Ukraine Crisis

Reply to baker Nice is-ought mistake there. Selective in your history too. And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same. And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy. The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Quoting NATO chief says Russia shifting strategy: ‘This is not a real withdrawal’

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Sunday said Russia is shifting its strategy in Ukraine, discounting the idea that it could be withdrawing from the war-torn country.

“What we see is not a real withdrawal, what we see that Russia is re-positioning its troops and they are taking some of them back to rearm them, to reinforce them, to resupply them, but we should not in a way be too optimistic because the attacks will continue,” Stoltenberg said during an interview with co-anchor Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“And we are also concerned about potential increased attacks especially in the south and in the east. So this is not a real withdrawal but more a shift in the strategy, focusing more on the south and the east,” he added.

Stoltenberg discounted the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin is scaling back his goals for the war that began six weeks ago.

NATO's said it, so it must be true, right?

Quoting ssu

Definition of siege:
a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.
This hasn't at all happened, so what are you talking about? Quite baseless remarks.

You did not read my comments.

I explain that the I never "predicted" Kiev would be 100% encircled with 0 supplies in the first place, just explaining an alternative purpose (lay siege) the Russians may have compared to entering the city and taking it in Urban combat (the dominative Western narrative at the time).

I explain why Russia would be trying to do so (tie-up troops and apply political pressure), and I also explain that Ukrainians will fight extremely hard to avoid total encirclement, as it would be a big strategic loss and so Russians maybe doing thing slowly and cautiously.

None of that were "predictions", just explaining a potential different plan that explains the convoy sitting on the road for example and the purposes of achieving said plan. I repeat several times that Ukrainians could potentially rout the Russians, just that I don't personally see how.

That being said:

Why it's arguably a siege (or then accomplished the intended purpose of a siege) anyways is:

And, key word "arguable"; I'm just pointing out the argument could be made anyways that there was a siege:

A. If all roads are cut off save one, and that can be covered by artillery, missile and air cover, maybe supplies are disrupted enough. As has already been mentioned, few sieges in history are perfect, so certainly Russia disrupted Ukrainian supply of Kiev, and with modern weapons and surveillance maybe a modern siege doesn't literally require a circle of guard and torches all the way around the city.

B. The media started reporting it as a siege once the West highway was taken, so maybe the definition of siege is changing to fit modern warfare (rather than medieval and ancient warfare).

But, whatever your definition of a siege, the operation may have been ended as the purposes were achieved before 100% encirclement was reached (whether the Russians could have advanced more or not): Mariupol seems essentially fallen, Ukraine accepts it won't join NATO, game changing moves like no-Fly zone are off the table, peace talks at least appear to be progressing (which, maybe disingenuous on Russia's part, Ukrainian part, or both, but the existence of the talks maybe one other purpose of the manoeuvre to lay siege).

Obviously, if purposes are achieved before an operation is fully complete ... there is no further reason to continue that operation. And, this is why I rephrased things as applying "pressure" to get these political concessions, of which total and complete encirclement may not be required; North, East and West maybe enough "pressure".

Quoting SophistiCat

But then the mood changes. There is the expected rally-around-the-flag effect, as well as a realization that, like it or not, this is a new reality to which they will have to adapt.

Thanks for the articles. Yes, I agree with you. And in the Russian way likely people will say one thing publicly and one thing in the kitchen with people they trust. When Putin veers the discourse into something equivalent of Soviet times (without the ideology), then Russians adapt.

And Russians do support they troops.

Quoting ssu

And Russians do support they troops.

Everyone support their troops There should be condition of enlistment that they will only fight wars sanctioned by the UN Security council. That will show them.

Quoting boethius

A. If all roads are cut off save one, and that can be covered by artillery, missile and air cover, maybe supplies are disrupted enough. As has already been mentioned, few sieges in history are perfect, so certainly Russia disrupted Ukrainian supply of Kiev, and with modern weapons and surveillance maybe a modern siege doesn't literally require a circle of guard and torches all the way around the city.

I don't think all roads save one were cut off. And I think the trains have been moving also.

(the Economist, March 18th) The trains are fast becoming the arteries of Ukraine’s wartime being, moving refugees and exports west, and critical humanitarian supplies back to the centre. Tickets have in effect become voluntary, and the system runs almost entirely on emergency state subsidies, which last month cost 18bn hryvnia ($612m).

If Russia would have disrupted the supplies going into Kyiv, you bet you would have reporters telling about it.

Quoting boethius

B. The media started reporting it as a siege once the West highway was taken, so maybe the definition of siege is changing to fit modern warfare (rather than medieval and ancient warfare).

I think here media reporting doesn't use the word accurately. It's more like if the advance stops and one side bombards a city, it is called a siege when it's not technically one. Basically it's only that the city (or part of it) has become the frontline.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Everyone support their troops There should be condition of enlistment that they will only fight wars sanctioned by the UN Security council. That will show them.

Did they in Afghanistan? Nobody supported them... the leaders just siphoned money with salaries of nonexistent servicemen and proved no support for the army to defend itself in the Taliban offensive. So it was easy for the Taleban to make the deal to the ANA soldiers that if they go home, they won't kill them. Many took that offer. The Afghan way of war.

Quoting ssu

I think here media reporting doesn't use the word accurately.

Seriously? You're quibbling about the correct terminology?

The only matter of substance with regards to the 'siege' is it's impact on the question of whether sending (more) arms to Ukraine is going to do more harm than good. In respect to that question, it hardly matters if the term is being used accurately. What matters is whether the action (whatever it was) was something successfully frustrated in its objective by the Ukrainians sufficient to increase the leverage at the negotiation table, or whether the degree of obstacle Ukraine presented was within the range of responses Russian plans anticipated.

It's to that question @boethius is applying his analysis. You pointing out that some of the terminology could be interpreted differently has no bearing on that question.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

Quoting FreeEmotion

I see no way for the good people of this world to control the trajectory of their nations be it in economy, foreign policy or the environment, maybe they never had a prayer, though revolutions keep occurring 360 degrees revolutions, these. Paradoxically, the unpredictability of war has the chance to disrupt the system. It is not ideal.

I'm not sure if it is so simply that the good things happen because of good people and bad ones because of the bad.

Things can improve even in Yemen or other places. Yet they improve in their own way with economic, social and political limitations of the society in question. Improvements can happen also in Russia, but in it's own pace and only with the agency of Russians themselves. Individuals can adapt to a new culture easily, but

Just to give an example, my country ranks the highest on the "best government list". This isn't because of our leader and politicians, but because of the society.

Let me give you a telling example. When a group of Finns find themselves in a new place together, they do two things. First they build a sauna (even if it's in the middle of the Sahara). Then they create an association. Finland has a lot of associations and a lot of Finns are active in associations. The need for various associations is obvious: if a club, a village or a group of friends decide to have anything owned collectively, they need an association. If let's say it's a rowing boat that some islanders need, it could be problematic is one person owns the boat. What if he dies? His or her heirs might just sell the boat. Hence the need for associations. And with associations comes the democracy as things are decided in associations by vote and representation.

Which then gives the society a whole way to organize itself. Things like that just don't happen with legislation and policies given by the leaders.

Quoting Isaac

Seriously? You're quibbling about the correct terminology?

Basically the situation in Kyiv and in Mariupol are quite different. One is under siege, one isn't.

Little things like that, yes, should be pointed out.

Quoting Christoffer

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet.

This has already been answered. That you refuse to engage with the answer is not something the rest of us are responsible for. Western capitalism entails, as an intrinsic part of it's approach, efforts to destroy or harm alternative systems. As such, systems compete, and are successful, not on a metric of human well-being, but on a metric of being able to survive that inter-system competition. The most sucessful systems are those which compete best in that fight. If that's a metric you're impressed by for some reason, that's your problem.

The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.

That solution is not brought about by making countries more capitalist.

Quoting ssu

Little things like that, yes, should be pointed out.

Why?

Quoting ssu

Basically the situation in Kyiv and in Mariupol are quite different. One is under siege, one isn't.

I don't care what you call it, and I never predicted Kiev to come under "complete encirclement" and "100% siege".

However, it's relevant anyways to point out it can be argued a siege mainly because lot's of media reported it that way, which affects perception and decision making.

Furthermore, if the purpose of laying siege is mainly political, then the objective end goal is likely to be more what the media reports than some physical situation on the ground: i.e. the mission is to encircle Kiev enough for media to start reporting it as a siege which achieves sufficiently the political objective, not only of serious pressure on Kiev (who, even if they don't feel it's a "true siege" would still want to break the false-siege enough for media to say they broke the siege according to the media) but also changing moods in European capitals and at home.

Sometimes media focuses on specific points on the map and builds it up as a big important battle ... whether it was true or not, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as the fact that the media is focused on that battle and those positions makes taking or defending those positions suddenly of immense propaganda value.

Western narrative built up the Western highway as "the big battle to siege Kiev" and more or less framed things as Russia taking that highway would mean it has effectively has or inevitably can siege Kiev, and Ukrainians defending it would mean they were able to militarily defend and prevent encirclement.

The highway went back and forth several times but then ended fairly securely in Russian hands and media changed their reporting from "Russians advancing" to mostly "Kiev under siege".

Again, whether it's militarily true or not, or whether journalists even had any military basis for their claim or it's just more dramatic in a micro drama of the whole war, doesn't matter. Once a battle takes on symbolic value (Stalingrad being the most famous) then everyone knows each side has high motivations to win and the battle becomes a sort of litmus test of who has the better army. At the same time, there can be literally hundreds of back-and-forth, successes and losses, elsewhere that aren't reported and have zero symbolic value, just tactical retreats or then various wins-and-losses that tend to happen for both sides in a war.

Karkiev was also reported as under siege a lot.

In military terms, given long range and standoff weapons and also intelligence, the argument can be made that a modern siege must take into account these tactics as well.

Do I need to physically setup a roadblock on every single road if I can blow up weapons shipments on the road leading into Kiev ... or even on bases hundreds of kilometres away?

In terms of denying supply, it's no longer ancient times and even in ancient times "some supply" didn't mean breaking a siege.

However, if you rather, for the strict military analysis, say "partial siege" with "larger supply line attacks and disruption elsewhere in the 'battlspace' " ... doesn't matter to me what terminology you use here.

However, it's still relevant to the analysis anyways what terminology the media uses. So, bring your dictionary definition to the media.

And yes, definitely Mariupol was under a far more intense siege than Kiev ... that something can be more intense doesn't mean less intense things can't also share the same characteristic. "Less intense red" is still red.

Quoting FreeEmotion

The big question is : do the people of that country have a say in how that country is being run? Peace, stability, prosperity, these things are important, but how do you get there?

Through the citizens of that country pushing for those things. Apathy and low education give birth to despots and tyrants. So education is extremely important, if there's anything that people from outside a country can do as a way to influence a nation to develop these good traits by themselves, it is to push education into that nation.

A good and easy example is poor nations where people don't have any education at all and there's no real government push for state-run education that is good. While everyone in western nations run around giving money to charity to feed these nations it does very little to change their status quo. However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.

If people don't know why a corruption-free democracy is better than the status quo, they only have the status quo to live for.

It's the old saying; Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

It's the same with politics: give a man a government and you will govern him, give a man the knowledge of government, and he will govern himself.

Let's take Sweden as an example. While there are factors that most likely are important to the state the nation is in today, like being "neutral" through two world wars and having a history of pushing for education and knowledge, like the Nobel prize. A major key element is how socialism formed and became a core feature of support for the people and how people get educated. The state funds education, even higher education, and it doesn't cost the citizen a dime to get that higher education. We even get paid for it and can take a small very low-interest loan for higher education to help us with rent and stuff if we need to live close to the university. All this makes it possible for any person of any class or economic situation to get top education if they strive for it. This in turn generates a high number of people able to participate in shaping society based on actual knowledge of the topics that need to be changed.

In recent years there's been, just like most nations in the west, an increase in right-wing extreme politics, with politicians from that part of the political spectrum getting into parliament. What is the most common thing among these politicians and the people voting for them? Low education. And that low education is purely based on the people having all that education free of charge and open to them, but their apathy led them down that path.

So education is the key here and whether people have a good relation, opportunity or apathy towards that education.

Russia has a lot of educated people and those are almost statistically everyone who opposes the war and Putin. The problem right now is that they risk everything if they speak up. But a huge population in Russia has little to no education, just like how the right-wing extremists of the west have been winning through the part of the population who has little to no education, so does Putin and his propaganda machine win on their support. Right now there are too few in Russia, even though there are millions of them, who are opposed to the war and educated enough to see what Putin is actually doing, to see things for what they are. But imagine if education could creep into a larger portion of the population? Then it's just a matter of time before there are enough people to oppose the status quo and when the state can no longer control the population, that's when coups and revolutions happen to radically change things.

If a nation is a security risk to the world or risk of doing atrocities towards its own people, we have enough examples of how interventions in terms of invasion and forcibly applying "democracy" do not work at all. Yes, some leaders are sometimes so bad that the removal of them might heal the nation or remove the direct threat, like how Hitler's death broke the camels back on the Nazi empire, but most often than not, it's an uneducated and poor mass that gives way for such authoritarian power.

In general, if you give the people free education and enough people apply for it, it will change the nation at its very core. The best way to change Russia from the outside, in a way that doesn't prevent themselves from changing on their own, is to try and "smuggle" in education that bypasses the state propaganda education. Schools or online education that is possible for anyone in Russia regardless of their geographical location. Get some Stalink dishes into the countryside so people can bypass state-controlled internet.

Give the people an open door to all that knowledge outside of their state control and over time it will change things. Putin and his authoritarian power can only survive on the people not knowing or understanding what he is doing or how the world outside actually is.

Like, reports are coming in that many of the Russian soldiers in Ukraine... don't even know what Ukraine is. And the soldiers who went to Chernobyl and dug trenches in the red forest, have no idea where they are and they didn't even know about the Chernobyl accident. This is how Putin controls them, by their low education and total obliviousness to the outside world. Imagine what would have happened if these soldiers knew about Chernobyl, knew about Ukraine, and that Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia or that there are no Nazis like Putin describes the government in Ukraine to be. The fact that so many Russian soldiers have deserted or even turned on their leaders, even killed them, shows that some of them might have realized the truth and reality of everything and turned against the lies they've been fed.

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out. And just 30 years after Soviet collapsed, that's a very short span to go from that level of state-controlled information to a very short period of openness, back into similar state-controlled information.

Smuggle education into Russia, educate the people, that's the key to changing Russia without force and with stability at its core.

Quoting Isaac

The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.

That solution is not brought about by making countries more capitalist.

I'm asking for a real-world solution to an active problem that is existing right now. You are talking about anti-capitalist philosophy that I am agreeing with, but as I've said before, being an idealist in a time you need a direct solution is not possible, you need to be pragmatic. If you have a nation that is conducting war crimes in other nations after invading them as well as silencing its own people, then trying to form a new standard of global politics that bypasses capitalism is really not a solution at all.

What are the real-world actual solutions to the problems in Russia and Ukraine? I think the problem with this thread is that too many sit in their comfort and invent utopias in their heads and are unable to accept that the lesser bad is the better solution at this time. Russia becoming a westernized nation, primarily in terms of protected rights for its people and low corruption in government, might require all those bad other things with capitalism, free markets, and consumerism since much of the western standards have all of that built-in and might be inseparable in the short term.

The point I've made is that if you take all forms of societies and pit them against each other, on a large scale, the form that has the most ability to change over time is the western version, the one focusing on free speech, broad education, protected rights of the people, authorities that can review politicians and scrutinize policies etc. etc. Other forms of societies that focus more on tradition, religion, authoritarianism (dictators), and so on, generally have little ability to change since it's not built in to question the status quo.

So we can have a whole other thread of discussing the bad parts of western society, how consumerism and capitalism is ruining the world and I'm just as critical as anyone else educated on the matter. But I'm not blind to having a bias toward that critical view to the extent that I cannot see that solutions in the now and real-world today in terms of this conflict need a pragmatic perspective that enables actual solutions based on what is actually existing, not what utopian form of world past capitalism that we can think of, because that doesn't help anyone right now. Russia could go full westernized, remove Putin and corruption, have free elections, free and independent media, good education for all and be just as consumerism and capitalist as the west (which they really are anyway), and that will still be a better point of origin for future change past capitalism than how things are right now. That is my point.

@Isaac @Christoffer

I asked you nicely many pages ago to be civil or else ignore each other. It’s hard enough to maintain quality in this thread. When you don’t comply I’ll delete the offending posts.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/675963

If you have a problem with this, start a thread in the Feedback category. Don’t complain about it or attempt to justify yourself here. I’ll delete such posts.

About 'poor' nations which I have some familiarity with, it is the external shocks that prevent them taking the path of peaceful development. One option that has been taken is an authoritarian leadership that is able to suppress the natural pendulum power swings between opposing groups - that takes too long and cause too much violence. We agree that education is important, so is the right for sovereign nations to work out their problems internally, without foreign interference, which, ironically is the what is being denied Ukraine at the moment. I do not see how to avoid this unless people see the need to spread non-violence instead of 'democracy'

You made an interesting comment about Russia:

Quoting Christoffer

Russia could go full westernized, remove Putin and corruption, have free elections, free and independent media, good education for all and be just as consumerism and capitalist as the west (which they really are anyway), and that will still be a better point of origin for future change past capitalism than how things are right now. That is my point.

Could they? How could the Russian people achieve this? There is no magic spell for changing a nation, other nations can help or hinder the process, and in this case I think that there is case to be made that Russia was not helped.

Maybe you could answer the question as to who benefits from the current power structures in international politics and how can that be changed so that all nations prosper?

Instead of protesting specific military actions, people should protest militarism: but does the common man out there have the intellect or courage or insight to do this? Why aren't we all anti-war?

Here is one faith that addressees the issue at hand, I believe all religions center around this idea in one form or another. (This was the first result from a search engine, not Google, for "can all nations prosper?")

In other words, a purely material civilization bases itself on the zero-sum game called survival of the fittest, where one wins and another loses. But from a Baha’i perspective, a divine civilization, based on the spiritual virtues of love, kindness, justice and equity, operates with a completely different framework and philosophy—that we live in a world of abundance and bounty, where prosperity for all can become a reality:

https://bahaiteachings.org/zero-sum-one-nation-prosper-others-dont/

Reply to jamalrob Reply to jamalrob

My apologies. I'll try again.

This...

Quoting Christoffer

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out.

...is a racist trope.

As is...

Quoting Christoffer

However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.

I'm not saying @Christoffer is racist, but those two positions are both common racist tropes that need to be called out as such.

Societies which are less well developed (whether governmentally or economically) suffer from a range of constraining conditions - the majority of which are created and actively maintained by the more developed nations, and it is those conditions, not a lack of intellect, which keeps them where they are.

Were the proposition that a lack of education in advanced engineering held back a country's engineering capabilities, it would be perfectly arguable - but that an education in essentially, 'how to think' is necessary implies that these country's natively lack such an ability.

To be clear - the relation to this thread - it is Russia's material conditions, not the intellectual capabilities of its inhabitants, which prevents change.

Quoting Christoffer

If people don't know why a corruption-free democracy is better than the status quo, they only have the status quo to live for.

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone in this thread, if not everyone, shares this same opinion.

The only differences are that of how to go about achieving it, which I think both Reply to FreeEmotion and Reply to Isaac already brought up some key point about.

We'd all like to see Russia and Ukraine and everywhere less corrupt and more democratic ... so, how? Is the key question as has been mentioned to you. Feel free to explain to us how we actually do anything about it, other than just complaining about it and assuming anyone "fighting it" has righteous cause (regardless of the outcome or how many people suffer and die).

However, it seems to me you are confusing support for what you want (which we also want) with opposition to Putin and the Western narrative of how that opposition can be carried out.

The reason us "geopolitical realist" camp is not on this bandwagon is simply because "where does that lead"?

For example, you say Yeltsin was better than Putin because some total chaotic shitshow in Russia is somehow going more towards freedom and self determination (than exactly towards authoritarianism to clean up the shitshow once people simply can't deal with it anymore and prefer some sort of order, even unjust, to chaos).

However, the realist view of Yeltsin was instability and chaos (including tanks firing on parliament buildings) in a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons.

That is really the key thing for the realists: "improving Russia" by taking down Putin ... first how? Nuclear weapons? Covert coup that results in total chaos and nuclear weapons?

The policy choices are very much limited and conditions by this fundamental and pretty big fact.

For example, Hitler didn't have thousands of nuclear weapons ... and if he did, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have just shown up unannounced on D-day and I'm pretty sure Stalingrad would not have "held out" against a nuclear strike.

This is the key problem, nuclear weapons do change the situation, you can effectively blackmail the world with enough nuclear weapons.

The only reason this has not happened since WWII is because people think other people aren't crazy and immoral enough to use nuclear weapons and immense diplomatic effort put into creating a dialogue and "status quo" as you put it where nuclear weapons are simply off the table for tactical use.

Just like chemical warfare was simply tacitly agreed off the table in WWII, even though no one expected that to be the case given the massive use of chemical weapons in WWI there was no reason to believe no one would resort to them in the next war (indeed, Luftwaffa even designed their bombers as small and agile to deliver chemical weapons ... why drop tons and tons of bombs when a ton of nerve agents gets the job done).

The geo-political realists of today fear nuclear weapons and are willing to make concessions to limit their use, and certainly feel it foolish to actively provoke their use.

No one really knows what will happen once someone "breaks the ice" in terms of using nuclear weapons to make a point or win a battle.

Kremlin's negotiation position is basically: I don't want to go there, but I will.

There is nothing we can really do about that except return to good faith dialogue and deescalate demonising both Putin and the Russians.

We cannot "win" with sticks and stones, and therefore can only "win" with words.

Which words exactly is the question.

Quoting Wayfarer

They're depressingly subservient. It seems they have totally bought into the fact that Putin is an absolute ruler.

Well, you have to assume that there is a negative selection at work here: how else could these people climb up the power hierarchy and stay there? There are no heroes among them, to be sure. (Although a few at least jumped ship, but that's not an option for everyone.)

Quoting ssu

I don't think all roads save one were cut off. And I think the trains have been moving also.

Evacuation trains have been leaving Kiev every day since at least early March. But never mind facts, let's listen to some bullshitter obsessed with proving a point :roll:

Reply to SophistiCat

Totally agreed. "Harming" the oligarchs actually removed their influence ... not motivated them to do anything about Putin.

The influence of the oligarchs is that they had wealth abroad and therefore could "arrange" certain deals within Russia based on wealth outside the control of the Kremlin. Placing all their wealth within the control of the Kremlin simply removes their influence basically entirely.

It also reduces, by definition, corruption if powerful people can't launder money around in foreign countries to get favours. So we have made Russia less corrupt.

From the NY Times;

"While Russian troops have battered Ukraine, officials in China have been meeting behind closed doors to study a Communist Party-produced documentary that extols President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a hero."

"The humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union, the video says, was the result of efforts by the United States to destroy its legitimacy. With swelling music and sunny scenes of present-day Moscow, the documentary praises Mr. Putin for restoring Stalin’s standing as a great wartime leader and for renewing patriotic pride in Russia’s past."

Disgusting

Quoting SophistiCat

Evacuation trains have been leaving Kiev every day since at least early March. But never mind facts, let's listen to some bullshitter obsessed with proving a point :roll:

It's just part of actually analysing what is actually happening.

Russian military advances on Kiev, applies large amount of pressure (call a siege or a half siege if you want), media start reporting it as a siege, Ukraine publicly abandons (under pressure that includes a half siege) political objectives like joining NATO or "the right to join NATO even if you can't actually join NATO".

I'm not denying that one road was left in the South ... I even point that out. "Dictionary definitions" (if you ask the people that write dictionaries) do not define language and how terms are used in a given context, but try to record how language changes overtime ... so maybe the word siege is taking on new meaning to refer to Russian tactics in this war, as that's what the media keep explaining.

However, even so, if Russia has intelligence on what are resupply and what are evacuations (leaving the city ... so not supplying it), and just blows those supplies up (like intelligence there's a bunch of soldiers and weapons on a base and just blows that base up), seems to me is part of the evolution of siege tactics.

Likewise, maybe the modern definition of a siege to compel concessions (such as surrender) makes sense to now include other more modern day civilian pressures (... like, I don't know, living in a subway for a month), and not just literally starving to death in a castle.

And it's not me saying these things, media repurposed the word siege for this modern situation.

However, I don't care if you call it a siege (why I changed by language to "pressure" and "surround" to be more general of whatever was actually happening), but the media used the word siege all the time and that has a political effect.

Which are pretty obvious points to make, and if you don't care about them ... maybe you just don't care about the topic.

And, if the definition of the word siege interests you so much:

According to Wikipedia (after mostly talking about sieges in ancient times, medieval times, Mongol and Chinese times, renaissance "age of gunpowder" times, WWI and WWII times):

Quoting Siege, Wikipedia

Post-Second World War

Several times during the Cold War the western powers had to use their airbridge expertise.

- The Berlin Blockade from June 1948 to September 1949, the Western Powers flew over 200,000 flights, providing to West Berlin up to 8,893 tons of necessities each day.
- Airbridge was used extensively during the siege of Dien Bien Phu during the First Indochina War, but failed to prevent its fall to the Vi?t Minh in 1954.
- In the next Vietnam War, airbridge proved crucial during the siege of the American base at Khe Sanh in 1968. The resupply it provided kept the North Vietnamese Army from capturing the base.

... how are these sieges if there all supply wasn't cut, which obviously includes air as another "root" out.

and also

Quoting Siege, Wikipedia

The siege of Khe Sanh displays typical features of modern sieges, as the defender has greater capacity to withstand the siege, the attacker's main aim is to bottle operational forces or create a strategic distraction, rather than take the siege to a conclusion.

... Why isn't wikipedia sticking to a single dictionary definition of a siege but adapting it to modern context and purposes? Someone should inform them.

They applied pressure on all those dead civilians in Busha alright.

Reply to SophistiCat

What seems much more like obsessing over a point is going over analysis literally 4 weeks ago, which difficult to deny now, was far more accurate than what the Western media narrative was at the time (what my analysis was about: proposing other possibilities) ... and finding only the criticism that I predicted a "siege" and "encirclement".

Criticism that is simply wrong, as I was just explaining another purpose for the Russian operation there en lieux of entering Kiev and taking it with urban combat.

The prediction was simply that whatever is achieve militarily Russia can simply announce anytime they achieved their objectives (as they only ever stated fairly minimal explicit goals and demands), a prediction that has come true.

Had they achieved more (which would have included encircling all of Kiev or taking all of Ukraine if there was zero resistance) then they would have declared that mission accomplished.

As for whether the operation around Kiev was or is successful, and or whom, that will depend on what happens next.

And if posters here want to say Ukrainians "won the battle for Kiev" but may lose the war ... sure, I don't have a problem with that terminology either, but my military analysis is more focused on "winning the war" part.

Quoting Olivier5

They applied pressure on all those dead civilians in Busha alright.

Why weren't they evacuated by those trains just mentioned as evacuating people because Kiev wasn't under a siege in any sense of the word?

Finland evacuated the entire Karelian region before fighting the Russians on it, by force: you didn't have a "choice" to stay and be brave.

Even grandma's were forced to leave. There's a famous story of soldiers coming up to one grandma's house to force her to leave before burning it down.

She says "no, I'll do it myself," and then takes the fuel and torches her own place.

Point is, she wasn't just left in the path of intensely destructive warfare.

So if Finland (who lost the war with the Soviets) is the model, why not evacuate civilians from war zones like Finland did?

Quoting Christoffer

What are the real-world actual solutions to the problems in Russia and Ukraine? I think the problem with this thread is that too many sit in their comfort and invent utopias in their heads and are unable to accept that the lesser bad is the better solution at this time.

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you? I can't think of any way to interpret this question other than a rhetorical one implying you find those approaches inadequate. I can't believe you're genuinely unaware of them.

Quoting Christoffer

The point I've made is that if you take all forms of societies and pit them against each other, on a large scale, the form that has the most ability to change over time is the western version

Yes. And the counterargument takes issue with your use of 'all'. If you compare current societies, the Western ones probably experience more freedom overall than ones like Russia or China. But this is an irrelevant fact without some argument as to why we are obliged to pick from the current ones.

Quoting Christoffer

solutions in the now and real-world today in terms of this conflict need a pragmatic perspective that enables actual solutions based on what is actually existing, not what utopian form of world past capitalism that we can think of, because that doesn't help anyone right now.

As has been pointed out before, your lack of imagination, or unwillingness to read up about alternative politics, is not an argument. It's just a poor reflection of the depth of your engagement with the issues.

Quoting Isaac

This...

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out.
— Christoffer

...is a racist trope.

So, you mean that the fact that a large portion of Russians is educated, especially outside of the denser cities, is racist?

Is Russian soldiers not even knowing what Ukraine is or what Chernobyl is because they didn't get any education about any of it... racist?

Or is it that you just twist this thing into calling it such a trope in order to have an easier time making an argument?

Quoting Isaac

As is...

However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.
— Christoffer

So, for example, a nation under a government that is corrupt or has little means to handle poverty on their own and almost no people educated enough to be able to work to better the nation's situation, does not need to change that status quo? And helping those nations with getting children free education so that this structural problem can be bypassed in order to have a new generation that can build something better on their own... is racist?

Quoting Isaac

I'm not saying Christoffer is racist, but those two positions are both common racist tropes that need to be called out as such.

Or, you reshape them into racist tropes without caring to understand or read what I actually propose, what I actually argue for. You ignore everything else and just focus on a cherry-picked part of my entire text so that it can fit your trope narrative and be easier to argue against. This is an extremely low-quality way of engaging in the discussion and a disgusting way of labeling others with some guilt of association. It's appalling really.

Quoting Isaac

Societies which are less well developed (whether governmentally or economically) suffer from a range of constraining conditions - the majority of which are created and actively maintained by the more developed nations, and it is those conditions, not a lack of intellect, which keeps them where they are.

I never talked about lack of intellect, I talked about education. Are you unable to understand the difference between the two? Russian soldiers don't dig trenches in the Red Forest and irradiate themselves with that soil because they lack intellect, they do it because they lack education about where they are and what consequences such actions have on them and others.

It's you who reshape what I write into being some pro-imperialistic talk of lower intellects among poor people. This type of reshaping my argument just renders what you write now as total nonsense. Because you can't see the difference between education and intellect or willingly mix them together to say I write racist things.

That's disgusting rhetorical behavior that I wished the mods took notice of.

Quoting Isaac

but that an education in essentially, 'how to think' is necessary implies that these country's natively lack such an ability.

Are you unaware that you are writing on a philosophy forum? Like, you don't understand what I mean with education enabling active thinking about ongoing problems in their nations? Like, you don't get that I'm implying that education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve.

Like, when I write:

Quoting Christoffer

Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.

I, of course, mean that they have gotten an education that gives them the tools, the knowledge to deconstruct the problems in their nation. If people get educated, they learn about different perspectives, different facts, and historical events, they are much more able to examine the problems in their own nation and have the ability to channel their intellect towards practical solutions, both as a competent workforce for building their nation and as intellectuals forming laws and other ethical solutions. Without any western intervention meddling with their progress. What I'm talking about is that knowledge is a pool of perspectives where you can test out your ideas and faster reach working conclusions. Without knowledge, without education, you will be fumbling in the dark and it doesn't matter if you have the intellect of Einstein, he wouldn't have channeled that intellect if he didn't get the education necessary to think about physics in the first place. If you get poor nations free education, you give the people the ability to more effectively think about their own life and their country and how to fix things that are broken with it.

But you interpret that as "how to think", as in "imperialistic pushing an agenda". Because you seem unable to view anything other than through that lens and it's getting tiresome.

You actively misinterpret to fit your own narrative of this discussion. When I talk about education giving people the tools for changing their own destiny, you interpret that as imperialistic intervention to make the "poor stupid people" think like capitalists. That kind of stretch and the implied racism is way over the line of acceptable.

Quoting Isaac

To be clear - the relation to this thread - it is Russia's material conditions, not the intellectual capabilities of its inhabitants, which prevents change.

But it is a fact that the Russians who want to get rid of Putin, the corruption, the war and everything are the educated, more wealthy citizens of the major cities. Most others outside in the rest of the nation does not have the same level of access to good education or they're fully under the state propaganda and has basically lived in a Plato cave of Putin's narrative.

The fact that some Russian soldiers don't even know what Ukraine is, have never heard of the Chernobyl incident or seem to have any knowledge outside of what the state told them, shows just what low education does to people. As I've said, they could have had someone with Einstein's intellect within those troops, but without education, he's drafted to be cannon fodder.

The thing that prevents change in Russia is a despot dictator who shuts down any form of public discourse, any form of will to change from any of its citizens. He shuts down every attempt at change. It has nothing to do with material conditions.

What I said was that if the uneducated, poorer citizens that are mostly outside of the major cities, who are often drafted into the military as these young soldiers in Ukraine are, would have had an education that teaches them about Ukraine, Chernobyl, that gives them the space to think critically, nurture their creativity and captured their imagination with facts about the world, they wouldn't have so easily been able to be lured into the hellhole of war for someone's ideal they don't even understand.

Bottom line is that education and intellect are two different things but you seem to be confused as to which is which or what I actually wrote about because you confused the two of those concepts together in order to call someone's writing "racist". I didn't even write "intellect" anywhere, I talked about education, about learning facts, about learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. Without those tools you have intellect and no facts or concepts to use your intellect through and therefore changing your country becomes much harder. Nowhere did I even remotely imply that poor nations have lesser intellects, that's your words, your writing, your concept in mind, not mine. So stop making that part of my argument, I talked nothing of the sort.

Quoting frank

"While Russian troops have battered Ukraine, officials in China have been meeting behind closed doors to study a Communist Party-produced documentary that extols President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a hero."

It's a comment on our different ways of looking at things that I do no find this disgusting at all. The Chinese population knows that Facebook is banned in China, that YouTube is banned, that there are restrictions from news outside.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/media/bbc-news-banned-china/index.html

BBC is also banned, although there were getting their eyefull of Western Propaganda until 2021.

This is classical party line politics. Anyone who lives in a country where Western news is banned, having the natural skepticism that is part of being human, will conclude that the government wants to hide something, and is engaged in news-shaping.

Don't you think the Chinese, being human beings, will judge for themselves if unleashing death and destruction on Ukraine makes President Putin a hero? It really beggars belief to even imagine that the propaganda item mentioned will be more regarded as more than a curiosity by the Chinese, except those who want to believe it.

Quoting frank

"The humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union, the video says, was the result of efforts by the United States to destroy its legitimacy. With swelling music and sunny scenes of present-day Moscow, the documentary praises Mr. Putin for restoring Stalin’s standing as a great wartime leader and for renewing patriotic pride in Russia’s past."

I think that most of the time propaganda of this type helps to support, not to create, views that are already held. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a goal of the West, if not planned, was one of the biggest coincidences of modern history. So I it comforting to see other people agreeing with me.

Vladimir Putin a hero? Well, there are tragic heroes, so no offence, but he might turn out to be one.

We don't need another hero.

[quote="Tina Turner - We Don't Need Another Hero";https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tinaturner/wedontneedanotherhero.html"]All the children say
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
The thunderdome

So what do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
[b]Will our story shine like a light
Or end in the dark[/b][/quote]

Quoting FreeEmotion

Don't you think the Chinese, being human beings, will judge for themselves if unleashing death and destruction on Ukraine makes President Putin a hero

A few will. There was a time when Russians and Chinese tried to face the truth about what communim did to their countries in the 20th Century.

It's incredibly hard to face that kind of thing. There's a strong impetus to turn away from it and say it didn't happen.

I'm afraid that lauding Stalin as a great man is is line with denial.

Quoting boethius

So if Finland is the model, why not evacuate civilians like Finland did?

I would think only a fool will send most of his protective armor, a large part of his defense, the human shields, out on trains. It is Illegal, inhuman, but I hope you see the insanity in advertising to the Russians "The civillians are gone, all gone, the only ones left here are those who want to kill every last one of you so do your worst". That is patently insane, and in the terror of battle I am not sure how I would react.

Maybe I would prevent the civilians from leaving and try to make believe that the Russians will not attack so much because they don't want to look bad.

Quoting frank

I'm afraid that lauding Stalin as a great man is is line with denial.

One of the sacred traditions of this earth is to laud mass-killers as great men.

I deplore it, but that it is.

I refuse to use the title "Alexander the Great" for example.

Reply to FreeEmotion Isaac Asimov despised Alexander.

Quoting Isaac

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you? I can't think of any way to interpret this question other than a rhetorical one implying you find those approaches inadequate. I can't believe you're genuinely unaware of them.

Why would I? I live in one of the most stable socialist nations in the world while everyone else tries to copy it. And we still have a free market as well, we also have problems with capitalism as everyone else, and making us more socialist, more Marxist won't improve our nation at all, it would probably just introduce much more problems than our functioning socialism right now. The socialist utopian dreams of people in nations like the US usually are more fantasy than practical reality. Just "make a Sweden" of the nation and start building on that in that case. It looks like you keep making the argument that my "western standard" concept is something like the US? The US is rotten in terms of western culture, it's the worst version of it, a neoliberal nightmare. I'm glad I live in Sweden, and it's light years ahead of many others when it comes to a socialist western society. Use us or Norway or Finland as the measuring stick instead.

But then there's the socialist extreme left who think inventing utopias in their heads solves real problems people face right now. So far I'm all for structuring away from neoliberal market societies, but the radical socialists have dreams just as problematic. And how is that a solution to what I'm writing about?
How is that a solution to freeing the people of Russia from Putin's authoritarian boot? This is the problem I'm talking about, you have no actual real-world solution, you have a utopia in your head, a conceptual dream that won't help anyone until their basic needs are met.

You either accept a lesser bad that is able to be changed by the people, or choose a worse bad that blocks the people from being able to change. That's my point. Russia right now can't change, a westernized Russia could change. If you want a socialist change, you can only change towards that if people are free to want that.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. And the counterargument takes issue with your use of 'all'. If you compare current societies, the Western ones probably experience more freedom overall than ones like Russia or China. But this is an irrelevant fact without some argument as to why we are obliged to pick from the current ones.

Because if you want to change for the better when every one of them is bad... you pick the lesser evil. Western society is the lesser evil, we have a lot of problems, but we are free to change it, the people are free to try and change it. The other forms do not allow for such change because they silence the people when they try or they limit the knowledge that can be learned in schools in order to keep people under their control.

So when I ask you to pick a functioning real-world existing alternative to a westernized Russia as a counterpoint to me saying that a westernized Russia is the best starting point for enabling change through the people going forward. Then I want you to pick a type of society that can actually be implemented in Russia that will enable a better outcome than my example. If you can't do that, but still argue against my point, then your only outcome is to either have an alternative form that is better or argue for the status quo of Russia right now to be better. Or that you don't have a solution and just point out that a westernized Russia is bad as well, sure, that is true, but that is also pretty irrelevant when trying to find solutions to problems in the world. What other alternative can you present? That is a probable solution for Russia?

Quoting Isaac

As has been pointed out before, your lack of imagination, or unwillingness to read up about alternative politics, is not an argument. It's just a poor reflection of the depth of your engagement with the issues.

I'm asking for real-world solutions that can actually be done right now. If you want to live in fantasy land go right ahead. As I've said numerous times, there's a time and place to discuss new forms of societies, but when it comes to applied philosophy and finding actual solutions RIGHT NOW for the current situation, you cannot invent some vague socialist utopia in your head and shoot down all other solutions. That is NOT a solution. My argument was to start with a westernized Russia, that gets them to a point where they can do as we can do, where they can actually discuss things like this, where they, you know, can actually utilize that imagination to build something new.

But you are arguing like all others who dream of utopias, that we should just skip progress to that utopia. That is what destructive revolution leads to, overthrow the old and then have no fucking clue how to actually implement the utopian dream into practical reality.

I do not lack imagination, I just have a greater understanding of the concept of time and change. Political landscapes are just like geography, mountains stand strong because they change slowly. Changes that are stable and fundamental for a nation might take many generations to reach its final stable goal and when reaching them they have merely become a synthesis of more concepts than originally thought up.

But such change needs a foundation so it can change. If free speech, free and independent media, free communication, free education, free knowledge, and a great protection of the people and their voice against power is there at the foundation, it is the soil that new types of societies can grow out of. If you take that away, like in Russia, like in many nations with authoritarian regimes, you take away the soil and the growth dies, becomes dirt and static death.

Utopias mean nothing if there's no soil for them to grow out of. Dreaming of such utopias means nothing if the goal is to change the world. You start with the soil and go from there and if the fact of the world today is that this "soil" is most common in westernized nations, then so be it, that's a fact of reality right now, start there and build from there instead of trying to grow where there is no soil.

Quoting Christoffer

But a huge population in Russia has little to no education

Are you serious?

Reply to Christoffer

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while.

Quoting jamalrob

Are you serious?

Let me rephrase; a huge population in Russia has little to no quality education.

"in Russia students of 15 years of age demonstrate a level of knowledge “below average”

"Unfortunately, the destructive practice of depriving villages of school institutions continues to this day. Optimization was carried out in accordance with the plan“Changes in the sectors of the social sphere aimed at improving the efficiency of education and science until 2018”, adopted by order of the government back in 2014. In accordance with the document, it is planned to liquidate kindergartens and schools that regional authorities recognize as ineffective. In total, until 2018, 3,639 rural kindergartens and schools were closed, and some institutions of secondary vocational education, additional education, and boarding schools for orphans were also closed.

The amount offunding in the United States is ten times greater higher thanRussia.

(And the US doesn't even have a great educational system)

At present, in this indicator, our country is ten times behind China

And of course how the state controls the information teached, so that everything gets in line with Putin's propaganda narrative and does not enable free thought and speech around topics that could harm Putin's regime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-schoolchildren-media-ukraine-invasion-b2027652.html

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/05/08/how-russian-kids-are-taught-world-war-ii-a57930


And of course there's the reports of Russian soldiers who didn't even know what Ukraine is, who didn't know about Chernobyl, who didn't know much of anything outside Putin's worldview.

So, maybe not "little to no education", but I wouldn't call any of this quality. And with some Russians not even knowing what's across the border from their own nation, or that there was something called the Chernobyl incident, how do you expect them to be able to have the "thought tools" of knowledge necessary to be critical about their own nation's regime and politics? Or dream of anything other than what they've been served?

Quoting frank

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while.

Can be luck or can be the result of that soil, that shapes the democracy into being functional. Nothing happens overnight, a functional democracy doesn't just appear, it probably starts rough, but if the foundation (the soil) is good, it will grow into something better.

So yes, it is true that a crisis creates authoritarian autocracies, which is why it's important to get good soil and nurture time after the collapse of such an authoritarian autocracy. It requires an effort of the rebuilders to make sure that this happens, otherwise, they'll be the new crisis for which another despot emerges... just like what happened with Russia and Putin.

Reply to Christoffer
You have the arrogance of the lucky. :grin:

Quoting frank

You have the arrogance of the lucky.

Could be, I have a problem of arrogance, I know that much at least :sweat:

in Russia students of 15 years of age demonstrate a level of knowledge “below average”

The paper you got this from is citing the Programme for International Student Assessment, which is an OECD study. The same study, for example, ranks Russia above Sweden in 2003–2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#PISA_2018_ranking_summary

In the latest data Russia is around 30th. China is first. If you're wondering how Russia can change its politics, education isn't the primary problem.

See this PDF for an overall assessment of education in Russia: https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_RUS.pdf

Quoting Christoffer

So, maybe not "little to no education", but I wouldn't call any of this quality.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Quoting jamalrob

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

So ignored everything else? Like how schools shut down in villages, which supports the concept of concentration of education to the major cities, where most of the anti-Putin critics exist and are well educated.

So, me asserting the education of rural areas outside major cities in Russia, which features a large portion of Russians, is education that is low, non-existence or in low-quality, together with how many Russian soldiers, who definitely didn't get drafted from the educated city-people, don't even know what country they are in... isn't a logical assertion of the state of education in Russia? And the propaganda-based narrative of learning history and about the outside world?

What do you call all of this then? Quality education that equally creates an educational foundation for all Russians that is focused on facts and reality? It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image.

How would you evaluate the Russian educational system? Equal, unbiased, and enabling free thought? Most people in the major cities get their balance from being able to go online and see, hear and read other perspectives than what the state provides. Part of the privilege of those people is to self educate past the basic education. And education can be really good, as long as it doesn't conflict with Russian interests. I mean, most political thinkers and philosophers that criticize Putin would be in jail now I presume.

My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then?

Reply to Christoffer Education in Russia has some big problems, primarily funding. As the OECD overview I linked to says, "spending per student is still low, about half of the OECD average". And as you say, many rural schools have closed. I don't know for sure, but this latter fact could be associated with rural depopulation (which is obviously not to let the state off the hook in any way, if levels of education are deteriorating).

Quoting Christoffer

It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image.

"As of January 1, 2021, 109.3 million inhabitants lived in Russian cities, opposed to 36.9 million people living in the countryside."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009893/russian-urban-and-rural-population-size/

Quoting Christoffer

My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then?

So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true.

The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

Quoting jamalrob

I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true.

To be more charitable @Christoffer, it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics.

Interesting thread, comparing Putin to a mafia boss.
https://twitter.com/AndrewPRLevi/status/1511000355781365767?s=20&t=3nD3A_OEWFEWX36lWBJEow

Reply to Punshhh I have no clue why that passes for interesting to you.

Quoting boethius

Western narrative built up the Western highway as "the big battle to siege Kiev"

That description was closer to what was happening: an attempt (that failed).

But of course now the focus should be on the present and what seems to be a withdrawal of Russian troops in the north. It actually makes sense. If the objective cannot be met (at least with these forces), it's logical to retreat back to Belarus and Russia. The Ukrainians won't follow, yet they have to leave forces to defend Kiev from a possible Russian attack. Hence Ukrainians can then send only some units to the east or south from Kyiv. Likely the focus will be now on the Donbas and Putin carving up that Novorossiya. And perhaps have the war nice over before May 9th.


...Or then it can go on longer and longer.

Quoting jamalrob

If you're wondering how Russia can change its politics, education isn't the primary problem.

I think Russia can change and it isn't destined to be in a vicious circle of totalitarianism and gangster capitalism. The future isn't an extrapolation from history: even if Russia has only few short attempts of having democracy, that isn't an obstacle that it couldn't overcome.

A extremely humiliating defeat on the hands of the Japanese paved way for reforms in Czarist Russia. The outcome wasn't what happened in the West, but sometimes good things can become from bad things.

Quoting Christoffer

So, you mean that the fact that a large portion of Russians is educated, especially outside of the denser cities, is racist?

Yes, partly just on the grounds that you've provided no evidence at all, but simply assumed it. But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny...

If one needed any specialist equipment to discover some aspect of science, one could make a reasonable argument that poorer societies, on account of their poverty, would not have that knowledge. But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required. So what you're implying with your assessment is that the people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them. That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how to do it.

Quoting Christoffer

Is Russian soldiers not even knowing what Ukraine is or what Chernobyl is because they didn't get any education about any of it... racist?

Yes. Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have, applying it to those that don't and then taking the absolutely enormous leap that they therefore don't know how to run their country, how to be good citizens, how to rise up against their government... It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes. You can't possibly have missed the "50% of Americans believe..." type reports that come out again and again. American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) would have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl?

Quoting Christoffer

a nation under a government that is corrupt or has little means to handle poverty on their own and almost no people educated enough to be able to work to better the nation's situation, does not need to change that status quo? And helping those nations with getting children free education so that this structural problem can be bypassed in order to have a new generation that can build something better on their own... is racist?

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why can't a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage?

Quoting Christoffer

you don't understand what I mean with education enabling active thinking about ongoing problems in their nations? Like, you don't get that I'm implying that education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve.

No. I disagree with you about it. Your inability to tell the difference between someone not understanding and someone disagreeing is at the heart of these problems. Something might really seem clear to you, that doesn't make it a fact, it doesn't mean that people who disagree have somehow failed something. It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently.

Quoting Christoffer

I, of course, mean that they have gotten an education that gives them the tools, the knowledge to deconstruct the problems in their nation.

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools" to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck. And what they need is for us to remove it.

Quoting Christoffer

If you get poor nations free education, you give the people the ability to more effectively think about their own life and their country and how to fix things that are broken with it.

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us. These people have a cultural heritage stretching back tens of thousands of years. Are you suggesting that in all that time they haven't worked out what we in 'the west' worked out in the last few hundred? Do you not see how that plays into racist stereotypes of the violent savage and the enlightened westerner?

Quoting Christoffer

But it is a fact that the Russians who want to get rid of Putin, the corruption, the war and everything are the educated, more wealthy citizens of the major cities.

Right. So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin?

Quoting Christoffer

Nowhere did I even remotely imply that poor nations have lesser intellects, that's your words, your writing, your concept in mind, not mine. So stop making that part of my argument, I talked nothing of the sort.

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken...

Quoting Christoffer

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change.

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those (bolded) things from his or her parent? From his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things?

Might be true:

The Ukrainian military claims that Russia has begun to secretly mobilize reserves and will give priority to mobilizing people with combat experience. The Moscow authorities hope to mobilize an additional 60,000 troops.

Reply to boethius I am afraid Finland is not the model.

Quoting Christoffer

But then there's the socialist extreme left who think inventing utopias in their heads solves real problems people face right now. So far I'm all for structuring away from neoliberal market societies, but the radical socialists have dreams just as problematic. And how is that a solution to what I'm writing about?
How is that a solution to freeing the people of Russia from Putin's authoritarian boot? This is the problem I'm talking about, you have no actual real-world solution, you have a utopia in your head, a conceptual dream that won't help anyone until their basic needs are met.

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case.

Quoting Christoffer

Because if you want to change for the better when every one of them is bad... you pick the lesser evil.

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new?

Quoting Christoffer

I want you to pick a type of society that can actually be implemented in Russia that will enable a better outcome than my example.

Again, you've not supplied a reason why the society that can actually be implemented must already exist. New types of society can be implemented. That's how we make progress.

Quoting Christoffer

I just have a greater understanding of the concept of time and change. Political landscapes are just like geography, mountains stand strong because they change slowly. Changes that are stable and fundamental for a nation might take many generations to reach its final stable goal and when reaching them they have merely become a synthesis of more concepts than originally thought up.

But such change needs a foundation so it can change. If free speech, free and independent media, free communication, free education, free knowledge, and a great protection of the people and their voice against power is there at the foundation, it is the soil that new types of societies can grow out of. If you take that away, like in Russia, like in many nations with authoritarian regimes, you take away the soil and the growth dies, becomes dirt and static death.

Utopias mean nothing if there's no soil for them to grow out of. Dreaming of such utopias means nothing if the goal is to change the world. You start with the soil and go from there and if the fact of the world today is that this "soil" is most common in westernized nations, then so be it, that's a fact of reality right now, start there and build from there instead of trying to grow where there is no soil.

Again...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case.

Reply to Benkei What I find interesting is how the Putin’s behaviour can be viewed through the prism of a mafia boss. As opposed to a strong man, a mad man, a megalomaniac.

The author Andrew Levi is an experienced Kremlinologist.

Reply to Punshhh hmmm... I don't find much use in trying to project an archetype on Putin. It seems like psychologizing just for the sake of trying to categorise a person. It says more about the person doing that than Putin himself.

Never heard of Andrew Levi though and he seems to be an investor.

Quoting frank

I'm wondering if the harsh sanctions may have been a mistake. If it just closes Russia off to the rest of the world, that's unfortunate.

Quoting Manuel

They are. No doubt about it to my mind. Perhaps isolate sanctions to oligarchs and Putin, try to make these bite, other sanctions only hurt the population.

In the past, Western sanctions against Russia attempted to spare the majority of the population by targeting mostly individuals and selected military-industrial entities. That didn't seem to have any effect. Now sanctions are explicitly aimed at the entire nation. Such total sanctions are really a war by other means, and just like in the conventional hot war, the entire nation suffers. The thinking behind such sanctions is that, even if they don't directly motivate the rulers, they may build up pressure from below. (What they don't take into account is that public discontent is more likely to be directed at those who impose the sanctions, as seems to be happening in Russia.) At a minimum, they will degrade the country's ability to make trouble abroad - but that can only happen in the long run. Sanctions won't stop an ongoing war.

Do sanctions generally work? That's a tough question. Studies of past sanctions claim to show that sanctions have achieved some objectives in a minority of cases, but also that they were more likely to succeed when objectives were modest, such as changing some trade policies. But discerning the impact of sanctions on decision making can be difficult. If Putin did not order the invasion, would that be credited to the threat of sanctions? Not likely, given that most people did not expect a large-scale invasion to happen anyway (despite warnings from Western intelligence). In Putin's case they would probably be right though: he cares little about such things.

In deciding to impose sanctions, there is a significant factor of moral outrage and moral signalling, perhaps more significant than any pragmatic calculations. We want to punish the bastards. The latest escalation of sanctioning activity is a good illustration of that point, as it followed on the heels of gruesome imagery coming from journalists who got direct access to freed areas around Kiev. Images of a dozen dead civilians lying in the street produced a stronger reaction than credible reports of hundreds of people dying from indirect fire in Mariupol and elsewhere. Let alone the estimated 95% of Afghan population that are not getting enough to eat, partly as a result of Western governments' action or inaction.

Reply to SophistiCat

The example of Afghanistan and Yemen too, are quite illustrative. They say a lot about "the West".

Not that this should mean we should not care about Ukraine. We should extend that care to others who are in an even worse situation, however hard that may be to imagine.

You're quite right about sanctions being related to moral outrage. But it's a bad reaction to have, because it increases tensions even more. These damn calls for no fly zones that keep popping up are a damn problem.

If I were Ukrainian, I would likely (maybe) call for them too. But I doubt they truly understand what this entails. It is not smart to isolate an enemy and try to embarrass them.

I don't like Putin. This war is a total catastrophe. But we should approach this level headed, too much is at stake.

Quoting Isaac

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you?

you should whip up a new thread, e.g. "The victims of capitalism", something like that

Maybe this is your kind of thing?
I'm thinking that differentiating socialism and communism is needed.

Quoting Punshhh

Kremlinologist

Kremlinology is actually a word and a thing. How about that. :)

(seems a bit close to criminology but nevermind)

Quoting jamalrob

So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true.

Or that it's hard to reference when getting aural information from experts not easily referenced. But on top of that quality issue, you can also add this from 2007, which would mean that the people right now, like soldiers in Ukraine, suffered from this very issue.

At present, Russian society is experiencing powerful and swift social segmentation which includes strong differentiation in access to higher education. It took 10 to 20 years to change the previous system, to leave behind the free higher education to which we became accustomed over the 70-year history of the USSR, and move to a higher education system which is not free. Social segmentation has increased in the post-Soviet period and inequality in education has become much more significant as early as at the pre-school level. The barriers at this stage are the same as at others: family income, geographical factors (the most vulnerable groups are residents of rural and less urbanized areas where the network of kindergartens is not sufficiently developed), health factors (barriers exist not only for the disabled, but also for those in poorer health) and the information parents are able to gather (Monitoring 2003, Seliverstova, 2005). As early as kindergarten the same question of equity emerges: what kind of education is accessible, if it is accessible at all mass or elite education, “bad” or “good” (the latter offering a greater range of services but for fees)? And if mass and “bad” are becoming synonyms, what social functions does such education perform? These questions, of course, are identical to those that appear in analyzing the situation at the level of secondary and higher education. It would seem that today’s educational inequalities in Russia will tend to grow, as the process does not contain any counteracting forces, governmental or societal. In this context, the position of the best-resourced groups in society will continue to be reinforced, while the position and opportunities of the weakest will continue to
deteriorate. Although inequality is not officially endorsed, it is gradually becoming the norm, becoming more legitimate, more institutionalized (via corruption, for instance), more rigid, more entrenched and more persistent. In the context of mass higher education, inequality is not so much inequality in obtaining a higher education as such, but inequality in obtaining a higher education of good quality, an elite or specialized higher education. Without a set of adequate compensatory counter-measures, this situation will lead to the crystallization of elite groups, the very sort of class inequality which Russia set out to escape from in the early twentieth century. Gaps in public policy have contributed to the development of inequality in access to higher education and in constitutional rights to free higher education. Having minimized all the mechanisms of governance and control, and the distribution and redistribution of revenue, the state is yet to develop policy directed towards reducing inequality. This task ought to become an essential focus of public policy.

Quoting jamalrob

The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

People around Putin are also afraid to speak the truth to him. Fear pushes people down, but as with that paper, the inequality in education renders a lot of people unable to get a quality education. In order to take part in questioning the government and not just learning the basics of reading and writing in order to do earn a living, it requires the exposure to other perspective, other people in education, outside views. If that is not available, it's easier to find solace in bias towards the status quo. I think the simplistic view is to just boil all of this to russophobia.

Quoting jamalrob

it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics.

I'm not talking about politics that springs out of bad education, I'm talking about education freeing the minds of people in a nation so that they can start questioning things around them. If all you learn is to always do as told, as parents tell you, other grown-ups tell you, the state media tells you, if all you get is spoon-fed truths, then that is the only reality you have. I'm using "education" in this argument as a broader term for opening doors for the mind to explore the world more critically, which is an important part of a good education. If the education fails in that quality, or you are out of luck because of inequality in education, then you might not have the ability to think critically. It's easy for any of us who's on a forum about the very act of being critical, skeptical, and interested in deconstructing different concepts to take these things for granted, but one who's never had the chance of actually exploring this way of thinking will not magically have the knowledge of such tools without reinventing the wheel of critical thinking. Just check out what the Russian soldiers are thinking, how oblivious they are to everything around them. Would that happen if they had quality education? Would they dig trenches in the Red Forest if they had basic education? Would a person who had the ability to explore concepts from all over the world be able to be easily tricked by state media? Wouldn't such a person also actively explore such perspectives further, have more insight into how to get other sources of information than what the state provides?

And if it is as you say, that a majority is well educated, informed and still support Putin, even if things like Bucha happen, then they are well informed, educated people who support genocide, and should be treated accordingly. If you think it's russophobia to argue as I do here, how do you think the conclusion becomes if we conclude that they are actually well informed and support murdering civilians? I'm giving them the benefit of doubt, that they don't have either access to truth or have never been granted the tools to be critical of the government. Because if they have a great education, have the ability of critical thinking, but still support Putin after things like Bucha, then they can actually go to hell.

Reply to Isaac
> The part in parentheses was "even if sometimes only figuratively", Ie not necessarily referring to an actual flag. The flag represents control by the government of that country. Control over some aspect of Ukraine's government (either by having them sign a binding agreement, or by installing a friendly 'puppet' governor in some region) would reduce their risk from foreign influence.

Now it’s clearer. I disagree with this claim “The flag represents control by the government of that country” even when this can be a plausible conversational implicature. National flags as Ukrainian and Russian flags (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_flag) are symbols of a nation not of their governments. Governments can change and yet the flag and the nation that the flag represents can remain the same. I’m not saying this to be pedantic, but for its motivational implications as well as strategic and moral. People who are fighting against a puppet governments of some foreign power (as Yanukovych was to the Ukrainians) in defence of their national identity and independence are not fighting against their flag, but for their flag as expression of their national identity and independence. And I find this kind of fight morally defensible.


> Well then your agreement is nonsensical. I don't know what more to say. Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't become wrong or right based on the interpretation of some specific historical event. If your agreement that "fighting over a flag is always wrong" is dependant on how the Ukraine war is interpreted, then how did you decide before Russia invaded Ukraine?

First of all, my agreement was conditional and you should have reported as such, as I explicitly asked. If you found my conditional agreement nonsensical or confusing, you could have protested or asked for clarifications, instead of misinterpreting it the way you see fit and move on. Secondly, I formulated my conditional agreement to address an ambiguous theoretical assumption of yours that could be interpreted in different ways. Indeed, to avoid confusions about my position I also immediately explained what I meant in that post, and reiterated in the following posts. If fighting a war over a flag literally amounts to fighting over a piece of coloured fabric as an ornament of a building, then I find it preposterous and 100% immoral. If it’s understood in a metaphorical sense (which is the opposite of talking about “the insignificance of flags”), then we should clarify the metaphor and if you take the national flag to represent a government (yet this too could be morally defensible, for example if the alternative is between a democratic and mafia government), then I disagree with that reading too for the reasons I explained previously. Finally, each of us is presenting and tentatively defending a certain understanding of this war based on moral and strategic assumptions and their implications, so it’s on us to clarify how to understand our metaphors as well as our examples wrt to the issue at hand.
Concerning your alternative “Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn’t” is that fighting over national identity is morally defensible (even through war) because people can morally value things more than their own lives, like national identity and independence and unlike a piece of colored piece of fabric on top of a building or a puppet government.


> So you'd have to forward some argument to that effect. It's no good just saying 'for me' at the beginning and expecting that to act as an excuse not to supply any reasoning at all.

I have no such expectations. My expectations are instead that you ask for clarifications, if interested, as I did when I needed clarifications from you. Notice also that I had to reiterate my request for clarifications to you (for example wrt your alleged third strategy or your understanding of “fighting over a flag”).

>Why do you see it as a matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. Why not, for example, a matter of American expansionism vs Russian expansionism? To quote from the article @StreetlightX posted earlier…

Indeed the war between Russia and Ukraine can be seen in both ways, namely as “American expansionism vs Russian expansionism” and as “Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism”, the reason why I privilege the second depends on genealogical and moral considerations. The clash between American and Russian expansionism in Ukraine is shaped as it is because it is nested in a more ancient clash between Ukrainians and Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationalism), which echoes in the chaos of narratives about the Ukrainian national identity among Putin and Ukrainian authorities, academics and society at large (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians#Reactions, https://uacrisis.org/en/55302-ukraine-identity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Popular_opinion_in_Ukraine). Indeed the clash of empires doesn’t really become meaningful to people (at least ordinary people) until it resonates within their moral landscape and personal experiences: knowing that in this war USA and Russia are fighting a proxy war in a piece of land called Ukraine for human and material resources, doesn’t tell me enough to decide whom I have to side with in this war. Knowing who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, knowing that the oppressed is fighting for something I would value too at his place, knowing that this fight is a conventional war with its toll on civilians and their homes, etc. all this is more relevant for me to decide if one should support America or Russia or neither.


>Diplomats are not the arbiters of whether a negotiation has worked. If a process stops the war, everyone can see that it has worked, we don't rely on diplomats to tell us this.

You didn’t get my point. Negotiation is a practice based on complex and institutionalised speech acts like making offers and requests, give assurances, cut deals between participants. As all speech acts , they are governed by conversational maxims, one of which is sincerity. So if all diplomats would always lie to each other during the negotiation, all negotiations would fail and the practice wouldn’t even exist. Surely diplomats my occasionally lie, and lie to the public is much easier than lying to other diplomats, yet all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case.


> I'm only claiming that it might. I only need to demonstrate that it is possible in order to substantiate that claim. Those who argue that Ukraine shouldn't negotiate because Putin lies, have the much harder task of demonstrating that such a process never works, otherwise it'd still be advisable to try.

I see no need for such a demonstration to support the idea that is not worth negotiating with Putin, were this the case. If successful negotiations are generically possible and we may have case studies of successful Russian or Ukrainian negotiations, yet negotiations may also fail also due to deep mistrust: indeed, what credible assurance could possible give Putin to not attack Ukraine again if Ukraine gives up about NATO given that Russia has already broken past agreements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ? The same goes for Putin, if Putin thinks that the Ukrainian diplomats are too influenced by the US who want this war to continue, then Putin would have no reason to go for a negotiation unless for taking time to better supply his war machine?
And, interestingly, they both could be right while the negotiation will stall.


> That matter is undeniably secondary to actually partaking in negotiations. The parties involved must actually be negotiating in order for it to even be a question.

At this point partaking is not the problem, because there have been many negotiation sessions between Russians and Ukrainians, but they got stalled.


[i] > ...that you find some arguments persuasive is irrelevant to this claim. Your claim is that arguments of America's culpability are not supported by an objective analysis of the facts. I asked how you justify that claim when so many experts, after having made an objective analysis of the facts, reach a different conclusion.

> I don't see what difference this makes if those decisions all tended in much the same direction. [/i]

The experts you are referring to (like Kennan, Kissinger and Mearsheimer) converge enough in the analysis of the genesis of the current crisis and claim how wrong the West effort to expand east-ward at the expenses of Russian strategic interests was. I can get how insightful they were on the assumption that the end of the Soviet Union didn’t mean the end of the cold war mentality, especially in the Russian political/military elites from that generation (as Putin is). Yet their claims and advise do not necessarily converge with your views in some relevant aspects. E.g. Kissinger advises “It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. […]. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html). While Mearsheimer concludes that: “The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.” (https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf).
Anyway, as far as “great powers” politics goes, I can get that there are many good reasons to consider antagonising Russia a “strategic blunder” for the US: Russia is not a strategic threat to the US as much as China since Russia is a declining power anyways, normalising relations with Russia could have helped turn Russia into an ally against China, getting NATO involved in a war useless to the US will ruin whatever is left of NATO’s reputation if Ukraine is lost to Russia. So too much at stake for little reward on a lower priority strategic front for the US. On the other side, one big concern for the US is to preserve their long-term influence over Europe against the ambitions of Russia and China, or against Germany becoming more assertive (https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ICS-USEU_UNCLASS_508.pdf, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/could-europe-fear-germany-again) and for the EU (especially for the easter European countries) the concern is to preserve NATO’s protection against any military threat especially from Russia. So the US can not overlook the national interests of its partners and allies in Europe, as much as in Middle East as much as in Indo-Pacific. Even more so, given the technological and economic power concentrated in the EU. Additionally this war is a tragic but maybe necessary wake up call for Europeans against the existential threats coming from authoritarian geopolitical powers and the risks of relying only on the US military support.
And we could go on by wondering what a “strategic blunder” was for Putin to start a war in Ukraine, etc. And it wouldn’t be over yet, because we should also strategically analyze the possible outcomes of this war, etc. and how the rest of the world could react to each of them.
While all this is certainly precious feedback from experts and governmental advisors, yet government foreign policies and foreign policy trajectories over decades are the result of such an overwhelming informational and motivational selective pressure on decision makers (or generations of decision makers) and executive branches by all kinds of teams of experts, lobbies and world events that no strategic analyst could fully rationalize within their theoretical framework, I’m afraid.

But the major problem is the unresolved logic tension between strategic view and moral view. If you want to talk about morality and moral responsibility you need moral principles and agency (capacity of making and executing free informed decisions). Now from great power politics, however morality is relative (“national identity is just a flag”) or instrumental and agency is always reduced to “causal” reaction to perceived existential threats or opportunities (which sounds as an oxymoron wrt so-called realist view in geopolitics), so preventive moves to increase deterrence, reciprocal threats and ping-pong blame game are structurally embedded in this view. Indeed the competition between Russia and NATO didn’t begin with NATO enlargement’s provocation simply because it never really ended with the Cold War (https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/96-98/cottey.pdf, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/09/21/yeltsin-vs-clinton/442ba04d-23c7-4d8b-9732-2dda43e1544b/).
And geopolitical agents are theoretical abstractions that may hide very different situations for real political agents. Putin’s dictatorial power extends over the last two decades so he could take all his time to prepare for this war and take effective decisions consistent with his goals, meanwhile in the US there have been five different administrations (including a philo-Putinist Trump) in loose coordination with an even greater number of changing and politically divided EU leaders and governments, decided also thanks to a growth of anti-globalist populism that Putin contributed to feed with his money and troll armies. So not exactly the same situation for responsibility ascriptions.


> The west is delivering weapons to the oppressed. Whether that's 'helping' them depends entirely on your analysis of their options.

Sure, then again the West tries to help the oppressed by delivering weapons instead of trying to help the oppressor.


> So? How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.

We who? I’m interested in the method too though. You are interested in metrics? No idea of the number of victims on both sides. Do you? Nor have I an idea about the weight you would assign to each causal factor of your multi-causal analysis. Do you? Out of curiosity, can you give me a rough idea about what your math to calculate the Ukrainian misery based on your multi-causal analysis would look like ? Can you list, say, 3 causal factors and tell me the weight you would assign to each of them and why?



[i]> 4. Ukraine seems more open to share our views on standard of life and freedoms than Russia. — neomac
What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have? [/i]

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/


> 1. This gives Russia no more than is de facto the case already, so it doesn't give an inch on Russian expansionism, it just admits that we've failed to contain it peacefully as we should have. Russia already run Crimea, Donbas already has independent parliaments and make independent decisions, NATO have already pretty much ruled out membership for Ukraine, as have Ukraine.

A perfect summary of Putin’s negotiation tactics, well done. Yet this tactic didn’t sound that convincing so far and BTW also the US had a de facto puppet government in Afghanistan for 20 years. So no, you didn’t offer any third strategy equally opposing the West and Putin, you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all.

> 2. I care very little about Russian expansionism when compared to the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainians.

Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism, (worse than any Islamist terrorism has been so far to the West).

[i]> If you want to throw them in front of the tanks to prevent it, that's on you, but I'm not going to support that.
> Now explain how it's morally acceptable for us to throw Ukrainian civilians in front of Russian tanks to help us achieve these goals.[/i]

Who is us? I didn’t throw anybody under tanks. And the antecedent of that conditional is false. Nothing to explain here.


> What 'moral reasons'?

Putin is a murderous and criminal oppressor of innocent Ukrainian civilians. This claim is intelligible without any multi-causal talks and arguments ab auctoritate. So Western leaders have moral reasons to contrast Putin offensive expansionism the best they can, as long as they can.


> We're talking about the US and Russia here, not Isis. The US 'method' is causing more deaths in Yemen right now than are being caused in Ukraine by the Russian 'method'. And Yemen isn't even the US's only theatre of war as Ukraine is Russia's.

Sure, but your preposterous claim about the immorality of fighting over a flag or national identity was general. And so I offered you another counter-example to make my case even more clear.
If you want to talk about the US and Yemen open another thread. Concerning “methods”, I simply claimed they have moral implications and therefore I take them into account: a stick and carrot strategy (a mix of incentives and deterrence) may be morally more defensible than a full blown-war as in this case.


> Care to expand on these clandestine 'personal preferences’?

Well it was a minor point of a general consideration, but let’s say as a mere hypothetical example that Putin paid you with his precious rubles to support his propaganda in this forum against the meddling of the West in Ukraine. Prior to the war, I would have considered it just something I dislike, now I would consider it immoral.


> That just goes back to your disagreement that Russia had any reason at all to see NATO's actions as a threat (ie arguing that NATO weren't even shaking the table at all). The problem is, an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts disagree with you and you've not provided a single reason why anyone would take your view over theirs.

Indeed, I offered reasons mainly to question your 2 moral claims:
Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West).
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.
And in this post I could complement my arguments with a few more comments about the experts you were alluding to. I didn’t do it earlier simply because I didn’t know whom you were talking about.

Reply to neomac

Hey neomac.

It would be easier and quicker if you just quote whomever. All you have to do is highlight the posters sentence and/or paragraph and click the black "Quote" box, and you'll see that segment quoted in your post.

Quoting neomac

Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.

Like so.

Quoting Isaac

But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny...

I said nothing of that, that's your words. This is your problem, you reshape someone's argument to fit your anti-western narrative. I said nothing of "western education". You simply cannot read someone's post without looking though your own narrative of what is being said.

Quoting Isaac

But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required.

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education? No wonder you write as you do in here since you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases. You really don't think "thoughts" can be manipulated? What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing? Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments.

Quoting Isaac

they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens

Because we have such good examples through history of this actually working? How naive are you? This is basically the "common sense" argument and it has zero validity when breaking down people's biases. "Common sense" taught down to children is extremely biased towards whatever opinion those parents have. Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works.

Quoting Isaac

That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how do do it.

And I call this bullshit because you don't understand a single thing of what I write. I have not said anything of teaching "uncivil" natives". I've been talking about the problem of education and the problem of propaganda in education, limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically. It's a universal thing and I could apply it to the US as well and their awfully unequal educational system.

You just make up shit to fit your counter-argument but it's hollow when you basically are unable to understand the actual conclusion being made.

Quoting Isaac

Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have

Chernobyl was a globally known incident that is very relevant primarily to Russia. Don't even try rationalizing your point here.

Quoting Isaac

It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes.

I'm beginning to think that you're just playing a game of mentioning "racism" as much as possible until it becomes the true narrative. Much like how propaganda works.

Quoting Isaac

American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl?

No, they don't, but I'm not talking about Americas education really, I'm talking about what is going on in Russia. I couldn't really give a fuck about American education because America is not my measuring stick for quality, it's my measuring stick for western failure. There are far better examples of "good western societies", but you really like to make everything into a Russia/American dichotomy because I think it's the only way to argue for your point of view. If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why cant a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage?

Do you really not see how naive this point of view is? Like, forget a moment that you just push everything through the narrative of "western teachers" and all your racist twisting and turning, if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda, if you want to turn to the American perspective of education again... *sigh* ...you get propaganda as well, but as I said, I don't give a flying fuck about the Americans, I'm speaking of neutral education, facts, knowledge, as they're published as it is. "Quality" education means quality in that neutrality, otherwise it's not a quality education, because it's biased towards something non-neutral.

But as always, you cannot understand anything of this without applying your racist bullshit narrative. You cannot grasp that there's another perspective here than some American imperialism. I'm not American, I don't give a shit about that perspective and it's not the perspective I'm arguing from.

Quoting Isaac

No. I disagree with you about it.

Disagree about what? What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias?
Read it again:

Quoting Christoffer

Education enables active thinking about ongoing problems in the nation. Education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve.

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit? In that case, you are hilariously derailed in thought :rofl:

Quoting Isaac

It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently.

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge? Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom? Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth?

You lack the imagination of understanding this perspective because you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically. It's the fucking point. What you describe is to value some "common sense" ideas and ideals, uncritically, as valid perspectives of thought. Which is an absolutely apologetic view of accepting anyone's opinion as valid, even if that is purely pro-Putin propaganda or even American imperialism. Why don't you also then value the indoctrinated exceptionalistic education American schoolkids get? Or is that then bad because it's America, it's really confusing how you rationalize your argument here.

In my perspective, your perspective here is the door that opens to extremism, regardless of type. This is the way to get a biased uncritical point of view, without the ability to question it. Your naive defense of "common sense" thinking doesn't even try to rationalize past these problems.


Quoting Isaac

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools". to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck.

You really pull a blanket conclusion over all of them do you? Even those who ask for help to get good education to their nations. Even those who want to kick start their nation as a self sustaining society, but don't have the necessary education to do so. I mean, when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them.

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot?

Have you even talked to people from these poor nations? Do you have any real knowledge of what they actually want but don't have means to achieve?

You seem to not understand that "western intervention" is not just "American imperialism", but it can also be economic contributions and projects to help get them on their feet and into independence. You seem to view everything through having "America" as the "western" part of the argument. What about Sweden's contributions? We pay more of our BNP to help poor nations than most other nations do, we have a strong presence building up education in poor nations, and none of that education is some American propaganda being taught.

It's like you don't really have any insight into any of this past your American imperialistic criticism, nothing that's even close to what my perspective really is here. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say, over and over. How can anyone take you seriously if you do that?

Quoting Isaac

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us.

Not at all, your words again, not mine. It doesn't imply anything other than "education". Giving access to facts about the world, reading, writing, math, geography, history and of course methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point.

If you mean that they cannot keep their heritage while still having gained the knowledge of unbiased thinking that has been fine-tuned through philosophy and science over hundreds or even thousands of years, then you don't really understand what I mean when speaking of education.

You are speaking of propaganda. But if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas. If set ideas and traditions that keep someone stuck in a loop of destructive behaviors, sociologically or psychologically, and they want to find a way past it, such tools of thought become invaluable.

That is not fixing, it is sharing. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. But you seem to talk about education as telling them what to think, I'm talking about enabling tools for them to think for themselves, beyond cultural and human biases, methods that are universal for channeling the human intellect, regardless of cultural preferences. But you seem unable to understand this difference or you are just choosing to misinterpret it so that it fits your opinion here. But you just come off as being fundamentally unable to understand the argument I present without having to change it completely to fit your anti-racist rhetoric.

You invent conclusions I didn't make to apply some racist narrative here, it's such a low point that I cannot take you seriously.

Quoting Isaac

So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin?

A mass of people opposing a government does not need wealth to topple that government. But the mass in Russia is suppressed, by low numbers, themselves or a lack of knowledge that shows them what is true and what is propaganda, and because they don't reach "critical mass" for such a "singularity", they are more easily suppressed by authoritarian force.

Not even the wealthy dare oppose Putin. Just look at Roman Abramovich.

The lone individual, the small gatherings can't do anything. But if millions marched against Putin, he cannot just imprison or "make them disappear". And how do people gather like that? Because they all have the knowledge to see through the propaganda and the ability to organize against it. If you don't think this is a solution against the authoritarian regime Putin has, then what is a solution? Apathy?

Quoting Isaac

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken...

Do you have a reading disability or am I just not competent enough in English?

Quoting Christoffer

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change.

Aren't I implying here that learning all of that enables tools for the intellect of those people? Tools that the intellect can use within those people?

Or are you just again intentionally interpreting in your own way to fit your argument?

Quoting Isaac

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those thing from his or her parent? from his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things?

Then let them. If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this. Instead of realizing that "education" is not some western imperialistic interference just because you require that for your argument to work. But can instead be a way to give people a chance to fix things themselves. You know, education does not have to be some western ideals being taught, it can be tools of knowledge that are universal. Giving people facts, giving people methods, like in math, giving people the knowledge of math isn't some western imperialistic push.

Your rhetoric of all of this being racism requires that your very specific interpretation of "education" is true, which is not the case here, so stop pushing bullshit about racism and take a single second to try and understand something outside of your biased point of view.

Quoting Isaac

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case.

I'm still waiting for a rundown of that alternative form of society, which is what I haven't seen so far.

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done; is to help the more westernized part of Russia to gain power in order to install better protection for people in terms of freedom of speech and reduce corruption in election and politics, because these people are the ones who primarily push against the state for such reforms (think, led by Navalny), then people say, NO they should not install anything "westernized" and fix things in some other way...

...what then is that "other way"?

Can you give an actual real-world solution? Practical philosophy. How can Russia get rid of the corruption, propaganda machine and state violence against its own people?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this, but so far I haven't heard a single rational solution. Maybe you confuse "solution" with "interpretation of status quo", very different things, one is a progressive proposition and the other is just opinions of interpretations.

Quoting Isaac

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new?

Pick what? I still haven't heard of an actual functioning system that can be implemented practically in this real-world event that is going on? You are dreaming up utopian solutions when I try to practically form a solution that is actually realistic. So if you cannot actually describe how this unmentioned system is supposed to be applied, then it's just fantasy, utopias in your head of reforms just "happening" without any logical casuality.

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want. The main thing here is the basic rights and anti-corruption methods. The "soil" to grow something new from as I've put it.

Now, what's your form of society that fixes the problem they have now? Please pick an alternative that is a practical reality and not just some fantasy, because what I describe is able to happen if people like Navalny get into power since there's already a foundation for that kind of society. If you have some radically different society in mind, that is not a practical reality and doesn't help anyone at all. Come back with those ideas when stability is reached and there are freedoms implemented in the country to be able to progressively change towards that.

Quoting Isaac

Again...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case.

You haven't presented any alternative, nor anything other than dismissal through misinterpretation or downright putting words in others' mouths to enable your argument to make sense.

The fundamental bottom line of your rhetoric and argument is: "You are wrong and here's how I think you are wrong by changing your argument to become wrong so that I can be right". That is a truly low point to sink to and I cannot take your arguments seriously because of it. It just becomes negative noise

[quote: The New York Times]As Russia Pulls Back, the Horror and Atrocities Mount[/quote]

Like other sensible peace-loving people, I am totally opposed to Russia's attacks on Ukraine, aka "war". However, I am surprised by the official and press reactions to dead bodies, particularly dead civilian bodies. As Sherman observed, "War is hell!" Why would there not be civilian casualties? Granted, corpses with tied hands and a bullet in the head look like executions, and we are right to ask "What the hell is going on here?" But people get killed in war, and not just soldiers.

It's been a long time since armies met on a field and did battle away from the civilian populations. Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. It goes with the territory.

Reply to Bitter Crank

It stirs the passions, quite understandably, but it's very reactionary and does more harm than good. Plus, we seem to have ADHD brains in the West. Remember that Syrian refugee boy who drowned trying to reach Europe? That picture of the boy was massive, but it was forgotten quite quickly.

As you say, this is very, very ugly and one would not be so analytical if we were inside the war, but, what do they expect? Dodgeball?

The point is to stop this, by doing more sanctioning, we are further isolating them.

Quoting Bitter Crank

It's been a long time since armies met on a field and did battle away from the civilian populations. Urban war is bound to destroy people and property.

Highlighting civilian deaths is a proven propaganda tactic. So is making believe that this is the only war ever fought in history - recent history. Obviously we need something else, but take note that the United States is planning for more wars - this is a fact - and more civilian deaths.

Today's headlines.

BBC:
[b]EUROPE
International outrage grows over civilian killings[/b]

Civilian killings where? Yemen? Iraq? Other conflict regions we cannot name because the news does not name them?

I am willing to bet international outrage grows over Western governments hypocrisy. Hopefully this is the first step in a long downward sloping trend in credibility. It is not news anymore. I have no use for subjecting myself to eternal bias.

It reminds me of the unsophisticated attempts of some communist countries to imprison people and subject them to loudspeakers blaring "Communism is good" 24 hours a day. It is torture, and in this case can be escaped at the click of a button.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Civilian killings where? Yemen? Iraq? Other conflict regions we cannot name because the news does not name them?

And this can't be stated enough. Yemen is the "worst humanitarian catastrophe" according to the UN.

Afghanistan is starving too.

But we seem to care less about them. It's sad.

On the other hand, it is legitimate to be extra worried about this, because it involves a nuclear power in a very delicate situation. So there's that.

The US wants to persecute Putin at the ICC. What, the same body they threaten every time they dare raise the prospect of investigating American war crimes? The same one whose statutes they have not ratified? Fucking joke.

Oh, and the US calling for Russia to be kicked off the UN Human Rights council. My God. A comedian couldn't write better lines if they tried.

I think we need to make the distinction between the people of the United States, the people of Russia, and the regime, the Biden Regime, in this case. There is a large disconnect between the what the people want and what the Regime wants, in many cases.

Why the need? Those regimes don't come to power in a vacuum.

So who puts them into power? The Biden Regime enjoys a little more than 51% support. That is already a division. Voter turnout was

In 2020, 67% of all citizens age 18 and older reported voting, up 5 percentage points from 2016 (Figure 1).

That works out to 34% roughly. Factor in the vast sums of money spent on media and campaigning, and you only have to decide if the money was totally wasted, or had some influence on the election.

I never found out if Russian meddling swayed the election in 2016, which works out to a colossal failure in the democratic process. But never mind, I'd rather watch North Korean TV, at least it is obvious whose side they are on, no meddling of any sort there.

Quoting FreeEmotion

I am willing to bet international outrage grows over Western governments hypocrisy.

I am not counting on it.

For one thing, I do not accuse governments --ours, the Russian, the Indian, Chinese, or North Macedonian to be consistently truthful and never to be dissemble. Sovereign states are not individuals, and they cannot operate with very much transparency. So, The US can criticize Russia, even though our own foreign policy has often been backed up with brutal warfare, and visa versa. War is, after all, the conduct of diplomacy by 'other means'.

Hypocrisy is a feature of human behavior, and everyone, and every institution we create, employs it periodically.

Better to save our outrage for what we see (or about which we have reliable reports). Russia invaded Ukraine. It doesn't matter much to me whether they are hypocrites, racists, sexists, imperialists, or anything else. They probably want to acquire some nice real estate, and maybe they want to control Ukraine's politics and economy, for their own convenience of course.

Reply to StreetlightX

Well man, I mean, not too long ago Saudi Arabia was a member of the Human Rights section in the UN. The Council on Human Rights (?) or something like that.

That's extraordinary. I agree with @Bitter Crank that hypocrisy is a built in feature of people and states, but, even here, some examples are quite baffling.

It's best to be an equal opportunity offender when it comes to foreign policy, meaning, call out each state for the crimes it does, while not discounting that some states do much more harm, because they have much more power.

One thing's certain, there are no saints in international relations. There are victims and aggressors, but states all have heavy criminal components.

Reply to Bitter Crank You don't travel enough.

There's plenty of anti-Americanism going around and hypocrisy is one of the first thing spoken about. How can they complain about human rights abuses when they had their renditions, water boarding and torture, Abu Ghraib? How can they complain about aggression when we had aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Reply to Manuel

Thanks Manuel, but going back and forth when there are too many quotes to comment on and little/scattered spare time to dedicate is unpractical to me. So before commenting, I often copy the entire target post somewhere else and then I comment inline whenever I have time.

Reply to Benkei True, I probably don't travel enough. Why don't you take me on a whirlwind tour of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and SE Asia? You can introduce me to all sorts of people who are pissed off about America. I am shocked (shocked!) to hear that we are not universally loved and admired.

Hypocrisy is easy to complain about because whoever the target is, they are guilty (except me and thee, and even thee has spoken out of both sides of your mouth on one occasion). People are pretty much alike, and your righteous European sneering at American hypocrisy, is able to overlook their own and their own government's and nation's hypocrisy. What! Holland has hypocrites? No!

We great powers also are pretty much alike. Whether it was the British in their Empire, the French, Belgians, Russians, Germans or Americans, we generally exercise power similarly. We have the wherewithal to off-shore our requirements for a temporary torture chamber; we can pull off an invasion of Ukraine, Iraq, or Afghanistan if it suits their current needs. Taiwan, beware. The Netherlands can not. Neither can Denmark, Latvia, or North Macedonia, fine places though they may be. If you all want to get to the bottom of something in a hurry, you have to deploy the thumb screws and waterboards yourselves, which helps you avoid hypocrisy. BTW, when is the Netherlands finally going to invade Lichtenstein?

Victor Satzewich writes:

Analysis: The Russian diaspora isn’t showing much support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Mar 17, 2022)

Quoting Bitter Crank

your righteous European sneering at American hypocrisy, is able to overlook their own and their own government's and nation's hypocrisy. What! Holland has hypocrites? No!

We great powers also are pretty much alike. Whether it was the British in their Empire, the French, Belgians, Russians, Germans or Americans, we generally exercise power similarly. We have the wherewithal to off-shore our requirements for a temporary torture chamber; we can pull off an invasion of Ukraine, Iraq, or Afghanistan if it suits their current needs. Taiwan, beware. The Netherlands can not.

This was not always the case. The Netherlands had an oversea empire in South Africa and Indonesia. They invented the apartheid system to rule it, primarily to avoid inter-racial sex and marriage. Their very long war against the independent-minded Acehnese became a war of extermination. Dutch troops wiped out entire villages and murdered civilians by the thousands. That's how they 'won'.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. It goes with the territory.

That's true but let's not trivialize war crimes either. To execute civilians with a bullet in their head, dozens or hundreds of times over, are the kind of things the Nazis were doing.

Quoting jorndoe

Maybe this is your kind of thing?
I'm thinking that differentiating socialism and communism is needed.

An Interesting prospect. I'll wait to see if anything arises.

Quoting neomac

People who are fighting against a puppet governments of some foreign power (as Yanukovych was to the Ukrainians) in defence of their national identity and independence are not fighting against their flag, but for their flag as expression of their national identity and independence. And I find this kind of fight morally defensible.

Right. Well we'll just have to agree to differ. If you find it morally defensible and I don't, I don't see how much further we can go as there are few arguments that can profitably be brought to bear. The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Quoting neomac

fighting over national identity is morally defensible (even through war) because people can morally value things more than their own lives, like national identity and independence and unlike a piece of colored piece of fabric on top of a building or a puppet government.

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

Quoting neomac

knowing that in this war USA and Russia are fighting a proxy war in a piece of land called Ukraine for human and material resources, doesn’t tell me enough to decide whom I have to side with in this war. Knowing who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, knowing that the oppressed is fighting for something I would value too at his place, knowing that this fight is a conventional war with its toll on civilians and their homes, etc. all this is more relevant for me to decide if one should support America or Russia or neither.

It's not about 'sides' it's about tactics. It's not possible to support a nation (like Russia, or the US or Ukraine). There are 41 million people in Ukraine and they have different opinions. You can't support them all. You're picking a method and supporting that.

Quoting neomac

all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case.

I don't see how. How are you measuring 'mistrust' and why say it's too high here?

Quoting neomac

At this point partaking is not the problem, because there have been many negotiation sessions between Russians and Ukrainians, but they got stalled.

I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

Quoting neomac

Putin’s dictatorial power extends over the last two decades so he could take all his time to prepare for this war and take effective decisions consistent with his goals, meanwhile in the US there have been five different administrations (including a philo-Putinist Trump) in loose coordination with an even greater number of changing and politically divided EU leaders and governments, decided also thanks to a growth of anti-globalist populism that Putin contributed to feed with his money and troll armies. So not exactly the same situation for responsibility ascriptions.

That assumes the power in America lies in the various ventriloquist dolls chosen to act as mouthpieces for the vast industries which run America.

Quoting neomac

Sure, then again the West tries to help the oppressed by delivering weapons instead of trying to help the oppressor.

Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question. Does a supply of weapons help? Is there any evidence that that's even the intention? A supply of weapons certainly boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence?

Quoting neomac

No idea of the number of victims on both sides.

Then by what standard are you measuring? You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars). If it's not the numbers of people killed or immiserated, then what? Are Putin's methods just to uncouth? Do you prefer a more sophisticated murderer?

Quoting neomac

What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/

That's better. I don't see in there evidence that Ukraine clearly has more open views on standards of life than Russia. I see a complex picture. Views on homosexuality, for example.

Quoting neomac

you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all.

I know, that's why I said them. Those are the demands on the table at the moment, so of course they're Putin's. The argument was that they don't push Russian expansionism futher. They are the de facto positions already.

Quoting neomac

Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism

Why would that lead from caring more about civilian lives?

Quoting neomac

Who is us? I didn’t throw anybody under tanks. And the antecedent of that conditional is false. Nothing to explain here.

I'm dissecting your support. Do you support those who do?

Quoting neomac

Western leaders have moral reasons to contrast Putin offensive expansionism the best they can, as long as they can.

Again, it's methods, not reasons. Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

Quoting neomac

Concerning “methods”, I simply claimed they have moral implications and therefore I take them into account: a stick and carrot strategy (a mix of incentives and deterrence) may be morally more defensible than a full blown-war as in this case.

Yes, but that's why the US's tactics in Yemen matter, because you're claiming to "take them into account". Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too? So wherefore the moral justification for choosing their methods over Putin's?

Reply to Benkei Andrew Levi co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. I’m not sure what he’s done recently, but is occasionally interviewed in the media on the motives and ideology of Putin.
He arrived at his view of Putin during that mission and tried to warn the British government about Putin at the time and was largely ignored.

What I’m interested in is how this interpretation might inform an assessment of what Putin will do as the war escalates (if it does). I was thinking that if Putin is essentially a mafia boss, he is less likely to press the button than if he is a mad man, or a megalomaniac. But will retreat while claiming victory, justification and victimhood in relation to the enemy. That his primary motivation and goal is to remain in power and autocratic control of Russia. That invading his neighbours is part of that strategy

Quoting Christoffer

I said nothing of that, that's your words.

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of?

Quoting Christoffer

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education?

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking?

Quoting Christoffer

you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases.

Quoting Christoffer

What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing?

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that.

Quoting Christoffer

Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments.

And your evidence for this would be?

Quoting Christoffer

Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works.

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities.

Quoting Christoffer

limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically.

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures?

Quoting Christoffer

Chernobyl was a globally known incident

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump.

Quoting Christoffer

If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously.

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both.

Quoting Christoffer

if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education?

Quoting Christoffer

What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias?

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with.

Quoting Christoffer

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit?

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Quoting Christoffer

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge?

Yes.

Quoting Christoffer

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom?

No.

Quoting Christoffer

Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth?

Yes.

Quoting Christoffer

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically.

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it.

Quoting Christoffer

when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them.

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it.

Quoting Christoffer

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot?

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process.

Quoting Christoffer

Giving access to ... methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point.

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'?

Quoting Christoffer

if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas.

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children?

Quoting Christoffer

If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this.

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'?

Quoting Christoffer

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done;

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'.

Quoting Christoffer

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want.

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production.

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets.

Quoting Punshhh

Andrew Levi co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. I’m not sure what he’s done recently, but is occasionally interviewed in the media on the motives and ideology of Putin.
He arrived at his view of Putin during that mission and tried to warn the British government about Putin at the time and was largely ignored.

So he's never met Putin but feels qualified to make a psychological profile. Got it. Sorry man, I just can't appreciate a guy who tweets in 10 different language that there can be no peace with Russia unless it changes fundamentally. We could say the same thing about the US. There can't be peace in the world until the US changes fundamentally. And of course it is bullshit and nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's treat Russia like an enemy because I made my mind up that they are an enemy.

It's also neither here nor there. If we want peace, if we want to stop the killing now, we need to go through the Russia that is now and the way it is under Putin. And secretly of course the wish for "fundamental change" is for Russia to roll over and accept US hegemony and pretend it doesn't have any interests or rights other than those that exactly align with what the UK/US want them to be.

In my humble opinion, the man is obviously unfit to work as a diplomat.

Quoting Isaac

Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter.

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. Russian heads will have to roll now.

Quoting Olivier5

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. Russian heads will have to roll now.

Quoting Benkei

There's plenty of anti-Americanism going around and hypocrisy is one of the first thing spoken about. How can they complain about human rights abuses when they had their renditions, water boarding and torture, Abu Ghraib? How can they complain about aggression when we had aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan?

At least there are differences. The most obvious difference between US warfighting and Russian warfighting is simply scale as history has shown. At least the US is officially against attrocities, understands that violence towards civilians is simply counterproductive in a war and even will go as far as court martial it's own soldiers. That doesn't mean that warcrimes don't happen and cannot be just waived of individual incidents when orders haven't been followed (like when taking the disastrous tactic of using body counts as indicators of how well a war is fought in Vietnam). My Lai or the Haditha massacre in the Iraq war are examples done from the US.

On the other hand the Russians have what is called "tactical truth": lying to achieve your objectives, which is totally acceptable. It's not a denial like the Americans would do (usually referring to poor judgement of individual soldiers if civilians are killed), but categorical denial of everything and then a prolonged campaign to tarnish, ridicule and confuse everything about some event. And once there is that confusion, ignorance of the facts (that only later with more accurate historical investigation can be shown), works splendidly. The shooting down of the MH17 in southern Ukraine is an example of this. The facts are quite evident now after a long investigation, but due to ignorance it's easy to voice doubts over who was responsible of the shooting.

One can see it happening here with Bucha:

(TASS) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the situation in the Ukrainian town of Bucha as fake attack. According to him, a fake attack was staged there, which Ukraine and the West disperse through all channels and social networks.

And there's enough of useful idiots around then to confuse the issue and go along with the idea that everything was staged. Likely there's going to be the argument that Ukrainians staged this in order to get more sanctions put at Russia and to get more aid.

The Russian doctrine of heavy use of firepower and the absolute lack of care about the Russian soldiers by the Russian armed forces also lowers moral of the soldiers creates the situation where civilian casualties are high and attrocities can happen. Starting from things like the soldiers being drunk. The rhetoric of fighting against Nazis doesn't help this or the fact that the Russian forces have sustained a lot of casualties themselves. The use of excessive firepower in urban warfare is a way to minimize own casualties, yet it brings far more destruction than different strategies would cause.

How high the death toll in Mariupol will be remains to be seen.

Quoting Olivier5

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents.

You're right.

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea.

Quoting Isaac

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea.

When you are killed as an Ukrainian nazi, A Chechen islamist terrorist or a Syrian jihadist... or a supporter of them, you don't choose yourself that "national" identity. The guy who shoots you has decided that on behalf of you.

Quoting ssu

When you are killed as an Ukrainian nazi, A Chechen islamist terrorist or a Syrian jihadist... or a supporter of them, you don't choose yourself that "national" identity. The guy who shoots you has decided that on behalf of you.

None of those are national identities. They're all choices to join certain groups. I'm English, but I'm not going to commit others to war just to remain that way. I'll be Russian instead.

The point was simply that the 'national identity' argument doesn't have any moral force. There's no moral element to wanting to be Ukrainian instead of Russian.

Quoting ssu

The facts are quite evident now after a long investigation, but due to ignorance it's easy to voice doubts over who was responsible of the shooting.

One can see it happening here with Bucha:

You self evidently can't.

You just don't seem to get it, you don't see your role in this. You are one of the useful idiots.

1. Commit atrocity
2. Tell the world you didn't, and everyone who says you did is lying, western propaganda.
3. People like you point out that the (weak) evidence of their atrocities should always be taken at face value, any discussion of it is 'conspiracy theory' and dispute nothing but apologetics for the perpetrators.
4. The perpetrators say "see, look at the propaganda methods they're using"

Your attitude just serves their agenda.

If you want to fight against a side using propaganda to cover up crimes, and claiming that you're using propaganda to lie about them don't do exactly the thing they're claiming you do.

Quoting ssu

And there's enough of useful idiots around then to confuse the issue and go along with the idea that everything was staged. Likely there's going to be the argument that Ukrainians staged this in order to get more sanctions put at Russia and to get more aid.

As @Benkei (an actual lawyer) has already pointed out, there does need to be some sort of credible investigation, chance for the accused to defend themselves, and, ideally, some sort of impartial trial to determine war crimes, or crimes in general.

Additionally, war crimes by individual soldiers or units (which I do not doubt has happened; it's essentially guaranteed in any war) do not automatically translate to being war crimes of the military or the government. It must be some sort of institutionalised policy or direct order.

However, an additional reason to reserve judgement and not break out the jump to conclusions mat, is the Russians may have exculpatory video evidence.

And the Russian's generally like to present what evidence they do have in whatever legal process it is, such as the evidence about the biolabs at the UN security meeting. The longer false-accusations are made, the more impact exculpatory evidence has, so waiting for the "proper" legal time serves this purpose. Not to say they have exculpatory evidence, just when they do the Kremlin's policy is to reveal it later, as then their accusers (i.e. the West) loses credibility (certainly for the purposes of muddying the waters when they are actually guilty as charged).

It should also be kept in mind that the Ukrainian strategy has been to garner sympathy with civilian casualties by not evacuating them from war zones and even giving them automatic weapons instead. So, it cannot simply be denied that there would be a motivation to create more atrocities if the Russian shelling wasn't enough (which, as horrible as it is, wasn't enough in terms of a no-fly zone). And, there are literal neo-Nazi organisations operating in Ukraine, and I definitely don't put anything past them in terms of treachery and immorality.

What is pause for thought though, is not only Western media automatically interpreting these tied dead civilians as executions by Russians (without any investigation, just circumstantial) ... but when there was many reports and even actual video evidence of Ukrainians executing alleged Russian spies, this was taken at face value as just executing saboteurs to "deal with them".

Why do we not extend the benefit of the doubt to the Russians and simply assume if they did execute all these people, they were spies and saboteurs and could be summarily executive in the same insane process as the Ukrainians have been executing people?

Reply to Olivier5 Reply to ssu

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

Quoting ssu

At least the US is officially against attrocities, understands that violence towards civilians is simply counterproductive in a war and even will go as far as court martial it's own soldiers.

They will throw soldiers under the bus when a politician's ass needs to be saved. Other than that I find your optimism misplaced. Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Tokyo ring a bell? How many were court martialed? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo? Anything? Torture and renditions? What's Cheney doing nowadays anyway?

And the US' allies are complicit in going along with these farces.

So when the US officially states something we should believe it instead of calling it out for the lies they are but everything out of Putin’s mouth is a lie? How much cool aid did you drink?

Reply to frank Why don't you quote me where I defend him?

Quoting Isaac

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea.

It has got something to do with the fact that it's not the Ukrainian government who is killing those children, nor the 'West'. It is Russia. And that they would go as far as killing totally innocent and defenseless people to "apply pressure" on the Ukrainian government (to use a phrase our local mage @boethius likes a lot) says a lot about who they are: they are slaves, used to submit to force, and unable to even understand the concept of revolt against force.

But their use of force against the weakest of the weak is backfiring. They THINK that the more hospitals they bomb, the more submissive the Ukrainians will be, but the opposite is happening: it makes the Ukrainians more angry. And now the Russian foreign minister complains that the Ukrainian side is 'difficult' in those negotiations. Oh yeah? What did you slaves expect?

Quoting Benkei

Why don't you quote me where I defend him?

I wasn't attacking you. I'm trying to understand people like you. If you have any helpful hints, I'd appreciate it.

Reply to frank I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.

Quoting Olivier5

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.

I meant people like that in general.

Quoting frank

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

I can't speak for @Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard, which you interpret as defending one side because that side is already guilty without hearing their point of view or verifying any facts.

If Western media is blaring 24/7 their accusations against the Russians, maybe focusing on those as "maybe true" (which, certainly many are "maybe true") serves no further purpose at some point than to repeat propaganda, but that representing the other side of things, indeed even mentioning that it may exist, is required for clear thinking.

Likewise, if the same Western media automatically gives the benefit of the doubt and simply straight up ignores Bush's crimes, many documented without any dispute about the evidence whatsoever and including straight up confessions by the head of state of the US government! ("So we tortured some folks"); so, again, maybe for the principle of fairness the other side of the story should be heard.

You are arguing from a false equivalence that we have already heard each side of the issue, we already know all the facts, and are simply deciding who we support morally without needing to make decisions or formulate policy: i.e. that if "Putin is bad" is one's moral opinion given the undisputed facts that are already established, then repeating that is the terminus of the critical thinking process.

For example, what I am completely convinced of is that children in Ukraine are certainly innocent and do not deserve to be killed, maimed and traumatised. I have mentioned this is and it's my emotional motivation to contribute analysis in the hopes of a resolution and end to the war.

However, if I did no analysis, just repeated "children don't deserve to be harmed or killed" again and again and again ... at some point I am not serving those Ukrainian children's interests but my own emotions and people would just say "yeah, we get it, we don't like seeing children harmed either, but just saying so doesn't end the war." And if I continue and engage in none of the discussions about the military or political situation and decisions different parties can actually make, at some point I'd be accused of virtue signalling by only repeating the innocent and morally righteous case of the children in Ukraine.

Quoting boethius

can't speak for Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think).

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness.

Quoting frank

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think).

Because billions of dollars are already spent to make the case to defend the American president, there's zero need to "make it more".

Likewise, the case against Putin is already made extremely loudly and we're all expected to accept the verdict is already in.

Lastly, as Westerners we can affect Western policies, we can't affect much Russian or Chinese policies.

Sure, worse there than here ... but I don't see what I can do about that except through affecting Western policies, which requires scrutiny and criticism of Western institutions and power brokers.

Quoting frank

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness.

This is exactly the false equivalence I point out.

The conditions going into a debate are not somehow preordained to be equal and different perspectives already equally heard, and we all have unlimited time to defend each case and develop every possible accusation.

If billions of dollars are already spent defending one perspective, I am not being fair by apportioning my time and energy equally to unequally represented parties.

For example, I say several times I am trying to represent the Russian perspective because the Western media and Ukrainian case is already repeated pretty loudly.

If it was the reverse, that everyone agrees with the Russians and doesn't understand why Ukrainians are fighting, calling them irrational, and cheering the Russians on to crush them, I'd present the Ukrainian perspective instead, try to understand them (their passion to defend their land) in hopes of a diplomatic resolution.

Now, if it's true, Ukrainian righteousness and the decision to fight a good one and it's true that the Russians are evil ... ok, go fight. Get in there NATO.

However, the problem is that even if it is true NATO is not going to fight and Ukrainians aren't going to defeat Russia (impose their conditions on Russia by force).

So ... even according to the Western narrative there is no military solution to achieve Ukrainian's just cause.

Conclusion: either Russia is going to win, or then there will be some diplomatic resolution at some point; the sooner the better, and diplomacy is not possible by only considering one side of an issue.

Reply to boethius I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to.

Do you watch televised news?

Quoting frank

I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to.

Sure, if all you read is this forum, then maybe it seems the case isn't made enough against Putin.

Quoting frank

Do you watch televised news?

I do not have a television, but I follow the major news outlets and aggregators to get an idea of what the mass media is saying.

How things are perceived and what the mass media is saying is a critical part of geo-political analysis.

Unfortunately, due to algorithm driven media, we basically no longer know what information "people" encounter in a general sense. There's no longer "the news paper" that everyone who discussed politics or world events would read as a common reference.

The "mass media" is more now a conversation with bureaucrats and technocrats and most ordinary people ignore it.

Indeed, mass media is no longer the best term, but "establishment news", whereas facebook, instagram, twitter, youtube and Tictok "personalised algorithms" are the actual mass media now.

So, I do agree it's hard to actually know what the real mass social media is even saying to most people, we can only really follow CNN, Reuters, BBC, Aljezera, al Jazeera, Times, Fox, Bloomberg, and co. to see at least what elites and bureaucrats are exposed to.

Reply to frank It's relatively simple, where it concerns Ukraine Russia and USA have been fighting each other over Ukraine for decades. In my view both parties are guilty, and to a lesser extent European governments for being useful idiots in looking away. To get a fuller picture I don't need to highlight what Russia has done, plenty of people already do that, which for some reason a lot of people interpret as a defence for Putin. Quite obviously just because more people are to blame, doesn't make Putin blameless. Much like how a murderer cannot excuse his crimes by pointing to another murderer.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. So there, to get a fuller picture again, I need to remind people what a shit country it is. From the way it treats its own citizens to its international acts.

Reply to Olivier5

I see. So nothing to do with the comment you cited then. Perhaps consider just making a fresh post next time, rather than opening with a completely unrelated comment?

Quoting frank

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia.

The answers have been given over and over.

1. That Putin's actions are awful is a) obvious and b) all over every form of media in the western world. Why do we need to repeat that every third word?

2. We're almost all either American, European or allies of those blocs. The policies we can influence are their policies, the power we can hold to account are their governments. We have virtually no line of influence to Russia so what would be the point in criticising those policies?

3. America and Europe are a crucial part of any solution. If you're comparing options it vital to be aware of who you're dealing with.

4. Not everyone feels an overwhelming compulsion to inform the world at large how they're feeling every thirty seconds.

Reply to Benkei So if you presented a balanced attitude about the US and Russia, you think you'd be contributing to an overall unbalanced narrative that's in the world?

You see yourself as having an obligation to create balance by being biased in both cases, in favor of understanding Russia and condemning the US.

Is that right?

Quoting ssu

One can see it happening here with Bucha:

Whoever committed the crimes at Bucha, I am not interested in defending them. One thing I must point out is the photographs of more or less evenly spaced out bodies looks suspicious to me. All of them by the roadside, where they can be clearly seen, and photographed from above for effect.

You have to realize I have no way of knowing what those photographs represent, who took them, and when. Impossible. I have to trust someone's version of events.

Quoting Benkei

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. So there, to get a fuller picture again, I need to remind people what a shit country it is. From the way it treats its own citizens to its international acts.

Just filling in the blanks.


Not a peep from our public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands. They talk about a city on a hill. Fake news goes back to Gilgamesh. (They were first king who first learned the Big Lie.)



Or possibly things have changed since my elementary school days.

Quoting Benkei

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good.

I think I might understand what's going on.

Americans don't see the US the way you do. It's just our home. The rest of the world is like a big glob of non-American. Sort of.

I don't have access to the view you have where there's an unbalanced message wrt the US and Russia. For me, all narratives are internal, American narratives, whether critical, nationalistic, or just flat (as much as there is any unbiased point of view.)

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent.

Thanks! That actually helped.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Not a peep from the public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands.

Depends on the teacher.

Reply to frank I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country.

Reply to frank Edit: just as examples here, we have plenty of institutional racism with nowadays zero political consequences for those responsible. Growing inequality. Deconstruction of the welfare state. Etc. That's all the center right politics. Then I have a ton to say about the left's inability to have a coherent alternative narrative. I don't believe in identity politics, still think it's about class struggle in the end where nowadays politics is coopted by corporations, making the struggle for socio-economic fairness that much harder.

Quoting Benkei

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country.

I understand. I actually am interested. You guys just haven't invaded anybody recently. :smile:

I am not sure that the following possibilities have been addressed:

1. Despite the rhetoric, it is possible that certain behind the scenes agreements may have been taking place here, negotiations that are not only not reported by the news media, but would change the context of the entire situation, and which we will never know.

2. Since no-one is a perfect actor, and no-one is infallible, some of the truth may slip out from time to time especially in real-time interviews. Zelenskyy is the one to watch here.

3. When a particular course of action is taken, for example Fox news has a general on saying "Biden wants Putin to win" it is more probably due to low intelligence + some sort of a plan than due to pure stupidity.

Just a note about Zelenskyy: I don't get it: Why does he not say straight out to NATO: look: give us the weapons we need to win this war or we are going to surrender in 24 hours, and we will be turning back all weapons at the border. Am I missing something?

How would that work?

Reply to frank Cool. Appreciate it.

Quoting Isaac

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of?

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for. It is entirely possible to create a curriculum that is unique to the place the school is being built.

Quoting Isaac

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking?

What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4.

Quoting Isaac

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases.

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument. Your disagreement is irrelevant if you don't have any explanation showing the opposite. Bad philosophy might get you stuck into biases, we see enough of that on this forum that's for sure, but if you are educated in even basic philosophy, there are plenty of tools for thought to use when the goal is to investigate a probable truth. And for general education, basic philosophy is enough; how to structure an argument by examining beyond the pre-existing belief of the one examining.

Quoting Isaac

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that.

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking.

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals. Because that has a good track record of fixing problems for people throughout history. That is not psychology, that is conservative ideology.

Quoting Isaac

And your evidence for this would be?

Logic.

You need to build a house. You have a high intellect, but you have no knowledge of how to build a house. Would you A) Be able to use your high intelligence to figure it out? or B) Need the gathered knowledge of other people on the topic of building a house to be able to build it?

If you answer A, you might be able to go far, but when some higher knowledge becomes required, like how moisture in the ground affects the foundation and that it might require specific precautions to prevent rot, maybe even a specially built foundation because of the specific soil the house is built on, you fail. That knowledge requires facts to be learned before building the house. It is therefore impossible to effectively and properly build that house without you learning more about how to do so.

The same goes for critical thinking. If you have no knowledge of the mental traps of biases you get into when trying to figure out concepts or solutions to problems, then you will more easily fall into those traps. This isn't something that just exists in nations in need of better and less politically influenced education, but it exists everywhere. Just the last ten years have introduced higher critical thinking into the curriculum of schools in Sweden. But this is much more important for people living in nations with a high degree of extreme propaganda. Where media blatantly lies and group think traditions have taken roots.

If you have a macro problem to solve and you are highly intelligent, but you are unaware of how the mind works, you are unaware of the knowledge about how cognitive biases functions and have no knowledge of the philosophical basics required to bypass all of it through critical thinking. Do you A) Just use your high intelligence and be able to solve it? Or B) Use tested and established methods to figure out a solution uninfluenced by your cognitive biases?

What is most likely the best outcome of that? And if enough people get an education with this knowledge, don't you, logically, agree that it forms a better foundation of collective thought to fix a macro problem for that large group of people?

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms. It sharpens their intellect to be used more effectively and faster than having to invent the wheel over and over.

Quoting Isaac

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities.

I answered to this strawman you made:

Quoting Isaac

people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them.

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids. In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems. Because if the authoritarian systems work under the guise of national tradition, it creates a feedback loop that never breaks and any destructive authoritarian regime could keep doing what they're doing as there's no alternative way to break free of it by the people. North Korea is a good example of this.

Quoting Isaac

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures?

You're making the racist conjecture by dividing everything into a clear us and them where they have some magical alternative to western thinking and also that western thinking is some singular entity of idealogy and opinions, exactly the kind of simplistic viewpoints that Hans Rosling opposed the west to have. It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture. However, a good quality education also teaches about other perspectives in the world, it's part of broadening knowledge. And when it comes to critical thinking, methods of logical deduction, and induction, those are close to universal methods of math, but for structuring arguments and conceptual ideas. And what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know. Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.

The problem is that you are viewing education as indoctrination, not learning skills and knowledge. You base your argument around how the west reshapes third-world countries by establishing schools with western thinking. This is not how things are done. Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation?

The problem is that you structure your entire argument around a strawman that I argue for invading these nations with western education. And then you are unable to think past this and realize that I'm not doing that, that I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.

This blind division between "the west" and third world that you force your arguments through is much more racist in rhetoric than you try to apply to my argument. And if they have a method of critical thinking that is better, I wish to hell that we can learn from that, so if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn. I'm just going by what is known right now about logical thinking that bypasses cognitive biases. And that these are powerful tools of thought that is effectively piercing through propaganda more easily than any traditional thinking learned from parents to children within authoritarian nations filled with groupthink problems.

Quoting Isaac

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump.

And Liverpool's chemical waste dump was not a threat to the entire region of Europe or reshaped the entire topic of nuclear power safety. Stop making attempts at a point that doesn't work. Chernobyl was a significant incident that is known throughout the world.

And you also fail tremendously with that point because Liverpool is in the UK and it's probably part of common knowledge within the UK, even for a smaller incident than Chernobyl. So by that logic you would assume that people within the same Soviet Union should know about Chernobyl, especially when the iron curtain fell and things were declassified and schools started teaching about history without propaganda. Or just basic chemistry or physics in grade school teaching about radioactivity. That people from Russia don't know about Chernobyl or how radioactive material from a failed nuclear power plant works, just proves my point of how important education is. Chernobyl could have made Russia uninhabitable. It was a major event that is still a dangerous risk and that knowledge isn't taught properly in Russia, or the soldiers who were there gave an insight into just how bad education is for many in Russia.

Quoting Isaac

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both.

What leads you to automatically gravitate towards the US as the form of "westernization" I talk about? Isn't that racist towards me as a Swede to automatically assume that I have no ability to form a westernized system based on Sweden and not the US? Also based on Sweden's tradition of charity and help to nations in need that is in no way close to the US or UK's use of charity as a form of imperialistic establishment in other nations?

Because instead of asking questions first about how I think it should work, you directly assume me to be a racist western imperialist of the US standard and you then argue accordingly. You see, this is what is wrong with you and your rhetoric.

Quoting Isaac

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education?

If establishing a school in Senegal and building the curriculum, it will be a collaboration with the people of Senegal to form that education. If there are alternatives to logical and critical thinking by any thinkers in Senegal then that will be a great addition, maybe you should mention which ones you are thinking about? If I were to establish a school there, then maybe I would include Souleymane Bachir Diagne in the collaboration of building that curriculum and include teachings of Kocc Barma Fall as part of the general philosophical education. But most importantly, Senegal needs basic education since literacy is among the lowest in Africa. Here's a good example of how quality education can help the nation as a whole. If one of Kocc Barma Fall's most famous ideas was to reject foreign aid, then that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages. Such projects need people with education to establish those projects. Helping with establishing more schools and a curriculum in collaboration with the Senegal people is then a form of aid that doesn't make them dependent as servents (as Kocc Barma Fall's said), but able to reject aid and become totally independent from any kind of aid.

You see, you cannot just pick and choose a nation like that and try and make an argument that strawman my concept into some blanket solution for everywhere. The actual practice of establishing schools needs to be done in collaboration with the place it is being established in. But the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice. That it is western philosophy does not equal it being an invasion of western culture, especially not if combined with philosophies of the nation the school is established within.

You think that because I write a summary of how education on critical thinking can form greater independence for the people by them having tools of thought to critically view and reform their own destiny as they like, there's no depth to the actual practice of how to do it?

This is a failure of thinking on your part, requiring the entire plan for establishing specific nations' educational systems or helping them establish them instead of understanding the foundational concept I presented. You aren't arguing in any rational or philosophically balanced way, you are biased towards your already established picture of me as a racist imperialistic pro-western spokesman and you reshape everything you read into that narrative. But that also informs me of why you cannot understand the concept I present because you seem so much a slave to your own biases that the concept of critical thinking seems foreign to you, you already have a bias in this discussion, a bias that makes you unable to see what I write in any other shape than your pre-existing viewpoint. Which becomes very ironic because of the topic of what I write here.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with.

Ok, then elaborate on that disagreement because unestablished disagreement in itself is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quoting Isaac

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit?
— Christoffer

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Yes - that philosophy is bullshit? For a professor at a University, you write pretty badly if you don't see the error in reference here. I guess you don't mean that because that would be fundamentally stupid.

But in terms of "the case" I've spent a lot of time presenting "that case", you presented nothing but conjecture with loaded terms like calling things racist and just disagreeing without elaboration of that disagreement. As well as strawmen, false dichotomies etc.

Quoting Isaac

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom?
— Christoffer

No.

If a high level of knowledge means knowing a lot about much, it is. Wisdom is combining pure knowledge and facts into balanced ideas.

Quoting Isaac

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically.
— Christoffer

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it.

Elaborate on the disagreement.

You don't agree that gaining knowledge through unbiased education enables an increase in the amount of knowledge you have, which through the quantity of knowledge enables more perspectives to be known and more perspectives to be viewed at the same time to form an unbiased critical view and increase wisdom about a topic?

What is it that you don't agree with? Are you unable to form an explanation for this disagreement?

Quoting Isaac

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it.

I don't, it is a part of it, but you cannot start change if people aren't educated enough to act upon the change they want. The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things and if the people handling those things are the educated people of the nation doing these changes and not outsiders, they have become independent of outside help. The most effective way, as I've been saying over and over, to help people become independent from any outsiders is to help them with education so that they can shape things themselves and not rely on outsiders to help them. Imagine a class of young adults who went through education and later higher education of water filtration science. That is far better than waiting for outsiders to come with water aid or water filtration aid. Then they have full control over fixing this problem and doing so in a way that benefits them entirely and independently, as in line with Kocc Barma Fall's will for the people not to become servents. Just as how I used the proverb you called racist.

Quoting Isaac

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process.

Once again, see there how you reshape what I write to fit your worldview or your view of others' arguments to fit how you form your counterarguments. You seem unable to discuss anything without loading everything with that kind of a gun.

The specifics of this is how the people gain knowledge to critically review state propaganda. That was the foundation of my argument that has, through your wild outbursts grown into a more general topic. So going back to that foundation, critical thinking enables ways to spot unproven truths, state lies, and propaganda more easily and easily review them critically. If you understand how to break down and deconstruct "truths" around you, you could start seeing through state propaganda and work against it. If a nation like Russia, whose government and Putin rely heavily on state propaganda for the people to be kept in place, had problems keeping the propaganda narrative intact because too many citizens see through it and show criticism against it, then a huge part of the authoritarian machinery stops working. Some experts even say that the state propaganda in Russia is the main source of power for Putin and if it fails then Putin's regime will fail with it.

My point is that the power of the government is just as good as its ability to keep the public in its place. If education enforces the same state propaganda and villages and rural areas don't even have schools, then how would people even begin to know how to deconstruct what is told to them. And if they can barely read, how could they ever gain any knowledge to help them grasp the reality they're in?

You seem to argue that my argument of educational aid is "the only solution". It's not. But it's a powerful part of giving the people the power to fight back against the government. What else can they fight with? By not agreeing with the government, it's not as easy as it seems for the government to keep itself in power. If the machinery of a nation, the lifeblood that is the people, stops supporting the government's power, then soon or later that government will collapse. None of this is "easy" it can even be bloody and it all depends on what the people want. If they feel fine with the stability of the authoritarian government, they might just hold their heads down and hope to live a decent life, or they really want a change and act towards it.

But to say that education does not have a major part in empowering the people against their government or against corruption and propaganda is just not a valid conclusion without better justification as to why it isn't.

Quoting Isaac

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'?

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them of the chance to through the course of time study these things compared to the comfort in western philosophical institutions who could spend lifetimes of time on a topic to develop and fine-tune it? Maybe geopolitical instabilities even without imperialistic interference pressed down free thinkers and unabled them to develop and fine-tune their philosophies? Just look at how the Islamic golden age lost practice after it ended and most of that knowledge went to other places in the world, but most regions over the course of hundreds of years fell back into strict religious practices. Why didn't they keep their practices of education that are so important even mentioned in the Quran as an important part of life?

So there are a lot of reasons why cultural heritage could suppress such knowledge, even if such knowledge was even a world standard many centuries ago. What the west has had is one of the longest periods of refining past knowledge, sciences, and philosophy. And even so, many of the discoveries in critical thinking is as accidental as discoveries in science. The right person at the right time reviews a specific text and forms a new idea of progressive thought. Western philosophy might just have been lucky over the thousands of years it has existed. But the most important part is that critical thinking is essentially analytical in nature and western philosophies have been for the most part analytical. If you are to review a stated truth, the analytical approach to reviewing that truth is far more effective for deconstructing it than anything else. It's the foundation for how science works.

As I've said, if there are critical thinking concepts that have been developed and work in different ways than in western philosophy, good. We could learn from that as well, just as we learned knowledge from the Islamic golden age, just as anyone learns by the experience and knowledge of others. The problem here is that you gather together everything with a "western" stamp on it and position it as an imperialistic invasion of other cultures. Not everything is like that. We could even argue that the Islamic golden age is a huge historical foundation of western philosophy and that we just picked up the torch and if that knowledge returns to Islamic nations, how can anyone determine that to be any kind of "western" invasion rather than basically Islamic tradition of education mentioned in the Quran itself?

You've divided the world so black and white in this matter that you think that western philosophy and "other philosophy" are at some odds with each other, just because we have another concept called "western imperialism" that shares the name "western" in it. That's just a childish false dichotomy.

Quoting Isaac

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children?

Why didn't people think about "0" before it was discovered as part of math? You wouldn't argue that "0" isn't a universal concept of math, do you? So why didn't people think of "0" before people used "0" in calculations?

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education?

Just read up on the history of western philosophy of logical reasoning and you will find discoveries after discoveries of how nothing was clear cut and easily "invented" in one single place as some sort of universal truth that was just obvious. A universal concept means that it is universal in its logic. Deduction and induction are universal concepts as they are logical in nature. True premises lead to a true conclusion or true premises lead to a probable conclusion. This is as logical as math, just as discovering the concept of "0". Finding an alternative to this is like finding an alternative to "0", good luck. Maybe western philosophy was just the place these concepts were discovered, maybe others discovered it too, just like many ancient cultures discovered the concept of "0" independent of others doing the same.

But when I speak of these concepts as part of education, I'm clearly speaking of them as an education for people who didn't have those concepts known to them. And with authoritarian states that suppress knowledge, it might be known to the elite, but not the common man, which becomes a source of power for the elite. So giving this knowledge to the common man will help them level the playing field against the elite and help them stand up against that elite.

Quoting Isaac

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'?

Because you disagree without elaboration and present no other alternative of practical solutions or parts of solutions? I can only conclude your point to be whatever you write it to be. If you constantly do not elaborate on anything and never present alternative solutions, then the conclusion is that you don't agree but have nothing else as an alternative solution.

You disagree that education can help the people of a nation to be able to rise up against the elite and government. And that knowledge passed down from parent to child is enough to gain enough wisdom for anything. For a university professor, that is a hell of a fucked up viewpoint in my opinion.

Quoting Isaac

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'.

I think I've presented enough examples if you cared to read other than just view everything through western imperialistic lenses.

And yes, you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia, please do, what is the Marxist solution to Russia that can help them reshape their nation to something less corrupt and more open to freedom and rights of the people. I would like you to make a case for how that would happen.

I suggested independent education for the Russian people who got the short stick of the educational inequality lottery. I don't think that needs to be elaborated much more than aid that development. Maybe even have online schools that create valid grades. Support everyone with internet free of state control to take part in such education, and computers for those who can't afford them.

I mean, none of this is that big of a deal, but it would level the playing field of the Russian population, able to access unfiltered information and be able to get an education regardless of situation, class or economy. You could bring in Starlink dishes to remote areas for example.

It doesn't take much to see how education for the ones not lucky enough to score the inequality lottery could improve the general knowledge of the entire population. And as I've argued, a better education leads to a better ability to question the status quo when the status quo is bad for the people. Because it's easier to arrive at solutions to that status quo, not just wait for the corrupt government to fix itself.

So... how would you practically see the Marxist reform? Or do you mean we should do nothing and just let them exist under Putin's boot until they automatically become a Marxist nation? that's kind of the same as not doing anything.

Quoting Isaac

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production.

How will that be done practically? I mean, Russia already has a foundation for the free market, so you need to remove that part. You also need to establish guidelines as to how different levels of competence within those worked-owned companies are being handled, so that some don't work their assess off while others don't but get the same.

I mean, the Marxist concept was about how capitalism's collapse gives birth to a Marxist society. i.e a communist society. All examples of communism we have so far were... just as you suggest here... a deliberate force of change, to speed up that collapse of capitalism and install communism directly. That didn't work out so well now did it?

So you are suggesting the same kind of Lenin approach to all of this. I would just like to know how that would really play out in reality, in your opinion? Especially when Russia already has a free market in place that needs to be shut down first.

It's fascinating that you are so opposed to my idea of installing better and more equal education free of state propaganda as part of improving people's ability to choose what they want to do in life and how they want to reshape their nation... while you yourself suggest installing communism, ignoring what is already in place that would more organically change society in a way people can be comfortable with, just because you don't like capitalism and the free market.

You essentially do the same sin you accuse others of, you don't care what they already have and just want to install what you believe is right.

Quoting Isaac

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets.

So they're not free to choose for themselves then? Maybe they choose that path because they want it? Why is it wrong to choose that path, but it's right to choose the path you suggest? Have you any evidence of such an ultimatum from the west or are you just using that as a way to suggest that your path is the right one? How about some consistency in thought here, or is it you who are racist against Ukrainians? Thinking they are unable to choose because they don't choose what you want them to choose and inventing an ultimatum that has no proof behind it you can justify why their choice is bad and your suggestion for communism is better?

What you are suggesting as a solution requires far more force than what I suggest, a force that might even go against the will of the people. How ironic this all became.

Quoting Olivier5

the kind of things the Nazis were doing.

Exactly. It is hideously ironic that Russia, which claims to be "de-nazifying" Ukraine is emulating the actual Nazis.

Quoting Olivier5

This was not always the case.

True enough, the Dutch were quite imperialistic with colonies in the Americas, Asia and Africa. Royal Dutch Shell didn't get rich harvesting clams, after all.

Quoting Benkei

still think it's about class struggle

Probably a sweeping generalization, but "The class war is the only war."

Quoting Isaac

So nothing to do with the comment you cited then.

You are thick.

It had to do with this comment of yours, where you made it look like Zelensky and the West are war criminals, and you conveniently left the Russians off the hook:

Quoting Isaac

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter.

Reply to Bitter Crank Yep, someone needs to denazify Russia...

Quoting Olivier5

This was not always the case. The Netherlands had an oversea empire in South Africa and Indonesia. They invented the apartheid system to rule it, primarily to avoid inter-racial sex and marriage. Their very long war against the independent-minded Acehnese became a war of extermination. Dutch troops wiped out entire villages and murdered civilians by the thousands. That's how they 'won'.

All true unfortunately. Even worse, apologising for our "police actions" at the end of the 40s is still not done because the feelings of veterans are more important than admitting to war crimes.

Quoting frank

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent.

Our, certainly my, concerns are the hundreds of military bases and toppling government and interfering in democratic political processes even in Europe as well as overt military threats and actions as well.

Which, the US, having the most military and covert power, does the most of, in addition to the integration of this power system with multinational corporations that implement these policies in a sort of quasi-legalistic way as well.

Are these actions justified by democracy? No. Democracy can still result in unjustifiable actions.

We can also question not only how democratic the United States actually is, but also question, given it determines policy and governments in many places around the world who don't get to vote ... if the US system is really democratic at all considering the case can be made that the United States imposing its will on poor countries is de facto governing without the consent of the governed.

Be that as it may, the question is one of scale. The actions of the US have far greater impact on the state of the world than Uzbekistan, so the utility of criticising US policy is simply more relevant and hopefully more fruitful.

If you say "but you don't criticise the others!" ... we do. I called China a totalitarian hellscape many times on this forum, and if you retort "ok, but not as much!" then the answer is in terms of scale and effectiveness.

USA, for now, has more influence on the state of the world than Uzbekistan and even China, so is more relevant in terms of political criticism.

Additionally, not only is criticism of USA more effective precisely because it's not yet completely totalitarian (I would argue pretty close though), so we can engage with American's such as yourself, but our own governments have far more influence over American policy than Uzbek or Chinese policy. A lot of actions the US want to be seen as "the US and its allies" and "the Free World" and so Europe has considerable leverage in such "Deciding for the Free World" conversations. Sometimes US goes it alone, but it prefers not to.

For example, certainly there is lot's and lot's to condemn and criticise about North Korea, I don't think anyone here would disagree, the problem is that the criticism doesn't go very far as we can't do much about it. If someone had a plan to make life better and more democratic in North Korean from the outside ... great, let's do it; the problem is the paucity of such plans and so there's little to scrutinise and discuss and little to do, and North Korean influence on the world isn't so great, so "the problem" can just be ignored insofar as no one seems to have a solution anyway.

However, contrast this to American policy and it's a different situation; the scale of the American War Machine and covert machine is global and massive, in addition both legitimate and illegitimate political and economic power; these policies can be influenced in several effective ways, so it's worth debating.

And we have discussed "what we can do about democracy in Russia" such as provoke a violent revolution.

However, if one disagrees with that plan and doesn't see or hear any other plan to affect Russian policy on the short term (the here and now when people are dying), then, again, seems the best we can do is try to understand the Russian perspective and make the case of Europe and the US using their leverage and "statecraft" to reach a diplomatic resolution and the end to the current bloodshed.

If the bloodshed stopped, then there would be plenty of time to debate the morality from first principles and what longer term policies may prevent and minimise wars in the future, including policies with respect to Russia. War crimes should be investigated, for various reasons, including that it hopefully dissuades more war crimes in the future.

Quoting frank

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.
— Olivier5

I meant people like that in general.

Sure, and among people like that, some of them do it for the money, but of course your question of why do they defend Russia arises only for those who do it for free.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss.

Reply to Benkei There's no such thing as a nation of angels.

Quoting boethius

If the bloodshed stopped, then there would be plenty of time to debate the morality from first principles and what longer term policies may prevent and minimise wars in the future, including policies with respect to Russia. War crimes should be investigated, for various reasons, including that it hopefully dissuades more war crimes in the future.

No reason to expect the bloodshed to stop, nor to wait for the bloodshed to stop first before we can debate morality.

Quoting Olivier5

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss.

So you're different because you've traveled more?

Quoting Olivier5

No reason to expect the bloodshed to stop, nor to wait for the bloodshed to stop first before we can debate morality.

I said from first principles. If the bloodshed ended we could circle back to a lot of foundational moral issues that have been touched on in this thread, but it's difficult to really get into because of the war and events moving forward.

Wanting to end the war, is a moral position, be it militarily or diplomatically or via revolution in Russia, but we are taking that moral position for granted, not debating first principles about it.

From that shared moral position, people here are advocating different things—be them further moral differences or then just analytical questions of effective action; i.e. how best to achieve the shared goal.

For example, some have clearly stated the position that repeating Western media narrative helps Ukrainians, helps them fight and get support and so helping to end the war that way, and Russian points, be them true or false, should be ignored as even recognising "the seed" that happens to be true as true serves the Russian propaganda.

Others, have argued for a diplomatic resolution which requires a diplomatic framework.

Reply to frank Not different, just less anti-american.

https://www.rt.com/russia/553293-bucha-war-crimes-truth/

RT:The linkage between the dead and the Russian military was established immediately, without any fact-based data to back it up, and subsequently echoed in all forms of media – mainstream and social alike. Anyone who dared question the established “Russia did it” narrative was shouted down and belittled as a “Russian shill,” or worse.

Here we go:

Quoting CNN

CNN has not been able to independently confirm the details around the men's deaths.

Note the URL

/ukraine-images-russia-invasion-what-matters/index.html

If a video of civillian bodies along the roadside is taken as proof of Russian atrocities, then there is no need for either further comment or explanation.

This is the reason wars happen: because reason never settles the issue.

Reply to Benkei
I can find you someone who has met Putin, but I don’t think it would help. Putin has a poker face, is an ace poker player. Those Kremlinologists who have met him have come to similar views. He must be judged by his actions. I’m not here to talk about Andrew Levi though, I’m here to discuss what Putin is up to and the tweet I quoted lays out the argument that he is the equivalent of a Mafia boss.

Forgive me, I wasn’t aware of discussion you were involved in with regarding the track record of the US.
I have no argument with you there. We do need to focus on the actor who has committed an act of aggression though.

It's also neither here nor there. If we want peace, if we want to stop the killing now, we need to go through the Russia that is now and the way it is under Putin. And secretly of course the wish for "fundamental change" is for Russia to roll over and accept US hegemony and pretend it doesn't have any interests or rights other than those that exactly align with what the UK/US want them to be.

So you are of the opinion that peace can be achieved with Putin in place? Provided he is held in a weak position, with some stability, I would agree with you. But this may not be possible and it might not work for him. Perhaps these acts of aggression are required for him to maintain himself in power and he would feel threatened if he is left weak. There are the problems of what might happen in Russia if it is relegated to a world pariah. He could then lash out in a more dangerous way, or the Russian people could react in some aggressive way. There is also the geopolitical considerations in which China could align with Russia and the world could divide into those states who are with Russia and those who are against.

For NATO, leaving Putin to get bogged down in Ukraine, depleting his forces until sanctions bite might have the best outcome. But this may involve the destruction of Ukraine, a sovereign state and war crimes on a massive scale. Can NATO stand by and watch this happen.

https://craneip.com/china-remains-ukraines-largest-trade-partner-in-2020/

The most popular categories of goods that were imported into Ukraine were mineral fuels, oil and its distillation products, reactors, boilers, machinery, equipment and mechanical devices, and vehicles.

The main countries-suppliers of goods to Ukraine were China (with a share of 15.3%), Germany (9.4%), and Russia (8.5%).

Could it be said that China helped fuel Ukraine's war machine?

Quoting boethius

As Benkei (an actual lawyer) has already pointed out, there does need to be some sort of credible investigation, chance for the accused to defend themselves, and, ideally, some sort of impartial trial to determine war crimes, or crimes in general.

But of course.

In the case of the shooting down of MH17 there was an extensive investigation by the Dutch Safety Board and the criminal investigation was one of the largest in Dutch history with dozens of prosecutors and 200 investigators. And those responsible were found. Of course this incident appears to have been an incident of "collateral damage" as usually shooting downs of civilian aircraft are. Actually earlier Ukraine accidentally shot down a Russian airliner using a truly old SA-5 surface to air missile (which has it's own radar in the missile and can fly very far). The ordinary thing would be to acknowledge the mistake (Oops.) and pay compensation for the families. The US did that when USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner.

But this is not the way how Russia operates. It's just denies the truth perpetually. If you deny it, someone will believe you.

Quoting boethius

Additionally, war crimes by individual soldiers or units (which I do not doubt has happened; it's essentially guaranteed in any war) do not automatically translate to being war crimes of the military or the government. It must be some sort of institutionalised policy or direct order.

Again something very obvious. In Abu Ghraib the military policemen didn't invent out of boredom to humiliate the Iraqi inmates. They were specifically told to do so. It's actually rather difficult to hide a chain of command is something is perpetrated by en masse compared to one individual event.

When it comes to warcrimes, you can see when something is an act of one individual and when something is done systemically.

Quoting ssu

accidentally shot down a Russian airline

As I recall it was an Ukrainian air force plane, a large one, at altitude, which should have sent alarm bells ringing. Interestingly, the route over Ukraine was changed due to the war there.

On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport aircraft flying at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) was shot down

In April, the International Civil Aviation Organization had warned governments that there was a risk to commercial passenger flights over south-eastern Ukraine.[3]:?217? The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region.[61][62] 37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Quoting Benkei

Other than that I find your optimism misplaced. Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Tokyo ring a bell? How many were court martialed? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo? Anything? Torture and renditions? What's Cheney doing nowadays anyway?

I don't think I was an optimist in any way. I just explained that even if nations can be theoretically against warcrimes and try preventing civilian casualties, it doesn't mean that warcrimes wouldn' happen. Yet if your strategy is to affect the civilian population, be it the firebombings of Japan, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or the way Russia fought in Chechnya (and seems to be fighting in Ukraine), there something more to it than just the act of random violence. It's just then that the scale can be far greater.

At least Arthur "Bomber" Harris had the decency to understand that he would have been tried as a war criminal if the UK had lost. I'm not so sure how Curtis LeMay thought about it. He perhaps would have wanted have that nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Russia had only a few ICBMs. He surely saw the "brief but bloody" war something that would prevent from the "long and bloody" war, which is quite dubious.



But of course, we are here talking about the war in Ukraine that was perpetrated by mr Putin.

Quoting FreeEmotion

As I recall it was an Ukrainian air force plane, a large one, at altitude, which should have sent alarm bells ringing. Interestingly, the route over Ukraine was changed due to the war there.

I was referring to this case:

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was a commercial flight shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. The aircraft, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members. Most of the passengers were Israelis visiting relatives in Russia. There were no survivors. The crash site is about 190 km west-southwest of the Black Sea resort of Sochi, 140 km north of the Turkish coastal town of Fatsa and 350 km south-southeast of Feodosiya in Crimea. The accident resulted from combat-missile launches during joint Ukrainian-Russian military air-defence exercises. The exercises were held at the Russian-controlled training ground of the 31st Russian Black Sea Fleet Research center on Cape Opuk near the city of Kerch in Crimea. Ukraine eventually admitted that it might have caused the crash, probably by an errant S-200 missile fired by its armed forces. Ukraine paid $15 million to surviving family members of the 78 victims ($200,000 per victim).

Quoting Punshhh

Provided he is held in a weak position, with some stability, I would agree with you.

That contradicts what you shared though. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be.

Quoting frank

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

I think people can explain themselves better.

But at least @Isaac has been pretty consistent in his reasoning that he doesn't want that the US would be seen as a "A Knight in White Shining Armour".

Yet if one side tells the truth in favorable terms and the other side fabricates an utter lie, is then the best thing to look for the truth in the middle?

No.

You have to disregard the lie and understand the agenda of the other.

Quoting Christoffer

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for.

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all.

Quoting Christoffer

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking? — Isaac


What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4.

I had said that if specialist equipment were required then one could understand a more developed country obtaining some knowledge derived from it. You countered with "what about critical thinking!" I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out.

Quoting Christoffer

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument.

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case.

Quoting Christoffer

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking.

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs.

Quoting Christoffer

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals.

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem?

Quoting Christoffer

The same goes for critical thinking.

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education.

Quoting Christoffer

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms.

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least.

Quoting Christoffer

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids.

Yes, that's right. Quoting Christoffer

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems.

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions.

Quoting Christoffer

It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this?

Quoting Christoffer

what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know.

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing.

Quoting Christoffer

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males.

Quoting Christoffer

Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation?

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials - two things denied them in most early agricultural and developing industrial economies.

Quoting Christoffer

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter.

Quoting Christoffer

if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn.

It's not about alternatives. It's about you learning that, contrary to your strongly held assumptions, logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought. What prevents their use is largely scarcity - being hungry, poor, stressed... Remove those and you will have people able to think critically without having to teach them anything.

Quoting Christoffer

that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages.

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments?

Quoting Christoffer

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice.

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact.

Quoting Christoffer

Elaborate on the disagreement.

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine.

Quoting Christoffer

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things

There's no evidence for this at all.

Quoting Christoffer

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them...

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture.

Quoting Christoffer

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education?

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged. Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong. To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions. You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong.

Quoting Christoffer

you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia,

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged.

Quoting boethius

it's difficult to really get into [a moral discussion] because of the war and events moving forward.

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur.

Quoting ssu

Yet if one side tells the truth in favorable terms and the other side fabricates an utter lie, is then the best thing to look for the truth in the middle?

I don't understand this proposition at all. If you already know the 'truth' (such that you know one side tells the truth and the other lies) then why would you "look for the truth" at all? You already know it.

Quoting Benkei

Nice is-ought mistake there.

No, that one is only in your mind. I'm not going to defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

Selective in your history too.

*sigh*

I didn't say all societies throughout history had a soldier class.

And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same.

Your use of "we" says otherwise.

And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy.

Then you need to read up on infanticide in animals:

[i]In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of the same species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) but including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.[2] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable.[3] This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice.[3] It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well.[/i]

And, of course, intrauterine cannibalism.

The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You are really mean. I addressed a topic, and you shot it down with a taboo.

Is this a philosophy forum or the watercooler??!!

Quoting Isaac

I don't understand this proposition at all. If you already know the 'truth' (such that you know one side tells the truth and the other lies) then why would you "look for the truth" at all? You already know it.

Of course not... :roll:

OK: Consider for example the case of Putin's little green men. A picture from the 2014 invasion:



Do the above men look as to be part of a Crimean volunteer force that sprang up because of the turmoil in the country? Or do they look like Russian paratroops that don't have the Russian flag insignia on their arm?

In order to draw a conclusion which possibility is correct, perhaps you then have to have some idea about just what would a "volunteer force" during political turmoil would look like and what Russian paratroops in their newest gear would look like. And if you don't know anything about the gear, then look at the age of the men. Volunteer militias are usually made up of young and old men while armies are made of fit service age males.

Yet during that time, this was all too confusing for journalists who I remember clearly didn't want to make conclusions at first just who the soldiers were... because it wasn't told to them. So they were "little green men".

Quoting Olivier5

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur.

You didn't read either of my comments.

I said moral discussion of first principles, which you are not doing.

You assume Ukraine has just cause, you are not discussing your moral theory about it nor anyone else's, nor why Ukraine happens to have just cause with respect to your moral theory.

You are not discussing morality, you are mostly just condemning Russians and praising Ukrainians based on moral ideas you already have, and accusing people you perceive as helping the former at the expense of the latter. I.e. you are implementing political objectives: to influence and shape perceptions.

A moral discussion would be circling back to issues such as how many Nazi's would justify invasion, to be confident it's not Russia who has just cause.

Which, each side claims they have just cause and therefore they can lie and their crimes can be excused, as crimes by soldiers and even institutions in warfare can be expected; either as "shit happens" or then the means justify the just ends and the warrior has to do sometimes difficult things, hard choices have to be made.

Or then, maybe neither side has just cause and individual soldiers are better off deserting.

Perhaps even both sides can have just cause in a moral relativistic theory driving identity politics ... which suddenly I don't see, where did it go? Is it under this rock? Nope, not under there. Maybe behind this tree? Nope, not over here either. Funny, I was certain it was around here somewhere.

If you actually look at the moral arguments, they essentially are structured around a sort of original just cause that justifies whatever deception or otherwise crimes that follows that. However, if original just cause justifies lying, the problem is it justifies lying about the original just cause as well.

In your system of reasoning that's solved by simply assuming you have just cause and even challenging that to see if it would survive critical scrutiny would undermine the belief in the just cause, a belief required to win the just war, therefore even scrutinising the original just cause would be immoral as it undermines the belief in the just cause, which you know is true without any scrutiny, which would be immoral to really cary out in a good faith way, but you know it to be true anyways.

Reply to Benkei Yes like passing through the eye of a needle. I find it difficult to image such an outcome.

Quoting Olivier5

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur.

As for "preventing" that's a completely absurd representation of my position.

I said if you want the bloodshed to end (that's your moral objective in the here and now), then it will end by one side winning or then diplomatic resolution.

That doesn't prevent discussing from first principles just war theory and the moral theories upon which such just war theories would be built, it's just unlikely to help end the war one way or another (which I mention Ukraine "marching on Moscow" would be one way to end it, and does not require thinking about the Russian perspective much).

Quoting Benkei

. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be.

If that's true, we should expect trouble going forward. His actions have eliminated Russia's market economy. He's transitioning to some sort of command economy, like N. Korea's.

So he is headed backward economically speaking. Ties to the west: gone. Russian middle class: severely reduced. His economy: permanently contracted.

That doesn't bode well for the overall health of Russian society.

Quoting boethius

A moral discussion would be circling back to issues such as how many Nazi's would justify invasion, to be confident it's not Russia who has just cause.

And lo and behold, we have found it quite possible to have this discussion here, in spite of the war going on, so I don't see the link between a war going on, on the one hand, and a moral debate, be it on first principles, on the other hand. These are two very different things and I can see no causal mechanism between them, where one would prevent the other...

Camus wrote the Letters to a German Friend while WW2 was still raging. He didn't find it a problem. Why do you?

Reply to ssu

And?



Or

https://odysee.com/@Orf:b/lab-leak-conspiracy-theory-mashup:4

Both sides lie. So why believe one and not the other?

Quoting Olivier5

And lo and behold, we have found it quite possible to have this discussion here, in spite of the war going on, so I don't see the link between a war going on, on the one hand, and a moral debate, be it on first principles, on the other hand. These are two very different things and I can see no causal mechanism between them, where one would prevent the other...

Time is limited.

Every word you consider saying you could first debate in your head 10 years the first principle reasons before saying it. Nothing prevents you from carefully reflecting in such a way.

It may however prevent other goals the word under consideration was intended to address 10 years ago.

Reply to Olivier5

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate.

People have existing moral positions in which they are approaching the war in Ukraine and try to do, or a least promote, their moral objectives.

My moral objective is to contribute to a diplomatic resolution, which is just boring talking.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution, but if you have a proposal on what is the ultimate moral first principles and how to apply them to believe what and to say what and to do what about the war, feel free to teach me about it.

Reply to frank

Here's an interview with Yanis Varoufakis. He's saying much the same things as we're saying here. The point I want you to note is the first part

Back in 2001, I labelled Vladimir Putin a war criminal because of the murder of 250,000 people in Grozny, Chechnya. It was in a Senate meeting of the University of Athens, which was discussing the motion for awarding an honorary doctorate to Putin, who had just become president of Russia. And I was in a minority of one opposing it.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/ukraine-cannot-win-this-war/

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin"

Reply to frank Reply to Punshhh I'm not necessarily agreeing with this theory, just saying that if you follow Andrew Levi's assessment then this is what you get.

I happen to think it's wrong. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss". Putin came from more or less nowhere and had held the reins of power in Russia for decades. He's not stupid and I see no good reason to replace the stated warnings by Russia over the past decades, eg. "don't fuck around with our sphere if influence" (I paraphrase) with convenient archetypes that prop up our narrative as "west good, Russia bad".

It doesn't fit his personal history and it doesn't fit official Russian policy for decades. Andrew Levi is just a convenient story to push UK policy.

Quoting boethius

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate.

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded.

And it has zilch to do with a war going on or not.

Philosophical debates are not really geared to reach a deal, as when two businessmen debate some deal they both want to strike. In philosophy debate is more a way for each debater to develop his or her views, to present them under different facets, to see how arguments are attacked, and hence how they can be improved.

Your argument was just pulled out of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. And that's all I have to say about it.

Quoting Benkei

. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss"

Mob bosses aren't evil or irrational. They're a form of governance. You pay the mob as part of the price of doing business. That's exactly what Putin is in Russia.

They butcher, sure, but in an environment where the police can kill minority Americans and get away with it, it's good to align yourself with someone who has established a relationship with the police. It's corrupt, sure. But it provides some stability for people who would be vulnerable.

I think the point is that it's not Russia that just invaded Ukraine. It's Putin. A number of pundits have made that point. It's not insulting.

Quoting Isaac

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin"

I don't think you understand what I was asking, but I think I do get it now.

Quoting Olivier5

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded.

That's why I don't say "reach agreement" but rather

Quoting boethius

before we even make any progress in such a debate.

... which does not include the word "agree".

However, whether you refuse for the purposes of deflection or then you genuinely don't understand, I am not against discussing moral issues from first principles.

It is simply not my priority and I have also pointed out no one here, including yourself, is doing so. If people wanted to do so, I could not "prevent them", but I would engage insofar as it seemed a productive use of my time (of which I do have a 'productivist view', despite even your disagreement), which, if it seemed to help reach a diplomatic resolution then I may participate in such a debate insofar as it does so.

Quoting Olivier5

Your argument was just pulled our of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians.

How did I prevent anyone expressing their views?

And, notice how the only mechanism available for me to prevent people from expressing their views .. is expressing my view, which, because you assume you have just cause without any scrutiny of the belief, my view (which was simply mentioning it does take investigations and hearing what the Russians say to even start some credible process) is somehow preventing other's from expressing their views about it?

Does it really though? Or does it simply take the edge off the circle of self adulation and pats on the back?

Quoting Olivier5

a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians.

This is interesting. What is the mechanism you propose by which this prevention is achieved?

Quoting Christoffer

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole.

No, that's all your doing. I said I want every country to be self-sufficient:

Quoting baker

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.)

If it were up to me, I would enforce self-sufficiency at all costs. How this works out in any particular case depends on the particular cirucmstances.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further.
— baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

The masses cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. This is the entire scope of my claim.
That doesn't mean I "defend authoritarian dictatorship". The masses want panem et circenses. If they are allowed to pursue that, they will destroy everything.

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society.

I favor self-sufficiency.

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot?

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of limited natural (and other) resources.

A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

The way people in Western society are different from one another is trivial, superficial. Those differences are merely artificially trumped up, so that people can brag about them and their "tolerance".

The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact.

You should read some modern Western books on psychology, such as the DSM. Then you'd understand what authoritarianism really is.

I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

Being able to criticize those in power is overrated anyway. It doesn't affect those in power (other than to give them reason to retaliate). Moreover, the critics just want to air their outrage, vent their emotions. They aren't interested in constructive action.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

How politically correct.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what?
— baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

In the West, we have no freedom in terms of sex, food, how we go about relationships, what we think the meaning of life is, and so on. It's all prescribed, all standardized, normativized.
The freedoms that we do have pertain only to trivialities. It's a golden cage we're in.

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

More pc.

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

The differences are only in terms of practical circumstances, but not in terms of morality.

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this.

I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it.

Or, more likely, you're so politically correct that your "criticism" doesn't "rub anyone the wrong way".
From what you've said so far, you sound very politically correct, just the kind of person Western societies like.

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia.

Again, you're failing to see the similarity.

Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here?

You're unable to see the similiarity.

Understand the grey area we're discussing?

Hold on. You call it a "grey area"??

France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

Try being poor in France then.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

And I said: self-sufficiency.

Quoting Christoffer

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?
— baker

Free speech

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech".

and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters.

It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it?

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Well, self-sufficiency indeed seems awfully unrealistic and practically impossible.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?
— baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care.

Reply to baker Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America?

Quoting RogueAI

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America?

Someone asked a seasoned bank robber why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is", he replied.

Quoting RogueAI

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America?

Because it's the only place America hasn't yet turned into a warzone?

Quoting Apollodorus

That sounds like more pro-NATO propaganda [b]from the Finnish outback.

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences.

Quoting Isaac

Both sides lie. So why believe one and not the other?

And you don't see an obvious lie when it's presented? In your postmodern life you are totally unable in every issue to do that?

Because when truth fits someones agenda, they won't lie. They can tell the truth then. You can separate the event and how something is represented.

I'll get back to that previous picture.

What is so hard to say that in the picture they are obviously Russian soldiers? I think it's quite easy to notice that they indeed are in the picture Russian soldiers. It's not something that "Oh, we don't know! We don't have sufficient information!"

Because if it wouldn't be so, you really believe looking at that picture that those are what Crimean volunteers as Putin declared them to be. So before they were ethnic Russians living in Ukrainian Crimea, then Maidan happened and they got from somewhere got all that similar equipment and rounded up all the fit military age men.

And pigs fly.

Quoting Baden

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences.

Seeing as @Apollodorus does not seem able to heed warnings, his last couple of posts have been deleted as will any more along the same lines. Apologies to anyone who bothered to reply to him.

Quoting Isaac

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all.

And what source do you have for this cut and clear answer for every situation in every nation by every nation? And why would the children be consulted, it's the adults, parents, communities etc. that should be consulted as it's them who has the insight into their culture and community.

Quoting Isaac

I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out.

There's no reason to think that the logical tools established over the course of thousands of years, through the Greeks, the Islamic Golden age, renaissance, enlightenment, and modern scientific movement could ever just appear just because no special equipment is required. If you have any proof of analytical philosophy in this regard exists somewhere without any influence of collaborative philosophical transactions between nations, then please provide that instead of using an "it could be likely" argument as if that was somehow valid. You're grasping at straws here trying to justify why critical thinking within Western philosophy is "bad" knowledge for people in other cultures when the knowledge itself is nothing bad. It's like educating them 2 + 2 = 4 and then you say that we shouldn't do that. Why would that be a bad thing for them to know?

Quoting Isaac

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case.

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it, you did nothing but say that you "disagree". So no, you have less of an argument, you have elaborated a thing and you require a truckload of evidence but ignore it when asked for even a fraction of it for your own conclusions.

I've said plenty more than "X" and enough to warrant more depth from you, which you never provide.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs.

Interesting, that would mean you're pretty bad at your job since you believe a hell of a lot that you won't elaborate or support in any way, and you should definitely understand that knowledge, or rather beliefs passed down from parents to children is a core part of the social construction of how beliefs manifest and no way near the kind of knowledge that can help people break free from indoctrination and propaganda in a culture.

Quoting Isaac

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem?

You don't even know what I've studied. You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy, that is not a valid support for an argument. And nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in.

I don't care if you claim to be the God of knowledge, do you have a valid or reasonable argument? Do you support it logically? Those are the things that matter.

But you use your claimed title as a way to win the argument through authority. That is the same as a police officer beating an innocent down and saying, I have the right to do this because I'm a police officer and therefore I'm right. It's an appeal to authority fallacy with yourself as the authority and it's pretty annoying, especially since that behavior is one that I absolutely despise as it's an attempt at using a title as a form of proof of being right. Which is similar to authoritarian bullshit.


Quoting Isaac

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education.

Philosophy, logical reasoning, deduction, induction, the practices of philosophical study in analytical form. On a more elementary level is to let students question a claim further than normally done, to examine their own claims in light of other perspectives or facts. Teach about biases and how they work. How the scientific method works, and in relation to it, how to actively try and disprove yourself as part of proving a point.

We can go on and on, but I think you know what I mean by "critical thinking". It's the foundation of study that isn't based on reciting past facts, but to examine facts through method, through thinking past biases, and reaching conclusions not rooted in pre-existing presumptions by the person examining.

Basically, it is philosophy, epistemology with a focus on examining one's own knowledge and pre-existing beliefs.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people? That nothing of this is helpful in giving people a good foundation for figuring out actual truths instead of accepting the truths they are being told?

I think the problem is that you are referencing things like this. Which is more focused on high-level complex critical thinking. When I'm focusing on getting a basic understanding of critical thinking to people who generally have never viewed their own knowledge in light of such mental strategies.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth. That is key to teaching people under an authoritarian regime to start questioning what is true or not.

Quoting Isaac

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least.

Are you saying that education does not change people from being servants of those in power to being agents of their own destiny? You can look at history for examples of how education reshape society. In older communities with a church and workers, the church was the source of information, but when general education started forming it drastically changed these communities.

So you're saying there's no change between a society with no- to low education and one with a good foundation of it?

Quoting Isaac

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids.
— Christoffer

Yes, that's right.

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then? All the parents already teach your students what they need, right?

Quoting Isaac

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems.
— Christoffer

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions.

Your studies focused on hunter-gatherer tribes and English people learning from home. I'm talking about people in authoritarian nations with extreme levels of propaganda forming the entirety of exposure to "truth" that the people are able to get. You keep saying that education isn't needed, that people can learn from their parents. Yes, that can be true with educated parents of nations with less corruption or state-controlled information. But religious and authoritarian societies are very much existing in a lot of places in the world and that's when this type of method falls flat and becomes indoctrination through tradition. Five generations of people living inside the truth of an authoritarian regime does not learn to question anything if all their knowledge comes from parents already indoctrinated. It becomes a feedback loop for them, with no keys to break out of that loop.

Quoting Isaac

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this?

One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first. Second part is funding to build schools, infrastructure for running those schools, and getting students to them and home. So if nations with more wealth than they need can help establish these first steps and that's where I mean that it can be done in collaboration with the people of that culture.

Quoting Isaac

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing.

No, but facts are being taught through education and more importantly, how to interpret facts, and understand them.

Quoting Isaac

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.
— Christoffer

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males.

Of what schools?

And you don't really seem to understand what I'm saying here. Educational content is derived from up-to-date sciences and facts. As the world has become more globalized, studies more often assimilate studies from other places of the world into the studies they do. All knowledge is a synthesis of what came before, studies informing other studies, etc. And in a historical context, this is what happened with the Islamic golden age, Greeks' knowledge was scattered away and was picked up during that golden age and then their refinement of the Greeks' teachings was scattered and picked up back by the west.

And schools in Sweden have made good efforts into researching how education has been tailored by earlier "white males" and helped correct things to better neutrality in content. Just the last 30 years have made schools here unrecognizable in how they've improved neutrality.

Quoting Isaac

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right

Quoting Isaac

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.
— Christoffer

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter.

You seem to have forgotten where this started. It's your sidetrack to talk about poorer nations' educational forms and yes, the constraints are primarily material. But I was talking about nations with authoritarian governments or nations with extreme religious violence and oppression of the people.

My point was that establishing schools independent of propaganda, religious or political, guarded against the authoritarian boots, will slice through the tradition of indoctrination within those nations and enable people to see through the status quo of such regimes. Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.

And regarding your opposition to formal education, aren't there a lot of studies showing how important it is for kids to get out of their homes and interact with other people as well as other perspectives than their own or what they've learned at home? Part of developing a balanced perspective is to challenge it through the exposure of those perspectives against others in the world. It's a large part of development. How do you do that without some gathering of young students in a place where such interaction can happen and be encouraged rather than randomly happen on its own. Your way of thinking about formal education seems to just focus on a dislike and criticism of the "white male controlling the curriculum", but excluding everything else that formal education gives young students. Viewing the UK schools from the outside, I get how people can criticize it due to the heavy focus on tradition in the UK. But schools in Sweden are nothing like that and your opposition to these schools makes little sense compared to what you propose instead, which has major problems when examining it closer.

Quoting Isaac

logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought.

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?

Basic logical thinking exists, but the tendency for bias is so high that it's easily can become corruptible knowledge.

Quoting Isaac

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments?

I didn't talk about Senegal I talked about an example of a poor community without farming skills.

If we talk about Senegal, don't you think that there are other skills that can be taught that can help them in other ways? What would happen if literacy went up from the low levels they have now? With better literacy comes other open doors in higher education.

Without education who's gonna fix the problems? Because just blaming the dept isn't enough, the reality is more complex than just cutting that dept, and then everything is fine. There needs to be a foundation underneath that as well.

Depts need to be cut, or at least lowered to levels actually sustainable, that I agree with. But you blindly blame the west for everything.

Quoting Isaac

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice.
— Christoffer

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact.

No? Is ancient Greece "the west"? Is the Islamic golden age "the west"?

Where do you think western philosophy comes from? Just because it's "western" philosophy today, do you think any of modern philosophy is just purely "the west" or is it heavily influenced by the progress of philosophy through time? What about people like Schopenhauer who were heavily influenced by Eastern Philosophy, that didn't contribute to a synthesis of different perspectives that makes it hard to just say "western philosophy"?

"Western" is a trigger word for you it seems. It is just a word. Look at the content.

Quoting Isaac

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine.

Sure, for hunter-gatherer societies and concentrated specific communities. Apply it to large-scale complex societies or complex interactions between different large societies. Or for when people need to change their nation because they are oppressed and they don't know how to do so.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.

Quoting Isaac

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things
— Christoffer

There's no evidence for this at all.

Quoting Isaac

education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes.

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves? Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west, even forcing away corruption, which could mean it requires violence to do so. Reduction or removal of dept is obvious, but what I meant was that reduction of corruption, fair trade trading agreements and building a functioning educational system all need educated people within these nations to make sure this happens. Otherwise, it's us going into their nation and deciding for them, which you don't want happening.

Quoting Isaac

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them...
— Christoffer

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture.

It's basically your own argument for which I agree with. I don't say that the west are angels and innocent, I'm agreeing that the west fucked all these nations over, but neither of that helps them now and the west just cutting dept and then leaving them alone will not help anything either. Poor nations of the world today have different levels of functioning societies, many even have rather high standards of living, but still struggle. Many of the national problems they have are not all the west fault and how do they fix those without educated people who have the skills and knowledge to do it? Because these problems aren't hunter-gatherer societies, these are large societies with complex problems that self-learning skills from parents don't fix.

Quoting Isaac

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong.

Because you are a professor? Because now you're doing that appeal to authority fallacy again. Maybe it's you who need to come to terms with the possibility of being wrong? Maybe your self-image as a professor makes you dismissive of others' perspectives.

Quoting Isaac

Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged.

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense? Because posts you've made in this thread do not show any kind of sign that you have a clear understanding of your own behavior.

Quoting Isaac

Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong.

Wrong where? You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong. You haven't presented anything in an argumentative form that proves anything correct. You imply opposition to formal education without any thought of further consequences of removal of formal education, you argue that complex problems in poor nations are just the West's fault and any other problems they can figure out themselves without any education in relation to such problems. You imply a Marxist reform of Russia, ignoring everything about how Russia functions today, and you imply that people can break through indoctrination and traditions of propaganda without understanding critical thinking or through balanced knowledge gained from independent education. None of this has any real arguments behind them, but you are a professor, so therefore your authority as such a professor makes your arguments correct.

This abuse of authority on your part in this does not validate your ability to be correct, quite the opposite.

Quoting Isaac

To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions.

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions. Without a clear argument, elaborating your points and premises for your conclusions you only abuse the authority to disqualify my input before yours.

The quality of your argumentative skills has been shown to be lousy, even towards others in this thread and I'm beginning to understand that if you are a professor using your authority as a fallacy like this, then that explains a lot of why you don't listen to others. And it might be high time for you to rethink things yourself.

Quoting Isaac

You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong.

I cannot know if you are lying or not, but it doesn't matter because if you are then you are a shitty professor who uses his authority as his main source of reasoning in a debate. "Professor" doesn't mean anything really, I've seen professors getting fired for being really bad at their jobs. I've seen professors not worthy of their title. Academia is filled with bullshitters who abuse their authority, that's nothing new. It's just obvious when it's obvious.

I think you are biased to your studies, I think you don't have a clear image of further consequences for your conclusions. It happens when studies are focused on a specific thing and not further large-scale ramifications of it that other studies and meta-studies aim to do. This focus on being a professor that knows more than others can lead to a delusion of being an expert in everything. But you are not a professor of philosophy, you are not a professor of political history. So when topics range between different areas, you can only really be an expert in your narrow field of study, but you comment and argue about so many other things while still using your authority as an explanation of why I'm wrong and you are right.

Quoting Isaac

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged.

And now you call everyone else "laymen". I'm interested to know how a professor that's not a professor in political history and political philosophy could explain the practical implementation of Marxism into Russia better than the "laymen" around him. But isn't it also convenient to not have to explain actual practical change like that and just dream utopian dreams while telling everyone else that you don't have to explain anything since you are a professor and others should just trust you because they are laymen that don't know better?

We are not your subjects of study, we are interlocutors in a discussion where you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor rather than through convincing rhetoric and reasoning. Maybe you should study your own behavior on this forum?

Reply to Benkei Prior to the invasion I was closer to your position. This changed in 25th Feb and especially when Putin threatened nuclear Armageddon with menaces. A line was crossed at that point, not just for me, but the leaders of all NATO leaders(Orban excepted). I don’t disagree that Putin and his gang are intelligent and rational. You only have to listen to Lavrov’s rhetoric, or the speech given by the representative of the Russian Federation at the UN today to understand that there is a sophisticated intelligent narrative on the Russian side. A narrative of victimhood(re NATO, or the West) and blaming Ukrainian failures (with US and Nato meddling) for everything happening in Ukraine including the war crimes. A narrative which is also drip fed to the Russian population.

The problem is what is going on behind this facade. Putin has absolute control and runs his country like a Mafia boss. He views and deals with his enemies with contempt and like the mafia, he pushes and threatens at every opportunity and takes full advantage of any weakness, or concessions. This situation has been developing for over 20yrs until now he has invaded a large sovereign country(an act of aggression) and threatened NATO countries with nuclear annihilation. Now we are waking up to the reality that he has a massive war chest, has built up a large army and is rampaging around ex USSR territories.

Now if we don’t stop showing weakness, or making concessions will this escalation just continue? If we do get involved, no fly zone for example, does the war just escalate. Either way it doesn’t solve the problem we are faced with. A tyrant.

He may become even more menacing and then at any time. just retreat to the Donbas, claim the special operation is complete and he will finish liberating the Russian speakers in that region from persecution. Or he might become more menacing and march across Macedonia, link up with Orban, just keep heading west. We just don’t know, all we see is a poker face. A Godfather, playing poker with us. Do we call his bluff, or show weakness and he wins another hand and more and more of the pot.

The fact is that in 1957, when (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU, he said:

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

There was a lot of talk about “building a United States of Europe” and “rebuilding the Roman Empire” among politicians and technocrats at the time, especially in countries like France and Belgium.

European Coal and Steel Community president Jean Monnet himself set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

More recently, Carl Baudenbacher, former president of the European Free Trade Area, openly admitted that the EU is trying to rebuild the Roman Empire:

Under Trajan the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, encompassed the entire Mediterranean region, but also parts of present-day Germany, Britain, Romania, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The European Union is preparing to build a similar empire.
Roman law played an important role in the expansion of the Roman Empire; and the EU relies on the export of its law, and the extraterritorial effect of the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The EU has concluded bilateral association treaties with four former Soviet republics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia, under which these countries are aligning their legislation in important fields with EU law. The ECJ has a monopoly in the interpretation of treaty law which is identical in substance to EU law. Since each side can bring a dispute before the ECJ unilaterally, the European Commission may take a case to its own court and thus has a de facto right of surveillance over the associated states.
The same system is now to be set up for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Syria …

The choice Britain faces if it wants an EU trade deal: either EFTA, or the Ukraine model – LSE Blogtest

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion ….

Quoting unenlightened

Someone asked a seasoned bank robber why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is", he replied.

America is very rich, that's true.

Quoting baker

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech".

What is the level of free speech you want before you can accept the fact that you have free speech?

It also depends on which country you are in, of course, but assuming you are living in a nation that doesn't imprison or shoot you because of what you say.

Quoting baker

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters.

All of that depends on how the government functions as well. Not all western nations are the same. While I agree with your argument, it's a bit simplified.

But in terms of Russia, free speech is suppressed by people in power in order to keep being in power. We're not talking about levels of resources here, but an authoritarian government limiting free speech. They didn't really value human life before this invasion either, even when things were "stable".

Quoting baker

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference.

The difference between being under a boot and not. That a western society can become authoritarian is not an argument for the west being authoritarian as well. (not speaking about the US which has too much corruption to be free of authoritarian attributes). I don't get imprisoned or killed when speaking my opinions on the street, I don't get state lies fed through the media, I can question whomever I want without getting into trouble. As long as my society isn't doing any of the opposite of that I am not in an authoritarian society.

Quoting baker

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint.

Do you see the same level of engagement in these questions among non-western-standard nations? If anyone reaches zero carbon footprint, who do you think will be the first nation to do so? Norway is pretty close.

Debates and free speech enable people to push politicians for such changes. Companies are able to see the demand and act accordingly. In nations where you can't really change politicians' decisions, where corruption rules over all, and there's too much economical risk with changing anything, it won't happen fast or at all. I'm including the US in these types of nations that have a hard time changing course.

Quoting baker

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do.

Do you think it's the more westernized parts of Russia's population that do?
And the majority of people in the west want this, the vocal others are a minority but still enough to hold things back. But as said, western nations have a much higher push toward sustainable energy and will get there sooner than others.

Quoting baker

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country.

I live in it, so I must be dreaming then.

Quoting baker

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care.

Well, I can merely speculate since it seems we don't know how many support Putin, how many criticize him, and how many criticize him but plays along so as not to be killed or imprisoned. The increase in popularity for Putin is an example of just how hard it is to know because that popularity can both be state propaganda or just people more afraid of consequences for saying anything else.

Quoting Christoffer

We're not talking about levels of resources here, but an authoritarian government limiting free speech.

That is really the central point, isn't it? The idea of government, using all its powers, to suppress certain types of speech is chilling. Shades of 1984.

Quoting Punshhh

Putin has absolute control and runs his country like a Mafia boss.

Nonsense. He may or may not "run his country like a Mafia boss". That's pretty irrelevant given that this goes for most presidents across the globe, to be honest.

But "absolute control" sounds like polemical exaggeration. If you had "absolute control" in Russia, would you have a military that can't even beat Ukraine?

In 1940 Germany overran Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France in six weeks. Even Stalin was more efficient than Putin even though he was essentially a gangster and former train robber who used revolutionary Marxism to seize power.

You don't have absolute control when your armed forces and your intelligence chiefs perform the way Russia is performing in Ukraine.

The truth of the matter is that Russia has been a kleptocracy for half a century or longer. Putin is not Stalin, he has just got enough control over the oligarchs and other members of the kleptocracy to prevent them from taking over and to keep the country together and not under the control of international finance like in the 90's before he came to power.

Volodomyr Zelenskyy said
[quote=SMH; https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-urges-un-to-take-action-against-russia-remove-its-veto-power-20220406-p5ab4y.html]some victims in Bucha were “shot and killed in the back of their heads,” while “some were shot on the street, others thrown into wells”. The graphic images have led to global condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and demands he be tried for war crimes.

In his first speech to the [UN Security Council] since the invasion more than a month ago, Zelensky said he did not wish to negotiate with Russia and would rather a powerless and outdated UN purge Russia of the veto power it wields on the Security Council. Failing that, the organisation should dissolve itself, he said.

“This undermines the whole architecture of global security, it allows them to go unpunished so they are destroying everything that they can,” he said, adding that Russia’s leadership was acting like “colonisers from ancient times”.

“It is obvious that the key institution of the world which must ensure the coercion of any aggressor to peace simply cannot work effectively.”[/quote]

Meanwhile Russia has dismissed the graphic footage and witness testimony of grotesque abominations and mass murder and torture as 'Western propoganda'.

So - is Zelenskyy right? Should Russia be expelled from the UN Security Council? If a country is committing criminal acts, doesn't its presence on this council vitiate the chance of it being held responsible by that council?

Quoting ssu

I was referring to this case:

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was a commercial flight shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. The aircraft, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members.

I stand corrected: I was not aware of this case, the only similar incident was the suspected TWA 800 flight: but it occurs to me now that they do not clear the skies of commercial airliners before launching missile tests. If it locks on to the wrong target...

Quoting ssu

I'm not so sure how Curtis LeMay thought about it. He perhaps would have wanted have that nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Russia had only a few ICBMs. He surely saw the "brief but bloody" war something that would prevent from the "long and bloody" war, which is quite dubious.

I see the rationality of Curtis LeMays' view: it would have resulted in submissive, united Russia, prosperous and peaceful. Courage for a soldier is more than courage in battle, it is also courage in peace. I must admit I misjudged him.

Air Force General Thomas Power, who once asked officials at the RAND Corporation why they were concerned about keeping down body counts on both sides in the event of a nuclear conflict. “The whole idea is to kill the bastards,” he cried. “At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.” (LeMay, who was the model for General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick’s classic Dr. Strangelove, thought Power “not stable.”)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-daily-intelligence-briefings-history-jfk-cuban-missile-crisis-214521/

Quoting SMH

The graphic images have led to global condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and demands he be tried for war crimes.

It appears that the people whom they govern simply do not think. Where are the graphic images from Yemen? We all better hope no-one circulates graphic pictures of corpses in our back yard.

Quoting Wayfarer

So - is Zelenskyy right?

Since you asked the question, I am sure everyone here is aware of the irrationality in singling out one particular member of the UN security council for punishment when other members have 'credible allegations' of various crimes that they have no intention of ever addressing, let alone admitting.

As for Zelenskyy, I do not know what everyone here thinks of his actions, but his frequent absurd statements make him seem like a puppet whose strings are being manipulated from the other side of the world rather than a national leader. I know that I would respect his leadership if he made the choices presented to him earlier. Right now it looks like he is the best person for the job of getting Ukraine destroyed and his people killed.

Can't we come up with some sort of exit strategy for Ukraine at this point that simply makes sense for Ukraine and in its best interest? Will it be the same as Zelenskyys? Why not?

Quoting Apollodorus

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion ….

How about asking the Ukrainians? About Ukraine, you know, where they live (and are now bombed)? About what they want?

As discussed before, an United States of Europe is a threat to the United States of America, which may explain the dynamics of the current situation.

Kremlin's website has been on and off for a bit, maybe they're getting hit by hackers.
Sure hope they don't cause any plane crashes.

Russia’s Aviation Authority Switches Back to Pen and Paper After Huge Alleged Cyberattack (Apr 1, 2022)

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1508806372342829064[/tweet]

Quoting FreeEmotion

I see the rationality of Curtis LeMays' view: it would have resulted in submissive, united Russia, prosperous and peaceful.

How can you be certain of that? A nuclear change could have also resulted in just millions of dying yet in a stalemate like in the Korean war and the Soviet Union still persisting with only now the World having experienced a wider nuclear war. And some American cities being destroyed.

Yet a nuclear holocaust wasn't inevitable. Not only did it not happen, but the Soviet Union collapsed and before that there actually was nuclear disarmament. Hence LeMay's "rationality" was not only wrong, but actually quite dangerous.

I think we have to understand that wars aren't inevitable.

Quoting Punshhh

Or he might become more menacing and march across Macedonia, link up with Orban, just keep heading west.

Because this is the rational and intelligent thing to do? I don't think these fears are founded. Putin threatening using nukes is to clarify NATO shouldn't get involved. What else would there be to it? What exactly did he say making you think he meant more?

And the maffia comparison is simply wrong. Has everybody forgot the support the US got in its war on terrorism from Russia? That doesn't fit in the capitalising on weakness part at all.

Remember this:

Carnegie:Putin's pro-American plan was not simply tactical. Putin's policies of support after September 11, including his agreement to an American military presence in Central Asia, represented a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. The potential for breakthrough - for a fundamentally new and improved relationship between Russia and the West - has never been greater.

Also, if we're so keen on peace and avoiding unnecessary deaths is important then one should be wondering why the US is refusing to join the negotiations.

What really pisses me off is how no European government calls it out, while we're the ones that run all the major risks, because of financial risks and energy dependence, right after the Ukrainians.

Quoting jorndoe

How about asking the Ukrainians? About Ukraine, you know, where they live (and are now bombed)? About what they want?

Those who see sphere's of influence as an obvious reality, greater countries dominating weaker ones and annexations of territories of sovereign states as totally justified simply don't care about issues like that.

Quoting Benkei

What really pisses me off is how no European government calls it out, while we're the ones that run all the major risks, because of financial risks and energy dependence, right after the Ukrainians.

Being dependent on energy from a totalitarian regime like Putin's Russia, which will use that dependence as a way to imply pressure has been a wrong policy. That energy policy has to be changed. Germany should show resolve in this too. Hopefully it will change it's policies.

Quoting ssu

And you don't see an obvious lie when it's presented?

Wow. You're going with "It looks like a lie to me, therefore it must be one". Because you're infallible? I don't know if you've come across propaganda before, but the idea is make it look like one thing when it's in fact another. The key pert, for our purposes here, being thatit will look like one thing. So if you just take everything to be the way it looks to be, then you'll fall for every single propaganda piece presented to you.

Quoting Wayfarer

So - is Zelenskyy right? Should Russia be expelled from the UN Security Council? If a country is committing criminal acts, doesn't its presence on this council vitiate the chance of it being held responsible by that council?

That leaves no members in the security council. So no.

Quoting Apollodorus

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion ….

I am not sure what law is broken when countries sign trade deals with the EU, or what harm is done to anyone. To the extent that the EU tries and contribute to stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation, it is doing good work.

Whose skin would be peeled off whose nose if Ukraine joined the EU, pray tell? Antiquity historians?

Reply to Benkei

Because this is the rational and intelligent thing to do? I don't think these fears are founded. Putin threatening using nukes is to clarify NATO shouldn't get involved. What else would there be to it? What exactly did he say making you think he meant more?

I agree with you here but for different reasons. That Russia’s army is incompetent with poor equipment. They can’t even occupy Ukraine, so are not going to continue west.
I can’t point out where he said he would go further than Ukraine. But he has given long speeches in which he comes across as wanting to re establish the USSR.

But his proving himself to be a bare faced liar (100,000 troops just happen to be on military exercises on the Ukraine border, we have no intention to invade). His apparent irrational behaviour, the fact that many of his subordinates had no idea he was going to invade. The press conference where he humiliated his chief of staff. The long tables. This was interpreted in the West as someone unhinged with his hand on the nuclear button, who has just invaded a large country with a large army, which he can’t possibly hold, while insisting he wasn’t planning anything of the sort. This has crossed a line in Europe and we will now see a European army built and the awakening of Germany after 70yrs of passivism.

Regarding the mafia point. I refer to Frank’s answer. The mafia are business men, they strike deals and alliances. They had a common enemy with US after 9/11. They sell people services until they become dependent, while they grow rich and powerful and then come for their pound of flesh.

I don’t think the negotiations are likely to go anywhere as the two sides are worlds apart. The US getting involved would not help and could just cause a stand off.

I hear you about European countries not calling it out. The problem is they have been dependent on the US for security and now Russia for gas and oil. They are stuck in the middle and compromised from both sides. Ideally they would have provided their own security over the last generation and avoided becoming dependent on Russia gas and oil. In hindsight we were all asleep at the wheel while Putin was friendly, business like. We even thought he would form some sort of alliance with Europe. But quietly he amassed his forces, his wealth. He was going in the other direction. He fostered that dependency on gas and oil and now he is coming for his pound of flesh.

We know see that nato and EU expansion was becoming an existential threat to Putin. We were blind to it, under the guise of free choice, democracy, prosperity. All good things, but Putin saw it spreading his way. And if the Russian people wanted a piece of it, his grip on power might be threatened.

Quoting ssu

Being dependent on energy from a totalitarian regime like Putin's Russia, which will use that dependence as a way to imply pressure has been a wrong policy. That energy policy has to be changed. Germany should show resolve in this too. Hopefully it will change it's policies.

The EU is build around the idea of economic interdependence as a path to safety. So I disagree. Where we went wrong is not making serious progress in trying to increase economic interdependence with Russia in the 90s when circumstances were right. Instead the West collectively chose to keep treating them as enemies. That was the wrong policy.

And for those saying this wasn't possible: if we could enter into association agreements with Turkey, Moldova and Albania, we sure as hell could've done the same with another corrupt regime.

Quoting Benkei

if we could enter into association agreements with Turkey, Moldova and Albania, we sure as hell could've done the same with another corrupt regime.

And sure as hell, we've done the same. Since 1997, the EU's political and economic relations with Russia have been based on a bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The trade-relevant sections of the PCA aim to promote trade and investment, as well as to develop mutually beneficial economic relations.

Reply to Punshhh I think it's telling it's just the West saying all these things about Putin and Russia, What's ther rest of the world doing? South-America is shaking its head in disbelief because they smell the hypocritical bullshit from miles away. "Sovereignty, sovereignty" cried the USA. "When did that ever matter to you when pursuing regime change in our countries?". India doesn't commit to condemning the war other than reiterating platitudes it's committed to the UN charter.

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked.

We all know the answer don't we? This is to say, we have no moral standing to condemn Russia, we only have power and it's being exercised to cow the Russians into submission.

Oil-producing countries are not upping production. E.g., they are following through on the treaty obligations they have with Russia which is indirect support of Russia or at least not a condemnation.

The ease with which everybody here just parrots EU, NATO and US talking points is just amazing. The world doesn't revolve around Europe; pay attention to all these different views.

Reply to Olivier5 uhm... https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

Aside from the fact that I said "association agreement" and not "PCA" and said "90s" and not "naughts", where exactly is it?

Reply to Benkei https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A21997A1128%2801%29

Quoting Christoffer

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them.

Quoting Christoffer

Interesting, that would mean you're pretty bad at your job since you believe a hell of a lot that you won't elaborate or support in any way, and you should definitely understand that knowledge, or rather beliefs passed down from parents to children is a core part of the social construction of how beliefs manifest and no way near the kind of knowledge that can help people break free from indoctrination and propaganda in a culture.

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why?

Quoting Christoffer

You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking. But I'm talking about your response to that fact (which you asked me, by the way. I didn't offer it as an ad verecundiam - you asked me about my qualifications). If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!". The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...". You, however, haven't even broken stride.

Quoting Christoffer

nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in.

How would you know? That would require you to simultaneously believe that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology, and yet you know that body of knowledge better than I do. Even if you too were a professor of Psychology (or perhaps something like Education, maybe) then the best you could claim is that you have as good a grasp as I do of that canon. Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know. It would be far less odd to simply claim I'm lying about being a professor. Honestly, I would have been far less intrigued by your response if you'd have just said "No you're not". You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject.

Quoting Christoffer

do you have a valid or reasonable argument?

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching. I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity.

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case.

Quoting Christoffer

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people?

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect.

Quoting Christoffer

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth.

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that.

Quoting Christoffer

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then?

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance.

Quoting Christoffer

Yes, that can be true with educated parents of nations with less corruption or state-controlled information. But religious and authoritarian societies are very much existing in a lot of places in the world and that's when this type of method falls flat and becomes indoctrination through tradition. Five generations of people living inside the truth of an authoritarian regime does not learn to question anything if all their knowledge comes from parents already indoctrinated. It becomes a feedback loop for them, with no keys to break out of that loop.

I agree. Certainly in early industrial and agricultural societies, as well as in religious communities, education is a form of indoctrination. I've already said this. But it's exactly the same with schools in those communities too. The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are.

Quoting Christoffer

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac


One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first.

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage?

Quoting Christoffer

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right

Yeah. Right.

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system.

Quoting Christoffer

Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them.

Quoting Christoffer

regarding your opposition to formal education, aren't there a lot of studies showing how important it is for kids to get out of their homes and interact with other people as well as other perspectives than their own or what they've learned at home?

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms.

Quoting Christoffer

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?

Yes and yes.

Quoting Christoffer

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that.

Quoting Christoffer

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.

According to whom?

Quoting Christoffer

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves?

No. Not once.

Quoting Christoffer

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention.

Quoting Christoffer

You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac


Because you are a professor?

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

Quoting Christoffer

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense?

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

Quoting Christoffer

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong.

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you.

Quoting Christoffer

None of this has any real arguments behind them, but you are a professor, so therefore your authority as such a professor makes your arguments correct.

You asked me, remember?

Quoting Christoffer

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions.

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but your conclusions are not supported by sufficient evidence to be so strongly held as you hold them. It's quite normal for expertise to be used this way (again, assuming you believe me) - even if you too are an expert. It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree.

Quoting Christoffer

And now you call everyone else "laymen".

No. In terms of solutions to the Ukraine Crisis, I too am a layman. That's why I'm not interested in offering solutions either. I'm interested in people's support for different solution already offered by experts (including my own support for the solutions I think are best).

Quoting Christoffer

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were.

Quoting Isaac

Wow. You're going with "It looks like a lie to me, therefore it must be one". Because you're infallible?

No. But you can use your own judgement. Some of the most blatant lies are so obvious.

Or is that too difficult for you to understand?

Quoting Isaac

The key pert, for our purposes here, being thatit will look like one thing. So if you just take everything to be the way it looks to be, then you'll fall for every single propaganda piece presented to you.

Again. Let's look at that picture. Do these look like volunteers, people that have lived in Crimea, yet in the days after the Maidan revolution have taken up arms against the new Ukrainian government? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers?

[/img]

Quoting ssu

you can use your own judgement. Some of the most blatant lies are so obvious.

Obvious to you. Not so to others, and it's the disagreement between you and those others we're talking about here.

If you say "it's obvious that X", and your interlocutor say " it's obvious that not-X", you can't use the fact that you find X obvious as an argument supporting your position, that's just a restatement of your position, not an argument in favour of it.

Quoting ssu

Do these look like volunteers that have lived in Crimea and have taken up arms against Ukraine after the Maidan revolution? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers?

They appear to be Russian soldiers. Because they're meant to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point of the propaganda image.

Propaganda is something which is presented to appear to be one thing, when it is, in fact, another.

So the fact that they appear to be Russian soldiers is entirely irrelevant. We already know they're going to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point. We're trying to establish if they actually are Russian soldiers.

Quoting Benkei

Where we went wrong is not making serious progress in trying to increase economic interdependence with Russia in the 90s when circumstances were right.

What's your argumentation here? As if we didn't want to have trade with Russia? On the contrary, the Europeans would have just loved to have that commerce and trade with Russia, just the same way as we have wanted with China. The idea went, just like with China, that economic prosperity will make these countries have better relations with us. And that they will change to be like us and value things like rule of law and democracy (and the usual stuff).

Quoting Benkei

Instead the West collectively chose to keep treating them as enemies. That was the wrong policy.

What policy are you talking about?

The policy of making the G7 countries to be the G8 countries with Russia?

By NATO making the Partnership for Peace agreement with Russia?

By having a multitude of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship?

Just to take one example of the attitudes...that actually were in hindsight doomed:

In one of his earliest new foreign policy initiatives, President Obama sought to reset relations with Russia and reverse what he called a “dangerous drift” in this important bilateral relationship. President Obama and his administration have sought to engage the Russian government to pursue foreign policy goals of common interest – win-win outcomes -- for the American and Russian people.

To see everything as the fault of us is wrong as there obviously are two sides in this relationship.

Attitudes really changed only after 2014. And now this year.

Reply to Olivier5 Thanks. Weirdly enough that didn't show on their own web page in the overview but does come up if you approach it by region/country here: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/russia/

In any case, point remains we should've gone further as was argued by several politicians early 2000 to include Russia in "the West". Instead we opted for geopolitical steps and the "encirclement" of Russia against promises made: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

Quoting ssu

What policy are you talking about?

See above. The bait and switch policy and flatly lying. Of course, the Russians should've gotten it in writing.

Quoting Isaac

They appear to be Russian soldiers. Because they're meant to appear to be Russian soldiers, that's the point of the propaganda image.

Propaganda is something which is presented to appear to be one thing, when it is, in fact, another.

That's totally illogical and basically a strawman argument. It is Putin who is saying that those forces in the picture are Crimean volunteers.

And there's a massive amount of pictures of similar clothed soldiers suddenly appearing in Crimea simply cannot be propaganda when covered by all the various media and social media output. Just by whom? No, stick really to the example: the pictures of those soldiers were said to be Crimean volunteers by Russia.

You simply have to have common sense here.

Reply to Olivier5 Reply to ssu Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. ;-)

Quoting Benkei

Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. :wink:

Don't let the denazification of Ukraine disturb you:

“What should Russia do with Ukraine?” published by the news agency RIA Novosti, declares that Russian forces should not draw sharp distinctions between Ukraine’s military and civilians.

“Denazification is necessary when a significant part of the people – most likely the majority – has been absorbed and drawn into politics by the Nazi regime. That is, when the hypothesis “the people are good – the government is bad” does not work,” it states.

The RIA article, written by Timofei Sergeitsev, goes on to say that “a significant part of the popular mass, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, is also guilty… War criminals and active Nazis must be punished approximately and demonstratively. Total purification should be carried out.”

Reply to ssu Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? Tugging at my moral convictions just shows how tribal your own convictions are.

Quoting Benkei

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly?

In a thread about Ukraine one would assume that Ukraine would be discussed.

If we would have a thread about the war in Yemen and somebody would start talking how Saudi Arabia was forced to intervene in the Yemeni civil war, I would use my time to debunk such nonsense. And I wouldn't sit idly by with people "understanding" the motives of the Saudi lead coalition.

Or then if people would say that the war going badly with Saudi Arabia and it's allies is just Iranian propaganda...

But somehow I have the feeling that as the aggressor is the US backed Saudi coalition, there wouldn't be such nonsense declared on that thread.

However in the case where the agressor isn't US backed... :sad:

Reply to ssu Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then.

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white.

Quoting ssu

It is Putin who is saying that those forces in the picture are Crimean volunteers.

Yes. And it is western media who are presenting that picture saying "look at how much of a liar Putin is". Both are acts of propaganda so we would fully expect both representations to appear to show exactly what they're meant to show.

You present me a picture backing up your claim that Putin is lying about Crimea, then of course it's going to appear to show exactly that. If it didn't, you wouldn't have used it.

All I'm saying is that because of the nature of persuasive imagery, the fact that it appears to show X is not an additional piece of support for it. It was chosen entirely because it appeared to show X. The investigation is into whether it actually does show X. This involves context.

Quoting ssu

stick really to the example: the pictures of those soldiers were said to be Crimean volunteers by Russia.

You gave me one picture. If you want me to comment on the " massive amount" of similar pictures you'll have to post them. Of course, corroborating evidence is one of the things a further investigation would look for. You were talking about a single image.

Quoting Benkei

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war?

Folks here don't care about what disturbs you or not. This is not about you. If you don't care about Ukraine, by all means shut up about it, and write about Ethiopia or Yemen instead.

Quoting ssu

But somehow I have the feeling that as the aggressor is the US backed Saudi coalition, there wouldn't be such nonsense declared on that thread.

However in the case where the agressor isn't US backed... :sad:

Very astute. :grin:

Reply to Olivier5 Another attempt at cheap point scoring and you suck at it. I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. I do care about what you think and what disturbs you. I just happen to think you've got a limited view of relevant circumstances are deeply emerged in the western holistic view of general benevolence and being on the right side of history etc.

Quoting Benkei

Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then.

Selective?

This is a thread about Ukraine and the only thing you throw is strawman argument and hints that I somehow wouldn't be against the atrocities committed by the Saudi coalition, which basically is quite equivalent to the situation with similar flawed ideas of "sphere's of influence", just as Russia is said to have acted, or forced to act and attack Ukraine.

No, I think it's you who's quite selective here, as I'm perfectly willing to talk about the similar unjust and irresponsible wars and interventions done either by the US neocons or by Saudi-Arabia. Let's have that discussion. But as I said, I don't think nobody will come to the defense of the Saudi lead coalition, start some delusional rant of Shiite Crescent or how evil Iran is. No, that wouldn't happen. But in this thread there are those (not you) who even go so far to argue that actually Putin isn't a dictator. And perfectly seem to if not justify, do see the realpolitik reasons for Russia to attack it's neighbors.

Well, I'm not seeing similar realpolitik reasons for the Saudis to again intervene in the Yemeni politics as they did earlier and just make things worse for the people of Yemen.

In a thread about Ukraine, the counterargument seems to but everything else than what is happening in Ukraine.

And what I oppose is the selectivity in condemning wars of aggression so apparent in this case.

Quoting ssu

In a thread about Ukraine, the counterargument seems to but everything else than what is happening in Ukraine.

We're not a news service and we're not anyone's personal blog, nor are we your therapist. This is a discussion forum. It's for discussion.

So a thread on Ukraine should expect discussion about the situation in Ukraine. A situation which involves Russia, the US, Europe... The history, authenticity, moral integrity and intentions of all the actors in the current crisis are relevant to the discussion.

If you want to read up on the news or let everyone know how upset you are, I strongly suggest you use the appropriate institutions specialising in those services.

Quoting Isaac

This is s discussion forum. It's for discussion.

Yes, and if someone says things that seem to be incorrect to me or I disagree with, then one should point it out.

FYI, the thread about the Corona-virus has also been informative. People have put their links to interesting articles and interviews. If you have a discussion, it's quite understandable to make your case be referencing your conclusions. At first I thought it likely was more of a scare as epidemics coming from Asia have been earlier in this Century. @Benkei corrected me on that and I stood corrected. It isn't some kind of contest.

I don't understand what your opposition to that is.

Quoting Isaac

If you want to read up on the news or let everyone know how upset you are, I strongly suggest you use the appropriate institutions specialising in those services.

If you want to see how upset people can be in this forum, check up the threads about the George Floyd killing and police violence in general. That was heated.

Quoting Isaac

You gave me one picture. If you want me to comment on the " massive amount" of similar pictures you'll have to post them. Of course, corroborating evidence is one of the things a further investigation would look for. You were talking about a single image.

The point is that you can use common sense. It's not all that blurry and utterly confusing that you cannot make sense of it.

Quoting Benkei

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and @Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia?

The war in Ethiopia happened mainly because of domestic political reasons. Which is a tragedy as Ethiopia was making some economic progress and was becoming more stable, although people more informed about the situation in the country did raised alarms. Yes, the Ethiopian government has gotten aid from abroad, again the usefulness of easy-to-use drones directing artillery fire can be noted. And we could also have a discussion just how many military coups there have been in the Sahel and how dire the situation is in Mali and across the region. There the role of France as basically the colonizer that didn't leave is interesting. The "War on Terror" is still going on there, unfortunately.

Again an interesting topic for another thread.

Quoting jorndoe

How about asking the Ukrainians?

I never said Ukrainians shouldn't be asked, did I? But when it comes to something that affects Russia, or any other country, then I think it is proper to ask the people of that country as well.

I don't see why Ukraine should matter more than Russia who has a much larger population.

Quoting ssu

Yet a nuclear holocaust wasn't inevitable. Not only did it not happen, but the Soviet Union collapsed and before that there actually was nuclear disarmament. Hence LeMay's "rationality" was not only wrong, but actually quite dangerous.

I think we have to understand that wars aren't inevitable.

If there is a nuclear war someday then we have postponed the inevitable to a bigger, more disastrous exchange of nuclear missiles.

If wars are not inevitable lets go for total disarmament, I mean total. Some countries do not have armed forces.

Quoting FreeEmotion

If wars are not inevitable lets go for total disarmament, I mean total. Some countries do not have armed forces.

There's not enough trust between countries for that, unfortunately. And things are now getting just worse as military spending is going to increase.

What can happen and successfully has happened is arms reductions. Let's remember that there were far more nuclear weapons in the end of the Cold War than now. And many of those disposed nuclear warheads ended up as nuclear fuel warming up the cities they were intended to destroy. Positive things can every then and now happen.

Quoting ssu

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries.

Sure, for people that are "close" ... but how is the United States any closer to Ukraine than Ethiopia or Yemen?

@Benkei is talking about Western countries, which in today's parlance also includes Australia.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents?

Quoting Benkei

I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to.

Not at all. It's your stupidity that has this effect. If all you have to say here is that you don't care about Ukraine, and care much more about Yemen, then feel free to get out of here and start a Yemenite thread.

Quoting ssu

Again. Let's look at that picture. Do these look like volunteers, people that have lived in Crimea, yet in the days after the Maidan revolution have taken up arms against the new Ukrainian government? Or do they appear to be Russian soldiers?

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to argue on this topic of the "little green men".

Are you saying if we catch the US or the Ukrainians in a lie then we can assume everything they say is a lie?

Or when the Americans and Ukrainians do it that's just "winning the information war" and, you see, we need to understand that they have just cause so anything they do is explainable and understandable.

Ukraine and US have been caught in plenty of lies.

And, if we were talking basic military strategy, we'd obviously agree that deception is a large part of military tactics and intelligence services, which (I think it's safe to assume) that you'd argue that American and Ukraine certainly need intelligence services and information campaigns and it's normal deception and lies are used in that.

Of course, makes figuring anything out difficult. But doesn't prove anything about anything.

If I go ahead and demonstrate the US or Ukraine lying about something ... you'd just say that doesn't matter.

So how does this lie, assuming it's a lie, about the little green men matter?

And, in terms of uniforms, army surplus exists and anyone engaged in militia activity is going to want to look like a badass. So, as @Benkei points out the photo proves nothing and could be staged anyways, and Russia has as much right to conduct intelligence operations as anyone else.

US military and intelligence are on the ground in places they shouldn't legally be all the time (in a sovereign country helping and committing acts of war without a declaration of war by congress), media just repeats the euphemism "advising" ... which even if it really was just advice doesn't change the legality of it and committing an act of war.

Quoting boethius

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war,

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"?

Quoting Olivier5

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"?

I care about the Ukrainians because they are people, as well the Yemens and Afghanis and Ethiopians, Uzbeks, Chinese etc.

I also care about the whole world and avoiding nuclear armageddon.

I don't say Ukrainians are more worthy victims than the Afghanis, and I went ahead and posted a news report of babies starving to death in Afghanistan.

It just so happens that Ukrainians are the victims of geopolitical circumstance and great power competition (regardless of which great power you "blame most"), which could actually be resolved by diplomacy based on a realistic understanding of the geopolitical situation.

Since this topic interests me and I've followed it, I have something to contribute.

Again, I have limited time. But my standards don't change.

I also did commit serious time based on the same standards vis-a-vis the Afghan war during times when I had something to contribute to hopefully avoiding disaster (all the way back in 2006), much more effort than I have expended here and placing myself at risk of court martial in trying to represent the Afghani interests in the chain of command.

There are a lot of problems, I have limited time to contribute and must decide based on circumstances and my own capacities.

By happenstance, I even happened to be involved in business in Ethiopia when the war was brewing and did try to help avoid it in whatever small ways I was able to. But I was told again and again that the Tigray forces couldn't possibly win and there was no need for diplomacy and the war was in the North and would never affect the NGO's in the south I had some business with. So, within my tiny amount of power I did try to motivate people that had (certainly more than me) influence in Ethiopia to not dismiss the disruption and potential damages of a war (which they did offhand and no hesitation before, and then even the initial phases of the war; even though it seemed obvious to me the situation was more serious). So, I do what can when I can.

I am as disturbed by war and saddened by the victims of war (or about to be victims of war) wherever they are and I act on that concern whenever I can.

Quoting Olivier5

I am not sure what law is broken when countries sign trade deals with the EU, or what harm is done to anyone. To the extent that the EU tries and contribute to stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation, it is doing good work.

Whose skin would be peeled off whose nose if Ukraine joined the EU, pray tell? Antiquity historians?

I'm not sure what "Antiquity historians" has got to do with this, unless you are referring to those in the EU junta whose noses would fall off if Russia, the Mid East, and Africa didn't join their empire-building project. :smile:

Plus, the EU project isn't quite as simple as "stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation".

1. The Roman Empire was a predatory entity whose main purpose was to serve the interests of Rome. Rome enslaved and destroyed many nations along with their language and culture, and left millions dead in its wars of conquest. So, I for one wouldn't look at Rome as a model for 21st century international relations.

2. Trade and cooperation can be, and often is, used to make economically weaker countries dependent on stronger ones.

3. Countries can perfectly well cooperate with one another without joining a superstate controlled by big bankers, industrialists, and their political stooges.

4. EU membership hasn't benefited all member states equally. The main beneficiaries have been larger countries like England (until 2020), Germany, and France that already had strong economies. Weaker economies like Spain, Italy, Greece, have benefited less and have much higher unemployment rates, for example.

5. There is growing resistance to EU domination of member states' national policies. England has already left for that very reason, and there is strong opposition in other countries, including France. So, we shouldn't pretend that there are no problems with the EU.

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime.

At the end of the day, if the EU has a "right" to build an empire for itself at the expense of others, so have Russia, Germany, Greece, etc. But it looks like the skin on some people's nose would peel off if the Germans decided to rebuild their empire .... :wink:

Moreover, from a broader perspective, the real dominant power is not the EU but America who, as we have seen, controls most of the world's finances, economies, and media. EU and NATO are products of Atlanticism (a.k.a. Transatlanticism) a US project that obviously serves US interests.

As with the EU, there is no logical reason why America should be allowed to push its interests and build a worldwide economic, financial, and military empire for itself, at the expense of other countries.

IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population ....

Quoting Apollodorus

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime.

Although the Third Reich called itself that for exactly this reason, and I would definitely agree there's plenty imperialist agendas within the EU, where does the EU self declare its aim as rebuilding the Roman Empire?

However, I do agree that if you're in favour of American Empire there's little moral grounds to condemn people making competing Empires. Actions by empires could still be condemnable and some Empires "better" than others, but Empire building as such is either just for all or just for none.

Quoting Apollodorus

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime.

Maybe because one is bombing folks, and the other isn't. This may come as a shock but people don't usually appreciate being bombarded, not as much as being traded with.

Quoting boethius

It just so happens that Ukrainians are the victims of geopolitical circumstance and great power competition (regardless of which great power you "blame most"), which could actually be resolved by diplomacy based on a realistic understanding of the geopolitical situation.

Absolutely correct. If the EU and NATO hadn't insisted on unlimited expansion, Russia wouldn't have needed to take back Crimea and occupy Russian-speaking areas in Ukraine.

If Ukraine had any sense it would simply accept Russia's requests and put an end to the conflict. Unfortunately, it can't do that if it gets pushed by America and England to antagonize Russia ....

Reply to boethius I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white... :-)

Quoting Apollodorus

I never said Ukrainians shouldn't be asked, did I? But when it comes to something that affects Russia, or any other country, then I think it is proper to ask the people of that country as well.

I don't see why Ukraine should matter more than Russia who has a much larger population.

Bombing affects Ukrainians.
Ukraine won't be joining NATO (main demand met, and has been for some time now).


By the way, I hear that some of the 4 million refugees are returning to Ukraine.

Quoting Oksana

Everyone there wants to come home.

Quoting ssu

I don't understand what your opposition to that is.

You're complaining that discussion of the US involvement in Yemen, or Ethiopia is off topic because the thread is about Ukraine. It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant.

Also relevant is the response of people to the Ukrainian crisis, the analysis of which involves a comparison to that of other crises.

What's not relevant (to a discussion forum) are endless posts simply pointing out how bad things are, or that stuff has happened. The former is a matter for your therapist, the latter for a news service.

Quoting ssu

The point is that you can use common sense. It's not all that blurry and utterly confusing that you cannot make sense of it.

I'm just baffled that you don't get this. Do you really not understand the difference between something seeming to you to be the case and something actually being the case?

It doesn't seem all that blurry to you. It seems to make sense to you.

Other people obviously disagree otherwise there wouldn't be any dispute.

If you want to make the argument that "X is the case". "It seems obvious that X is the case" is not evidence in favour of your argument, it's just a restatement of it.

If you want to show that some photo proves "X is the case", you need to provide more than just "this photo seems to me to show that X is the case", we know that. That's presumably why you presented it. What we don't know is why.

Quoting boethius

where does the EU self declare its aim as rebuilding the Roman Empire?

When (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the precursor to the EU, he said:

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

In 2020, Carl Baudenbacher, former president of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), openly admitted that the EU is trying to rebuild the Roman Empire:

Under Trajan the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, encompassed the entire Mediterranean region, but also parts of present-day Germany, Britain, Romania, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The European Union is preparing to build a similar empire.

The choice Britain faces if it wants an EU trade deal: either EFTA, or the Ukraine model – LSE Blogtest

Obviously, they aren't going to put that in official documents, but the idea is being discussed unofficially, and has been from inception.

Even without mentioning it, it is clear that the EU project aims to include not only Europe but also the Mid East, North Africa, and all the way to Turkey, Armenia, and beyond. In other words, an enlarged Roman Empire.

Quoting Isaac

It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant.

Apparently, it is "off topic" because @ssu says so ... :grin:

Quoting jorndoe

By the way, I hear that some of the 4 million refugees are returning to Ukraine.

Well, good on them. IMO they shouldn't have left in the first place and that Zelensky comedian should've listened to more pragmatic and experienced people instead of blindly listening to his US-UK advisers.

Obviously, he didn't know what he was doing as he and his media crew had zero knowledge of politics and even less of international relations. Don't forget that his approval ratings were down to about 30% just before the invasion. And that was because he had proved to be totally incompetent ....

Reply to Benkei I’m equally outraged about the war crimes and starvation in Yemen. The horrors in Somalia, Sudan and now in Ethiopia. I was up in arms about the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destruction of Syria. The fate of the Kurds is shocking. The list goes on.

I’m well aware of the problems caused by US foreign policy over the last 70yrs. Also how shamelessly the U.K. jumps when the US says jump.

The big story for me about the Ukraine invasion is how it is galvanising the EU and the awakening of Germany to the need to secure its own security. And that we might now have a new iron curtain constructed on the perimeter of Europe.

Quoting Apollodorus

When (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the precursor to the EU, he said:

Well, put this way, definitely sounds a lot like the Fourth Reich to me too.

Quoting Apollodorus

Obviously, they aren't going to put that in official documents, but the idea is being discussed unofficially, and has been from inception.

"We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms."

Hopefully such intentions and plans could be modified by democratic process and these are, in the end, opinions of a small amount of individuals that could be thwarted others.

Quoting Olivier5

I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white.

You seem to think these observations are levied at individuals and just opinion of internal belief.

That's not the claim.

The claim about Ukrainians being white is to do with the establishment media and response of Western Governments, concrete evidence and actions and not just presumed state of mind.

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death. Obviously that warrants attention and public discussion, and there is some, but a small and tiny fraction of the effort spent on Ukraine ... and basically no government action at all. It is obvious there is a double standard and it is obvious that skin colour has something to do with it. You can live in denial or then assume "everyone is racist" and mentioning obviously racist policies just has some ulterior motive if you want.

Quoting Benkei

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked.

Benkei! You know too well how China deals with destabilizing forces. They re-educate. They do exactly the same things they did during the their revolution, where they take scientists and make them work as janitors.

I'm sure the middle east would be more stable after the Chinese got through with it, but it's because they only have a flimsy idea of human rights.

I'm not saying the US is some sort of Good Guy. Yes, what it did to Central America was abysmal. They destroyed any leftist aspirations there and replaced it with an elite that gave way to organized crime. Then when societies imploded and their children showed up on the US border, Americans were confused about why Central Americans can't organize their affairs better.

But the US is a minor figure in world history. A footnote. It's not the worst thing that ever happened. What some historians will note is that the US carried forward the imprint of the British. They are not a footnote. They'll get a whole chapter.

Reply to Apollodorus There are a lot of analysts and commentators who conclude that Putin is a dictator. Certainly the failings of the military is not evidence to the contrary.

Quoting boethius

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

Sure, why use force of arms when it's much easier to use economic, financial, and legislative means?

But, however implemented, the concept remains the same, i.e., one power dominating others for its own purposes.

And, as I said already, Germany rebuilding its empire, or even the Western Roman Empire to which it is arguably the legitimate heir, is out of the question because it would offend @Olivier5, Macron, and many others whose noses, God forbid, might start peeling or even falling off altogether .... :wink:

Quoting Apollodorus

Sure, why use force of arms when it's much easier to use economic, financial, and legislative means?

This was a miss formatting of your quote of the person saying "We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms," and not my repeating on behalf of myself (I've corrected the formatting in the original comment).

However, I totally agree that such a plan is possible, and the US Empire is largely based on economic, financial and legal means of domination and far less on direct military conquest.

And indeed, direct military intervention nowadays is not even used to conquer and extract resources and tribute as in Empires past, but simply to topple anyone who steps out of line into a disastrous civil war and, if things go well, a failed state.

And I would agree that some people involved in the European project have a similar ambition for Europe, but I would not say the European project reduces to that and has no (at least for the moment) democratic recourse to shape policy.

Additionally, at the moment anyways, the EU is still a voluntary based organisation (which Brexit does prove), and consensus driven on at least some critical issues. So, it is far closer to a diplomatic project than an Empire, at least for now and even if some people involved have Imperial ambitions.

Getting back to geopolitics, my general view is that the world can, for the time being, only hope to share great power politics and competition to be less, rather than more, harmful. For example avoiding nuclear war in the cold war wold be a geopolitical "success" from this realist point (it can always be worse, even if the great power system is pretty "bad" in itself).

So, if that's the case, shaping better rather than worse great power policies is a fruitful task in parallel to trying to undermine Imperialism as such and to also build alternative economic and political systems that could one day displace great power competition.

For example, however much I criticise the Americans and point out the damages they cause around the world (that includes pursuing omnicidal climate chaos ambitions, so pretty bad and heinous) that USA and the Soviet Union beat Germany and Japan, I nevertheless view as a geopolitical "good outcome". That being said, doesn't mean USA being better than the Nazi's 70 years ago makes them "better" in some sense today, but the example is to highlight the outcomes of great power competition does matter.

Today, of the great powers, EU is the most peaceful and democratic, and I rather see the expansion of such a system than the Chinese total totalitarian system. Of course, I'd rather see neither but true participatory direct democracy everywhere, but, until the "ground up" approach manages to compete with the great state powers, it does still matter what the great states do and some are more and less oppressive.

Quoting boethius

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death.

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency.

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia?

Quoting Punshhh

There are a lot of analysts and commentators who conclude that Putin is a dictator. Certainly the failings of the military is not evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure there are, but many analysts and commentators have their own agendas and biases. Plus, Russia has never had any other kind of leader, so though Putin may be described as a "dictator" in a West European context (depending on the definition), he is pretty standard in a Russian context. Don't forget that Russia has a parliament and people are allowed to vote, and Putin and his party still have the backing of many Russians.

As for military failings, IMO if a leader invests billions in his country's armed forces, and his kleptocratic subordinates use the money to buy themselves superyachts and villas, then clearly he can't have "absolute control".

But I agree with you that the fate of the Kurds and others is shocking and totally unacceptable. And it's happening with NATO's approval.

When Turkey invaded Kurdish territory in Syria in 2019, NATO secretary general Stoltenberg said:

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_169576.htm?selectedLocale=en

So, according to NATO's jihadi narrative, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish lands, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine, or even to take back Crimea which has always been Russian ....

Quoting Apollodorus

I'm not sure what "Antiquity historians" has got to do with this, [...]

1. The Roman Empire was a predatory entity

"Antiquity historians" had to do with folks who keep talking of the Roman empire again and again.

Quoting Apollodorus

IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population ....
1h

Add me and most pro EU folks to that list. A strong EU provides an alternative to a unipolar world.

Quoting Olivier5

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency.

Thanks.Quoting Olivier5

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia?

This forum is one of many avenues of action available, and my time is limited in any event.

And again, the claims about racism aren't claims of internal state of mind or individuals time use, but rather about institutions that do have time and resources and simply objectively implement a skin colour based double standard.

There are many victims of many unjust things. Individually, people, if they care at all, can only do so much and are quickly path dependent on the causes they are already engaged in and know something about. So, sure, call someone bad faith for not having infinite time for every just cause that exists.

However, media and political institutions are far more powerful and have far more resources (including rational resources to decide on resource allocation) and ability to manipulate people's perspective of the world. More importantly, such institutions are political accountable, one way or another, for what they do whereas individuals are not really accountable for failing to address every single problem in the world with time that doesn't exist.

Reply to frank

China is a fucking hellhole, which is why I try not to spend any of my money there. I guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). That's the West in its entirety not just the US of A. So aside from the complicity in this specific war due to the proxy war that was going on well before that, we're complicit in undermining the rule-based order we thought we could finally agree on, which means nobody but the West feels the need to condemn Russia.

I think that's telling and says something about how much of that condemnation is a narrative that is not universally shared.

And while as a human rights lawyer I do strongly believe in a rule-based international order, I'm afraid it's too much of a "western" construct to survive long term.

Quoting ssu

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia?

They know how to find their way to Europe just fine. Where was takecarebnb for them? It is racism. But not surprising the majority is blind to it when our legacy is genocide and slavery which reverberates into today's world both in how we "look at the other", define ourselves as righteous and breach the rules we claim others should adhere to. I mean the US entered into 500 treaties with indigenuous native americans and broke them all and when Russia says "pay in rubles" it's "that's a breach of treaty!".

The US breaks the UN Charter when it suits them. They break their own laws when it suits them. This trust in "Western governments" as some force of good is just complete bullshit. All governments are shit and some are just less shit than others. Democracy and fairness are a constant struggle, requires an engaged populace and access to information. The latter is quickly deteriorating in the West and engagement with people who think differently is pretty much down the drain.

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance. Reap what you sow.

Speaking of breaking treaties. Guess who is militarising space due to changes in policies? You get two tries!

Quoting boethius

Today, of the great powers, EU is the most peaceful and democratic, and I rather see the expansion of such a system than the Chinese total totalitarian system.

I agree that the EU system is preferable to that of China, but I think "peaceful and democratic" is relative.
Certainly, in demographic, cultural, and other respects, the EU is far from all positive.

Some may argue that many EU countries have a falling population coupled with rising numbers of non-European migrants, English is replacing other languages, US-manufactured guns-and-drugs "culture" is replacing traditional European culture, etc., etc.

Plus, the EU and its agenda are becoming more and more identical with NATO, a military organization (the world's largest, actually) that is known to have engaged in aggressive behavior.

So, I for one still think that a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents would be the ideal to aim for.

Also, as a consideration, blockades used to be an act of war but that was in the time when there wasn't really something like foreign direct investment, which meant the trade balance was incredibly important. Now amending the system in such a way that capital flows are no longer possible, does it give rise to blockade?

Note that this has been previously argued in other cases, like the US blockade of Cuba.

Quoting Apollodorus

I agree that the EU system is preferable to that of China, but I think "peaceful and democratic" is relative.
Certainly, in demographic, cultural, and other respects, the EU is far from all positive.

Why I say "the most" peaceful and democratic, of the great powers. A choice between limited options.

Quoting Apollodorus

Plus, the EU and its agenda are becoming more and more identical with NATO, a military organization (the world's largest, actually) that is known to have engaged in aggressive behavior.

I agree that the EU did not take advantage of a world leadership vacuum (in the sense of great power competition) created by Trump, but just lazed about waiting for neo-con and neo-liberal policy to "return".

I mean only to argue the EU has potential to play a more peaceful and democratic global roll than China, Russia and United States.

However, it so far seems to express no interest in that and seems completely content to be subservient to US foreign policy, with rare exceptions, even suffering great harms to itself in promotion of the harms US imposes on others (join and cheer on disastrous US lead wars that lead to terrorism, economic and refugee problems in Europe and not the US ... indeed, seem the only purpose is to keep Europe unstable, weaker, and focused on internal problems that wouldn't otherwise exist without neighbour's being bombed to shit).

So, I wouldn't say I'm happy about EU and the European small powers policy, and I agree the moment seems to be passing anyways, but what I don't see is another great power politics player that's a better bet.

Quoting Olivier5

A strong EU provides an alternative to a unipolar world.

Not if the EU is dominated economically, financially, politically, and militarily by America. Don't forget that the EU doesn't even have its own armed forces and is totally dependent on America.

Quoting boethius

it so far seems to express no interest in that and seems completely content to be subservient to US foreign policy, with rare exceptions, even suffering great harms to itself in promotion of the harms US imposes on others

The EU could have been a good idea if had been based (a) on equality between its members and (b) on independence from the US.

Unfortunately, after WW2, and to some extent after WW1 and even before, everyone ganged up on Germany, which had been Europe's natural dominant power, geographically, economically, and militarily.

The elimination of Germany as a European power created a vacuum that was filled by America in the west of the continent and by Russia in the east.

The logical thing to do now would be to restore Germany as a military and political power that would keep Russia in its place and America out of Europe. This seems to be the only way to make Europe a real power to balance US hegemony and make the whole world order more equitable and more democratic.

Quoting boethius

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents?

If a war effects for example your work, I think it's obviously more important for you than something that just notice every once in a while in the papers.

Quoting boethius

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to argue on this topic of the "little green men".

Are you saying if we catch the US or the Ukrainians in a lie then we can assume everything they say is a lie?

Of course not! In fact it seems that others have these kind of ideas.

What I'm saying is that one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy and most obvious lies. Because the fact is, which I remember quite vividly, was that the journalist covering the Crimean invasion didn't dare to say for days just who the forces were...because they didn't have the Russian flag and Putin said that they weren't Russian soldiers, but Crimean volunteers.

The idea that you cannot say anything, absolutely anything and you cannot use your head in these cases is a silly counterargument.

Quoting Isaac

It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant.

Then make the revelant link by all means.

Just as I made the the link that the decision for Saudi-Arabia to intervene in the Yemen Civil War was as stupid and disastrous as the idea for Russia to invade Ukraine. MBS saw "the threat" of Yemen sliding into the "sphere of influence" of Iran as a reason to start a war against the Houthis, just like Putin saw "the threat" of Ukraine falling under the influence of the US a reason to enlarge a current war against "the nazis". Both cases a hypothetical arguments was given as a reason for war and colossal mistakes were made about how the war would go. For MBS the war didn't go by planned, ended up being bogged down, being very costly to the Saudi military and resulted in famine and utter destruction in Yemen.

Quoting ssu

If a war effects for example your work, I think it's obviously more important for you than something that just notice every once in a while in the papers.

Sure, but the comment was about Western nations generally, not individuals personally affected.

Quoting ssu

What I'm saying is that one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy lies. Because the fact is, which I remember quite vividly, was that the journalist covering the Crimean invasion didn't dare to say for days just who the forces were...because they didn't have the Russian flag and Putin said that they weren't Russian soldiers, but Crimean volunteers.

Again, can't say its clumsy lies without proof; and journalists not reporting what they can't prove is pretty usual.

You seem to believe there's some constituency denying the "little green men" ... it's more just doesn't seem to matter at all.

If stone cold proof dropped tomorrow that the picture is indeed of Russian soldiers on salary under the Russian chain of command ... what does that change? This just isn't the lie of the century and no one doubts Russian involvement and backing of the separation of Crimea.

Journalists didn't report things without proof (like they do now reporting war crimes and who's guilty before any investigation at all) ... which isn't some great crime journalists sticking to what's proven, isn't unusual, and isn't Russian appeasement of some sort, nor does anyone much care who these soldiers were "really working for" as it changes nothing, just frustrates anti-Russian parties wanting any accusation against Russia to be taken at face value.

Certainly Russia has done "bad things" and have "lied" ... well, like the US and like Ukraine, but it still matters what the actual facts, or to what extent they can be inferred, in understanding the world.

For example, it actually matters which war crimes exactly US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, as it does Russia as does Ukraine.

However, that the US first denied torture and starting a war on fabricated evidence, and then got caught in that lie, doesn't mean absolutely every accusation against the US should be taken at face value, likewise for Russia and likewise for Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the great powers (in particular US, China and Russia) lie all the time, but for the purposes of analysis the facts still matter and also actual proof still matters.

And, in the case of the takeover / invasion of Crimea I don't think anyone reported that Russia was not backing it. However, Crimean's also have agency and many and I've seen no credible doubt cast on the legitimacy of the vote of Crimean's to leave Ukraine after the 2014 coup.

So, although I, and I don't think really anyone concerned about this topic, would doubt Russia involvement (they literally have a military base there and certainly have intelligence agents in and around it since decades), the idea absolutely everyone walking around must be Russian soldiers and to say otherwise is a lie, plays into the idea that Crimean agency and self determination can be just ignored.

Now, the counter argument is that it wasn't "legal" for Crimea to exit Ukraine ... but shouldn't Crimean's be able to have self-determination? Why does a law outside Crimea matter? Why doesn't what Crimean's want matter?

For, as far as I can tell, there's no credible claim that Crimea and the Dombas regions aren't genuinely pro Russian, but a narrative of "what they want" not mattering in the contest between the far larger powers they are between ... hmmm, starting to sound a bit familiar.

That being said, I have zero problem with the idea Russia backed Crimea separation and annexation and Dombas regions declaring independence. It's a sovereign country so, presumably, can do what it wants, and, presumably, can also have clandestine operations to protect it's interests just like the USA and Ukraine.

All of which underscores @Benkei's really good breakdowns of why legalism doesn't apply to international relations.

If Ukraine has a right to self determination and so Russia is wrong in invading, then Crimea and Dombas regions have a right to self determination and Ukraine is wrong in refusing to recognise that and then attacking those regions, which makes Russia right in intervening to protect the rights of self determination of those people if they request it, just as, if you disagree and Ukraine has original just cause because only their right to self determination matters, then NATO is justified in sending arms and sending advisors to help Ukraine if Ukraine requests it.

Legal reasoning simply breaks down because there is no state to enforce the law when the perpetrator is a state with hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, or just a few, or indeed just a credible conventional deterrent, or then just no one cares to attack that particular country to enforce any rules anyways.

What does the delusion of legal reasoning applied to great power politics produce? Challenging the UN security council to fix the situation or "disband", kick Russia out because it's ... exactly like ISIS.

It's simply delusional and not how the world works. Normal people empathise because legal reasoning is relevant in normal life when one is effectively chaperoned by the state, and moral outrage can immediately translate to sympathy from friends if not cancelling the objects of dissatisfaction on social media or even the state doing something about it. More importantly, legalistic gripes are the only gripes anyone pays any real attention to for ordinary citizens, as maybe it is an issue of social concern according to society's own rules.

However, who's not listening to legalistic gripes are the great powers in complaining about each other.

Quoting Apollodorus

Not if the EU is dominated economically, financially, politically, and militarily by America.

Good thing it's not

Quoting Benkei

guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that).

I think the situation is more complicated than that, but I'm thinking we probably can't discuss that.

Quoting Benkei

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance.

Your government fought in Afghanistan for 20 years. In quite similar circumstances against many times the same enemy as the Russians had.

And what seems to irritate many here is that I point to the fact that the Russian way of war ended up killing far more civilians than the West, including the Dutch contingent. Otherwise a similarly futile war. So there's that issue of only difference in scale.

Quoting ssu

one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy and most obvious lies.

Yes, we get what you're saying. What's lacking is an argument. If you say "it's common sense that X is the case" and I say "its common sense that X isn't the case", then how has you're assertion that we can use common sense to determine whether X is the case, been shown to be anything other than false?

Quoting ssu

Then make the revelant link by all means.

I have been doing so.

Quoting ssu

I made the the link that the decision for Saudi-Arabia to intervene in the Yemen Civil War was as stupid and disastrous as the idea for Russia to invade Ukraine.

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect.

Quoting ssu

I point to the fact that the Russian way of war ended up killing far more civilians than the West

How are you measuring that?

Quoting boethius

Sure, but the comment was about Western nations generally, not individuals personally affected.

No, the question that Benkei assumed was that people would have more interest on the plight of Ukrainians because they are white than with the plight of black Africans.

When you are individually affected, even if it's nothing dramatic, you do notice that the events are quite real. Not just an article on page 5.

Quoting ssu

No, the question that Benkei assumed was that people would have more interest on the plight of Ukrainians because they are white than with the plight of black Africans.

Seems a true statement about Western nations and a majority of people in them to me.

Quoting ssu

When you are individually affected, even if it's nothing dramatic, you do notice that the events are quite real. Not just an article on page 5.

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war and even if impulsive emotional driven policy is counter productive to helping the Ukrainians ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans, nor much outrage and concern, and much less any significant actions.

Another way to put it is why are these other issue on page 5?

We spend 20 years "rebuilding Afghanistan" and brining democracy, and then leave our "allies" to fall to their deaths from our planes as we GTFO, and then let them starve to death.

Why page 5 news?

Quoting Isaac

How are you measuring that?

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc.

Quoting boethius

Seems a true statement about Western nations and a majority of people in them to me.

Add in that religion too, obviously. I would assume that people here wouldn't be racists.

Quoting boethius

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans

But the threat of war, even if still low, has increased.

Quoting Isaac

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect.

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link. Of course you can go with the line that Putin was forced to start a war with Ukraine... which I would disagree with.

If MBS was urged to intervene in Yemen by the US, you should inform me of that. The way it looks like is that the US itself was actually OK with the Houthis fighting Al Qaeda in Yemen, hence MBS didn't inform the US about it's warplans. But once the Saudis attacked, Obama did give him a lot of logistical support and then sold weapons the Saudis.

Quoting ssu

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc.

Regardless of the reliability of the estimates, vim wondering why, after all that's been said, you'd think an argument based only on casualty figures would hold any water.

We've been talking for pages and pages about how the US and Europe's approach is far more economic than territorial, so the arguments against them are about the economic impacts.

In this case, you'd be measuring not just collateral damage, but damage from arms sales, regime support, economic sanctions, pecuniary loan terms, welfare cuts, resource theft, unfair trade deals...

I'm not saying how those figures would play out. Russia engages in no small amount of all that thuggery too. My point is that its no secret that 'the west' is the more sophisticated murderer. Comparing collateral damage in war is like comparing a violent criminal to a fraudster. The method by which they kill lends emotional, not rational weight to their crimes.

Quoting ssu

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link.

I'm talking about the link between calls for Ukraine to 'keep fighting' and US arms sales (not to mention 'reconstruction' loans and the like)

Quoting ssu

Add in that religion too, obviously. I would assume that people here wouldn't be racists.

You were responding to @Benkei observation about Western countries, not people on this forum.

Quoting ssu

But the threat of war, even if still low, has increased.

Again, no threat to USA, Australia, Germany or France of Italy and most Western nations, of the war spilling over.

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them.

This sudden emotional upheaval—rather than page 5 "realist" news saying the war wherever it is, doesn't really matter, is unfortunate, lot's of people suffering but nothing we can do—by the entire West and NATO as a collective political body of some sort, is nearly 100% related to Ukrainians being white.

And, it's only this emotional upheaval that allows states to act impulsively and recklessly in their quest to assuage these emotions.

Which, if you step outside the emotional praxis of legalistic outrage that simply justifies any action that "feels like" it may help Ukrainians and "feels like" it may harm Russia, there are real questions about the wisdom of waging a proxi war and supporting Ukrainians "right to join NATO ... even if it can never actually join NATO".

If you remember back a month and a week, the outrage about Russia's invasion was "how dare they say Ukraine can't join NATO" ... and now we find out that Zelenskyy already asked when they'd be able to join NATO and NATO told him never!?!?

Likewise, now we discover the German Chancellor Scholz went to Ukraine before the war and brought Zelenskyy an offer of security guarantees by Russia and the US if they abandoned NATO aspirations and committed to neutrality?!?!

The only possible resolution of the conflict now agreed by all parties, including Zelenskyy; just far harder to negotiate now after acrimonious bloodshed, and, if reached, the exact same outcome but after insane levels of harms to Ukrainians.

Which, if Zelenskyy actually feared not getting at least billions in arms shipments and intelligence (I'm sure his emotional state would have changed if the US removed their intelligence briefings and the impending war felt less "controlled") and maybe even bait NATO into a no fly zone by handing out small arms to civilians and refusing to evacuate civilians from war zones and other stunts, or (god forbid) actually feared any weakening of anti-Russia policy and "information war", he'd of course maybe considered the offer of peace more seriously.

But who needs peace when you have NATO by your side.

We have been taken for a ride.

Quoting ssu

which I would disagree with.

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take.

Chomsky:

Chomsky:As has been understood for a long time, decades in fact, for Ukraine to join NATO would be rather like Mexico joining a China-run military alliance, hosting joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and maintaining weapons aimed at Washington. To insist on Mexico’s sovereign right to do so would surpass idiocy (and, fortunately, no one brings this up). Washington’s insistence on Ukraine’s sovereign right to join NATO is even worse, since it sets up an insurmountable barrier to a peaceful resolution of a crisis that is already a shocking crime and will soon become much worse unless resolved — by the negotiations that Washington refuses to join.

That’s quite apart from the comical spectacle of the posturing about sovereignty by the world’s leader in brazen contempt for the doctrine, ridiculed all over the Global South though the U.S. and the West in general maintain their impressive discipline and take the posturing seriously, or at least pretend to do so.

...

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more.

Reply to Benkei I think it would be fruitful to ask why Ukraine wanted to join NATO.

Is there some path Russia could have taken that would have made Ukraine happy to continue a friendly relationship with them?

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

They're set to run Russia into the ground.

Quoting frank

I think it would be fruitful to ask why Ukraine wanted to join NATO.

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO.

The problem for Zelenskyy and Ukrainians is that NATO would not and has not let them join, what NATO could do overnight if it wanted ... but it doesn't want to.

Fighting for a right get something from people who have made it clear they won't give it to you anyways, is dumb.

Quoting frank

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

They're set to run Russia into the ground.

Sure, if you're goal is to use Ukraine as a proxi war to bleed the Russians, then fighting to the last Ukrainian for the "right to join NATO" and the sanctions are a good way to harm the Russians.

Does it help Ukrainians?

Quoting boethius

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO.

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it.

Quoting Olivier5

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it.

He could have put it to a referendum, after telling people that NATO already told him they would never be allowed to join NATO, so even if it's an aspiration in the constitution ... it's not happening so it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum.

And why was it put in the constitution? To make peace making (aka. statecraft) more difficult and so promote violence.

It's just denying political reality.

There's a faction in Ukraine that wanted this war, they call themselves Arians and they are on video literally saying they want war with Russia and that without them the 2014 protests would have been just a gay parade.

Maybe violent people simply got their violent wish.

Has it really brought "glory" to the average Ukrainians?

Quoting frank

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

I wish there was a clearer picture of what the sanctions are actually doing. Of course, gradually tightened sanctions are not going to have an over-night effect, but I hear mixed messages on their effectiveness.

Quoting Bitter Crank

wish there was a clearer picture of what the sanctions are actually doing. Of course, gradually tightened sanctions are not going to have an over-night effect, but I hear mixed messages on their effectiveness.

If the sanctions were supposed to undermine Putin's popularity, they don't seem to have done that. If anything, the Russian elite is more closely tied to Putin than before.

Russia did have a market economy in which westerners participated. Apparently that's gone. They will now have a command economy.

Here.

Quoting boethius

it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum.

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think.

Quoting boethius

And why was it put in the constitution?

Good question. I did some research (from wiki):


On November 22, 2018, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine green-lighted a presidential bill to amend Ukraine's Constitution regarding the strategic course of the state for obtaining full membership of Ukraine in the EU and NATO (No. 9037). The same day, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the bill in its first reading. A total of 334 deputies of 385 registered in the session hall supported the law.

The Verkhovna Rada is composed of 450 "deputies" in total. Some posts are vacant due to Russian occupation of Crimea and independentists in Dombass. A new crop of deputies were voted in in 2019.

The law voted by the previous legislature proposed that Ukraine's irreversible course toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration be stipulated in the preamble of the Fundamental Law along with the confirmation of European identity of the Ukrainian people; that Article 102 be supplemented with the provision that "the president of Ukraine is the guarantor of the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"; and that Article 116 is amended with a new clause, according to which the Cabinet of Ministers "ensures the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the [EU and NATO]."

These provisions effectively carved in constitutional marble a 'west-friendly' foreign policy orientation -- a very odd feature, possibly an overreaction to Yukashenko's efforts to cosy up with Moscow -- and forced any new administration to implement it.

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied.

So who voted for this law? Most deputies of the previous legislatute. It was a presidential bill, emanating from Petro Poroshenko, and voted by (among others) his party, then name the 'Petro Poroshenko Bloc' that had won 132 of the 423 contested seats in the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election, more than any other party.

Poroshenko's domestic policy promoted "the Ukrainian language, nationalism, inclusive capitalism, decommunization, and administrative decentralization."

In 2018, Poroshenko helped create the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, separating Ukrainian churches from the Moscow Patriarchate. His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira (English: army, language, faith).

In the 2019 presidential elections, Poroshenko obtained 24.5% in the second round, being defeated by Volodymyr Zelensky. There was no true consensus in the expert community on why Poroshenko lost, with opinions ranging from opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency [and other factors]. His loss apparently came as a big surprise to commentators.

Outside government, Poroshenko has been a prominent Ukrainian oligarch with a lucrative career in acquiring and building assets. His most recognized brands are Roshen, the large-scale confectionery company which has earned him the nickname of "Chocolate King", and, until its sale in November 2021, the TV news channel 5 kanal.

He is still a member of parliament. But a new crop of deputies was elected on 21 July 2019. Zelensky's totally new party (called Servant of the People... :-)) won a strong a majority, coming out of the blue.

So this constitutional amendment was done by a previous crop of leaders, rather nationalist and possibly quite corrupt. Those Zelenskyy ran against and defeated.

This means Zelenskyy has no legacy to defend here, and can propose new ideas eg the referendum one.

Quoting Olivier5

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think.

That's his line now, but if he was told Ukraine could never join NATO, why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions.

Not only should be seriously question why it wasn't his line before the war after he was told by NATO that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO ... we should also seriously question why the "right to join NATO" was his line in the first tepid days of the war.

Quoting Olivier5

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied.

Obviously not, no matter what is said in the constitution or what Ukraine "wants", nothing prevented Zelenskyy from telling the truth that, despite what they want, NATO has told him they will never be allowed to join NATO ... or, if that would be too shocking for Ukrainians to here, then work out some diplomatic process that saves face for Ukraine and NATO .. and why not, I'm being generous, even Russia.

Someone who knows anything about anything about statecraft would interpret NATO literally stating that Ukraine would never be allowed to join but the door would be open publicly (i.e. NATO would not publicly humiliate Ukraine by saying closing the door) would know that's a pretty large and clear "big boy signal" from NATO that he's going to have to go make peace with Putin, if he wanted peace.

Sure, you can say he shouldn't need to make peace with Putin ... but then the expectation should be no peace with Putin.

These sorts of truth bombs at this stage in the game is honestly bewildering. Almost as bewildering as the biolabs fiasco (almost).

Diplomatic tightrope is what it means to be the neighbour of a great power that can reck your country on a whim. If Finland's so praiseworthy in their Russian relations, a famous deal with the Russians to keep Finland independent post-WWII and not be absorbed like other baltic nations (a time in which no one would come to Finland's aid and the Russian army was even bigger and more powerful than before and certainly more experienced after defeating the Nazi's) was worked out over a lot of vodka and sauna.

Indeed, the sauna (which always includes alcohol) statecraft tool, was described at length by Secretary of State Torstila famous 2010 speech to the XV International Sauna Congress.

Describing important high stakes diplomatic techniques such as:

Quoting Sauna Diplomacy, the Finnish Recipe

President Kekkonen used to invite world leaders and other officials to his private sauna at the height of the Cold War. Formal discussions started around a normal negotiating table and were followed by a sauna sitting. New ideas emerged and many of them helped the Finns move towards notable political and economic successes and ultimately Finland becoming “the Nokia Land.”

During the days of the Cold War, the Finnish neutrality between East and West was constantly challenged by the Soviet Union. President Kekkonen used his sauna diplomacy to defend Finland’s integrity and membership in the Western community of nations countering the Soviet efforts. The Financial Times once claimed that Kekkonen sweated his Soviet guests into cooperation in his sauna. The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor.

The Finnish story is not just "fighting the Russians".

It is fighting the Russians, then mutually agreeing war is not a good thing, and burying the hatchet, and learning to live as neighbour's with mutual respect (at least for a time) and mutual benefit wherever possible. Finland even paid war reparations to the Soviet Union. That price for independence was also paid, yet I never see mentioned.

Notice the diplomatic nuance, the statecraft, even in this fun loving speech—cognisant that every word matters—in phrases like "The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor."

Contrast that to geopolitical diplomacy of today ... which is basically reduced to an online flamewar.

Quoting boethius

why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions.

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge.

Quoting Olivier5

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge.

Ah yes, just water under the bridge ... but not really.

Just because there is some law and some objective and some duty to implement the law, does not mean a politician must keep pretending the law can be implemented when he realises it is no longer possible.

His hands were not tied, he could have talked with other politicians, explained the situation and that NATO is not coming and they will need to deal with Russia largely alone, that it's a difficult situation and cool heads are required.

Even if his hands were "really tied" as president he could have resigned, told the truth, and thus forced a new election around this issue so Ukrainian's could decide on a new policy given that, even if they want to join NATO and have "a right to join NATO" that the reality is that they will never be joining NATO.

And the fact he's saying so now and saying a referendum would be needed to change the constitution ... clearly demonstrates his hands weren't tied and he could have called for such a referendum any time between being told by NATO that Ukraine won't be joining NATO and the start of the war.

Reply to boethius Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war?

Quoting boethius

Again, no threat to USA, Australia, Germany or France of Italy and most Western nations, of the war spilling over.

The war could turn nuclear, which is a very serious threat to the Western nations (and the world). Everyone on the planet has a stake in what's going on in Ukraine.

Reply to Benkei Do you think there's a moral equivalence between NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

Quoting RogueAI

The war could turn nuclear, which is a very serious threat to the Western nations (and the world). Everyone on the planet has a stake in what's going on in Ukraine.

By spillover I mean the current war literally spilling over borders.

I then address the nuclear threat in the next sentence:

Quoting boethius

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them.

Nuclear war in this context is meant to address the increased risk to everyone, but I should have specified that the spillover risk to neighbours is both conventional and nuclear.

Reply to boethius :up:

Reply to RogueAI In the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer.

Quoting Benkei

the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer.

The Hittites were pretty cool. Egypt was in a class by itself. Obviously.

Aztecs, though. Talk about mayhem. :grimace:

Quoting Isaac

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them.

Ok, let's make it super clear. The conclusion is originally more: "Teaching critical thinking is needed to help people see past authoritarian propaganda." So, dividing them into two inductive arguments:

[p1] Critical thinking is a method of thought [p2] needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, has a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies requires external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one must know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking is required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

Now [p1] and [p2] True or false? Look at history, even the Soviet era, look at North Korea, Nazi Germany look at major authoritarian regimes and times when the church and king had all the power. How grinding down actual truth over generations, decades, and centuries places the common man in a position where it's next to impossible to see any other reality than the one that has been taught by parents, state, church, and other citizens. The only time such status quos break down and collapse is when the suffering and acts by those in power conflict with the truths that have been taught. For example, a church promotes peace in a nation but slaughters citizens in front of their eyes. Many effective authoritarian regimes conducted such slaughters outside of the citizens' view, so as to not conflict with the established propaganda. The more effective the propaganda machine, the more likely people will form biases to a point where they could even be exposed to contradicting evidence and still accept the propaganda narrative as true. For example, people call relatives in Russia to say are suffering through war and their relatives don't believe them, regardless of the evidence sent to them.
For [p3] True or false? People can develop high intelligence and high levels of logical thinking, but higher intelligence does not equal being immune to bias. The only way to be aware of one's own biases is to learn about them and how to spot them. Learn how to form arguments that don't come out of those biases and form fallacies in reasoning. That kind of knowledge can form naturally, but on a scale that encompasses an entire people, that probability is close to impossible. The knowledge about biases and fallacies and the understanding of these cognitive processes have been formed through philosophy and science over a very long time and many many researchers and thinkers to a combined body of knowledge. That one person would naturally develop the same extensive knowledge without any education is close to impossible, and a whole people doing it has such a low probability that it can't even be a valid factor against this premise. [p4] True or false? While we can debate on how to actually define "critical thinking", this is a short summary and general description found everywhere. The ability to critically evaluate something and be aware of the biases that contaminate that evaluation process. [p5] True or false? Since biases and fallacies are epistemic facts needed to understand one's own thought process in a more objective manner, they need to be taught through education of those facts in order to enable proper critical thinking to take place. So in the conclusion, all those premises support that teaching about critical thinking is required to help people understand how the propaganda forms their biases and how critically examining state information can only be done while being aware of how the biases formed through the history of that authoritarian state.


Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever. And how parents teaching children works better, especially in the context of [p1] and [p2] in my argument. But I think I know what will happen, you will not do that and you will continue to demand more of my argument than you are willing to give about your own.


Quoting Isaac

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why?

You don't present any argument for "what the case is", you conclude that it is better for parents to just teach their children instead of formal education, and I object to that because parents teaching children a broad education requires the parents to be unbiased, but in authoritarian states, the state propaganda narrative is so ingrained through generations that those parents won't be unbiased but have a strong belief bias. And you ignore dealing with this objection and defend your position only with an appeal to authority: "I'm a professor and you are wrong".

Quoting Isaac

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking.

You have claimed a lot of things without any ounce of evidence other than implying that I'm wrong because you are a professor. And you haven't presented strong evidence against my argument either, other than that you are a professor.

Quoting Isaac

If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!"

You haven't shown any sign to know what you are talking about. Your acts do not compute with your claimed title. I did not say that you are a bad professor until after continuously just reading your claim of title as the only source behind your claims. In the case of "professor of Law", the follow up is to show that it isn't legal, not to say that "I'm a professor of Law and that might mean you need to consider yourself to be wrong". That is essentially the same as implying I'm wrong just because you are a professor. You demand valid arguments, but you do nothing of the sort yourself.

Quoting Isaac

The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...".

Essentially just accepting what you say... because you claimed yourself to be a professor. The normal reaction would be to say: "Ok, show me". Why should I just accept what you claim? Why should your conclusions don't be examined also? Are you unable to see the problem with this?

Quoting Isaac

Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know.

I ask for evidence, facts, rational arguments, and elaborations on your claims and conclusions. If you don't provide it, or you provide something inconclusive or illogical, then I object and when you continuously don't elaborate further I cannot do anything other than conclude your claims to be wrong or inconclusive.

Quoting Isaac

You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject.

I assume that you tell the truth because if you lied about being a professor, you render everything you say irrelevant as you have absolutely zero credibility and fall back on such tactics. Assuming you telling the truth allows me to grant you the opening to try and rationally argue for your claims and conclusions with more foundational respect as an interlocutor. So far, you haven't really done that, so I could question the validity of your claim, but my assumption does not change the fact that you still need to prove yourself past just pointing out you are a professor. I think a problem here is that if you are a professor you might be biased toward the dynamic of student/professor, where the respect from students towards a professor is generally more in respect of that title and the knowledge that comes with it. But I'm not your student and therefore I have no requirement of taking your words for granted without asking for more clarification and elaboration. To imply that if I accept the idea that you are a professor, I should therefore not be able to believe I could know more than you, is basically you saying that without knowing my level of knowledge, without knowing if I have a title or not, without any knowledge whatsoever regarding it, claim that you know more than me, just because of your claimed title. You aren't correct because you are a professor, you are correct if you demonstrate your claim and conclusion to be correct. Until then, you cannot say that I shouldn't believe I know more than you, because your title does not warrant a dismissal of the possibility that I know more than you, it is just a claim with so far zero proof in practice.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching.

That you say you have studied them is the same as saying "I'm a professor therefore I'm right." The claim that you have studied is not a valid premise. Give me the study, the paper in that case.
Or form an argument with premises that aren't "I have the knowledge, therefore" or "I'm a professor, therefore".

Quoting Isaac

I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity.

I see no facts, publications, or logical premises here other than "I believe", try again.

Quoting Isaac

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case.

I'm not claiming you are lying, I'm saying that you just point to an unknown study that made you believe you are right. That is not enough. You could also try and logically argue for your claim and conclusion, so far I've not seen such a valid argument.

Quoting Isaac

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people?
— Christoffer

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect.

https://core.ac.uk/reader/110405
https://core.ac.uk/reader/158370562
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1505329112
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=289aa9bd-a8b1-4431-88e2-83f326e01fe7
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=098c015f-c58f-4dda-b1c9-c69fffd7d2dd

As you can see by this very loose search for papers on teaching critical thinking it points toward broad consensus specifically around the importance of teaching critical thinking. Interestingly enough, the paper on critical thinking in Rwanda touches upon the very thing I'm talking about, where misinformation about health causes health problems and that the importance of teaching critical thinking helps mitigate serious consequences of such misinformation.

There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

Set in the context of Russian propaganda, the disinformation acts in similar ways, setting things up for dangerous consequences for the people that blindly follow that disinformation. Therefore critical thinking needs to be taught to help new generations understand what is propaganda and what is not.

So when you say that your studies conclude that if material challenges are met, people will think for themselves and that teaching these kinds of skills have no real measurable effect, that just sounds like your study is massively flawed and even downright false in its conclusion.

You could, however, provide the study, and references and make efforts through argument to support the claims you make, so that it doesn't just sound like they're your personal opinions wrapped up in an appeal to authority fallacy. But you won't, because you conveniently pressed on the idea that you are a professor and now you cannot show the "evidence" in support of your conclusions because that would be bad for you to do so on a public forum.

However, I think it's bad for you to be on a public forum anyway based on how you actually write here. If you are a professor, it would be wise to act in that effort, with the same scrutiny and standard, even under a pseudonym.

I really like to see publications that position that formal education isn't needed, that's a very radical conclusion and would surely make splashes in the scientific community. And because it's such a radical conclusion, it really needs some strong support. Your claims of having conducted a study is not enough, that study needs to be elaborated on. Sample sizes, cultural differences, class differences, cognitive differences, and socioeconomic differences. Also comparing to formal education in nations with private schools and those with government-funded schools as well as the statistics about levels of knowledge between different societies with different educational systems.

The problem here is that you just say "you made a study", that is not enough to claim you know better.

Quoting Isaac

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth.
— Christoffer

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that.

Here you go with the studies claim again. *sigh*

Quoting Isaac

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then?
— Christoffer

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance.

It was an annoyance and you have concluded that formal education isn't needed. May I suggest I see a pattern in need of research here? How your annoyance formed an opinion that informed you to create a hypothesis that you are trying to prove.

Also interesting that you say "was" for both. I guess you're not a professor anymore then. And if "was" why would you get in trouble if you showed the studies you published? You can't get fired from somewhere you annoyed yourself to quit from, right?

Quoting Isaac

The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are.

You tend to always just see one cause of all problems, the west, the US, imperialism, material scarcity.

Quoting Isaac

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac


One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first.
— Christoffer

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage?

I asked you to show me an example of such critical thinking that evolved separately from all other major studies in epistemology. But you never show me that. You ask why they don't already have those skills. Maybe it is because as I've already explained about the history of critical thinking, that it might require studies over centuries by many people and that it might be western power and luck that enabled it to go from the Greeks, through the Islamic golden age, through the renaissance, enlightenment era and modernized and synthesized with other philosophies around the world, that led to what it is today, both in cognitive sciences, philosophy and education. Maybe their cultural heritage does not allow for it or have it because of either interference that destroyed its progress, like how the Mayan empire collapsed and the knowledge of astronomy far ahead of its time got lost and had to be re-discovered again in the west.

Asking "Why?" does not change the fact that you have not shown examples of the same level of developed critical thinking in any other culture. Can you please... show.... it...

Quoting Isaac

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right
— Christoffer

Yeah. Right.

Delusional point of view.

Quoting Isaac

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system.

Oh, so it's all just about the teacher/student relationship here? So first off, you need them to learn to read and write, basic education, that needs a teacher otherwise they can't do much with those books now can they? Then you just leave them with those books, but still have experts? So how does this in any shape or form change the fact that teaching critical thinking, either through those books or through a teacher can have the effect that I describe? Like the Rwanda paper.

And what about the differences in learning skills between students? Not all function the same, not all can go through autodidactic methods of learning and reach the same place as others. A study with a small sample size of an even smaller number of different backgrounds of students in this topic cannot conclude such an autodidactic learning method to be conclusively better than traditional education.

Again, you have studied, but I see no research paper or actual details of such a study. Is it even published? Is it reviewed?

Quoting Isaac

Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.
— Christoffer

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about people living through generation after generation of limited knowledge controlled by an authoritarian regime. If you think they are stupid you clearly don't know shit about how indoctrination and belief bias works, regardless of your "professor status".

A clear example of this is the parents of people living in Ukraine who, when called up by their crying children, don't believe them that there's a war there. I could appeal to my emotions and say that these parents are fucking idiots, but the truth is that they've lived their whole lives within the state-controlled lies and world-view, so as to function as servants of that regime whether they are aware of it or not.

It's precisely this process of generational propaganda feedback loop that I'm arguing for being broken by getting knowledge of critical thinking into areas of the world that only get their information from authoritarian sources of propaganda.

Quoting Isaac

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms.

Being able to go out of their room does not equal being forced to face different perspectives and ideas, to be forced into the world and train such social skills. Sure, you can put them in social spaces, but learning together with others, and collaborating on projects is a massive needed skill to learn as you grow up. Especially if you are further away from extroversion. Such things do not happen on their own, or rather, they can never achieve a sufficient level for all, so only a few will benefit and others will suffer from lacking social skills later on.

Quoting Isaac

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?
— Christoffer

Yes and yes.

Really, what about biases? Did they show a clear understanding of biases while forming such a deduction argument? Can I read more somewhere about this other than you just saying you did?

Quoting Isaac

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?
— Christoffer

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that.

Education mitigates it, ignoring it or just hoping "it fixes itself" like your idea of the autodidactic educational system does nothing and can even increase the problems. This is why methods are important, especially for those that find just "figuring it out" hard and mentally taxing. Having clearer methods help those with guidance rather than just acknowledging they have a bias and then doing nothing. And I'm not assuming anything, just look at the antivaccer movement filled with strongly agreeable people and a flourishing group-think mentality. With enough effort you could easily pull them under authoritarian ideas. Ironically enough most of them have moved from vaccination conspiracies to pro-Putin conspiracies and ideas.

Quoting Isaac

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.
— Christoffer

According to whom?

According to you not able to produce support for such a conclusion, only "I'm a professor who did a study that showed me it is so", without showing said study, or any details, facts, or arguments in support.

Quoting Isaac

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves?
— Christoffer

No. Not once.

So how do they rid themselves of authoritarian governments if large parts of a population fully believe propaganda and lies because that's the only exposure they have to outside information? Does education of children that teaches them other perspectives than the authoritarian lies help break that generational cycle of echo chambers?

How do you propose it get fixed? Also I seem to remember you proposing that we need to let nations like Russia "figure it out by themselves", right?

Quoting Isaac

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west
— Christoffer

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention.

Those are not enough. The World Bank is already working on cutting dept, and removing corrupt regimes, how do you propose that happens without military intervention? Ask them nicely? Most attempts at changing regimes have happened through sanctions, at great cost to the people, so what's the alternative? Military intervention, killing off the corruption, and attempting to push for non-corrupt elections. But what happens if the people's literacy levels are low? If education is so low that normal electoral processes don't work and the nation falls back into separatist warfare? Much of this has already happened unfortunately forcing change in that way is extremely hard. What's lacking in nations that continuously have problems, outside of the debt problem, is almost always a lack of education for the people. Getting to self-sustainability requires more people to be educated and if literacy levels are low because it's hard getting them to such education, then it logically won't work better by just hoping they learn on their own, just by having books.

Quoting Isaac

You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac


Because you are a professor?
— Christoffer

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

It's also common for highly educated people to discover problems with professors using their title as a source of authority in discussions. The whole reason why critical thinking is an important topic for me is that it's part of my own philosophical work. And my ethical work on epistemic responsibility, that a key point is to not just accept something until tested or examined. You have claimed to be a professor, a professor with radical conclusions about education, who says that you have studies that prove your conclusions and that because of this I should bow down to it, accept that I can be wrong and that you can be right, even if you haven't demonstrated any support for any of it.

This is an abuse of your title, a way to use that title as part of an argument in order to shift the balance of power in a debate. Unfortunately, for you, I don't fall for such behaviors. That's why I keep asking for support for your claims. Until that is presented your title means nothing and your studies are irrelevant. You need to make it relevant before it can be used to support your claims and conclusions. Otherwise, it just becomes you claiming your right becauseyou say so.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

Dig deeper then.

Quoting Isaac

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong.
— Christoffer

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you.

You first agree that you do an appeal to authority fallacy, then still position it to be justified. As I said you might need to dig deeper.

Your contradictions are opinions with claims going against most research on the topic, meaning you have a radical claim without the support and you position that as being the contradiction against me by an expert. I assume there's something wrong with you, not because I don't agree with you, but because you haven't presented any support for anything you've said. What is it that you don't understand here? You're babbling on and on about this but you can't see the glaring problem with this? And because you used past tense when speaking about your role as a teacher and researcher,

I'm beginning to believe that you're just an unemployed professor, delusional after unfinished studies with growing radical ideas that you desperately want to be true and you try to gain your old status back in here by just saying "I've done studies, trust me I'm a professor and I have seen so much that proves me right."

You still have to show support for your claims. I don't give a fuck about your title, it is irrelevant if you can't back up your ideas with the studies you draw all your truths from.

Quoting Isaac

You asked me, remember?

Doesn't mean you are free from having to support your claims and conclusions.

Quoting Isaac

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice.

No, it's called an appeal to authority.

Quoting Isaac

It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree.

You simply don't understand that you claiming this means nothing. It's still an appeal to authority, something you as a professor should know what it means.

It would be easy to continue the discussion if you actually made efforts to support your claims. I can't respect someone who positions themselves as being "more right" than me because of their title or claim of expertise if that's the only source of support for their claims, especially when the claims are radical and in need of heavy support as they counter general consensus of the topic.

Quoting Isaac

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor
— Christoffer

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were.

You claim yourself to be a professor and therefore I should consider myself wrong. Because you have no other support for your claims, this becomes the only support you present, and it is about using appeal to authority to gain superiority over your interlocutor.

Reply to frank I just finished an interesting documentary where they argue that where science, profit and belief in superiority coincide, you have a particular volatile combination. So the US is build on the genocide of native americans (500 treaties signed and broken), millions displaced, forcibly converted, murdered and raped.

Most European wealth is build on the genocide and slavery of Africans. Belgium murdered 3,000,000 Congolese. The French, Dutch, English, Spanish and Portuguese had their slave trade. And almost all of them had colonies.

The Aztecs were original in a particular brand of religious sacrifice but a bunch of pussies compared to settler colonialism and all the crap that came with that. Europe then turned around and actually decided to kill their own (Jews) because, well only Aryans and Gentiles were superior (I gloss over the "Irish are descendants from monkeys but the English are Man" as a minor sidestory).

Considering the direction in which sheer quantities have developed over the centuries the next genocide where all three points mentioned in the first sentence coincide is going to be record-breaking. I'm just praying karma isn't a thing or we're both fucked.

Reply to frank This is a good question but one I can't really answer but only guess at.

Ukraine was torn between loyalty to the West and Russia to the East. It's politics have not been free of meddling for decades. So whether their wish to join was genuine or bought for, I don't know. I think Coca-Cola sells better than Vodka so maybe culturally there was a genuine preference to align with the West - or maybe that's just projection. But then that raises the question, why NATO? Why not just a partnership and cooperation agreement and association treaty at a later stage with the EU> So personally I think it was not Ukraine's idea to begin with but NATO/US and for various reasons Ukrainian politicians went along with it and NATO/US preferred the NATO route because the Ukrainian economy wasn't interesting but its military importance was (control of the Black Sea, bordering Russia, striking distance from Moscow).

What is of course curious is that all the warnings issued in the US and EU by political think tanks about expansion of NATO to the East imply that this was also known in Ukraine proper. I wonder about the motivations of politicians to vote in favour of a policy that would antagonise Russia and increase the likelihood of further military intervention and hardship for Ukrainians. Especially in light of this being implemented in their constitution after Georgia and Crimea was already annexed. It was clear Russia wasn't afraid to use military force to enforce its sphere of influence.

So, stupidity? Pride? Getting even? Bribed? All possible I suppose.

Haven't found anything on the net to give me a more informed view on this.

Quoting Benkei

The Aztecs were original in a particular brand of religious sacrifice but a bunch of pussies compared to settler colonialism and all the crap that came with that

They were still mass murderers. Sure, they don't have the scale of the two countries that top the list of mass murderers: USSR and China, but give them a break. They were in the middle of nowhere.

Quoting Benkei

I'm just praying karma isn't a thing or we're both fucked.

Whatchoo mean "we" kemosabe?

Quoting Christoffer

Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever

OK.

p1] Critical thinking is not a method of thought [p2] which isn't needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies don't develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, doesn't have a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies doesn't require external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one need not know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking isn't required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

Reply to frank Estimates for native americans killed through deliberate governmental action range from 95 million to 114 million in Canada and the US. Whether that was the US government or proxy governments for colonial powers is a bit academic. It does beat Mao although admittedly over a 500 year time period.

Quoting frank

Whatchoo mean "we" kemosabe?

I hope karmic retaliation doesn't do guilt by association but considering the agents it picks so far I'm not optimistic.Sorry.

Reply to Isaac

Then we're done here, you have proven your inability to function through argument because that is not a counterargument. I've presented sources and elaborations of the premises and you just flip them instead while obviously haven't read more than the first part. So you are a waste of time, good luck with your "studies" professor expert :lol:

@frank Book I got the numbers from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48835.American_Holocaust

Quoting Christoffer

sources and elaborations

So what do suppose happens now? In your mind, how did this play out? I say "you got me, I just made all that up, I don't have any sources at all". Is that where you saw this going? I just want to know what you think is going on here.

So far I've got a disgruntled professor, venting at being ignored by the world, waits patiently for 170 pages just hoping, in a topic on Ukraine (for some reason), someone will bring up his pet theory, so he can...what? I get lost there in your plotline. The disgruntled professor gets what? Did he forget Google scholar existed? Was he hoping you didn't know about it? What happens next?

You put a tremendous amount of effort into presenting an opposing case in something you've clearly no expertise in (else you wouldn't have needed the Google search), to someone you still (remarkably) believe is an expert in that field. How did you think that was going to go?

Quoting Benkei

Estimates for native americans killed through deliberate governmental action range from 95 million to 114 million in Canada and the US. Whether that was the US government or proxy governments for colonial powers is a bit academic. It does beat Mao although admittedly over a 500 year time period.

It's not academic that the USA and Canada didn't exist 500 years ago, when measles was the biggest killer of Native Americans.

Reply to frank Reply to Benkei

British American Tobacco?

Knowingly killed more people than any other single entity in the time between them knowing cigarettes caused lung cancer and them telling anyone. Apparently.

Quoting Isaac

Knowingly killed more people than any other single entity in the time between them knowing cigarettes caused lung cancer and them telling anyone. Apparently

I think COPD is a bigger killer than lung cancer isn't it?

Quoting frank

I think COPD is a bigger killer than lung cancer isn't it?

I think you're right. That significantly ups the death count. Although I think the point was that they knew about the link to cancer but ignored it. Hence the inclusion in genocide.

Although any government who knows about the link between pm10s and lower life expectancy, but fails to act accordingly...?

Depends how deliberate the act needs to be I suppose. I take BATs ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco to be pretty deliberate, especially as they also knew cigarettes were addictive.

Now, fast food companies....

Reply to Benkei as a person acts in Europe and Asia for years, I must agree with you.

Quoting Olivier5

"Antiquity historians" had to do with folks who keep talking of the Roman empire again and again.

They aren't historians though. They're politicians and technocrats that use history to justify their political programs. I for one doubt that genuine historians would advocate the reconstruction of the Roman Empire. Though, of course, one can never know ....

Quoting Olivier5

Good thing it's not

Bad thing it is. America is the EU's second-largest trading partner and global investment banking in the EU is dominated by US banks, as are the international financial institutions like IMF that are involved in financial assistance and economic adjustment programs in the EU, etc., not to mention the EU's dependence on the financial markets like the City of London that are dominated by US banks.

You must be aware that the EU is trying to break free from London-based clearing houses?

The European Union must cut its heavy reliance on derivatives clearing in London in the same way as the bloc is ending its dependency on Russian energy due to the war in Ukraine, EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said on Wednesday.
The EU has agreed to allow clearing houses in Britain, such as the London Stock Exchange's LCH arm, to continue serving banks and asset managers in the bloc until June 2025 to give time to build up clearing capacity inside the EU.

Cutting EU reliance on UK clearers like ending use of Russian energy, says commissioner - Reuters

London, which is no longer in the EU, continues to be Europe's main financial center. The EU has been trying hard to move it to Frankfurt, but there is little chance that's going to happen anytime soon.

The irony is that to break free from London, the EU will have to allow US banks to operate more freely within the EU, there being no other alternative:

LONDON, April 4 2022 (Reuters) - The European Union said on Monday it has widened access for U.S. exchanges and clearing houses to investors in the bloc, a move which contrasts with Brussels' intention to shut off clearing houses in London in 2025.

EU widens market access for U.S. derivatives clearers and exchanges - Reuters

Maybe Paris or Marseilles should stand in for London and New York .... :wink:

Quoting Benkei

In the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer.

There's no difference between Stalin and FDR? You don't really believe that, do you?

Reply to Isaac

> If you find it morally defensible and I don't, I don't see how much further we can go as there are few arguments that can profitably be brought to bear.

There is an anthropological fact that grounds my moral reasoning: social identities are part of our personal identities and they are rooted in our communal life with other individuals in a given environment. Social identities evolve with the size of the population and are passed on through generations and they matter to individuals as much as material conditions. Some traits of our social identity matters more than others (for whatever personal reason) and this brings with it selective criteria (who is part and who is not part of the community) and related understanding of interests, duties and rights. Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. And to some that matters, even more than class division. Russia is a good example of such nationalism with Putin as its revanchist herald.

> The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Common in what sense? What are the evidences to support your claim? And how do you explain the fact that Russian soldiers (example of working class) are killing Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians instead of killing Putin and his entourage of oligarchs, generals, orthodox patriarchs and mafia friends (example of ruling class)? And why ordinary Russian majorities support Putin’s criminal and murderous war against the Ukrainians (who Putin claims are one people with Russians, so it’s as if he’s killing his own people)? Why do you support Russian expansionism given that the combination of nationalism and authoritarian regime present in Russia consolidates and perpetuates the subordination of the masses to the ruling classes in ways that are even hard to conceive in the West?
Keep also in mind that I didn’t question the value one can put into class struggles, nor claimed that is always immoral. While you made some radical moral claims about fighting over national identity and independence: indeed one thing is to claim that class struggles are or can be morally more defensible than fighting over a flag, another is to claim - as you do - that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral. Such a radical moral claim of yours sounds preposterous to me on anthropological grounds.

> It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

I find your claims quite preposterous for the following reasons.
1. Where you write “Ukrainian children die”, I would have written “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers”. Why such a difference? “Ukrainian children die” may be seen as an effect of your multi-causal grand theory, I get it, yet you didn’t offer any multi-causal theory to prove your point and secondly if all is literally causal then we leave in a deterministic world, and there would be no responsibility not even for the ruling classes. So to talk about responsibility you need agency. And with your analysis you should still prove Zelensky’s responsibility from “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers” and not from “Ukrainian children die”, if you want to make sense to me.
2. Children don’t get a saying in anything because they are children. When working classes and slaves were exploited or made insurrections didn’t consult their children, yet their children could get exploited or killed in a bloody repression. Did Putin consult Russian children’s before starting a war, since they are going to suffer anyways the consequences? Did Putin consult his soldiers (who are children to Russian parents) before sending them to war? Did the Russian soldiers or Putin consult the Ukrainian children before killing them? No they didn’t. So nobody can do much with such a poor premise of yours. I’ll suggest you to present your moral claim as follows: “Putin is ready to let his army kill, rape and burn Ukrainian children and their parents as he already did for the Russian flag, so Ukrainians should submit to Putin and get rid of Zelensky, if they want to prove me that they care about their children, families and homes more than I do, otherwise they are more immoral than Putin”. It’s simpler and straightforward, and it spares you the embarrassment of defending preposterous moral claims and clandestine multi-causal analysis.
3. So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone, which is more than what Putin officially demanded?! Even Putin might cringe over your overzealousness.
4. If Ukrainians who lost their families in this war oppose the continuation of this war and want Zelensky gone because they take him to be responsible for what has happened, I can’t exclude that could be a morally defensible choice, of course! Yet, from my perspective, the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian and had my family exterminated by Russians, I wouldn’t care about Zelensky, no matter how much responsibilities you would ascribe to him based on your clandestine multi-causal theory, I would simply go fight the Russians to death. Besides if I heard anybody trying to convince me out of it with your kind of reasoning, I would have beaten the shit out of him. But maybe someone would have acted differently, I don’t know. The point is that my moral claims concerning this war take into account what the Ukrainians value as this war concerns them in the first place (but ultimately not only them). And since I do not have direct access to what they want collectively, then I would take Zelensky as their chosen representative in times of peace and in times of war, until I’m proven wrong. BTW Zelensky support among Ukrainians is confirmed to me by some good feedback from expat Ukrainian friends and foreign reporters on the ground.


[i]> all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case. — neomac
I don't see how. How are you measuring 'mistrust' and why say it's too high here?[/i]

I didn’t measure “mistrust”. There are unavoidable evidences and compelling reasons for mistrust. Negotiations stalled: so either the demands were too hard to digest or there weren’t enough assurances or both. That Russian demands are already over the top is clear as I explained, and that Putin has lost his credibility to Ukraine is obvious having violated the Budapest agreement. And notice that Ukrainians do not blindly trust the West either, because they too didn’t stand by the Budapest agreement. While Putin, from his point of view, could justify this war precisely because he didn’t have enough assurances from the West either (https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/we-dont-want-conflict-but-we-need-assurance-putin-tells-nato-41179711.html). And if before there was mistrust now it’s so much worse. For example, if Ukraine agrees to be out of NATO what ensures that Ukraine will not be attacked again by Russia? Putin’s word? Lavrov’s ? Yours? Out of NATO, Ukrainians need either the binding guarantees from Western countries to intervene militarily (and notice that according to the Budapest memorandum the UK and the US should have intervened!) or their own full-fledged military defense which should be enough deterring, yet not too threatening right? And who is going to provide such military defense? Putin? The West? China?
“The harsh reality is there is currently no risk-free exit from this situation because the logical extension of ‘not provoking Putin’ is to agree to every single Russian demand with nary a sanction in response, as any pushback or slightest criticism simply raises the ‘nuclear question’ again. But in that scenario, nowhere is off limits to Russia – certainly not other former Soviet states, such as the Baltic states and ex-Warsaw Pact countries. Threats, no matter how apocalyptic, must be absorbed calmly and assessed on their true merits, not based on hysterical reaction. Precedent shows de-escalation and a willingness to negotiate only convinces Putin he is on the right track, while appeasement spurs him to make further demands.” (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/03/negotiated-peace-russia-fraught-danger)
By starting this war Putin made clear that he himself is an existential threat not only to Ukraine, but to the entire West, and diplomacy doesn’t fare well with him.


> I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

OK what do you mean by “support”? Show me how you would apply it to your position.


> That assumes the power in America lies in the various ventriloquist dolls chosen to act as mouthpieces for the vast industries which run America.

I don’t know exactly where the power lies: surely there are all kinds of powerful lobbies pulling strings and poking, in the US as anywhere else. The point is that depending on the power structure decision makers concentrate more or less power in their hands. This in turn affects the range of options they have and their capacity to put their decisions into effect as intended. That’s also why responsibility is easier to assess in the case of Putin, since the concentration of power in his hands is greater than in any western president, America included.


[i]> Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question.
> Does a supply of weapons help?[/i]

Well Zelensky is asking for military assistance to the West, and the West is supplying it. And it’s primarily up to the Ukrainians to assess if they get enough help.

> Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?

That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help, not about intentions. Concerning intentions, what counts here is how fair and reliable commitments are for all the parties involved in a negotiation, partnership, alliance. If there are second, third, fourth interests is up to political actors to guess and to work with or around with.

> A supply of weapons certainly boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence?

What did I say that made you think that I’m arguing that if a supply of weapons boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world, that’s a coincidence? What are the moral implications of such observation? Can you spell them out?

> You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars).

Quote where I said that. Or show me how you could possibly infer such a claim from what I said.


> Then by what standard are you measuring?

Metrics are relevant wrt what people value. The death toll in a war counts, I don’t deny that. What I deny is that death toll is all that counts for moral considerations or that is what necessary counts for moral considerations (in the sense that we can’t take legitimate moral position until we know the number of the victims). Bombing hospitals, civilians and children is not morally defensible, giving stingers and javelins to Ukrainians that want to continue to fight against Russia also with stingers and javelins is morally defensible.



[i]> https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/ — neomac
That's better. I don't see in there evidence that Ukraine clearly has more open views on standards of life than Russia. I see a complex picture. Views on homosexuality, for example. [/i]

I was referring only to these parts:
“In Ukraine (8.25), which is closer to European attitudes (see the 9.1 in Poland), there are very pronounced European aspirations;
[…] while in Russia there are, by comparison, less high aspirations for a well-functioning democracy, Russians are relatively satisfied. In Ukraine, aspirations are higher, but satisfaction is lower. It is precisely this discrepancy that may call for deep reform, something President Zelensky was confronted with during his presidency.
[…] To what extent can Europe ‘buoy’ Ukraine? Here we see precisely that Ukraine, which is not a member of the EU, has relatively high confidence in the European Union (2.4 on a scale of 1-4). This puts the country at the same height as Poland (2.4) and Belarus (2.3), and even higher than the Netherlands (2.2). It leaves Russia far behind (1.9)”.

These facts support relative value proximity between Ukraine and the West wrt Russia, and this is relevant too for my moral assessments.


[i]> you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all. — neomac

I know, that's why I said them. Those are the demands on the table at the moment, so of course they're Putin's. The argument was that they don't push Russian expansionism futher. They are the de facto positions already. [/i]

If we are talking about a negotiation between 2 parties, a third strategy that is opposing both should take into account what both parties demand, which you didn’t. Besides these negotiations depend on great power politics, right? Then again if we are talking about a geopolitical competition between 2 great powers, a third strategy that is opposing both, should take into account both strategic objectives (and longer term objectives are more relevant than shorter term objectives), which again you didn’t. And since accepting Putin’s demands (as they are) will empower Putin, then there would be more risks against the West, this is what needs to be opposed. Why? Because no great power politics pursues expansionism based on number of deaths, pieces of land, or who is the president per se but wrt increment of power relative to competitors. Besides, from that point of view what “Russia could get more” or “de facto positions” mean, depends on power costs/benefits calculi that take into account the Russian actual capacity to get more or preserve de facto positions, not how Russia is framing their demands. So no, you didn’t offer any third strategy, you just support Russians.


[i]> It's not about 'sides' it's about tactics. It's not possible to support a nation (like Russia, or the US or Ukraine). There are 41 million people in Ukraine and they have different opinions. You can't support them all. You're picking a method and supporting that.

> Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism — neomac
Why would that lead from caring more about civilian lives?

> Again, it's methods, not reasons. Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.[/i]

From your claims what I take your line of reasoning to be is in short the following. Your method to decide which expansionism to support is based on counting deaths, directly or indirectly provoked by expansionist activities (whatever they are). So since the US has indirectly provoked more deaths in Yemen than Russia has directly provoked in Ukraine, then we should side with Russia.
If that is in short your line of reasoning, then let me stress once more that, from your own way of framing things, you are not opposing 2 expansionisms, you are supporting Russian expansionism as much as I support American expansionism, based on who/what we take to be the lesser evil between the two. And, always according to you, I would be wrong because I didn’t do the right math roughly based on the death toll metric.
Now to the point: I find your way of framing the moral dilemma (who is the lesser evil?) conceptually flawed. America and Russia as geopolitical agents are theoretical abstractions useful for historical and strategic thinking, they do not possess real agency and therefore they do not bear responsibilities, they are beyond good and evil. They represent self-preserving power structures that reacts to perceived threats to their expansion or to pursue expansion in competition with other self-preserving power structures, and we can assess how they perform based on the relative quota of power. And we should be vigilant about the ambiguities inherent in anthropomorphic talking about geopolitical agents as actual moral agents, or in conveniently assimilating geopolitical agents to their current political leaders or administrations.
A moral landscape however is not composed of geopolitical agents, but of moral agents with the actual capacity of taking informed decisions based on moral principles and things they value, and putting their decisions into effect based on available resources and means. So to decide what/whom morally support, my method is to identify the moral agents, see what they value, the proximity of what they value to our/my values, what means they have chosen and how they chose them, how much of the consequences ensuing from their actions was intentional, etc. assess moral reasons and take side accordingly.
Since you place responsibilities to power structures instead of real moral agents and assess moral costs based on a priori metrics (like death toll) without taking into account what people actually value, your position is simply preposterous in this case. And that’s all from my own assumptions.
But within your own assumptions, there are still lots of things to clarify. If expansionism is a causal reaction to threats, since there are always direct and indirect multi-causal links between competing powers’ perceived security threats and reactions then all powers in competition are potentially causally accountable of not some but all current deaths provoked by power struggles, so there is no reason to side with one or the other based on death counts. You could still claim that it's not matter of taking side anyways, just matter of supporting whatever it takes to end the war in the shortest term, but then would you support as well Palestinians submitting to whatever Israeli demands are and Yemeni submitting to whatever Saudi Arabian demands to end hostilities as soon as possible? Wouldn't this line of reasoning simply support whatever the status quo is, since no power can be radically challenged without risking meterial wellbeing and life? Besides, what if this “whatever it takes” for peace will likely increase the chance of more or greater wars around the world in the near future and so more deaths and misery? Multi-polarity indeed increased the probability of proxy wars, as the Cold War proves, if not wars, as the 2 past World Wars and colonial wars prove. Finally, I don’t even get why your moral assessment of competing great powers should be limited to the number deaths or misery provoked in proxy wars and not also in the standard of life and prosperity within their established sphere of influence. Why aren’t these metrics worth taking into account for moral considerations?


> Do you support those who do?

No I don’t support those who throw innocent civilians under tanks. Do you support the Russian soldiers who drive tanks to kill Ukrainian civilians ?


> Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

So what?

[i]> Yes, but that's why the US's tactics in Yemen matter, because you're claiming to "take them into account”.

> Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?[/i]

Nowhere obviously, because I’m talking about the war between Ukraine and Russia. As I said, if you want to talk about the West and Yemen, open a thread, try to prove this claim “the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths” and I will give you my feedback. My "take them into account” is focused on the topic under discussion, the war between Ukraine and Russia, not on any topic that comes to your mind based on your assumptions, which I’m still processing, and probably reject due to my assumptions.

Quoting boethius

The Finnish story is not just "fighting the Russians".

It is fighting the Russians, then mutually agreeing war is not a good thing, and burying the hatchet, and learning to live as neighbour's with mutual respect (at least for a time) and mutual benefit wherever possible. Finland even paid war reparations to the Soviet Union. That price for independence was also paid, yet I never see mentioned.

Ah yes...and don't forget Finlandization. The wonderful term that the Germans invented to describe our relationship with our beloved Eastern neighbor. Just look how nicely the Presidents of Russia and Finland (the one that looked like Conan O'Brien) hold hands with a glass of champange. Just twelve years ago:

Quoting Isaac

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

Flirting with victim blaming?
(Was about to type something about "bending over", but nevermind, we might be in mixed company.)
That pragmatic approach is sort of understandable enough. Yet, don't forget that people have been (systematically) killed by the hands of empires that rolled in before. Poland (having taking over half the Ukrainian refugees in by the way) would be an appropriate example. [sup](‡ below)[/sup]
Putin is to blame, unless he's mindless like the Black Death or something.
Ukraine won't be joining NATO ? Putin's main demand met, and has been for a bit now.
I guess a good 4 million has fled, and some are now returning, including children.


[sub]‡ Piotrowski's (2005) estimates of Polish World War 2 casualties:

Poland’s population in 1939:

——————————————————————————————

• Ethnic Poles:     22,700,000

• Jews:              3,400,000

• Other minorities:  9,000,000

——————————————————————————————

=                   35,100,000



Poland’s World War 2 population losses:

———————————————————————————————————————

• Jewish:           3,100,000

• Ethnic Poles:     2,000,000

• Other minorities:   500,000

———————————————————————————————————————

=                   5,600,000



Included in these losses:

———————————————————————————————————————————

• At German hands:                5,150,000

• At Soviet hands:                  350,000

• At Ukrainian Nationalist hands:   100,000

———————————————————————————————————————————

=                                 5,600,000

[/sub]

I'm vaguely reminded of ...

Quoting Sauna Diplomacy, the Finnish Recipe

President Kekkonen used to invite world leaders and other officials to his private sauna at the height of the Cold War

The picture of having a heated discussion with Finns during the height of the Cold War with alcohol involved sounds just too intriguing to pass up. Material for a great artist, maybe? Could call it "The Sauna"

These are a set of five Finnish high relief wood carvings of a traditional Finnish Sauna or 'Taking Sauna". Almost everyone in Finland either has a wood burning sauna in their back yards or has access to a sauna. The "taking sauna" is a part of Finnish culture

.

https://bluestarrgallery.blogspot.com/2013/03/finnish-high-relief-wood-carvings-of.html

Quoting ssu

Just look how nicely the Presidents of Russia and Finland (the one that looked like Conan O'Brien)

I am very impressed with Finland. Keep up the propaganda. :)

Seriously, though, I think it instructive to take some sort of a detour and look at Finlands' history and culture. History being a series of accidents, maybe the same accidents could be made to happen elsewhere. Many factors at play - population density, foreign policy, education..

And the famous Finland schools with no homework.

Maybe there is something there: being forced to do homework in authoritarian school system have somehow closed the minds of President Putin and President Zelenskyy to look at authoritarian measures, to use force for what should be accomplished through natural devotion to duty? Maybe that is what the powers that be want.

Must be a thesis out there somewhere along those lines, psychology professor?

Quoting Christoffer

Ok, let's make it super clear. The conclusion is originally more: "Teaching critical thinking is needed to help people see past authoritarian propaganda." So, dividing them into two inductive arguments:

I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to one form of government. Let's look at all forms of government. Do they teach effective criticism of government? Do they teach about money at all - this is Robert Kyiosaki's thesis - schools will not teach about money - why?

Teach them to ask this question in schools, for a change:

Is “democracy” really America’s cause? Is “autocracy” really America’s great adversary in the battle for the future?

Not all autocrats, after all, are our enemies, nor are all democrats our reliable friends.

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-global-democracy-americas-mission-159244

This authoritarian mindset is an unavoidable consequence of the American education system. Indeed, while so-called education reformers insist on more tests, pushing schools to emulate the Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean educational systems, they miss a big piece of the puzzle: educators in those countries consider their systems a failure. Despite performing better than American children on certain international standardized tests, Chinese educators have noted that Chinese students have also demonstrated a “lack of social and practical skills, absence of self-discipline and imagination, loss of curiosity and passion for learning.”

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/transforming_americas_schools_into_authoritarian_instruments_of_compli

Reply to RogueAI That's an interesting equivocation there. If you wanted to ask a question about Stalin and FDR, you should've asked that question. Or is this that game where you keep adding qualifiers to a question and move the goal posts until I agree with you? Yeah, not interested.

Also, check out when FDR was no longer president, when Stalin died and when NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established. Let me know the dates please.

Quoting FreeEmotion

And the famous Finland schools with no homework.

Maybe there is something there: being forced to do homework in authoritarian school system have somehow closed the minds of President Putin and President Zelenskyy to look at authoritarian measures, to use force for what should be accomplished through natural devotion to duty? Maybe that is what the powers that be want.

In continuing to be annoying on this thread, I have to disagree and make a correction:

Finnish schools do have homework.

(What they lack is nationwide standardized testing as only in the Gymnasium there is one standardized test for graduation.)

Quoting jorndoe

I guess a good 4 million has fled, and some are now returning, including children.

Yet notice that even the Ukrainian government has urged people to leave eastern Ukraine now, and with the reality of what denazification looks like on the ground emerging, people likely will move. This works fine to Putin's objectives as the last thing he would want in the Novorossiya he is looking for to have a large hostile population of Ukrainians.

What is positive is that Belarus seems to have escaped (for now) the war as Putin hasn't demanded that they would join the special military operation. With Russians withdrawing from the Northern front around Kyiv this looks likely to continue.

Quoting ssu

In continuing to be annoying on this thread, I have to disagree and make a correction:

I don't think you are clear on the concept of being annoying but that is fine. I got that data from a documentary.

This one documentary may be more accurate: the least number of schooling hours per week, and well trained teachers, and what looks like group work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

Quoting Benkei

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take.

The Mearsheimer line that Chomsky is echoing is the typical US focused view, which totally disregards the other totally obvious agenda that Russia has for Ukraine. This should be obvious from what Putin and Russian leaders say. It's should be obvious from the fact that the Russian regime has echoed the line of the artificiality of the Ukrainian state, which has nothing to do with NATO enlargement.

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics. So keep on insisting that the only issue here is NATO enlargement and the actions of the West. Yes, that's one point. But the world isn't monocausal.

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again.

Reply to Apollodorus Your elements are meagre. Economies are interconnected and derivatives are a small market. One could mount a reverse argument that New York is controlled by Paris because of all the French cheese they eat there.... It's just blah. The US and the UK are sinking into mass stupidity, while the EU keeps developing. .

Reply to ssu That's a load of crap and you know it.

We see a huge consistency across the board for decades in what Russian governments have said for decades, the promises made in the 90s to Russia (not one inch to the East after German reunification) and how its interpretation of the Minsk II agreement is fully consistent with reaching this goal (eg. influence foreign policy via Donetsk and Luhansk).

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible. It would be another Afghanistan. So whatever is said about the artificiality of Ukraine is irrelevant because it's not a realistic goal.

It has always been and will continue to be the implied threat of NATO encirclement of Russia. That's the driver of conflict in this region and Russia has warned about it for decades.

Quoting ssu

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again.

Aside from this being crystal ball theories I don't care to pursue I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another. It's obviously worse when two contest such reach in a given region as we seen now in Ukraine.

Quoting neomac

There is an anthropological fact ... Nationality is one way we understand our social identity.

That's not an anthropological fact, it's an anthropological theory.

Quoting neomac

> The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Common in what sense? What are the evidences to support your claim?

So now I'm to provide 'evidence' yet you get to simply declare things to be 'anthropological fact' without a shred of it? Why the double standard?

As to the first question. What they have in common is oppression. Something I though you were all in favour of fighting against. It is an economic fact that the working class are oppressed by the elite classes, but apparently, that oppression doesn't qualify for you support. Not enough 'anthropological facts' behind it perhaps?

Quoting neomac

to talk about responsibility you need agency. And with your analysis you should still prove Zelensky’s responsibility from “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers” and not from “Ukrainian children die”, if you want to make sense to me.

It's pretty simple. If someone orders (or even supports) continued fighting, they bear some moral responsibility for all the foreseeable consequences of that decision. One of the foreseeable consequences is that more Ukrainian children will die. I don't understand what's so hard about that.

Quoting neomac

Children don’t get a saying in anything because they are children.

Not getting a literal 'say' is not the same as not having their interests considered.

Quoting neomac

So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone

What? Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

Quoting neomac

the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian...

Are you serious? Your evidence for you taking Ukrainian values into account and me not is that you've thought about what you would do if you were a Ukrainian? Do you not realise how ludicrous that sounds?

Quoting neomac

There are unavoidable evidences and compelling reasons for mistrust.

Yes. I know. As there are in every single negotiation ever. So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

Quoting neomac

> I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

OK what do you mean by “support”? Show me how you would apply it to your position.

America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

Quoting neomac

> Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question.
> Does a supply of weapons help?

Well Zelensky is asking for military assistance to the West, and the West is supplying it. And it’s primarily up to the Ukrainians to assess if they get enough help.

You've not answered the question. Does supplying weapons help?

Quoting neomac

> Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?

That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help

So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

Quoting neomac

> You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars).

Quote where I said that. Or show me how you could possibly infer such a claim from what I said.

Quoting neomac

from a more concrete and personal point of view there is a big difference in how this influence is deployed: e.g. Isis might want to put their flag in our decapitated head, while the US might want to put their flag on the sandwich we are eating. Do you see the difference? Because if you don’t, I do and I value it.

I took that to be a claim that you value the economic dominance of the US over the territorial dominance of ISIS (a more extreme example you used in our discussion about Russian tactics).

Quoting neomac

Bombing hospitals, civilians and children is not morally defensible, giving stingers and javelins to Ukrainians that want to continue to fight against Russia also with stingers and javelins is morally defensible.

Why? If not the death and destruction these actions cause, then what is the moral force?

Quoting neomac

I was referring only to these parts:

The parts that support your statement - not the parts that don't. Cherry-picking, in other words.

Quoting neomac

If we are talking about a negotiation between 2 parties, a third strategy that is opposing both should take into account what both parties demand, which you didn’t.

I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

Quoting neomac

since accepting Putin’s demands (as they are) will empower Putin, then there would be more risks against the West, this is what needs to be opposed.

Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds? You seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action. There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Quoting neomac

Your method to decide which expansionism to support is based on counting deaths, directly or indirectly provoked by expansionist activities (whatever they are). So since the US has indirectly provoked more deaths in Yemen than Russia has directly provoked in Ukraine, then we should side with Russia.
If that is in short your line of reasoning, then let me stress once more that, from your own way of framing things, you are not opposing 2 expansionisms, you are supporting Russian expansionism

You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

Quoting neomac

I don’t even get why your moral assessment of competing great powers should be limited to the number deaths or misery provoked in proxy wars and not also in the standard of life and prosperity within their established sphere of influence. Why aren’t these metrics worth taking into account for moral considerations?

I think they are. What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

Quoting neomac

If expansionism is a causal reaction to threats, since there are always direct and indirect multi-causal links between competing powers’ perceived security threats and reactions then all powers in competition are potentially causally accountable of not some but all current deaths provoked by power struggles, so there is no reason to side with one or the other based on death counts. You could still claim that it's not matter of taking side anyways, just matter of supporting whatever it takes to end the war in the shortest term, but then would you support as well Palestinians submitting to whatever Israeli demands are and Yemeni submitting to whatever Saudi Arabian demands to end hostilities as soon as possible?

Why would I ignore what the terms are? I've never even mentioned "whatever it takes". The terms here just so happen to be the de facto state of affairs. fighting over them is a waste of human life. Fighting over other terms might not be as they may be more immiserating than the war.

Quoting neomac

> Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

So what?

What kind of answer is that. It was a simple question. Do we have free reign to oppose Putin's expansionism by any means possible. IF torture would stop Putin's expansionism could we torture? If not, then the moral opposition becomes irrelevant whilst we're discussing methods, because the morality of the method is primary.

Quoting neomac

> Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?

Nowhere obviously, because I’m talking about the war between Ukraine and Russia.

The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

Quoting ssu

This should be obvious...

More of that [s]agree with ssu[/s] common sense we've been hearing about I suppose? Funny how you seem to be so utterly unfailing in your application of this universal human trait, yet dozens of expert foreign policy advisors, Security chiefs and military experts seem to not see what is so [s]ssu's opinion[/s] obvious.

Quoting jorndoe

I'm vaguely reminded of ...

I'm not surprised. Most here seem to think this crisis is an episode of Star Wars.

Reply to Benkei

Chomsky

Yes the the geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia continue to play out. Following the fall of the USSR this point was always going to be reached, the difference being just where the dividing lines will be on the map. It’s looking like a new iron curtain will divide east Ukraine. If NATO hadn’t expanded, a newly moneyed Russia would have.

What brought this to a head was the vast oil and gas revenues given to Russia. Have you noticed hundreds of super yachts turning up in exotic hideaways over recent weeks. Putin has a trillion $ war chest just sitting there in front of him. He has spent two years in covid isolation. This is not a surprise.

This could be the beginning of a new stable Cold War period. Although there is a much bigger demon looming over the horizon. Climate change.

I can already see the rich and powerful scurrying around before they get ready to abandon ship. In the U.K. we look on as our country is asset stripped by unsavoury characters. A smash and grab raid before the sh*t really hits the fan.

Going forward, which hegemony would you prefer, US, Russia, or China?

I know which one I will chose. I have a friend who was on the Greenpeace ship that was captured by Russia a few years back. Three months in a concrete cell in Murmansk in winter woke him up. He would probably still be there if it wasn’t the run up to the Russian Winter Olympics, when Putin pardoned them as a goodwill gesture.

Reply to Punshhh I would prefer European hegemony in Europe without foreign military presence and maybe finally some equity and fairness across the world.

Don't ask me to eat shit and express a preference. ;-)

Which system got us the climate crisis?

EDIT: Or, how many millions were ground to death on the altar of capitalism and how many more?

Quoting ssu

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics.

Also just to point out that what I said is that I don't give a shit about internal Russian politics when concerned about war, which is about international relations and foreign policy.

It's also funny how we managed to deal with Stalin, a veritable madman, and had him ally with us and how we should thank the diplomats and politicians they did or we'd be speaking German and sieg heiling when walking to work. But then Putin all of a sudden is so horrible that it's "we can never have peace when this butcher is in power". It's just amazing the shit people believe nowadays and how entire segments just uncritically go along with it. "yeah, yeah, he's a horrible criminal. Can't have peace. Regime change. We're the best, no blood on our hands." Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire.

Quoting Benkei

That's a load of crap and you know it.

Bullshit Benkei!

Crimea is part of Russia now, Russia, not a proxy state but part of it. Part of holy Russian motherland. And a lot more would have been part of it (or as satellite states) in 2014 if Putin would had his way. Now we have the second try taking place.

To be incapable of seeing that Russia has far more interests in Ukraine and it's near abroad than just keeping NATO out is simply a sign of denial in your behalf. And shows bit of this intellectual hubris where everything revolves around the West and the US and it's bad intentions. Nothing else seems to matter.

Quoting Benkei

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible.

Now. After 8 years of extensive NATO training and aid to a country that has already been fighting a limited war for 8 years. In 2014 the Russians waltzed into Crimea without nearly a shot fired. Then the Ukrainian armed forces was capable to deploy only 6 000 men to the field in it's entirety. So weak they were then.

Quoting Benkei

the promises made in the 90s to Russia

The promises made to the Soviet Union, actually, which Ukraine was a part of. But don't let the little details bother your case against the US and in the defense of victim Russia, which was "forced" to act this way. There was no other way, of course.

Quoting Benkei

I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another.

Oh you don't get it? The political prisoners that number now more than during the end of Soviet Union doesn't tell anything to you? The imperialist right-wing demagoguery coming from Russia doesn't mean anything to you? Seems like it's totally similar choices for you either to be under "Bidenland" or "Putinland".

How has it been for you to live "under one empire"? Because me and @Christopher haven't been living under it, but our countries seem to be willing to join now on side. For me the happiness of Finlandization is all too clear as I've grown up during the Cold War so I remember it.

Quoting Benkei

Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire.

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling.