridge can also be repaired.
Perhaps more significantly, this invites retaliation against critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.
It's possible Russia simply lacks the capacity to destroy Ukrainian bridges of the Dnieper, for example, but if it has the capacity but has chosen not to do so, then tit-fot-tat is pretty usual justification for more violence. Basic point being Ukrainian forces in South-East Ukraine are more bridge dependent than is Russia, which is now directly connected.
If you're referring to the Scandinavian defence union, then not really.
Quoting ssu
I was wondering, too.
It took Putin's moves for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to come together in Aug 2022 (and Sweden to partially abandon their traditional neutrality).
Apart from the usual competitiveness, the Nordics/Scandinavia have been/are fairly close - borders, culturally, neighborly, whatever - aligning defense measures closer was a result of Putin looming on the horizon.
Yep. It should be no contest. But then Russian incompetence, as all the credible analysis says…
And, vice versa, if Russia was to take over Ukraine (the anti-NATO thing), then Russia equally becomes an issue for Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia (and, by extension, Europe). The nuclear rattling making it more so.
This would then suggest a neutral Ukraine. Un/acceptable? Ask the Ukrainians (first and foremost).
Russia will have to deal with a larger NATO alliance, once again at the doorstep of Russian territory. More militarised and committed to serve NATO’s agenda in Europe and in the Artic region, at least. And a more hostile NATO agenda, since east Europe and Scandinavian countries are more likely to fear Russian expansionism and revanchism than western European countries. And if this happens Ukraine could be next. That’s even more likely without Donbas and Crimea because only Crimea and Donbas were significant to Russian security concerns right?
One doesn't even have to be an insurgent to end up in one of FSB's or DNR/LNR many torture basements. Ever since the Russian 2014 coup the grim expression na podval (into the basement) has entered the common lexicon in Ukraine. The Russians are looking for anyone who has a military or law enforcement experience, or who might give up such contacts. You can get in trouble for social media posts or pictures found on your phone - or for the lack thereof, which can raise suspicions. For a "nationalistic" tattoo, such as Ukraine's national emblem. Or simply because a neighbor or colleague denounced you.
Russia’s Reindeer Brigade Is Fighting For Its Survival In Southern Ukraine (Forbes; Oct 7, 2022)
[sup](alternatively via msn)[/sup]
No one's marching on Moscow, so that gives a bit of freedom. Armed authorities in Moscow are for something else.[sup](2019, 2020, 2021, 2022)[/sup]
As an aside, neo-Stalinism came up elsewhere. Not just Russia, and has parallels elsewhere. Seems to be creeping out. :/
On a cynical note:
“The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war.”
[sup]— Mr X in JFK (1991), wikiquote, youtube, imdb[/sup]
… with which I tend to disagree, from experience, though it can be an organizing principle at times.
It’s hard to follow the logic of your reasoning. First you start with “let us say you wanted to preserve Western preeminence” as if the sake of your argument is to see how to achieve that goal more effectively than simply by supplying weapons to Ukraine, but then you conclude with “making peace with the Russians” for Europeans (to grant economic prosperity independently from the US?) and “realise its ecocidal corrupt mania” for America (namely, giving up on their hegemonic role?), neither of which ensures Western preeminence.
Indeed the series of discrediting remarks against the West (in relation to starting an economic war against Russia, to support but not ally with Ukraine, overstating the Russian threat, Western political cowardice, more total war on tictoc) that you repleted your argument with seem aiming at questioning the desirability of pursuing Western preeminence more than finding a way to preserve it.
So your point is that the West should give up on its idea of World Order, Europe should only pursue economic prosperity by making peace with Russia, and the US should give up on its hegemonic role? And then we will more likely have peace? Is that it?
Excellently summarised. Just prepare for the dismissive waffle that will follow. :grin:
The article is helpful in showing how the misfortune of war will play out in Russian society. A countervailing perspective from the game of Risk underway in many minds:
Russia's inclusion in this power calculus is both surprising and illuminating. Conventional wisdom - post the USSR - had largely come to assess Russia as a mid-level regional economic power that enjoyed an elevated global significance largely by virtue of its legacy nuclear arsenal. Senator John McCain - one time Presidential Candidate - went so far as to describe Russia as a "Gas Station masquerading as a country." Something of this thinking underpinning McCain's derision must have featured prominently in the minds of EU leaders when they began to enthusiastically proclaim a series of dramatic trade sanctions against Russia.
A free trade alliance between China and Russia is the necessary foundation for any Eurasian economic zone capable of challenging Western hegemony. The partnership of Russia's unlimited resources combined with China's population and industrial capacity possesses an irresistible gravitational pull on the entirety of the Asia and the Middle East. The SCO, and Silk Road investment projects are already expanding and attracting interest from India, Iran, Turkey and the all the Stans. These countries represent over half of the worlds population.
For the West - It is this perspective that makes it necessary to balkanise Russia. As Secretary of State during the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton bemoaned that it was unfair that Russia possessed so much access to natural resources. In the short term, the Ukraine war is a financial windfall for the MIC, a fillip of relevance for NATO, it consolidates power of the EU in Brussels and it advances the agenda of the WEF.
So what happens in the Ukraine is important but is only one part of a much larger game. What we know about Putin and the war is filtered by our media thru this lens.
Our Western political leaders are in the habit of elevating one foreign leader after another as the latest reincarnation of Hitler. In just the last 2 decades we've had five of these Doctor Evil types: Saddam, Gaddafi, Kim Jong-un, Trump and now Putin. Popular Western Culture can accept criticism of its imperial colonial past but is not so comfortable discussing and arguably blind to its current geo-political excesses.
Is the Western World really still a force for good?
Ever since 9/11, hysteria, outrage, anger, fear and hate have all become normalised. It's more than a little unsettling just to review a sampling of the headlines and vocabulary used to cover news over the last 2 decades: Patriot Act, war on terror, rendition, Al Queda, ISIS, Rendition, GITMO, Waterboarding, Coalition of the willing, Axis of Evil, Snowden, Assange, GFC, Moral hazard, Quantitive Easing, Novichok, Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
millions of refugees, Russia Gate, Not my President, Stolen Elections, Impeachments , Insurrections...
And if that were not enough, there is the threat of extinction from greenhouse gases and climate catastrophe. All the while, there are an increasing number of media reports of key personnel in the administrations of both Russia and the USA threatening each other with Nuclear war.
If that is the case, your observations cannot be supported as evidence by appeal to any resource.
This being so, why does it matter whether you are camp West or camp Eurasia? Cheering for a team is a natural human reaction, but why not evaluate the whole of global politics through an ecological lens?
Quoting yebiga
This is what cheering for your team looks like.
But factually, both sides make the same comparisons. So the criticism applies equally. The habit is shared.
Quoting apokrisis
You can't because from a purely ecological lens the extinction of humans is a boon. And in that case the sooner we are all gone the better.
Thus if we wish to live, our negotiating thru the various political, cultural, economic and environmental issues becomes unavoidable.
Quoting apokrisis
This is sadly all too true and hopelessly dysfunctional. Emotive partisanship is by definition myopic and prone to confirmation bias. It narrows the field of cognition and clouds the exploration of possibilities. The level of technological power - we possess today - means the consequences of our errors no longer permit us to indulge our primordial and medieval instincts.
For much of political history, it has been wise policy to keep the public's stomach full but its head empty - the problems that come with modern complexity and advanced technological capability make this ancient instinct not only insufficient at overcoming systemic challenges but almost certain to lead to an existential catastrophe.
Those are not the words I would use, but it's clear that southern Ukraine has been Russia's primary concern since 2013, and probably will be for a long time to come.
I've no idea what you're talking about. All my sources are prior to the war.
If by 'the war' you mean the whole unrest from 2014, then...
a) some of the reports go back to 2012, so that's wrong just on its face
b) even the people whose job it is to work out these things are unsure whether to call pre-2022 conditions a 'war' so to claim that your meaning was so obvious is ridiculous.
c) Why go back then. If your claim is that Ukraine would treat the inhabitants better because they did so over a decade ago then I think we can all see you're clutching at straws.
You had a biased view of Ukraine because of your immersion in Western propaganda, I pointed that out. That's all that's happened here.
It's like you're immune to data. I've posted three reports from the world's leading authorities on Human Rights detailing the way in which the Ukrainian authorities committed exactly the same sorts of abuses and you're still posting this crap as if the problem were one-sided.
I think you follow the logic pretty well.
To make a long story short, "peace" is the basis of US power: you play by America's rules and you can go about your business in peace, maybe a lot of poverty, but at least peacefully. The war in Ukraine upsets this essentially "protection money" system.
European prosperity is part of this global economic system the US manages: if you play by the US's rules then you can play with Europe too. If you destroy European prosperity, the US economy is not large enough and not globally integrated enough to remotely absorb economic activity that is left hanging: they will go to China.
The EU is a massive part of the global economy and geologically positioned as essentially a cross-roads of all major parts: North America, Asia, Middle-East and Africa.
Without Europe, America is far away from everything and does not have the economic pull required to maintain preeminence, and would just become less and less relevant with things happening that the US can't do anything about.
It's when you add America and Europe together, in addition to the satellite "Western" countries in the East (mainly Japan, South Korea and Australia), that you have the economic pull to bring nations into the system by their own accord.
If you bitch slap Europe hard enough, people go elsewhere.
Sure, bitch slapping Europe feels good and is one way to express the power you have right now. But it's also the indication of deeper mental problems.
However, since I had time this morning, I also wrote a long version:
I am challenging the hypothesis that supplying arms to Ukraine is good for "the West", both Europe and even the United States; that supporting the current war is in fact counter productive to Western preeminence.
It certainly benefits short term profits and capital gains of fossil fuel and arms donors to the US administration, but I am not defining "the West" as synonymous with such an interest, and that the Ukraine war is also counter productive to US power (which there was debate about at the start of the war even in US neocon circles, that a complete schism with Russia and placing it permanently as commodity supplier to the Chinese was actually bad for the US; for there were "Imperial analysts", whatever you want to call them, that were in favour of a diplomatic solution simply on the grounds it is better for US power to maintain the status quo, that Ukraine is far away and unimportant and not worth the geopolitical headache, was essentially their view; there's lot's of specific reasons for such a conclusion, but it can be summarised as simply instability generally favours upstart movers and shakers, rather than the incumbent).
Western preeminence is not primarily based on military strength. The United States does not conquer and then integrate administratively the conquered regions into their imperial system, such as most past empires: the British and other European empires, Roman, Persian, Mongolian, Inca, etc.
For example, West Germany and Japan are not the 51st and 52nd states of the USA even after surrendering and the US being essentially in full administrative control for a time, as that is simply incompatible with US governance and culture; however, united Germany and Japan today are certainly part of the "US system", but it would an exaggeration to call them vassal states. US control over it's "allies" is not total and if, say, Japan did something the US didn't like (for example not join all the sanctions against Russia), there is essentially no option for the USA to just re-conquer Japan and administer its economic policies to its liking (even if it had the power to do so).
In other words, the situation is complicated. United States position in the world certainly does have a military component, but could not be maintained with that military power; if states generally speaking start moving away from US preferred policies and towards, say, Chinese preferred policies, there is little the US can do about it militarily. Indeed, not only can the US not implement its will on the world by force, but trying to do so is corrosive to US power.
The actual basis of US power is being a "fair and honest broker" (obviously not actually honest or fair, but fair enough) for access to the global economic system and "protection". The US system is stable if the price it extracts for this "service" is in some way justifiable for most states most of the time.
It is a classic mafioso type relationship at its heart: pay me ... let's call it a "tax" ... as the big boss of bosses, and you won't have to deal with the local street thugs that could mess with you: capiche.
The Ukraine proxy war is in fundamental contradiction to this way of "doing business".
For, before this war (started in 2014), Russia was not really "breaking any rules", but playing by the rules to access the Western economic system. The US support of Ukraine is essentially the big mafia boss suddenly deciding to support their nephews criminal career and letting them do whatever crime they want in the neighbourhood; as the big shop keeper on the street who's been paying protection money and playing by the rules imposed on them, this wasn't the deal. The deal is: play by the rules and I won't have to deal with local thugs messing with my shit.
Had the US, post 2014, come in and brokered (and enforced) a peace deal, the system would have been restored to balance. Russia loses its influence in Kiev, but gets Crimea and at least part of Donbas, symbolic recognition of Russian language in Ukraine. This would have been the US playing its role as "global don" competently: there's some local issue somewhere, better to sort it out than it potentially explode into some big mess to deal with: you will accept this piece of the pie, and you will accept this other piece of the pie.
However, there's an internal contradiction with this "peace brokering" basis of US power, which is the American military industrial complex does not want peace, but neither can it conquer the world so it's utility to US power is very much secondary to these more complicated economic and diplomatic considerations. The "diplomatic" industry, however, doesn't produce profits. The solution to the contradiction since WWII was, first, the cold war and to "top off" the profits, second, to simply wage continuous war on small countries that are not integral to the global economic system.
WIth the end of the cold war, the war on smaller powers way of making money became the only game in town, so the war on terror is invented. 20 years of profits without it really mattering all that much to the system as a whole.
It is simply not a coincidence that the months after the war on terror officially came to an end, simply exhausted it's profit making potential and there was just no one else to bomb, that this new "cold war" erupted.
But it is not a new cold war, rather this war in Ukraine is simply based on the fabrication of Russia as an enemy since it was realised the blessed war on terror will inevitably end. Essentially as soon as the writing was on the wall, Putin became the new boogey man, butt of jokes and constantly calling him a tyrant and so on. But why Russia? There's plenty of mid-level regional powers that have far worse democratic credentials. It's just lazy writing basically to concoct an enemy to focus on as soon as the war on terror no longer brings in truck loads of cash. First phase was stoking nuclear tensions, ending various treaties, new weapons programs (because they are profitable), moving missiles closer to Russia.
Long story short, a very profitable endeavour transitioning Russia the new "other" after muslims were squeezed dry.
The problem is that war profiteering, while corrosive to US power, is only compatible with it if it's against small and already fairly isolated countries that are not integral to the world economy. Russia was and is completely integral to the world economy.
The situation is more akin to a mafia don making life difficult for a casino operator in Vegas, not really for any particular reason but just emotional outburst and "because I can", fuelled by hubris, arrogance and cocaine. A mafioso can get angry with any random small pizza shop and have the pizza shop owner dragged out to the alley and killed, no reason and no one cares about it (just a mafioso doing his angry killing thing), but more powerful "businessmen" have options to defend themselves. Mess with a casino owner, even with more capacity for violence right now, and they start to think of what they can do about it. Show enough "lack of respect" and maybe he goes and starts talking to other casino owners, that what's happened to him can happen to them, and, together, if they stop paying the protection money then and stop the drug and prostitute sales in their hotels, there's nothing really the head honcho, for now, can do about it (especially if there's another organisation competing on the global scene that is more "reasonable" to deal with).
That's basically the situation, US may not "like" the Russians, but they were a good actor in America's global economic system: fuelling the NATO war machine by providing commodities and energy that could have added value transformations in Europe, that is far more profitable than the raw materials.
In other words, the US "broke the deal" to provide stability in exchange for doing business in their system: using their "laundry services" for example.
The reason is simply the arms and fossil industry profits are so massive that such interest can overwhelm the entire analytical capacity of the US intelligence community (you only get "nuance" in US strategic thinking when arms and oil interests are in some sort of competition, but if they coincide there is no other possible policy).
So, even focusing on the United States, the war in Ukraine is not beneficial to Western preeminence; however, it's unlikely the US administration could do anything to endanger a single dollar of arms and fossil profits, regardless of what US politicians think (that doesn't really matter much).
However, Europe has far more to lose from this war and also far more leverage, so they could follow their own interest and essentially force a peace. This would also be good for American Imperialism, and "Western preeminence" as understood essentially to mean US and Europe.
The problem is that, as Blinken just recently "said the quiet part out loud", blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline is a "big opportunity" ... for who? Well, for the US administration as defined as simply the sales reps of the US fossil and arms industries. There is no analytical depth further than that, and Americans would throw a hissy fit if Europe tried to lower their energy costs and a myriad of domestic political issues (and thus US fossil industry profits) through pursuing any sort of peace. American diplomats would be literally writhing on the floor screeching and screaming. However, it would be for their own good.
American cognitive abilities to manage their empire have essentially collapsed, so Europe would need to dust off the ol' Imperial boots to co-manage the Western system.
Of course, this is assuming Western preeminence is worth preserving. On this question, Europe has been leading the world in ecological policy (what gives rise to tensions with US administrative donors and therefore US administration wanting to punish Europe to express that frustration). So again, if Europe took co-management of the Western economic system and pushed it in a more ecological direction, then I think that would be overall a good thing.
If they wouldn't do that anyways, then maybe the theory that only authoritarian states can respond to existential crisis with "what needs to be done" is correct and perhaps all the authoritarians getting together in a club is better odds. I wouldn't want that to be true, letting the ecological crisis unfold over 60 years while knowing about it, the war on drugs, the war on terror, financial collapse, covid policies and then this entirely (and easily) prevented war in Ukraine, aren't exactly good advertisements for Western global management.
There's also the question of how democratic is the West really ... really as much as we like to believe? Debatable.
Still? Which good old day are you nostalgic for? Mussolini made the trains run on time, and The British Empire made the trains, and published Marx.
Quoting boethius
Well that has the bitter taste of truth. The land of the [s]free[/s] far too costly.
Quoting yebiga
Bringing up the repetitive nature of these little sagas: always a new Hitler, always some sort of existential threat (if not physically some vague "way of life"), and violence always being the answer (and to question the use of violence ... is somehow actually pro-violence), spot on.
However, I would disagree on one point:
Quoting yebiga
As some sort of proposed definition, humans are one species among many so, as such, simply adding to biodiversity.
However, in practical terms of today, any plausible scenario where we actually go extinct is one where we bring the vast majority of the biosphere with us. "Everyone kill themselves" is not a practical political project: so how that would happen is nuclear war, extreme climate chaos, life competing AI (likely all three at once).
Most importantly, sustainability as an engineering project is fairly easy to do while helping increase global biodiversity (planting trees) and cleaning up our waste. We are not in some dilemma that solving our problems are simply impossible from a physical perspective, and we need to therefore accept unpleasant conclusions (such as it would in fact be better if we all kill ourselves).
Our problems are political, and history demonstrates political systems can change rapidly.
Let's delete "for good", which is indeed quite debatable. The remaining part of the question is in the balance: Is the Western World still a force?
Yep. What's that got to do with the humanitarian problems in Ukraine. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are 'Western'.
Quoting neomac
I haven't.
Quoting neomac
No it isn't. I'm a member of the electorate in one of them, I hold them to account. It matters tremendously what I think they out to be concerned with.
Quoting neomac
Exactly. And the argument is thst there's little to chose between Ukraine and Russia on that score. As such there's no humanitarian goal in ensuring the territory remain in Ukrainian control. The humanitarian goal is to stop the fighting as quickly as possible.
Nice
That you honestly believe ex-US officers, in this case not even a ex-general!, working for "think tanks" is for sure not feeding you bullshit and represent an agenda, is worrisome.
Quoting Is the Russian military a paper tiger, New Yorker
You really want to compare this guy to Michael Kofman.
Who, if you watch the interview I posted, mentions there was a lot of capabilities said to be missing, that the Russians did use successfully at the start of the war, but it was not reported at the time.
Of course, some operations were successful and some not successful, as you'd expect in any major war.
But on the subject of experts, he's another interesting interview:
But I'm going to guess not as "credible" in your book because he disagrees with some of your points?
Whilst, I am cynical and hyper-critical of the current Western hegemonic culture - and would argue that we have collectively lost our minds - and that there never was never any benevolent golden age; Nevertheless, amongst the grotesque litany of excess, genocide and hubris - western culture has also led a remarkable rational awakening of science and ethics which has empowered quite miraculous achievements lifting humankind out of universal misery, disease, hunger, war and superstition.
The price paid for these achievements has been bloody and ruthless but what is now possible for billions of people today - is the stuff of magical thinking and fantasy for all preceding human history.
We throw the baby out with the bath water - so to speak - when we diminish these truly astonishing achievements.
Our errors and misdeeds are not the whole story. Not in the past nor today. It may be wise and useful to study and remind ourself of our errors so as to not repeat them. It is at least as equally wise and useful to study and remind ourself of our achievements - so as to propagate more of them.
It seems to me that much of our contemporary cultural and political melee comes from an myopic emotive emphasis concerning our past mistakes which has left our culture petty, whining, bitter, resentful, shameful, bereft of pride and most importantly - incapable of agency.
I
Why?
It seems to me that this myopic emotive view comes about as a result of the myopic, emotive, jingoistic celebration of the wonders of science, christianity, and whatever political system is flavour of the month, while ignoring the cost in terms of war, famine, and pestilence visited on every inhabited continent, not to mention the destruction of the ecosystem, and the creation of climate change. The astonishing achievements of producing global threats to not only our species but also many many others by man-made apocalypses are not anything to be proud of; if only humanity was a little less capable of agency.
There are and always will be existential threats - they exist with or without us.
Their existence is unavoidable as is our necessity to negotiate thru them.
So, what precisely is stopping us from managing the eco-system better, in preventing the degradation of land, in moving towards a more sustainable future? In the western world green leaning policies and green leaning parties have been in the ascendancy for over a decade or two. A series of global announcements with big promises over this period have been celebrated as near religious events.
The myriad of little things that could have been done yesterday, that could be done today are never done or just poorly done. It seems that unless saving the planet involves a large uber-expensive and serpentine administrative process its not worth the effort. The idea that any individual, any business or any local, regional, state or federal government could by itself initiate something ecologically worthwhile that did not fall under the auspices of some strategy administered by a global bureaucracy is unthinkable.
When exactly did multi-governments committees, let alone trans-governmental committees prove themselves to be efficient and effective at dodging complex existential threats? But here we are.
Saving the planet is a grave matter that can only be conducted by the most serious and important global professionals, who can articulate the correct creed, the consensus of principles, using the appropriate language, defined by the sanctioned legal articles, the internationally certified methodologies, the standardised measures, inspired by a select focus group talking points, the hot button advertising campaigns that elevate the role models that will bravely lead us to our Uber-future.
But before anything can be done - anyone who disagrees with the sanctioned global agenda is cancelled. Once the heretics are silenced - the work will commence - Promise!
This is all of course a vulgar exaggeration and its author should be immediately dismissed as denier of climate change, most likely a Trump and or Putin supporter and very probably racist, misogynist, homo and trans-phobic.
Now that's a debate.
Are you implying fossil fuel lobbies are just wise ol' heretics suffering the gravest of political persecutions for their views?
I fail to follow where you're going with this passage.
Is it?
• Ukrainian non/combatants
• Ukrainian freedom due to invasion
• Ukrainian infrastructure, land/homes
• in occupied areas, Ukrainian culture self-determination freedom
• Russian combatants/invaders
• trust in Putin and team (or Russians in general especially by Ukrainians)
• some measure of international stability
• incentives to rely on or trade with Russia
:/
Solutions seem elusive.
Least common denominator as it were?
The difference however is that Ukraine is more pro-Western than Russia. So as long as Ukrainian are open to enter the Western sphere of influence cooperatively, I would welcome it.
Quoting Isaac
Your prescription was “As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there”. How likely is that a random individual or collectivity or State in the West can be so compassionate to be concerned solely for the well-being of the people there? I see it as pretty much unlikely at any level. That is why your prescription looks damn challenging to be euphemistic.
Quoting Isaac
I wasn’t questioning the relevance of your moral standards to you nor the relevance of your political choices in a democracy. Again, I am questioning its relevance to establish what individuals, collectives or States are capable of. A part from that, people can surely have all the unrealistic expectations and set their moral standards arbitrarily high as they like, of course.
Quoting Isaac
Little? The difference is dramatically under our eyes: Ukraine is more pro-Western than Russia. And risking their lives because they want to enter the Western sphere of influence isn’t a little difference to my standards. On the contrary I find it the opposite of compassionate just to call it “little”.
Quoting jorndoe
Now there are fewer troops behind the Finnish border than anytime. The garrisons have only a skeleton crew and new conscripts in training.
That kid there was/is scheduled to speak Russian only, by the way:
Not the first missile attack in the past week or so.
(Isn't this supposed to be a region that voted to join Russia anyway?)
Not seeing much genuinity or reconciliation here.
Whatever the overall intention of the operation, this report presents a sharp contrast to the U.S. doctrine on Joint Forcible Entry Operations.
The emphasis on keeping the element of surprise was blown via U.S. Intelligence.
Isolation of the 'lodgment' from enemy forces was not achieved.
Being told what was happening on the way to battle is a far cry from the 'rehearsals' called for in complex force integration.
The collection of tactical failures suggests that not much 'red team' process went into the planning.
Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny.
But you think it's all bullshit.
Well, even the Russians admit it and there's quite a lot of Russian observers noting how bad the war is going.
But somehow your counterargument is that it's just all propaganda.
By “only authoritarian states can respond to existential crisis with "what needs to be done””, you mean by directly engaging in aggressive wars and territorial annexations as old empires did? Or by extorting smaller countries by force, because that's what they do?
By “all the authoritarians getting together in a club is better odds” you mean that a club of authoritarian regimes like China, Russia and Iran are better odds for peace and prosperity in Europe than the US hegemony?
There have been other reports.
Haven't read of any booby traps. Maybe the Russians will add that to their arsenal, however wasteful it seems. :)
Tell that to all those Russian soldiers who found out that they were invading Ukraine only when they started seeing Ukrainian road signs from their APCs!
Yes. I wonder how they would have reacted if told beforehand.
Thanks for posting that Kofman interview which flatly contradicts your talking points. That you could hear it as saying the opposite makes me quite worried about your comprehension skills.
The capabilities you are talking about are electronic warfare and cyber warfare to disrupt Ukrainian command and control. By their nature, that isn't visible. And so certainly we may find they were used. It would be surprising if they weren't. But the lack of visible effect then simply becomes another reason to suspect Russian incompetence.
So you tried to make a talking point of a passing mention that EW and cyber must of course have been employed as if this was being used as a major critique of Russian military effectiveness. But in an hour interview, Kofman nicely sums up the story of just how much went wrong for the Russians after the paratroop drop to establish a Kyiv airbridge.
In a nutshell, Putin's political incompetence – some rush of blood to the head – led to Russian generals becoming committed to a lightning expeditionary force attack that they could never appropriately scale. Decision incompetence exposed a structural lack of competence.
Kofman knocks down the talking point that the assault on Kyiv was a feint rather than a serious attempt to decapitate the Ukraine government and install a puppet regime. He points out how even after this first quick strike failed, Russia still persisted in dividing its underpowered "special operation" force, giving it the three objectives of encircling Kyiv, encircling Ukrainian forces in the Donbas, and pushing right down the coast to take Odessa.
It failed on all three objectives and wound up in the current war of attrition, with Ukraine now with all the momentum.
Kofman says this was clearly political incompetence – Putin expecting the Russian military to achieve things it wasn't equipped for. But then also he points out just how further widespread military incompetence compounded the Russian problems.
He is scathing of the sloppy navy that was supposed to be leading an amphibious assault on Odessa but instead couldn't even hold Snake Island or protect its main ship.
He is scathing of the airforce – although he says what can you expect from a force that is still stuck in the 1990s when it comes to complex operations and SEAD.
He is scathing of the army which became exposed in its incapacity to scale its operational structures with any efficiency. Even the good parts of the army were stuck in a disjointed and piecemeal mode of operation.
He points out how Russian incompetence shows through in very general ways. They knew Himars was coming but did nothing to adjust. He gives multiple examples of Russia being slow to learn where the Ukrainians have been nimble.
He ends sounding personally aggrieved about a particular case of the Russians trying to knock out a bridge with cruise missiles in a way that wouldn't even be believed in any basic officer training.
So yes Kofman's analysis is well worth listening to. But it is hard to believe you yourself sat all the way through it.
I was trying to illustrate what a hopelessly riddled mess of invective this heated partisanship has led us to.
A person can be concerned about the environment without having any confidence in the proposed solutions being offered and can legitimately suspect the motives and sincerity of its proponents. A person can hate US/NATO foreign policy without being a fan of Russia or Putin. A person can prefer Trump over Biden or Hillary without being enthusiastic about any of them. A person can respect all races, homosexuality and trans people whilst being suspicious or even opposed to the various related policy campaigns. Just as a person can be impressed with Heiddegger's Being and Time without being a NAZI sympathiser.
A person can acknowledge historical crimes and errors of the culture they belong to whilst still being proud of its achievements.
This understanding is actually an essential pre-condition for rational discussion. No matter how erudite the interjection that breaches this pre-condition it renders rational discourse impossible. If discourse and public debate is to be productive it must avoid descending into a contest - until proven otherwise - we should assume the very best of our interlocutor.
What constitutes the condition of "until proven otherwise"?
For example, for one who does not see any gap between Heidegger's philosophy and his political declarations, why is it incumbent upon me to separate the two? He does not do that anywhere that I am aware of. If the burden of proof does not fall upon him, what else is left?
That was just an example. The first question about proof is what confronts all in regard to the situation in Ukraine.
Because so many Philosophers and thinkers have admired and been inspired by Heidegger's work, including Jews, who remain uncomfortable with his political involvement with NAZIS, who are fully aware of the accusations but who nevertheless can see the gap between his best ideas and his political biography.
Imagine if Hitler himself had discovered antibiotics - and his name was synonymous with not only the holocaust but also this life saving medicine. Would - in this alternative reality - the continuing use of antibiotics to save lives be an affirmation of NAZI sympathy?
It's of course a ridiculous example but I think it nevertheless helps to crystallise the dilemma your position presents. For Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence, Heidegger's contribution is undeniably profound. It would be one thing to be suspicious and cautious of Heidegger's work if his Opus Magnus was political but I am unable to envisage what nazi threat or contamination his phenomenological work could possibly possess.
Canadian Professor John Verbanke has a series online titled "awakening to the meaning crisis.." where he explores amongst other topics across 50 lectures, a lot of the latest questions concerning Human and Artificial Intelligence. He is - like many - very circumspect - far too much - about Heidegger. And I contend his series is all the poorer for it.
The reason I raise this obscure series is that the Verbanke asserts that the prevailing consensus in AI is that the keystone to human intelligence and the challenge for AI is something he calls "relevance realisation." The autonomous AI guys can't get around how we make sense out of the infinitude of information that we are always confronted by. There is just too much complexity and no amount of processing power can fully examine the combinatorial explosion and make a functional decision in a timely manner - yet we humans manage it.
Humans function by ignoring what is not relevant and focusing on only the key parameters - thus the term "relevance realisation." So if I am interested in Heidegger's personal biography his nazi affiliation is of course very relevant; when attempting to understand his philosophy the same personal biography is an unnecessary complexity which is likely to hinder not assist my attempt to comprehend his complex philosophical ideas.
I have found it helpful to think of Rational as synonymous with Relevance Realisation - as distinctly different from logic or deduction.
Thus, "ratio" forms the first part of the word. It is a balance of probabilities we need to mostly negotiate. To function at all, we are forever forced to decide and exclude what is not precisely relevant. The certainty we feel with deduction and logic is mostly not available to us. As embodied beings surrounded by infinite complexity we can only apply logic were the parameters are fully defined.
Your evidence for that?
Maidan.
We were talking about human rights, not politics.
(wiki)
This was not the issue under contention.
Quoting apokrisis
@apokrisis's hypothesis is that no analysis and no expert is credible, other than the Russian military is incompetent.
Incompetence is a pretty high threshold and you can of course be competent and still fail, especially in a negative sum game such as war.
Even higher threshold is claiming "all credible analysis" agrees with your position.
So yes, in such a debate, citing a ex-US military colonel who works for a "think tank" and wildly speculating on the state of the Russian military back in April, is, at the least, not a credible source to support the idea all credible analysis agrees with your position.
Uh huh. Similar protests take place in Russia. I'm enquiring about the evidence that their requests have been acted upon. I've provided three reports from the world's leading human rights groups detailing the situation in Eastern Ukraine and their assessment is that the abuses by both sides are not noticeably different. So I'd need some fairly compelling evidence to the contrary if we're to justify 600 deaths a day as being a worthwhile sacrifice for keeping the disputed territory in the control of this 'West-leaning' government. So far no one's provided anything but wishful thinking.
You cleared the threshold for incompetent argument with impressive ease. :up:
This is a crucial point that is being overlooked.
@apokrisis, @ssu - what is the background against which you're measuring 'competence'?
How many failures do you think is normal during a modern land invasion. What's the normal turnover of generals during a Russian war. What's the normal number of losses, retreats, strategy changes that you'd expect in this situation?
Because without any of this background data, I don't see how anyone can judge competence.
Even more crucial to the decisions ahead. What's the greater risk, that we underestimate Russian military power, or that we overestimate it? The former, thousands more die. The latter...?
Plans that work because you’ve correctly prepared.
I entered this conversation at the point where there was a lot of excuses being made for Putin’s invasion. He only had limited aims. Kyiv was a feint. All the surprise at the early failures was unfair. A grinding three year war of attrition to seize a chunk of borderland already half under separatist control was the only ambition Putin ever had in mind.
I wondered who would claim such nonsense and why.
Did you listen to the interview?
At no point does Kofman describe the Russian military as incompetent and so bound to lose on the battlefield. He brings up things they did well, things they did less well, achievements and losses.
Of course, things need to be compared to the state of the Ukrainian military, which the interviewer gets to and Kofman's response is as follows:
Quoting Michael Kofman interview
Notice how this basic observation of Ukraine numerical superiority not translating into force advantage ... is exactly what @Tzeentch already pointed out:
Quoting Tzeentch
Kofman then goes onto to describe Russia has been able to scale it's reconnaissance strike complex (long range missiles and planes) from what it could do in smaller scale in Syria, but has been effective in reconnaissance fire missions (artillery and multiple rockets).
He then describes reconnaissance strikes as something really difficult to do, and that Russia can do, just not as effectively as their capabilities would in principle allow ... not something that if you can't do that makes you incompetent.
What is described throughout the interview is strengths and weaknesses, and of course challenges the Russian's face are the same as Ukraine, so the question is who does better.
Quoting apokrisis
Again, you can accept that the Russian military is competent, can conquer and hold onto 20% of Ukrainian territory, but still ultimately "lose", in whatever definition of loss we're going with.
Kofman does place the long term advantage "slightly" with Ukraine, but only insofar as Western support keeps pace.
If you remember my central hypothesis: NATO could support Ukraine enough to win on the battle field, but chooses not to. The weapons drip-feed hypothesis is my central position.
So an organisation is 'incompetent' if even a single plan fails? That's an astonishingly high bar.
Quoting apokrisis
But the answer's already been given. If we underestimate the Russian military and promote further war erroneously, thousands die. If we overestimate the Russian military and cede unnecessarily, the humanitarian situation barely changes.
It's obvious that the most important humanitarian goal in this specific matter, is to ensure we're not underestimating the Russian military, it is to push against narratives such as yours, that they're useless and so not a force to reckon with.
I just can't see any moral imperative to the opposite ends. What benefit is it to anyone that we broadcast how useless the Russian military are (assuming you're right). Why err on that side?
Silence?
... or doing the actual work of transcribing and citing Kofman to support my claim.
Feel free to rebut Kofman's central evaluation of the current war situation, which is exactly the same as mine: things depend on Ukraine's ability to sustain their offensives, which is far from clear.
What we can deduce from this basic fact is that, on the short term, if Ukraine cannot sustain it's offensives then Russian "humiliation" will stop and then reverse, so whatever social media ground was gained in wildly exaggerating the war ending nature of these recent offensives will be likewise reversed in Russia's favour.
Longer term, there's a lot of questions of sustainment on both sides, which Kofman is pretty clean he doesn't know the answer to.
Indeed, citing someone who cautions the military analysis community to be "humble in coming to big conclusions" is, if you had a bit of that comprehension you're talking about, in direct contradiction in supporting the position the pretty immense conclusion of "Russian military is incompetent".
I’m reasoning on a step-by-step basis :
Note that I summarised his view as that Putin’s political war aims were incompetent because the Russian forces lacked the structural competence to execute them. Then on top of that, there was the incompetent execution due to poor preparation, systemic corruption, low morale, normalised sloppiness, etc, etc.
You can continue to claim competence on all these fronts if you like. Alternative facts.
Of course. If a single dud shell gets fired, the whole organisation can be written off as failed. I like the way you reason. :up:
Where does he state that?
Again, you say you agree with Kofman ... who does not come to the conclusion the Russian army is incompetent, but indeed competent enough even make progress despite 3 to 1 or more numerical disadvantage.
Where is Kofman in the referenced interview agreeing with your "incompetence" claim.
I don't see how your third step is in any way 'unquestionable'.
NATO is a military defensive organisation and the EU an economic one. Neither decision 'unquestionably' shows anything about a commitment to the sorts of human rights gains that the countries within those institutions enjoy. NATO particularly has absolutely no human rights element whatsoever.
Nor are Ukraine 'ready to suffer a war against Russia' for that move. There's no link at all. The fiercest fighting against Russia has come from the ultranationalists, the very same groups opposed to westernisation.
I think it's undoubtedly true that Ukraine's attempt to join the EU is a move which would require an accompanying move in the direction of human rights (regardless of the motivating factors), but it remains to be seen if that progress can be imposed in the East. The evidence so far is uncompromisingly that it cannot.
A reminder of the 'one people' that is Ukraine...
Notice anything about the contested regions?
Recall, this is no minor 'preponderance of evidence' issue. You're advocating the continuation of a brutal war on the back of your assessment here.
It's not my reasoning, it's yours. I'm asking about your threshold for 'incompetence'.
I thought you were avoiding...
Quoting apokrisis
...?
This is the third time you've cited Vexler. A...
But they did not succeed in toppling the regime. In contrast, the euromaidan and revolution of dignity did succeed.
Quoting Isaac
That was before the war, before Zelensky even. But Russia is going down into absolute autocracy, all the while Ukraine's evolution is positive.
So Russia should never had started this war, because by the same logic, it isn't a worthwhile sacrifice for keeping the disputed territory in the control of Russia either.
Positive according to who? Ukrainian intelligence.
Ukraine literally banned the second largest political party.
That's a far worse direction than Russia.
Again, it’s a step-by-step reasoning, at step 3 I didn’t talk about “commitment to the sorts of human rights gains that the countries within those institutions enjoy”. I simply asked you if Ukraine is more pro-West than Russia? The answer is unequivocally yes.
Quoting Isaac
You mean that the exclusive overwhelming reason why Ukraine is fighting against Russian oppression, is because a tiny minority of Ukrainian ultranationalists is taking hostage Zelensky’s administration and the rest of the population to keep fighting Russian oppression exclusively out of spite of Russians? And that Ukrainian ultranationalists (like the ones who joined the Euro Maidan revolts) didn’t want Ukraine to join NATO and EU?
So? We're talking about the humanitarian situation in Donbas. It's like citing a revolution in Scotland as evidence of England's pro-scottish tendency.
Quoting Olivier5
Nope. 2014-2021 are the dates.
Quoting Olivier5
Here's the summary from Amnesty's 2021 report...
... For the sake of clarity, just point out the bits you think are worth fighting a devastating land war over.
Quoting Olivier5
Yep. Well done, you've reached the conclusion that anyone with a reading age over five reached.
No it isn't. Pro-west is not a single measure but is made up of military, economic and cultural forces.
Plus...
Quoting neomac
... We're talking about the situation in Donbas. The region (as I demonstrated above) is split between nationalists and pro-russian separatists. As I said above...
Quoting Isaac
Who said so? My requirement is minimal: for me pro-West simply means to be in favor of being part of the Western sphere of influence like by joining NATO and EU.
You can raise the standards of analysis as high as you like, but the question remains: according to your vague but certainly greater measuring standards is Ukraine more pro-Western than Russia? Besides you didn't offer any evidence to support the claim that Ukraine is exactly as anti-Western as Russia if not more. And by removing the Donbas region and Crimea from the equation Ukraine would be even more pro-West than it already is, because those regions (being more pro-Russian) are likely more anti-Western than the rest of Ukraine.
Quoting Isaac
No you are talking about the situation in Donbas. I'm talking about Ukraine as opposed to Russia.
No, it's like saying Ukraine chose Western values over submission to a dictatorship. The Russians have yet to do this.
Even your quotes testify that Russia's occupation is detrimental to human rights ...
Quoting Isaac
I was just stating the obvious, though you deserve credit for acknowledging it.
Quoting AI: Russian Federation 2021
Joining the EU comes with some prerequisites that Ukraine would be subject to. Seeking membership is indicative of intent to improve in areas deemed to fall short, and sufficient transparency for others to evaluate. Conversely, there are indicators that Putin's Russia has been going in the opposite direction (maybe gay rights are the most visible, don't know). And they've been lashing out at (or been paranoid of) "The West" for a bit, while calling for nationalism and such. [sup](Nov 28, 2007, Feb 8, 2008, Sep 20, 2013, Feb 11, 2021, Mar 3, 2022, Mar 16, 2022, Jun 10, 2022)[/sup] It's not a contest, yet here Ukraine "wins" over Putin's Russia.
Yes indeed.
I’m surprised by how often this is getting equated with Russian apologetics. I haven’t heard one person cheering Putin on. His actions, to any rational human being, are hideous. That shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.
We can’t do much about the war in Ukraine. We can barely do much about our own states’ actions. But our attention should focus on wherever we can make most of a difference to end the war. If you live in the UK, or Germany, or the US, etc., you should analyze what part they’re playing in the war.
It just so happens that the US has played an enormous role in this conflict, as has NATO. The motives should be carefully questioned.
This is all fairly obvious. So what’s the problem?
The problem could be that analysing the past - even if we were to agree about a diagnostic - says little about what must be done in the future. Arguing over whose fault it is, won't solve this conflict.
Maybe Poland can start demonstrating their capabilities with or without infantry.
What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat…I’d say risk it for a biscuit.
The only thing worth considering at this point is small scale nuclear warfare worth it ? It’s certainly not within the madman’s contemplation to use those nukes with the aim of ending the war and force Ukraine to give up.
It’s then that we have to act and employ mutual destruction…who wins then ? Certainly not future generations who will live in a poisoned planet.
This is the thing with nukes…either everybody should have them or none. Ukraine of course should not got rid of them nukes and if they hadn’t we wouldn’t be in this situation.
This 70year old putin with nothing to live for would have different thoughts if he was younger so now we’re being held hostage by a senile old man and I being young will give up my life to defend the principle that war is evil. In most contexts and this being a perfect example of evil.
One irony of NATO participation is that each nation is tied to a collective force and is not free to fight unilaterally. The conditions for Article 5 allow Putin to ignore the surrounding nations.
Quoting Deus
Mutually Assured Destruction is not a biscuit.
Not to clued on the NATO agreement. Let’s assume Poland of its own accord steps in and later attacked by Russia…at this point then does nato get involved or not ?
While NATO can help (without fighring directly) countries outside of the alliance to withstand aggression, Article 5 only applies to defense from attack on member states.
If Poland attacked Russia unilaterally, the Article does not require the other members to help.
Does not require is so vague here and that’s the great thing about it.
Dismantling Russia won’t be easy as we don’t know how rusty or even effective their weapons are.
Under the pretence of de-nazification the west should just get on with it and start invading.
Don’t know how effective or working their dead hand is at the moment I.e subs with nuclear launch facilities in unknown positions,
I’d say launch coz putin is starting to get a bit tiresome as is this war.
I prefer the present approach toward minimizing the scope of the war. Your impatience would destroy billions of lives along with the ecosystem.
No doubt Russia is using the same logic you’ve outlined to gain their advantage.
Both can play at that game.
Conceding territory for such idealistic reasons is misguided.
Oh and I love the billions souls and ecosystem here on earth. Very very much
I don't understand. Which territory and what ideology are you referring to?
But notice that I didn’t mention the past. I’m talking about right now.
Quoting Olivier5
I’m not interested in arguing about that either. I’m interested in finding out what I can do to stop the war, however little that may be, and thus where best to put my energy.
Because I live in the US, I’m biased towards learning about its present contributions. But I would be equally biased if I lived in Mozambique regarding its policies.
It happens that I live in one of the countries with a significant hand in the war, so my criticisms will be disproportionately slanted in that direction.
Just tell Biden to go Bush on Putin. Pre-emptive. Also tell Biden not to give two craps about Europe if it becomes collateral damage in all this.
Russia does not have the capability to cause significant damage to US soil if at all.
It’s time we brought the war to Russia.
On what basis do you make this bold claim?
You are a lunatic.
No one sane is even considering an invasion of Russia. The last time a nation thought Russia was weak enough to invade, it didn't end so well. The difference now is that back then it was a neighboring country, and today it would be the United States who is several thousand miles and an ocean away.
China would be the laughing third.
Also, does anyone on this forum truly believe the United States cares enough about Ukraine to invade Russia or risk nuclear war?
I have sad news (and I am not being facetious - I truly think this is tragic), the United States does not care about Ukraine. It cares about the political objectives it can achieve through sacrificing Ukraine in a similar vein as it did with Vietnam.
During all of the Cold War it wasn't even clear whether the United States would respond with nuclear weapons in the case of a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe.
I mean China has similarities to Russia although more advanced and superior tech and manpower wise.
It would make them think.
In the face of it it’s better to send the message now as a show of strength than later when China considers making its move in that area.
The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes, they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers...
Some quote by some guy
That's definitely a true idiom, I can see it as bright as light of the sun: right in front of my eyes.
But let's not digress, you were explaining how the USA should invade and conquer Russia.
How would they practically do that? How much do you think it would cost in American lives? Why would it be worth it for from an American perspective (citizen or the administration).
Most importantly, is there a political faction in the US government that you feel will lead the charge on this with the right arguments? I.e. it is even remotely politically feasible.
Or perhaps bounce Russia from Transnistria, all sort of "unofficially" of course? *sshhh*
Could have an "election" guaranteed to have Transnistria join Moldova or Ukraine?
After all, there are nuclear threats on the horizon, and they're close with Romania, right?
Quoting Xtrix
Very little it seems. :/
Very easy and surgical attack on important Russian targets/military infrastructure. Loss of American lives ? Minimal …
Taking out putin would be top of the list.
The only problem is of course the age old one. The nukes. Without fully knowing the extent of your enemies capability to strike back even after such important targets are taken out then it does sound naive although my prediction would be not that great.
The Russians would surrender…maybe not embrace us but hey that’s democracy and they can then start electing leaders rather than have dictatorships run things aground
:rofl:
Let’s give in to a madman’s demands shall we?
With takes like these, who needs satire? I don't see the point in having a discussion with a person who thinks that nuclear war is fine and dandy, because Putin cannot be serious when he says he will use them.
I'm sure you'll find others here who will be happy to humor you. I won't.
With nuclear weapons or without nuclear weapons? You do realise Russia has significant military infrastructure that's hardened against even nuclear attack.
Quoting Deus
Ah yes, the age ol' debate about them rusty nukes that goes all the way back to Thales.
Quoting Deus
It definitely does sound naive.
The Russian nuclear triad is designed to survive a first strike all out nuclear attack with considerable infrastructure built up during the soviet union.
A single RS-28 Sarmat (Satan II) ICBM can deploy up to 15 nuclear warheads and also deploy multiple decoys (not that the US has demonstrated it can even shoot down hypersonic missiles in space or reentry).
Obviously if you believe that everything Russia does is incompetent you may also be naive enough to believe these missiles don't work.
However, sending rockets into space is something the Russians are simply pretty competent at, with Soyuz launches having no failures in 120 launches. There would be no reason to assume the successful tests of Russian ICBMs's (that the US tracks each time) is not another indication of competence in this domain.
Obviously the risk is very high ... as you seem to note yourself; again, what benefit to US citizens or even the current US administration to carry out a first strike?
If you're talking conventional strike, why would that be any more effective than the Ukrainian current use of Himars or the constant Russian use of missiles of all types against Ukraine? How do you think Russia would retaliate? Why would a bunch of cruise missiles bring Russia to the point surrender anyways?
The ramifications of this at geo-political level are many and for the us citizen even more so.
1. Sending China a clear message regarding its future territorial claims.
2. The re-alignment of Middle Eastern oil producing counties back into western views if not neutrality.
3. Reduced inflation for the us / Europe citizen.
As for the rest of your post I do not know enough about western military capabilities to fully address your points but I’d like to think we lead the way in the techno/military capabilities
You would be glad to learn that its present contribution to the defense of Ukraine is quite significant and effective. Specifically the HIMARs, as well as the intell they provide. The Biden administration seems to be on the ball.
So to send a "message" to country A requires attacking country B? with nuclear weapons?
Why not just blowup a non-nuclear armed country. Same message, no risk.
Quoting Deus
Ah yes, stabilise the market with nuclear war. Classic econ-101.
Quoting Deus
How would taking a major commodities producer (not just of oil and gas but all sorts of stuff) into nuclear war ... reduce inflation?
Quoting Deus
If I understand you correctly, you like to just assume your ideas of invasion and glorious victory have no consequences if they were to be implemented ... due to simple innate superiority?
Can't quite put my finger on it, but ... seems I've heard that kind of thinking before; definitely rings a bell anyways.
The actual problem being faced is the outdated idea of putin trying to rebuild some sort of empire (which is doomed to fail) … also the Chinese guy doing the same.
I don’t see how the age of empire building could exist in the nuclear age. China and Russia need to let go of this ideals and embrace globalisation.
The above is my reason against nuclear strikes but I balance it out with the necessity to do so in extreme circumstances…America as a new nation has not expanded territorially ever. These other old nations Russia China are clearly stuck in the past.
You might say it’s fine if China takes Taiwan or Russia Ukraine … it is not and never will be the sovereignaity of any nation state threatened by wanna be napoleons is an enterprise doomed to fail.
Well then I don't see much evidence that your (4) follows. Countries with a long history of democracy and free press tend to have better internal human rights. It's not a magic pill. You don't just get human rights with membership.
Quoting neomac
Why? There's no question of ceding the whole of Ukraine to Russia so what possible relevance would that have to this discussion?
Quoting Olivier5
Ah well, in that case, Russia are pretty forward thinking in terms of sovereignty and human rights. They're part of the UN and the UN are petty hot on that stuff.
Or, we could grow up and stop pretending that arbitrary lines around bits of the world have any meaning whatsoever about the unity of the people in them. It's your kind of nationalist bullshit that causes these problems.
Quoting Olivier5
So?
Quoting jorndoe
No it doesn't. No one is contesting the claim that Russia have a terrible human rights record, so confirming it seems entirely superfluous.
Yes. It's something I find chillingly fascinating. It ought to be fairly straightforward to discuss the best course of action our governments could take to bring about our humanitarian objectives. I'm baffled as to why that's so hard, why it has to be replaced instead by a fawning acceptance of whatever they say is right.
We used to be able to proudly hold our governments to account. Now were treated with suspicion if we even question them.
Man, I know we all have busy days and different interests and all that, but you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and @Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. Some others too, to be fair, but am forgetting specific names.
Others raise fair points and some have legitimate concerns, but the way in which this war has turned many into a Putin is Evil and that's all that matters, is concerning.
Not least because it was not too long ago, for most of us, to remember that if you substitute "Kremlin stooge" for "Anti American" and change "Ukraine" to "Iraq", one can only be shocked at how little progress we've made in seeing through much corporate/militaristic media BS. Not that state run media is better.
Those who want the war to de-escalate are called propagandists for Russia. Unreal.
History repeating, but much worse, because of what could happen.
In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation.
That would require Putin's buy-in. No sign of that.
The sound of one hand clapping empties the air.
It's certainly not MY kind of BS. It's what exists. It's the reality we have to deal with. As much as I love John Lennon's imagination, nations are not going to disappear tomorrow.
Quoting Isaac
So to repel the Russian occupation is likely conducive to improved human rights in Ukraine...
That would require a mutual stop of military actions on both sides, regardless of the status they have as victims and aggressors. Why? If we don't have a stop, we will have escalation, as is happening right now. Then more people die, more land could be stolen, etc. It's not good for it to continue.
But some iota of goodwill is needed too. Russia shouldn't say, bomb civilian centers in Kiev, but Ukraine shouldn't be allowing other countries to blow up the pipeline. These options are "weak" militarily, but a gesture goes a long way.
At this moment, it's very hard to see such things happening. But they should continue through back channels or something. I think only Macron, out of the Western leaders still wants to talk. Not to mention 3/4's of the German population would prefer negotiation to escalations.
Right this moment, it's very hard. But further escalation is more fuel for the fire. But, alas, it will continue until the US and Russia decide to talk, absent intervention from another third party. It's not Putin alone. Europe too, especially the leaders of the western countries should be less bellicose. Germany in general had a sane attitude till very recent.
I notice the implicit admission of Russian insurgency, an organized, controlled staging area, in Donbas. I guess it's no secret. Does undermine some Kremlin statements, though; the pretense that it's all uninfluenced natives by themselves wanting to look to Russia. I guess that's not new, either. Sorry if I repeated.
, well, now you have the two statements side by side, with the party that wants to take over being the worse of the two (which matters). Perhaps more importantly is the trajectory, the moves, the apparent intents, willing commitments, that stuff. Informative indicators.
Putin is the invader. The Ukrainians are fighting for their home. There are two options: Putin signals that he wants to cease invading, or the Ukrainians surrender.
This is just how it works. It would work this way whether the US and NATO were involved or not.
That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.
Nada.
In what sense has this happened?
Quoting Manuel
No Ukrainians were mentioned in this proposal. So the negotiations you promote means cutting off their efforts. You are in the Isaac camp who says the quicker the Ukrainians lose, the better off they will be.
In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline. I don't know if Germany was aware of this, but, I think that's counterproductive. Are they confident all Europeans won't mind potentially freezing to death? It's easy to speak of solidarity when one's life is not on the line.
Quoting frank
A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea.
This is independent of right and wrong for me, its realpolitik. If morals actually entered in wars, which rarely do, then the picture would be different. Sadly, that's not out world.
Quoting Paine
Who is arming Ukraine? Do you seriously think that Ukraine would have been able to kick Russia back absent US help? They are at the mercy of NATO, which, thankfully, have provided them with the capacity for defense, which I think makes sense.
The sooner the war is over, the better they will be. Them and everybody else.
But worry not, my wishes of a quick end to this has vanished.
So? Try to stop just saying random stuff and follow an argument.
We're currently talking about the moral rights and wrongs of including Ukrainian sovereignty in Donbas as a goal of foreign military aid.
We're not discussing whether Russia are bad for invading.
We're not discussing whether nations exist.
We're not discussing whether Ukraine as a whole might join the EU.
We're discussing whether Ukrainian sovereignty over Donbas is a legitimate humanitarian goal.
If you want to discuss something else then stop replying to comments not on that topic.
Quoting Olivier5
Likely?
Firstly, no. Showing that Russia is also bad doesn't prove that everything not-Russia must be good, does it?
Secondly, you have to show that Russian control over Donbas will be worse than Ukrainian control. I'll try underlining too, I know you guys have trouble reading emphasis. Worse than. It's not sufficient to simply show that Russia are also bad because 'also' is not 'worse'.
Quoting jorndoe
You get that from a summary?
You, @neomac and @Olivier5 alike are all seeing this like we're choosing wallpaper. If you're choosing between A and B but to get B requires years of brutally destructive land war, then B had better be bloody fantastic. It had better have every citizen decked out with their own fucking floating island in the Mediterranean. A slightly better human rights report (but still bad) is not worth the death of thousands of innocent people. I can't believe I've just had to write that.
Regardless of how they divide up Ukraine after the war, ending the war requires one of two things:
1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.
2. Ukraine surrenders
Those are the options, Manuel. That's it. There are no other options. None.
None.
I was not aware that had been established as a fact.
According to whom?
You got news the rest of the planet doesn't know about?
https://mate.substack.com/p/russia-says-us-wrecked-ukraine-talks
The point is that there's been no such request. Putin's not going to just offer is he? The guy's a fucking psychopath why would he just up and offer a peace deal? That's seriously unlikely to happen. He's going to have to be pressured into one.
For the war to end, one of two things has to happen.
1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.
2. Ukraine surrenders.
If you want the war to end, that means you want one of the above.
Period. End of Story.
Yep. We're talking about how to get (1) to happen. Your idea is we just wait? Shall we cross our fingers too? Meanwhile a few more hundred Ukrainians die.
What's your suggestion?
Nowhere I said that support for human rights comes with membership as a magic pill .
If our decisions require pragmatism under uncertainty, we are interested in relative likelihood and evidences to assess it. So I was talking in terms of relative likelihood. And I claim that it’s more likely that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU), than by being within the Russian sphere of influence. What evidences do I have for this? Historical evidences (see Germany, Italy and Spain after WWII) and ex-Soviet Union countries that joined EU and NATO after the Soviet Union collapse. Also the democracy index is telling (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/democracy-index-2022-europe.jpg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking): Russian democracy index is lower than any country in the EU and Belarus which is under the sphere of influence of Russia is even lower than Russia, Kazakhstan better of Russia for few points. Additionally, as already pointed out, candidature to NATO/EU membership doesn't come without scrutiny and places some burden on the candidate to prove also their commitment to EU/NATO charter which include democracy, individual freedoms and human rights (nothing alike can be found on the Russian side).
So I would consider such evidence strong enough as long as you do not have at least equally strong evidence to the contrary, namely that within Russian sphere of influence countries have a greater chance to see human rights implemented equally or even better than in Western countries.
Quoting Isaac
Because Russia is at war with Ukraine and annexed part of Ukrainian territory, against its will. But even if you want to exclude Crimea and Donbass from this discussion, the problem is still there: did you forget the story of Ukrainian neutrality?
BTW since you are so passionate about human rights, how does having Crimea and Donbass annexed to Russia get those regions likely closer to having a more Western-like implementation of human rights institutions?
As long as you keep evading my counter-arguments, ditching my questions and shifting focus, you are no longer compelling. Try playing the devil's advocate some times instead of always playing dumb.
Sure hope it won't come to that. Kelsey Piper is pessimistic, in the long term anyway:
How to stop rolling the dice on the destruction of human civilization (Sep 22, 2022)
Meanwhile in Moscow ...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1578845178588434432[/tweet]
(crazies are everywhere)
I can't believe I had to read it once again. Such a claim "A slightly better human rights report (but still bad)" is highly misleading. My political support to Ukraine is for granting their chance to grow in prosperity and political freedoms within the Western sphere of influence in the next decades. The importance of granting them this chance goes however beyond the Ukrainian people themselves and their struggle against centuries of Russian oppression , it concerns also the World Oder as we know it and the power conflict between Western World and the emerging authoritarian regimes. Now since human rights and democracy are best implemented in the West than in the emerging authoritarian regimes, I choose to side with the West. And I also think this conclusion is backed by pragmatic considerations under uncertainty, factoring in realistic expectations about individual, collective and State dynamics. At least until someone proves me wrong, of course. So try harder.
It does appear so. I don’t see how Ukraine could have come this far without US backing.
The US motivations are questionable. It’s certainly not for love of democracy or freedom — let’s face it. It’s an opportunity to strengthen and expand their influence. Otherwise they wouldn’t be involved to this degree. And of course because the government is owned and run by corporate America, and the defense contractors love war, it’s not being opposed by either political party.
So I’m not happy about it. I’m not happy about pushing for continued war without equally pushing for peace negotiations.
Those aren’t the only options. The war could end with nuclear weapons, which we’re getting closer and closer to — and so threatens the survival of life on earth. It does well not to overlook this.
The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. No more weapons drip-fed to Ukraine. Either UN/NATO on the ground or we don't take part at all. Solutions on the table should be a non-NATO Ukraine, independent Donbas, Russian Crimea as these barely change the current status quo bug might be enough to end the war.
If America pulled the plug on the ammo supply Ukraine would surrender tomorrow. So to suggest they don't have any power is this is obviously bollocks.
Quoting neomac
There's no 'proving' you wrong. You think the "chance" of Ukraine improving its human rights record is worth thousands of deaths and can't be achieved any other way. I can't argue against a callous disregard for human life nor a dysfunctional imagination.
As I explained to Manuel, negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works.
The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict. When Putin signals that he wants to talk, a broker will emerge.
Quoting Isaac
I don't think so. They're getting supplies from other countries, and Russia is presently losing on the battlefield.
Indeed.
Or even get out of the way of negotiations.
As I’m sure has been cited, back in April there were negotiations between Kiev and Moscow. Both the UK and the US (Austin outright saying the goal is to “weaken Russia”) pressured against these talks.
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/08/31/report-russia-ukraine-tentatively-agreed-on-peace-deal-in-april/
The idea that the US involvement is principled or benevolent is pretty absurd.
"According to a May report from Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian side was ready for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but it later came to a halt after the discovery of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and the surprise visit on 9 April of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who told Zelenskyy "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with," and that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin stated publicly that talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end". Another three days later, Roman Abramovich visited Kyiv in an attempt to resume negotiations, but was rebuffed by Zelenskyy as a non-neutral party.[42] According to Fiona Hill and Angela Stent writing in Foreign Affairs in September, U.S. officials they spoke with said Russia and Ukraine "appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement", whereby the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO in exchange security guarantees from a number of countries. However, in a July interview with Russian state media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that this compromise was no longer an option, saying that even the Donbas was not enough and that the "geography had changed."[43]
"On 7 April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the peace deal Ukraine drafted and presented to the Russian government contained "unacceptable" elements. Lavrov said that the proposal diverged from the terms negotiators had agreed on. Mykhaylo Podolyak, a negotiator for Ukraine, said that the comments from Lavrov are a tactic to draw attention away from the war crime accusations against Russian forces. Lastly, Lavrov stated, "Despite all the provocations, the Russian delegation will continue with the negotiation process, pressing for our own draft agreement that clearly and fully outlines our initial and key positions and requirements."[44]
"On 11 April, the Chancellor of Austria, Karl Nehammer, visited and spoke with Putin in Moscow in 'very direct, open and hard' talks which were skeptical of the short-term peaceful resolution of the invasion.[45] By 26 April, the Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres visited Russia for the purpose of speaking with Putin and Lavrov in separate meetings, and after the meetings with them indicating skepticism as to any short term resolution of differences between Russia and Ukraine largely due to very different respective perspectives on the circumstances of the invasion presently being adopted by each of the two nations.[46]
Failed attempts at obtaining peace
Exactly. As I said, the US (and UK) staying out of it would itself be a good start, since neither are interested in peace.
Probably. The UN Secretary General doesn't give that as the main problem, though.
What a fantastic pic. FFS with leaders like these, and crowds whipped into a frenzy... Won't repeat myself at the moment.
I must imagine that someone in background is thinking about some way to settle this. It is beyond comprehension that we are seeing a potentially lethal event and we're just like, not walking, but running, quite enthusiastically, off a cliff.
Words fail.
Asking again why you are convinced of this.
It's a matter of likelihood. I suspect we may soon get direct evidence of the event. It would make no sense for Germany to blow up a pipeline (which is close to them) that provides them crucial resources especially in winter.
Russia surely needs any money it can get, given the sanctions it has. So it has no incentive to blow up a pipeline that benefits them. The US does have an incentive to blow up the pipeline. Remember that Blinken said that it was a "tremendous opportunity" to take advantage of this situation and further weaken Russia. That's very convenient.
Add that to Biden's comments saying trust me we have a way of shutting it down, you can find it on YouTube.
Alternatively, it could be Ukraine that did so, to further pull Europe on its side in winter, with zero guarantees it will work out. It makes sense for them to do it to weaken Russia, in a sense, but they would not do something that big without the approval of Washington.
Finally, if Russia, for whatever reason, did not want to supply Germany, it could simply shut off the supply, no need to blow it up.
So there's no alternative I can think of, that is realistic, given what's at play.
Got it. You are merely speculating.
Not about what Blinken or Biden said, which would be silly to overlook in my opinion.
Or you can present another plausible account.
I don't see what other scenario is probable out of those I mentioned.
You are the one who presented it as a fact when it was only an opinion about the matter.
Now that you are not presenting it as a fact, it doesn't mean anything to argue against why you think it is one. I don't know what actually happened.
That's kind of like saying that all these people in Moscow who are against the war and are jumping out of windows actually were depressed. Do you have proof saying otherwise?
This is the most plausible scenario we have as of this moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfN56MgDprk
But, yes, it could be that Russia decided to harm itself by blowing the pipeline near Germany. It's not as if the US or Nato or Ukraine will say "I did it!".
However, if there is evidence pointing in the other direction, then I will have to retract my comments.
Surely, there must be a distinction between listing motives for why somebody might have committed a crime and that such an event went down.
That the scenario exhausts what you are able to imagine is not an advance toward understanding what happened.
Well, no, lots have been posted already.
Quoting Isaac
But there are no neat solutions at the moment. :/ And so, comments keep going in circles. (Not that the world will listen to us anyway.) Commitments to questionable future predictions aren't that easy to come by here, especially not in the case of handing over self-power. Loss of any trust there may have been doesn't help, either. The attackers want to assimilate, the defenders want them to leave. Maybe China could put pressure on the attackers? Worth a shot for someone to promote? Hmm don't really see that happening, at least not in a way that really matters.
Critique of Putin, use of the word "war", and speaking of leaving Ukrainian land is punishable or dangerous, though. No can do.
Belarus's Lukashenko warns Ukraine, deploys troops with Russia (Oct 10, 2022)
Military analysts saw this coming I think. Putin made a phone call or two, and Lukashenko sees the boogeyman to the south. Does it say something about the situation? (Is Putin in need of help, cannon fodder, distraction, getting scared, or something?)
What might happen if Belarus declares war with Ukraine?
I’ve mostly avoided this thread. A lot of heat, almost no light. Or substance.
No they don't, and no it isn't. There aren't laws of physics about peace talks.
Quoting frank
What's the US's interest?
Quoting frank
Why wait?
Quoting frank
Hardly. But either way, if the US says jump...
Quoting frank
According to whom?
Yes, indeed. I think my position could probably be summed up by "either do it properly or stay out of it".
I should add though that the reason I think the US might need to play a part in the talks is a) Russia is of the view that this is a US problem (NATO weapons in Ukraine, US involvement in Maidan, etc) so their involvement will probably be necessary for a deal to stick, and b) Putin has this 'big boy's table' idea that he's being left out of, US involvement there might make him more likely to accept a deal.
You seriously think he's going to list that as the main problem?
It couldn't. Which does not mean that they will stop without further US support, since by now Russia is the largest purveyor of weapons to Ukraine.
Quoting Xtrix
The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. And I am afraid that there isn't much you can do about it, other than vote for Trump at the next general elections.
Comments keep going in circles because no-one will address the issues directly (not that they might not go in circles still, even then, but we could at least see). We might have a more profitable discussion if people were to actually address the arguments raised rather than treat the thread as a pro-Ukrainian news aggregator.
So...
Quoting jorndoe
Well, not that I've noticed (you might cite them if they're easy to find. I know some have pointed to Chechnya and even further back in history as evidence of Russian treatment (the same people, oddly, who then said that the Amnesty document was out of date!), but I've asked them why they thought Crimea wasn't a good indicator and that's where the discussion ended. Where it always does - any time there isn't an answer which can be plucked directly from western media talking points.
Really, that's an interesting development. Your source for that?
Quoting Olivier5
No it isn't. One country's sovereignty over an area is not a legitimate foreign policy objective. If their efforts to negotiate failed, then defence might be legitimate (proper defence), but that isn't the case here. Negotiations haven't even been tried (by the US) and the defence is deliberately drip-fed to prolong the war, not end it. Not to mention the recklessness of flooding of an illegal arms hub with modern highly destructive weapons and the destabilisation of a region with a history of serious nationalist and far-right violence. I don't see anything 'legitimate' about those aims.
Quoting Olivier5
Another with such a dysfunctional imagination that they think politics only happens one day in every four years.
That is precisely what your quote implied, though. Go back and read it more carefully, because it seems you failed to understand it.
It showed nothing of the sort. If you don't understand why not I suggest you go back and read it more carefully.
Or, you know, we could actually discuss the arguments rather than hand-waive them away as a misunderstanding on the part of our interlocutors.
News.
Quoting Isaac
You mean the UN charter got it all wring?
FYI, US foreign policy is set by the president, who is elected every four years.
Go on... Which news article?
Quoting Olivier5
No, since the UN charter does not specify that one country's sovereignty should be a foreign policy objective.
Quoting Olivier5
So? Is he kept in an isolation chamber from the day of the election lest he makes any decision under influence from what he sees and reads about the mood of the general public?
The UN charter condemn aggression, posits that any member state has the right to defend itself, and to seek alliances in doing so.
Quoting Isaac
Pretty much, yes. The. US public has very little influence on FP. This is just a fact. It's not me saying it, nor do I condone it. You cannot influence US foreign policy simply by expressing views on TPF. You would need a whole lobbying apparatus to achieve anything like this, like the one developed by Israel.
The only public action with an impact on USFP is to vote to change the president.
So no sources then.
Quoting Olivier5
Yep. Still waiting for the part where it says that another country's sovereignty over an area is a legitimate foreign policy goal. Does it condemn, for example, a change in sovereignty resulting from peace negotiations?
Quoting Olivier5
I love the way that when it comes to those making the exact same argument about the uselessness of condemning Russia you become the solidarity-proclaiming keyboard warrior, when exactly the same is expressed against the US you become the hard-nosed pragmatist. You must get dizzy sometimes?
Quoting Olivier5
Explain how that works then. Does the new president completely swap out all the lobbying groups and replace them with a new set?
Dysfunctional imagination? Your concern for “human life” is at odds with your concern for “human rights” on historical grounds. The end of foreign, political, social oppression doesn’t come without people putting their own life and others' at risk of a bloodshed, so no progress toward “human rights” can get there in a certain, straight, compassionate and peaceful way as one would hope (the recent Iranian protests are another good example of this point). So I get why you need lots of functional imagination to overcome your intellectual impasse.
Chicago Riots killed 43 people, part of a series of about 50 such riots which, together with many peaceful demonstrations, brought about the changes in American civil rights.
The Ukraine war is currently killing 600 people a day.
First this doesn't prove my point wrong. Secondly, you are comparing a political struggle within a hegemonic democratic regime to a war between Russia and Ukraine critical for the World Order. It's a bit of a stretch. Third tell me how many such examples you can find within the history of authoritarian regimes.
It would have been more fair to compare the Chicago Riots with Euro Maiden protests. But this was part of the genesis of the Russian aggression of Ukraine, so back to square one.
To put 's question another way.
What is the price you are willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, for Ukrainian "liberation" of the 5 annexed territories?
What price are you willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, and Ukraine still lose the war?
Let's say Ukrainian military is in a position where they could easily defend the rest of Ukraine or could commit to all-in-offensives to liberate the occupied territory at the risk of exhausting their forces and total defeat.
What is your risk tolerance for a failed re-conquest of the annexed territories resulting in the even worse outcome of the complete fall of most or all of Ukraine into Russian control?
You seem to be arguing that Ukrainians fighting more, regardless of outcomes, is a humanitarian accomplishment.
If Zelensky sued for peace in the early stages of the war, say the first days, and basically Ukraine lost Russian occupied Donbas and Crimea and the war ended, are you willing to argue that would have been against human rights on Zelensky's part?
You seem to have disassociated the costs of your proposal from the imagined benefits (even if they are really there, which I find debatable for the same reasons as @Isaac, certainly not some guarantee, but that's simply an added risk for continued fighting--that the fight is for nothing human rights wise even in victory--but I'd be willing to agree that risk is lower than a straight-up loss to the Russians).
You're obsessed with proving. It's you who raised the objection to my position, not the other way around. I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it.
Quoting neomac
No I'm not. I'm comparing the two options for humanitarian relief...
1) Continued war to retain Ukrainian control over the region and improve the population's human rights by political pressure from their membership of the EU/NATO.
2) End the war by ceding Donbas/Crimea to Russia and improve the population's human rights by supporting protest and political change in Russia.
In 2 fewer die.
Quoting boethius
Exactly. It's like war is treated as some comic book version where we all get to waive flags at the brave soldiers with nothing more than a bloodied bandage to show for their fight.
@jorndoe ^^
Quoting Isaac
Here you go:
https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-10-07/rusia-se-convierte-en-el-principal-suministrador-involuntario-de-armas-para-ucrania.html
Quoting Isaac
It is not useless to condemn Russia on TPF. It has certain advantages, for instance in informing, pleasing or offending other TPF members. But it will NOT influence Russia. Likewise, you can usefully talk of the US foreign policy on TPF, if the 'use' you aim for is information exchange and/or debate with other TPFers. But it won't affect the US foreign policy at all.
It's like anything, e.g. quantum mechanics. Discussing QM on this site is kinda fun and you can't say it's useless. But I don't expect such discussions to have an effect on QM.
Did you think I thought Biden might be reading?
Quoting Olivier5
Nothing does it seems, for you. We're all just helpless pawns who might as well bend over and submit to the will of our masters. I'm sorry but I don't hold to such a miserable world view.
As I said, we have duty to hold our governments to account. If you want to just lay down and let them do whatever they like because you're so powerless, that's your bag, don't expect everyone else to be so weakly compliant.
You're probably right.
Quoting Isaac
I think it's just from previous promises to protect Ukraine along with some revenge for Russia's interference in American elections.
From the article...
Nowhere in the article are any comparative figures given all that's given are the estimates the Ukrainian government will not verify...
The U.S. has sent 126 howitzers and 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers so those two comparable units are false for sure. Not a good start. And there seems to be no equivalent of the 6,500 javelins. Where are the equivalent weapons on the Russian list?
The full US list... From https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3597492-heres-every-weapon-us-has-supplied-to-ukraine-with-13-billion/
Look equivalent to you?
I regret to inform that your government is not in Washington but in London.
So here’s the disagreement, then. I think this statement is naive. The motivations go far beyond defending Ukraine. If that’s truly where you think they stop, then we probably won’t get far in discussions. And that’s OK.
When the defense Secretary says the goal is to weaken Russia, I believe him.
Of course the US wants to weaken Russia. Who doesn't? But it does not follow that the US is pushing for war. The only ones who pushed for war are Russian.
Call that naive if you need to. It's just the truth.
I hear you. Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma.
Having said that, it's extremely difficult to get our governments to act in a more cautious manner, particularly when all of them tend to twist the facts to the benefits of each respective state - which causes the population to get a Disneyfied view of the world.
Can't blame them though.
As happens in war.
The US is buying anti-radiation medicine. How's that for Disney?
No, that isn't Disney. I think it's a rational move, given the dire circumstances.
I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians.
I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warnings by Russia.
I mean, if something erupted in Taiwan for instance - that being even more dangerous potentially, it shouldn't come as a total surprise, because China has been warning about this for decades. Kind of like Russia did too.
Though to be fair, I did not think Russia would invade, as you can see in my posts in the beginning of the thread, I did get that way wrong.
I didn’t say I was unable or unwilling to discuss anything, but that we probably won’t get too far. Mainly because assumptions about the US’s intentions are pretty fundamental, and in my experience unlikely to change.
Quoting Olivier5
Blocking or discouraging peace agreements and negotiations is pushing for war.
Okay, so Putin is pushing for war and Biden is not. Exactly what I was saying!
The card game Poker - most popular in the USA is a game that teaches one to calculate odds, study opponents idiosyncracies and bluff
The game GO - popular in China - is riddled with serpentine complexity and uncertainty - a long game requiring a myriad of simultaneous calculations requires patience and endurance
The game Chess - popular in Russia - is purely combative - there is no element of chance. Where as in GO the idea is to stymie your opponent - in Chess the objective is to capture and destroy.
Thus we have Gentlemen Diplomats v Showmen and Businessmen v Diligent Bureaucrats v Combatants
And remarkably or perhaps predictably - in a crisis - they each revert to type
The Europeans scamper about forming alliances
The US bluffs and sells a story
The Chinese patiently study the board and make moves no one understands
The Russians find a opponent and go to war
That attitude isn't in the sources I see. Don't know what to say about it.
As I said to Isaac, war profiteers are always there. They always have been, since there's been war. If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.
And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive.
Quoting Manuel
It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing.
Not at all, you are right. This is old indeed, well documented by, say, Smedley Butler, he painted the picture very clearly in that one.
It may not be the main motive, but it is surely a large one. The longer this goes on, the more money they get and the politicians too.
Yes, there are other reasons, namely NATO expansion, which I've mentioned several times. Now, if Putin adds crazy reasons once the war is running, OK. Hard to imagine giving good reasons for war in the 21st century. It's always about "liberation" and so on, no country is going to say "we will kill and enslave civilians."
I'm also not saying that there are legitimate Russian concerns in the Donbass, but a response of this scale is madness. Yet here we are.
Quoting frank
I agree. It was one of the most stupid decisions in history, given how its turning out.
I only add, which is no small part, that the way the West has replied has been to enflame the situation. You can see the results right now. In a rational world both sides would look for negotiations NOW, but we have escalations.
Doesn't speak to well of the species that we are at this point after so much savagery in the 20th century alone, neverminded previous history.
GO is an abstract strategy board game for two players in which the aim is to surround more territory than the opponent. The game was invented in China more than 2,500 years ago and is believed to be the oldest board game continuously played to the present day.Wikipedia
Do you yourself have answers to these questions? Can you show me how you do the math?
Honestly I find such quizzes about moral dispositions in different hypothetical scenarios (as in the ‘trolley problem’) highly misleading for debating the issue at hand and therefore useless for my decision process. This is why:
So my political support for Ukrainian struggles is grounded more on the reasoning I exposed earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949). Reasoning and evidences grounded on historical/geopolitical assumptions that go beyond this war, its major players and its short-terms results are more compelling to me then such quizzes.
Quoting boethius
Then you seem to have misunderstood my argument.
Quoting boethius
Not sure what you mean by “against human rights” in this case. But it’s beside the point. When talking about human rights I’m more interested in long-term and systemic outcomes not in short-term episodic outcomes (which is what you scenario looks to me like).
As far as I’m concerned, the critical point in geopolitical terms is that as long as Putin challenges the Western-backed World Order the outcome of the Ukrainian war must look a military and political defeat for Putin as convincingly as possible to all incumbent World Order challengers (Russian political elites included) no matter what Putin or the Russian propaganda says. And I political support this goal for the reasons I explained earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949).
Quoting boethius
How many lives do systemic and long term political conditions supporting human rights cost to you? What is the likelihood of their success as of today, or in 10 years, in 50 years to you? What compelling evidences do you have to back your claims up? What’s the math you are doing to calculate costs and benefits? Take your time.
That’s a public philosophy forum, we discuss reasons, explore disagreements and assess how compelling arguments sound. And this is how I deal with your claims (like “As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there”). If you don’t want to play this game, I don’t care. If you don’t want to play this game with me, then stop answering me.
[quote=“Isaac;747273"]
1) Continued war to retain Ukrainian control over the region and improve the population's human rights by political pressure from their membership of the EU/NATO.
2) End the war by ceding Donbas/Crimea to Russia and improve the population's human rights by supporting protest and political change in Russia.
In 2 fewer die.
[/quote]
Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that “In 2 fewer die” is correct and that that’s all that counts. How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? The West has supported protests and political change for decades in Iran, North Korea, Russia and China with what results for their population's human rights? How about the ex-soviet union countries that had the chance to join NATO and EU?
This is hardly unpredictable: indeed there is a part of the local population in any of these authoritarian regimes that profits from the sanctions and political pressure from outside to preserve/increase economic inequalities and support authoritarian regimes to brutally squash local protests (and condemn the population to a miserable life in terms of freedoms, public and private services, or economic survival compared to western standards) or worse aggressively expand outside national borders to gain geopolitical influence (like through wars, proxy wars and terrorism).
Additionally, it’s questionable that “life” is all that counts (slavery wasn’t about killing people, Russian oppression isn’t about killing Ukrainians). Finally there is a hidden death toll that one must taken into account when talking about such authoritarian regimes given some inconveniences that add up to greater economic inequalities (the costs of boycotts and sanctions often end up oppressing the local population even more e.g. when the population lacks the foreign treatments necessary for their survivals, or gay or political activists are killed in prison).
I think this is pretty obvious. Given that he invaded a country.
Quoting Olivier5
Biden — or at least his administration — is pushing for war as well. By blocking negotiations.
Quoting Olivier5
If you’re not really interested in talking, please don’t waste my time.
True. Not sure if that corrective makes a difference.
Yes. And now the US will be giving Ukraine a missile defense system so they can protect their people from Russian attacks.
It's horrendous that Putin would do this. I think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it.
That's going to be true of any politics thread generally, including Climate Change or wealth distribution or Trump and Biden. I only hope some people reading this may learn a thing or two, and by that I mean even if it's one person, then it's better than nothing. But we can't know that.
It's a way to vent my frustrations at seeing how CNN, MSNBC the BBC and others cover this story.
But, point taken.
It wouldn't. Of course not.
Yet we live in the real world, in which consequences happen if a major country suffers humiliation. It does not in any way justify killing civilians, but it is to be expected regardless.
Quoting frank
The only moral aspect I can have a miniscule-sliver-of-a grain-of-sand say is in how my government reacts to this affair. I have no control over Russia. If I were Russian, then I'd be fined or jailed, but wouldn't be rooting for this war.
If I let sentiment take my judgment (not meaning this applies to you), then I will be leading Ukraine and the World, to annihilation.
And this is not the only war that's going on that is very ugly, others like Yemen or Ethiopia, for instance, are arguably worse. But few express outrage at these. Why is that? Yemen is due to Saudi Arabia, the West's partner, who sell them weapons that is leading to mass famine and widespread destruction.
I care about avoiding a nuclear war most of all, and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible (because right now is not possible), not at some nebulous date in which Ukraine wins. I don't see that happening. It could. I wouldn't gamble on it though.
If you can't allow yourself a moral perspective, why do you care about reducing Ukrainian casualties?
I said that the only moral aspect I could have a positive contribution on is what my Governments do or do not do. Even in that aspect my impact is miniscule, it's the only one I have.
If I can convince or persuade people that what NATO is doing is increasing the deaths of Ukrainians as it is - just read today's headlines - then that's the only thing I can do morality-wise, that could have an impact.
Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on.
I think a nuclear war is the single biggest moral issue human beings face. The question is are we willing to settle going down than that path, because we don't like our enemy?
If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? That's another super disaster, worse than Ukraine, happening right now, which we could potentially do something about.
I'm always right. You know that!
Quoting Olivier5
The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular.
Quoting Olivier5
So you mean manipulate the data until it gives you the message you want? Got it.
I think we've discussed this before, that backing down from aggression is not the path to a stable situation. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Quoting Manuel
I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless.
Quoting Manuel
I didn't say it was my main concern (and I have researched and talked about Yemen).
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll just share that our disagreement goes all the way down to issues of character.
Of course. How could I forget?
Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.
But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous.
I don't know how you extrapolate to all the rest.
We'll just have to disagree here.
That's not the game at all. As I said, you started this little conversation with...
Quoting neomac
No evidence, no 'proof'. The requests for 'proof only started when I objected to that position.
You present a position without proof, I object to it, you demand proof of my objection. [I]That's[/i] the game we're playing. It's a game of toss and catch with the burden of proof.
Classic example...
Quoting neomac
No, let's instead do that with the actual claim I'm arguing against. If you think 1) is the better course of action then you give your figures to support it. And if you just 'reckon' it probably is then stop being so hypocritical in expecting others who disagree with you to do so to any higher standard of proof than you yourself use.
See. I was right about that.
You have to say it to the exclusion of all other speech, apparently.
You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out.
That goes against my grain and the grain of my culture. Just condemn them for bombing populated areas and leave it at that.
:cool:
And believe it is morally commendable.
Quoting frank
I did? I don't remember saying that, but this thread is very long. If I did say so, then it was a stupid thing to say.
I will say it once more, I really don't know to what end but, what Russia is doing is criminal. Obviously.
I agree, we can leave it at that.
Yes.
I know my generation are on their way out (to be replaced by those with enough emotional confidence to dye their hair blue) but us old fogeys aren't in the habit of wearing our hearts on our sleeves. In this day and age that often gets mistaken for a lack of empathy. We must, it seems, be constantly announcing to the world how we feel.
I don't know how long we have, so that my generation could also be going out with yours.
It is frustrating to have a conversation on this topic. I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict.
But I could be a moral monster, for wanting this war to end sooner rather than later. And gamble that an imaginary Putin will just tuck his tail under his legs and stay home.
You have something more specific that this? Like, verifiable? When and how did this happen? Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss.
:up:
Still, it's not your government, so you have no "duty to hold Biden to account", not anymore than you have a duty to hold Putin to account.
Quoting Olivier5
Do you need it translated?
Nothing posted here will ever "help resolve this conflict". This is too high an expectation to hold. What we can do here is learn new information from each other, and once in a long while, influence each other, by sharing arguments and information. To do this well, I think it's useful to know where we all stand in the big picture, and what each of us believes in, whence we speak, so that we can all interpret what posters say within the broader context of the conversation.
Correct.
Either one is in a position to directly influence the war (US, Europe, Russia) or one talks about it as a pressing issue, an issue that deserves as much attention as possible.
By doing this, one hopes that others will find what one says useful, as a way to learn more or further discuss this issue with others.
That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least.
Only reports quoting high level officials at the meetings. The evidence isn’t easily verifiable. But if you look at the historical and documentary record of US foreign affairs, what these reports say fall right in with what we’d expect.
Of course the reason given is that Putin is a war criminal— which is undeniable, but inconsistent based on past actions.
I’d ask you the same: is there verifiable evidence that the US is encouraging peace negotiations? I don’t consider that the default.
“Ukrainian news outlet suggests UK and US governments are primary obstacles to peace”
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/05/09/ukrainian-news-outlet-suggests-uk-and-us-governments-are-primary-obstacles-to-peace/
"The American administration forbids its wards in Kyiv to even think about talks with us, and evidently forces them to fight to the last Ukrainian," Zakharova told reporters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-foreign-ministry-no-contact-with-us-ukraine-peace-talks-2022-07-21/
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Again, I apparently start from a very different vantage point about the US. Like any empire, their actions are never disinterested. This war is a proxy war against a perceived enemy, and ally to China. It’s not simply about defending a country against evil men— there are plenty of those around which we do nothing about, and often support.
I thought as much. So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. I grant you that the US is not encouraging negotiations either.
Let's face it: the Ukrainians are not really interested at this point, and nor are the Russians. They might posture about peace talks, argue this or that way for propaganda reason. I.e. they might use the concept of peace talks in their fight against one another, but they are not ready to negotiate a peace. So what would happen if Biden or anyone else would try and "force" Ukraine to initiate peace negotiations? Only more posturing.
One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then.
I think the primary answer is that Biden just takes a harder line on Russia to begin with. But if you listened to what he said while running for president about Russia's interference in American elections, promising retaliation when he was elected, I think that explains some of his ferocity, actually threatening other nations that if they didn't sanction Russia, the US would punish them financially. That's strong stuff.
In other words, it's Biden.
If enough people try enough time, it will "lead to something" often enough, e.g. political education of people attending the thread. But still, TPF is not some hotbed of popular columnists, smarty-pant politicians and grey eminences, me think, so whatever it leads to will remain quite local...
It appears that they are, yes. I gave a sample of sources above. Is it easily “verified”? No— because the meetings occur behind closed doors and we’re left only with accounts given by officials who are present and who corroborate the charge. But I think It’d be quite clear anyway, given what’s known about the government, who owns the government, what their interests are, and the historical record.
It’s much harder to believe they aren’t blocking (or at least discouraging) negotiations.
Quoting Olivier5
So what is your stance exactly? That the US is neutral regarding negotiations?
Quoting Olivier5
I think you underestimate the power and pull of the US. While it’s a declining power, it’s still the international “godfather.” If the US were pushing negotiations, I think the conflict would end very soon. But that would have to include an agreement that Ukraine never join NATO — so it’s unlikely the US will ever encourage peace talks and if they do, highly unlikely they will support a potential agreement.
There was no fight back from Ukraine. We can't sell weapons to an army that isn't fighting can we?
I'd love to have access to those accounts.
Appeals to the historical record are moot, in the circumstances. Whatever Johnson or Nixon did is itrelevant.
Quoting Xtrix
My hunch is that Biden ir his admin needs to focus on the end game now. Even sooner. I have in fact written about that already months ago, arguing that Biden should keep an eye on the diplomatic track, and encourage its continuation even if it doesn't work right now. Keep some channels open somewhere. Macron tried to do that, at too high a level perhaps. It was very a personal brand of diplomacy, all these phone calls with Putin. But the idea was not a bad one.
It doesn't need to be done by the US. Europe is suffering far more than the US from the consequences of the war. Draghi understood that. Other European leaders too. They could well play a card here, the good cop card. The bad cop being the US obviously...
I gave a sample of reports above. There are others, if interested.
Funny how the threshold of evidence suddenly increases dramatically when criticicing the US.
You seem to have no trouble saying...
Quoting Olivier5
With absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Oh, c'mon. Be genuine for a second.
If Ukraine don't mount an armed response we can't very well sell them weapons for it can we? I don't understand what your problem is with that argument.
Of course.
Then again changes take place a person at a time, at all levels of society. Even if the circle is very small, it's still a circle.
Sell them weapons? Who sold anybody any weapons?
Sorry, I meant military aid. The arms industry sells them the government because they're donating them to Ukraine. Point is the same, that can't happen if there's no fight to start with.
Kiev condemned the annexation. A war could have happened. Obama was criticized for failing to support an armed retake.
And somehow the US passed up an opportunity to blow some shit up. :chin:
Sure. Maybe Biden would have pushed harder. But the situations were not the same. Numerous other factors were at play, the main one being that there wasn't a war to fund.
Quoting frank
To be fair, they were quite happily occupied blowing shit up in Afghanistan.
Odd coincidence the appearance of a new war to fund barely a few months after leaving the last one.
Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?
By KAZANEVSKY (Ukraine), Cartooning for Peace.
You’ve also heard comments made by secretary Austin about the US’s goals:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html
That’s what troubles me — not the fact that the US is helping Ukrainians defend their country from an invasion. They should do that, as should the whole world. But in conjunction with that defense should also be equally serious pressure to engage in peace negotiations.
The justification for not doing so — that Putin is a war criminal, that a guarantee on not joining NATO is unacceptable, etc. — is less than unconvincing, in my view.
I would think that after Bucha and all the other crime scenes, it's easy to understand why the Ukrainians would want revenge and wouldn't be interested in diplomacy.
On the US side, they have the Red Army right where they want it: in a trap. It is also easy to understand why they don't press for diplomacy.
The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him.
Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.
So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that.
Meanwhile, Putin rolled out the submission-machine months ago, which has been offloading artillery fire and missiles since. A fairly impressive amount at that, occasionally unleashing the mercs during Vodka breaks.
• Stop attacks on health care in Ukraine (Mar 13, 2022)
• Ukraine sees room for compromise, as 20,000 escape Mariupol (Mar 16, 2022)
• Ukraine: Deadly Attacks Kill, Injure Civilians, Destroy Homes (Mar 18, 2022)
• Bucha massacre (Mar 31, 2022)
Quoting Matilda Bogner commenting on findings Feb 24 - May 15 2022
• Ongoing shelling has led to homes being destroyed with many living in bomb shelters without access to basic services. (Jun 22, 2022)
• Russia’s War in Ukraine — The Devastation of Health and Human Rights (Jul 14, 2022)
• at its disposal is the scorched earth tactic, based on artillery superiority (Jul 17, 2022)
• Russian strikes on Zaporizhzhia kill at least 12, Ukrainian officials say (Oct 9, 2022) | Missile strikes on Zaporizhzhia leaves at least 12 dead, dozens injured (Oct 9, 2022; 2m:27s youtube)
• Dozens of Russian missiles hit multiple Ukrainian cities (Oct 10, 2022)
[sup]? Image source: Russian Missile Blitz Signals Escalation (Oct 10, 2022)[/sup]
• Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO
(anyway, reports continue on)
We're not just talking some skirmishes between combatants out Donbas way. The kind of madness here calls for guarantees, more than just he-said-she-said. I can see why Ukraine sought NATO membership, like Finland and Sweden since did.
Diplomacy difficult, even if welcomed. :/ The destruction bombing onslaught shams is what there is to deal with.
Quoting Isaac
Spoken like a Ukrainian fighter? ;)
Another aspect of the situation and thread could be a purely military strategic tactical discussion. Might not have enough (real) information, would have to make assumptions along the way.
Yep. The danger is that Putin is locked into his own spiral of escalation. And such trajectories are exponential. Each step grows bigger and riskier. Time for him to be gone. The will of Ukraine means it would be nuts for the West not to support this opportunity if the escalation narrative holds water.
Biden says Putin is a rational actor who is now making wild miscalculations - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html
The obvious reason this could be the case is that Putin has become the victim of his own information autocracy. He has narrowed his contact with the real world to the degree even his inner circle can’t be honest with him. He presides over a systemically corrupt state - one that exists by faking competence - and now that means he no longer has the good advice and information on which to base his rational calculations. The bullshit about Russia being functionally competent is believed. Only in the battlefield is that bullshit exposed.
But Putin has to continue to fake strength and control. And indeed a purity of intention to cover up the stench of a state structure rotting away ever faster each day. To hold power, he must double down.
Better that violent energy is directed inwards right now rather than allowing it to continue spreading outwards by saying sure, take Ukraine, help yourself. We can live with these “small incursions”, even though they grow bigger each time.
How would you negotiate with someone who is rational and yet who has constructed his own echo chamber of disinformation as to the power he wields? What inflated set of terms would he be willing to accept? And having inflamed the whole of Ukraine as a nation, why would anyone expect them to accept a patently bad deal?
The West had to make a choice given the conditions that are of Putin’s doing. What is rational as its own war aim now that war is what is happening?
Crimea wasn’t a step too far. Donbas separatism wasn’t a step too far. But taking over Ukraine to add to Belarus as part of the new Russian empire expanding back towards its “rightful” place in the world is where you might want to rationally call a halt. And given the chance of a people only too eager to lead their own fight, the US at last had a chance just to spend the dollars and not get directly involved in the way that always goes wrong.
No evidence, no 'proof' of what exactly? I was just exposing a conceptual framework.
Quoting Isaac
That's false. Your objection started with: "How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746158)
To which I answered: "I didn't equate representation and sovereignty anywhere. I was talking about pre-condition for the implementation of state institutions that support human rights. State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory." (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746177)
So no, I didn't ask you for proofs in this case. On the contrary I exposed once again my conceptual framework. You might have objected that it's incoherent or with little explanatory power and consequently I would have asked you for proofs. But such a random objection like "representation is not the same thing as sovereignty" simply means you didn't understand what I was talking about. That’s all.
Quoting Isaac
First of all, I don't feel compelled to prove all I say by default to anybody nor expect others to prove me all their claims by default. For those claims that I find questionable I ask for proofs, if others didn't provide any. Others can do the same, as you did: I take your objections to be about what you find questionable and in need of proofs about my claims. Hence I don’t see anything worth complaining about, so far. Secondly, these shifts of burden of proof are kind of common when we experience a clash of idiosyncratic assumptions, but if your point is that I was unfair to you because you most of the time provide evidence when I ask while I don't when you ask, then you provided the wrong argument to support that conclusion as I explained. Thirdly, if you claim: “I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it”, then why on earth do you keep making objections?
Quoting Isaac
This argument is a failure on all grounds: not only because it is another wrong argument to prove a putative "classic example” (and 2 bad examples are not really good stats), but also because all you are asking now I already answered in previous comments and complemented in that part you intentionally left out in that quotation. All that also suggests that you evidently failed to understand "my standards”:
- Let’s start with my standards as I already specified them:
“Honestly I find such quizzes about moral dispositions in different hypothetical scenarios (as in the ‘trolley problem’) highly misleading for debating the issue at hand and therefore useless for my decision process. This is why:
So my political support for Ukrainian struggles is grounded more on the reasoning I exposed earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949). Reasoning and evidences grounded on historical/geopolitical assumptions that go beyond this war, its major players and its short-terms results are more compelling to me then such quizzes.” (By “such quizzes” I’m referring to a certain way of accounting for costs and benefits of this war that seem relevant to you, in other words we are looking at different kinds of figures https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747341).
- How about “my figures” to support option 1 according to my standards? Here: how likely is that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU) than by being within the sphere of influence of an anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights (see first step), if not now in the future? I say it’s more likely, based on historical evidence (see Germany, Italy and Spain after WWII) and ex-Soviet Union countries that joined EU and NATO after the Soviet Union collapse. Also the democracy index is telling (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/democracy-index-2022-europe.jpg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking): Russian democracy index is lower than any country in the EU and Belarus which is under the sphere of influence of Russia is even lower than Russia, Kazakhstan better of Russia for few points. Is this enough evidence? If not why not? (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949).
- How about “my figures” to question option 2 according to my standards?
Here: “How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? The West has supported protests and political change for decades in Iran, North Korea, Russia and China with what results for their population's human rights? How about the ex-soviet union countries that had the chance to join NATO and EU? This is hardly unpredictable: indeed there is a part of the local population in any of these authoritarian regimes that profits from the sanctions and political pressure from outside to preserve/increase economic inequalities and support authoritarian regimes to brutally squash local protests (and condemn the population to a miserable life in terms of freedoms, public and private services, or economic survival compared to western standards) or worse aggressively expand outside national borders to gain geopolitical influence (like through wars, proxy wars and terrorism). Additionally, it’s questionable that “life” is all that counts (slavery wasn’t about killing people, Russian oppression isn’t about killing Ukrainians). Finally there is a hidden death toll that one must taken into account when talking about such authoritarian regimes given some inconveniences that add up to greater economic inequalities (the costs of boycotts and sanctions often end up oppressing the local population even more e.g. when the population lacks the foreign treatments necessary for their survivals, or gay or political activists are killed in prison).” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747342)
Obama echoes that same sentiment.
The dynamic is so similar to that of Trump. Another escalation machine with cultish informational autocracy - the faking of competence as a political structure.
This kind of influencer social dynamic is breaking out everywhere in modern life. The medium is the message as they used to say.
Ukraine exploited this new information environment to spin up its own sense of national identity in double quick time. All the drone videos and cell phone intercepts.
Elon Musk is another aspect of this phenomena. The Murdochs of old had to hide their power. The new influencers become its open face so as to publicly own the resulting disinformation bubble. How dangerous will Musk eventually prove?
We are in a different era of geopolitics and its reality making realism. Those who think Ukraine is a minor special operation that now needs rational negotiation, just haven't adjusted to that fact.
Right, all the more reason why the examples I mentioned are poor justifications — given by the US — for not encouraging talks. It’ll only get more people killed as this escalates, with the potential for nuclear war. That’s just madness. I don’t by any means blame the Ukrainian people for not being calmly rational about all this, but the US and UK certainly can try to be — for the sake of both the Ukrainians and the world.
Quoting Olivier5
Yes, and then consider what I quoted earlier:
So while it’s easy to understand, it’s not easy to accept — at least for me. I think the US is making a terrible and potentially fatal mistake. To roll the dice like this is, again, madness.
I don’t pretend to have any special knowledge about Putin’s motivations. I’m sure this played a role. I’m sure egoism played a role, etc.
Then we can listen and hear the explanations he’s given and see what we think. When he claims that NATO expansion was a threat to Russian security, we can ask if that’s played a role as well. I think it undoubtedly has.
So there’s a lot to be said of why he’s committed this crime. I’m more interested in how my government is involved and what it can do to stop the war. Which is what we were discussing — not speculations about Putin’s intentions.
Quoting frank
Yes— an idiotic and suicidal notion, but seemingly the current policy of my government. That’s what I’d like to change.
Sorry, this may seem out of left field and no offense is meant, but I’m wondering: do you write all of these links out yourself, or are these somehow copy-and-paste jobs?
Seems like a lot of work if the former— and a shame, because my instinct is always to ignore them entirely. I’m not sure why — maybe too much information, maybe it looks like a paste-job, etc. But I’m curious either way. You do it often.
Honest question: did you not realize Biden is a hawk when you voted for him? Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead?
When Biden said to the world "We're back!" after he was elected, what did you think that meant about US foreign policy during his presidency?
I guess I'm looking to get a handle on exactly how blind American voters tend to be.
That’s probably all true, in my opinion. But it’s not a complete picture. It’s a narrative that leaves out a lot of information — information that’s equally true and relevant.
:lol:
Apparently not. Ya didn't pay attention.
By and large, they're docs that scroll by elsewhere (notifiers, friends, family, feeds, facebook, twitter, the evening news, etc), then I scan through some for broader context, do a bit of searching/checking, and keep some in text files. Yep, occasionally I reuse/post stuff from those text files, and yep I do type the darn forum code in myself. :) I suppose it is a bit of work, though it has become a habit to do fairly quickly. (Some of these forum posts of mine were typed into a text file first, including this one.)
FYI (not that it matters here), elsewhere I started a pandemic tracker mid-2020 or so, which has grown to a tediously long list of docs/links/events/whatever. Over time it became littered with anti-vaxxer stuff and such, probably as many as scientific studies.
(if that answers your question)
Well that seems tedious, but kudos to you for doing so!
Feel free to make mention of what my narrative fails to incorporate. I’ve been known to change my mind. :grin:
Well that’s a merit!
I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman.
The US doesn’t act benevolently at this scale. Russia and their ally, China, have been defying the international order, of which the US is in charge, and this is threatening to US hegemony.
In my view, this is partly why we have a war, why the US is supporting Ukraine to the degree it is, and why it has and continues to discourage peace negotiations.
None of this is evident from the narrative you provide, however accurate it may otherwise be.
It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game.
, I need a memory upgrade. Curiosity will get the best of me.
I assume that when one says "Russia" or the "US" or "Ukraine", one is not referring to a land mass, much less to millions of people, with different opinions and perspectives.
The interest of a politician, or an oil baron, is not the same interest of that of a nurse, housekeeper, plumber or mechanic.
It almost always refers to the elites who are making the decisions, whether in military or private capacity, they are the ones who dictate policy. Granted, even in elite groups there can be dissent, but those aren't the ones making decisions.
You are right to bring it up, and although I have mentioned it a few times, not emphatically enough, it's an important topic.
As for Putin's agenda, sure. Similar to Erdogan or others who have some power. But he has nukes, which makes it very dangerous.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html
"The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times."
I’m no fan of the US. I’ve avoided even travelling there for 25 years. But the US level of provocation was tiny compared to the level of Russian escalation.
Do you think the Obama and the Trump years somehow left Putin no choice? Or that Biden arrived and suddenly Putin saw a leader of cunning and flair? In poker terms, Putin had to go all in on whatever cards were in his hand?
Sure, Western media is going to frame events in the standard Hollywood tropes. The US has its own domestic audience to placate. And it has even had weak presidents like Bush jnr who seemed to believe his own “fighting for a free world” script.
But in this conflict, you can’t claim the US engineered events. And you can’t blame it for taking advantage if a cheap opportunity now presents itself.
Sure Ukrainians will suffer to restore their sovereignty. But that’s the game and how it works.
You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.
Quoting Xtrix
I side with analysts like Peter Zeihan who stress that the US has always tended towards isolationism because of its geography. It just needs to secure Canada and Mexico as part of its North American hegemony and life is sweet. Anything more is gravy.
Trump was an incompetent and yet even under him the US made its major steps in this direction, weakening Nato commitments, signing targeted trade deals with Canada and Mexico, then adding in Japan, Taiwan and Korea as a sufficient bulwark against China. Russia was already fading from importance. The Gulf likewise was captive to the petrodollar. It owns a lion’s share of the US debt, and so had to suffer the Fed money printing the US out of its every economic hiccup, while also watching the US again become a hydrocarbon exporter through fracking technology.
So your geopolitical analysis builds in outdated neocon presumptions about the US’s self interests. Although that doesn’t mean that the GOP and even Hawkish democrats have necessarily caught up with that seismic swing back to a withdrawal from the wider world.
Yes, the US will defend its hegemony. It’s people believe that to be their god-given right. Every Hollywood movie is designed to reinforce the message in a nauseatingly crass fashion.
But the nature of that hegemony has changed. It doesn’t need to be the world’s policeman making the globe a safer and fairer place for even its smallest and weakest. Given climate change and technology advance, it is better off becoming the isolationist regime that always made the most self-interested geopolitical sense.
From the US view, Russia was already on death row. Let Europe and Asia suck its last drop of oil and gas.
China is also about to fall off its demographic cliff. Let it try to pivot to an economics of domestic consumption as the US pulls all its manufacturing back to cheap and reliable Mexico.
Of course it will take another 10 years for the whole US system to itself reorientate to this new reality. Trump couldn’t articulate the change. Biden only becomes convincing when he recycles the lines of his yesteryear training. This new logic of disengagement only perhaps becomes visible in events like the careless abruptness of his casting aside Afghanistan as an asset.
But anyway, judge events in Ukraine against a backdrop that has itself changed. A neocon analysis is so 1990s - even if it is true that large chunks of US institutional thinking might be still stuck in that time warp.
Quoting Xtrix
Hope I have shown that my narrative is based on the world as it is, even if that is also a world in transition.
That said:
Quoting apokrisis
This comparison is meaningless.
Quoting apokrisis
No.
Quoting apokrisis
I never said the US engineered the events.
I can blame it for contributing to the war’s occurrence and its protraction — for reasons I’ve discussed at length.
Quoting apokrisis
I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. As is the case with most people who launch accusations like this, I don’t see much evidence of it. I see a standard narrative that conceals information.
Quoting apokrisis
This is complete nonsense.
The US has been at war in nearly every year since its founding. It’s true that the population often doesn’t want war — at the beginning of WW1 and post Vietnam — but that has nothing to do with state action.
The current economy is also a global one. The US government, contrary to your claims, knows this very well.
Quoting apokrisis
It does not own the lion’s share of US debt.
Again I reiterate your own accusation: perhaps it’s best to know something about the actual world.
Quoting apokrisis
There’s nothing “neocon” about my analysis of US foreign policy.
Quoting apokrisis
Doubtful. But even if true, it isn’t close to happening.
Quoting apokrisis
There’s going to be less people in China. The US is also below replacement levels, though not as much.
Mexico has nowhere near the infrastructure and labor force China has.
Quoting apokrisis
This new reality you talk about — apparently a move towards “isolationism” — doesn’t exist. It didn’t exist under Trump, it doesn’t exist under Biden. The people who run this country — corporate America — and their bedfellows (politicians) are nearly all neoliberals. This involves the rest of the world, both in commodities and in labor. That’s not going to change. What may change is US hegemony.
Quoting apokrisis
My analysis has nothing whatever to do with neoconservatism.
Large chunks of US institutions are neoliberals — globalists. Both democrats and republicans. It’s not 1990s, it’s been every decade since roughly 1980 to the present.
Quoting apokrisis
No, it’s the world you claim it is — and that claim is deeply inaccurate and made without any convincing evidence, historical or otherwise.
Insults?
Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did, but my current claim is only that funding perpetuates war - makes continued war more likely than early peace.
Quoting frank
Funny that...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/05/meet-bidens-new-foreign-policy-team-same-obamas-old-foreign-policy-team/
It's this I was talking about.. But fine, you present 'conceptual frameworks' that apparently don't need proof and then ask for it from others. An odd habit, but understood. So. I'm asking you for you proof now then.
Quoting neomac
I don't. You do. It's astonishing how frequently this is happening on this thread. A narrative is presented, it's critiqued, then that criticism is treated as the claim. I'm not objecting to your position at all. I'm objecting to your implication that it counters my position.
Let's say there are two conflicting narratives on a subject theory A and theory B, but they are underdetermined by the evidence such that it cannot be said which is the case. My position is A and yours if B. You have claimed that my A is mistaken, you propose the alternative B. I'm not claiming your B is mistaken. I'm only countering your claim that my A is mistaken. That's not the same.
I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken.
I'm not upholding the counter-position that A is correct and B is mistaken.
Quoting neomac
Yes. There's no need to start over. Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons @boethius has already given - You have failed to take any account of the costs. It's insane to propose a course of action based only on the potential benefits without even holding a view on whether they outweigh the potential costs.
Quoting neomac
Well then you should check your historical evidence...
As Janne Mende argues...
Ahmed Shaheed gives some historical context...
Your notion that human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda.
Quoting neomac
None of those are figures, they're questions. I could provide the same level of counter-argument to the theory of a round earth - "how likely is it the earth is round?". Vague hand-waiving in the direction of possible counterweights does not constitute an argument that they do, indeed outweigh their opposing factors. As I said before, if all you've got is a vague 'feeling' that strategy (1) is more likely to succeed with less loss of life ultimately, then fine, but your vague feeling is not a counterargument to strategy (2) and shouldn't be presented as one.
The answer is fairly simple. You find out first by actually trying rather than committing the world to the brink of nuclear war on the basis of some armchair psychology from a thousand miles away.
The extent to which this is all treated like some computer game is truly frightening. We're talking about the threat of nuclear war here, at the very least we're talking about a protracted an bloody land war. The idea that either should be risked for even another day on the basis of some guesswork about Putin's mental state is absolutely insane. Until absolutely every avenue for peace has been thoroughly and uncompromisingly pursued, then any recommendation other than peace talks is warmongering.
Biden is wakening to the risk that Putin goes nuclear, so there's some progress there. But what you are talking about -- keep diplomacy alive in spite of everything -- is a job for Europeans, or Turks. Biden would have no credibility in that role.
https://focus.courrierinternational.com/2022/10/11/0/0/383/495/1280/0/60/0/3806d13_1665474991895-wprost.png[/img]
Vladimir Putin on the edge of a precipice, with a nuclear warhead around his neck. This is how Wprost depicts the Russian president in its latest issue dated October 10. In its editorial, the Polish weekly believes that the Russian president is engaging in a nuclear bluff that has no chance of success.
Quoting ssu
Quoting boethius
OK, at least with this you agree. Yet you continue...
Quoting boethius
Umm...just who is saying that the Russian army is competent and very effective? :roll:
There are several reasons just why people can argue that Russia's armed forces are incompetent, just starting from actual eye-witness stories and that performance on the battlefield. One can simply see themselves from the footage. The looting, the brutality towards civilians, the use of alcohol, failure of resupplying, it all tells of low morale and serious problems. Many armies suffer from these kind of problems, usually in the poor countries with low education levels and large social problems. It takes a lot, not just money, to create an effective armed forces. (Just look at the performance of the Saudi's in Yemen.)
The reasons for the problems in the Russian armed forces are many and start, as usually they start, from the society that the armed forces are part of. The Russian armed forces were formed from the Soviet Army, and that there is a really big bag of problems, which couldn't be easily reformed and modernized. The Russian army is enormous compared to the economy of Russia, which itself creates problems. Then there's the military culture. which starts from things like not focusing on the individual and him or her initiative, but a top-down command structure where initiative in lower ranks isn't promoted. Even the Finnish military manuals (that are public) say that the attack of the enemy can halt if the commander/commanding unit is destroyed.
It's said (quite convincingly) that the reason just why so many generals have died in the war in Ukraine is that they have had to lead from the front, literally. This isn't anything new. From the Russo-Georgian war there's video footage of the commander of the entire army, not a division commander or a battalion commander, giving orders surrounded to a large groups of officers and drivers on how the armoured spearhead should advance. He is standing next to the row of tanks on the road side and hence creating an obvious target assuming there would have been good forward observers and drones for the Georgians artillery (which they didn't have). It's basically WW2 style command when radios or any other communication equipment was scarce. Then comes everything else in the Russian system from corruption.
I could go on, but I don't think anyone would read me as it's a very long story.
Wow, Manuel. I knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this? This is your source of information? This is your standard of evidence?
"Ukrainian special forces organized a suicide bombing" - this is given as an established fact. How was it established?
I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference.
Wait, didn't they just say that the media - the New York Times, no less - already admitted this? Did they make that up? But who cares - it's self-evident!
Here they simply brush off the fact (cited earlier in the article) that the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (??????? ??????? ??????? - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook.
I currently cannot access the NYT articles, which are paywalled. You are correct that there is no link given for this claim.
As for the terrorist attack, it is defined in numerous ways, Oxford for instance defines it as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Is the bridge in Crimea used for civilian purposes in addition to military ones? Yes.
Is it a legitimate target? Sure. Was it a smart action to do this? I don't think so, look at the results of such actions. This much was predictable.
Of course, there is no doubt that Russia is committing, by far, the most terrorist attacks in Ukraine, it's not even a competition.
Quoting SophistiCat
You are right. On the other hand, it is de facto taken to be part of Russia. Obama applied the mildest of sanctions when the Russia annexed Crimea. It has important military value for Russia, given the naval base they have there.
I don't think this area will be given back. The newly annexed territories are a different matter, this was a desperate attempt to save face given the counterattack.
The quoted phrase may indeed be out of the Russian propaganda playbook, but it is no less true for being so. You think Ukraine would've lasted much without such help?
I happen to think that the longer this lasts, the more civilians will die, which is not good for Ukraine by the way.
Proof of what? Its consistency? What is the proof you are expecting I should provide? Do you see
any logic contradiction or categorical confusion in claiming: “State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory.”? Do you see any contradiction between what I claimed here and all my past claims? I don't. Do you want me to prove its explanatory power? I would need an alternative conceptual framework to compare it within a set of identified phenomena? Where is this alternative conceptual framework? What phenomena are we talking about? No idea. Do you want me to prove that my conceptual framework matches standard usage? I don't think it's that relevant coz terminological issues can be fixed by stipulation, however I could show a dictionary definition for comparison: “state, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty.” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-sovereign-political-entity). Do you see any contradictions between what I claimed and that definition? Do you see any substantive mismatch between my claim and that definition, wording aside? I don’t. What else? Oh, what on earth your objection “Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty” has to do with my claim, its consistency or its explanatory power? No idea, my claim doesn’t even mention “representation”, so nowhere I said or implied that “representation is the same thing as sovereignty".
An objection is about what one finds questionable for hopefully “rational” reasons. What are you reasons to find my conceptual framework questionable and in need of proofs?
Quoting Isaac
This looks a good example of clashing idiosyncratic assumptions I was talking about, because the evidential indeterminacy claim is itself indeterminate as long as it is not grounded on a conceptual framework for collecting and comparing evidences for a given epistemic purpose: e.g. web app logins are designed to identify the web app accounts, not to identify physical users because 2 different physical users could use the same web app account. So while the usage of a web app account is evidentially determined by the login system, the user is not. Therefore one can not use a login trace as evidence for the fact that e.g. a blackmailing email was sent a by a given physical individual. Unless there are other contextual reliable generalizations or evidences that would ensure this by inference.
That is why it is pertinent to clarify our epistemic standards for assessing evidences.
Quoting Isaac
It is flawed according to your epistemic standards. The problem is that I too find your epistemic standards (like costs in number of war casualties vs vaguely potential benefits in terms of timing and likelihood) flawed and useless for my decision making for the reasons I explained.
Here another case to make it more clear: Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Let’s try to assess it according to your claimed metrics.
Costs: total killed civilians estimates in a range 129000–226000 out of ~72M (so ~0.2%-~0.3% of the population) in 4 days. Just for a comparison with the Ukrainian war: 6114 estimated civilian deaths out of ~43M population (0,01% of the total population) in ~210 days, https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/10/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-3-october-2022
Benefits (for Japan): democracy almost immediately after, human rights adoption (See art.11 of 1946 Japanese Constitution) and steep growth in GDP per capita in the next couple of decades (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?time=1941..2018&country=JPN~RUS).
Now was it worth it to nuclear bomb Japan according to these metrics? I don’t know what your answer is based on your standards and prescriptions (like "to be solely concerned for the well-being of the people there" as compassionate outsiders). In any case this would be an a-posteriori evaluation, because at the time when the decision was taken nobody had your figures for the future benefits of Japan. So at that time was it worth to politically support the nuclear bombing of Japan?
We are in the middle of historical events, future payoffs for each conceivable strategy are not as certain or evident (wrt their likelihood, timing and entity) as the actual costs. Besides, concerning the costs: civilian deaths is a too little metric to assess war damage (how about civilian injuries? How about psychological damage? How about infrastructural and economic damage? How about lasting and likely future effects of all these damages? How about international political equilibria?) but the larger is the number of metrics the difficult is their aggregation (do they have the same relevance or do we have to ponder their relevance? How to assign weights?) and comparison with other historical cases (because maybe not all those metrics are equally available or reliable) or imagine counterfactual scenarios (which depend on a set of assumptions that maybe be questionable).
Not to mention the theoretical and scientific difficulties in assessing the economic, (geo-)political, social, psychological, material links between costs and benefits of complex historical events over generations.
Finally the higher are the rational standards the less affordable they become to average people and the less realistic is our expectations they would comply to them.
That’s why I consider this “accountant”-like approach badly misleading for average people’s political decision making, especially in the heat of historical events, while broad geopolitical considerations and historical evidences (which, notice, change over time: before the nuclear bombing of Japan there was no previous case to compare to) would offer clearer and affordable guidance under uncertainty, in addition to experts feedback and daily news of course.
Quoting Isaac
Why? What exactly did I say that your experts’ quotations is questioning? Quote my claims that are contradicted by Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union or “Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining”. I can’t find any.
I’m talking about the fate of States that enter the Western sphere of influence not the ones that are outside for whatever reason. I’m talking in comparative terms about entity, likelihood, timing of the implementation of human rights supporting institutions within the Western sphere of influence as marked by NATO and EU membership (because these are Ukrainians’ aspirations) wrt non-Western countries, especially wrt authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran and their sphere of influence.
Quoting Isaac
It is Western propaganda of course! But it looks also a reliable one within the scope I’m considering not in whatever ways you may think about it. Unless you are claiming that within authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran according to you and your sources human rights institutions are equally or better implemented than in the West. In this case, there would be another clash of idiosyncratic assumptions which, this time, I have no interest to deal with.
Quoting Isaac
I see, here is the trend of “Human rights protection, 1946 to 2019” about EU&NATO countries (some are ex-Soviet republics and let’s not forget German reunification): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK
Is that enough?
Which in the end you cannot disprove.
So countries wanting to join NATO because they fear Russia might invade them...which then becomes reality and Russia attacks them, is I guess the provocation. But what was the NATO prior to 2014 and where was it's focus?
This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. But let's forget the various number of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship, or just how silent the West was about the actions of Russia in Chechnya, because it was an internal conflict. All that doesn't rhyme with the US-is-out-to-get-Russia narrative.
No.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2011..latest&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK~ECU~BLR~BTN~ALB~CRI~CUB~IND~IRQ~LBY~MDA~UKR~USA~GBR
The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence.
The United States falls below Cuba.
Belarus (a Russian puppet state) has made comparable progress to others in its economic group.
Some of the worst losses are in Spain.
Ukraine have made virtually no improvements at all since the Maidan.
Iraq and Libya both 'benefited' from exactly the kind of Western military intervention you're advocating and their human rights records have worsened.
So no. Once you stop cherry-picking the data to match your theory you see exactly the pattern the experts I cited have described - a big gain post 1945 followed by a very mixed picture unrelated to 'Western' countries.
Here's the same claim in that known hotbed of leftist radicalism... the telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/09/four-ways-ukraine-could-have-taken-crimean-bridge/
Oh, and the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-bridge-explosion.html
So perhaps reign in the condescending bullshit.
Costa Rica? :chin:
It's a long time since President Oscar Arias was angry at the US for using the country as a staging post for Contras. Something nearly 40 years ago.
From the State Department's website:
US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations (diplomatic relations since 1851). Costa Rica is quite under the influence of the West I would say.
Quoting ssu
So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica?
Priceless. How're the boots tasting from down there?
So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea.
Oh, and just playing some more with your graphs (great resource by the way), have a look at this one...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=BLR~RUS~UKR
Remind me who came to power in Russia in 2000?
From Wikipedia...
Oh look. Human rights abuses match...wait for it...wealth. Not ideology, not Western culture, not NATO... Money. Richer countries can afford better human rights (which makes America's appalling score all the more horrendous). So what effect do we think Ukraine's now enormous debt is going to have on human rights?
This isn't an insult you great boob. In my experience, you're often wrong. That's not an insult. It's just a fact. Everybody gets things wrong from time to time. Take it as an opportunity to learn and grow if someone points it out.
Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February.
Your theory is that whether the US funds a conflict, with no other goals in mind, comes down to how easy it is?
Ok. I think I understand you. I think you're wrong, but I guess you think the same about me. :up:
Cherry-picking is wrt a theory. My theory is here: "I’m talking in comparative terms about entity, likelihood, timing of the implementation of human rights supporting institutions within the Western sphere of influence as marked by NATO and EU membership (because these are Ukrainians’ aspirations) wrt non-Western countries, especially wrt authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran and their sphere of influence."
So I didn't say that Human Rights can be successfully implemented exclusively within NATO&EU (or western sphere of influence for that matter), so Buthan and Costa Rica are not good counter-examples. Nor that Western military interventions aim at or succeed at improving human rights (so Iraq and Libya are not good counter-examples). Not that Ukraine outside NATO&EU has improved wrt human rights, considering also how much of the Ukrainian political, military and economic apparatuses fell within Russian sphere of influence. Other random observations about Spain and Belarus, are pinpoiting over nothing that matters here: compare Spain under Franco vs Spain under NATO&EU, compare ex-Soviet republic Belarus state with those ex-Soviet republics that joined NATO&EU.
So you can not accuse me of cherry-picking.
The evidence that I gave to you is proof (however fallible and limited in scope) of what I clam and it's relevant to me, not to whatever random thoughts are hunting your mind.
Quoting Isaac
Buthan and Costa Rica fare better than the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights yet they are not wealthier than them. Classic Isaac's cherry-picking, isn't it?
Quoting Isaac
There are ways to deal with it: "Germany agreed to pay reparations of 132 billion gold marks to the Triple Entente in the Treaty of Versailles, which were then cancelled in 1932 with Germany only having paid a part of the sum" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12469/ukraine-crisis/p351).
Or making Russia pay for the reparation also through the confiscation of Russian economic assets frozen in the West.
Before 2008 Putin was lauded internationally as a great, reasonable leader with whom the West could do business and form partnerships, etc.
Things were looking very good. A little too good for the Americans' taste, in fact.
Can't have their European vassals getting cozy with a potential future peer competitor, can we? Heartland theory and all that.
That's why they tried to ensure Russia could never rise to great power status again - by slowly encroaching on its former sphere of influence, eventually going a bridge too far with Georgia and Ukraine.
Ukraine was the big one, with Russia's influence in the Middle-East depending for a significant part on their access to the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
It might be worth pointing out that there is a potential link between the United States' failure in the Middle-East, Russia's likely involvement, and the United States' bid for Ukraine.
Yes, that would have been breaking news everywhere if confirmed. My second thought after reading the claim is that the Ukraine forces have been very disciplined about not saying stuff without approval. It would have been very surprising to have that fall apart on such an important issue.
The article's rhetoric was so infused with Lavrov descriptors that I double checked to make sure it was not a piece from the Onion.
No. You literally said that Costa Rica is outside of the Western sphere of influence.
That is the thing I corrected.
The administration could still throw its weight behind negotiations.
The WSWS article...
The NYT...
...
So you're saying it would have been breaking news everywhere if the source had been 'The Ukrainian special forces', but barely a mention if the source is 'A senior Ukrainian official'.
Really? Because previous breaking news stories from Ukraine haven't required anywhere near as solid a source. What's the major difference you're seeing?
Yes. Claiming someone you disagree with is not seeing the “actual world” or should look at the world “as it is” is an insult. You could just as easily present your argument without doing so.
Is this an argument?
I guess I can’t disprove that the war in Iraq wasn’t to spread freedom and democracy either. Maybe it really was!
Or rather, let others do it, and quietly encourage them. Russians fear the US the most, and there's value in that. If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations.
In what way?
Sure. I'm not married to any one strategy -- I just want the war to end. If that's the outcome, I don't care how it's done. Again, I harp on the US because I live here.
Quoting Olivier5
Not sure about this claim. It may very well be true that the US should just stay out of the way altogether. I would prefer to see them push for negotiations, quietly or otherwise. If done in good faith, I don't think their involvement would be a dealbreaker.
Sure, it's not that difficult to find something that's consistent with the theory (like most conspiracy theories), and, for that matter, there's no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations).
From there on, to declare your comment more or less factual is rather questionable.
For example, it's more straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking.
Quoting Putin · Feb 24, 2022
? Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia (and, by extension, Europe).
Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO?
NATO and whatever/whoever are apparently in the way of Putin's Kremlin's ambitions, limiting their free movements/actions (also consistent with observations), and hence NATO and whatever/whoever are the evil ones here. Ironically perhaps, Putin's war has put Russia at risk.
A neutral Ukraine, again? What happened to that?
Yes. It's almost as if all the fantasy about warring 'nations' is just a pile of crap fed to stupid masses to keep them at each other's throats while the kleptocrats lap up the remaining wealth whilst there's still a planet to extract it from...
...but obviously that's just a mad conspiracy theory, the James Bond worldview version is way more realistic. I'm sure Putin will be gutted about the ruination of Russia whilst he's sipping cocktails in Malibu.
It is a break in established policy for either of the sources to speak of it. If it was an anonymous senior official, that could be an intended leak. I don't see the value in doing that since it helps the Moscow messaging.
Do you have a link from the Times story? I cannot find it.
My point was that far lesser sources have produced far more sensational front pages.
Quoting Paine
Yes. Surprisingly Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass of one hive-like opinion. Some disagree with the war effort.
Quoting Paine
Sure, I linked it earlier.
Quoting Isaac
What do you think of a neutral Ukraine?
I think the last thing anyone on the side of Ukraine wants, is to weaken their negotiating position. The US openly pushing for negotiations could be interpreted by Russia as a sign of weakness. Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it.
Washington Post has a similar report.
Quoting Isaac
It is unlikely that the leaked report was an anti-war statement when surrounded by all the celebration of the strike.
How about China?
Not while he's still got a position he can milk, no. The moment things start going south you can guarantee he's not going down with the ship.
Quoting jorndoe
Could be useful. I don't care in the slightest bit for the fate of nations. It's the people in them that matter and they're the same whether they're Russian or Ukrainian or European. So if those with control over one completely arbitrary and anachronistic boundary have to avoid associations with other meaningless arbitrary groupings of humans, then I've no problem with that.
Short answer. Yes.
Yes. Biden's from the Silent Generation, so he's probably up to speed on that.
Possibly. It seems odd to be both suspicious of the authenticity of a source but simultaneously convinced of the source's motivation.
Just saying, I wonder what the controversy is? Appeasing or not appeasing right?
Being an anonymous source, it could have been intended to be leaked or done without authorization. If it was the latter, the motive could have been a desire to gloat.
Authenticity is not a question yet since there is no way to verify the report.
The controversy in this thread? It's hard to say. I've asked, and I don't get back anything that makes sense to me. It's maybe just people expressing their angst about war crimes and war profiteers. There's a fair amount of people assuming everyone else is naive about the agendas that give rise to mass events.
I think that expressing angst about all the victims involved is why I'm here.
Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying?
Some are saying that, yes.
Too much aligned with Moscow, I think.
Maybe, but they've kept their statements sort of neutral.
I wish that wasn't true.
Those kind of comments would have more weight if Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine, which makes them a bit dubious in the case of this war. The imperialist ambitions of Russia simply cannot be denied.
But in the case of China (which has last time attacked Vietnam in 1979 and had some skirmishes in the 80's with the country, which didn't go so well for the China) or Iran (which hasn't attacked anybody, even if it does give aid to various combatants), the profiteering argument would be more credible.
But at the end of the day, isn’t Putin/Russian military killing people to gain territory? How is that disputed?
Some make the accusation that Putin is acting in self defense, or at least defense of what is rightfully his client state. Because the US has been supplying military aid to Ukraine, the idea is that Putin reacted in a way that should have been predicted. Therefore the fault goes back to the US and NATO.
Aha. All true
True. That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately.
Sounds like your issue is that you're only able to look at this conflict through a western lens, which might be why the idea of the US actively working to keep its competitors weak sounds like a "conspiracy" to you.
Stop being naive. The US is as cut-throat as any other nation - in terms of recent history it may be the most destructive nation on the planet.
Quoting jorndoe
Sure. But how strange that they were all holding hands and singing praises before 2008. What changed, huh?
Quoting jorndoe
NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this.
What I find lacking in this discussion is the wider context. We're only looking at what is happening today, even though today's events are a direct result of things that happened 12 years ago.
Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine, which means NATO took the first step in changing Ukraine's neutral status. This both threatened to remove the buffer between NATO and Russia and Russia's access to Sevastopol
2013 was the point of no return, when the US showed it was willing to support regime change in Ukraine in order to reach its goals.
I do say this with the power of hindsight, but war was unavoidable from that point onward.
All the narratives, war rhetoric and propaganda is just nonsense to influence the public.
Quoting jorndoe
Ask the Americans.
Now, yes. Never say never though.
At present, even if one could get some talks underway, they wouldn't lead to much progress, I think. At this stage it would be about opening a channel for future meaningful talks, not yet about using this channel for meaningful peace talks.
Diplomacy is slow.
Visualizing it, these talks (say in Istanbul) could start by the negotiators arguing for a month or so about the agenda and process issues, a time they would use to get to know the other team, their weaknesses, etc. Then, in another months or two they would review in detail the extent of their differences, take the full measure of the gap separating the two teams' positions. Then, realizing the challenge ahead in closing the gap, would come a period during which "confidence building measures" would be discussed. That is to say, not yet peace talks but talks about what behavior change from any of the parties could be agreeable and may improve the chances that the parties engage in meaningfull peace talks...
Etc. etc.
Better start sooner than later, then. But don't expect miracles.
The primary way the US and Russia "compete" is ideological, not financial.
Because Russia is a dictatorship, profoundly corrupt, and militarily aggressive, the traditional American view is that it should be contained.
Speaking of which....
Kremlin expects Erdogan to offer Putin mediation on Ukraine on Thursday
By Le Figaro with AFP
Turkey, very dependent on Russian gas and oil, has been trying since the Russian offensive of February 24 to maintain good relationship with both Ukraine and Russia.
The Kremlin said on Wednesday 12 October that it expects Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a concrete proposal to Vladimir Putin to mediate on the conflict in Ukraine, while the two men will meet on Thursday in Kazakhstan.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-kremlin-s-attend-a-ce-qu-erdogan-propose-jeudi-a-poutine-une-mediation-sur-l-ukraine-20221012
Quoting apokrisis
:roll:
No, it isn't. Putin tried for the easy land grab and it's blown up in his face.
Ha! You called it.
That would be nice. :grin:
Let's hope they come up with something.
A truth I have come to believe is that the quest for meeting one's ambition, will be strengthened by the toil one put towards it, but everything needs opposition to propel it. Without it, one sort of has no rudder.
To pin oneself, in a certain context of the mind, against an idea, person, place, or thing, perhaps the entire world itself, is to spend time in the headspace that fuels a certain kind of ambition which more frequently designs is own perspectives greatness.
For if a worthy opponent, you will come to see both their weaknesses and strengths and then move with choice towards or away from what those are, letting it guide your capacity for the duration of time that the opposing force remains a focus, and get external clarity for what those ambitions truly are.
The next piece here can be ordered as such:
1) The considered heights and the reality of your current relation to them
2) The nature of your opposition- is it intrinsically good or bad? What are the layers to its goodness vs.
3) What are you willing to risk or sacrifice to compete with it? Put another way, how much must you test the system?
4) At what cost?
5) What will be the achievement?
The ultimate goal must be to make peace with it via discourse that ascertains new truths on both sides, at a later date, for why the opposition existed in the first place. To do so, will inevitably deepen insight and to not do so is to forego the entire point of why it existed in the first place.
And if the love that exists in the heart for both oneself and that opposition, for the war that opposition has battled as a result of its inherent nature, perhaps in mind alone, then it can be viewed as a worthy battle to have waged, by the degree to which it was initially just.
Consider a few examples:
-The Cold War and the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and how it also paved a new path for peace. Also the ensuing space race.
-The rivalries of siblings - Venus and Serena. Peyton and Eli, or that within any family
The rivalries of artists - https://theculturetrip.com/europe/italy/articles/the-10-greatest-artistic-rivalries/?amp=1
The great rivalries of sports teams - Giants vs Dodgers. Packers vs Bears. Lakers vs Celtics. Others.
The rivalry of War, namely the Second World War and its accompanying ideologies, driving the West's fundamental value in freedom of thought
---
I am more interested to hear if this rationale is sound in broader contexts, rather than debate if it is true, in its entirety, in the case of the War in Ukraine. I put it here to spur broader discussion on the psyche of War, and how we contend with it.
"Terrorist attack" is how Russian officials and media frame it, and this shrill opinion piece seems to hew closely to their talking points. The author also calls it a "suicide bombing" without any evidence, which perhaps is just rhetorical flair (because suicide bombers = terrorists). While that is a possibility that has not been ruled out, there are reasons to doubt it (not that blowing up an unwitting civilian is any better from the ethical standpoint).
The Kerch bridge is the primary supply route for the Russian invasion force in South Ukraine. Destroying it would have severely degraded Russian logistics, so of course it was a legitimate target. The bridge supplies the very weapons and ammunition that the Russian military uses to kill civilians on a daily basis, so an argument could be made that a few civilian casualties (four people died in the attack) were an acceptable tradeoff for destroying it.
However, the actual damage, according to experts, is not expected to seriously disrupt the supply route, at least not for long. There is some debate over whether this was an unsuccessful strategic strike, or whether the effect was always intended to be primarily psychological. That the attack was apparently timed to Putin's 70th birthday speaks in favor of the latter hypothesis. (This is also one reason why it probably wasn't a suicide bombing: the driver made a rest stop just before entering the bridge, delaying the attack until the following morning.) The bridge was Putin's pet project - he saw it as one of his crowning achievements. And I agree with you, escalated attacks against civilians should have been entirely predictable. Personally, I am queasy about this affair.
Quoting Manuel
The fact that the bridge is located within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders is something of a red herring: since Ukraine is in a state of war with Russia, it would have been perfectly justified in attacking military and strategic targets inside Russia. Which it has done on a limited scale - without provoking WWIII, despite all the talk about Putin's supposed red lines. (And there have been some spectacular ops within Crimea as well.)
The scale has been limited perhaps more by Ukraine's military capabilities than anything else. Whether they cannot or will not carry out large-scale offensive operations against Russia, they make the best of this situation by maintaining strategic silence about the attacks that they do conduct, even within Crimea. Which is why it would have been very surprising if Ukraine's "special forces" openly admitted to carrying out an attack that was clearly designed to fall below the threshold of attribution. (Not that there is a lot of doubt about the actual responsibility.)
As for the US role in all this, they cannot "authorize" any attacks - unless one accepts the Russian propaganda line about Ukraine being controlled by the West. However, they do have a say in how the weapons that they supply to Ukraine are used, and they have always insisted that they should not be used to attack Russia on its soil (Putin's red lines again). That is also given as the reason why longer-range missiles are not supplied to Ukraine, even though they could have helped in the fight.
Crimea presented a difficult dilemma for Ukraine's Western allies, in that it is formally considered to be an occupied territory, but for Putin it is thought to be even more sensitive than actual Russian soil. Nevertheless, the stance that was adopted is that Crimea is fair game. This has been known for a long time, so all these scandalous revelations that the article strains to make (citing such explosive intel as an old interview in The Times of London) look rather ludicrous.
Not that any of this is of any relevance here: the bridge almost certainly was not attacked with Western weaponry.
Yeah Putin/Russian military is killing people to gain territory. How is that disputed? Where is the dispute?
Quoting frank
Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor?
It wasn't critical of my position -- which you failed to grasp -- it was a strawman about a "neocon analysis" and then platitudes about bravely facing the world "as it is" by adopting "accurate assessments" (it's taken for granted that you have done so, I suppose).
So yes, I'll be sensitive about that in this case. I was careful not to add unnecessary, condescending commentary in my responses to you and didn't want to start down that path in this thread -- there's already been enough heat here. I figured it was best to point out that you were the one who initiated it.
Anyway -- this is boring. Be well.
Having monitored this thread since its inception, I think the following axes of rotation are underway:
The argument over whether, and to what extent, the expansion of NATO membership is or was an existential threat to the Russian Federation.
To what extent or not is the conflict a proxy war to achieve U.S. objectives versus a fight for Ukraine for the sake of Ukrainians.
How much those first two issues reflect the element of 'globalization' and Russia's participation in it.
Who has done shittier things, Russia or other Nations, but especially the U.S.
It comes up a lot less in recent arguments but whether Ukrainians are more righteous than Russians, vis-a-vis rules of engagement.
So, your straightforward question has been diverted to other ones.
I don't. I'll keep trying to push things in that direction -- I just don't see the odds of success as probable. But as long as there's a chance, it's worth doing. It's a similar attitude I have towards a lot of issues.
That's a good question. I think there's a thread of truth to it, but there's more going on than that. Honestly, I think it will be a few years before we get the historian's take on what happened.
I've been a bit busy today and my brain is a bit gone. Just from skimming, agree on some points, others not so much.
Thanks for the detailed response, will get back to you tomorrow.
I know, it's crazy isn't it?
It's almost as if there's a chance you might not actually know everything there is to know about the subject and other people have information to present that you're not already aware of.
It's almost as if the way things seem to you to be isn't necessarily the way things actually are.
... but you're right, how could either of those two things be the case... We should have come to you first.
Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).
Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always.
What I have gathered from this thread is that some people do not want to accept this, because it would justify US and West European actions and put especially the US in a positive light, giving help to a country that has been attacked. For them it is more important to be critical about the US and it's previous actions and meddling around the World. Somehow it's too much to stomach for them that the culprit for this war isn't the US. And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. Yet when you are just critical about about one country and stay silent about the ill doings of another, there is an obvious bias.
And that's what I find so irritating in this World: you cannot be both critical in certain occasions and also give support for other actions when they are justified. As if objectivity is impossible. There's a lot that should be discussed about the ill-fated trainwreck that was the war in Afghanistan and basically how the West trampled it's own values in the "War on Terror". However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card.
Fortunately there is sanity in this thread, like @RogueAI shows:
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting RogueAI
If Russia continues in the path it has taken, Russia will likely also alienate the Belarusians also.
We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others.
Quoting Isaac
What's the balance here? You both ask for imagination and condemn it throughout this thread. Is it only when it fits your narrative that imagination is needed and when others use it you call it overactive and wrong? I guess consistency isn't your strong suit.
So if one can't rely on evidence to discriminate between conflicting theories, then how to discriminate when imagination is too much or too little? wrt what?
I'm not sure what you're having trouble with here. One can over water one's houseplants. One can under water one's houseplants. Do you find the concept of two extremes difficult for some reason?
Quoting neomac
Exactly. Now you're getting somewhere above adolescent positivism.
You still didn't get anywhere with your senile anti-positivsm though.
The main point here, for me, regardless of how the attacks were carried out, is that this has increased military offensive, as we are seeing daily with this missile barrage. They have a right, no doubt, to fight in every part of Ukraine. I think they have to be careful in what choices they carry out. Russia still has plenty of missiles, which can and likely will be used against Ukrainians.
I wouldn't gamble on the point of the "red line", it seems pretty serious to me and obviously to many leaders, which is why it is practically the dominant topic on international affairs. I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda".
It's not so much that the West tells Ukraine to do whatever they want, and Ukraine must do it, it's more in line with, we are giving you weapons, so you better fight the Russians to the end, don't focus on negotiations, as Johnson said, for instance. He was almost surely following the US/NATO line.
The focus should be on de-escalation, but we don't see that happening right now. You seem to be of the persuasion that Russia can be defeated completely and kicked out of Ukraine and that's it. I really doubt that's how it's going to play out. We will see who ends up being right.
This is a point which bears emphasis. Russia take a generally anti-Western position. It's in their interests to publicise any errors or injustices that Western governments might perpetrate.
If every comment that coincides with Russian talking points is ruled out by that alone then we are quite unequivocally saying that criticism of our governments is now to be treated with automatic suspicion.
As if our governments didn't already have enough influence over dissent...
This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees, but agreeing with them doesn't make one a "supporter" or a "hater".
Of course, all this gets magnified significantly during wartime.
Putin changes his stories pretty frequently, though. You get to the point where you're not second guessing him or wondering what he really meant by such and such, you just discount everything he says because it's all lies.
Yes, Americans lie too, but the only American I know of who lies the way Putin does is Trump. I don't advise believing anything he says.
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting Putin · Feb 24, 2022
Quoting jorndoe
After all, context, perspective, all that, right?
(like Sweden and Finland since)
Ukraine has received a fair amount of help, adding to the story.
I think that's the rudder for a lot of folks. They react specifically against the idea of the US showing up in a positive light.
I think all political entities are better conceived forces of nature. You get closer to the truth that way, I think.
That's just draft. Why would Putin lie all the time? So you're saying if America did something terrible Putin wouldn't tell the truth about that? He'd lie and say they didn't do it, just because... What?
Liars lie because they want a particular narrative to be taken as true. Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully. I mean, this is obvious stuff.
I had in mind Russia (the Russian state) in general rather than Putin himself, who does have most of the power.
Netanyahu is a compulsive liar, Bolsonaro too, Bush junior was pretty bad and so was Blair, not to mention whoever is in charge in North Korea.
You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them.
That's true. My point was just that doubting Putin is kind of like doubting Trump. The total disregard for truth is unusual in both cases.
There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog.
None of it seems all that relevant to me, but if you want to hear my thoughts anyway:
Quoting jorndoe
Sounds like a value judgement to me, which aren't very useful when trying to understand a political situation. What does it matter what you and I want? It has no impact on what is happening and why it is happening.
Sure.
Why would Russia be special in that regard? Isn't there distrust of the United States, or China? I don't see Russia as a nation that behaves particularly terribly when compared to others. The United States takes the cake for being the most destructively meddling nation in recent history. Unprovoked invasions, de facto genocides and indiscriminate killing, sowing chaos and destruction, we've seen it all before under the American flag, so I'm just not buying your one-sided "Russia bad" narrative.
Quoting jorndoe
The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. Now they've started a war over it, just like they said they would. At some point maybe you'll have to accept that they were serious when they said that, and instead of more "Russia bad", try to understand why Ukraine is so important to Russia that they were willing to start a war over it.
But honestly, it doesn't seem like your point of view allows for a rational analysis. You seem to desire a black and white picture of good guys and bad guys, and the western propaganda narrative delivers it to you.
I see. So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine (that isn't true) in this recent crisis as part of this 'always lie' strategy. I'd be interested to see it in action.
Alternatively, let's say evidence came to light that American bombed the bridge, not Ukraine (just a hypothetical example). You're saying that Putin would keep schtum about this game-changing bit of propaganda because it happened to be true and he's committed to always lying?
I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians.
I don't know. That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action. Something where the truth benefits Putin's interests but he lies anyway, even though that works against his goal.
Quoting Isaac
The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to.
I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true.
Not in your world though, coz there is no evidence to support such a claim "Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully" in case of conflicting narratives.
If you can't understand the concept of underdetermination I can't help you. You have do meet a minimum threshold of comprehension.
Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing.
You saw the video Olivier posted where his own soldiers didn't know they were going into battle until they were actually on the way to Kiev. Talk about information fog.
evidence of that?
I see how that would work, but I don't see how it relates to the argument. If there is some legitimate criticism of the US, Putin may, or may not repeat it.
As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point @Manuel was making.
That's true. It's a case of ad hominem. Ad hominem is acceptable in cases where it's wise to be skeptical of an individual's statements because that person lies unusually frequently.
You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant.
And what would have bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity?
If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2, you simply lack a lot.
But then again, according to you the UK surrendering to Nazi Germany during WW2 "might have well have saved thousands of lives on both sides". (Who cares what would have happened to the British Jewish community, which then numbered more than the total UK casualties of WW2, and to those that would have opposed the new regime.)
So now Putin is like Hitler, carrying out literal genocide and wanting to conquer, not "merely" all of Europe, but also the rest of the world?
He couldn't conquer Ukraine, and is now resorting to desperate measures. You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end?
You must know now that internally in Russia he is losing popularity quite quickly and the longer this lasts, the more his popularity will drop. Not to mention all the internal dissent and all the many fleeing the country.
Catherine the Great said:
Russia can portray itself as the victim defending itself, but in fact it is an imperialist entity which basically only during the Soviet Union had one shared common identity. Then the various people in the Empire were Soviets, not Russians. Russia has never been just Russians. It is basically a multicultural state build on a Medieval Empire which outlasted other similar Empires thanks to a revolution that created the Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been able to be as successful in it's Russification as France, Germany or even Italy has been in creating a nation state in the 19th Century (or earlier). And now with Putin, Russia is trying to claw back what it had lost. Hope it will fail and then learn that it has lost it's Empire.
And furthermore, every aggressor will portray itself at least as a defender of something. Someone truly believing the bullshit lie that NATO made Putin to attack Ukraine, that it was the only option left for Putin, likely isn't capable of understanding that he or she is believing a similar enormous lie like Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda and hence Iraq should be invaded.
After all, I remember those idiots that came even to this forum (or technically the earlier site) to defend the US attack on Iraq and later defended President Bush as "just having got bad intel". Now those believing the Russian line are quite similar to those idiots.
Yep, what you say here makes sense.
Quoting ssu
So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted.
It's not a hermetically sealed evaluation, you'll have to keep the rest in mind alongside.
As an example, if Putin had gone towards real democracy, transparency, non-authoritarianism, free press, less use of polonium-210, whatever (quite a bit has been posted right here in the thread already), then lots of people would be looking in this direction, be more enthusiastic. The autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive kleptocratic leadership/regime is a killer.
That’s not Chomsky’s position, and it’s not my position. Nor is it anyone else’s position on this thread that I’ve seen.
The US government being the “bad guy all the time” is a strange accusation. We’re analyzing government actions — whether good or bad is a separate issue. Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way.
But I’ll give you what you want:
- It’s a positive thing that the US is helping Ukraine defend itself. (What isn’t positive is their getting in the way of peace negotiations.)
- Putin’s actions are repugnant and I condemn them.
Funny that this needs repeating, since I — and everyone else — has been saying it all along.
What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist.
You are talking to a Finn, you know that?
And I do know what Finlandization is in reality. You see, the Putin's ideologist (that was tried to be killed by Ukrainian intelligence services) said it quite clearly what Russia's intentions ought to be for FInland. To have similar relations as during the Cold War.
You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If Russia would be a prosperous, functioning country that has lucrative markets for Ukraine's economy to export, it might be well that we would be talking about CIS as we talk about the EU. Yes, the Ukrainians had their Holodomor, but Russians also suffered during the Soviet Union, hence the attitude could something like modern Germany looks at the Third Reich today. (Not like Putin's Russia looks at Stalin today).
And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why.
I do know I am talking to a Finn, we have raised it a few times actually. That's interesting intelligence, and believable. But one thing is having such ambitions, and the other is actually doing it.
From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. The general consensus on this war by now, is that Putin thought he would be welcomed and he was gravely mistaken.
So the rest of what you mention may well be accurate, but now we know it can't apply. Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen.
We will see how this pans out. Hopefully well enough.
In a way, the war in Ukraine has given the chance for the West to avoid the really important debate about the War on Terror and especially the war in Afghanistan.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, let's try. You aren't a Putin supporter and I'm not an American jingoist. (Not even a Finnish jingoist, even if I think of myself as being patriotic.)
Best military operations are those, when you accomplish your objectives without any shots fired. When it's something else than a war. Believe me, modern generals are really triumphant about these operations whereas the larger public doesn't notice them as no war occurred.
The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelyhood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya.
Quoting Manuel
Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter.
This is very important and it seems other people have a hard time understanding this, when it should be quite simple to get. I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time.
Quoting ssu
Yes, it was very much well on its way to that, seems to me it actually was taken as a de-facto part of Russia, but he wanted more.
Quoting ssu
I think this applies to all great powers honestly. And to be clear, it's the leadership, the elite, the military, that choose to do these things, the populations very often don't even get a choice, or are fed propaganda.
Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. I don't have a lot of political power, but of what power I do have I'd like to put to the best use. Because I live in the United States, it will be mostly confined to its government. So I ask what role the US has played in this conflict, what its plan is, and how it can best bring the conflict to an end. This is what Olivier and I had been discussing previously, which ended in agreement.
I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about any of this. The controversy will lie in the details -- about NATO's expansion and its role in the war, about whether or not the US has helped or hindered peace talks, about the true threat of nuclear war, etc.
I'm not in favor of capitulating to bullies. I'm not in favor of appeasement. I am in favor of diplomacy and compromise. And in listening to all parties involved -- with a skeptical ear.
That's as clear as I can be at the moment.
Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbas/Crimea annexations by Ukraine in exchange for peace is a good compromise to you?
Then I stand corrected. I hadn't seen this either, but then it's a very long thread and I haven't always been great keeping up with it.
Quoting Manuel
There's a lot of emotions at play, and that will skew the perceptions -- mine included. I do indeed have a tendency to view the United States government negatively. I think I'm right to do so and can support it, but it's still true that this is my basic orientation, given what I know about the US and its history.
Others, also correctly, will be hostile towards Russia because of its war crimes and the fact they started all this by invading, which cannot be overlooked.
But much like 9/11, this hatred will also skew the ability to understand the causes of the indefensible event. Anyone who talked about the US involvement in the 9/11 attacks were immediately condemned as siding with terrorists. People weren't ready to hear any of it.
All of this is fairly typical. I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages. But otherwise it's not extraordinary.
I think Ukraine neutrality is good. Recognition of Donbas, no. Recognition of Crimea -- maybe.
But it's not up to me. That's up to the people of Ukraine. No negotiation is going to be easy, and both sides will have to give something up. It cannot be that Russia simply gets everything it wants in exchange for peace, no. But then those aren't really negotiations.
One of the elements that could have made that de facto condition become normal is that back then, Putin was skillfully engaged with European powers to become integral to their economies, as depicted in your post upthread with Putin hanging out at the G8.
As Russia keeps doubling down after each lost hand, the chances of that relationship returning is shrinking exponentially, no matter the outcome of the war.
No, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. If Putin only sometimes lies then the argument is false. Anti-US sentiment may or may not be appropriate regardless of whether Putin echoes it or not.
It's nonsensical to say that we should not repeat anything Putin happens to say. Some of what he says will be true, some lies, so if something we think is true happens to also have been said by Putin that fact has no bearing on the matter.
Exactly...
Quoting Isaac
And you position yourself as being the one deciding what level of imagination people are on in their writing and then putting yourself into the balanced rational position and everyone you don't agree with into either having too little or too much imagination, whatever fits your way of dismissing someone else's argument without engaging with them honestly.
lol I would be crazy to read everything here, I've skipped often 10-15 pages or more. When I have participated, I know of one poster, but maybe there is another one or few. They're not common.
Quoting Xtrix
Me too.
Then again, if you look at the tradition in philosophy, you find every kind of political persuasion and personalities, so, I suppose we shouldn't be mildly surprised.
That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously.
Right. Well that was a distracting waste of time. So you actually agree with the sentiment that we didn't ought to treat the notion that some talking point is Russian propaganda as having any bearing on whether it's true or not. It might be true and they're taking advantage of that, or it might be false and they're lying. The fact itself is not rendered untrue by it's being used by Russia to further it's campaign to discredit Western governments. Western governments do, in fact, do unjust things from time to time, and if Russia became aware of one of these unjust actions, it would proclaim it loudly. As such, someone who wishes to hold their own government to account for injustices is going to end up frequently echoing the same talking points as Russian propaganda.
Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever.
Quoting Peter Suciu · National Interest · Mar 11, 2022
Quoting Paul Kirby · BBC · Sep 30, 2022
Unless Ukraine is assimilated by Russia, this might continue, it's the Ukrainians' choice to make.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm guessing a neutral but independent Crimea would be unacceptable to Putin. Any chance of that?
Funny how this has all of a sudden become a rallying cry.
We've had over half a century of foreign aid being tied to economic reforms, punitive measures when loan repayments are not met. There's not a single country in Africa nor most of Eastern Europe that isn't having it's economy managed by the IMF or the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation on the grounds of their holding the purse strings.
Suddenly, the fact that the US and Europe are funding this war carries no duties or influence. Now we've apparently grown a conscience after 50 years of abuse and are now passionate about self-determination despite being loan recipients.
I look forward to a similar amount of indignation being raised against all the predatory loan arrangements that repress the economies of half the developing world.
Any minute now...
...
...
It is the role of Ukraine in possible negotiations that has consumed so many pages of debate here.
For those that view the conflict as principally a proxy war being waged by the U.S., the terms are said to be ultimately between Russia and the U.S. For those who see Ukrainian's actions as directed by their own decisions and goals, their terms are seen to be central to any deal.
While it is obvious that the fighters cannot be decoupled from what supports them, treating Ukraine as merely a pawn in a geopolitical game is not going to lead to an end of the war.
If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter.
In fact, if Biden wasn't the president, his perspective is one I'd seek out.
You're welcome.
I agree, but that's not the point. We're not talking about something I've chosen to believe because Putin said it, we're talking about something I've chosen to believe because it seems plausible which Putin also happens to claim (because it suits his agenda to do so). The argument levied is that Putin's echoing the sentiment makes it less likely to be true (or in some other way problematic to repeat). I'm saying that if I find some position plausible, whether Putin finds it propitious to repeat has absolutely no bearing on the matter's veracity.
The argument "that sounds like Russian propaganda" has no weight. Anything that's anti-Western may end up in Russian propaganda, whether it's true or not.
Right, but of course it’s not that simple. As I mentioned earlier, there seemed to be a possible agreement in March/April until the UK and US discouraged the deal. On the other hand, if the US or UK suddenly wanted peace, it doesn’t mean Zelenskyy would automatically go for it.
I think a possible solution is simply for the US and UK to not interfere with negotiations. I’d prefer they encourage them, but that is neither probable nor (it has been argued) necessarily beneficial.
In any case — they’re not merely a pawn. But it’s hard to deny that this has become a proxy war.
I would think it unlikely, but I’m no expert. It’s not a bad idea.
ok.
Philosophers don't really understand politics as practiced. Most of times, they theorize about some ideal forms of government, often favouring the philosopher-king or philosophers parliaments... In other words, they dream up the kind of politics that they fantasize doing, if ever they were in power. God forbid!
There are exceptions, if course. Machiavelli made a brave attempt at understanding power in its real, practical relationship with people. But it is telling that [I]The Prince[/i] with all its bitter realpolitics, was born from his failure as a "philosopher republican" in Florence. The Florentine Republic was short-lived. Machiavelli was captured and tortured by the Medici. That would leave a deep realist scar on the most idealist thinker.
Then there's Marx. Must I go on?
Quoting Isaac
Also Isaac:
Quoting Isaac
That's kind of the point I made.
Sensible ones (for the time they were writing in) also include Locke, Smith, Mill, Hume, Russell, Kant, Dewey and many others. Not utopians.
But then those you mention are problematic in many ways.
Understand.. But even if this is wrong, let's say.. The wrong right now is Russia's actual invasion. Not just soft influence.
Quoting ssu
Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did.
Except the second was preceded by supporting evidence from two experts in the field. Hence the adjunct "nothing but".
Had your position been "also" Western propaganda and I still raised it as a complaint you might have a point, but as it is, the difference between nothing but propaganda and also propaganda is cardinal.
What I'm arguing against is the notion that a position can be wrong simply because it matches some propaganda.
In your case your assumption was wrong because it was contradicted by those with expertise on the matter (not to mention your own data). That is was Western propaganda was proffered as an explanation for your fault, not evidence of it.
I think now most important is for the war not to get bigger. So I hope that Belarus can stay out of this: it is a balancing act, but I think that their own dictator can do this balancing act.
Conventional wars like this end with one side losing or being incapable of continuing. Or then simply both sides being understanding that they cannot win and the war is costly for both. If you look at for example the short wars Israel fought, the victory on the battlefield was very clear in the end. Or the Armenian-Azeri war of 2020. Once a conventional war starts, it doesn't stop because of diplomats, diplomats arrange peace-talks only if the situation on the battlefield calls for it.
Both sides here are willing to fight. For Ukraine taking Kherson might be a possibility, but what then is likely to be difficult is to cross the Dniepr. The troops now mobilized by Russia will simply take months to organize. The fact is that the West can keep up the level of military aid it has given to Ukraine, while Russia is losing that material as modern Russia is no Soviet Union.
For Russia to continue this war will likely mean that when the fighting is finally over, I think you will see political turmoil in the country if not earlier. But the outcome isn't obvious. My personal belief is Putin simply has to go. He has started now too many wars, starting from the Second Chechen war onwards. But as this is Russia, that may also happen when he dies of old age many years from now.
Well, Putin basically started the civil war that in Yugoslavia happened immediately (thanks to Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic) now happens decades later from the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the real tragedy here: Perhaps Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't manage many things well when the Soviet Union collapsed, but they managed to do it peacefully with only few skirmishes and little wars erupting (Georgia, Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh). Those who have been born after this collapse are already adults and the Soviet Empire is really for many only in the history books. But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.
And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is.
In the sense that you have evidences of such contradiction, or it's just your functional imagination at work as usual?
Or it seems plausible because you have chosen to believe it?
Marx and Machiavel were realists, almost scientific, using history as their lab. That's what I like in them: the respect for reality, at least as a general principle.
Agreed. "Super" is too much.
Right, so I still don't get why there is much of an argument pro-Putin or whatnot.
Those who say NATO is imperial through the process of inducting new members depict Putin as the one who is being attacked.
"There is the nuclear threat, and Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing," Borrell said during a European Diplomatic Academy event in Bruges.
"It has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the member states, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither."
"And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer -- not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side -- that the Russian army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing," he said.
________
Few people may know Josep Borrell Fontelles. Born 24 April 1947, he is a Spanish politician serving as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since 1 December 2019. A member of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), he served as President of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2007 and as Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation in the Government of Spain from 2018 to 2019.
I wish this statement was not so broad. As I have said before, I would prefer the response to a tactical nuke be the enforcement of a no-fly zone by NATO and cutting the supply lines into Ukraine from Russia. If a source should fire at Ukraine, then fire back at that source. Being discriminate gives more chances at de-escalation.
So how do you imagine this? Ukrainians constantly cajole, shame and bully their allies into sending them more and better weapons faster, but they don't actually want to use those weapons to fight the Russians? What do they need them for then? And how does the US/NATO make Ukrainians on the ground go into battle and sacrifice their lives? By giving them dirty looks, or what?
Sometimes you say something so absurd I just can't imagine how you even come by such notions.
And as for negotiations, the situation is exactly the opposite to how you present it. It is the Ukrainians who are concerned that Western resolve may crack and they'll seek to make peace with Russia at their expense - and they have every reason to fear that.
Borrell probably means "the Russian army in Ukraine".
L.O.V.E.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1580090899228418048
The irony in this is that a large part of the world views the United States in exactly the same light.
Everything you list here the United States has done before and on a larger scale, and that includes nuclear threats.
Are nations 'justified' (whatever that may mean) to intervene whenever the United States engages in similar behavior?
Of course they can't, because the United States is the biggest bully of them all, but I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard.
I did not mean to suggest it is simple. I was trying to relate how views of who is calling the shots shapes how negotiation is seen as possible. So the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war?
The Ukrainians and their supporters all have their own agendas. They will not always align. The danger of simplicity comes from only permitting a single narrative.
I don't think it's hard really. The more humiliation Russia suffers, the more they missiles they will use to flatten Ukraine. It's not the "actual opposite" of what I'm saying, it's what's happening.
If you don't know the difference between defensive and offensive, you can look it up. I've been polite with you till now, but you've been insulting one too many times.
It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have.
So keep on dreaming about Ukraine defeating Russia, "helping" the Ukrainians get slaughtered, which is what you are advocating for.
That's Putin's logic applied if Ukraine was "enrolled" into Russia, and is equally applicable to Ukraine until then.
[sup](Moldova is not a NATO member, the others are. Poland since 1999, Romania 2004, Hungary 1999, Slovakia 2004. Finland and Sweden are expected to become members.)[/sup]
EDIT: grammar
:up: It's just the old divide and conquer strategy. (As an aside, Putin's cyber-henchmen have employed similar methods on the information highways to sow division/distrust.)
Quoting Manuel
By the way, they say there's been a surprising amount of unity/direction among the Ukrainians.
ROC style (in english)?
And the answer is the same: of course not.
Quoting Paine
Yes.
Does that disturb you? ;) Not much of a rallying cry, though, and hardly sudden. Besides, becoming a member isn't (just) their choice, seeking membership is. And Putin needed no more than that, by a logic to make things go south. :/
, you replaced my words with your own characterization — a characterization that would fit, what, half the nations on Earth? More?
Trying to remember what nations have threatened Putin's Russia with invasion/takeover, or a downright existential threat, but coming up short. There were some distressing mutual assured destruction situations during the cold war. Gay rights or democracy (or McDonald's) or whatever isn't an invasion. Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion?
I don't (personally) agree with this statement by the Lithuanian minister, I'll just observe that it only takes one party to start/make war, no manner of votes or words can change that, call it "free will" if you like: "Nobody wants a World War, but dictators can only be stopped with weapons."
I think this gets to the nub of the problem. any suggestion that this is a proxy war is treated as if it were a suggestion that this is a mere proxy war. Any suggestion that the US are influencing events is taken as a suggestion that the US are solely influencing events. Any suggestion the the UK are directing the course of negotiations is treated as a suggestion that the UK are autocratically directing the course of negotiations... And so on.
The point, though, is that these polemic positions are not taken because that's the way the arguments seem. It'd be, I think, quite impossible to take any post here (or in most serious media) and point to the aspect of it's presentation that gave the impression the poster was implying anything like such unilateral control. So why are these comments being interpreted in this polemic way - to what end?
Yes. Yes, it does. I'm deeply disturbed my masses of influential voices (the public at large) being so easily directed by the media. I'd be delighted if they all had just suddenly grown a conscience, but seeing as there's absolutely zero interest in any other punitive control exercised by loan agreement, that seems very unlikely. As such it's more likely that such a hypocritical position is an unexamined one, and yes, unexamined positions worry me.
That wouldn't be my conclusion.
However, where two nations fight over influence in Ukraine, I see them both as part of the cause, and I am not buying any narrative that ignores the significant American role in this conflict.
On the topic of the "existential threat"-rhetoric by Russia, I think you're not catching the meaning of that phrase.
When a nation uses that term, they're not saying that their nation will cease to exist.
If Ukraine were to become NATO, Russia would not cease to exist. If the Soviets managed to station nuclear missiles on Cuba, the United States would not cease to exist, If somehow a nation were to blockade the entire Chinese coastline, China would not cease to exist, etc.
What those things will do however, is put those nations in a permanent state of strategic vulnerability. The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests, (and I will protect those with nuclear weapons.)"
No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."
You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language.
If that's what you believe, then how could you argue with Putin? That the United States could annihilate Russia has been a fact for well over half a century.
So either you believe world leaders go out of their way to state the obvious, or that's not what the phrase means.
Starting a conventional all-out war with Ukraine, which basically needed all of the Russian Army (and even that wasn't enough) has been a disaster for Russia. Defeat on the battlefield is a real possible option (even if it's not guaranteed). And just what would be the gains? Crimea wasn't some resource rich oilfield like Kuwait was for Iraq. Russia is now a pariah state, it has lost it's valuable trading partners. It has lost it's status compared to China. He has gone back on his promises that there wouldn't be no mobilization and he cannot hide the coffins as he could earlier.
The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them.
The fact is, that if there would be general excitement about the war, the Western media couldn't hide it. There would have been too many Russians on the streets celebrating and chanting "Russia, Russia!". There would be ex-pats coming to Russia to join the fight. There would be Russians stopping Western media crews and telling how justified the cause they are fighting is. Above all, this would be seen in the social media. What we basically have seen from the populace is support for the troops. Supporting yours troops in war is something people do, but that doesn't mean they are enthusiastic for the war (as War on Terror showed with Americans).
Putin first created stability after the Yeltsin years and punched way above his weight class for a long time in the World arena, but now that has been exposed in his latest gamble and he is losing badly. Now he is a real problem for Russia.
Quoting https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
An example of it in use...
This looks to me as a false alternative, let me explain.
I cumulated the reasons why the West must intervene in this war against Russia. However the appeal of those reasons is grounded on two implicit assumptions: 1. The standard of life the avg person can experience in the West in terms wealth and rights is perceived as evidently preferable than the standard of life the avg person can experience in societies in the opposite ideological spectrum (e.g. authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran) 2. Struggles between political powers for hegemony is practically a historical constant for whatever reason, and states must deal with it: so either be a hegemonic power (with all the privileges and burdens, merits and abuses [1] that can go with it), or within its sphere of influence (e.g through alliance), or challenge one, or remain neutral if affordable. Individuals who have no fucking clue about how to fix the world (who has?), will pick their side according to their preferences/convictions, bitch about it and good luck with that.
The first assumption explains why there is a double standard, I’m picking a side wrt a standard of life that I wish to be preserved as much as possible (if not improvable) for me and likeminded peers within my reach, at minimum. Double standards is inevitable when standards are clashing: so e.g. I won’t treat a democratic regime nuclear bombing a fascist regime in the same way I would treat a fascist regime nuclear bombing a democratic regime. That’s the predicament we have to deal with. The second assumption explains why I expect states to struggle against perceived hostile/alien/exploitative competitors (including the hegemonic power I happen to be siding with), and I expect people (me included) to at best exercise empathy, political restraint and self-criticism whenever affordable (which by the way is an option likely best supported by Western democratic institutions like the ones where I live than in authoritarian regimes) in line with the side they have picked. That far I’m willing to follow through.
Do you see any striking and unrecoverable incompatibilities between these two intellectual dispositions? I don’t.
[1] you can replace “abuses” with “shocking injustice”, “horrible crimes”, “callous hubris”, “inhuman barbaries”, “satanistic atrocities” and the like.
An existential threat is a threat to something's or someone's continued existence.
It's written by Michael D. Swaine, director of the East Asia program at the Quincy Institute. Not a journalist, a foreign policy expert.
And if experts on foreign policy are not arbiters of the correct use of the term in foreign policy, then who is? You?
Someone may pretend that it poses him an existential threat if he finds one morning that his favorite parking spot in front of the office is already taken. Doesn't make it true.
...
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
This is what I am saying.
Quoting https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
Although unconventional, this use still focuses on a radical collapse of society. Which is not the same thing as a mere annoyance.
That would be a mere annoyance, and would
Quoting https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
Me too. A gun to the head is an existential threat. A threat to end existence.
But this ...
Quoting jorndoe
... is not true. Weapons are only useful for making and carrying out existential threats. Dictators need existential threats, and if people do not agree to make them or respond with fear to them, then they cannot dictate. Co-operators do not need them.
Your fear is the only thing that can dictate to you:
[quote= Hilaire Belloc] Always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse.[/quote]
Always keep a hold of Putin, or else be shot instead of shootin'.
Indeed, a wide Russian support to Putin’s expansionism is likely to be conditional on mass mobilisation (especially of ethnic Russians), otherwise why would Putin be so late and cautious to call for a wider military mobilisation?
Yet I guess that the insurgence of the military to be more decisive for Putin’s destitution and the push for more liberal political reforms than the Russian population insurgence per se. That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks.
And as the key part of US foreign policy is to talk about (and create) these threats, because Americans don't understand that a lot of their prosperity and position comes from their stance in the Global arena, then the term something being "an existential threat" to US is used frequently. Hence US Foreign Policy is marketed mainly by threats and dangers.
The US is such a large country with so many cities, that in fact a Russian nuclear attack might not be so existential (as likely the targets are military bases and any attacker will leave a nuclear weapons reserve). Assuming we really stick to the definition of existential.
Let's remember that Russia has a long history of liberalization of the system after disastrous lost wars.
The Crimean war - > Afterwards the end of serfdom in Russia.
The Russo-Japanese war - > Afterwards political reforms, the Duma is created.
The war in Afghanistan - > Perestroika and Glasnost
So a really humiliating defeat in the war can be very beneficial to Russia. If it humiliates all those jingoist imperialists that now promote this recapture of the Empire, that would be beneficial. They should be a laughing stock that sane people avoid. The British do understand their Empire isn't coming back. The Austrians understand that their Empire isn't coming back. And so do the Spanish. The Russians should really understand that it's over, really over. Now there's not even the possibility for Russia to hang on to their Empire / colonial territories like the French do, subtly and out of sight accepting the limits of the present.
:up:
In reality, the many decades of comfort and excess enjoyed by the western world has atrophied our intellect, eviscerated gumption, and left us all ethically deranged.
Of course, there are many achievements of which the Western World should be proud. There are also excesses that should be condemned. Ambiguity is true of all cultures but few other cultures - in human history - have become so unconscious, so unaware of how it is possessed by an immeasurable hubris that sits on a foundation of unbridled self indulgence.
There is an unconscious competence, a built in inertia and momentum that continues to sustain the satisfaction of whims. The incompetence and signs of a systemic collapse are obscured by this fading but continuing momentum. Only don't need to look very carefully to know there is no wherewithal to reverse the decline.
We haven't so much surrendered to our own doom as we are determined to bring it on. The public, our political class and even our oligarchs are exhausted and bereft of ideas or agency. We just don't appreciate what we've got and especially how we got it.
You don't know what you've got til it's gone
Of course Western culture has been hopelessly stupid for a long time... we just pick the best part later to define what our culture stands for. Those people who we later put up to a pedestal (to define what Western culture is) were actually a minority in their time.
Good overview of the nuclear threat element. The breakdown of how multiple tactical nukes would turn into a strategic threat makes sense.
I was particularly struck by the observation that threatening Ukraine with the loss of entire cities is something that has already happened in places like Mariupol.
Simple as that :roll:
How do you think the war is most likely to play out?
I don't think the war will formally end any time soon, if ever, in the sense of signing a formal peace treaty or even an armistice. But Russia will probably seek to freeze the conflict for a time while holding on to as much territory as it can. If they stop with the suicidal offensive pushes and seriously dig in along defensible positions, they can hold out for a while, even if Ukrainians try to stay on the offensive. (It looks like they may have already resigned to losing Kherson.) The urgency of stopping the invading hordes from the East gone, Western support will slacken and, willing or not, Ukraine will have to go along with the new status quo. But how long that status quo can hold is hard to predict - too many variables are in play.
(I should add that this fairly pessimistic prognosis is entirely at odds with how the future prospects are perceived from inside Ukraine.)
Look, I could perhaps discuss with you what helping or abandoning the Ukrainians could mean for them, but I don't see the point. Your response to me has nothing to do with what I wrote, which is indicative of someone whose mind is not on the actual conversation.
You are afraid that the conflict may escalate into a full-scale nuclear war - you've said as much many times. You might be unhappy about the damage that it does to your country's economy and energy security. And perhaps you are uncomfortable with your country getting embroiled in the conflict, however indirectly, which makes it kind of your business, whereas you would have preferred it to be something distant that doesn't lose you any sleep, like so many other awful things going on elsewhere in the world.
I get it. But then say what you think and quit with this fake concern for Ukrainians' wellbeing.
Interesting survey. I was struck by how many times "none of the above" was the largest portion of responses. Looks like they need to add some more questions to the survey.
It is also interesting how territorial stability and reduction of corruption scored so much higher than other concerns.
June was several light years away. I wonder what the survey would show now.
This is simply nonsense.
1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare.
2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument.
3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrasment for Russia. It's totally possible.
• Putin's Russia goes (increasingly) autocratic non-democratic authoritarian oppressive
• the Donbas has been an organized staging area for some time
• grabs Crimea
• flaunts nuclear weaponry and delivery systems
• rolls out the submission-machine, bombing killing ruining shamming
• annexes four more Ukrainian regions (anti-NATO rhetoric still applicable)
Putin's (supposed) NATO-phobia thing has run low on hot air.
• the Ukrainians look elsewhere than Putin's Russia, Putin's actions might be creating a lot of Ukrainian Russo-haters (bad, and almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy)
• there's already a strip free of nuclear weapons in the north, Canada and the Nordic countries (as far as we know at least, and Putin apparently believes so)
• NATO would instead limit Kremlin's free movements/actions (with or without nuclear weapons in Ukraine pointing at Moscow)
• in retrospect, Ukraine seeking NATO membership has proved understandable, defense alone
Net result as of typing: by fire and sham, Putin has declared a fifth of Ukraine part of Russia.
, there you have some "strategic interests", happily married to domination, control, nationalism.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Or perhaps Putin's aggressive tendencies reached a threshold in 2004 when his guy lost (to be ousted in 2014).
Putin has elaborated on his ambition for Ukraine to be Russian, standard procedures in progress.
What do you think could get in the way of Putin's "make Russia great again" mission?
Anyway, nothing new here, for which I apologize.
Good to know you care so deeply about Ukrainians. But I did start the thread, way before we had any idea it could reach this level of magnitude. I don't live next to Ukraine and I don't like the invasion, it's a straight out war crime. That's clear.
Yes, you are quite right that are several conflicts going on all over the world, many of them quite horrible, but it appears we don't give a crap. So it must be that for some reason Ukrainians matter more than other people? I don't think so, I doubt you do either.
I very much doubt a fraction of the news would be given if Russia did not have nukes. I think nuclear war is an important topic. On the other hand, people dying right now and getting land stolen, is not good. I think we can discuss both at the same time as they are closely connected.
I've also started a pretty big thread on Israel, what, I need to do one in every conflict that is going on?
There are not too many options on the table: 1) Russia gives up, which is what you want and I think is extremely unrealistic, but would be the most just scenario. I don't think we live in that world. 2) Ukraine gives up, they get land stolen from them, it's very ugly. 3) Maybe there is a negotiation in which both sides lose as little as possible, given that they obviously wouldn't like to give away much, if anything. 4) Nuclear war.
Is your principle here that we must defeat an evil dictator using a brutal army? That's fine. The way it could possibly happen involves the most amount of Ukranian lives lost, or maybe you think they have some secret weapon or something that could turn them into victors.
Correct. Nevertheless, Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. Nor was it for the United States.
Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.
According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. You are correct that they aren't magic, it's not as if Russia bombing a city in Ukraine would make them win. It would prompt a reply though, of that we've been assured.
Quoting ssu
They managed to push back the Russians quite a bit in the annexed territories, look at the reply. Of course Ukraine cannot possibly invade Russia. The question is whether Russia has enough missiles left to continue this assault, in case Ukraine does another push. I think Russia could flatten all the major cities, but it would be of no benefit to them, for now.
Quoting ssu
The thing is, this argument takes a massive, massive gamble, that Putin will just bow out of Ukraine and just handle getting embarrassed - this is after all these sanctions, poor military results and so on. I don't see Putin as the type of person who would just not react. One must measure how likely that gamble is to succeed and it's extremely risky, in my view.
Probably true, at least in the sense that Putin would like to straight up annex the entire country, which is to say, restore it to its rightful status as part of Russia. He doesn't consider its current status as a sovereign nation legitimate, does he? (I may be misinformed.)
But then the US was in Afghanistan a long damn time, and in Vietnam a long damn time. And there was no military victory for the US at the end of either engagement. The US had reasons, and Russia presumably has reasons something like those for what they're doing. (Geopolitics. Perception. Hubris. Etc.) The question then is whether it's those reasons or the historical-territorial stuff that counts more. If it's not the homeland stuff, then we have clear examples of a small nation fighting for its life overcoming those sorts of reasons. (In fact, I think Putin have the greenlight when he saw Biden accept the humiliation of leaving Afghanistan in disarray.)
Probably not. I mean, the Russian army was basically walking into Ukraine thinking they would be welcomed in many cases.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
It plays a big part, no doubt. The other examples of Vietnam and Afghanistan, as far as I know, did not resemble this one in that sanctions of this scale, followed by constant coverage of a humiliating retreat right after annextion, were put into play.
The way I see it, is that a person like him, say Erdogan, Modi and others with dictatorial and or quite right-wing views would do something similar in the same place. I don't see why Putin is uniquely different in this respect, other than he put himself in this situation. It's not clear to me that, had the exact same situation been brought on another dictatorial person, they wouldn't act in a very similar manner.
Of course, it would be nice it Ukraine could defeat Russia and expel them completely. We'll see.
[sup]• Putin lashes out at Russians with Western mentality (CNN; Mar 17, 2022)
• Putin Lashes Out at 'National Traitors' with Pro-Western Views (The Moscow Times; Mar 18, 2022)
• Putin lashes out at West ‘cancelling’ Russian culture, says it reeks of Hitler’s Germany (TASS; Mar 25, 2022)
• We should all be concerned that Putin is trying to destroy Ukrainian culture (The Conversation; Mar 22, 2022)
• A Kremlin paper justifies erasing the Ukrainian identity, as Russia is accused of war crimes (CBC; Apr 5, 2022)
• Why is Ukraine trying to cancel Russian culture? (Al Jazeera; May 6, 2022)[/sup]
Not pretty. Control, domination, self-power. Bears peripheral resemblance to:
[sup]• Canadian Indian residential school system (Wikipedia)
• Uyghur genocide (Wikipedia)[/sup]
:/
[sup]• illegal so-called referendums
• unlawful actions of the Russian Federation
• have no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine
• not to recognise any alteration by the Russian Federation of the status of any or all of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk or Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine
• immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine
• a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine[/sup]
Votes:
78% of UN tells Putin to go home. 5% tells him to go ahead.
Would it be strange if Russia had voted for? :)
Oh Nicaragua! I remember when you were cool...
Quoting Manuel
So you're saying Putin has more at stake than other major powers have had when failing to conquer little countries they thought they could steamroll, so while maybe the US half-assed it in Vietnam, Putin will really go all in and get the job done? (I don't know how many Americans still feel this way, but something like that used to be a common opinion of our conduct of the war in Vietnam, usually blaming protesting hippies for Washington pulling its punches. I believe Kissinger wanted to nuke Hanoi, so maybe there's something to that.)
I get your position, I think. When I heard that Russia had invaded, I just assumed Ukraine didn't stand a chance. When that starts to look wrong, there's a fallback fear that Putin, for all sorts of reasons, will not accept defeat, will do whatever it takes to achieve at the very least a strong enough military position that he can demand whatever he wants at negotiations, should he decide not to bother trying to subdue the entire country. (I mean, he can't occupy Ukraine, that was never an option. But puppet government and some invited guests in Russian uniforms, you figure that's what he was shooting for.) His fate, we fear, is irrevocably tied to success in Ukraine. His ships lie burned on the shore; it's win or die, and that makes him a more dangerous foe than the US in Vietnam or the USSR in Afghanistan. That may be. It is a serious concern. Didn't Sun Tzu counsel always leaving your enemy an escape route precisely so they wouldn't fight to the death?
This isn't a response to what I said, so I don't know why you even bothered to repeat it.
You pretty much nailed it, spot on, and very astute observation with Sun Tsu. I think we have good reason to believe that Putin actually feels this way, based on what he is currently saying. Even Biden has been saying to his donor class, behind closed doors, that "Putin is serious" and this is the closest we've been to "Armageddon", since the Cuban Missile Crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOJ4NEYs1gU&t=499s
So faced with such prospects, I think prolonging this war will surely mean more deaths on both sides, and ever-increasing desperate measures. Putin and his gang have cornered themselves in such a manner, that if they aren't offered a way out - via some mediating state, maybe Turkey, whatever, then the worst side of nationalism will come into play.
Surely this is not worth the death of thousands of more civilians and perhaps the entire world. That's why I insist negotiations, however disgusting they may be, should be a priority.
I think in addition to the points you've both mentioned, we shouldn't ignore the very thing we're doing here. Putin is an autocrat, which means his power is maintained by his image of power. He can't actually fight down the entire population, he can only appear to do so for any individual group that might consider revolting. One thing that differentiates this war from any that have preceded it is the degree of control over the narrative globally - globalised social media platforms. This obviously means that it's much harder for the autocrat to control the narrative within his country (unless he is in control of those platforms - but I'll not go there).
There are two strong narratives on social media - 'Russia is evil and must be stopped at all costs' and 'Russia is useless'. Putting aside for now the fact that these two narratives aren't even coherent (who cares about that anymore), the first is actually of no concern to Putin because his ultra-nationalist support base expect other nations to think of them as evil. they thrive on the conflict with other nations. But the second... It is antithetical to the image Putin needs to maintain to retain his power.
In addition, social media is a very fragile tool. It is extremely vulnerable to emergent features (being mildly chaotic) so 'setting off' some concept on it is a bit like throwing a pebble onto an scree slope in an attempt to block the road below - a significant force multiplier, but you can't always predict where it's going to go.
Both the West (via democracy) and Russia (via fear of revolution) will have their actions guided by the opinion of social media and yet that opinion is vulnerable to extremes which none of the actual participants would rationally want.
We're in a different place. One in which the threat of escalation needs to be taken much more seriously. @ssu's rather lazy historicism here would be a grave error. The world changes and we're living the consequences of a failure to realise that.
So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia?
Show the incoherence.
Quoting Isaac
At any point of history one can claim that bot that the world is changing and that we are living the consequences of a failure to realise that for anybody by anybody. You included. Now what?
There's nothing complicated to it. If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised?
Quoting neomac
We make judgments based on the details of the circumstances we find ourselves in rather than sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past.
No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. It's not about regime change when you have already tried to annex one-fifth of the state. Likely the objective was one forth of the territories and a puppet regime in rest of Ukraine, or something like that. NATO expansion is an convenient excuse and a propaganda argument (like Russia isn't fighting Ukraine, but the West).
Quoting Manuel
It's already a full-scale war. Russia has thrown everything in plus the kitchen sink. The mobilization, which Putin promised wouldn't happen, is a clear indicator of this.
Quoting Manuel
Let's have a thought experiment: Assume that during the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi armed forces would have had high fighting moral and similar combat capabilities as Israeli Defence Forces has and the US lead coalition would have suffered similar defeats as Russia has now. What do you think would have happened? Would it have been better then for the US to make the bluff of using nukes? How much weight to you give this embarrasment issue? Didn't the US just have an enormous embarrasment of losing a war in Afghanistan? How much did that shake Biden's administration? Hell, IT'S BEEN FORGOTTEN! Who is whining about it? Nobody. The longest war in US history...and basically nothing said about it.
Fact: if you are defeated on the battlefield, then you are defeated on the battlefield. If you don't call it quits and try to prolong the defeat, good luck with that.
Putin can stop this war and then just face the consequences and continue. It is actually THAT EASY. Saddam Hussein had two disastrous wars and he was not toppled by Iraqis. That took a full invasion from the US army. Hence Putin can a) have this war end (or be stopped) as an embarrasment and b) continue on ruling Russia until he dies. That is totally a possibility, which I wonder is so difficult to understand.
There's a simple answer to this war: as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, the West should continue to send aid to Ukraine.
Quoting Isaac
When have I said anything like that? Or when has anybody here said that? There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. I think the examples of Napoleon and Hitler tell how that will end.
Do notice that Ukrainian troops have stopped their advance to their borders and are quite limited in their attacks to Russia proper.
I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia.
I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? I think Ukraine has made a good effort in stopping Russia.
So what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:
1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict.
There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end.
You said...
Quoting ssu
I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win.
Quoting ssu
Who said Russia cannot be stopped?
Quoting ssu
Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. No-one is claiming your view is ridiculous so you've no cause to be so defensive about it. I'm quite content in the plausibility of the view you hold, I'm interested in why.
The point is that this view being plausible is not suffient reason to believe it because other contrary views are also plausible.
...but this is treading old ground. I'm most interested here in why you think Ukraine couldn't successfully invade Russia (not why you think they wouldn't, why you think they couldn't)
More historicist crap.
There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end.
History is useless at the scale you're attempting to apply it. We can find examples from history of things playing out just about every way imaginable. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick.
Keeping up the reliance on expert opinion I see.
Sure, Russia could withdraw from Crimea and Donbas as much as Isreal withdrew from the Sinai peninsula this could be a step toward peace.
I see your understanding of historicism is about as strong as your understanding of underdetermination
In a way it's just like Finland in 1940. It didn't win Russia. It survived and wasn't annexed as the Baltic States. Finns don't refer to winning the war, but sure are proud about it.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
What is historicist crap?
There isn't a peace deal with North and South Korea. That is a fact. It's one possibility here. If people are so fixated that Putin cannot back down and find an agreement, then this is one possibility.
Peace agreement with Egypt and Israel, as peace agreements in general in the Arab-Israeli conflict, can also happen. (Usually with the peacemakers actually been killed afterwards)
You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is.
As an aside, suggested by Zaporizhzhia:
Quoting Lord Varys
This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea.
"These made up quotes transferred from one war to another are just what one would expect from Himmler's propaganda machine." God.
By Ukrainians, yes.
It's a fairly standard argument against historicism. I thought you'd already be familiar with it. We can always point to some subset of the hundreds of factors leading to some historical event and say those factors are similar to these factors in some modern setting and so the historical event is instructive regarding the modern circumstance.
The trouble is that we can pick virtually any event, with any one of dozens of different end results and claim it to be relevant to modern circumstances simply by choosing a different subset of 'relevant factors'.
Thus we can use evidence from historical events to support literally any theory simply by selecting our preferred outcome and picking those factors which make our chosen event 'similar' enough to seem relevant.
Historicism is useful in eliminating that which is implausible (say, if it's never happened before), bug it's useless in the manner you're using it - to advance some theory. All it shows is that your theory meets the bare minimum threshold of being plausible, but no one has denied that so it's not a claim you need you support.
It is true.
Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO.
And several countries said quite openly that Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO. Starting with Germany:
So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine.
Hence the "NATO made Putin do it" is quite a horseload...
That's a crappy (N.B. not ridiculous just crappy) argument.
Quoting Isaac
Agreeing with @neomac.() If Ukraine wouldn't get the huge Western assistance, Russia would likely win this war. Ukraine itself simply wouldn't have had the arms to defend against Russia.
Who is "We" ? Who are those who make "sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past." ? Why "sweeping"? Why "very tangentially"?
Or you simply mean that one doesn't need history when imagination is enough?
Have to put this quote to this thread:
Quoting Isaac
As far as I know (correct me if wrong), they've never expressed wanting to, threatened with, or the like. Not their interest. Why would anyone anyway? The only reason that comes to mind as such, is as a defensive measure. I guess, technically at least, it's possible that this could change. Until then, there's not much threat to Russia (like there is to Ukraine).
Not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia, if that was the aim of an invasion.
The key word was 'serious'. Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No.
It is the use of the 'evil, world-threatening Russia' trope as s justification for the huge military involvement which is at odds with the notion of it also being a bumbling has-been shambles of an army.
Yes, a bumbling has-been shambles of an army can still cause damage. So can a bad public health strategy. Seems hard to find so much as a few quid to fund those.
That's not even a counterargument.
Again, I'm not handholding you through fairly simple concepts, you need a minimum level of comprehension.
So what about the contested regions? Russia thinks they're part of Russia now and "not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia".
Does the unwillingness of the UN to ratify the sham referendums somehow change the relative military advantages?
I'm struggling to reconcile "a NATO-supported Ukraine were no military threat to Russia" with "NATO-supported Ukraine could easily take parts of (what Russia now considers) Russia"
The referendums don't really mean anything, as per the UN and most others (is my guess). Those regions aren't part of Russia, regardless of what some Russians think, contrary to what Ukrainians think. I suppose Putin could always arrange/allow for a real vote. They had to invade first and what-not, though, which is kind of telling from the get-go. No particular change, militarily or otherwise, is a consequence of the referendums. The show rolls on.
Anyway, you tell me?
Very much so, the simple fact that almost everybody can use Twitter to boast about something or to report on an event, very much affects the reactions of other world leaders. So, this recent counteroffensive carried out by Ukraine is a huge embarrassment for Russia and this is something which adds more fuel to the fire.
It's as you say, in history one can find examples of almost every possible event playing out and though there are some useful or interesting things than can be learned that may apply here, these things are rarely identical.
I think this thought experiment doesn't work for the present case, but let's see.
Well, the US would use it's might military to flatten Iraq, in this case, as it later did in 2003. The crucial difference in here is that who would dare sanction the US to the extent Russia is now? The US would not only be embarrassed but furious. Heck, the government threw a hissy fit just because France did not join in on the Iraq War, with zero consequences for the US.
Now let's add to your scenario, that not only is the US sanctioned, but China, Europe, Russia all join together in a military organization, that keeps giving Iraqis weapons that kill Americans. Would the US bluff and use nukes?
Well, they strongly considered doing that in Vietnam, but stopped short of it. In this scenario, the stakes are so much higher, that I don't think the US would bluff...
So, yeah, the embarrassment issue is not a small one.
It isn’t true. The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1
Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership because of Russian objections— Putin, remember, was invited to that summit.
From NATO summit 2021:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
None of this supports your claim. The US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian membership long before Crimea. Manuel is right: the West ignored Russian warnings, over and over again.
In case it needs to be said yet again: this doesn’t justify Putin’s actions, and it doesn’t mean the US is the sole cause of the war. Let’s try to grow out of immediately jumping to those conclusions — and keep to the facts.
There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin.
Read the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 2021. Doesn’t seem all that reassuring.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/
Also:
https://news.yahoo.com/there-will-be-no-change-us-bats-down-russian-demands-in-ukraine-crisis-210222078.html
I can't believe that 360 pages into this topic people still get historical facts wrong.
2008 NATO Bucharest Summit:
They could invite foreigners, like government officials, UN representatives, reporters from all over, etc.
There would be lots of suits, a speech or two, paper signing, handshaking, shoulder padding, all the usual, with a bit of fanfare.
Importantly, the ceremony would be broadcast in great detail, whether live or not, but preferably available to Russians.
Could be held in Kyiv, Warsaw, some such, perhaps with some large outdoor screens for onlookers, Poland has lots of Ukrainian refugees.
Depending on any onlookers showing up, some of them could be interviewed as well, rounding things up neatly.
What say you?
Yes indeed. See above as well, from 2021 Summit.
What I'm asking is if Russia think those areas are part of Russia and they defend them as they would any other part of Russia, then the belief that "Ukraine could never successfully invade Russia" seems to imply Ukraine could never successfully invade Donbas. Or, vice versa, if Ukraine have good chance of retaking Donbas, then they have a good chance of invading Russia and taking Russian territory. I don't see how an opinion (like that of the UN) can affect relative military strengths.
As you know, personally I think that it's a balanced metric. I think NATO-supported Ukraine could retake Donbas, but it will be a hard fight. But I'm not also trying to claim that Russia's fears were nonsensical because NATO-supported Ukraine could be no threat to them territorially, so I've got not contradictory beliefs there to try and reconcile.
The referendums mean a lot. They mean that the regions being fought over are now considered (by the Russians) to be part of Russia. That means that, in their eyes, Ukraine are now the aggressors. If you seriously don't think that means nothing then you've massively underestimated the Russian propaganda effort. If they can turn an invasion into a 'special operation' then think what they can do with a couple of maps showing the new 'officially voted for' border of Russia.
Yes indeed. Russia's had enough real failures to account for before even thinking about the social media exaggerations of it's incompetence. They've really got to pull a massive victory and fast. There's a host of options they might try toward that end which we ought to be trying everything in our power to avoid. Unfortunately social media has a mind of its own.
Sometimes I don't quite know what to say yo some of your responses. If you're seriously convinced that the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now then I don't think my producing any contrary figures will help.
A few million are currently at severe risk of starvation (according to UNICEF) in Afghanistan.
Off the top of my head, something like 10-20,000 are killed in the Myanmar conflict in a year, a few thousand a year every single year for decades in the Mexican war on drugs. The US supported war in Yemen has killed over a million with a similar annual death toll to Myanmar.
A failure to tackle air pollution kills 100,000 or more people every year in India. Even here in England there are something like 100-150,000 deaths a year from all causes that could be avoided through public health interventions.
There's wars in Ethiopia and Somalia which, coupled with famines, cause thousands of deaths every year. Half a million children are at risk of death from the latest drought and that's barely even made the inside pages of most newspapers, nearly twice that in Sudan...
But my feelung is that none of this is going to penetrate your social-media-soaked echo-chamber. So yes, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the worst event ever, no one else ever does anything this bad and we definitely ought to throw as many Ukrainians as we can get our hands on at him to protect ourselves from his blatant attempt to take over the world. It's definitely not a regional conflict like hundreds before it.
Should others then stand idle by, if they propagandize (their population) into justifying/eliciting a world war, nuclear war, a(nother) catastrophe?
Letting them run their course isn't an answer, standing up is.
Fortunately, the current crisis isn't there, but some are standing up (on the high ground).
(Hmm perhaps a public ceremony isn't so far out after all... :smile:)
A separate idea, while babbling anyway: How about a different sort of talks and negotiations, one that's more direct, persistent, ongoing? Central/involved leaders have a direct line and are expected to talk with the rest frequently, promoting negotiations, perhaps compromises, and initiating putting guarantees on paper (formalized). They'd be recorded or something, so the world could figure out what's on their minds. This would sort of force participants to think about and address things, not just listen to their own generals.
As an aside, the borderless world is a neat idea, sort of. [sup](726952, 746063)[/sup]
John Lennon, 1971.
It's just far from the current world, whether by traditions, cultures, whatever, and doesn't seem feasible, at least not for a good while.
No, but we should, in our planning, take account of the effect of such propaganda. If Ukraine invading Russia is out ofvthr question, then Russia considering Donbas to be Russia matters a lot.
Quoting jorndoe
Isn't this something like the UN? I mean, I think it's a great idea, but you need to flesh out some of the details.
Quoting jorndoe
Of course, very far. But we don't have to actively promote nationalism, we can just reluctantly accept its current existence. Putting who owns what above human lives is always reprehensible, sometimes monstrous. We're neither Westeners, nor Russian's nor Ukrainians, were just people. I find all this bollocks about a 'nation's right to exist' really sickening. The last thing we want in this excessively divided world is more fucking divisions.
Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.
And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. Yet no matter how much assurances Putin got about Ukraine not going to join NATO, Putin didn't care a shit about it when he launched the attack. It was never was about NATO membership in the first place. NATO enlargement was a point like for Bush "spreading democracy" when he invaded Iraq. Yeah, it's important for the US. The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it".
Perhaps you believe also that Turkey's on the cusp to become a member of the EU too? EU and Turkey have had discussions about membership for ages. :snicker:
Just a quick reminder...
Quoting ssu
Oh and a bonus gem from the same post...
Quoting ssu
Yes, success in blocking it. What was being blocked?
Quoting ssu
And reiterated in June of 2021, which I quoted.
Quoting ssu
Blinken— far more importantly — made the statements I cited THIS YEAR as well.
This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false.
Quoting ssu
What is it about, then? I’ve heard a number of stories about being anti-democracy, having imperial ambitions, and being an evil madman. But I don’t find any of that compelling, based on the facts. Maybe it’s true — But I think after years of saying the same thing, consistently, it’s no surprise that something would eventually happen.
Quoting ssu
Like what?
Quoting ssu
I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes.
Anyway — you’re getting emotional, I think. Remember what I mentioned earlier: I’m not defending Putin, and I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.
I haven't denied that NATO is one reason. What I have said again and again is that it isn't the most important reason, and it would have been taken care of without attacking Ukraine. Hence the NATO argument simply doesn't cut it as an explanation for Putin's actions. Just like "spreading democracy" was a reason for Bush to invade Iraq. But "spreading democracy" simply isn't the most important reason for the war in Iraq and to emphasize this reason simply makes an inaccurate answer for the reasons for the invasion.
I believe it was a product of Israeli propaganda, which serves to silence critics of Israel.
The rights that should be afforded, and are granted at least in rhetoric, are peace and security. Of course, you can't have these if you don't exist, pace anti-natalists, but existence is a given for these rights to come into effect. Adding "right to exist" affords nothing to already existing rights, except for dubious rhetoric.
Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine.
You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot?
Finland and Sweden wouldn't have applied for NATO membership if 2/24 hadn't happened. That is just the reality.
Now that NATO membership of Ukraine might really be in the works.
Quoting Xtrix
How can territorial annexations be less important?
Quoting Xtrix
You should not be biased. The reasons should be the same where ever you look at it. Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity.
I’m not convinced that “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now”. But if your imagination tells you otherwise, what can we do about it? Right?
Quoting Isaac
is your conviction that we, the West, should “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world while avoiding to meddle in regional conflicts around the world like in Yemen and Ukraine? Is that it?
I do not believe Ukrainians are fighting for an abstraction like this, do you? Even to say "self determination" instead is just shorthand for saying they want their families, homes, businesses, friends, libraries, parks, opera houses, and, you know, etc., not to exist only at the mercy of a large group of armed people who don't even live there. It couldn't be less abstract for them.
It is unavoidably abstract for us, but we can still understand, at least intellectually, why they are fighting, and call that "what they're fighting for." I'll also say that I'm betting a lot of Ukrainians are grateful there was already a state apparatus in place, and an armed forces, else they would absolutely be at the mercy of any armed group, whether a foreign government's army or criminals and outlaws. Part of the point of the state, and worth preserving even though it can be abused, as Russia is doing.
Well said.
It spells out what I was thinking in my statement upthread that insisting that there can be only one overriding purpose is to ignore the reality of a confluence of purposes.
It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. Nevertheless, attempts kept being made, before and after Crimea and right up to Blinken’s remarks. The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.
Even up to the present year:
"They must understand that the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward"
“if our proposals are rejected ... we will make a decision on how to ensure our security in a reliable way,” -- Lavrov, January 2022
This was indeed rejected, and Russia invaded Ukraine a month later. I already mentioned Blinken's response.
There were other threats also besides NATO membership, which we can get into. Weapons, military training, etc.
You deny that this is the main reason. I think it is the main reason. There are other reasons which we can talk about. Believing that the main reason is to "make Russia great again" doesn't have much evidence supporting it, but I'm interested in whatever you have.
Quoting ssu
Less important than what?
Quoting ssu
Silly comment. We're all biased. When I say biased here, it's a matter of emphasis. I put more emphasis on the US, because it's my country. It also happens to have contributed significantly to the war.
Quoting ssu
Which is why I've given facts -- like the 2008 NATO summit, the 2021 NATO summit, the public statements by the White House in September of 2021 and by Secretary of State Blinken in January 2022. All part of the public record, all show exactly what Manuel had mentioned (and you disputed): repeated warnings from Russia ignored; the US pushing for NATO membership and involvement with Ukraine for years.
Quoting ssu
It didn't change the historical record.
Then as now, via proxy, the various world powers probed each others military capabilities, weapons, and tactics in preparation for the main show to follow.
That is too simple of an explanation of what is going on but if that is the process, the Russians just blew their resources on a war game.
This part is about Ukraine, sovereignty, self-determination, self-power.
Ukraine member of NATO ...
• Russia less of a threat to Ukraine (limit Kremlin's free movements/actions)
• NATO more of a threat to Russia, cf Putin's speeches
In Ukraine's own interest, now proven, not hypothetical.
In Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia's interests.
Ukraine not member of NATO ...
• Russia more of a threat to Ukraine (proven, non-hypothetical)
• NATO less of a threat to Russia
In Russia's interest. (More Kremlin freedom.)
Ukraine neutral ...
• free to pursue EU/whatever affiliation/memberships
• not thoroughly demilitarized in light of present crisis
The Ukrainians have nonetheless changed stance on occasion, entertained options in public, shown willingness to hear others, and it's their homes and lives.
I'm guessing they don't have much patience left for those saying that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and calling it a day.
Is this assessment influenced by any partisanship?
Not only that would have guaranteed that Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member, Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful.
Quoting Xtrix
If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. It's hostility is the only cause why NATO is enlarging now on it's borders with Finland and Sweden.
Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. NATO has a charter, it cannot go against it's charter and formally give Russia a veto on just how applies for it. But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you.
Spanish civil war was truly a civil war: no other country had territorial ambitions on Spain. The Syrian civil war would be more similar.
Better example would be the Korean war. There actually China, the Soviet Union and the US and Western allies were engaged in combat and not just sending arms. (Soviet Air Force was fighting with the USAF in "Mig Alley", which both side kept a secret)
I'm guessing that is not only confined to Ukraine.
...
Quoting ssu
Quoting neomac
Quoting neomac
Quoting neomac
Roughly, yes. Where by 'meddle' you mean 'supply arms to'.
Some I'm sure, but not all. I don't believe that 'Ukrainians' are an homogeneous group all fighting for a single definable reason. But I was talking about the foreign policy of our governments, not the motivation of Ukrainian soldiers.
My point is that there's no humanitarian objective in assuring something like a nation's 'right to exist'. For a third party (us all as outside observers) the loss of Ukrainian control over some territory ought have absolutely no moral weight, it matters not one jot who owns what, it matters how the people within that territory are treated.
If we're concerned that Russia will treat the occupants worse that Ukraine would (I've argued against this assumption, but let's hold it for the sake of argument) then the humanitarian problem is the way the Russian government treats its subjects, not which parts of the world it owns. We don't solve that problem by repelling it from Ukraine. The problem still exists, everyone in Russia still suffers from it. We solve the problem by enforcing changes in the way Russia is governed. And if we can do so, then, again, it doesn't matter one jot which bits of land they have control over.
We could claim that it's a numbers game (we don't want Russia to control more people the way they do), but that would be a ridiculous claim because the numbers involved are tiny compared to the effort put in - we'd be better off losing $40billion in sanctioning China with over a billion people whose lives might be improved by any human rights gain thus made. I don't buy that we're in Ukraine to secure a minor improvement in the human rights of the citizens there by ensuring they're controlled by the world's number 122 in the corruption index instead of the world's number 136. There are easier ways of making a few points gain in human rights, as Ukraine's recent history has shown.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't think this can be right because it's the case no matter what, governments rarely live in the places they govern. Ukraine is 800 miles across there's no single notion of people who "live there" that makes any sense here. Many of the Russian soldiers probably live closer to Donetsk than the government in Kiev do. And let's not pretend the government in Kiev aren't "a large group of armed people". The Amnesty International report I cited earlier details the treatment of the people of this region by government forces prior to the invasion. Their families, homes, businesses, friends, libraries, parks, opera houses were hardly in a a state of Utopian freedom.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. I agree. I've said as much before. What the Ukrainians fight for, though, is not our concern. We ought not have foreign policies geared around helping other nations achieve whatever it is they happen to want, we ought have foreign policies geared around achieving the greatest humanitarian improvements we can practically achieve.
If the Ukrainians are passionate about their own self-governance and want to fight for it, that's entirely their lookout. It should be absolutely no concern of ours, and in fact, if, by fighting, they put more people at risk of humanitarian crisis than they would by surrendering then we ought actively oppose their decision.
What I'm arguing against is the oft repeated theme that it is 'up to the Ukrainians' and we ought support them in their decision. 'The Ukrainians' are not a unit, it means absolutely nothing other than that some ruling classes made some deal to draw a line around some particular bit of the map. There's no moral weight whatsoever behind what an arbitrarily drawn sample of the human race want to happen.
The war is currently in Donbas. So there's a border region either side (the rest of Ukraine one side, Russia the other) What moral reason is there to take more account of the views of the people on one side of that border than the other? Why not ask the Russians on the Ukrainian border what they feel? It's an arbitrary line on a map and doesn't delineate any racial grouping of like-minded peoples.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I think that's exactly the point I'm making. The colour of the flag above the parliament doesn't matter. The quality of the government does, and so effort put into retaining one colour over another is only of value to the extent that it represents the least harmful way of improving (or maintaining an improvement) in that quality.
With Ukraine, the two governments in question are not that far apart in terms of human rights and the human costs of maintaining one over the the other are enormous (some 40,000 dead in a year). There are easier and much less costly ways of improving the human rights record of whatever government happens to be in control of any given region. Who that government happens to be ought not be any more important than a matter of regional administrative bureaucracy.
Oh, you see “the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now” is the same as "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! I don't: in my claim I didn't just talk about deaths and misery, and "single" wasn't qualifying the "costs".
Quoting Isaac
Now:
How likely is that Western citizens members of ethnic minorities (say Ukrainians, Iranians, Taiwanese) will see regional conflicts (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian revolts against the Iranian regime, the China's claims over Taiwan) as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in?
How likely is that Western commodity traders and industry who partnered with some state muddled in some regional conflict, will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in?
How likely is that the piece of Western economy relying on Western commodity trades and industry will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in?
How likely is that Western political representatives and media industry who feed on ideological, religious and national differences and global threats or opportunities will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in?
How likely is that Western military and/or geopolitical experts (like Mearsheimer or Kissinger) will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in, especially when allies, strategic partners and Great Powers hostile to the West are involved?
How likely is that historians would find historically plausible to expect that Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts?
How likely is that for any of the above subjects “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’?
How likely is that for authoritarian regimes (like Russia, Iran and China) their “meddling in regional conflicts” equates to everything except 'supply arms to’?
Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests.
From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence.
Again, not speaking in terms of good guys-bad guys, but these are just the facts, which you keep misrepresenting.
I don't think it would be partisan to note that Putin started the annexations with the hope of maintaining 'normal' relationships with Russia's trade partners. The land grab in 2014 did not bring a global response large enough to threaten that normalcy. The one in 2022 does.
Nothing about the progress of the invasion suggests it is going as planned for Russia. If it is a practice round, it is a very expensive one.
No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. After repeating now several times, if you’re not interested in looking at what was said at NATO summits, by the White House, by Blinken, and by actions like providing weapons and training, then I’m not sure how else to proceed.
“Large support” from whom? There’s large support for a two state solution in Israel, too — in the international community. But that won’t happen, because Israel and the US reject it. The same here — Germany and others have said some reasonable things, but capitulate to the US nearly every time.
Quoting ssu
No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either.
Quoting ssu
There were no annexations in 2008, which is when this started — thanks to ridiculous moves by the Bush administration.
Of course Russian actions matter, but you’re mixing timelines. You denied Manuel’s assertion that there were repeated threats to Russia regarding NATO. That denial is unfounded.
Again I recommend reading the Bucharest summit transcripts.
Quoting ssu
:roll:
Quoting ssu
Russia does not have a NATO veto, de facto or otherwise. It managed to delay membership of Georgia and Ukraine, but the US and NATO continued pushing through weapons, training, and the promise of future membership — as was literally reiterated all the way up to the 2021 summit.
That fact seems to evade you.
NATO threat to Russia was very real, and supported by the facts — should we choose to look at them. Or we can go with our feelings.
Then I return to being completely at a loss as to your argument. It seems to be little more than "Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is"
Quoting neomac
I don't know why you're asking these questions of likelihood, they seem completely unrelated to the point at hand. I'm disputing your claim the the Western world ought to help Ukraine best Russia by military force. I'm not arguing what is most likely to happen, the two are, tragically, quite unrelated.
Nonetheless, your answers (to whatever end)...
Quoting neomac
Moderately likely.
Quoting neomac
I don't care.
Quoting neomac
Again, I don't care.
Quoting neomac
Very unlikely.
Quoting neomac
Moderately likely, there's a range of opinion from isolationists to full on hawks.
Quoting neomac
Pretty likely.
Quoting neomac
Unlikely. Our main means of meddling in conflicts is to supply weapons.
Quoting neomac
More likely. Authoritarian regimes are often also more militaristic and so more likely to actually take part, but only if the conflict is local.
Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?
The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine.
Apart from Turkey, NATO members close to Russia don't host nuclear weapons (Canada not shown here):
? Source: What countries have nuclear weapons, and where are they? (The Conversation; Apr 1, 2022)
Something similar can't be said for Russia. Though, I don't know of anyone in Norway Finland Estonia Ukraine Canada that has detected ? with a hand-held Geiger counter. :)
• 352. Missile Defenses in Eastern Europe: Who Threatens Whom? (Wilson Center)
[sup]By the way, Bulgaria (pdf), for example, turned their armament down a bit before becoming a NATO member.[/sup]
Putin's NATO-phobia can't quite be due to nuclear weaponry on their doorstep, though they have aired complaints about radar and such defensive systems. Conversely, any Russo-phobia could be due to the nuclear weaponry; flauntery by autocrats doesn't help. Concerns over resources falling into the wrong hands is another factor.
• Russia says it may be forced to deploy mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe (Reuters; Dec 13, 2021)
NATO troop allocations could be a reason for Putin's NATO-phobia. Reported some months after the Crimean grab:
? Source: THE EUROPEAN CHESSBOARD: Here's A Map Of The Russia-NATO Confrontation (Business Insider; Sep 29, 2014)
• The map that shows how many Nato troops are deployed along Russia’s border (The Independent; Feb 5, 2017)
• Factbox: Where NATO forces are deployed (Reuters; Jan 24, 2022)
• Here's where Alliance forces are deployed across Eastern Europe (CNN; Feb 10, 2022)
• Number of military personnel in NATO countries in 2021 (Statista; Aug 5, 2022)
Putin's moves have resulted in NATO (and other) moves, which seems warranted enough. (Troop presence gives a kind of claustrophobia versus limiting free Kremlin movements/actions?) Mobilization (and perhaps transport) could suggest resource shortage, escalation intent, or some such.
Then there's a supposed cultural threat to Russia (has also come up prior in the thread).
Rhetoric, hot air.
Perhaps a mutually forthcoming/accommodating attitude, reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs, would go some way towards peace? Not easy when shams have been presented as legit, yet one step at a time? How about asking China to put pressure on Putin, however unlikely?
Oh, you see “Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is” as equivalent to "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! Coz I don’t: in my claim I didn't talk about "biggest threat to civilisation". So far just more strawman arguments.
Quoting Isaac
Do you know the famous Kantian claim that “ought implies can”? Aside from how one wants to analyse it, my conviction is that a rational “ought” (as in “X ought to do Y”) must fall within what a subject “can”. Therefore rational expectations about what individuals, collectives and states likely can do are key to formulate rational oughts. In other words, I take “ought”-claims grounded on very “unlikely” expectations about individuals, collectives and states to be implausible and irrational. BTW I already made similar claims.
Now concerning the questions I addressed to you: my answers would be “unlikely” for all except the last one which is also crucial because if all authoritarian regimes would more likely resort to supplying weapons than using sanctions/diplomacy or in addition to using sanctions/diplomacy, and sanctions/diplomacy don’t turn to be effective as supplying weapons, then it could be very damn handicapping to just keep using sanctions/diplomacy against authoritarian regimes. But here some additional clarifications:
Quoting Isaac
Well that may depend on the issue, I can grant you that much. But knowing the example of the American Jewish community lobbying for the American support to Israel, it’s hardly surprising to find grass-root, high profile or even institutional lobbying activities from other minorities, including Ukrainians (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/congress-and-ukraines-relentless-lobbyists/) and even Russian activists (see the anti-Putinist Garry Kasparov). Among the Iranians one can find many popular anti-regime Iranian expat activists: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Hamed Esmaeilion, Masih Alinejad, Nazanin Boniadi. Here an example of how pro-Ukrainian and pro-Iranians protests united recently in London : https://globalnews.ca/news/9201763/london-ont-ukraine-war-support-rally/
Quoting Isaac
That’s unlikely even for isolationist (“Isolationism is a political philosophy advocating a national foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries including treaties and trade agreements” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) if the American National interest is at stake (e.g. America was isolationist until it joined WW2). And here is the explanation Mearsheimer could offer [1].
At best you could say that Russia is not perceived as a serious threat to the American national interest by some American military and/or geopolitical experts. But evidently they aren’t very influential since American anti-Russian stance persisted under different American administrations (even despite Trump).
Quoting Isaac
There are no historical periods in which the West didn’t meddle in regional conflicts while at the same time mounting a multi-billion dollar campaign to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world (here a little reminder from the history of the US https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars). Not to mention the well known failures of foreign aid campaigns from the West. Or the failures of anti-Western forces (Islamic revolution and Communist revolution) to implement a better alternative to the Western social model, especially wrt implementation of human rights.
But you are absolutely free to imagine otherwise, of course.
Of course, I could continue: how likely that the Western Europeans will support American isolationism and say farewell to American military protection? How likely is that Westerners complying to Russian demands will not bolster other authoritarian regimes’ regional ambitions? How likely is that authoritarian regimes antagonising the West will not take a useful lesson if Russian nuclear threats scared the West away? And I didn’t even need to talk about the military-industrial complex or the big finance or the big tech yet.
In conclusion, as long as your “oughts” are grounded on unlikely expectations about how individuals, collectives and states behave, your “oughts” are irrational. And since a world where Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts, is grounded more on your wild imagination than on what one can see as likely from history or geopolitics, then neither your expectation nor your prescription is plausible. Period.
[1] [i]My own realist theory of international relations says that the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power. The ultimate goal of every major state is to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region.
To be more specific, the international system has three defining characteristics. First, the main actors are states that operate in anarchy, which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. Second, all great powers have some offensive military capability, which means they have the wherewithal to hurt each other. Third, no state can know the intentions of other states with certainty, especially their future intentions. It is simply impossible, for example, to know what Germany’s or Japan’s intentions will be toward their neighbors in 2025.
In a world where other states might have malign intentions as well as significant offensive capabilities, states tend to fear each other. That fear is compounded by the fact that in an anarchic system there is no night watchman for states to call if trouble comes knocking at their door. Therefore, states recognize that the best way to survive in such a system is to be as powerful as possible relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it. No Americans, for example, worry that Canada or Mexico will attack the United States, because neither of those countries is strong enough to contemplate a fight with Uncle Sam.[/i]
https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931
Indeed, the war in the Ukraine does not seem to be going well for anyone: not for the Russians - as you say, certainly not for the people of Ukraine, nor for the Europeans now suffering from gas and food shortages together with inflationary threats that are threatening now to de-industrialise western Europe competitive advantage, nor for the US economy or the global economy.
Whilst, Western Countries have at least politically acted in unison in its opposition to Russia's actions in the Ukraine, other significant powers have resisted Western pressure to sanction Russia. Notably, China and India, together with several Euro-asian countries now actively advancing economic alliances that not only include Russia but are intrinsically being created in opposition to the US led Western World. Several other cracks to the opposition of Russia are coming from Hungary, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Mexico... In France and Germany protests and strikes against these debilitating sanctions spread. In the UK, this economic pressure is causing political turmoil as yet another Chancellor of the Exchequer is replaced and now threatens to topple the - 30 day old - Truss government.
These cracks have appeared in during the Autumn. We must expect that the looming winter will only widen these fissures.
As the war in the Ukraine is not likely to produce a decisive result, it is these geo-political, economic factors that tower not only over Russia but over the entire world. And, here at least, there is a growing threat to the status quo, where the US led western countries and institutions have for decades determined the international order. On this battle-field Russia's open recalcitrance acts as an exemplar that most threatens to supplant US hegemony and usher in a turbulent transition to a multi-polar geo-political world.
Thus we witness just yesterday, a joint announcement by Erdogan and Putin to build a another pipeline thru Turkey - And Turkey is a member of NATO. This is an untenable announcement for a NATO member and will not be well received in either Brussels or Washington.
The Ukraine war is a domino, a symbol against Western Hegemony that has exposed a myriad dormant resentments between the Western World and the Aspirational majority.
Are you saying that Russia is the vanguard for this 'Aspirational majority'?
Is the Chechen society, as it exists now, a part of this group after decades of genocide?
Is Assad a paying subscriber to this majority?
Are the ultranationalists in Europe and the U.S., who have celebrated Putin as a champion of their cause, a member of this majority?
I am having trouble bringing your idea into view.
To be fair...
Quoting neomac
...doesn't make grammatical sense. I've had to do some charitable reading. Why don't you try again to formulate what you're saying.
Quoting neomac
The latter doesn't follow from the former. First you talk about the rational constraint on formulating what one ought to do (that it must fall within the bounds of what one can do), then you proceed to talk about likelihoods. Neither Kant, nor any rational argument prescribes that what one ought to do is connected to what is likely to succeed.
Quoting neomac
I see. So if I consider supplying arms to Ukraine is very unlikely to yield any humanitarian improvement, then we ought not do it?
Quoting neomac
Except that...
Quoting neomac
...and...
Quoting neomac
And then there's this classic (you and @ssu would get on well)...
Quoting neomac
So because it's never happened before, it can't happen. Well. It's a good job you weren't around in the early twentieth century pointing out that never before had all the nations of the world got together to form a single organisation for co-operation and diplomacy. They'd have shelved the whole project.
Seriously? "If it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen". What kind of approach to ethics is that?
Quoting neomac
This just confuses 'ought' with 'is'. You're describing the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. Following your principles no progress would ever be made. Imagine if in the middle ages someone were to describe the world of human rights, freedom of expression, secular government, democracy that we have now. You'd be the twat saying that all that was impossible because we live in a world where kings rule by divine power and religion is mandated by all powerful churches.
Quoting Paine
We have in recent years witnessed a growing popular spectacle towards a kind of self loathing exemplified by many western educational faculties; inspiring those with left wing sentiments towards dramatic emotional displays in reaction to our colonial and imperial western history. Some, perhaps many and particularly right-wing circles question the sincerity of these displays and suggest they may be primarily a useful posture to achieve some sort of self-serving political outcome.
Given that even Westerners are aghast at their own history, should we doubt that the old colonised world has either forgotten its history of colonial humiliation or ignorant of its continued subservient status to those same powers in the world today? The plight of Ukraine is no doubt of some concern to the non-western world but it is not of primary concern. On the other hand, it has suddenly come to be of almost existential importance to NATO countries.
The Rest of the World - from China, India, Euro-Asia, most of Africa and South America - is naturally not only enjoying this rare moment of schadenfreude as Russia's ongoing impudence threatens to humiliate NATO, but if the leaders of these countries are at all cognisant of their own best interests, they cannot help but speculate whether there is here a rare opportunity to not only humiliate the oppressor but perhaps even force the hegemon's shackles to be permanently loosened.
The claim was Quoting ssu
I honestly don't understand how saying "This was not the issue under contention" is construed as an agreement.
Quoting ssu
Obviously I don't agree that "all credible analysis" agrees with @apokrisis's position.
However, I also don't agree with the position that the Russian military is incompetent.
You then point out anecdotal evidence that is basically only filtered and published by Ukrainian Intelligence, who we may suspect of not only providing a biased view but also fabricating evidence entirely.
So quality of evidence to come to any conclusions at all is dubious.
A war is a bloody fight, the Western media is basically only showing one fighter in a boxing match. (Even assuming what we are seeing is accurate) we black eyes, sweat, cuts, bruises accumulate on one fighter. Obviously, to conclude the fighter we get to see is losing because they're hurting more and more is non-sensical. The key question is obviously "how's the other fighter doing?"
Which we don't really know. How sustainable are Ukrainian operations is a big question mark.
If mobilisation is bad for Russia ... what would make us believe 7 rounds of mobilisation is good for Ukraine? If Russia not having total air superiority is bad ... does Ukraine have air superiority? Most importantly, if Russia is taking casualties, is Ukraine taking any less.
This kind of long conventional war is very much a statistical game of attrition. Seeing something "bad" happen to the Russians can only be evaluated with the full context (which we don't have). For example, if we see a Russian casualty our opinion would be very influenced if we knew how many Ukrainian casualties were caused before this Russian became a casualty.
As for discipline and crimes. Again, discipline is a statistical game and breakdown of discipline is pretty normal for a military, what matters is how much which we don't have much insight into.
As for war crimes, that has nothing much to do with military competence. US committed a lot of war crimes, including torture, in Afghanistan and Iraq but we don't say the US army is therefore incompetent. And, as much as people absolutely hate to hear how "crime" works in the Western "rules based system" we're apparently defending in Ukraine, we do actually need some plausibly impartial investigation and trial before declaring a war crime; just taking Ukrainian intelligence at their word isn't a system of justice. Ukrainians also have plenty of evidence of committing war crimes, dipping bullets in lard and all and posting to their social media. Again, if war crimes (according to us) mattered in terms of military competence, we'd still need some statistics that Russians are committing more than Ukrainians; which, is information we don't really have as war crimes maybe kept secret.
This is one of the things Westerners are for the most part oblivious to, but genuinely seem to be incapable of understanding it even when it's explained.
Is Russia bullying Ukraine ... or has NATO been trying to bully Russia these past decades?
Is Ukraine standing up to Russia ... or is Russia standing up to NATO?
Is Russia humiliated because they didn't win in 3 days against a military waging continuous war in Donbas, supplied and trained and advised by NATO with US intelligence? Or is Russia humiliating NATO by taking Crimea and then taking the land bridge to Crimea and surviving sanctions and building an alternative payment system?
Westerners will immediately reject these questions as essentially illegitimate.
However, even if we somehow knew the answers in absolute terms without needing to reason to them or overcome criticism, the questions are still relevant in understanding the world in that not everyone may agree with our absolute truth of the matter, and if they disagree they may act in inconvenient ways.
For the West, this war is an highly emotional one because white people are being attacked in a context where other brown people wars can result in mass starvation and children starving to death and the West couldn't care less, but for the non-white world that seems hypocritical.
Now, Westerners may rebuttal that they don't give a shit if non-whites find them hypocritical, but that may also be seen as hypocritical, as white countries definitely expect non-white countries (aka. the "jungle" that is "the rest of the world" in the words of EU foreign minister Josep Borrell) to, at minimum, listen to their point of view (as the EU is a "garden" and therefore the gardeners know how to "cleanse" the "jungle").
The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership.
A I've mentioned before, the "rest of the word" ("well you know what I mean" also according Josep Borrell) world is ideologically much closer to Putin than they are Western idealism (of course, in practical terms, the West is also closer to Putin than it is its own ideology).
Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? No torture, no rapping, no murder of civilians, but the purely symbolic act of greasing a bullet...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
Better...?
There's plenty of these allegations as well. But the bullets in lard was self-posted, and a clear war crime that no one denies.
For example, using a civilian truck as a bomb is a clear war crime and act of terrorism (making the driver a witting or unwitting suicide bomber), but Ukraine is ambiguous about it, sometimes saying Russia attacked their own bridge.
If there's a case where the accused side is denying it, then you do actually need some plausibly impartial investigation and trial to say a "crime" has been committed and who's guilty of it, at least in the Western "freedom" ideology of innocent until proven guilty.
For example, if it wasn't a tuck bomb but a missile and the truck a military target, then no crime! If it wasn't the Ukrainians after all (which even with Ukrainian officials celebrating it and making a stamp, even explicitly taking credit, it's always possible that those officials don't actually know what happened, just happy about it and assume it was Ukraine and a great victory), then the Ukrainians aren't guilty. How to claim to know such things without even a plausibly impartial investigation of anything?
Can war crimes be staged by one intelligence service against another?
Definitely, that's what many in the West has been saying, at least speculating, about the Nord Stream attacks, that Russia blew it up themselves.
Of course, if you go on international television and say you'll shut down Nord Stream 2 one way or another, you have ways of doing that ... as a bluff, well then you're just really stupid to set yourself up to being framed if, for some reason, Putin really did want to blow up those pipes.
War crimes should of course be investigated and anyone guilty held to account.
But to have any credibility, the West would need to first investigate war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and go after, especially, the torturers, but chooses not to. Why expect anyone else to do differently?
And, to be clear, I don't put it past the Russian Intelligence to have blown up Nord Stream or even their own bridge.
Likewise, I don't put it past the Ukrainian Intelligence to fake Bucha and just go around calling entirely legal graves of mostly Ukrainian caused civilian casualties "mass graves" of Russian attacks.
Fixed. Morality and geopolitics don't mix well.
Quoting boethius
I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime.
I agree that the war crimes debate doesn't have all that much relevance. Even to the extent war crimes accusations are the justification for escalation or doubling down on the war effort (on both sides) I would still argue that the policy is chosen beforehand and the war crimes just fit (or are crafted) into that pre-existing policy.
However, I disagree on the fundamentals. Wanting geopolitical dominance is still an ethical system. "Realpolitik" is still a moral code, it just deviates from the Western self-image, as either a standalone ethical system or then justified by the need to defend the docile "way of life" of the tender ignorant citizen through unsavoury, albeit "necessary", means.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, moral condemnation also has strong geopolitical affects, such as the a significant amount of the post-WWII institutional framework influenced by condemnation of the NAZI genocide.
Indeed, the European support for the war in Ukraine is entirely moral condemnation based and in contradiction to any realpolitik view of the situation by most European countries.
Quoting Olivier5
Oh! Really? You're saying there would need to be an impartial investigation and trial to really have some solid sense of what is and is not a crime and who's guilty of it? Interesting.
Unfortunately there was a typo: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin”.
Quoting Isaac
Fair observations, hence my warning (“Aside from how one wants to analyse it”). First of all, the reference to Kant was just introductory, not a commitment to Kant’s views. Secondly, and most importantly, my claim is that rational “oughts” (as in “X ought to do Y”) should be constrained by what one “can”, to the best of our knowledge of course. To say the least: “can” must be identified/assessed in broadly logical terms. One can not smell a number, or read and not read a book. How about physics? Is it rational to prescribe someone to go faster than the speed of light? No, because he can’t according to laws of physics. How about chemistry or biology? Again I find prescriptions grounded on expectations that violate laws of chemistry or biology irrational. Should we stop here? I don't see why. Indeed there are salient empirical regularities also in human & social sciences: psychology, sociology, economy, anthropology, history and geopolitics, according to which we can assess what individuals, collectives, States can do. So by “likelihood” I was referring to such assessments. Examples of these are Mearsheimer’s geopolitical claims: “the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power.” or “the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region” . Now I don’t know if they are true (maybe even the laws of physics we believe to have identified will be proved wrong one day, how the hell would I know?) but I take such geopolitical claims seriously, and not because Mearshaimer said it, but because history as far as I know supports it enough and Mearshaimer’s theory turned out to have some predictive power too. Now how about the claim “Western countries can ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”, what are the historical evidences or geopolitical actual dynamics that would support it? I really see none, and for sure none that would seriously challenge Mearshaimer’s (or American isolationists’, for that matter!) claims.
Quoting Isaac
For a starter, in your prescription you are talking about what “we ought”, so if you are including me in that “we ought” then no, of course, because I’m not concerned with “humanitarian improvement” in such generic terms.
Quoting Isaac
Fair observation, hence my warning (“But here some additional clarifications” in between the 2 previous claims of mine). The second claim was not meant to disclaim but to restrain the scope of the first claim: there are interested immigrant minorities living in Western countries that welcome Western meddling in their original country’s affairs e.g. to support Ukrainians and Iranian protesters and I offered some pertinent evidence for this.
What is also interesting to me in those cases is that they do it in the direction that I would welcome of course, which unfortunately is not always the case: e.g. Trita Parsi and Farnaz Fassihi are widely suspected by Iranian protesters to be covert pro-Iranian regime lobbyists in the US.
Quoting Isaac
That’s a caricature of my view. Besides I previously warned you that I’m taking into account the limits of historical evidence [1]. My point concerns a non-negligible rational constraint for cognitively fallible and historical creatures as human beings are. In general, when/if things do not go as expected we could find a better theory to guide our expectations, instead of getting rid of any theory. Concerning the power of human creativity in history (as undeniably expressed in the technological progress and in the evolution of social institutions), I limit myself to observe that rational expectations can rely on human creativity only to the extent that its activity falls within the known regularities. How so? As planned technological progress is grounded on original/smarter ways to exploit natural laws by people who have the means, see how, and want to do this, so planned socio-political progress is grounded on original/smarter ways to exploit human and social regularities (often in addition to technological progress) by people who have the means, see how, and want to do this. And I’m afraid that nobody here can be qualified as such.
Quoting Isaac
There is no such a confusion at all. Here is why: from the single premise “X should do Y” we can not logically conclude that “X can do Y”, nor we can logically conclude that “X should NOT do Y” from the single premise “X can NOT do Y”. Failing to acknowledge this amounts to a categorial confusion between 'ought' and ‘is’.
However from the 2 premises “if X should do Y then X can do Y” (which is not an empirical claim but a rational requirement) and “X can NOT do Y”, then we can logically conclude that “X should NOT do Y”. Failing to acknowledge this amounts to poor logical skills. So it's not advisable for you to insist on this.
I addressed the rest of your objection when talking about human creativity in history.
[1]
Quoting neomac
???
Relevance is a relative term. Relevance to what, and for whom?
War crimes may be irrelevant to you, but they are relevant for the Ukrainians, and others.
Quoting boethius
Nope. I am just saying that greased bullets aren't mentioned in the Geneva conventions defining war crimes, and that mentioning such red hearing in a discussion about war crimes amounts to trivializing the subject.
Better but not fair. That's better and more fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Was there another meeting between Putin and Erdogan? Where was this reported?
Putin and Erdogan met on Thursday. Putin floated an idea of a gas distribution hub in Turkey that would allow exporting more gas to Europe through the existing TurkStream pipeline. Erdogan said that they would conduct a study. Everyone else said that Putin must be living in his own alternative reality.
Western Rationality is relentlessly undermined by all forms of media determined to condemn all things Russia and all things Putin into Dante's 9th circle of hell. The myriad articles, opinion pieces, dramatic images, accompanied by stirring music is all a powerful psychedelic that warps otherwise normal people, who care nothing about geopolitics nor have any real interest in the matter, now spontaneously tell you how Putin is literally evil.
This is our world now
Even here - in our philosophy forum - smart, erudite and normally rational posters
- on the subject of this conflict in the Ukraine - often find it impossible to refrain from tit for tat partisan jibes.
???????, I see that you have to have joined the party of ????????? ?????:
Quoting Alexandr Dugin
You guys seem enthusiastic. Not sure where you going to receive income after you win your war.
You've got to stop dropping acid before you read the newspaper.
And that snippet is more subtly echoed by Putin, Matviyenko, and probably a few I forgot (including in the US). A call for nationalism in a category that history has seen before. Such like has been noted a few times recently (UN, 2019), not that anyone listens/cares.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
What you are talking about is at best a propaganda battle (which you are deeply engaged in, by the way, given the way you are caricaturing it), not the central geo-political question. Propaganda is just one tool of the geopolitical game, with costs, limits and unintended consequences.
Besides the propaganda battle is essentially played in the West because in authoritarian regimes there is less tolerance for views conflicting with the government propaganda (so it's another form of asymmetric war since foreign and hostile powers can more easily infiltrate the Western "market" of ideas).
If you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating from. But, a part from that, do as you like of course.
Yes, that is why so many ultra conservatives and alt right thugs have had a crush on Putin for years. But Putin used to play footsie with the world order they wish to dissolve. Putin liked getting invited to parties while attending G8 meetings and having his gang launder money in London. That activity does not mix well with the Dugin war against the West.
Why white evangelical Christians are Putin's biggest American fan base (MSNBC; Mar 2, 2022)
Putin’s Propaganda Machine Is What America’s Far-Right Wants (Defense One; Mar 11, 2022)
Whatever is going on, it doesn't look pretty.
Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic.
That's not really clarified matters - something 'causing' Putin doesn't make sense. so I thought you meant that nothing else in that list is causing as much damage as Putin... but then you denied that too. So I'm at a loss.
Quoting neomac
But such assessments vary - different people reach different conclusions. So I don't see how that makes any progress. You're still just providing an option. Don't forget the argument here. I'm not claiming your position is irrational. You are claiming mine is. You disputed my position, not the other way round. If the best you've got is that your position is plausible, then we have no disagreement.
Quoting neomac
I don't. Neither do hundreds of academics and campaigners committed to promoting such an action. Again, if the best you've got is "I don't think that'll work" then fine, I'm not claiming it definitely will. If your claim is "No-one thinks that will work", that's a far bolder and more unlikely claim (given the existent campaigns for just such an outcome). It would need similarly bold evidence. As has been highlighted before the fact that some people agree with you is not evidence for a claim that everyone agrees with you.
Quoting neomac
Well then we probably have very little to talk about. I assume my interlocutors share such concerns. If not, then our differences are probably more to do with irreconcilable differences in values.
Quoting neomac
You really didn't.
Quoting neomac
So when a post makes claims about Russian war crimes I expect you've been similarly at pains to point out Ukrainian transgressions to ensure a fair hearing? How far does this need extend? Ought we include the US's misdeeds too, just to get a proper picture? Probably ought to list the Wagner group too, and maybe Chechen loyalists. British intelligence services, German arms dealers, Turkish negotiators... Or...we could read posts like grown ups and assume that not everything has to contain moral condemnation of Russia.
I asked you for clarifications: the idea of being "forced" suggests me the idea that you can not free yourself from something which you find undesirable. So if you live in the West and you do not like it, what is preventing you from leaving it?
Yes, things are trending that way.
Add the brain trust fleeing the country in spring to the young people fleeing mobilization, they should be able to pound that number down to zero.
Omg, that's so sad. Russian unemployment rate:
The international level, The domestic level, The psychological level
Much speculation; bombing proceeds. :/
Quoting Among European right-wing populists, favorable views of Russia and Putin are down sharply · Pew Research Center · Sep 23, 2022
On Dec 14, 2016, Will Jordan noted ...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/809067195082883076[/tweet]
An alternative take, if you're interested.
Biden’s New National Security Strategy: A Lot of Trump, Very Little Obama
Yes, Biden and Obama are in opposite sides of the Democratic party spectrum. That's normal. Presidential candidates usually try to pick someone who complements them to appeal to more voters.
This is why Obama wouldn't have picked someone like Sanders as a running mate: the ticket would have leaned too progressive to win.
Trump is a wildcard in terms of foreign policy. He knew next to nothing about global politics and cared less, except for his grudge against China for its biased trading demands. A lot of people thought it was time for China-American trade to become more fair to Americans. Biden was expected to thaw relations with China, but maintain the trade war.
As for Russia, while campaigning, Biden couldn't have made it more clear that he planned to punish Putin in some way for interfering in American elections. Putin handed him the means to do so.
I’ll give it another try then: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that one single subject (namely, Putin) is causing”. Better now?
I denied the substantial equivalence of what I wrote with the ways you rephrased it: "the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now" or "Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is”. I challenge you to argue against my actual claims, not against the caricature of my claims.
Quoting Isaac
Sure, there are people believing in astrology or magic, after all. So what? Here, I’m not interested in discussing doxastic surveys, I’m interested in discussing reasons wrt rational standards intelligible to me.
Quoting Isaac
Additionally, I don’t even understand your claim that my position and your position are both plausible. What do you mean by “plausible”? Wrt what? You didn’t provide any sharable method to assess the plausibility of different position in absolute or relative terms. And it’s even hard to guess it from the way you question my claims, because they practically amount to random accusations (like cherry picking, lack of imagination, lack of support from certain sources, confusion, lacking basic concepts, etc.) or strawman arguments or labelling (like adolescent positivism). Besides, why on earth would you still claim that my position is plausible after questioning all the reasons I have to hold my position and without providing better ones?
Quoting Isaac
A part from the fact that one assesses rational expectations even in this case, my question is: would our positions be still both plausible in case of irreconcilable differences in values?
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
As a starter, attributing to me the claim “if it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen”, would be like me attributing to you the claim “if it hasn't happened in the past it can happen”, both are strawman arguments. As far as I’m concerned, expectations however rational may turn out to be false, and however irrational (like hopes and wishful thinking) may turn out to be true. Yet the discrimination between rational and irrational expectations remains and is relevant for my decision process.
The other point is that rational expectations based on historical events can still account for human creativity (in history) to some extent, so they do not lead to believe that humans can not be conscious agents of disruptive socio-political changes. Indeed history is rich of cases where disruptive technologies or new socio-political arrangements were consciously implemented, so one should take into account that too to formulate rational expectations. In order to give a rational account for that one should still check/show how past regularities can fit or be exploited to trigger the disruptive change: e.g. to accounting for the end of slavery in the US, one might consider the interplay of economic dynamics, religious beliefs, demographic factors, technological innovations and skilled/ambitious political elites that made this event likely. In a similar vain, we can try to account for the emergence of disruptive historical phenomena in the present or in the future to guide our poltical choices. However you didn’t present any such analysis to support your claim that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”. So nothing rationally challenging in there.
Yes, but that's exactly what I thought you meant in the first place. I then listed several examples of "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" that were causing more "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage" than Putin and you said that wasn't what you meant.
Can you clarify how you're measuring "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage"?
Quoting neomac
I'm not talking about astrology, I'm talking about experts in their field. Again, if you're going to just dismiss expert opinion because it is in opposition to what you prefer to believe then we cannot have a discussion.
Quoting neomac
I simply mean that neither position is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary and each position is supported in the field of qualified experts. Basic minimum standards. I didn't think this would be complicated.
Quoting neomac
Again, this is basic stuff. A position is plausible if it is not contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In technical fields it ought also have support from at least some experts in that field. There's nothing controversial to argue with here.
Quoting neomac
Under determination. We've been through this already. If you didn't understand it the first time I'm not sure a second go round is going to help. A fixed pool of evidence can support multiple theories since any given pool of evidence supporting a theory is not exhaustive of all the evidence there is.
Quoting neomac
Yes, of course. Values are not amenable to assessment of plausibility since no evidence can be brought to bear on them.
Quoting neomac
You're not discriminating between rational and irrational, for Christ's sake. You're not God. You're discriminating between reasons you prefer and reasons preferred by others. You not agreeing with a set of reasons doesn't render them "irrational", epistemic peers disagree, it's quite normal and doesn't require one party to have lost the power of rational thought.
Quoting neomac
Then how does an historical failure to address poverty have any bearing on the rationality of a moral claim that we ought address poverty?
Quoting neomac
One more time for the slow ones at the back... You are the one claiming my position is flawed ("irrational" now, apparently). My not having proven your position wrong is not evidence that my position is wrong. I have no interest in proving your position wrong.
You keep doing this (pointing to a failure to prove my position as if it were supportive of yours). Are you seriously of the opinion that our two positions are mutually exclusive (such that if my position is wrong, yours must be right)?
Relevance to the current geopolitical situation we're discussing.
I was reacting to your statement that:
Quoting Olivier5
Which was in response to my statement:
Quoting boethius
I then explain that on the fundamentals, morality is very much related to geopolitics; both in terms of seeking geopolitical dominance or protection "no holds bar" is a moral system, but also there's examples of genuine moral indignation shaping geopolitical decisions and geopolitical institutions.
It is not "at best a propaganda battle" for various reasons.
First (as has already been discussed several times), whether something is used for propaganda or not is independent of whether it actually happened or not or whether it's arguably true or not.
Second, and to reiterate the point I was making that, as predicted, you seem genuinely incapable of understanding, even if our Western purported facts and moral opinions are absolutely "true" (this was the premise of my argument, that we Westerners have the truth) it's still important, even under these conditions of being ultimate arbiters of truth, to understand how other people elsewhere see things, even if it's not true, for the purposes of decision making.
For example, the West genuinely seemed to believe that the massive sanctions (that US policy-wonks kept calling "the nuclear option" for years) would destroy the Russian economy as the whole world would follow them. It seemed of genuine surprise to the US and European administrations that nearly the entire rest of the world noped out on those sanctions and the Russian economy was not destroyed.
Western politicians and western media then just basically ignored the issue.
What I am describing here is a failure in analysis even assuming that the West is good and just and the policies morally and politically sound. Failing to see that there's a "rest of the world" (in the words of Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), a rest of the world (a "jungle" if you will) that does not have the truth and so acts differently is a basic failure of analysis, which leads to sub-optimal decision making and inefficient tending the Western "garden" and clearing of the "jungle" in the rest of the world.
Now, if could be that Western politicians and media are just so naively innocent, so unitarily focused on the sublime truth and justice they contain, that they simply can't form in their heads people holding different opinions.
Or, it could be that these alternative opinions out there in the "jungle" are actively ignored because the Western political and media simply have no good arguments supporting their belief to be ultimate avatars of the truth and justice.
So, either way, there is a failure to understand key facts about the world and the situation, which presumably leads to worse rather than better decision making.
Putin frames it in terms of threats, danger, fear. So, we could try to examine that.
First, though... Broken promise or not? This seemed to me a recurring claim — and justification — by Putin + team, and some others.
[sup]• Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” (Brookings; Nov 6, 2014)
• Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated. (RFE/RL; May 19, 2021)
• Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east (The Conversation; Feb 14, 2022)
• “NATO (under direction from the United States) is violating previous agreements and expanding eastward.” (PolitiFact; Feb 22, 2022)[/sup]
Hmm ... Not quite so clear (earlier on, I thought it was more clear). More of a "he-said-she-said" thing apparently. Either way, the violence/bombing/shamming can't hang on this. (Ukraine is the obvious victim here.)
The threats (via earlier comment instead of repeating): Nuclear? More or less everyone's threatened. Only some flaunt. Troops then? NATO has more of them, is larger. Russia's flanked. Large country. (Well, bases and troop concentrations are susceptible to tactical nuclear weapons I guess.) Cultural threats? Humbug. Are we talking "claustrophobia" versus limiting free Kremlin movements/actions?
Non-hypotheticals: At the moment, Russia is a direct/present tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors), more so than NATO is to Russia, except Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. There are casualties and losses, by far most in Ukraine, not Russia, not in NATO countries. The invasion. Conversely, sanctions are threatening Russia, albeit not so much a NATO thing.
The geo-strategic interests mentioned by @Tzeentch suggests a plain old land grab, which is a rationale, just not the one out of the anti-NATO rhetoric (? distraction). What threat is NATO to Russia that's different from protecting the members? No one has threatened with invading Russia. The threats to Russia aren't looking like what they're made out to be. Which suggests other aims, in part at least.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1581430845587750912[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1582279794242486277[/tweet]
Maybe their Pr department is out manning the artillery?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-10-18/ty-article/ukraine-requests-israel-supply-immediate-air-defense-supplies/00000183-eb24-da6b-a1fb-fba5783f0000
While Israel has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and provided Kyiv with humanitarian relief, it has stopped short of also providing military support, citing concern for continued cooperation with Moscow over next-door Syria.
The discussion over air supplies comes amid internal wrangling in Israel over deepening its cooperation with Ukraine after the Russian invasion.
Oh well. I can see quite a few elements of geopolitical relevance in the current context. No issue here.
My point was different: that to the extent that the West leads the world, it does so scientifically, economically, culturally and militarily, but not morally. It doesn't exert a moral leadership that I can see or trust, although politicians may pretend otherwise. One could perhaps claim that Western values are IN THEORY, AS INTENDED, morally superior to any others. That would sound unwise to me but it can be argued. But how many people nowadays still believe that the West lives by its own values?
This war does not present "a challenge to Western moral leadership", as such a thing does not exist. It is a challenge to Western geopolitical leadership.
What a tangled web is weaved:
Russia's help in fighting Assad in Syria versus stopping Iran from becoming a go to arms dealer and producer. And the old Russian Bear is not looking so good. Las Vegas is giving different percentages.
Edited for clarity.
Edit was a botch. SophistiCat fixes brain fart below.
Russia isn't helping Israel fight Assad - Russia is supporting Assad. Rather, Russia has allowed Israel to conduct its operations against Iranian proxies in Syria - even though Russia and Iran are on the same side there. It's a tangled web indeed.
Very much so. And Israel is hesitant to sell weapons to Ukraine, as they are quite happy with the current arrangement in Syria.
I suspect only the US could get Israel to sell weapons to Ukraine, but then maybe not even them, because lots of illegal Israeli settlers are Russian. So it's a hell of a problem for Israel.
Thank you, I tried to do that the first time but did not put in the needed extra convolutions.
My point is that if Iran starts to profit significantly from selling arms to Russia, that will be the motivation to change course.
So, maybe not so happy.
It sure can. Which is why they've been stalling.
Who is stalling? Iran to admit that it is selling weapons? Or Israel because it does not want to change deals?
Israel.
Doesn't the factor of increasing Iranian involvement decrease the chances that Israel is simply being pressured by the U.S. to give up on a 'good deal'?
Beyond this question of Realpolitik, I wonder if Lavrov's riff about Hitler possibly being a self-hating Jew might be playing a part. Apologies were given. But that is a deep cut.
No, I mean, Israel has its own interests that not-infrequently clash with the US' interests. Nevertheless, if they do sell weapons to Ukraine, it might get more complicated for Israel, given the amount of Russians inside Israel.
They would rather stay away from this one, but are being forced to reply.
Do these Russian people in Israel support the present regime?
Which one? Putin's?
I haven't looked at any polls mentioning this.
I was thinking Putin's.
But maybe a better way to ask my question is to ask how this group is one Israel is reluctant to offend because it would offend Russia. Can you point to a specific situation that would bring this into relief?
I'd guess part of the issue - aside from the situation in Syria, which Israel is currently fine with - is that, Russia may make customs to Israel very problematic, or could even prohibit it.
That means less settlers in Israel, so it's not something they would like to deal with. I'm sure there are other ties that are of importance, but I don't know the details.
I don't think the settlers in Israel would affect Russia much, but it might be an issue for Israel's internal politics. The settlers tend to be extremely right wing, and vote for the more radical parties in Israel.
But all of this is pure speculation, until we know how Israel deals with Ukraine's plea, we're totally guessing.
The Battle of Culiacán:
Back in 2019, the Mexican government arrested a son of crime boss El Chapo, who, in turn, worked for crime boss El Mayo. In response, El Mayo had 100s of gunmen attack civilians and government targets. Eventually, the Mexican President released the arrested son to prevent further killing and violence. (Government forces and cartel gunmen shook hands.) Some said that El Mayo had become government, or whatever along those lines.
But, this is just an example of ... power ... ethics ... "don't negotiate with terrorists" (Chatham House) ... collateral damage ... who protects who (from)? ... democracy, roles of electees ...
Tensions:
• saving lives (perhaps minimize suffering / maximize well-being)
• giving in versus standing up to attackers (perhaps courage versus cowardice)
• dis/allowing offenders/thugs to continue/escalate offending (compromise, future)
• doing the right thing
I (personally) don't think there's a one-size-fits-all, though maybe standing on principles can sometimes deter malefactors from going there, or make them reconsider.
Anyway, in the present case (different from the example above), millions of Ukrainians have fled, and many are fighting, apparently with notable unity/cohesion/direction. Can we easily say what the right thing to do is?
I don't think we can. Contrary to the strawmen I'm not arguing for any particular solution. I'm arguing that just such an uncertainty as you paint here genuinely exists (I'm doing that by showing alternatives are plausible). The right course of action is not clear, it's not ludicrous, insane, or Putin-apologist, or whatever the latest...to advocate an alternative strategy than 'feed Ukrainians weapons until they win'.
As to the issues in question, my twopenneth...
Quoting jorndoe
I think it's a very hard sell, given the fact that Ukraine are no angels themselves, to say that more lives would be lost ceding territory than by continuing war. Another year of war is likely to produce another few hundred thousand casualties. There's simply no reason to think anywhere near that number more would arise from Russian peace-time occupation than from Ukrainian.
Quoting jorndoe
I don't see the argument here. Clearly a successful Ukrainian defense isn't going to send any kind of 'message' about the morality of attacking foreign countries. The US attacks foreign countries all the time and gets away with it. The world's moral compass is hardly on the line here (as opposed to elsewhere).
Quoting jorndoe
In war, clearly some invasions are successful, others aren't. It's always been that way. The fact that some invasions fail doesn't seem to have acted as a deterrent before, I don't see why it would suddenly start doing so now.
Quoting jorndoe
This is where the most interesting argument is. What is the right thing that isn't already covered by your first point? What legitimate moral interest do we have aside from the humanitarian one?
Hello, indeed I never heard people being forced to flee their homes just “as a result of political malpractice”: usually people are forced to flee their homes for reasons like somebody bombed my house, or the government is killing people if they don’t wear headscarf as the morality police requires, or life here is so shitty that I’m ready to cross a sea on an overcrowded and unsafe boat in the middle of the night to god knows where instead of remaining here. So… interesting, I’ll add that one too to my list.
Now that you are forced to flee your home where would you like to go live: Russia, China or Iran? Did you start browsing some brochures?
Quoting boethius
I find your observation pertinent but not enough to support the claim “the central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership” for 3 reasons:
First of all, notice that this propaganda battle is an asymmetric battle which is essentially fought within the West, because in anti-Western authoritarian regimes, the power of the anti-western propaganda is overwhelming wrt the pro-western propaganda (and add to the level of censorship, also the language barrier), hence the importance of the foreign minorities living in the West to spread pro-Western propaganda in anti-Western authoritarian regimes. Now as long as those minorities are already enough supportive of the Western propaganda, the West doesn’t need to push on the pro-West propaganda harder.
Secondly, one might think that since in the West we live in democracy the West is too vulnerable to anti-Western propaganda by authoritarian regimes. Yet during a war anti-Western propaganda machine is easier to constrain through censorship of foreign infowar channels, disinfestation of foreign agents in politics and media, and/or less resources from the authoritarian regimes to invest in the propaganda machine in the West. Besides the more bluffs of the official anti-Western scaremongering propaganda are called out by the West, the less effective the anti-Western propaganda becomes. Consequently, the battle propaganda becomes a less critical front for Western governments.
Thirdly, and most importantly, talking of moral-leadership and related morally-loaded vocabulary is a way for politicians and media to appeal to the masses, not really to directly address other decision makers, allies or competitors. And since power (not propaganda) is at the core of geopolitical struggles, what really matters is to impact the view of the decision makers, not necessarily the masses’ views. Then the decision makers can tell people whatever they find instrumental in bridging the gap between propaganda and reality, or simply ignore it and rely on people’s forgetfulness.
That’s why even if your observation is pertinent, I wouldn’t overemphasise the role and impact of such propaganda battle. The fact that you do shows more about your personal investment in that battle, then the centrality of the question itself.
Well, I’m not measuring anything myself. I rely on public stats one can easily find online from official or credible sources. Surely it’s difficult to assess the overall global impact of a war that is still ongoing, with short and long terms effects, considering also that war can inflict direct damages on any material and social dimension. But also in this case the internet can help: https://news.un.org/pages/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GCRG_2nd-Brief_Jun8_2022_FINAL.pdf
However the crucial point is not the numbers per se, but the fact that all these damages resulted from the decision of a single individual to start a war in defiance of the American led Western hegemony. And it is precisely the geopolitical significance of this war to the global order that magnifies the importance of any material and human damage caused by this war, especially from the Western prospective. And rightly so.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
I see. And who are the “experts in their field” arguing that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”?
Who are the “experts in their field” arguing that Ukraine would NOT have a better chance to grow in terms of civil rights within the western sphere of influence (e.g. by joining NATO and EU) than within the Russian sphere of influence?
And by “arguing” I mean employing actual cold-blooded “experts in their field” arguments, not expressing wishes or voicing propaganda slogans.
Quoting Isaac
Well, we might still disagree on how to asses experts. And even on how one cites experts.
Quoting Isaac
I don’t really see how this hypothetical scenario helps you here. First of all, you didn’t offer any argument showing that the same fixed pool of evidences can support both the claim that Russia is military performing well and failing to perform well on the battlefield, or both that surrendering to Russia is better for Ukraine than to keep fighting and vice versa, or both that Ukraine wants to keep fighting and it doesn’t. On the contrary, the divergence typically starts with a reference to different set of evidences: e.g. if I talk about the deaths in Ukraine, you talk about the deaths in Yemen; if I talk about the Ukrainian popular support to Zelensky you talk about the philo-Russian views in Crimea and Donbas, if I talk about the improvements of ex-Soviet joining NATO and EU republics in terms of human rights, you talk about some plans to boost human rights in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru. The alternative is often to discredit the evidences with claims like “it’s nothing more than propaganda”, or my capacity of reading the evidence (I’m cherrypicking or my own evidence contradicts my own claims).
Secondly, if our positions were really in the situation you described, there are still rational requirements that could constrain the number of possible theories: 1. Cognitive costs: a cognitively more economic theory is preferable to a more cognitively expensive if the same have equal explanatory power 2. Explanatory/predictive power when widening the range of evidences (in physics a certain set of evidences is good to support both newtonian physics and relativity, but a wider range of evidences supports one and not the other) 3. Congruence with a wider range of other supported theories in related domains.
But we didn’t really go into any such assessments: for example how is your position fitting into a sensible geopolitical theory? Mearsheimer’s views or Isolationist views could be useful to blame the US for this war, smart choice. But are they useful to support your claim that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”? I deeply doubt that.
Quoting Isaac
One can still discriminate between rational and irrational without being God (you too try hard to do it [1]). Besides this is necessary if one cares to choose rationally. Disagreements are normal of course but often they are due to the fact that we fail to discriminate rational and irrational convictions: so it’s not always about preferences as you put it, it’s also about intelligibility and compliance to shareable rational standards. Unfortunately we may fail on that more often than what we could hope, because we are cognitively/morally limited creatures and dramatic political events can easily push all of us out of our cognitive/moral comfort zone. Once again: I’m not interested in assessing people here, just in their arguments, and I don’t care if you think otherwise. So feel free to play dumb all you want.
Quoting Isaac
If you want to talk about war crimes for the war in Ukraine, there is an entry in wikipedia that summarises the situation better than that single Amnesty article could, that’s all. And if your objective was to provide a source without “a moral condemnation of Russia”, I’m afraid that article isn’t a big help once you read it carefully.
[1]
Quoting Isaac
It could well be that actually. They wouldn't want more people leaving Russia at the moment.
They might even be looking for Israeli settlers to join the reserve troops. It wouldn't be suprising. But there's also the Syria element you mentioned.
None of this is something that Israel would like to face or worry about. But it has to give some sort of reply to Ukraine on the weapons issue, though they have supposedly given Ukraine military intelligence regarding Russian troop location, according to Haaretz.
So, they are caught in balancing act.
Your argument requires a comparison, it cannot be supported by the provision of only one side. You argued that the effect was greater than... that requires two sources showing that one is greater than the other. Providing one source and saying "wow, that looks really big" is not sufficient.
Quoting neomac
So I was right with "...you reckon" then, since none of that can be quantified and rests entirely on your subjective opinion.
Quoting neomac
I'm simply not playing this childish game.
1) Look back through my posts. I've cited dozens of experts, yet still this cheap rhetorical trick is trotted out every few pages "where's your evidence", as if it hadn't already been supplied in droves.
2) You cannot expect to keep shifting the burden of proof and act as if that was a counter argument. If you think there are literally no experts advising multi-billion dollar campaigns against poverty, famine, pollution, and disease, then you're the one who needs to supply evidence to back up such a wild claim.
Quoting neomac
I don't see how. The qualification of experts is pretty standard, as is the method of citation. But sure, if you think there's some non-standard method you want to employ, I'm all ears.
Quoting neomac
As I said, you need to meet a minimum threshold of comprehension to take in part in discussions at this level. If you seriously don't understand how evidence underdetermines theories then I can't help you (not on this thread anyway - feel free to open a thread raising the question and we can discuss it there).
Quoting neomac
There are, yes. That's the nature of the subsequent discussion. If you have any arguments from those measures then crack on, let's hear them. "I doubt that" is not an argument.
Quoting neomac
To paraphrase Van Inwagen, if you and your epistemic peer disagree, you must accept the possibility of your epistemic peer group being wrong, and that includes you. You cannot resolve a disagreement about what is rational by appeal to what is rational.
Quoting neomac
I want to do neither. The argument was about whether Ukraine had committed war crimes, I posted an article proving they had. That's it. It does not need to further caveats to remind everyone that Russia has too, and the suggestion that Wikipedia is a better source than an actual published paper is too absurd for further comment.
I'll just note that the more complex (or "chained") the speculation, the less accurate it's likely to be.
Anders Åslund, Ukraine’s six key conditions for peace talks with Putin’s Russia (Aug 24, 2022):
1. recovery of occupied Ukrainian territory
2. credible security guarantees
3. Russia to pay up for rebuilding what's been destroyed
4. Russian Black Sea Fleet to leave base in Sevastopol, and don't come back
5. Ukrainians to be permitted to leave Russia; children taken to Russia must be returned
6. prosecution of Russians who have committed serious war crimes at The Hague
Still fair, still unrealistic. Let's see 5 though, can also serve as a goodwill gesture.
Peace talks could aim at a neutral Ukraine (no NATO), which would address one of Putin's arguments.
You tried to imply that being "free" to become a political refugee means one is not being forced - a truly vile statement.
Yet NATO membership isn't just what the US wants. (Which can be seen from the situation of Finland and Sweden). Hence NATO membership was off: something NATO or the US wouldn't publicly admit, but just as de facto thing like Turkey is not going to get EU membership.
Quoting Tzeentch
More like unavoidable consequence of the annexation in 2014 going so well and the territorial objectives that Russia has.
NATO pushing? NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something.
Quoting Mikie
Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it.
It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. It's a threat to Russia's aspirations to regain back it's Empire that it lost when Soviet Union collapsed, that's for sure. And that's why countries are joining or wanting to join NATO: for a reason that we have now seen is real, not only something hypothetical.
NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. That's the true reason for Putin to be against NATO.
Or several people here on this forum, who thought it all was American propaganda.
It's hard to know what will happen to Putin and his hold on to power. Dictators can suffer humiliating defeats and then still carry on... just like Saddam Hussein did after Desert Storm. Czar Nicholai the II did face political turmoil after the Russo-Japanese war, but it took World War I to finally sweep him out of power.
And let's face it: if Putin would get an armstice or a frozen conflict on these frontlines at present, he could say the war has had been a great success.
It doesn't look like the Ukrainians are in the mood. The war crimes just keep rolling out day after day.
Yes, as I've now demonstrated several times.
Quoting ssu
You're just running out of things to say, apparently.
Quoting ssu
Oh, ok. I guess that settles it.
Quoting ssu
:up: Cool.
Quoting ssu
There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. No one had accused Putin of imperial ambitions for 14 years -- and then suddenly that was the official story: imperialism.
Anything to deflect away from the fact that the US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership, starting in 2008, which was clearly and consistently said by Russian to be a threat -- for years. Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. Once there was finally a reaction, after 6 years, in Crimea, and a further 8 years in Ukraine, it's supposed to confirm the story. Sorry, but you're ignoring history and evidence.
Imagine during the Cuban Missile Crisis people saying that the US was overreacting, and that "it's delirious to think Russian involvement in Cuba is a threat to the US." Maybe they would have been right, but that's completely beside the point.
Mearsheimer
Oh false narrative? You must be trolling.
What is annexing more territories from Ukraine into Russia other than pure classical imperialism?
What is Novorossiya anything than imperialism? Or in Putin the Great's words (from the last annexation):
That above is one big imperialist speaking.
Quoting Mikie
On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. Putin was heard, but as I've said now many times, NATO cannot give a veto to Russia on the matters. But you don't have to go to Russia's friends like Turkey or Hungary, even Germany was saying it won't happen.
You simply cannot deny that. :lol:
The subject is you not the refugees. "I asked you for clarifications: the idea of being "forced" suggests me the idea that you can not free yourself from something which you find undesirable. So if you live in the West and you do not like it, what is preventing you from leaving it?"
So when you wrote: "Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it?", I thought you as an avg Westerner were comparing your fate in the West with the fate of the refugees from non-Western country, which I find laughable.
If you were talking about something else, I couldn't get it from your answers.
As if those territories wouldn't otherwise be treated as in wartime.
I don't see it. He's not telling the truth about the referenda, of course.
None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. But if you want to ignore the historical record on this and go with the mainstream Western narrative, I won't fault you for it. It could turn out true, I suppose. The evidence speaks against it currently.
Quoting ssu
They were repeatedly ignored. The US and NATO continued on the same path they started in 2008, reiterating their stance multiple times, and deploying weapons and training in Ukraine.
Cuba never launched missiles into the US either. So by your logic, it was never a threat -- since it didn't happen.
Quoting ssu
When was Germany saying it won't happen? At the 2008 NATO summit? At the 2021 summit? In September of 2021, when the White House affirmed it would continue to support Ukraine's joining, and that "We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner"?
Or are you just referring to Scholz? Who apparently believes, as you do, that Putin is an imperialist?
Sorry, the facts remain the same even if Germany -- which nearly always bows to US power -- says that it was "not on the agenda." The documentary record says otherwise. Not to mention the weapons and training provided by the West to Ukraine, all in spite of consistent warnings from Russia.
The same is true of China, incidentally. There will eventually be a reaction if the US keeps pushing on Taiwan. Then I'm sure you'll retroactively accuse China of "imperialism," no?
Nah.
NATO's a threat to Putin's ambitions, a threat to free Kremlin movements/actions, to Putin's Russia bulging. Should be clear to anyone. NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. Well, except (ironically perhaps) Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. (Nov 6, 2014; May 19, 2021; Feb 14, 2022; Feb 22, 2022.)
Russia's a direct and present, tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors). Including cultural: Jul 12, 2021; Mar 17, 2022; Mar 18, 2022; Mar 22, 2022; Mar 25, 2022; Apr 5, 2022; Apr 12, 2022; May 6, 2022; Sep 6, 2022; Sep 9, 2022; Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022; Oct 17, 2022. No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection.
Keep up. (Long thread.)
But, granted, NATO might a factor somewhere.
What I don't buy in Mearsheimer's argument is how one motive for Putin to invade has to exclude all others. Whatever degree Putin was motivated to invade because of his perception of what NATO is doing does not confirm or deny other motivations.
Saying that the Ukrainians should not be supported is a Putin talking point. The Ukrainians would have fought back anyway. Whatever game of Risk Mearsheimer is playing, it has nothing to do with the brutality being experienced by actual people. We are way past coulda, shoulda, woulda.
NATO expansion was seen as a threat to Russia, as they stated clearly for years. Whether it was “really” a threat isn’t relevant— they gave reasons, many times, and these reasons were no more ridiculous than the ones the US has claimed over the years.
The fact is that Russia had been saying, for years, that involvement in Ukraine, including the push for NATO membership, was a threat.
Quoting jorndoe
Was there a major Russian threat from 2000 to 2008? What was that threat?
Quoting jorndoe
I’m not interested in childish remarks like this. Keep it respectful and stick to arguments or don’t bother with me.
I’d suggest reviewing what I’ve written and engage with that. Merely asserting NATO was no threat isn’t an argument.
Very true. But I’ve yet to see evidence of his imperial ambitions. Even with this invasion, the facts simply don’t align with it. We can discuss that if you’d like. But I’m not excluding it as a possibility— only that I’m unconvinced by that possibility. Another possibility is he's just an evil madman. I'm unconvinced by that too, incidentally -- although it may be true.
Quoting Paine
I think the Ukrainians should be supported.
Quoting Paine
I’m not sure what this means. Why is he playing a game of Risk? I agree we’re past coulda woulda shoulda, but understanding the causes of this war is still relevant.
Whatever Putin's ambitions may be, he kicked off his invasion by saying what he had said before:
This erasure of identity is not justified on the basis of making sure Ukraine remains neutral. It is saying that if you insist upon preserving this identity, Russia has the right to end you. The rules of engagement employed demonstrate that this was a sincere statement of purpose. If that is not evidence enough of aggressive intent, I don't know what could be.
Quoting Mikie
In Mearsheimer's discourse, there are only two agents, the U.S. and Putin. There are no Ukrainians, no Russian people, and no other states with their own interest. It is a game where only one or the other can win, in other words, a game of Risk played with actual humans.
I would suggest reading that speech -- not a Time article about the speech.
Regardless, it's odd that we should take what Putin says seriously in this case, and yet ignore his warnings about NATO.
In any case:
Quoting Paine
If you think this, then you're simply unfamiliar with Mearsheimer. This is false.
I did read the whole speech. The intention to erase that state does not have to be stated as a goal if it has already been said to not exist.
Quoting Mikie
Which portion are you thinking of?
Edit to Add: All of the references to what Putin was thinking to divine true intentions is what I see as making it all about his agency. We can't peer into his brain, but we can see what he does
So, fast forward to today. What do we have? Just the facts.
A Russia with nuclear weapons on their doorstep? A Russia invaded by NATO (or anyone, for that matter)? Anyone having threatened Russia with invasion? A defeated Russia having been forcibly split into several nations? A Russian culture being wiped? Heck, a Russia having been blocked (by NATO) from invading Ukraine?
Nah. (Well, don't know about Chinese or Indian nuclear weapons here.)
There are sanctions on Russia (not so much a NATO thing, though). And, a NATO with more troops than Russia.
We have a Norway Finland Estonia Ukraine with nuclear weapons on their doorstep (don't know about Canada), and an autocracy flaunting them. We also have the Russian submission-machine having rolled out in Ukraine: bombing killing ruining shamming. A Donbas that's been an organized Russian staging area for some time. Crimea land grab. Plans. A fifth of Ukraine declared part of Russia by Putin.
I suppose we could go back to speculating.
Had Ukraine become a NATO member before 2014, I'm guessing Russia would be intact (like today), and Ukraine as well (unlike today). Any fair reasons to think otherwise?
Civilians To Be Evacuated From Ukraine's Kherson As New Commander Says Situation 'Tense' For Russian Forces (RFE/RL; Oct 18, 2022)
Ukrainians told to 'charge everything' as power grid hit by Russia (BBC; Oct 19, 2022)
Russia Abandons Kherson as Putin's Army Flees Back Across Dnieper (Newsweek; Oct 19, 2022)
NATO caca.
Yes, this is exactly your problem.
You look at the West through pink-coloured glasses, apparently unable to acknowledge political malpractice when it is carried out by the West.
Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it?
You seem to look at the West with shit-colored glasses; hence you see "political malpractice" everywhere while remaining remarkably shy on exactly what malpractice you are talking about...
That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. As a result, it's easy to think that the West stinks to heavens high compared to other nations, because if you criticise, say, the Government of Iran in Iran, or the Government of China from China, chances are you will end in jail or dead - so you just don't criticize them from the inside and this creates a bias.
On this biased information basis, a politically naive Western observer such as yourself might conclude that Iran or China are much better places to live in than "the West". This would be a mistake, as you could verify by travelling there.
Constant destructive, genocidal wars all over the world, domestic human rights violations (bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, right to property, right to privacy, to name a few), utter political corruption, etc.
Quoting Olivier5
That doesn't excuse any of these things, nor does the excuse that it's worse in other places of the world, nor does it make someone who seeks to flee these things anything less than a political refugee.
Some beautiful Western hypocrisy on display here - when other countries do it you cry for war and regime change. When the West does it, well, you can leave if you don't like it. :vomit:
Sure, but here you are failing to understand at much deeper level. I’ll try to summarise the main points in the simplest way I can:
Now let’s get back to your original objection (N.B. the same considerations will apply to this other objection [1]): “Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No”. No, lots of global events do not cause “that level of damage” because the level of damage in geopolitical terms is not measurable in one single dimension (e.g. number of deaths or infrastructural damage, BTW what infrastructural damage is doing oppressive police?) irrespective of the nature of the subjacent political agency (one can not stop global environmental pollution and poverty as Putin can stop his war with a single decision) and irrespective of their impact on the power equilibria on a global scale (why on earth would one think that 1M deaths in Myanmar or Yemen or O(100K) deaths in England due to lack of public health interventions impact power equilibria on a global scale as the war in Ukraine? What’s the geopolitical theory that would support such claims? None).
Quoting Isaac
I don’t understand what you mean by “subjective” here. Surely I’m expressing my opinion as opposed to expressing the opinion of someone else. And I’m expressing my opinion about what I find intelligible as a legitimate goal of the West within the geopolitical game as opposed to expressing my opinion about what I find intelligible as a legitimate goal of Russia within the geopolitical game. But this is not subjective to me: if one knows the game of chess and understands that player A has to move in certain ways to win a chess game against B, his belief is not subjective. What could be subjective is his personal support for player A. Given certain geopolitical assumptions, I find enough intelligible some moves of the West in this war and their relevance (that part is not subjective). In addition to that, I side with the West (that part is subjective).
Quoting Isaac
You may have supplied in droves what you think it was relevant to you, not what I asked in my previous comment. I find plausible that there are “experts advising multi-billion dollar campaigns against poverty, famine, pollution, and disease” but my questions were more specific: e.g. who are the “experts in their field” arguing that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”?
Now the last experts you cited during our recent exchanges weren’t dozens but only two, as far as I can remember, namely Janne Mende and Ahmed Shaheed [2] and their quotations were about the contributions or struggles of some non-Western countries in institutionally codifying “human rights”. In those quotations, nowhere is written “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts” nor anything that resembles it enough to me. Those quotes do not fall within the scope of what I asked. That’s one a rational failure of yours. Besides you quoted them to counter another claim of mine but also in that case those quotations were beyond the scope of my claim. That’s another rational failure of yours.
Besides global governance institutions far from being an infallible or impartial normative constraining factor for geopolitical agents, they are often instruments of geopolitical power, so it’s naive to form rational expectations from global governance institutions and their history without considering the subjacent geopolitical power struggles or equilibria. Always for the same reason, prescriptions (moral, legal, epistemic) to be rational must be grounded on possibilities, means, powers. So we shouldn’t confuse the expert in the domain of what is allowed by the norm, with the expert in the domain of what can be done with proper means. Or infer from what the expert of the normative domain assesses as legitimate or illegitimate the conclusion that is what is likely the case (this would a confusion between should and can) without further assumptions. Failing to acknowledge this would amount to another rational failure of yours.
Quoting Isaac
Yet you can fail it, as you can fail an addition or a modus tollens. For example by conveniently citing what supports your point but omitting what questions it, or by confusing the pertinence of the expertise (the feedback of the expert in the institutional domain of international relations may be not as relevant as the feedback of the expert in geopolitical analysts in the domain of security). So it’s not matter of standards, but on how you apply it.
Quoting Isaac
I’m not here to resolve disagreements. I’m here to exercise my rational skills as a form of intellectual entertainment. And my impression so far is that, to paraphrase Heraclitus, you are playing dumb, dude.
Quoting Isaac
I seriously don’t understand if you understand how evidence underdetermines theories, and how it helps your counter my arguments. So until you clarify this in better terms, I’ll assume you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Quoting Isaac
Olivier wrote: “That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? No torture, no rapping, no murder of civilians, but the purely symbolic act of greasing a bullet”
So the sarcastic remark wasn’t about war crime per se, but the nature of war crimes committed by Ukrainians. You article didn’t list any of such war crimes (“endanger civilians” is not equal to “murder civilians”). And I wasn’t suggesting that wikipedia is better source than amnesty for the simple reason that wikipedia cites many amnesty papers as a source (including your article), actually is pretty much a summary of all what Amnesty has reported! How absurd is this comment of yours now? Pray tell.
[1]
Quoting Isaac
[2]
Quoting Isaac
After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth. A consequence is that you cannot "flee these things" because it's worse elsewhere. Everything is relative, as you must know.
People tend to flee non-Western countries to go in to Western countries, in far larger numbers than vice versa. That should tell you something. People vote with their feet.
In short, you can do one of two things with your Western soup: either you drink it, or you pee in it. But you pee in it abundantly and then you complaint about the taste... That's kinda odd. If you prefer some non-Western soup, go right ahead; nobody is stopping you.
You too vote with your feet, honey bunny. When you stay forever in the West, while bitching forever about the West, we all understand that you don't really mean it. Your complaints are just noise, mind farts. Otherwise, you would act on them.
Then you did not read me carefully enough. And I agree with @Olivier5
Quoting Tzeentch
As an avg Westerner, no of course. But that's not your situation, right? Nor the situation of any avg Westerner as far as I can tell.
Note that the Amnesty report in question is being reviewed by the organization. It was rejected by many long-time Amnesty members as flawed in its methodology (written only by foreigners) and conclusions that fuel Russian propaganda narratives.
There was no accusation of war crime by Ukrainian forces in that report, anyway, so @Isaac is lying, as he often does.
:snicker:
His priorities are not the same as yours, oui mon ami? Truth has ... well ...
Nothing but hypocrisy. Not that I expected anything different.
His relationship to Madame Truth is conflictual. It seems to be about beating her into submission.
Your expectations are blinding you. You are unable to see anything because you close your eyes, afraid as you are of your interlocutors.
One can enjoy the hard-fought rights of the US — freedom of speech, for example — and still recognize the awful foreign policy of the government.
I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange.
Well, people are bombarded with the "good vs. evil" picture all the time in the media and pop culture, so naturally this view transfers to the real world and thus the outcome is that some people prefer the war to go on, than trying to look for a way to negotiate to end the war.
It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other.
And always remember, always always always, to say that Putin is a criminal, which he is. Because we didn't know that.
Strange it is but just for the laughs - The Regime Change Scoreboard.
NATO = 0/1 v RUSSIA 2/30 (Draghi, Truss/Bozo)
I don't know what you mean by "reviewed by the organization". The article clearly states:
[i]Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.
Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets.[/i]
I don't know if the accusations of "fighting tactics endengering civilians" and alleged evidences provided by Amnesty suffice in legal terms though. Anyways I knew also about the reactions that the Amnesty's claims sparked from the wikipedia page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Placement_of_military_objectives_near_civilian_objects
The only ones supporting Putin are those who argue in defense of Putin. The side-picking is obvious in people's rhetoric. Personally I side with the west, not because it is an innocent perfect utopia, but because it allows progress, personal freedom and security far better than any other form of government or society so far. Siding with the least worse does not mean supporting the bad sides of it, but it damn straight stands up against the tyranny of someone like Putin.
The problem is that when people who generally argue against western ideals, i.e, and specifically, unhinged neoliberal capitalism and the consumer existence, they, in lack of actual rational thought, are unable to intellectually and emotionally handle a discussion surrounding the war in Ukraine. They're so deeply entrenched in their dislike of western society that when a person like Putin essentially wage war against western ideals and any post-soviet nation who wants to rebuild into such ideals, they get confused into somehow defending Putin or validating his perspective just because it somewhat aligns with how they dislike western ideals.
But anyone with the least sense of rationality, empathic ability and philosophical scrutiny would clearly see how tyrannical Putin really is, why he does what he does and how morally corrupt people under him are after all the war crimes and bodies of civillians and children that gets dug up from mass graves right now. It's massive, spread out and systemic, not singular events of isolated morally corrupt soldiers and leaders. From top down to individual soldiers conducting it.
The "good" vs" "bad" is in all aspects extremely obvious in this war and "picking" the side of the west does not validate previous war crimes and morally corrupt actions that infest western society, it just means that we pick the side that is the least worse, the side that can actually progress past the bad and that has a potential future where all people can live a good life with a sense of fulfillment. Putin stands for a totalitarian society where people are meat bags that can be thrown at whatever he feels he wants and progressing that society is an impossibility in its current state. If people cannot distinguish between the sides of this war, it basically means they are morally corrupt or unable to understand further than their superficial dislike of western society. Like people defending Hitler during the start of World War II. When society moved past that war, it was clear that those holding on to judging Hitler throughout his political movement and wartime were the ones who were right and the ones defending him were wrong. There was no grey area in that matter.
Some wars and conflicts aren't as complex as people like to think they are. The complexity can exist on individual scales and domino effects of foreign policies pushing details of a conflict in different directions, but picking a side against Putin, the people under him and their war does not mean we side with a neoliberal capitalist machine of destruction that the west is infected by, but the basic liberal core values that stands against the tyranny and brutality of people like Putin and the people supporting him.
But this thread has for a long time been infected by that kind side-picking. One side of empathic people who get outraged by the brutality of Putin and one side who can't align their criticism of the west with standing against Putin so they disregard any judgement of him or try to justify his reasons because of some weird emotional inability to both criticize the west and see Putin and his war machine for what it really is.
I mean that Amnesty International has launched an evaluation of this specific report to check whether or not it followed due process.
Arguing for a stop to the war is not the same as standing or supporting Putin - it does not follow at all, logically speaking.
I agree that the West is significantly freer than Russia, it's not even a contest. What does that have to do with anything?
Quoting Christoffer
Find someone here that is supporting Putin. I haven't seen one in a long time, at least 3 months, if not more. But out of everybody currently arguing, I don't see a single poster who supports Putin.
I would also like to know what is meant by "the West". Does South America count? Africa? Clearly not China because NATO members don't like it. If by the West you mean those countries here that sanction Russia, then I think it's a very nebulous notion:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/10/20/russia-ukraine-live-news-kyiv-restricts-power-use-after-attacks
Quoting Christoffer
The less bad "side" is to avoid another World War, because apparently two of them were not enough for us to get the message.
Quoting Christoffer
You can be outraged at the war crimes and want them to stop, while at the same time seeking to reduce the number of Ukrainians killed. Or you can create a Disney film in which the Empire is defeated.
There are many monsters which NATO is perfectly happy to ignore, like Saudi Arabia's bin Salman, Israel's Lapid, Brazil's Bolsonaro, Turkey's Erdogan and so on. Putin belonged to this happy camp until he acted on what he said was Russia red line for decades.
You may say my last sentence is a defense of Putin, when it is a description of fact, going all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR, stated clearly by people who actually know about this conflict, like the US' last ambassador to the USSR Joh Matlock and others. But if you can't make a distinction between these two, then we are stuck.
The point of saying it unambiguously is not to inform others about who Putin is, mind you, but to reassure them about who you are. Because if you do not believe or cannot say clearly that Putin is a criminal, then there's a possibility that you may be an accomplice of his crimes, or a supporter.
We live in insane times if every single time I post I have to say Putin is a criminal. It's a bit like saying guns are lethal during wartime (and outside of it too). What value does saying this so much have?
I've said it easily over 10 times and very explicitly, so has @Isaac and @Mikie and others. It adds zero clarity in how to get out of this situation.
From the French press. It's confirmed in Wikipedia:
Amnesty's Canadian branch issued a statement expressing regret for among other things the "insufficient context and legal analysis".[137] On 12 August, Amnesty's German branch issued a statement apologizing for aspects of the report's release and its effect, saying that it would be examined through a process initiated at the international level to determine what went wrong, and condemning its instrumentalization by Russian authorities.[138]
The reaction by the Canadian Chapter was in my opinion absolutely spot on:
Response to Amnesty International’s August 4, 2022, Press Release
Amnesty International Canadian Section (English Speaking) acknowledges and deeply regrets the hurt, anger, and disappointment caused to our Ukrainian colleagues, the Ukrainian community at large, members, and supporters across Canada following the August 4 press release on research conducted on Russian strikes between April and July 2022.
In every conflict situation, Amnesty’s primary focus is the protection of human rights and civilians, particularly those most vulnerable and at risk. Although this was the intention of the research and extended press release, Amnesty International failed on several fronts.
We regret the insufficient context and legal analysis, particularly given the nature of Russia’s aggression. These findings were not communicated with the sensitivity, responsibility, and precision required and expected of Amnesty. We recognize the magnitude and impact of these failings from an institution of our stature, particularly in times of conflict.
The manner in which the International Secretariat conducted this work, engaged with sections internally, and publicly communicated these findings resulted in creating the opposite effect and challenged our core principle of impartiality. We also regret the International Secretariat subsequent communication and response to public and legal critique.
We condemn Russia’s instrumentalization of the press release to justify its illegal aggression. Since the start of the invasion in February, Amnesty International has and continues to categorically condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an unjustified act of aggression and a grave violation of international law.
Our commitment to investigate the Russian military’s aggression and war crimes against the Ukrainian people is reflected in the extensive research conducted since the beginning of the invasion in February. Amnesty has documented war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine in nearly two dozen outputs—ranging from press releases to a 72-page report.
As a section firmly committed to an equitable and decolonized approach to human rights, we greatly regret the deficiency in the collaboration between our International Secretariat and our AI Ukraine colleagues, which resulted in the resignation of Amnesty Ukraine’s director.
A decolonial approach begins with the principle to do no harm and centering those we are privileged to work with, particularly when they are most impacted and when they tell us that they are in harm’s way. How we work is as important as what we work on—and, in this case, our ways of working from an equity-informed perspective fell unacceptably short.
Several years ago, Amnesty International purposefully decentralized to better listen, respond to, and be led by the voices of human rights defenders on the frontlines. Unfortunately, this press release defaulted to outdated ways of working that centralize knowledge and decision-making while placing local expertise and understanding at the margins. We have done this at considerable risk to our colleagues and rights holders in Ukraine. [...]
https://www.amnesty.ca/news/uncategorized/response-to-amnesty-internationals-august-4-2022-press-release/
If you are unwilling to transparently share your perspective, you have a problem, not the rest of us.
But that's the thing, it's not once in a while, it must be stated in a three-post exchange. It's not that it takes skin off my nose to say it, it's that it's like saying "torture is bad". Wars are evil, people who begin wars aren't good people, 99.9% of the time.
I don't have a problem with this issue, you can merely skim my last few exchanges. Just imagine having to say, "torture is bad" and I condemn it, every three or four posts. As far as I can see, it creates a feeling of being virtuous for condemning something so obviously wrong, that it has little merit in trying to think about ways to solve the situation.
And yet I have to say it yet again, that Putin is a criminal. Again. Ok, fine.
Of course not, but the arguments in here rarely follows that and instead boils down to defensive stances for Putin to give him something he wants to end the war without ever even thinking about the consequences of such an action. It's essentially giving a murderer who killed for money, all that money and be set free to maybe in the future murder again. And what about China, if they see that it's ok to invade and murder to gain some land and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it.
This single minded idea of ending a war by giving a criminal what he wants just to save lives is philosophically shallow and doesn't follow the actual analysis of consequences of such acts to its end point. How do you actually talk to a criminal like Putin who over and over breaks deals, lie and does whatever he wants. There is no peace talk that works with such people so thinking the war can end by giving a criminal what he wants thinking that's the end of it is naive to the extreme.
The resistance, the sanctions and opposition towards Putin seems by all measurements to actually work, regardless of what many have said in this thread. If this leads to getting rid of Putin, then it was all worth it. Would you agree that all the deaths in World War II to stop Hitler was worth it? Or should we just have given Hitler what he wanted in order to save those lives? What do you think the consequence would have been if that fascism spread and infested society on a deeper level over decades after it?
Quoting Manuel
Fair point, "the west", in my definition, are nations with democratic elections, freedom and at least some social security for its citizens. I would barely say US is a truly western society, in terms of such definitions, but they still (hopefully) have a working legal system that protects democracy and still gives people the right to speak their opinions and minds without being put in prison. If democracy, low corruption, freedom of speech, freedom to choose your own life and have protected human rights is a definition of western society, then you can use that against the nations you want to evaluate. There are definitely nations in Africa that is western by those definitions. China isn't a western nations, not because of Nato, but because they don't have human rights in place, they don't have proper elections and they have a power structure and society that limits people to the extreme. Even though on a surface level they look like a free nation.
Putin doesn't like the west and that post-soviet nations want to be western societies because that would mean his form of power gets destroyed. He is afraid that this spreads into Russia, regardless of what the people want, because then he can't be the czar he wants to be.
Quoting Manuel
There's no guarantee that giving Putin what he wants would safeguard any of that and doing that would probably giving China a reason to invade Taiwan. Too many think that avoiding a World War needs to be avoided at any cost and this gives Putin a big tool to do whatever he wants. He can just threaten with nuclear weapons and everyone will dance to his music.
Taking a stance and opposing back can also stop a World War. It's the whole foundation for the cold war and it worked in its twisted way. And that would also show China that it's not worth invading Taiwan. Which could block another potential opening to a World War. These nations lives in a past era that the rest of the world essentially moved away from and if they could evolve into more modern times, primarily by the old people in power dying off, that could help creating an actual world peace on a level never seen before. Keeping a stalemate until then is also effective.
Putin wants the west to be weak, it's how he gains power. If we give him that power, how can you guarantee he will just be ok with what we gave him and not just attack another post-soviet nation?
Quoting Manuel
Those kinds of arguments were posted early in this thread when I described potential acts by Putin that we have specifically seen later in this war. The "Movie villain" counter argument rings hollow when Putin actually acts like it and is just a way to dismiss arguments by strawman.
How would you reduce the number of Ukrainians being killed when they seek to defend themselves against those killings? We should, by your argument, give Putin some land where Ukrainians grew up and lives on after they conducted genocide. And what happens when he makes a move again? Give more land? Give up the whole of Ukraine? What about the respect for the Ukrainian people and what they want? Do you think they fight in this war just for the sake of it? You think they don't know they're dying on the battlefield? You think they are involved in a war where they don't know why? They do know why, they want to survive and be their own nation and you suggest that we should give Putin what he wants because we would then save Ukrainian lives? You think Ukrainians would be fine with all these deaths so far just to give up?
It's not me that has a simplified point of view here, it's you who suggest that ending the war at any cost is worth it, without even thinking about further consequences and what Ukrainians feel is worth fighting for. It's a naive point of view.
Quoting Manuel
No, I'd say it's a naive point of view to disregard the actions of Putin and the world view he put forward. And all actions taken in this war that made it worse has been from Putin and Nato has never been an existential threat to Russia. Putin doesn't own the other post-soviet nations and your point of view requires them to be a legitimate part of Russia, just like Putin want it to be, which they aren't. The expansion of Nato has been because of nations fearing what Putin might do and seeking security in an alliance that blocks such aggressions. I know, I live in a nation who wants this security. Any notion that Nato is an existential threat to Russia is a delusional idea promoted by Russian propaganda in order to give justification for Russias actions. And at the end of the day, Putin is responsible for all of this and any delusional idea that Nato forced him to do so is just buying into his narrative.
I left this thread to get away from these kinds of arguments because I'm tired of the level they ended up on. Read between the lines of what I write, I won't repeat myself.
It’s like me saying: I can enjoy pizza and still recognise the awful amount of calories it contains. In other words, there might be a strong link between a regime of human rights under a certain government and the awful foreign policy of that government which is undeniably hard to swallow once you realise it.
BTW the abolition of slavery in the US was the result of bloody civil war where, one could argue, Confederates were provoked into war by the federal government: indeed, many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Now I imagine somebody like you at that time saying: “I condemn the Confederates for this war, and I also condemn my federal government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of ‘picking a side’ is strange”.
Yes, it is an update from the Vietnam era:
"We had to destroy our village along with their village in order to save either one."
This is simply trolling.
Good bye.
I think in this case making the most obvious and clear case doesn't matter to some members here.
Quoting Christoffer
The same way we deal with other criminal leaders, many "our allies": Israel, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and so on down the line this illustrious list of known liars, criminals, thieves and barbarians.
You talk with them, because they are the one you are dealing with. Iraq had to talk to the US after the invasion did it not? That war was pretty ugly but nobody in the West ever said it was a bad idea for Iraq to talk with the US, as they should and did.
That's the world we live in. You don't like it, I don't like it, but we deal with what we have not what we want. That's politics.
Quoting Christoffer
As I've said many times, you negotiate. What makes you think he will move again? This war was a total disaster from his perspective, NATO got larger, they've been sanctioned like no country on Earth (with the possible exception of North Korea), not to mention the many Russians who have fled the country and those who are in jail for protesting.
And will continue dying, unless this war stops short. The Ukranian people are not a monolith, nor should they be treated as such. Some want negotiations, others want to defeat Russia. Some have argued that WWIII has already started.
Not all these views are correct: WWIII has not started. If it did, there would be no Ukrainians left on Earth, not to mention the rest of the world.
I believe sensible people should understand that giving up pieces of illegally, criminally obtained land (and this is what the borders of ALL nation states are, regardless of the state) would prefer to give a bit of land, for thousands of lives.
Will this be good news for those in the annexed territories? Of course not. How can you satisfy all the people in a country that large? It's impossible. So you try to find the least worst option, and make a case for it.
Quoting Christoffer
You are seriously misinformed and confuse the symptom with the cause. And stop with the hypocritical holier than thou attitude.
Plenty of criminals in the US and Europe, many of them far worse than Putin (Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, etc.). But if you can't see that because of some strange notion that we are better because we have more freedoms, then yes, we do well to stop here.
Putin is a criminal, a horrible one. One from a long list of criminals from powerful states.
It's not just you. Everyone here has had to say things that should go without saying. I find myself stating the glaringly obvious again and again.
Why is that so? Perhaps because we think of ourselves as philosophers, able to challenge anything no matter how common-sensical. Or perhaps because we need to build trust, as a group. Trust that we share at least SOME common ground.
We agree that the war is a crime, that civilians should not be killed, that nuclear war should be averted, that Putin is a thug, that Europe will have a very rough winter.
That's quite a lot. What we seem to disagree with is how to proceed to end this and to what extent was the West a cause of the invasion.
I think we have more in common than what we disagree, but where we disagree is admittedly very important, so it's not as if we're discussing against flat-Earthers on the other side.
If you had to apportion blame to Putin and to 'the West', what would be your estimate?
It's very hard to put an estimate on these things, it's not like physics.
Overwhelmingly I think the evidence shows that NATO encroachment was the main issue for Putin's invasion, though I do not doubt that are other, less important factors involved.
This in no case validates or gives a green light, legally or morally, for Putin to do what he did and is doing. But once we get to this level, I really believe we have to analyze things using realpoltik, not wishing that something was otherwise.
We can wish many, many things to be better or different, but this isn't how the world works. Which is sad and frustrating, no doubt, but it's what we have to deal with.
Let's set aside what caused Putin to invade, it matters less now, because the war is going on. The important question now, is what are the next steps that could be taken to end this war as quickly as possible.
What evidence is there for this, overwhelming or not?
I think this is a good idea. Our assessments of how we got here won't agree. You can criticize the West for supporting Ukraine, but that's not going to stop as long as Biden is in office. The situation is pretty entrenched at this point. More caskets will be filled.
I think @Mikie has covered this pretty well, with the sources he's given. But this article gives an outline, for instance:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
What Russia is referring to is that the agreement given to Russia was "verbal only", so it shouldn't be taken as legally binding. The rest you can imagine how Russia would view this.
Chomsky gives a good account here too, and before people begin to call him an apologist for Russia, he also said that Russia invasion of Ukraine is on par with the US' Invasion of Iraq and Hitler's Invasion of Poland, so, I think that's pretty clear:
https://chomsky.info/20220616/
That's the issue, the question now is what situation is that in which the least amount of people will be killed? Because they're already dying.
The current situation looks dire.
Lots of death, yes.
He was given a gentleman agreement, which is now easy to deny.
Here is the testimony of John Matlock, the last US diplomat in the USSR:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/
If that's not a good source, I literally can't think of a better one. Cause he called this since 1991. A Republican to boot, so a real patriot, not a wimpy Democrat, though this view has now changed a bit.
Also this:
https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion
He was led to "believe" NATO would not expand an inch to the East. Why not state it outright? It would undermine the belief that Putin wants to conquer not only Ukraine, but large swaths of Europe.
Even if the story is true, that promise would have been made to a very different Russia, one that was led by Gorbachev, was decolonizing and becoming a democracy.
As for Gorbatchev:
I'm sure he did. And it was a different Russia, no doubt.
But why expand NATO, if Russia was so different then? It was NATO's goal to be the balance against the Soviet Union, so when it fell, why keep it around? What's the threat?
But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history?
You may reply that what's happening now only proves that NATO's expansion was necessary, because of what Russia is doing to Ukraine. I'd say to you that Russia wouldn't have invaded if NATO did not expand, because there was no threat from Ukraine.
But now that's over.
What now?
A new form of fascism is rising in Europe.
Now what?
Those are consequences of wars, they first proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk as part of Russia, then they launched an assault which they thought would be easy for them but turned into a nightmare.
He has been stating as have Russian leaders, that Ukraine is a "red line" for them for over twenty years, why is this not taken seriously?
It's not Russia alone, China has stated Taiwan is a red line for them, look at the reaction they had to Pelosi's visit, which looks to be getting worse.
Does that mean that China should invade Taiwan and get rid of the government there? Of course not. But China has been warning, it would be a mistake to ignore this, I think.
From Wikipedia:
At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference.[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[12] Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
That was in 2021. By then Russia was already preparing for the war, but waited to the last instance to launch the war, see this article:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-us-nato-talks-so-far-unsuccessful-2022-01-13/
If this doesn't at least indicate that NATO was a big factor for them, because why talk at all instead of just invading?
But the question I meant to ask, wasn't about the cause of the war, it's how to go about ending it.
For argument's sake, let's say that any result that would make it impossible for Ukraine to align with the west would have satisfied Putin's requirements. At a minimum, that would require a different administration in Kyiv and a consolidation of the gains made in 2014. By that measure, nothing has changed. Both elements are needed to stop the country from becoming more 'western.'
Giving Putin territories in exchange for letting the rest of Ukraine live will not give him the neutrality he demands. It will accelerate the change he has been fighting against. So, he keeps escalating.
The choice is a partial capitulation to buy both sides temporary relief from the war or to continue the incremental form of escalation Biden has been using to answer each emerging threat as least aggressively as possible. With the attacks on the cities on the rise, it is time for lots of missile defense and contractors to maintain them.
You are right, we should have smelled the coffee a long time ago, and responded much more aggressively to the Crimea land grab. We were fools not to take his threats seriously. But now we know.
[hide]Quoting Zelensky[/hide]
This statement contains at least two falsehoods. Amnesty has issued numerous reports, news items and statements regarding Russia's war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine. And the report does not excuse Russian war crimes - quite the opposite:
Quoting Amnesty International
Nevertheless, these slanders have been endlessly reproduced online, such as in the comments to this Twitter post about an alleged Russian war atrocity:
A few critics have actually taken issue with the allegations in the report, but they tend to speak in generalities, giving the impression that they are reacting to headlines and media blurbs, rather than addressing anything in the report itself. Even Oksana Pokalchuk, former head of Amnesty's Ukrainian branch who resigned in protest over the report, misrepresents it in her criticism:
Quoting Oksana Pokalchuk
Here is what the report actually says:
It should be said, however, that the report - a press release, really - is brief and presents only the conclusions of an investigation. As far as I know, Amnesty does not make its data, methods and analysis public, which makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of its conclusions.
That aspect of their work can be problematic: the accused side can (and usually does) deny the accusations, and the only thing weighing on the opposite scale is the authority of the organization releasing the report. When the public opinion is on the side of the accused (and every side enjoys at least some public support) it becomes a popularity contest.
Quoting Associated Press
I don't think this is accurate. I suspect that either de Bendern or the AP reporter makes the common mistake of conflating losses and deaths. The former also includes injured, captured and MIA, and it is usually 3-4 times the number of killed (in the case of Russia the ratio appears to be about 1:3).
For the record, I have much respect for Amnesty, and would not want to slander anyone. I just reported on the reactions to this press release coming from within Amnesty itself, and related to due process.
The report may well be correct, factually, and pointing to issues important to address. But in context, here on TPF, it came up in the discussion branded as a proof that Ukrainians commit war crimes. Which is absolutely not the case. The report does not qualify anything reportedly done by the Ukrainian forces as a war crime.
By Tjeerd Royaards, the Netherlands
:up:
Chomsky -- after 9/11, when he was accused of being "anti-American" because he talked about the motivations behind the attack. Emphasis mine.
It's not atypical. I don't really blame people for it -- it's a tough thing to talk about factually when people are being killed.
Putin is a war criminal and tyrant and I have no desire to live in Russia. I don't support or defend him any more than I support or defend Israel's atrocities or the US's atrocities or Al Qaeda's. It's good to understand the history and the context.
Clearly not everyone can do so without emotion.
Yeah, I remember reading that. And it's true, though sadly, we can now see a literal fascist in Italy gaining power, so now Anti-Italian will be a thing again, perhaps.
I understand the emotion, absolutely and more so if you are close to Russia and Ukraine. If my family members were killed by Russians, I wouldn't give a crap about anything other than carpet bombing Russia.
But most of us here are not inside Ukraine, and so we have the privilege to analyze the information as carefully as possible, looking for solutions.
A portion of the audience believes that the bad guy should lose, no matter what. Well, I think this is highly irrational given the context of this war.
Also, I don't recall anyone arguing against the War in Iraq that those who did not want a war or wanted the massacres to stop being labeled Saddam sympathizers, but I'm there must have been cases.
I actually agree with this. I myself have tried -- maybe failed -- to communicate that. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.
Quoting neomac
OK, I guess so -- sure.
Quoting neomac
They may exist simultaneously, yes. Here in the US, for example, we're a wealthy country and enjoy many freedoms. We have public education, social security, freedom of speech, a fairly clean environment, and (from what I see) generally friendly, hard working, loyal people. Yet the foreign policy of our government (not to mention domestic policy) is often horrendous. That's not a condemnation of the people of the US. These things exist side-by-side.
Quoting neomac
We can get into the civil war another time if you like -- there's a lot to be said about it. But I see your point. However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics.
Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I'm against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc.
But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it?
Quoting ssu
Not really. As I cited before:
To say nothing of the fact that to conquer and incorporate all of Ukraine would have required far more troops and a much more aggressive strategy, which he had to know he couldn't do.
Anyway -- I'm getting the hint that you're not up for this discussion. Fair enough.
No, what's weak is simply projecting motives to someone you dislike. I dislike Putin too; I also disliked Bin Laden. The latter's reasons for attacking the US I think should be taken seriously -- I believe his stated motives were true. By no means does it justify what was done, but there's little reason to doubt those were the reasons in the mind of someone like Bin Laden. I suppose we could just say "They hate us for our freedom," or that Bin Laden was just insane...OK, that's an answer too. But we don't take that seriously, do we?
Putin was pretty clear about what was happening:
The onus is on those who have an alternative explanation. That it was just the sudden capricious act of an evil lunatic; that it was a long-planned action of an imperialist -- etc. The evidence really just does not support this. It's extremely weak. Despite being almost "common sense" to so many.
I think Putin's own statements are true, yet they do not justify what was done. Just as the US's backing of Israel didn't justify 9/11, despite those actually being Bin Laden's reasons.
--
I wish the US would eventually learn that not every country will simply passively accept anything they do. We didn't learn it in Vietnam, or in Iraq. We haven't learned from Israel. Next we will be testing China. Should anyone be surprised by the future actions of China if they continue to be provoked? I don't think so.
I don't think the US war in Afghanistan was right -- I condemned it. But was anyone surprised by the fact that there was a reaction to 9/11? No, of course not.
"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs."
Does this excuse him from robbing the bank? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. Nor does it mean we have to come up with theories about the internal workings of his soul, and the "true" motives for robbing the bank.
Lots of people (and governments) cover up their crimes with lies they tell themselves and others. But sometimes an atrocity (like 9/11) is done simply for the reasons stated. That doesn't mean they're good reasons. It doesn't mean it justifies the actions.
So what are the "real" motives? Why isn't the stated motive stupid and depraved enough? Why postulate things (with less support) unnecessarily?
This is exactly it. The US government (not the people, the government and their foreign policy) and its hegemony just will not learn its lesson: not every country will bow to its will. You cannot simply go into a country, smash it up, say "Mission Accomplished," and then be shocked when you have to stay there for 20 years, and ISIS rises from the ashes. You cannot simply invade Vietnam and not expect a fierce reaction. You cannot interfere with China's claims on Taiwan and expect them to lie down. You cannot expect the Palestinians not to be resentful of continued support of Israeli occupation.
Somehow, when it comes to making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO -- which they did, and were clear about doing -- when there's a reaction we have to attribute that reaction to something other than our involvement. It's because of evil, or because they want to take over the world, or because they hate us for our freedom, etc.
So I keep getting in your face, closer and closer -- until finally react by punching me. You weren't justified to punch me -- there were alternatives; but it shouldn't have been a shock to me that you did, given my behavior.
Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years. In the process, Ukraine, which has already suffered grievously, is going to experience even greater harm. In essence, the United States is helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path. Furthermore, there is a danger that the war will escalate, as NATO might get dragged into the fighting and nuclear weapons might be used. We are living in perilous times.
--
I think this sums it up concisely.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it looks like to me too. And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment.
But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now.
Is this war worth thousands of lives and a European super recession and even more escalations by Russia and NATO? I don't think so. I understand the other view, but the world doesn't play out as we would like.
I hope they get it all back. But that's easy for me to say. Putin will not simply slink away quietly, and since it doesn't appear that the US has any interest in encouraging negotiations -- nor does Putin -- that more Ukrainians will have to die, over what's ultimately a stupid proxy war.
Quoting Manuel
It really is sickening. There's no reason to believe he'll simply accept defeat, of course. That'd be like assuming Trump would concede an election.
True. The Vietnamese villagers didn't think it was a proxy war either. They just knew that their houses and crops were being burned and children were being killed.
I guess we should ignore geopolitical facts, then?
Beg your pardon, but that's a fatuous remark.
I did not say that one should ignore geopolitical facts. I merely note that one of the important ones has not been properly included in the analysis.
It is interesting that you use the model of a villager in Vietnam to make your point when the Ukrainians are an organized political state successfully engaging Russian forces.
[quote=Aeschylus]In war, truth is the first casualty.[/quote]
Dezinformatsiya
That said, things go awry when someone points (or keeps pointing) elsewhere at a supposed "real antagonist", "the actual offender".
As usual, we might find whatever number of questionable activities or related offenses all over, all of who may carry a measure of fault, yet when that turns to shifting the blame, then it becomes misdirection, fallacy, diversion, which is another fault.
It so happens that Mearsheimer has become a popular springboard for promoting whatever, say like "Washington installed a puppet Nazi regime in Kyiv". (I've seen this put forth in small groups among acquaintances more than once.) That's not to say that Mearsheimer's lectures/writings don't carry any merit at all, in fact the freedom to air them is important. Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game.
Anyway, when first shifting the blame, then perhaps going off on wicked storytelling, people sometimes lose patience.
I'll just note that NATO can't force anyone to join, they can admit/deny requestors and cancel memberships. Ukraine can request/cancel membership. Putin can't decide for either nor simply make a fifth of Ukraine part of Russia, but can decide to invade bomb kill destroy sham.
It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid, it is also a tone deaf argument, akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. So the more you bring up that ridiculous NATO caca argument, the more suspicion you generate.
A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place".
Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective?
There is a deep-rooted assumption here that we have to clarify beforehand. You seem to take your claim in bold as a justification of your other claims. If so, your political view seems matter of establishing what you want (e.g. rights) and are against (e.g. war), and then keep condemning left and right to get as much as possible in compliance to your preferences. For me, this is not the most rational political attitude, because it sounds like me wanting pizza and being against calories, and then condemning the government until they oblige the pizza chefs give me the pizza I like with zero calories without ever wondering if my request makes even sense. So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands.
Quoting Mikie
I disagree. Here is a definition of geopolitics: “Geopolitics is the study of the effects of Earth's geography (human and physical) on politics and international relations. While geopolitics usually refers to countries and relations between them, it may also focus on two other kinds of states: de facto independent states with limited international recognition and relations between sub-national geopolitical entities, such as the federated states that make up a federation, confederation or a quasi-federal system.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics)
So the struggle between federal government and confederate states wanting to secede, is matter of geopolitics and abolition of slavery is what avg people with progressive views could see cashing out from this bloody war.
Quoting Mikie
No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. More about this below…
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Manuel
You guys are missing 3 key points in the history of NATO expansion:
:lol: It was either x or ... ?
That's usually how it goes. But the conclusion you put forward usually only have cherry picked details from all over the place in history. I'm drawing sources from experts on Putin and Russia here, https://sceeus.se/en/
While many in this thread just reference their own non-scientific conclusions on the matter. There's a common thread among the Nato blamers to always refer back to their homeboy Chomsky, but it's beginning to become an circlejerk of appeal to authority arguments and little to no actual proper research. I'm drawing conclusions from gathered knowledge from many experts, who's day job is to actually study these things and who's been doing it for decades. Chomsky on the other hand, is a philosopher of technology, psychology, linguistics, but isn't an expert in this field of political research, he's been doing opinion pieces but is painfully simple-minded in his approach. But he's the main "expert" source for everyone who argue for the Nato angle in this matter. The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.
Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form.
That's not based on my own research, it's based on the collective research of the institute above and shared among many researching Russian foreign affairs. But in here, the counter argument just boils down to people "thinking this is wrong" because Chomsky, or some cherry picked quotes from a wide range of people in modern history kind of hints at something that might be a Nato angle. This is why this thread has a trash status on this forum.
Quoting Manuel
Most nations involved in wars and conflicts have psychologically balanced leaders who, regardless of the horrors of war, conduct diplomacy for the good of everyone. However, some leaders aren't balanced and psychologically stable and then diplomacy doesn't work anymore because one of the leaders are fundamentally untrustworthy. I'd say the same for someone like Trump. There are no deals, no peace treaties or agreements to be made with someone who breaks the entire rulebook. Putin is a type of dictator who doesn't play along except under military threat. That's his whole play.
To think that diplomacy will always work is a naive point of view that's grown out of our modern period of history where people grew up believing everyone to be rational and wanting peace. The people living today haven't been forced to deal with someone like Hitler on the world stage but here we are and anyone who would suggest diplomacy with Hitler would be laughed at.
This is the world we live in, not the always diplomatically rational bad world you describe. Sometimes threats of war or actual war becomes the only way forward when someone like Putin threatens the very existence of Ukraine or further. And this chess play also has the effect that there's a possibility of Putin being removed from power by the Russians themselves. People in this thread laughed at that when I mentioned it in the early days of the war, but they're not laughing as much today as this might actually be an outcome of the pressures put on him and Russia.
And when confronting the argument about stopping the war, regardless of cost, I'm just reminded of the tears of joy on the faces of the civillian people who're at the moment being liberated from Russian occupation by Ukrainian offensive movements. Would you tell them to their face that they're expendable for the sake of just ending the war?
The world is complex and any ideal of "no war" is a naive and potentially dangerous absolutist position that disregards the consequences of not standing up against tyranny.
Quoting Manuel
What makes you think he won't? Your foundation for him being trustworthy is by blaming Nato and make him look desperate in defense of Russia, but that's the false narrative his regime has been spreading for years. If it's rather the opposite, supported by actual research on the matter, that he wants to join post-Soviet nations back into Russia, then what do you think he will do when failure in Ukraine is a fact? He'll most likely invade another post-Soviet nation while waiting for a new opening to invade Ukraine, or rather, he will play it differently by target assassinations and puppet mastering people into the Ukrainian government trying to initiate a sham election on a higher level. Or he will take time to build up a massive army to just win by force on a whole other scale than we've seen so far. If Russia becomes a North Korea-type state, then he would just force people into the military, brain wash them to the point of submission.
But you go ahead and negotiate, what was it you said before? Some Disney empire stuff? Simplified movie version of how tings would go? I can see other movies where heroes through diplomacy save the world from war. It's even more of a Hollywood naive outcome than what I've described. You can't talk Putin out of this, if you think that you're buying into his whole strategy. Do you think his KGB methods are just in his past?
Quoting Manuel
Your absolutist ideal of stopping death disregards what many Ukrainians deem a life worth living. They don't want to live under a tyrant, period.
Quoting Manuel
Would you give up a large part of the land you live in and then live under an authoritarian regime? Are you seriously proposing crushing the dreams and lives of the people living there just to reduce deaths when Russia is already conducting genocide? What the hell do you think will happen to people living there if they all of a sudden are forced to live under Russias authoritarian leadership?
And you still haven't understood the consequences of such an act. What it communicates to the worlds authoritarian leaders. It shows them that it is possible to gain land by force. It's naive absolutism. There are no lives to be saved by giving in to authoritarian leaders. You think your idea would have saved people's lives if the same was done with Hitler? This is the whole foundation for police forces not giving into the demands of hostage takers, because if they did, how do you think others would act? If you witness someone getting away with taking a hostage and gain both money, freedom or whatever you want, then there will be an epidemic of hostage takers. It's because of not giving into demands that there's been a decline of such acts, it's not worth it for the hostage takers. But you suggest we do just that, so what would happen in other nations around the world? Those leaders are looking very closely to the outcome of this war.
Quoting Manuel
Your measurement of "least worst" is only based on a life/death dichotomy, disregarding a life worth living, which is the reason Ukrainians are fighting for survival in the first place. And what about Taiwan? What happens if China sees Russia succeeding gaining land in Ukraine? Would you "save" Taiwan in the same way when the floodgates are open for authoritarian leaders of the world to invade other nations?
When does your "solution" end?
Quoting Manuel
Would you mind sending the Center for Eastern European studies the same message please? I'd love to hear them respond to you when you call them misinformed.
Quoting Manuel
Earlier, you wrote:
Quoting Manuel
So, you speak to me about not being able to see the bad people in western society because you essentially position me to have "picked a side" against Putin and therefore I must support the bad people in western society. Talk about being hypocritical.
And if you think they are worse, let me remind you that Putin is very much involved with orders directly down to the military on the ground in Ukraine, the same military who put hundreds and thousands of people and children in mass graves. I've yet to see such a directly ordered systemic genocide by the people you mention, but yet you think Putin is less worse than them? Are you for real? Are you so blinded by your own reasoning that you become morally corrupt to who Putin really is? While so hypocritical that you criticize that we're "forced to pick a side" while putting interlocutors into a specific side anyway. Once again I'm reminded of the low quality in this thread which made me leave it in the first place. Philosophical garbage.
Very well put. :cheer: :100:
But it's meaningless for some trolls who don't see even a trace of imperialism in Russia's action. But enough of those.
What has Putin done and what are the consequences of his action taken on February 24th?
1) NATO has gone back to it's roots
Likely Trump is the last US President that argued for NATO to "reinvent" itself and face "new threats" and not focus on the defence treaty aspects of the Cold War era. This started to change in 2014, but now the large conventional war in Europe has shown that large armed forces do matter and no amount of "Revolution in Military Affairs" will change this, even if drones and pinpoint accuracy of artillery and missiles do matter. Germany's rearmament is a huge change.
2) Countries that wouldn't have applied for NATO membership have done this
Had not Russia attacked Ukraine the way it did in February, neither Sweden or Finland would be joining NATO. Sweden would be happy with it's centuries old non-alignment and Finland would be just talking domestically about an option to join NATO. And Putin's bluff was shown to be a bluff. That he belittled the fact that these two countries joined NATO just shows how hollow the argument of NATO enlargement is compared to the argument that Russia wanted Ukraine and Ukrainian territory.
3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity
An outside aggressor can unify a country. What is interesting is how similar Ukraine has it now as Finland had during the Winter War. Prior to the Soviet attack in 1939, Finland as a new independent country had a huge row about the role of the Swedish and Finnish languages in Finland and there was distrust after the Civil war which just had happened 21 years ago. After the war (or wars) the nation was unified the Swedish speaking Finns were considered Finns and there had been no fifth column from those that previously had fought on the Red side.
Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. Naturally the result of the war is still unknown, but likely this war will be the unifying moment for Ukraine.
4) If Putin loses, Russia's imperial aspirations will be in doubt
There's a time when a failing Great Power notices collectively that it isn't anymore a Great Power. For the UK (and also partly for France) this moment was the Suez crisis. The United States showed to the UK it's place and UK understood it couldn't do anything like this anymore. If Putin loses this war, there will be huge effects not only for Putin, but for Russia and how it sees itself. The classical imperialism and jingoism that Putin has so dearly advocated might likely suffer a huge collapse. The pinnacle of Putin's jingoism was the annexation of Crimea, the bloodless, quick and dashing military operation where the propaganda worked miracles: the sham elections went through and even today some in the West believe Ukraine is ruled by neonazis. Now you have a mobilization which has gotten more men to have fled the country than been taken into service. The first criticisms of how the war is going have already happened and the blame on everybody else than Putin has been made already quite public. Next is to question just why the military performs so poorly because of other reasons. And in the end the whole imperialism and jingoism can be questioned as Russia isn't living in the 19th Century. Something like it is a really tough sell if you don't deliver.
Hate is one of the "winners" here. :/
Was just looking over some of the cultural moves...
[sup]On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians (Vladimir Putin; Jul 12, 2021) ? Putin lashes out at Russians with Western mentality (CNN; Mar 17, 2022) ? Putin Lashes Out at 'National Traitors' with Pro-Western Views (The Moscow Times; Mar 18, 2022) ? We should all be concerned that Putin is trying to destroy Ukrainian culture (Jeffrey Stepnisky; The Conversation; Mar 22, 2022) ? Putin lashes out at West ‘cancelling’ Russian culture, says it reeks of Hitler’s Germany (TASS; Mar 25, 2022) ? A Kremlin paper justifies erasing the Ukrainian identity, as Russia is accused of war crimes (Chris Brown; CBC; Apr 5, 2022) ? Moscow's ethno-cultural war (Vladimir Rozanskij; AsiaNews; Apr 12, 2022) ? Draft Document Gives New Clues To Russian Plans For Occupied Ukrainian Regions (Heorhiy Shabayev; RFE/RL; Apr 30, 2022) ? Why is Ukraine trying to cancel Russian culture? (Mansur Mirovalev; Al Jazeera; May 6, 2022) ? Russia moves to eradicate Ukraine from schools in occupied Mariupol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (Halya Coynash; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; Jul 4, 2022) ? Putin Aims to Triumph in Battle for ‘Cultural Supremacy’ (Bloomberg; Sep 6, 2022) ? Putin Is Trying to Turn Ukraine Into a Culture War (Lionel Beehner, Thomas Sherlock; Foreign Policy; Sep 9, 2022) ? Previously, a Russian collaborator shared a video on social media showing people at a wedding in Crimea dancing to the Ukrainian patriotic song Chervona Kalyna, which caused a massive backlash from the occupation authorities of Crimea. (Euromaidan Press; Sep 13, 2022) ? Ukrainian TV host shows textbook to Russify school students in occupied Mariupol (Andriy Bednyakov; The New Voice of Ukraine; Sep 14, 2022) ? Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 30 (Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 30; Institute for the Study of War; Sep 30, 2022) ? Miss Crimea fined for singing patriotic Ukrainian song (The Guardian; Oct 4, 2022) ? Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO (Thomas Mallard; UNESCO; Oct 17, 2022)[/sup]
There's a (large) playbook for this sort of thing.
[sup](elevate/magnify negative (historical) aspects/examples; cast culture in a negative light; incite/induce division/instability among representatives; seek allies among non-representatives; convert representatives; question or deny its (unique) identity; destroy/attack symbols thereof; suppress expressions thereof; catch them young (indoctrination/enculturation); "re-school" (or incarcerate) representatives thereof; take control of related narratives; ...)[/sup]
No doubt there were and are such efforts.
But what does all this...crap tell us anyway? To me it suggests a regular take-over attempt on the one side (this isn't just about NATO), and growing Russo-hate (perhaps resolve) on the other, both of which are bad.
:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:
In regard to ssu's observation about language use issues, I wonder how many Ukrainians who felt marginalized about that before the occupation feel about it now they have experienced Russian forms of governance. I tried to look for research about that but failed. Probably difficult to get clarity on something like that with so many displaced people during wartime.
I made this comment a reply to you because I am not sure how the nationalism presented in your links relates to language use within Ukraine before and after the invasion.
The Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset basically follows: ‘Why should I care about other people’s troubles and turmoil — my family and I are alright.’
While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY mentality can and does debilitate progress, even when it is most needed. And it seems this distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.
That was excellent. People don't want to hear it, but she's exactly right!
Except when someone with insight into NATO and Russian affairs argues that Russia does perceive NATO expansion as a threat.
But I suppose when expert opinions don't say what we like to hear they are better left ignored.
The Ukrainians are busy elsewhere at the moment. Seems odd that they'd attack Belarus unless directly related to the Russian invasion.
Though, an overwhelming surprise attack from Belarus (plus Russia) could take out Kyiv, maybe?
Either way, Belarus not joining in would be preferable.
Quoting ssu
I admittedly expanded @ssu's comment to a broader cultural thing.
Mariupol elementary schools must reportedly now call their home "Russia", and have introduced books in Russian. In Crimea, someone singing Oi u luzi chervona kalyna at a wedding were targeted.
The machine has been rolled out, apparently part of the agenda.
This seems to be echoed by others. It's not unreasonable. But I don't see Manuel, or Isaak, or Tzeentch, or anyone else arguing in favor of Putin -- and besides, I think we're quite safe here talking about it. Putin's not listening to me.
Quoting Mr Bee
A good question. I don't know, of course. If there were guarantees that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, that the US (and others) would stop supplying them weapons and training, etc., I don't think there'd be any point whatsoever with invading. But of course that wasn't the situation. The US had made it clear that nothing was going to change regarding its stance on Ukraine. Blinken had said exactly that a few weeks before February 24th.
Quoting Olivier5
What are you referring to, exactly? Is the 2008 summit "logically absurd"? Did that not happen? Did Blinken not say "nothing would change"? Did NATO not reiterate its 2008 stance in 2021? Did the White House not explicitly double down in its joint statement on September 1st? Had Putin not consistently stated that he viewed NATO expansion in Ukraine -- not to mention weapons and training -- to be a threat to Russia? (For 14 years, in fact.)
None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. I can go through it again if you'd like.
Your feelings about Putin's "true motives" have been addressed as well. The weakness of evidence and, frankly, paranoia, lies in claims of Putin as imperialist. I've yet been shown evidence of this. I've been given a Time article and some statements made about Ukrainian history by Putin. The rest is completely unsupported speculation, repeated over and over again to the point of "common sense" by the media. But it's extremely weak. I'm open to hearing more, however.
Quoting Olivier5
This is simply your projection. It has nothing to do with me. I have not once excused or defended Putin. I never once excused or defended Bin Laden either, incidentally. What I try to do is understand why these actions are taking place. The hope is that it has some relevance for bringing the conflict to an end, particularly in one's own country -- in my case, the US.
Sometimes the reasons stated by leaders are obvious lies, sometimes they aren't. When they aren't, as in the case with Bin Laden, it still does not justify the actions.
Was China's show of force in Taiwan after Pelosi's visit excusable? I don't think so. But I don't see any reason to make up a story that it somehow wasn't her visit that triggered it simply because it would possibly give the appearance of blaming the United States (god forbid).
Quoting Olivier5
Better protection from what? What was the threat of "robbery" in 2008?
"I poked the bear because the bear is vicious."
"How do you know the bear was vicious?"
"Because it attacked me after I poked it."
So much for "logically absurd."
Quoting Olivier5
Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point.
I applaud the effort that went into this post.
I'm afraid we won't proceed to any kind of agreement, so continued discussion will not be profitable for either of us. We are too far apart.
I am curious what standard of evidence you deem legitimate in the matter. When one state invades another to obtain territory and control, what value is there in aligning that act with a set of ambitions?
If someone breaks into your house and destroys all the furniture and shoots anybody who resists, what is the point of wondering if they meant to wreak complete destruction or were only hoping to get a snack?
That's my interest as well.
Quoting neomac
OK, fine. So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical.
The issue is whether or not it's true, and to weigh alternative explanations against the evidence. I've done so, and I'm of the opinion that Putin wasn't lying about Russia believing NATO involvement in Ukraine was a threat. Please note -- and this is very important -- that this doesn't mean it actually WAS a threat -- simply that he actually believed it. After saying so consistently for 14 years -- reiterated by others in the Russian government, by experts, by foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), we should at least consider the possibility that he really believed it.
I believe Bin Laden truly believed what he was saying too, for that matter, about the US's support for Israel. Quite apart from (1) whether or not I agree with it, and (2) whether it justifies the actions.
I think this is the major difference between you and I. I see no evidence to support the assertions that Putin is trying to "make Russia great again," as someone had put it before, by conquering Ukraine and thus re-claiming what was lost after 1990. That's not the craziest explanation in the world, but in terms of evidence it's close to being on par with "They attacked us because they hate our freedom," and similar stories which could very well be true until you look at all the facts.
Better to go with Occam's razor here. And frankly, the US has been meddling in world affairs for eons. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that it had a hand in this. There's also the strong possibility that our biases blind us. We all see this a lot in politics -- when I criticize Biden, I'm accused of supporting Trump. Or else that I'm giving cover to Trump supporters, etc. That is just as silly as saying I'm giving cover to Putin.
Quoting neomac
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. Sure. I don't doubt that they had their own reasons for joining. I'm in favor of people of any country making their own choices. But do you see how that's missing the point?
Only that it's important to understand why something is happening. I was hoping not to get into history, but it was raised and so I continued with it. Before that we were discussing possible solutions/negotiations. But it's all relevant.
It is important to understand why something is happening. And if there is any kind of resolution possible through dialogue, it will have to start from a shared point of departure. If Putin did anything that remotely resembled that sort of language, there would be more options.
I would like to be proven wrong on this.
By 2022, with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, five Ukrainian regions were annexed.
Net result is that a fifth of Ukraine has been declared part of Russia (none independent, either) by Putin.
I wouldn't try a linear regression here (like extrapolating another 8 years), but Putin's moves and actions point in one direction: take-over.
That's the geography; check the map; factual tangible evidence is in.
Look at the "re-culturation" efforts (since mid-2021); more evidence (no NATO here): take-over.
You can't hang this on Putin's "lines"; you might be able to hang it on larger ambitions.
And yet, your interpretation of these facts is absurd and paranoid. Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians should die today. Try and maintain a sense of proportion, if you can.
Except that these are official statements made directly in an international context on behalf of NATO, and thus on behalf of the United States, and thus reflect official policy.
If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them.
Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? :-)
I think he did believe that. It's a little easier to tell what GW Bush thought versus Putin, though.
But just like a man can have a nice relationship with a woman, violently raping her will ruin that. Yes, you can call it a tragedy, of course.
Putin has been really poison for the universal slavophile movement. Of course, in Russia being a slavophile has meant actually to be a russophile, a disguise for Russian imperialists. Russia sees itself as a Great power, which should subjugate smaller and weaker nations. Hence the relationship between an Imperialist and it's colonies cannot be built on equality as a warm friendly relationship.
So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well:
The error was in thinking that Russia wanted to be a part of Europe when it still craved for the Empire it had lost. Or to be more specific, those that got into power wanted to get back that Empire and those who wanted Russia to be part of the West were either fired or even killed. Hence in the Slavophile way, any integration to the West was seen as this sinister plan to make Russia weak (a conspiracy promoted even on this thread).
Quoting jorndoe
And the actions on the occupied territories just make it more obvious just how existential this fight is for Ukrainians. And when this isn't only limited to Ukraine, but goes on in Russia (starting with that you cannot call it a war, but a special military operation), the dictatorial rule that promotes Slavophile jingoism will likely be detrimental in the long run for the ideology. Especially if the war goes bad.
You are convinced that the issue is whether or not Putin is lying b/c probably your line of reasoning looks something like this: since Putin honestly believed and repeatedly declared that US/NATO expansion was a threat (no matter if it really was) and US/NATO kept provoking Russia, then the US/NATO should be blamed for the beginning of this war. And since the US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war, then it has to both take the negotiation initiative and make all the necessary concessions to restore Putin’s sense of security. This is what can be done to reach peace, and peace is what we all should pursue. And if I don’t acknowledge the validity and truthfulness of this reasoning it’s because I’m biased or fell for the lies spread by the US/NATO propaganda, like the Western noble/harmless intention of supporting Ukraine, or Putin is Hitler’s reincarnation. And if I try to talk about something else, I’m missing the point.
Now, I’ve heard this argument several times on this thread. But it’s not here that I’ve heard it (or at least the first part of it) for the first time, since I’m very much interested in geopolitics and knew Mearsheimer’s views (often reported as a source for such arguments) well enough prior to even reading posts in this thread.
However, if that’s your line of reasoning and that’s all you’ve got to question my views, then you totally missed the target. Indeed, read carefully, I do not question the plausibility of your premises (Putin warned the US/NATO several times and he should have been taken seriously) nor the conclusion you care so much about (the US/NATO provoked Russia into this war) nor the fact that many experts blamed the US/NATO enlargement for that reason (after all, if the US/NATO didn’t provoke Russia, Russia wouldn’t have felt pushed to wage war) nor the fact that Putin’s concerns bear some strategic plausibility (having US/NATO so close to the Russian borders was too risky, even if NATO is a self-proclaimed defensive alliance). What I question is the idea that that’s all there is to say: on the contrary, until all these points are properly understood in geopolitics terms, as precondition to form rational expectations about geopolitical agents (i.e. Russia, Ukraine, US, NATO, etc.), your line of reasoning is deeply misleading. Here is why:
A last remark: WE ALL (me and you included) are in the same predicament here. Despite our best intentions and the best of our knowledge, we must deal with the prospect that our claims may very well be or sound instrumental to some evil propaganda as well as indirectly complicit to past/present/future crimes of evil forces. So don’t waste your time convincing me that I’m a dumb partisan while you are an enlightened impartial observer, just because you want peace&love for everybody and everybody for peace&love.
[1]
[i]Dr. Brzezinski, some critics of NATO enlargement are alarmed by the negative reaction of Russia to this policy. If, as we are led to believe by those critics, Russia has no designs on the territory of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, how does the membership of those countries in NATO impact Russian interests?
Dr. Brzezinski. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that it impacts on Russian interests adversely at all unless Russia is of the view that NATO is an enemy and that the United States is an enemy. If that is the Russian view, then we have a very serious problem, in which case we ought to expand NATO for that reason as well.[/I]
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm
[2]
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq08springbrzezinski.pdf
I understand it’s tiresome if you’ve been through this with several other people on this thread. But if you’re not interested in discussion — again, I repeat: don’t bother with me.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes.
Quoting Olivier5
Not excuses.
No, so why would you believe a US president when they say Ukraine is about Russian expansionism?
Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine.
No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq.
Quoting neomac
No.
I appreciate the attempt to reflect what I’ve said, but you’ve now made it clear you don’t understand my position. That itself is interesting, because I feel I’ve been quite clear. Nevertheless:
* I’m not blaming the US or NATO.
* I’m not saying the US needs to be the one to initiate negotiations and make concessions.
* I’m not making excuses for Russia.
By all means attack what I’m arguing. But make sure it indeed is what I’m arguing.
Quoting neomac
I never said otherwise.
Quoting neomac
Of course.
Quoting neomac
I’m wrong to suggest this because:
Quoting neomac
This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?
Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.
How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.
Quoting neomac
I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blue.
There are many other factors involved in the decision for the exact timing I’m sure.
Quoting neomac
I don’t recall doing so.
Vladimir Putin: Experts reveal reason why the Russian President declared martial law (Oct 21, 2022)
Roughly 10 years ago, Christmas 2012:
United Russia proposes to resettle 7 million Ukrainians in Siberia to create a "cordon against the Chinese influx" (Korrespondent; Dec 24, 2012)
(United Russia is the large Russian political party.)
Finland-Sweden relations, Poland-Ukraine relations, ..., regardless of whatever history.
With Putin at the helm, it seems genuinely difficult to build trusting relations with Russia. :meh: Many would otherwise stand in line to do so, is my guess, which also would be beneficial for Russia.
Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing.
The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea.
Putin has basically cut the relations. For example, the relations are so bad with Finland that the Finnish President doesn't see any reason to be in contact with the Russia leadership. There is nothing to talk about. Hence the relationship is something like in the 1920's. And this is the same President who hoped that bringing Trump and Putin together would be beneficial.
I think the West has had enough of "resets" and the only reset would happen after a regime change. Even if Putin would die tomorrow (or five years from now), that wouldn't change things. Some diplomatic interactions would be done and some rogue entrepreneurs would seek to improve the relations. But I don't think there's no appetite for example German strategy of Wandel durch Handel. I think that the way how Eastern Europe countries looked at Russia will prevail now for a long time.
Well, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? Has now Afghanistan turned into a terrorist safe haven? That was the main reason given to have US and Western troops in Afghanistan. I think there's far more than just Iraq to be criticized.
Likely the Kosovo War was real game changer, not Iraq. That really spoiled the relations and created the first confrontation between NATO and Russian. It maybe one reason why Putin's siloviks won over the "Westernizers".
Yet to understand the war in Ukraine, one has to look at other issues than NATO - Russia confontration. The bromance between Putin and Bush during 9/11 was a temporary thing. Yet then Russia did wait and successfully got the US out of Central Asia.
It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003.
It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?)
Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU? The UN? China? More direct Zelenskyy-Putin channels? It all just seems a (long) longshot, especially with the widespread ongoing bombing.
As an aside, Putin raised some concerns about Iran years back. That seems to be a thing of the past these days. I guess priorities change.
I think it was not. Afghanistan had as much to do with the 9/11 as basically Sudan. Both countries had given refuge for Osama bin Laden. And just where was Osama bin Laden then found?
The perpetrators of the first Twin Tower bombing were found in Pakistan. By the FBI. It was a police matter. And the perpetrators were sentenced to jail. In the US.
As usually terrorists should be confronted by: the police and the legal system.
But of course, when you have something like the US armed forces and a popular need for revenge, those cruise missiles and armed forces feels so good.
So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response.