In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective. — boethius

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. Actually it's weird that he didn't use them yet. Is Putin too stupid to realize it ? Putin can always blame the West and say that he was forced to do it despite the repeated warnings. Why didn't he do launch nuclear tactic weapons yet? Is Putin such a coward pussy? C'mon there is no serious risk for Russia: sanctions are ineffective, India and China are with Russia, Putin will still be in power, fucking capitalist imperialism has tired everybody already, the West has no courage to retaliate, and it bears exactly all the responsibility if everything goes to shit. What is Putin still waiting? He would be at worst "only" victorious in Ukraine, at best the savior of all human kind. We should be all in favour of nuclear escalation if that's the only way to end the war for good.

Er, no, they would be existent as cause and existent as effect. — Bartricks

If they simultaneously exist, there is no bringing into existence from non-existence (as creation is normally understood) but at best preserving into existence.

You've just made the 'the cause would need to precede the effect' objection — Bartricks

No, I'm talking about ontological dependency between properties/relations and the entities they are predicated of. If X is taller than Y, "taller than" as a relation is predicated of X and Y while X and Y are existing. It's possible that the relation holds simultaneously to the existence of both terms and the terms can not exist without being in such relation (this is the case for internal relations). The issue is that if one of the terms doesn't exist then relations/predicates can not be instantiated while if all terms exist there is no bringing into existence from non-existence as "creation" is normally understood.

As I said earlier, the claim is not that something can come out of nothing - it remains true that nothing causes nothing — Bartricks

Then it's not self-creation as normally understood ("the act or process of making something that is new, or of causing something to exist that did not exist before" source: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/creation?q=creation) but at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation.
Besides if you are talking about your god, why does your god need to preserve itself into existence? He is all mighty and perfect, so he would not suffer from any decaying process, nor need to preserve itself into existence.

The only reason to think self-creation is impossible is the idea that to create one's self one would have to exist 'prior' to one's own existence. And the only reason to think that is the idea that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

No, that's not true. If self-creation is understood as a form of simultaneous causation then the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

How can we see which way motion goes by looking at a point? — Haglund

Again, I would distinguish between what is the case (metaphysical question) and what we can "see" (epistemological question).

Anyway the notion of "point" is a useful abstraction, but what the spatial notion of "point" doesn't seem able to render is precisely the dynamic nature of events. Events are transitional states of things, properties and relations in their becoming. As such they are intrinsically dynamic and can't be understood without reference to the time. So the notion of "motion" itself is a dynamic concept not because it relates to space, but because it relates to time.

Because breaking implies motion. An event is a point. — Haglund

are you talking about Zeno's paradox? The impossibility of having motion on a single point of the time series?

A bit paradoxically... A breaking glas an event? — Haglund

A glass breaking is an instantaneous event. Why do you see it as paradoxical?

As far as I can tell from my philosophical readings, events are temporal phenomena that can be extended or instantaneous: parties, watching movies, playing chess, calculating an equation are considered examples of temporally extended events. Explosions, particle decays, date expiration, snapping fingers are considered examples of temporally instantaneous events. Not sure to understand the link you see between the notions of “event”, “causality”, and the question of the reversibility or the direction of motion (or time).

Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. — Haglund

We should distinguish epistemology from ontology. The incapacity of identifying cause and effect is not a reason to reject of the simultaneity of cause and effect. The metaphysical argument why cause and effect should be simultaneous goes roughly as follows. If causality is a relation, then it presupposes the existence of the related terms, because relations (at least external relations) are existence-entailing, one cannot have a relation without its relata: aRb cannot obtain unless both a and b exist. But if the existence of the cause precedes the existence of its effect, then when the cause exists the effect doesn’t, while when the effect exists the cause doesn’t exist anymore. So if there is no moment in which they co-exist then there can not be any relation between them, therefore not even a causal relation.
The problem of distinguishing cause and effect as events could be overcome if we consider that events can be temporally extended entities and that the causal relation between them requires the simultaneity of some moments: e.g. the rolling ball A hits the still ball B at t1 causing B to move. Then, the event of A ball’s rolling and the event of B ball’s moving are simultaneously and causally correlated at t1 (exactly when A hits and B starts moving, cause and effect).

cause and effect

Simultaneous causation is coherent. Simultaneous causation applied to self-creation no, because the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

No, but they'd be fighting for freedom from criminality, not for their country, which is merely an incidental grouping. — Isaac

Still, the people would be fighting for sovereignty or self-determination not for a country. — Isaac

You just conceded enough to grant moral plausibility to the Ukrainian patriotic resistance against Russian criminal invasion. And if that's all I can get from your preposterous claims, fine with me.

I've hopefully been clear that I've no interest in these games. If you we're interested you'd have found them by now (unless you're very young), so your comment is intended to show (somehow) that I can't find them. But I knew that before I started, and so did you. So I obviously can find them (otherwise I wouldn't have made the claim, I'm clearly not an idiot), you know that, but you also know anything I find will be sufficiently vague (not to mention directly critiqued, somewhere) for you to oppose it. But I know that too, and you know I must know it. So why, exactly, are we bothering? — Isaac

Enjoy your echo chamber then.

I can't account for your inability to make sense of fairly common positions. — Isaac

"Fairly common positions" among people who share your "stupid" views (according to your own definition), I could concede that to you. But there isn't much one can make sense of in self-defeating positions like yours anyways.

> If one is fighting against criminal aggression then one's country is immaterial. It's perfectly possible for both Ukrainians and Russians to fight against criminal aggression together.
The moral element is the criminality, not the countries. Anyone fighting the criminality is behaving morally, anyone supporting it is not. Regardless of the country they pledge allegiance to.

But that doesn’t exclude that Ukrainians could fight Russians because their aggression is criminal either. And there is nothing in the meaning of the word “criminality” that excludes that an act of aggression is criminal precisely because it violates one's country national sovereignty and self-determination.


> They're generally in journals, preprint servers, libraries, bookshops…

Can you literally quote and reference any of these studies?


> Someone proposes moral relativism and logical non-realism (two perfectly normal philosophical positions) and you terminate the discussion, lest you encounter views counter to your preferred world views.

No it’s simply that the word “preference” loses its contrastive meaning in the way you use it. Neither logic nor moral is matter of preference. You simply make no sense, dude.

> It's used to describe behaviours and attitudes such as avoiding thousands more innocent people dying.

Does the meaning of “moral” exclude fighting for one’s own country and identity against a criminal aggression from another nation as moral?

> Then you are a true exception to all of humanity that's ever been studied. Well done.

Really?! Where are these studies that show that all of humanity has world views and then looks for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support their pre-established world views?

> Both of these are impossible tasks. I cannot 'show you' how your reasoning goes wrong because whether an argument is reasonable or not is an opinion you hold about it, I can't show you it isn't any more than I can show you that my cup of tea is nice.
Even if I made an argument as simple as "Either A, or ~A", you could still dispute it by rejecting the LEM. What we're discussing is massively more complicated. The idea that either of us could present some 'logical' argument that somehow 'proves' one side or the other is laughable. You're either persuaded by my argument, rhetoric and all, or you're not. That's entirely your preference.

After moral also logic is matter of preference. I think we are done here.

>...and in English?

Here you go: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.



> I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable. — neomac
Well then we have no disagreement. The rest is just your misunderstanding. All I've been arguing is about the moral status of those two positions.

What?! Oh no, it's way more likely that you misunderstood what I was questioning despite the fact that I made it clear on several occasions:

“Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- 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). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral”.

“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.”

“when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge”

“2 preposterous moral claims of yours: one about fighting over flags and the other is about Western responsibilities in the genesis and perpetuation of this war. ”


> I would have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'moral'.

Which is?

> Bollocks. You were trying to associate my position with the victory of a probable war criminal because it makes my position look less appealing. You can save your 'oh I was just talking about logical consistency' crap for anyone still naive enough to believe it.

Yes I know. Logic hurts your rhetoric. But you didn’t offer a counter argument on logic grounds, just more rhetoric claims.


> From the person literally stringing bits of my writing together using a cryptic mangle of quoting techniques to reach the conclusion that I apparently want Russia to win!

Really?! Show me then how my reasoning goes wrong based on what you said, as I did when you misquoted me. Prove me that I misquoted you.


> Where we disagree is the ludicrous notion that the rest of you don't do exactly the same thing.
That you don't interpret every imprecise thing I say (which is virtually everything) selecting the option which most suits your narrative, that you don't choose experts whose opinions mesh best with your worldview, that you don't put more effort into critiquing opposing views than supportive ones, that you don't 'fill in the blanks' in a way that bolsters your preferred story.

No dude, it doesn’t work that way for me. First of all you can make all claims you want, but I don’t care about your claims, I care about your arguments because this is what I’m here for. Second, I care about arguments but I judge them for their logical value (logical consistency), success conditions (range of applications), and explanatory power (conceptual or empirical). I don’t care about their rhetoric value, association of ideas, ideological appealing. Third, I don’t do the same you do: I don’t have world views and then look for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support my pre-established world views.

I know the quote function. I simply find it uncomfortable for personal reasons. But I don't want to infringe any forum rule. So is that a forum rule or can my quotation style be tolerated?

> Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. Dude, you don’t get to give me homework. I know what I’m doing. One could question somebody else’s claims and arguments based on their explanatory power and/or on their internal consistency. And I did both with you. The point I made and you are addressing now was about logic consistency: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.
You were trying to evade my claim as follows:
“if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac
Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers”
When I asked you to clarify this, after some more dodging in all directions, the best you came up with is this: “There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal” which - as I argued - holds for Zelensky with his moral dilemma between continuing or ending the war, as much as for you with your moral dilemma between American (or NATO) vs Russian expansionism, in a way that is logically consistent with how you framed the war in Ukraine.
Besides I wasn’t even done yet: we could have discussed about other cases too the Palestinians wrt the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, the poor who give birth to children, the French/Russian/Iranian revolutions, the thought experiment I proposed to you.
My strong suspect is that your abstract line of reasoning applies only if e.g. it’s against the American capitalist imperialism, because if it logically goes against your preferred world views then it shouldn’t be applied. But that’s irrational and one-sided. Yet it explains why “you seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action” (namely, fighting “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)

> But since your argument was that my position is actually ‘preposterous’ rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.

I already addressed this pointless objection. I called several claims of yours “preposterous” (starting from your declared idea that fighting over a flag is always no doubt immoral) for the reasons I clarified. You can counter them if you wish so, instead of inventing strawman arguments. I took mainly issue with the way you argued to support your position. Indeed I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable.


> Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

Then it follows that other people act morally only if they act the way you want without further reasons. And if you ever wanted thousands more deaths without further reason, then it would have still been a defensible moral claim to support the continuation of this war. Is that right? It sounds like a Devine Command Theory with the only teensy negligible difference that you would be playing the role of god.
I’m not sure you fully understand how not compelling is to others what you want without further reasons. And there could be no argument to clarify that better to you, I’m afraid.

>My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac
...and that 'fairly' translates as...
you want to help Russia win — neomac
...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity…?

Yes it does “fairly” translate to “you want to help Russia win”, and I would expect you to agree with me again on logical grounds, even more so now that I clarified my point.
Here is another example to illustrate a similar usage of “want”: if a soldier was very badly shot in his left leg in some remote war front, and the doctor told him “under the given circumstances , unfortunately we can’t do much to save your leg and if we do not immediately amputate it, you would definitely risk to die from gangrene! So, what do you want to do?”. If the soldier said “I want my leg amputated, doctor”, would this mean that he would be happy of amputating his leg? Or that he wouldn’t have chosen any other option to avoid this, wouldn’t he be in danger of life? Or that he was brainwashed into wanting his leg amputated against his own interest? No of course, it simply means that he chose what he took to be the lesser evil option (so amputating his leg is instrumental in preserving his life) and communicated his choice accordingly with an “I want” sentence perfectly intelligible as it is.
The same would be with your case: “given the ‘de facto’ circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.’ That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory”. So if making “as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do” could somehow help Russian victory then you want to do it not for Russians’ sake but because it is instrumental in fighting ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing’.
Briefly, my point has to do with logic consistency not with your rhetorical quibbles.


> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.
What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself. — neomac
No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother.

No I’m not going to save you the bother to fully quote my alleged “claim of implausibility” concerning negotiation failures, because you are prone to strawmanning your interlocutor (often by conveniently chopping their quotations). And since I have no idea what you are talking about, I can’t even double check by myself. So I would like to be sure you are not making things up just on purpose to spin your idle intellectual game for another round (which would be intellectual dishonesty at its finest).

> Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with?

I opposed different kinds of claims of yours for different reasons and in different degree. The claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral is preposterous to me. The claim that it would be better for Ukrainian people option2 instead of option1 is not preposterous but disputable. Your claim that the Ukrainian war is a profitable business for American weapon industries and financial companies is clearly plausible, yet the moral implications that you may implicitly attach to such a claim could be disputable to me. Your general claim that the ruling classes oppress the poor is plausible, to what extent is disputable as well as its pertinence to the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families (in this latter case I find it rather unintelligible). The American administration support to Saudi Arabia war in Yemen is morally questionable to you: while this is plausible to me, its pertinence to the Ukrainian war is highly disputable.


> I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?

By “common background knowledge” I was referring to claims of mine such as “This is what I take to be an anthropological fact: ‘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’. All human societies (independently from geographic and historical latitudes) have ways of identifying human groups and individuals based on group membership. This is an anthropological fact. Some societies use ‘Nationality’ as a way to identify social groups and individuals as members of those groups: nation states, national languages, national flags, national passports, national money, national sport teams, national customs, national cuisine are examples of ways we identify groups and individuals within groups based on nationality.
Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly.”
So do you allow me to consider this as a piece of background knowledge that I and you have roughly in common or am I expecting too much from your educational achievements?
In any case, either overly pointless (surprise surprise) or overly poor education (which of course is not an argument against “common background knowledge”).

even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman — neomac
Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is).

In this passage, I was talking about the way you collect and process experts’ feedback, not about the experts feedback itself! And there is no need to invent examples when I provided examples “(e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out)”! Here is what I was referring to: 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).”
Concerning your example, I addressed this already: I don’t even need to prove that a layman in psychology could “seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way” to you (even if I think I could prove that). It’s enough to remind you what you said: “you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”. From your claim logically follows that I as your interlocutor can talk about why I find some chosen expert’s view persuasive for me, which is what I indirectly and partly did when discussing about Mearsheimer’s views, and that would be perfectly fine since this is how you are “used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”.



> if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum. — neomac
I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven’t .

My impression that your 'point' could be (not ‘is’) to 'feed your little echo chamber’ (once we exclude the philosophical legitimacy) is based on what you claimed in the post I commented and previously:
- “I choose the experts whose opinion align with the narratives I prefer (1). I have world views I find satisfying (2) and if an expert opinion aligns with those I’ll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them (3). all this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest (4).”
- “If you said ‘why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism…’ then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.(5)”
That’s indeed the perfect recipe for feeding one’s own echo chamber, here is why: say part of your satisfying world views is that American capitalist imperialism is the worst evil (2), so you are going to select all the experts (with titles and no evident conflict of interest (4)) rather than others whose opinion opposes it (3), like Mearsheimer who blames NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine, feeding the narrative your prefer (1) b/c NATO is the evil projection of the American capitalist imperialism. Now, according to your example (5) I would be questioning your reasons to believe Mearsheimer in a way that is acceptable to you (!) only if I discussed about the vested interest of Mearsheimer in blaming NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine (e.g. if I provided evidences that Mearsheimer was financed by some Republicans to write a paper that could be timely exploited against pro-NATO policies by democratic administrations). Now if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be insufficient to you then you would keep Mearsheimer’s expert input as valid support to the narrative you prefer. On the other side, if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be sufficient to you, then you would simple give up on Mearsheimer’s expert input and look for another expert with titles and no evident vested interest (say Kennan or Kissinger or some CIA representative, or military expert etc.) that would support your world view. In other words, your satisfying world views will remain always unchallenged, you would just update your pool of experts. Additionally, you would always be in position to easily put the burden of proof on your interlocutor (conveniently so if he doesn’t share your world view) for - you could argue - how else e.g. could I prove to somebody that my chosen expert X has no evident conflict of interest other then by pointing at the obvious fact that hadn’t been the case I would have not chosen X? Rather it’s on others to prove to you if there are evidences of conflict of interests.
Besides all this is perfectly in line with this other piece of yours: “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” Practically the burden of proof is always on others, you do not need to argue for your case, nor even need to be capable of arguing for your case, you just rely on the expert that pleases you under some loose requirements.
Finally, if I got it all wrong, good for you, yet you should still clarify what the point of your comment actually was. Good luck with that!


> Do you want me to explain it to you?

As if I didn’t explicitly ask (“How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?!”). Good luck with that too!

> No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity).

No dude, that’s all on your reluctance to engage in an intellectually honest conversation whatever the limits of communicating over the internet with anonymous people are, precisely because that’s the kind of entertainment a philosophy forum could offer despite the limits of the medium. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it!

> I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

Unless you wanna go for something like “these are my arbitrary preferences”, then you must have some reasons to support your “simple moral statement”, and I’m challenging you to clarify them. Indeed you didn’t offer any criteria to establish what “de facto” circumstances would be relevant to consider in a choice like a negotiation deal other than the ones with moral implications that matter to you. But then you are asking people what their reasons are to take side wrt the negotiation deal (so again a case of moral choice), and you yourself brought into this exchange your own reasons: people dying, overwhelming amount of experts, American capitalist imperialism, Yemeni children, poor oppressed by the rich, etc. as if all this was relevant in justifying your position (so again moral implications that matter to you). In short, the “de facto” situation with moral implications that matter to you is a war provoked by the West against Russia, a clash between NATO and Russia. So if we should assess Zenesky’s moral choice based on a de facto situation that has moral implications that matter to you, I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”). You say they are different, but I’m asking to you why is that, so far you didn’t clarify this. And this rebuttal “I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.” is pointless precisely because I’m not talking about all people nor all de facto circumstances, but about you and your criteria to determine morally relevant “de facto” circumstances.

> No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

As much as your raving about multi-causal analysis you didn’t offer.

> Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else?

> So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

Read carefully: I’m not saying you are happy that Russia wins or that you wouldn’t prefer a third option where both America and Russia imperialism lose. That’s not my point. My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory.

> The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

Sure, as you wish. But symptomatic.

> I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
You brought him up.

Only to clarify my doubts about your criteria not to open another thread: there might be experts (like Luc Montagnier) that have titles and no evident conflict of interests, and yet I still may have good reasons to think that they said something unreliable about things they are supposed to know more than I do.

> So "no idea" then?

Dude, I’m here to entertain myself not you. Try harder.


> The power of a good story…

Whose truth you haven’t disproven yet.


> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself.


> One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we’d be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

So monumentally pointless. First of all, when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. Second, even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman (e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out). Third, and most importantly, inquiring somebody’s reasons to hold a certain view, especially with the philosophical breadth one should expect in a philosophy forum, doesn’t presuppose a specific approach to experts (were this the case it would even beg the question). And indeed you yourself made that point precisely to question the reasons of my approach to experts. So even if you prefer to interact with people who share your approach to experts and inquire your reasons accordingly, that does not delegitimize my questioning your approach to experts (as I did, and still could go on) nor my questioning your views based on some experts’ feedback independently from your own preferences and assumptions (even more so if I find your approach flawed). And you yourself didn’t seem to have problem with that (“you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”). Four, if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum.


> Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

What on earth did you just write?! You said “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” So you are not interested in supporting your case here, and yet you still want to unilaterally decide where the burden of proof lies (always on me of course) and on what consists in?! How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?! Are you out of your mind?!

>(2) doesn't even mention 'defending one's nation'. Not to mention it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself.

It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient.


> None of that means Zelensky is 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances as some kind of rule 'one must always be constrained by the de facto circumstances' It just so happens that the actual de facto circumstances in this case are morally relevant because lives will be expended in trying to improve on them.

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. And this too has moral relevance: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”.


> Here, for example is a paper on the multi-causal analysis of the conflict in Algeria from Oxford University. Either point out the maths that I've clearly missed in that paper, or take up with Oxford University, their evident lack of deference to your greater knowledge in this regard.

A part from the fact that in this paper there is a certain amount of stats from politics, demographics, economics (necessary to support related explanatory hypothesis), that the analysis is systemic (and so it goes beyond the intended or foreseeable consequences of decision makers), and that you didn’t offer any such analysis, the point is that we are talking about blame and moral responsibility of Zelensky wrt Putin, or Western administrations wrt Putin, and if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. Or else, stop talking about multi-causal analysis pointlessly (since you didn’t offer any anyways), and start reasoning in terms of moral responsibility by analogy with legal responsibility assessment, as much as a judge would do on a crime case trial (whence my problem with your blaming the victim attitude). That’s also relevant to address moral implications in terms of a criterium of proportionality.


> I mean you've not given reasons for your choice of method. You've said you take into account what others value, for example. You've not said why you do that.

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember?
On my side, I find quite preposterous to claim that somebody is making arbitrary claims only because he didn’t tell you what his reasons for his claims are yet.
Besides that’s my take about arbitrary moral claims:
“ I’m not judging based on my own preferences alone, nor am I judging without rationally processing a load of information which include people preferences among other things (for example, the feedback from different experts concerning the strategic stakes of this war). So my moral approach is the opposite of “arbitrary” as I understand the word “arbitrary”. Actually that’s the reason why I support this approach.
On the contrary, I find arbitrary your claim that fighting a war for one’s nation is no doubt always immoral, precisely because it doesn’t take into account what other people value, but only what you value (i.e. life) and prior to any rational processing of the situation at hand.”

> I don't need to prove they are more plausible, or more likely to be the case because you didn't make the original claim that you merely preferred your opinion, or found it more plausible. Your claim was that the alternative was actually 'preposterous'.

> Remember, what I'm arguing against here is your claims that alternative positions are 'preposterous'. The fact that you can come up with scenarios which are plausible to support your position doesn't support that claim. You'd have to show that these scenarios were somehow the only plausible outcomes.

> Because assessing my alternatives is not necessary for a successful critique of your position. For your position to hold you'd have to support the claim that there literally are no alternatives.
No solutions other than the one you prefer. That's ridiculous, hence a stupid line of argument. The point I'm making here only requires that other solutions exist and it's 'stupid' to deny that.

I didn’t claim nor implied anywhere that “there literally are no alternatives”, “No solutions other than the one you [referred to me] prefer”. The way you frame my position is not just a fallacious straw men argument, but probably a delusional projection of your own “stupid” views (by your own definition). Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- 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). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral.
Your 2 claims looked pretty much radical, peremptory and one-sided, so incompatible with alternative or more nuanced views. That is why I didn’t hesitate in calling them preposterous and argued against them. Then you insisted on supporting your preposterous claims with further claims (some of which still sounded preposterous to me) , I counter-argued against them too. And so on. And add to that your reluctance to properly argue and clarify your own views which just reinforced my impression of your close-mindedness.
If you simply presented your position as a dilemma over option1 and option2 from the start, I would have still argued the way I did in the related comment, but I wouldn’t have called your dilemma nor your preference for option2 preposterous as I didn’t do it in the related comment.


> Yeah, right. You just conducted a completely impartial assessment of the evidence, sure.

Didn’t claim nor implied I’m impartial, I just said how it works with me. For example, I didn’t get interested in this war because triggered by strong prior biases against “Russian imperialism” (actually, before the war started, I had stronger prior biases against “American imperialism”, after seeing what they have done in the Middle East) and then looked for whatever expert (with titles and no evident conflict of interest) supported a narrative accusing “Russian imperialism” also for the war in Ukraine. I started with the war news in Ukraine and from there I did my research for expert advise (this rebalanced my attitude toward “American imperialism”)

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”

> since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? — neomac
Interesting. What exactly did you expect to get from this? You fabricate a position you know full well I wouldn't admit to holding (that I support Russia) then ask a transparent 'thought experiment' the answer to which expects me to admit to the one position you already knew I wouldn't admit to. Surely you can see the flaw in that strategy?

No idea what you are talking about. And at this point it doesn’t really matter what you are ready to admit. For me, you can remove Russia from my thought experiment and put any other you like, say Venezuela or China or India or Tibet or Malta. The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? Don’t waste your time guessing my expectations. I can’t remember a single time you succeeded.


> If someone is sufficiently qualified and without any conflict of interest, you're not in a position to dismiss their conclusions as dubious simply because you don't like them or they're not what you expected.

It’s pointless to guess things when I clarified already my position (“I can compare for example their titles or their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts, etc.”, “double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge”). Besides I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

> Really? If you were looking for a military expert you've no idea how to tell if they're qualified? Is there some compelling reason university tenure and/or doctorate-level qualification would be insufficient for you?

> How? If you're a non-expert, how can you meaningfully compare their arguments? And what relevance does it have how much they converge with the opinion of other experts?

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine.

> Where, in that, do I "praise" a Russian puppet government?

Just poor phrasing on my part due to the fact that I was thinking in terms of comparative advertising strategy: roughly, praise one option over the other to suggest the option to choose without actually saying it. The point is still that in framing the negotiation options, the option you presented in a positive light and support include the Russian puppet government, by contrast, the option you presented in a negative light and reject included Zelensky’s government. Besides the mention of the Russian puppet government in the option you support was unnecessary (for this condition was already withdrawn by the Russians and you could have simply kept Zelensky’s government) and unmotivated, therefore suspicious: as if this inclusion was implicitly motivated by whatever reason one could imagine you would plausibly support (e.g. avoiding the risk of future clashes between Zelensky and Putin, punishing Zelensky’s immoral political conduct in this war, keeping up the hostility against the American capitalist imperialism, pleasing Putin for mercy, etc.) in light of your other claims about Zelensky, the West, etc.
From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it.


> Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. — neomac
So?

Never mind. I thought you wanted to suggest experts who support option2, instead of generically pointing to the same experts' quotations we have already discussed, which would be pointless.

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless. Now for the third time. And that’s it.

> 'Similar' and 'the same' are similar, but not the same.

Impressive yet so pointless. The 2 cases were similar because they both fell under the same general principle you suggested here: “If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.” Now, if from that general principle follows that Zelensky is blameworthy, then the same holds for the poor. And that’s it.

> I have to prove nothing of the sort because I'm not the one claiming your position is preposterous. Look back at our conversation. Who made claims and who questioned them?

>Again, I'm not putting claims out there for you to analyse. Why you'd think I'd want want some laymen off the internet to analyse my claims is beyond me.

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on.

> Your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I've not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).

No dude, if you do not want to play the game, then let’s close it here, but you don’t get to decide what the rules of the game are for me. On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. Period.

> My point requires only that the policies of the ruling classes cause some deaths among the working classes

I don’t think so. First of all your claim was “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” Second, you were neither clear about what oppression means nor how to evaluate it (here you take as a metrics “death” elsewhere you were talking about economic oppression “It is an economic fact that the working class are oppressed by the elite classes”). Third, you weren’t talking about “some” oppression but “far more consistent” oppression: so if your metrics is “death” then you have to prove that the Ukrainian ruling class’s policies cause far more deaths than the Russian soldiers as working class are causing to Ukrainian families.

> I don’t see the point of your claim “defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason” since the “insufficiency” qualification by comparison to other alleged more relevant moral reasons (e.g. fighting against the ruling class, which you admit can be unacknowledged by the oppressed) doesn’t question the fact that Ukrainians actually have an acknowledged moral reason to fight for defending their nation and therefore feel compelled to act upon it as they do. — neomac
Of course it questions that fact. If there's no moral case for defending one's nation then those merely 'defending their nation' have no moral case. It could not be more simple.

Doubt that. Let’s recapitulate your previous claims:
(1)“I’m arguing that simply 'defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason because the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.”
(2)“You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y. — neomac
Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.”

(3) “how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people? — neomac
I didn't say they realised or agreed, I just said they had more in common with each other than their rulers and bosses”.

So, according to (1), Ukrainians fighting to defend their nation wouldn’t have a sufficient moral reason “because the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”. Yet, according to (2), you didn’t claim that Ukrainians have no moral reason to fight the Russian armies to defend their nation, when saying that they have no sufficient moral reason to fight the Russian armies. So Ukrainians actually have a moral reason to fight against Russian invasion.
Now you say that Ukrainians have no moral case to keep fighting the Russian army.
So what on earth does it mean that Ukrainians have a moral reason to fight the Russian army to defend their nation, yet they have no moral case to fight the Russian army to defend their nation?! Concerning your “moral reason insufficiency”, I find it problematic wrt its prescriptive implications, especially in light of (3). To clarify this, here is a more trivial example: X is a charitable man and has a moral reason to help A, a very poor man but with no family to support (2) however his moral reason to help A is not sufficient only in the sense that there is also B who is a very poor man with family to support, so B’s case is comparatively more urgent than A’s case (1). Yet B’s case is totally unknown to X or X has reasons to believe that B is neither very poor nor with family (3). In this scenario, should X help A or not? For me it would make sense only to answer yes, but you would say no, right?
Finally, (2) looks in contradiction to other claims of yours (“fighting over a flag is always wrong”, “Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral”) where fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral: how can “fighting over a flag” be at the same time no doubt always immoral and still be a moral reason?!

> OK then what is the relation between Russian and Ukrainian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian and Ukrainian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children? — neomac
Nor did I restrict my analysis to Russia and Ukraine. Are you going to go around the world adding one country at a time or are you going to have an honest conversation including the fact that America and Europe are deeply involved in this conflict?

I have no idea what analysis you are talking about, I’m still waiting for one about the pertinence of your claim “I would have thought it pretty self-evident that people swanning about in luxury yachts whilst children starve to death in their rubbish was both unfair and cruel” wrt the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children.
The irony is that your excuse to dodge this task is that I interpret your unrestricted claims more strictly. Yet I did that precisely because they are unrestricted, not despite the fact they are unrestricted. It’s on you to analytically clarify how your unrestricted claims should be properly understood not on me to do the job for you.
Besides, I don’t see how one could possibly have an intellectually “honest conversation” in a philosophy forum without clarity and arguments. So until I see some effort in this direction from you, I can’t take your “honest conversation” proposal seriously. And apparently I’m not the only one who questioned the honesty of your approach in this debate, am I?

> What the situation is and what our choices are, are two different things.

Meaning? Spell it out more clearly and argue for it, if you can. If Zelensky’s choice (e.g. between keep fighting or surrender) should be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation (Russian control over Crimea and some Donbas lands) as you claim, why shouldn’t your related choice (i.e. Ukrainian keep fighting or surrender to Russian demands) be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation as you framed this war from a geopolitical point of view (i.e. “American expansionism vs Russian expansionism”)?

> Who said Zelensky was 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances?

I am, based on how you framed the negotiation best outcome, in line with Russian demands.

“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.”

“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.”

> You introduced maths. Why does a multi-causal analysis entail that I should be able to carry out some mathematical calculation assigning degrees of blame? I can say party X is somewhat to blame and party Y somewhat to blame. That's multi-causal and involves no maths whatsoever.

Oh I see now how pointless your previous comment was: “You appear to be unfamiliar with multi-causal events, perhaps read up about the concept before pursuing this further”. Because the claim “party X is somewhat to blame and party Y somewhat to blame” is not a multi-causal event analysis nor necessarily requires one. Multi-causal analysis refers to the identification of a minimal set of causal factors (where the concept of “causal factor” goes beyond agency and intentionality) and each causal factor has a certain weight (statistical, i.e. depending on the stochastic correlation between causal factors and effects, or probabilistic, i.e. depending on the ratio between one factor and the total number of factors) in contributing to a certain effect. So you were loosely talking about multi-causality to refer in reality to multi-agency dynamics and related responsibility/blame attributions, as I clarified here (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/675364 , see comment about your vase broken example).
But if you want attribute blame based on multi-agency dynamics then, saying of the West, “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral” looks preposterous as much as your example of the broken vase to explain this: the West is no real moral agent while your broken vase example is not an example of multi-agency dynamics. Besides, if you want to put “some” blame to some agent wrt others in a multi-agency dynamics, it would still be important to assess how much blame in order to allow a proportionally adequate response. For example, assessing how much Zelensky is blameful wrt Putin will morally justify a proportional support to push Zelensky to accept Russian demands or to formulate Ukrainian demands in a way that is more acceptable by the Russians. Now, if the Ukrainian patriotic resistance is morally defensible (at least as long as they are aggressed, as I argued), then the Ukrainians can not be blamed for that, nor can be Zelensky as the Ukrainian legitimate leader in times of peace and war (as I argued), while Putin & Russian soldiers bear all the blame for continuing this war.
So it’s on you to clarify why Zelensky bears some responsibility along with Putin for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families, and how much Zelensky is blameful wrt to Putin for what happened.

> I made my moral assessment based on a posteriori comparative evaluation concerning how much Zelensky’s choices reflect what Ukrainians actually value (defending Ukraine from Russian aggression), how much Ukrainian values are closer to Westerners wrt Russians (Ukrainains are more open to westernization), how much proportionate Russian response to the claimed threat from Ukrainians was, how much Russian aggressive expansionism is an actual existential threat to the West (given the actual Russian cyberwar against the West, the actual nuclear threat against the West, the actual Russian aggressive expansion in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, and Putin’s actual aspirations to a new world order), and so on, and my conclusion is that I have moral reasons to side with Zelensky’s resistance against Russia. — neomac
So a list of arbitrary preferences then…

> Yes I’m claiming there are moral reasons to back a particular strategy, and the particular strategy is supporting Zelensky’s resistance against Russian aggression. Does that sound new to you after all I already, repeatedly and extensively said? — neomac

No, but you've yet to adequately support any such reasons other than state some entirely arbitrary preferences and then declare alternative 'preposterous'. If you find the views of anyone who doesn't share your entirely arbitrary preferences 'preposterous' I suggest a debate forum isn't the best place for you.


What do you mean by “arbitrary”? I’m not judging based on my own preferences alone, nor am I judging without rationally processing a load of information which include people preferences among other things (for example, the feedback from different experts concerning the strategic stakes of this war). So my moral approach is the opposite of “arbitrary” as I understand the word “arbitrary”. Actually that’s the reason why I support this approach.
On the contrary, I find arbitrary your claim that fighting a war for one’s nation is no doubt always immoral, precisely because it doesn’t take into account what other people value, but only what you value (i.e. life) and prior to any rational processing of the situation at hand.

> if you contrast a Russian puppet government wrt Zelensky’s, praise the first and blame the second — neomac
Where have I done anything of the sort?

Here: “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”.
And now here:
“Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.”
This is called comparative advertising in marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising) and it explains how you strongly suggested your support for a puppet government over Zelensky’s patriotic government, without saying it.
So it is evidently plausible to say you are suggesting to replace Zelensky’s government with a puppet government, which is even more than what Putin asked in the scenario we discussed.

> Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.
Option 2 has fewer dead.

First of all, I see “regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor” in both options. So since it doesn’t make any difference, what was the point of putting it? Second, what does support your claim “less crippled by debt” and “less in thrall to the IMF”? Actually there are reasons to doubt that if Ukraine loses Crimea, part of the Donbas region, and has a Russian puppet regime, it will recover more easily from its debts, since its economy will be badly crippled (due to the economic, energetic and industrial importance of those regions) and its dependency to Russia might suffer from the sanctions the West imposed on Russia as well. So their economy could go shittier than the Russian economy is right now (especially if Russia doesn’t make any reparation payment), and still under shittier Russian ruling class who cares about the Ukrainians even less they care about the Russians. They should give up on their hopes to join the West as they wanted, see their culture repressed along with persecutions of dissidents and rebels (which might be as bloody as in Bucha). They could also be involved in other Russian expansionist criminal wars as much Belarus was.
For the West the chances of another war against Russia can only grow bigger if option 2 was the case, and Russia pushed further its geopolitical agenda (so again more deaths and destruction also for the Ukrainians if the war will involve again Ukraine, this is also what buffer states are for right? ). Indeed Sweden and Finland are thinking to join NATO. So provocations are not over yet right?

> Why? People are not normally required to avoid all risk to others in order to avoid being labelled immoral?

Let me remind you of what you claimed “Zelensky bears some moral responsibility for the deaths if he chooses to continue fighting when he could have take a less harmful other option. That's just a statement about how moral responsibility works. It doesn't require me to do any maths. If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.”
So your point is that Zelensky’s choice is somehow immoral right?
Now compare the previous claim with this one: poor bear some moral responsibility for the deaths/misery/starvation/disease of their children if they choose to give birth to their babies when they could have taken a less harmful other option, namely not having babies.
It’s a similar line of reasoning as the previous one, right? So the choice of having children by the poor is somehow immoral right?

> What are the other solutions you are talking about? — neomac
I'm not answering these stupid questions. Either have a serious conversation or don't bother replying.

Why stupid? Depending on your answer I can better assess the consistency of your reasons, precisely because I doubt they are consistent. BTW, enquiring about your reasons should not look that stupid to you if you want to be consistent with your claim: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise”.

> What is the point of such claims, in particular the part I put in bold? I see none. — neomac
Seriously. You don't see the point in ascertaining who I'm talking to? What garbage.

No I don’t see the point, for precisely the reasons I explained and you didn’t address, which again doesn’t sound consistent with your claim: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise”.

> I have no idea what “the outcome continued war is compared to matters.” is supposed to mean. — neomac

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.
Option 2 has fewer dead.

That doesn’t answer what I previously asked: “for the third time, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life?”
And then asked again:
“How else do you see the oppressed poor get better condition from an authoritarian ruling class without fight (history is plenty of violent revolutions and civil wars where the poor tried to fight against an authoritarian ruling class to improve their conditions), and therefore risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? I’ll remind you that you keep talking about the importance of ruling class oppression which is far more consistent than the oppression between nations, so would you exclude fighting against an oppressive ruling class (like the Ukrainian peasants’ revolts against the Stalin’s forced collectivization) as morally defensible for fear of worse consequences (like the Holodomor which is worse than what Russia has done so far in this war against Ukrainians)?”
It’s important you answer those questions because you are the one who claimed “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” and believes it’s pertinent in the debate about the war in Ukraine.

> P1. If, in the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, demands are unacceptable [p] or the assurances aren’t enough [q], then the negotiation fail [r]
P2. In the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, negotiation demands were unacceptable [p] and assurances weren’t enough [q]
C. The negotiation fail [r] — neomac
Well then C doesn't follow because you've not demonstrated P2.

You evidently lost track of what I and you were previously talking about. On my side, the point wasn’t to provide a conclusive demonstration concerning the question of the negotiation failure due to the lack of assurance, but only its plausibility based on the available evidences: “Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much.”
Now, while this last objection of yours is related to P2 (which you claim I didn’t demonstrate), the previous one was more related to P1 (“That doesn't follow at all. Two parties could trust each other 100% and still not reach agreement on the deal because neither side thinks they have the concession they were looking for. It need have nothing to do with trust”). And in both cases you repeated the same complaint “that doesn’t follow (at all)”.
Yet my argument is logically valid (the conclusion correctly follows from the premises and I hope you know the distinction between valid and sound deductions), I didn’t ignore the case you were mentioning (100% trust but no satisfactory concessions), I provided evidences to support not the truth but the plausibility of P2 as expressly intended, so your objections either are wrong or missing the point.

> Seriously? You want me to re-post all of my comments with the names edited. Are you retarded? Can you seriously not handle the task of simply reading one for the other?

Yes seriously. There are two reasons why I ask: one, to more comfortably quote individual claims of yours (which would also reduce the risk of misunderstanding). Second, depending on the way you formulate the question, I could ask you to be more specific (indeed some of your questions were ambiguous or unclear about what they are referring to) or to argue for its implied assumptions (e.g. if I don’t see evidence to support what your questions assume to be the case).
Don’t start calling names, dude, your position is in such a bad shape already that you do not really need to worsen it.

> Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.
Option 2 has fewer dead.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything.

You are not saying it, yet you are suggesting it. If we are talking about moral, defending a line of reasoning to support a certain moral position has a prescriptive force related to what people should do e.g. supporting or not Ukrainian resistance against Russian invasion (“whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question”). So if you say that “fighting for a flag is no doubt always immoral”, that implies that people should never fight for their nation. It doesn’t matter if you phrase it that way.

> I’m pointing out that the terms offered by Russia are in this specific case, not applying to every single case in the world (which you bizarrely assumed), are such that it's not worth thousands of lives and huge indebtedness just to avoid them.

I didn’t make any such assumption. When one argues in support of one’s claims one can rely on some more general beliefs and/or more specific beliefs. While defending your position, you too seemed to rely on some more general beliefs (“fighting for a flag is no doubt always immoral” or “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”) and other more specific (like when you talk about “less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF”) so I addressed them differently depending on their level of generality.

> I choose the experts whose opinion align with the narratives I prefer. I have world views I find satisfying and if an expert opinion aligns with those I'll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them. all this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest.

Let me notice first this: you talk about your personal preferences (+ some comparative criteria) in trusting some experts and yet you do not take this to be arbitrary right? But when I talked about preferences (not only mine! + some comparative criteria) in my approach to moral assessments you dismissively said “a list of arbitrary preferences”. That doesn’t sound fair, does it?
Besides your additional criteria (“sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest”) look neither better than mine (“double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge”) nor incompatible with mine. They are not better than mine because even if conflict of interests and titles are certainly pertinent parameters among others when assessing experts, yet they are neither conclusive nor sufficient per se: during the covid crisis there were experts (like Luc Montagnier) with titles and no evident conflict of interests but whose reliability when talking about covid was still pretty dubious. They are not incompatible with mine because e.g. I don’t even know how you would assess “sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest” without adequate background knowledge. Yet oddly you didn’t accept mine as good response to your question, God knows why.
At this point I could try to complete my previous answer as follows. First of all, my understanding of the strategic implications of the war in Ukraine results from processing information from different sources, including experts (more than I can remember) on different fields and with different views (including Mearsheimer, Kennan, Kissinger). So it’s not like I have my moral or strategic understanding of this war and then I look whoever expert is confirming it. Secondly, as far as trust is based on implicit background knowledge (which include one’s personal encyclopaedic baggage of notions and cognitive habits), it doesn’t even make much sense to ask why I trust an expert. It would make more sense if I were to compare the opinion of the expert X wrt to the opinion of the expert Y (because I can compare for example their titles or their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts, etc.), or if I were to re-assess X’s opinion in light of some putative discrediting evidences (like a conflict of interests). With political leaders things are complicated by the fact that there might be discrepancies between what they say and the reality, or what they say and what they do as we commonly and widely experience (so it’s harder to assess what is physiological and what dysfunctional or how much a leader is reliable).

> Seeing this crisis as a random outburst from an unprovoked madman who the US can stamp on with it's shiny military is useless. It achieves nothing.

It is incorrect to say that it achieves nothing if it strengthens Western consensus in support of resistance/containment against Russia. You probably mean nothing you value for the reasons we are discussing.
On my side, I never talked about “a random outburst from an unprovoked madman”. Some give credit to the idea that Putin is victim of his own delusional propaganda and his paranoiac mentality, typical of a cranky single dictator surrounded by yes-men and pressed by the events, which may have some plausibility, even if the geopolitical competition between Russia and America can definitely not be reduced to Putin’s mental state.
What I also find interesting though is that the most vocal non-Ukrainian subjects about the importance of supporting Ukrainian fight against Putin I’ve heard so far are Russian personalities (like Andrey Illarionov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Garry Kasparov):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_nWwx2B7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfYVX5ZWxBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDmEPFO_hd0

> Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.

That is why you want to help Russia win against American capitalist imperialism, because American capitalist imperialism is the greatest Evil. This is what I was trying to get from you when I was asking you about your preference between Russia and America, or America and Isis. As long as Russia and Isis win against American capitalist imperialism it’s a good thing, right? You see there was no need to talk about third strategies or opposing Russian expansionism, after all. You just wasted our time on your pointless and poorly argued side issue.
Anyway, since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism?

> If you can suggest military and foreign policy experts or political commentators that disagree with my views or support your views, I’m open to have a look at them, of course. — neomac
I already have.

Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. Besides claims and advise of some of those experts you suggested do not seem to 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).”

> You just keep claiming that “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” without providing evidences and while being contradicted by the evidences: Ukrainian families got exterminated by Russian soldiers, no Ukrainian ruling class member has exterminated those families. — neomac
Are you suggesting that the policies of the ruling classes have resulted in no deaths?

I have no idea what you are talking about (which policies? Which ruling classes? Which deaths?) nor what relation it bears with what I wrote. So I’m explicitly asking you - now for the fifth time - to provide evidences of such claim “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”.


> Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.

Then I don’t see the point of your claim “defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason” since the “insufficiency” qualification by comparison to other alleged more relevant moral reasons (e.g. fighting against the ruling class, which you admit can be unacknowledged by the oppressed) doesn’t question the fact that Ukrainians actually have an acknowledged moral reason to fight for defending their nation and therefore feel compelled to act upon it as they do. Besides you were claiming that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. So, finally, can fighting for one’s nation be a defensible moral reason or not?


> Very little. Which is probably why I didn't restrict my assessment to the Russian ruling elite, nor the Russian poor.

OK then what is the relation between Russian and Ukrainian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian and Ukrainian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children?


> if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac
Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers. Which is probably why I have never suggested they are.

What?! So you are not claiming that the war in Ukraine is a war between American and Russian expansionism as great power politics in Mearsheimer-lingo, now?!
Anyway if your moral position and choices should not be constrained within a de facto clash of dominance between American and Russian powers, then also Zelensky moral position and choices should not be constrained within what a de facto war situation is, especially as framed by the enemy.

> I talked about math because you talked about multi-causal theory and multi causal theories would allow to evaluate the exact or statistical relevance of a cause in a given output. — neomac
How?

What?! You should tell me! You talked about multi-causal analysis, I didn’t! That’s your job, not mine!

> So what factor (or factors) governs the difference?

> So you keep saying, yet you seem quite clear on what dimensions are not to be considered. Perhaps a quick run down of these multiple dimensions would help?[/i]

As I said, I intend moral assessment an a posteriori comparative tasks about what people actually value in given circumstances to determine the lesser evil. The reason why I can’t do a priori moral assessments is because I can’t predict what people actually value (they could value many different things) especially when facing contingent and challenging events (like a war, a pandemic, an immigration crisis, a terrorist threat, etc.), with all that goes with it in terms of costs/benefits and responsibility ascriptions. The multi-dimensionality of moral assessments refers precisely to the fact that there are values to consider and comparisons to make depending on given circumstances that we can not predict.
In a given situation like this war, I made my moral assessment based on a posteriori comparative evaluation concerning how much Zelensky’s choices reflect what Ukrainians actually value (defending Ukraine from Russian aggression), how much Ukrainian values are closer to Westerners wrt Russians (Ukrainains are more open to westernization), how much proportionate Russian response to the claimed threat from Ukrainians was, how much Russian aggressive expansionism is an actual existential threat to the West (given the actual Russian cyberwar against the West, the actual nuclear threat against the West, the actual Russian aggressive expansion in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, and Putin’s actual aspirations to a new world order), and so on, and my conclusion is that I have moral reasons to side with Zelensky’s resistance against Russia.

> If you want to object to me for good, tell me if you would morally support Isis over America and why. — neomac
I already did, right at the beginning of the paragraph you're supposedly critiquing.

I have no idea what paragraph your are referring to. Quote yourself or repeat your point as I’ve done many times.

> Again, how on earth do you get from the notion that a puppet government wouldn't be so bad as to be worth thousands of lives to "I think we ought to depose Zelensky". It's just an insane leap of inference.

A suggestion is a pragmatic implicature not a logic inference. So if you contrast a Russian puppet government wrt Zelensky’s, praise the first and blame the second the obvious implicature is that Russian puppet should replace Zelensky. Also because that is very much consistent with Russian desiderata (like having a Russian puppet government instead of having pro-western government as Zelensky running Ukraine) which you are arguing we should readily submit to.
If one wanted to suggest to people that Ukrainians should replace Zelensky with a Russian puppet government without actually saying it, one would precisely to do the way you did: insist on the tragic mistakes of Zelensky on one side and stress the benefits of having a puppet government on the other side. There is no more straightforward way to suggest it without explicitly saying (it’s called comparative advertising in marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising).
Again, at best, you could claim that you didn’t mean it. At worst, you could keep disingenuously complaining. Either way, I made my point and I’ll stick to it for precisely the reasons I provided.

> It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.
Where else did I do that? Can you fully quote me? — neomac
I just did.

Where? So far we are simply arguing over a single claim of mine:

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. — neomac

This is where I claim you to be suggesting a replacement of Zelensky’s regime with a puppet government and we are arguing now about this claim. While you stated “It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.” as if I suggested that you want Zelensky gone other times. I’m asking you to fully quote myself where else I made such a suggestion.


> Poor people bring to life children that they are incapable of taking care of, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children? — neomac
Yes. I presume that would be why they try with every ounce of their soul to feed and protect those children.

> Palestinians bring to life children that they are incapable of fully protecting against the oppression of Israelis, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children exposed to the Israelis’ oppression? — neomac
Yes. Again probably why they try so desperately hard to protect them.

Sure, but that’s also why you would consider the poor/Palestinian parents immoral because they are knowingly exposing their children to death/sickness/starvation/misery. Indeed you claimed “If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.”


> So shouldn’t they stop having children? — neomac
That's one solution, yes. Not the only solution, clearly.

The point is that’s the moral solution, you would readily support, considering the de facto power relations between poor and rich or between Palestinians and Israel, and the gravity of risks that poor/Palestinians are exposing their children to.
What are the other solutions you are talking about?

> The former is true, the latter is a strategic judgement. I'm not speaking to a Ukrainian so I can't interrogate their reasoning. I’m speaking to a non-Ukrainian, form the comfort of their non-bombed home and asking why they are supporting continued fighting so fervently.

What is the point of such claims, in particular the part I put in bold? I see none. First of all, you don’t know me, and you have no idea about my personal involvement in this story as much as I don’t know yours. So I don’t see any compelling reason to support your assumption. Second, we are in a philosophy forum where we discuss things precisely because we are drawn for whatever reason to such intellectual activity, and we can do that without involving anyone’s personal situation. Third, I can talk about moral reasons as fervently as I can talk about the propositional content of our thoughts or the conceptual reduction of time to perception or the logical form of a Devine Command Theory, especially if I encounter people making preposterous claims as you did repeatedly (actually on other philosophical debates over epistemology or metaphysics or logics I have been even harsher than I am with you). Fourth, investing energies in a debate over a war without any direct involvement in that war could be true for those who support continued fighting as likely as for those who do support surrender. So why are you depicting only one side in these terms? Fifth, if Russia is an actual existential threat to the West, we have a damn serious reason to be worried even from a position of comfort, precisely because we fear it won’t last as much as we can fear a pandemic spreading from China even if we are not actually sick nor living in China.


> BTW, for the third time, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? — neomac
Then for the third time, no, the outcome continued war is compared to matters.

Quote yourself where you said no to that question, the other 2 times.
I have no idea what “the outcome continued war is compared to matters.” is supposed to mean. Can you unpack your claim more extensively and highlight its moral implications? How else do you see the oppressed poor get better condition from an authoritarian ruling class without fight (history is plenty of violent revolutions and civil wars where the poor tried to fight against an authoritarian ruling class to improve their conditions), and therefore risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? I’ll remind you that you keep talking about the importance of ruling class oppression which is far more consistent than the oppression between nations, so would you exclude fighting against an oppressive ruling class (like the Ukrainian peasants’ revolts against the Stalin’s forced collectivization) as morally defensible for fear of worse consequences (like the Holodomor which is worse than what Russia has done so far in this war against Ukrainians)?


> What? You've not labelled p, q or r so I can't possibly use this.

Here you go:
P1. If, in the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, demands are unacceptable [p] or the assurances aren’t enough [q], then the negotiation fail [r]
P2. In the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, negotiation demands were unacceptable [p] and assurances weren’t enough [q]
C. The negotiation fail [r]


> But I support Ukraine. So does everyone writing here. We disagree about how. Are you claiming there are moral reasons to back particular strategies?

Yes I’m claiming there are moral reasons to back a particular strategy, and the particular strategy is supporting Zelensky’s resistance against Russian aggression. Does that sound new to you after all I already, repeatedly and extensively said? Because if it doesn’t, what was the point of asking such question exactly?

> Whenever I talk about strategy you switch to intention (1), when I talk about intention you say it's about 'moral reasons' (2) when I talk about morality you defer back to tactics again (3).

I can’t recall examples of (1) and (3) can you point me to where I did that? (2) happened because you tried to frame my claims from your assumptions not mine, and I didn’t just switch, I argued for my point to let you address it in a more pertinent way.
The fact that you feel talking about something doesn’t imply that your interlocutor sees it as pertinent, so the more you derail from what is perceived as pertinent by your interlocutor the more your interlocutor will likely switch back to what he perceives to be more pertinent (like when you feel like talking about the Yemeni when we are talking about the Russian aggression of Ukraine, or when you feel like talking about rich and poor when we are talking again about Russian aggression fo Ukraine, or when you feel like talking the deaths provoked by the Ukrainian ruling class when we are talking again about Russian aggression of Ukraine).
Besides you too switch from one subject to another, what makes it look suspicious though is that you are doing this when one is challenging the internal consistency of your own assumptions/claims (like the idea that this war is due to American expansionism, or that ruling class oppression is far more consistent than the oppression between nations).


> Fine. Replace all my uses of US, NATO and Europe with the names of their current leaders and influences and then answer the questions.

That’s your job. When you do your job, I’ll do mine.

> Not what I asked.

You asked: “If Putin's power consolidation was increased bu sanction and NATO involvement in the war, then ought we avoid those things?” I can’t/couldn’t give you a straightforward answer because that depends. If sanctions and/or NATO involvement consolidate Putin’s power within Russia but weaken his power outside Russia then we should sanction and get NATO involved. If sanctions and/or NATO involvement consolidate Putin’s power outside Russia then no we should not sanction nor get NATO involved. If sanctions and NATO involvement have equal opportunity to have Putin’s power consolidation outside Russia, then it’s indifferent what we do.


> Again, not even addressing the question I actually asked.

Which question? The piece of yours I was commenting (“So as far as the moral case is concerned, you concede the point that continuing to fight is not morally advised simply on the grounds of 'opposing Putin's expansionism' since it is a moot point what course of action would best do that.”) didn’t contain any questions, it was attributing to me a concession based on what I said earlier, so I was simply clarifying what I said earlier.
Nobody is forbidding you to ask your questions again. I have to do it very often with you.


> cruel and unfair treatment of people, especially by not giving them the same freedom, rights, etc. is morally defensible when it’s for punishing immoral people. — neomac
So you think punishing immoral people is unfair?

When we talk about unfair treatment we implicitly associate it with the idea of unjust treatment. Yet unfair treatment could simply mean unequal treatment for example by not giving someone the same freedom, rights, etc. But unequal treatment is not always unjust, unequal treatment of criminals is just. So, during our exchange, I hacked the latter usage of “fair” as an expedient to justify my unusual usage of the word “oppression” (when punishing the immoral) in the absence of a better word with the semantic features I needed (we do not have a word that allows to talk about just and unjust oppression). So, to answer your question, obviously no in the way we usually intend it, but yes due to the linguistic expedient I just clarified. I don’t mind if you disagree, though.


> There cannot always be an alternative, otherwise negotiations never end. At some point in time the agreement has to coincide with both parties' strategy.

Sure but the point is that you didn’t prove that you offered an alternative third strategy to which opposing parties could converge, you are just saying that one party has to converge to the requests of the other party as they are formulated.


> You can take side in accordance to your beliefs. So do I. Now what? — neomac
Well, you could start by refraining from referring to my beliefs as 'preposterous', if you accept that they're just beliefs.

Yet another preposterous claim. Even if you can act in accordance to your beliefs and your beliefs are just beliefs (?!), your beliefs can still be only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. And if I believe they are only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. I will claim so and argue for it, if necessary. You can do the same. Indeed we are in a philosophical forum discussing things, often we disagree because we have reasons to believe that our interlocutor’s belief are only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. So your argument is flawed on so many levels that it deserves to be qualified as “preposterous”.

> So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government?
Never made such claims. — neomac
Good. So are they?

Are they what? Whom exactly are you talking about?


> I already answered: “So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge” — neomac
That's not an answer. All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer "because of some reasons", then we might as well give up here. I'm asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.

I didn’t get why it’s not an answer, I would understand better if you could show me how you would answer to your own question: “If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?”


> What matters to me is what Ukrainians and Western leaders consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms — neomac
Why? Why not, for example, what the various military and foreign policy experts consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Or what the various political commentators consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Why put your faith in the Ukrainian leadership and the Western powers' leadership?

That’s not a full quotation. I was contrasting their opinion with yours and I explained why.
If you can suggest military and foreign policy experts or political commentators that disagree with my views or support your views, I’m open to have a look at them, of course.

> So how does this 'fact' link to the morality of fighting for one's nation? Lots of people value money too. Does that make fighting over money moral?

> People value money, so fighting over money is moral?

Also fighting over money can be moral of course, e.g. if fighting those who stole the money is morally defensible. Rebellions against work exploitation can be also understood as a moral fight over money as a means of subsistence and well-being.
I take moral assessment as an a posteriori comparative task based on what we actually value to determine what the best or lesser evil course of action is. And nationality is one thing that some people value.


> how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people? — neomac
I didn't say they realised or agreed, I just said they had more in common with each other than their rulers and bosses.

> I'm arguing that simply 'defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason because the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.

You just keep claiming that “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” without providing evidences and while being contradicted by the evidences: Ukrainian families got exterminated by Russian soldiers, no Ukrainian ruling class member has exterminated those families. And now I wonder if you need any since you do not take into account what working class representatives (like the Russian soldiers) actually prefer, arguing that either they have been blind to their interests or disagree with you on what they are but it doesn’t matter because you know better.
I don’t even get the moral reason insufficiency claim. You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.


> Are you saying the working class ought to be oppressed?

I don’t even understand why you keep talking about working classes. If you want to talk about it open a thread, argue for your claim, provide evidences and I’ll give you my feedback, if interested.


> I would have thought it pretty self-evident that people swanning about in luxury yachts whilst children starve to death in their rubbish was both unfair and cruel - but if you think it's fine, then I don't think there's anything I can do do convince you otherwise.

And what is the relation between Russian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children?


> America over Isis. America over Russia. Now, those are not the only choices, what on earth have they got to do with the question of whether fighting over nationality is moral?

What?! It was you in the first place to insist on framing the war in Ukraine as a clash between the America and Russia dominance, not me. And when I’m asking you who you would morally support between Russian and American dominance, I’m asking you this precisely because you care to frame this war in this way.
On my side I was content with describing the war between Ukraine and Russia primarily as a war between Ukrainians and Russians, and argued that the clash between America and Russia is grounded on this clash between nations. So I have really nothing else to explain.
Once again since this is a war of dominance between the US and Russia according to you, which dominance would you side with? With the so treacherous, hypocritical, cynical, exploitative, immiserating, Yemeni blood thirsty West or with the all so righteous de-facto-winning misery-free new-world-order champion Mearsheimer-approved Russia?
Don’t waste your time dodging the question or musing about some utopian third option, because my challenge to your views is about consistency: if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war.


> Why on earth would some kind of maths be necessary? Zelensky bears some moral responsibility for the deaths if he chooses to continue fighting when he could have take a less harmful other option. That's just a statement about how moral responsibility works. It doesn't require me to do any maths. If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.

Not only I already offered my arguments to support my claims (not the ones you put in my mouth) when I talked about the link between responsibility and agency, the multi-dimensional nature of my moral assessments and the right to self-defence. But I also argued against your clandestine causal theory to support Zelensky’s “some responsibility”.
I talked about math because you talked about multi-causal theory and multi causal theories would allow to evaluate the exact or statistical relevance of a cause in a given output. However the main point is not even to stress the inadequacy of your multi-causal theory. Discussing about the degree of responsibility, especially wrt other actors, is important for a proportional response: for example in morally pressing Zelensky to accept Russian demands or to formulate Ukrainian demands in a way that is more acceptable by the Russians. So if you want to talk about Zelensky’s responsibilities for the fact that Russian soldiers under Putin’s orders keep killing Ukrainians and their children you have to argue for it and assess it wrt Putin’s responsibilities to make sense to me, because if the right of the Ukrainians to defend themselves as long as they want without being morally blamefull is morally defensible (as I argued) , then Zelensky as their leader is morally justified in continuing to fight and bears no blame for that, while Putin & Russian soldiers bear all the blame for continuing this war.


> So the elected leader of a country is assumed right about the values of that country until proven wrong? Do you apply that to your own country? Was President Trump, for example, right about the values of Americans simply by virtue of being their elected leader?

From what I argued so far it should be clear that if half or so of the American population voted for Trump, I have to take into account this and what they value in Trump, of course. The same goes with Zelensky. But as I said I would consider also the value proximity between Trumpism and what I value. And other things as well. No single dimension is a priori sufficient for a moral assessment.

> Really? So your personal satiation determines what's moral? That's certainly an odd notion of morality. What about the effect on others?

As I already clarified many times, moral assessments depend on a multi-dimensional evaluation of a situation. Material well-being is one dimension I would take into account, sure. The effect on others is another dimension. And again I’m not striving for perfection, only for lesser evil.
My claim was only to make you understand why I wouldn’t support Isis wrt America dominance.
If you want to object to me for good, tell me if you would morally support Isis over America and why.


> They don't 'strongly suggest' anything of the sort.

They do, if you contrast Zelensky’s government with a Putin puppet, blaming the first while assuming more acceptable the second. At best you can claim you didn’t intend to suggest it.

> It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.

Where else did I do that? Can you fully quote me?


> No. The paragraph wasn't about Russian soldiers and Putin. It was about The governments of Ukraine, the US and Europe, plus their supporters.

> What about the values of those who can't vote - children, the future generations - do they get a say?

How about the continued exposure of millions of innocent children to Russian atrocities?


Poor people bring to life children that they are incapable of taking care of, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children? Palestinians bring to life children that they are incapable of fully protecting against the oppression of Israelis, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children exposed to the Israelis’ oppression? So shouldn’t they stop having children?
Ukrainians do not want to be eradicated from their lands nor they want their children to grow up under a Russian dictator capable of committing another Ukrainian genocide like the Holodomor, so they act accordingly. I don’t know if Ukrainians consider Zelensky responsible for having their children killed by the Russians or exposed to a war wanted by Putin, knowing that Zelensky did not submit to Russian demands so far. If they don’t why should I?
BTW, for the third time, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life?


> Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much. — neomac
That doesn't follow at all. Two parties could trust each other 100% and still not reach agreement on the deal because neither side thinks they have the concession they were looking for. It need have nothing to do with trust.

I see you continue to raise random accusations based on a surprisingly poor understanding of what I wrote. I took already into account the situation you are mentioning when I wrote “either the demands were unacceptable”. And if you were familiar with propositional logic, you would understand that my argument corresponds to the valid form:
p1. if p or q implies r
p2. p and q
c. r
So it totally follows.

> What I expect them to do is to offer concessions and make demands in the same way any party to a negotiation would.

What concessions and what demands do you expect them to do wrt Putin’s?


> If America's intention in supplying weapons is to make a profit, then one cannot say their help is moral, even if their action accidentally assists a moral cause.

This is why I wasn’t talking about intentions but about moral reasons. I don’t need to assume that the US leaders are acting out of moral intentions. All I claimed is that there are moral reasons to support Ukraine. I don’t think that in a negotiation between leaders of competing powers what counts is how adequate their intentions are wrt to their moral reasons for the simple reason that even if the intentions were genuine, it’s still possible that there is no workable agreement based on moral reasons and moral responsibility ascriptions, as this 180 page thread suggests. So what counts is reliability and fairness of the demands. Another reason why assessing morality of a choice or action on the basis of how morally genuine an intention is is not decisive, it’s because there are unintentional consequences (I will come back to this in a bit).
Besides don’t give for granted that I share your assumptions about how the weapon industry or political propaganda work.

> You agree then that I could very well be determinedly opposed to Putin's expansionism and yet advocate ending the war right now and agreeing to the terms on the table since it's perfectly possible to consider that course of action to be the one which will most effectively bring about an end to that expansionism?

No I disagree. Notice that having the intention to determinedly oppose Putin's expansionism doesn’t mean that your opposition is effective. You could be determinedly opposed to Putin's expansionism while doing something which - against your intentions - actually benefits Putin's expansionist ambitions. Indeed advocating for the acceptance of all Russian actual demands at the negotiation table doesn’t equate to actually opposing Putin’s expansionism, as much as advocating the acceptance of a working class exploitation out of fear of worse consequences in case of rebellion doesn’t equate to actually opposing a de facto working class exploitation. So concessions will not end Putin’s expansionist ambitions in any geopolitical meaningful way, they will just consolidate it.


> if Putin and Russian soldiers kill Ukrainians are immoral, if Ukrainians kill Russian invaders and murderers are moral. — neomac
Agreed. But we were talking about the US, so I don't see the relevance. Western capitalist systems kill and immiserate millions of innocent people. Russian wars kill and immiserate millions of people. Ending one by invoking the other neither helps nor has any moral force. You seemed to think it did, I'm enquiring about that.

It’s enough to re-read what I wrote because I’ve already addressed this many times already: geopolitical entities per se have no moral agency, they are theoretical abstractions useful to strategically study power dynamics. They are not good for moral responsibility ascriptions. This claim of yours “Western capitalist systems kill and immiserate millions of innocent people” may have some multi-causal plausibility (yet I can not assess it since you didn’t offer any such analysis and you didn’t consider also the millions of people that may prosper under the American system dominance wrt Russian dominance) even if it was correct, it would not suffice for responsibility ascription. For responsibility ascription, we need agency, decision makers. Russia is on war with Ukraine because Putin so decided. I’m not talking about Russian system nor Russian dominance for responsibility ascriptions, I’m talking about Putin deciding to start a war and bomb Ukrainian families and children, threatening a nuclear war, making claims about a new world order and blaming it all on the West. I’m fine if you want to talk about the moral responsibilities of Biden’s or Zelensky’s or EU’s administrations in relation to this war. If you want to talk about capitalism system and Yemen, you have to open another thread. And if you need it to prove your point, then your point is conceptually flawed as I already claimed and argued. The moral force of contrasting Russian’s war in Ukraine precisely depends on Putin’s morally illegitimate aggression of Ukraine. What is the most proper strategic response, for this I defer to people more expert than I am for the main input.


> If Putin's power consolidation was increased bu sanction and NATO involvement in the war, then ought we avoid those things?

If making concessions and avoiding sanctions will consolidate Putin’s power as well as not making concessions and adopting sanctions, I think it’s indifferent which option is chosen. Besides I would distinguish between power consolidation in Russia from power consolidation beyond Russia.
Don’t forget that according to the geopolitical experts Russia is a demographic and economic declining power, and if that is the case, wars around the world and economic sanctions could accelerate Russian decline. And the more Putin becomes aggressive the more reasons the West has to contain Russian expansionism.

> So as far as the moral case is concerned, you concede the point that continuing to fight is not morally advised simply on the grounds of 'opposing Putin's expansionism' since it is a moot point what course of action would best do that.

My point was simply that I’m well aware that there are risks when taking position on such matters. Yet I don’t think that we can take risk-free decisions on such matters, nor we can simply suspend our judgment or action just because we can’t make enough risk-free decisions, if pressed by the events.


> The word 'oppression' already covers that. What you're talking about is ‘suppression'.

Well if you take the meaning of a word based on a dictionary definition, then here is the one I used:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/oppression?q=oppression
cruel and unfair treatment of people, especially by not giving them the same freedom, rights, etc. is morally defensible when it’s for punishing immoral people.
Don’t waste our time on wording disputes.

> I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.
This is one thing they demand, not the only one though. — neomac
No. I'm sure the current Russian demands don't constitute the full sum of all they'd want either. The point is, they started the war, so it's just self-evident, they'd have a different list of grievances

Same situation, you just changed words and I do not care about your wording preferences. If one wants to explain why a negotiation fails, then either demands/grievances/expectations/complaints/wishes/concessions/requests/desires/[fill up as you please] are not perceived as acceptable and/or they are not addressed with enough assurance. And an alternative to 2 parties' strategies in terms of demands/grievances/expectations/complaints/wishes/concessions/requests/desires/[fill up as you please], can not possibly coincide with one of 2 parties' strategy.
Don’t waste our time on wording disputes, especially if I abundantly clarified my point.


> You've no idea whose views and demands I considered, since consideration goes on in my head. I only told you the course of action I thought best.

With the word “considering” I’m not referring to a process in your head but to what proves that your third strategy is opposing both Western and Russian expansionism. As you seemed to understand:
"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."
Don’t waste our time on wording disputes, especially if I abundantly clarified my point.


> So If I think their standard of living will be considerably worse, then It's a reasonable position to take that involving the US is not worth the benefit.

You can take side in accordance to your beliefs. So do I. Now what?


> So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government?

Never made such claims.


If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?

I already answered: “So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge”



> So you are saying that Palestinians should accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? The Talibans didn’t accept any “de facto” Afghan puppet government and took back their control over Afghanistan eventually. The expression "whatever it takes” simply refers to the fact that, in geopolitical strategy, demands and options are not assessed by one party the way their competitor frame them as I said repeatedly. — neomac
No. That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the actual terms matter. It's not just a question of 'capitulate to any demands to avoid war', it's 'avoid the worst option’.

What matters to me is what Ukrainians and Western leaders consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms, not what you consider the “worst option” based on a load of assumptions that I find questionable or unintelligible. For example, how does your line of reasoning about de facto situation would apply in the case of the Palestinians or the Talibans? should Palestinians accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? Were the Talibans wrong in refusing to submit to the de facto Puppet regime the Americans put in Afghanistan?

↪neomac
You know we can just follow the link, right? You don't need to copy-paste the entire thing here. — SophistiCat

The second time I checked, the article was behind a paywall, so I just wanted to spare you all the hassle.

If you want to see something even more candid and unrestrained, read this article that was published about a week ago by the Russian state news agency RIA: What Russia Should Do with Ukraine (offsite English translation). It is a true fascist manifesto. — SophistiCat

Thanks for the link!

https://www.corriere.it/economia/aziende/22_aprile_08/we-are-at-war-with-the-west-the-european-security-order-is-illegitimate-c6b9fa5a-b6b7-11ec-b39d-8a197cc9b19a.shtml


«We are at war with the West. The European security order is illegitimate»
Federico Fubini
16-21 minutes

«We are at war with the West. The European security order is illegitimate»

Sergey Karaganov has served as a presidential advisor in the Kremlin both under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. He is still considered close to Russia’s president and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. His recent proposals on Russian-speaking minorities in the “near abroad” are known as “Putin doctrine” and Professor Karaganov, who is honorary chair of the Moscow think tank the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, was first to come out publicly about an all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2019. President Putin has mentioned on Feb. 24 that Ukraine’s accession to NATO warrants Russia’s military intervention to prevent it. However, Ukraine didn’t even have a Membership Action Plan for NATO and Germany’s chancellor Olaf Scholz clearly stated accession was many, many years off.How can an attack be justified on such grounds?

For 25 years people like myself have said that NATO expansion would lead to war. Putin said several times that if it came to Ukraine becoming a member of NATO, there would be no Ukraine anymore. In Bucharest in 2008 there was a plan of quick accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. It was blocked by the efforts of Germany and France, but since that time Ukraine has been integrated into NATO. It was pumped up by weaponry and its troops were trained by NATO, their army getting stronger and stronger day by day. In addition we saw a very rapid increase of neo-Nazi sentiment especially among the military, the society and the ruling elite. It was clear that Ukraine had become something like Germany around 1936-1937. The war was inevitable, they were a spearhead of NATO. We made the very hard decision to strike first, before the threat becomes deadlier.

But Ukraine was not about to become a member of NATO, not for at least many, many years. There was time to negotiate.

We have heard all kinds of promises by Western leaders throughout these 30 years. But they lied to us or they forgot about their promises. We were told at the beginning that NATO would not expand.

How can you think a non-nuclear medium-sized country like Ukraine would ever attack a nuclear giant like Russia? And how can you think this is a Nazi country with a Jewish president elected with over 70% of the votes? Ukraine was being built by the US and other NATO countries as a spearhead, maybe of aggression or at least of military pressure, to bring NATO’s military machine closer to the heart of Russia. We can see now how well their forces had been preparing for a war. And Nazis were not only about killing jews. Nazism is about supremacy of one nation over another. Nazism is humiliation of other nations. The regime and the society in Ukraine were going very much like Germany in the 1930s.

You say that NATO promised never to enlarge to the East and Russia was cheated on that. But former Warsaw Pact countries requested to be included in NATO themselves. And Russia signed up to the Founding Act on Russia-NATO relations in 1997, accepting NATO enlargement. No cheating there. It was the biggest mistake of Russia’s foreign policy in the last 30 years. I fought against it, because the Founding Act of 1997 legitimized further NATO expansion. But we signed it because we were desperately poor and we still were trusting in the wisdom of our partners. President Yeltsin probably thought that we would sneak between drops of rain, to no avail. As for NATO, it was formed as a defensive alliance. But when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia was weak, I was shocked when I saw the rape of Serbia in 1999. Then we had an absolutely atrocious war in Iraq waged by most of the NATO members and then we had another clear-cut aggression in Libya, always by NATO. So we do not trust words. But we know that article 5 of NATO, stating that an attack on a NATO member is an attack to all, doesn’t work. There is no automatic guarantee that NATO would come to the defense of a member under attack. Please read article 5 of the Treaty. But this enlargement is an enlargement of the aggressive alliance. It’s cancer and we wanted to stop this metastasis. We have to do it by a surgical operation. I regret we were unable to prevent such an outcome.

We all agree the Iraq war was illegitimate and was a very serious mistake. Corriere della Sera came out against that war at the time. But one grave mistake doesn’t justify a second grave mistake. And the US people could elect a new leader, Obama, that was against the Iraq war and changed American policy. Can Russians have an opportunity to do the same? I don’t think that in the foreseeable future we will have any change of power in Russia, because we are fighting a war of survival. This is a war with the West and people are regrouping around their leader. This is an authoritarian country and the leadership is always very attentive to the moods of the people. But I don’t see real signs of opposition. Also, in the US or else nobody was really punished for the war in Iraq, so we have our doubts about the effectiveness of democracy.

Your parallels don’t seem to match. In Libya, Ghaddafi was bombing protest demonstrations from the sky. NATO enforced a no-fly zone that had been called for by a UN Security Council resolution and Russia did not veto it. Yes. At that time we believed the reassurances of our Western partners. But then we saw a clear-cut aggression devastating the country. That led us toward total distrust of Western countries, and especially of NATO.

As for the intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999, it was made to stop a war that led to over 10,000 deaths and a UN tribunal charged Milosevic for war crimes, deportation and crimes against humanity. The massive killings in former Yugoslavia happened after the NATO’s rape of Serbia. People were killed on all sides. It was a civil war. It was an unspeakable aggression. And the Milosevic trial was a sad and humiliating show by petty people trying to rationalize their previous mistakes if not crimes


It was a UN tribunal, not a EU tribunal.
We don’t acknowledge the right of that tribunal.

You said that the real war now is against Western expansion. What do you mean? We saw Western expansion happening, we see Russophobia in the West reaching levels like antisemitism between the world wars. So war was already becoming likely. And we saw deep divisions and structural problems within Western societies, so we believed that anyway a war was more and more likely. So the Kremlin decided to strike first. Also, this military operation will be used to restructure Russian elite and Russian society. It will become a more militant-based and national-based society, pushing out non-patriotic elements from the elite.

The bottom line question is: Mussolini did not recognize the international order that emerged from the Versailles Treaty in 1919. Does the Kremlin recognize the legitimacy of the European order that emerged from the fall of the Berlin Wall? Do you think this order is legitimate?
We should not recognize the order that was built against Russia. We tried to integrate in it but we saw it was a Versailles system number 2. I wrote that we had to destroy it. Not by force, but through constructive destruction, through refusal to participate in it. But after the last demand to stop NATO was again rejected, it was decided to use force.

So the overall goal of this war is to overturn the presence of NATO in central and eastern European countries? We see that most of the institutions are, in our view, one-sided and illegitimate. They are threatening Russia and Eastern Europe. We wanted fair peace, but the greed and stupidity of the Americans and the short-sightedness of the Europeans revealed they didn’t want that. We have to correct their mistakes.

Is the EU part of the institutions that Russia feels are illegitimate? No, it’s legitimate. But sometimes we dislike EU policies, especially if they become more and more belligerent.
You seem to believe that an escalation of this war to other countries is inevitable. Is that what you are saying? Unfortunately it is becoming more and more likely. Americans and their NATO partners continue support of Ukraine by sending arms. If that continues, it is obvious that targets in Europe could or will be hit in order to stop lines of communications. Then the war could escalate. At this juncture it is becoming more and more plausible. I think the Joint chiefs of staff of US armed forces are of the same opinion as I am.

Denazification is what Ukraine seems to have proven by electing a Jewish president. Demilitarization is the opposite of what Mr. Putin has achieved, as this attack led Ukraine to get heavy weaponry from the West. Plus, Germany and the EU are rearming too, NATO has moved troops closer to Russia’s borders, Western sanctions are now much tighter, while Europe and the US got closer together and Russia is becoming financially isolated. Would you say Putin’s military operation is proving a success, so far?
Nazism is not only about antisemitism. It is about hating and suppressing all other nationalities. And it was taking over Ukraine. We never know how the military operations end. Demilitarization means destruction of Ukrainian military forces - that is happening and will accelerate. Of course, if Ukraine is supported with new weapons, that could prolong the agony. We can only talk about “victory” in quotes, because there are many casualties on both the Russian and the Ukrainian side. The war will be victorious, in one way or another. I assume demilitarization will be achieved and there will be denazification, too. Like we did in Germany and in Chechnya. Ukrainians will become much more peaceful and friendly to us.

But so far the Russian military had to withdraw after keeping Kiev under siege for one month. It doesn’t look like the military operation is going so well, does it? It’s a large military operation, so it has secrets in the way it’s waged. What if the Kiev operation was meant to distract Ukrainian forces and keep them away from the main theater in the South and South-East? Maybe that was the plan. Moreover Russian troops have been very careful not to hit civilian targets, we used only 30-35% of the lethal weapons that we could use. If we had used everything, that would have meant the destruction of Ukrainian cities and a much quicker victory. We did not do carpet bombing like Americans in Iraq. The endgame probably will be a new treaty, maybe with Zelensky still there. Probably it would mean the creation of a country in South and South-East Ukraine that is friendly to Russia. Maybe there will be several Ukraines. But at this juncture it is impossible to predict because, of course, it’s an open-ended story. We are in the fog of war.
There is clear evidence that civilians have been targeted and killed by the Russian in Mariupol, in Bucha and elsewhere. These look very much like war crimes and crimes against humanity and they were deliberate. Should they be persecuted?
The Bucha story is completely fake-staged, it’s a provocation.

It doesn’t look staged at all.
I watched the pictures and I am 99% sure. But more in general there is a war and civilians suffer. We know that Ukrainian neoNazi forces have been using civilians as living shields, especially in Mariupol. We have different pictures with you.

It’s rather the opposite: the Russian army did not allow humanitarian corridors. We opened them. They were blocked by nationalist forces. I know how our military operates but, of course, this is a war. We face a tragedy.

Did you expect this level of cohesion between Europe and the US? Well, the cohesion will collapse because of the problems of the West. But for the time being they were organizing even before this conflict. The West is failing and losing its position in the world, so it needs an enemy – for the moment we are the enemy. I don’t think the unity will last, Europe will not commit the suicide by choosing to lose its independence. I hope our European neighbors will recuperate from this dizziness of hatred.

You speak like some other country started this war, in fact Russia started it. I was not for this particular scenario, but it happened. And I support my country. The West committed several aggressions. We are now on the same moral level, we are equal, we are doing more or less like you. I regret that we lost our moral superiority. But we are fighting an existential war

Sanctions are getting tighter. Will Russia become more dependent on China? There is no question about that: we will be more integrated and more dependent on China. It has positive elements but overall we will be much more dependent. I am not very much afraid of becoming a pawn of China like some EU states became pawns of the US. First, Russians have a core gene of sovereignty. Second, we are culturally different from the Chinese, I don’t think that China could or would like to overtake us. However we are not happy with the situation, because I would have preferred to have better relations with Europe. But Chinese are our close allies and friends and the biggest source of Russian strength after Russian people themselves. We are a source of their strength. I would prefer to end this confrontation with Europe. My calculation was to create a safe Western flank to compete more effectively In the Asian world of tomorrow

You declared that China, not Russia, will emerge as the victor in this war. What did you mean? We will be victorious because Russians always are in the end. But in the meantime we will lose a lot. We will lose people. We will lose financial resources and we will become poorer for the time being. But we are ready to sacrifice in order to build a more viable and fair international system. We are talking about Ukraine, but we really want to build a different international system than the one that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and, in turn, is now collapsing. We all are sinking into chaos now. We would like to build Fortress Russia to defend ourselves from this chaos, even if we are getting poorer for this. Unfortunately the chaos could take over Europe, if Europe doesn’t act according to its interests. What Europe is doing right now is absolutely suicidal.

Is that a threat? Don’t you think nuclear deterrence still applies? I know that officially under certain circumstances the US could use nuclear weapons for the defense of Europe and they allegedly could fight for the defense of Europe against a nuclear superpower. There is a 1% chance this might happen, so we have to be careful. But if a n American president takes such a decision inviting devastating response it would mean he is insane.

This war doesn’t look sustainable, including for Russia. It can’t go on for long. What are the elements to agree at least on a real ceasefire? First, Ukraine must be a completely demilitarized neutral country – no heavy arms, for whatever of Ukraine remains. This should be guaranteed by outside powers, including Russia, and no military exercises should take place in the country if one of the guarantors is against it. Ukraine should be a peaceful buffer, hopefully sending back some of the arms systems deployed in recent years.

Ukraine needs security guarantees, it needs to be able to defend itself or it will not be a sovereign country anymore.
I am sorry but Italy and most European countries cannot defend themselves either.

They belong to NATO…
They have been saving on security. That is how they got themselves into this awkward position that Europe is not considered to be a serious actor in the world. Switzerland and Austria are neutral, but are safe. So can Ukraine.

Do you realize that after what you just said, the debate in Italy will move towards investing more on defense? You are welcome. One of the grave mistakes of the Europeans in the last decades is that they didn’t invest in their security, under their ideal of eternal peace. But I think European nations should be able to defend themselves, because they have real threats coming from the South and the world is becoming a very dangerous place as international relations are collapsing. The question is more against whom Italy would like to arm. Against Russia? Well, that would be insane. But you need a more robust military force. You are living in a very dangerous place in the world. If you depend on America, you are selling out your own security and sovereignty because the Americans have their own interests.

The EU seems to be moving towards cutting dependence from Russian energy – first coal, then oil and finally natural gas. Did you expect that? I hope you are not suicidal. Of course that would damage Russia, too, but Europe would undermine its economy and its social situation. I hope it will not happen, because you can calculate your own interests. If you don’t want our coal, we will sell it somewhere else. If you don’t want our oil, after a time and some losses, we will sell it elsewhere. And if you don’t want gas, well, well, we can also eventually redirect it after some suffering. Russians support Putin at 81% now, people are ready for a rough period.

Do you think Italy and Europe could do something to broker a deal? Not easy, given the situation. But what they could do is try to stop this Russophobia, akin anti-semitism of the previous centuries, this satanization of Russia that would lead us eventually to a worse confrontation than we have now. Even Russian culture is being erased in Europe by a new cancel culture.

> There is an anthropological fact ... Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. — neomac
That's not an anthropological fact, it's an anthropological theory.

This is another good example of misquotation. This is what I take to be an anthropological fact: “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”. All human societies (independently from geographic and historical latitudes) have ways of identifying human groups and individuals based on group membership. This is an anthropological fact.
Some societies use “Nationality” as a way to identify social groups and individuals as members of those groups: nation states, national languages, national flags, national passports, national money, national sport teams, national customs, national cuisine are examples of ways we identify groups and individuals within groups based on nationality.
Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly, like Putin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians), Sergey Karaganov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Karaganov), the Izborsky Club (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/russ.12106), Vladimir Solovyov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_(journalist)), Dmitry Utkin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Utkin), the Night Wolves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Wolves).


> So now I'm to provide 'evidence'

When discussing topics, I don’t expect people to provide evidence in advance for everything they say, especially for what they take to be obvious or common knowledge. Yet if one needs evidence, one can ask. And I’m asking you now what evidences you have about this claim “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”. I’m asking this precisely because I gave you what looks to me evidence to the contrary yet you didn’t address it at all. So once again: how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people?


> What they have in common is oppression. Something I though you were all in favour of fighting against.

Indeed I addressed that too: “Keep also in mind that I didn’t question the value one can put into class struggles, nor claimed that is always immoral” . Yet I’m not sure you understood my assumptions. Oppression is one, not the only element that I would take into consideration for moral assessment. Indeed “oppression” is a word with a moral connotation but I don’t take it to be necessarily negative, so its moral implications depend on the context: e.g. oppressing the Nazis, Isis, communist terrorists, organised crime would be morally defensible.

> 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.

If the word “oppression” has a moral connotation, then “working class are oppressed by the elite classes” is not a factual claim but a moral claim. If it has no moral connotation, what do you mean by economic oppression?


> 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.

What I find hard to understand about that is how you identify the links between facts and moral agents to assess responsibility. For example you talk about some moral responsibility. Now, since you like metrics, I’m asking you: how much responsibility bears Putin and Russian soldiers for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian children wrt Zelensky, Biden, me, what is the math you are doing based on your still clandestine multi-causal theory? That’s necessary (yet not sufficient) to estimate what the most adequate morally response is.

> Not getting a literal 'say' is not the same as not having their interests considered.

Do you mean that Russian soldiers and Putin should have considered Ukrainian children’s interest before killing & bombing them?

> Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

Here, “It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed.” and “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.” These 2 claims strongly suggest that the issue is with Zelensky government and things would be better with Putin puppet.


> 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... — neomac

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?

This is another good example of misquotation. My thought experiment wasn’t intended to provide evidence for what “Ukrainians value”, but to contrast my expectations against others’: for example when you claim “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.” you seem to expect some behavior from Ukrainians, like giving up on Zelensky instead of exposing their own children to the risk represented by Russian murders. And my point was precisely that we shouldn’t rely primarily on our expectations for moral assessments about Ukrainians’ behavior, but on what they value. Indeed you didn’t even need to do any guess work, because I made this point clear immediately after the thought experiment: “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”.




> So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much.
Now it’s your turn: how do you measure the degree of mistrust on this occasion to assess if it’s 'too much’ or not?

> America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

What are the reasons you have to support America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia? What do you expect them to do?


> You've not answered the question. Does supplying weapons help?

I’m not sure about the answer. I suppose they do help in the sense that Ukrainians are using these weapons to counter Russian invasion (Putin didn’t reach his declared goals within 2 days nor 2 weeks), but maybe it's not enough and that’s why Zelensky is asking for more.


> 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?

When I’m talking about moral reasons to act, I’m not talking about someone’s intentions to act according to those reasons, as you did in your example. So you simply misunderstood what I was saying. Concerning intentions I already made my point so you can address it, if you wish so.


> 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).

If and when a form of dominance increases the chances of refilling my belly more than having my head decapitated, that’s something I would personally take into account, also for morally establishing what is the lesser evil in the given circumstances. But I don’t have one dimensional and decontextualized moral claim to make about great power politics. My example that you extrapolated from its context, was simply meant to address your preposterous moral claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. And you never addressed it as such. So once again, if you were to choose only about these 2 options, would you prefer to be dominated by Isis or America? And between Russia and America?


> Why? If not the death and destruction these actions cause, then what is the moral force?

Death and destruction against the Nazis or Isis was morally defensible.
Moral force should be assessed based on what people actually value. Putin and Russian soldiers are destroying Ukrainians’ life because they do not want to submit to Putin’s criminal demands disrespectful of what Ukrainians value for their own sovereign country. So if Putin and Russian soldiers kill Ukrainians are immoral, if Ukrainians kill Russian invaders and murderers are moral.


> I was referring only to these parts: — neomac
The parts that support your statement - not the parts that don't. Cherry-picking, in other words.

Well cherry picking is just fine when one really wants to eat cherries right? I don’t ignore the differences (indeed these are probably taken into account by Western administrations and the problem with homosexuality is present also in part of the Western societies), I simply claimed that relative value proximity has its relevance in moral considerations. And in the case of Ukraine there is some value proximity with the West (like their attitude toward Europe) that Russia is lacking. Yet I didn’t say that is the only thing that counts nor that is the most important thing nor I mean to idealise Ukrainians. The point is that I’m not looking for perfection, but again for lesser evil.
Not to mention the fact that you are supporting Russian murders’ demands against the Ukrainians even if you claim to value the life of the Ukrainian children that Russian murderers have killed, because accepting Russian de facto dominance is a lesser evil. So you too don’t seem to strive for perfection either right?


> I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

This is one thing they demand, not the only one though.

> Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds?

Would stopping sanctions oppose Putins’ power consolidation more than preserving them for a good while or making them even stronger? Or would Putin be more ready to significantly soften his demands before we removed those sanctions?

> You seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action.

And you seem to be just making random attacks ad personam based on a poor understanding of what your interlocutor has expressly, extensively and repeatedly said.
Since you feel in the mood for such confessions, then there is something I too find really off about your dialectical approach to our discussion: you often make claims with little pertinent context often forcing one who doesn’t share your views to guess your assumptions or your line of reasoning, while I do the opposite and yet you keep misquoting or extrapolating my claims from their context.

> 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.

Agreed, but that has to do with geopolitical risk assessment that all great power politics must face in similar daring circumstances. And undoubtedly Western & Ukrainian leaders are not assuming anything for granted. However the situation looks to me much worse now, since Putin and China (as Putin and Xi Jinping talked about new world order) could take any concessions as a sign of weakness.



> 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.

If we are talking about Great Power politics, the only pertinent sense of opposition is how geopolitically meaningful such an opposition is. And, once again, to assess opposing strategies one should consider the views and demands of all competing powers, not the views and demands as framed by only one power, as you did.


> 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?

I’m not sure. Yet after the Second World War many European countries were able to enjoy prosperity, democracy and welfare under the US dominance.
Besides Russia was happy to open its market to the West and its companies before this war, wasn’t it? How about now, with western companies gone and all the sanctions, is this war benefiting the Russian poor?
We should also clarify another issue concerning our discussion. I’m engaged in it, primarily because I have reasons to question 2 preposterous moral claims of yours: one about fighting over flags and the other is about Western responsibilities in the genesis and perpetuation of this war. One of the assumption I argued for is that we should not confuse strategic reasoning (especially if we want to talk about geopolitical power politics) with moral reasoning. Related to this, we shouldn’t ignore that the cognitive effort required in both cases is not the same: our capacity to provide a strategic analysis about Great Power politics is constrained by our non-expert understanding of a limited, second-hand and uncertain amount of available evidences. So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge. In other words, on my side there isn’t much intellectual commitment you could challenge wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help”, while on your side I don’t see much compelling strategic insights wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help” to challenge what I understood about the stakes so far. That’s why I limited myself to support some moral claims (like a “carrot&stick” containment strategy by Western leaders was morally more defensible than a “murder&destroy” strategy by Putin or the continuation of this war is morally defensible depending on what Ukrainians and Westerners value) wrt all strategic understanding I could intellectually afford.


> 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.

So you are saying that Palestinians should accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? The Talibans didn’t accept any “de facto” Afghan puppet government and took back their control over Afghanistan eventually. The expression "whatever it takes” simply refers to the fact that, in geopolitical strategy, demands and options are not assessed by one party the way their competitor frame them as I said repeatedly.
BTW, and once again, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material wellbeing and life?


> 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.

Methods are important sure, but they are just one dimension of a moral evaluation to me. The one who was dismissing talking about methods was you (“How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.”).
Concerning the question “if torture would stop Putin's expansionism could be morally defensible?” my answer is yes, if for example we are talking about torturing Putin.


> 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.

I’m not bracketing anything out. This is a proper starting point to morally reason about this war as I already argued. And will always start from there when questioning your preposterous moral claims about this war.

> 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.


> 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 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.


> 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.

> 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.



> 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 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.


> 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.

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.


> 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.

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?

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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.


> ...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.

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?



> 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?

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).

> 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.

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.

> So the Russian legitimate security concerns triggered by the West that led to this war ultimately consisted in whose flag is decorating the Ukrainian parliament building. Is this consistent with your claim that a legitimate security interest is an “interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric)”? It doesn’t seem to me so because a decorative component of a Parliament building has literally nothing to do with national security — neomac
Did you miss the parenthesised part or do you need me to explain it?

Yes, I need you to explain how Russia’s legitimate security concerns is at the same time actually related to Russian security and to a flag on top of the parliament building in Ukraine based on your “parenthesised part”.


> IT was the bit where you said…
I 100% agree with you — neomac
...just after I'd been talking about fighting over nothing but national identity. Is it that you misunderstood what I was saying

You not only misunderstood what I said but also missed to fully quote me, as I explicitly asked. So here is the full quotation: “I 100% agree with you, if the independence war Ukraine is fighting against Russian military oppression, can be reasonably rendered as a fight over an ornament of a Parliament building. ”
My agreement was conditional. And the antecedent of the conditional doesn’t hold to me, indeed I find it preposterous. I also explained it a few lines later that “For me it’s matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism”, so the issue has nothing to do with a flag as piece of colored fabric decorating a building, unless you take it in some metaphorical sense (the flag as symbolic equivalent to national identity and independence). But also in this case, the problem is that the metaphor, while intelligible, is analytically useless in that e.g. it doesn’t distinguish foreign oppression from fighting against foreign oppression, which I consider relevant for moral assessments and responsibility attributions to geopolitical agents.


> My point is that it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works. All that's necessary is for each side to think they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them. That can be achieved through lies, bribery, honesty, threats, concessions...it doesn't matter. That's what statecraft is.

I find your claim questionable for the following reasons:

• if “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” expresses a logic claim then it can not be grounded on empirical claims (like “diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works”). Besides it is probably inconsistent: if diplomats lie all the time (which already sounds as an exaggeration) they lie also when they claim to have found an agreement at the end of their negotiation sessions, so no negotiation agreements would be reliable and the practice itself would be pointless. If “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” is an empirical inductive generalisation and “diplomats lie all the time” just a gross exaggeration, it can be statistically true, and yet lead to fallible predictions in the given circumstances: indeed there are negotiations that fail because one of the party perceives the other as too unreliable (see also the current negotiations between Russia and Ukraine). And I doubt that such statistics are relevant for the parties directly or indirectly involved in the negotiations. But probably the specific case studies of Western/Russian past negotiation strategies may be very useful in the negotiation process maybe more than in predicting its outcome.
• “All that's necessary is for each side to think they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them” sounds true because that’s how negotiations are supposed to work, but it’s also empty of interesting moral/strategic implications. What is morally/strategically interesting is precisely to understand how geopolitical agents come to think “they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them”, especially on the issue at hand, the war between Russia and Ukraine. Indeed geopolitical actors need to do their calculations as reliably as possible based on what they strategically and morally value, and than get reliable assurance that the agreement will be honored as they expect to be by the other parties, especially if there is such a level of mistrust between parties.

> I assumed you were following the thread. I haven't time to have the same conversation separately with every interlocutor I'm afraid. If you also haven't time to keep up with the whole thread then then we're stuck. Why don't we compromise and you tell me which experts are saying that the US is blameless and why you find their arguments persuasive. That's something you've not yet done so you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

I’m not relying on any specific expert’s views, and more importantly I already provided to you some of the main arguments I find persuasive. I must add that I didn’t claim that the US is blameless (whatever it’s supposed to mean), I just gave you my reasons to question your accusations against the West: “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. Putin’s ambitions are intelligible from a geopolitical point of view as well as western containment strategy against such ambitions. Yet from a moral point of view about the issue at hand I would take into account the distinction between oppressor & oppressed, the nature of the oppression (also wrt its triggers), the nature of the decision process and the value proximity: 1. Ukraine is the oppressed and not Russia, and the West is helping the oppressed not the oppressor 2. Ukraine & the West adopted a more “stick & carrot” containment strategy while Russia opted for an invade and wreck aggressive strategy 3. Whatever action is taken by the West is not coming from the decisions of a single dictatorial leader but of a bunch of democratic leaders with problematic coordination, we can not say the same of Putin 4. Ukraine seems more open to share our views on standard of life and freedoms than Russia.

I can suggest you another compromise: there is no need “to have the same conversation separately with every interlocutor”, it’s enough to give me links to your posts where you mention and/or argue the views of the experts you rely on.


> It’s odd how, when I raise a specific issue about negotiation (Ukraine have lied too, so can't fairly expect Russia to be an honest negotiation partner), you switch to "hypothetical" mode to make your arguments, but when I make hypothetical arguments you won't accept them without specifics…

And what is the specific issue about negotiation you are talking about? Can you exactly quote yourself? Maybe I simply missed it. BTW I already put into account that Ukraine may have lied and be perceived as an untrustworthy party in the negotiation by the Russians: “For example, the Ukrainians can reasonably suspect that a call for negotiation from the Russians is to allow Russians to re-supply their war machine and continue the war. And the Russians can reasonably suspect the same of the Ukrainians. And one of them may be right. So my question is, in this hypothetical situation, are there any alternative moral principles that could tell us how the hypothetical party in “good faith” should proceed, when the other doesn’t seem to be?”
My hypothetical mode of thinking is focused on what we can apply to the case at hand. If you do the same in a way that is understandable to me, I don’t mind if you do it.



> The alternative strategy to arming Ukraine and fighting to the last man is negotiations. Ones involving not only Ukraine and Russia, but America (or NATO) and Europe (EU, or representatives) since the situation involves them too. Russia's existing demands are de facto the case anyway, so they would be a perfectly good starting concession for negotiations.

So you are for pushing Ukraine to concede to Russia all they have demanded (no NATO membership, acknowledgement of Crimean annexation, independence of a couple of Donbas provinces) in exchange to stopping the war. I fail to see how this is a third strategy as you have claimed (“It’s clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both”): in what sense is this strategy opposing Russian expansionism?
Anyways, there are many unavoidable reasons why such concessions are geopolitically very problematic for Ukraine, EU and the US, especially Putin’s territorial demands. Crimea is a hub of utmost strategic importance in the Black sea for commercial, energetic and military reasons, while the Donbass region is vital for industrial and energetic reasons. So this concession would not only empower Putin to further his expansionist ambitions (e.g. against other European countries), but it will threaten the EU economic security (due to the energetic and alimentary dependency on Ukraine and Russia as Putin’s blackmailing is proving). Not to mention that it will prove the weakness of the West to the world, from its enemies (starting from Russia and China) to its allies (the eastern and central European states).
So such concessions are not only the opposite of containment strategy. But likely a major breaking point for the entire World Order as we know it. In other words, the West and Ukraine have plenty of strategic reasons to keep fighting Russian oppression as long as they can and as best as they can.


> The 'legitimate security concerns' I believe I've already mentioned. Closer alliances with NATO could allow US or EU military installations in Ukraine. Such installations give Ukraine an advantage in any future negotiations (their meaningful threat level is higher), they act as levers to push Ukraine into further economic union with the EU (harming Russian efforts), and they make Ukraine the stronger opposition in any territorial dispute (such as Crimea) which may hamper further military strength in other areas (as it's a crucial port), finally, actors within Ukraine (such as anti-Russian paramilitaries) are given more strength by being able to shelter under the wing of the stronger Ukraine. It's not rocket science, it's exactly the same concerns NATO have.

Even if the concerns are exactly the same, which I questioned because NATO in this case didn’t expand through forceful annexations of other sovereign nation’s territory and this is a crucial point which you should address before anything else when you talk about Russian security concerns, then we should support NATO against Russian expansionism also for moral reasons in addition to the strategic ones. It’s a shame that the West didn’t handle better this situation and there are probably big mistakes done by the West, and now that the West is in such predicament the West can’t simply step back.


> I thought we'd just done talking about the insignificance of flags?

Only in the sense that I totally disagree with you. So if you take it as a premise of your reasoning, all your reasoning looks as bad as the premise. If not worse.


> China want influence in Taiwan. Their method might be to put their flag over the parliament. The US want influence in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen... Their method is to fight a war to install a US-friendly government under such crippling loan terms that they've little choice to accept US influence. The methods are immaterial here. Both cause massive destruction and loss of innocent life. Both lead their instigators to positions of power.

Well from an abstract geopolitical point of view you can call it influence, but 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.


> Likewise, Russia could claim that about Syria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia or the Donbas regions.

Talking about this war, the Donbas region wrt Ukraine doesn’t enjoy the same international status as Taiwan wrt China. But even if we ignore this aspect, still geopolitics is not all what counts to me.
Russia can try to influence whoever they want the way they see fit to their geopolitical goals, yet I will react differently depending on moral implications and personal preferences.


> If there are, say, ten reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, all ten are collectively responsible. It doesn't change that to say "he would have attacked anyway with only five”.

I find this line of reasoning analytically too poor and misleading to support such claim about the West: “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. I explained that to some extent here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/675364 immediately after your quotation “> No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.”

> Yes, something like. Mostly 'security concerns' in terms of international politics come down to whose flag is over the parliament (even if sometimes only figuratively).

So the Russian legitimate security concerns triggered by the West that led to this war ultimately consisted in whose flag is decorating the Ukrainian parliament building. Is this consistent with your claim that a legitimate security interest is an “interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric)”? It doesn’t seem to me so because a decorative component of a Parliament building has literally nothing to do with national security: there could be no flags on top of any Parliament buildings and yet a nation could have security concerns when oppressed by a foreign nation.


> You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral

Did I? Can you fully quote where I agreed with that?



> ...then that's not 'good faith', is it? Simply assuming your opposite number is going to lie (whilst scrubbing the blood off your own hands) and refusing negotiation on those grounds is about as good a definition of 'bad faith' in the context as it gets. All diplomats lie, it's part of the job. There's no justifiable ground for one side to pull out of negotiations on the grounds that the other side lie. It's rank hypocrisy.

I take “acting in good faith” to mean acting with “a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction”. Then I claimed and still claim that one could think to be acting in “good faith” while having reasons to doubt the other party acts out of “good faith”. In this case your moral principle ("at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties") wouldn't be satisfied. And your suggestion makes this case more likely: indeed if all diplomats lie then there might be concrete situations in which one party believes to be more trustworthy than the other during a negotiation. For example, the Ukrainians can reasonably suspect that a call for negotiation from the Russians is to allow Russians to re-supply their war machine and continue the war. And the Russians can reasonably suspect the same of the Ukrainians. And one of them may be right. So my question is, in this hypothetical situation, are there any alternative moral principles that could tell us how the hypothetical party in “good faith” should proceed, when the other doesn’t seem to be?


> Thus, you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive.

Indeed that is what I was asking. As far as I can recall, you didn’t tell me which experts you chose, even less why you found their arguments more persuasive.


> Yes, I understood that. It's erroneous in this situation because there are clearly not only two strategies. It's clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both.

No it isn’t erroneous. You may claim it doesn’t apply to your case, but you didn't formulate any alternative strategy to me to prove that it doesn't apply to you, even if I asked you explicitly.



>I didn't feel they needed explaining.

Still I’m explicitly asking you to specify these legitimate security concerns, now for the third time (I see I'm not the only one who addressed this claim of yours). What legitimate security concerns did the West trigger in Putin so that he felt cornered into waging war against Ukraine? Notice that you claimed that these concerns are “legitimate” so you must have a more accurate idea of what these concerns are, otherwise on what ground would you claim that they are legitimate? Unless you want to stick to the preposterous claim that Russia felt legitimately and intolerably threatened by the idea that Ukraine will keep a Ukrainian flag on top of the Ukrainian parliament building or so, of course.

>China has never attacked the US. It hasn't attacked anywhere at all for decades and the last war it fought in was on the same side as the US. So why has the US got security concerns? Because China could attack the US, or it's interests (in some capacity) and an increase in its ability to do so is a threat.

China has territorial claims over Taiwan. And it’s preparing to get it back forcefully if Taiwan resists. Taiwan is a partner of the US so if the US wants to protect Taiwan then the US should get prepared to counter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific and in the US precisely because China’s frustrated expansionist ambitions could lead China to retaliate against the US, with all the offensive means they are capable of (including cyberwar). These security concerns are legitimate in those who are threatened or have to suffer from expansionist aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine, and China is preparing to wage war against Taiwan if the latter wants to fight for its independence. Those two countries, Ukraine and Taiwan, are potentially or actually victims of aggression and whoever wants to support any of them to preserve their independence, should get ready for retaliation from the aggressors. Russia and China are not victims of any actual or potential aggression from Ukraine or Taiwan, and the support they receive from the West is defensive and not offensive.


> Neither of these contingencies excuse me from being part of the mob encouraging violence.

And what does this have to do with the war between Russia and Ukraine? I don’t mind if you want to talk about cricket, vases and mobs as long as you can prove it’s relevant for the discussion at hand. So for me the West is like the mob that is helping the victim (Ukraine) against the bully (Russia), it’s not the mob who is encouraging the bully (Russia) to abuse the victim. Isn’t the same for you? If not why not? What else should the West do to help Ukraine against the Russian bully.

> if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations. — neomac
I made no such claim.

Then how come that Ukraine didn’t threaten Russian national security and yet Russia is invading Ukraine? My answer is that Russia has expansionist ambitions and wants to take control over all or part of Ukraine. What’s your answer?

> Wars cause enormous harms, including to people who have no say in the decisions (children, future generations), so only the plausible avoidance of greater harms justifies it. Having a different flag over your Parliament building is quite obviously not such a greater harm.

I 100% agree with you, if the independence war Ukraine is fighting against Russian military oppression, can be reasonably rendered as a fight over an ornament of a Parliament building. So is this the issue for you? Is this the Russian legitimate security concerns you were talking about: a flag decorating a parliament building? For me it’s matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. So nobody talked about fighting over a flag decorating a Parliament building in the first place, until you did. I thought you meant something much more serious when talking about Russian legitimate security concerns threatened by the West to the point of provoking this war. And concerning morality, I’m talking about the morality and related civic duty to fight against the Russian oppressors by the Ukrainians as long as it makes sense to them to fight for their own national identity and security.


> I think at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties. I can't see any reasonable argument favouring war over dialogue on principle.

I 100% agree on that principle too. I still don’t see how you would apply it to the present case to justify your accusation that the West “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. For example, if the West thinks that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the Russians, and Russians think that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the West, your principle doesn’t apply so how would you proceed with your moral analysis of the responsibility of the West wrt the Russian ones? Do you have any other moral principles that can help out?


> Then perhaps you could explain why so many experts in history and strategy have reached that exact conclusion.

I gave you my reasons to question your claims. And I don’t know who are the experts you are referring to (so it’s much harder to provide such an explanation, assumed I could), but what if I found experts that would disagree with the conclusions of your experts? Still we would need reasons to rely on the opinion of one expert instead of the other, when they disagree with their analysis or conclusions. Wouldn’t we? In other words, we would still need to have our own reasons to justify our own strategic and moral claims about this war. So I’m here to listen to your own reasons to justify your own strategic and moral claims about this war.

> You seriously can't think of any? Are you saying that the only two strategies you think are possible are Western neo liberalism and Russian anocracy?

The clarification I was looking for concerned your statement (“Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options”) in response to my claim (“If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.”). I didn’t say nor implied anywhere that the only two strategies are Western neo-liberalism and Russian anocracy, if one can call them “strategies”. My claim is grounded on a simple & logic assumption: in a competitive game between N geopolitical actors with incompatible interests, if you act against (or more against) the strategy of only 1 of them, you are indirectly helping (or more helping) the remaining N-1 geopolitical actors. And this is the case, no matter if you do it knowingly/intentionally or not (yet I recon that it could be more problematic if you do it knowingly and intentionally).


> You're still assuming 'threats' can only come in the form of some military attack. Is there any plausible threat of military invasion to America? No Does America have legitimate security concerns? Yes. That should be all you need to know. There does not need to be an immediate threat of actual invasion for Russia to have legitimate security concerns.

You keep repeating that Russia has legitimate security concerns without explaining what they consist in. And actually I don’t even need to take as an assumption the idea of a military invasion of Russia by the Ukrainians as your misleading example once again suggests. It’s enough to consider the “threats” the Russian propaganda was trumpeting about: Ukrainian Neo-nazism, Russian genocide by Ukrainians, Ukrainian biochemical or nuclear weapons, and the like.

> You appear to be unfamiliar with multi-causal events, perhaps read up about the concept before pursuing this further.

Even if I read it, as you suggest, we could still disagree on how I and you would apply that concept to the case at hand. So if you really want to prove a point, you should actually argue for it.

> Why would they need to be provable? The illegality of Putin's attack is pretty much beyond doubt. We're talking about what was foreseeable, not what was provable.

And I’m talking about what one can foresee based on what can be proved. So if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally. — Wayfarer

And the irony is that those who accuse the West of lacking critical thinking about their own corrupted and hypocritical democratic institutions, and warmongering/greedy imperialistic ambitions from the point of view of those who compete against the West (Russia, China, Islam) are just recycling criticisms originally coming from home grown and domestically popularised Western intellectuals: not surprisingly Osama bin Laden was an eager reader of Noam Chomsky.

> The link is to having reasons to post about it, not reasons to believe it. I know it's hard for the Twitter generation to understand but I don't feel compelled to post everything I think online.
[…]
I don't see why you're having such trouble with this, I don't have to provide a reason why I haven't posted something I think. It's quite normal to not post things one thinks.

Normal? Well that depends on how we apply conversational maxims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) to the present discussion. Notice that if you are more vocal about one side of the story, and more reticent about the other side of story, that’s ambiguous. E.g. abstaining from saying that Putin is blameless while insisting that the West is blameworthy, is consistent with thinking that the West is entirely blameworthy, or more blameworthy, or equally blameworthy, or less blameworthy in comparison to Putin as far as the genesis and continuation of this war is concerned, so it’s unclear what the point made is and if it’s enough to justify a suggested course of action. Now, my initial claim concerning your dialectical approach (not only yours though) is that if we are discussing moral/strategic reasons behind this war, then one proves his/her effort to be more objective by articulating their views on both cases also to better assess them in comparison. This expectation has nothing to do with your personal preferences or a Twitter generation’s compulsion, but all to do with what a more objective strategic/moral analysis should look like.


> Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? — neomac
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.

Why? Is this a basic moral principle of yours or did you deduce it from more basic moral principles? Can you elaborate on this? Of course nobody is fighting over a flag, literally speaking. If they do, that’s because they value some national identity that the flag represents, and that is deeply rooted into their personal history and upbringing within a certain community. In that sense, Israel for example has fought and is fighting over a flag against hostile neighbors. The same do Palestinians against Israel. The same did the Indians against the British colonial oppression, and the Algerian against the French colonial oppression. Are they all without doubt immoral?! I don't think so.


> Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? — neomac
Yes. I'm arguing against certain strategies, not the objective.

Do you mean that the only morally legitimate fight against a military aggressive ruthless tyrant is not through war but through economic sanctions and non-violent protests? Or what else do you see as morally legitimate strategy to fight against foreign oppression? BTW do you claim that strategy should be always constrained by morality also at the price of a more likely defeat?


> No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.

I find this example more misleading than enlightening wrt what I claimed. Let's make one step back. My assumption here is that we are not dealing with some simple and mechanistic causal link between intentional action and consequences, but with intentional interactions involving geopolitical agents with strategic interests, means to serve them (including propaganda), expectations about reciprocal behavioral patterns (including proven ambitions and risk aversion dispositions) and limited rationality in processing the preferable outcome. And the other assumption is that one can assess responsibility wrt some pertinent and preeminent moral principle (where there might be potentially conflicting moral understanding of the situation) by agents capable of free and informed choices.
Now, from a strategic point of view, the idea that Putin was knowingly and recklessly provoked into a war by the West sounds plausible only if, on one side, we reason in terms of containment of the Russian military expansionism (not in terms of Russian national security concerns) but, on the other side, we overlook the nature of containment strategies to give more credit to fabricated national security concerns. Indeed the lack of a credible imminent threat from Ukraine to Russia (since Ukraine has neither nuclear weapons nor proved aggressive expansionist intentions) makes the West interference in Ukraine look as a provocation to Russia as much as putting rottweilers and cameras around a villa looks as a provocation to burglars. And since rottwailers and cameras usually function as a deterrent more effectively than their absence, we can reasonably predict that they should reduce not increase the likelihood of being burgled. So this alleged “provocation” is defensive and not offensive, preventive and not aggressive, and should reduce not increase the likelihood of an attack. On the other side, Putin proved to be a ruthless tyrant, very much inspired by the idea of making Russia great again, aggressive in foreign politics, admittedly averse to Ukraine national identity and independence from Russia. In fact he attempted at Ukrainian self-determination repeatedly at least since 2004, so a while before NATO membership became the new provocation, the simple manifestation of Ukrainian national self-determination was already an intolerable provocation. Therefore, if you add to that the disproportion of military capability between Russia and Ukraine, then you can understand that Putin constituted a real imminent threat to the Ukrainians and could have likely tried to impose his will against any Ukrainian resistance by military means even without Western interference, as he did in Chechnya. In other words, Putin was a threat to Ukrainian national security much much more seriously than Ukraine was to Russian national security. That’s why Ukrainians were and are looking for the western military support.
Moreover, actions and reactions between geopolitical agents are not a one to one correlation. Western interference in Ukraine at the expense of Russian expansionist ambitions was balanced by not admitting Ukraine into NATO (whose raison d’être was already in question in the West!) and preserving economic ties with Russia, which put together resulted in a sort of “carrot & stick” logic of containment. So, Putin wasn’t cornered into waging war against Ukraine in any strategically reasonable sense, even if the perceived threat from NATO was more serious than it actually was, as once again the Cuban missile crisis proves. Putin could have countered Western interference through sanctions or military agreements. Or through whatever “carrot & stick” strategy was compatible with his expansionist ambitions.
From a moral point of view, the moral principle of legitimate defense applies to Ukrainian case more seriously than it does to the Russian case. While the moral principle that one shouldn’t put in danger civilian’s life & well being nor increase such a danger applies under two reasonable conditions. The first condition is that it doesn’t conflict with the former principle, in other words, that the pursuit and civic duty of national self-defense against foreign actual or potential oppression doesn’t count as putting the population in danger or greater danger (otherwise self-defense against foreign oppressors wouldn’t even be possible). The second condition is that the likelihood of a certain dangerous event is known, but we can’t exclude some serious miscalculations on both sides: indeed the West was unprepared to the eventuality of a full war between Ukraine and Russia, also because the US and the EU had different perceptions of Putin’s threat. On the other hand, Putin too didn’t predict such an evolution of the war, especially the reaction of Ukrainians and the EU, yet if he expected to win so easily, it means that Putin couldn’t perceive any serious threat to Russian national security coming from the West or Ukraine (in fact the annexation of Crimea). Finally, while the West is a collective geopolitical agent whose aggregated response toward Russia is not fully orchestrated by a single tyrannic leader, so it’s hard to assess how its putative collective responsibility can be shared or distributed across individual western states, especially if there are different perceptions of the problem at hand and dispositions to deal with it, however we can not say the same for all the aggressive actions taken by Russia against Ukraine.
Conclusion, the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications.

> If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West. — neomac
Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options.

So what would be the other available options that the strong-minded enough would go for?

> America is taking great pains not to equp Ukraine with any weapons which have a range long enough to present a credible threat to Russia. For this exact reason.

Well then there are no national security concern for Russia after all. But Russia could yell "not yet". Couldn't they? So until Russia can ensure a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine the risk is still there, even grater than before if Ukrainian are looking for revenge. And if national security was Putin’s concern before, it should be even more so now.


>Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you? — neomac
Why not?

Because you seemed to claim that Putin acted out of legitimate national security concerns triggered by the West. But if Putin didn’t act out of legitimate national security concerns, then there were no legitimate concerns that the West triggered in Putin leading him to start a war against Ukraine.


>Well then what forms of attack are you claiming Russia should have no fear of?

Any conventional or non-conventional attack that could seriously threaten Russian national security. The point is that there were no provable aggressive intentions from Ukraine against Russian national security, with the plausible exception of Crimea, but only after its forced annexation by Putin: so in this case it’s Putin who once again provoked the Ukrainians by attempting at their national security and integrity, not vice versa.

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country. — neomac
So? That doesn't influence their likelihood of being met.

Again, I was questioning the claim that Putin acted out of national security concerns provoked by Western interference. Ukrainian Neo-nazism, Russian genocide by Ukrainians, Ukrainian biochemical or nuclear weapons, could make the national security concerns narrative look more plausible. His actual demands however betray once more that Putin acted out of his aggressive expansionist ambitions and not out of national security concerns.

> I didn't say it was 'required' did I? I said I had no reason to. Not liking cricket gives me no reason to play cricket. Is that the same as saying I'm 'required' to like cricket in order to play cricket?

No, my point is that there is a missing explanation! What is the logic link between being Russian or talk to Russians and having reasons to believe that the Russian aggression of Ukraine is immoral? You didn’t state it in that part I quoted and I didn’t see any. This answer of yours doesn’t compensate it either, actually it makes your position look even more pointless: you may have moral reasons to condemn Putin independently from your willingness, interest or liking to do it. And if we are not here to socialise but to discuss moral or strategic reasons about this war, who cares if you like cricket or dislike condemning Putin?!



> Only if I thought it would help. If I though it would cause more harm, how would that be the moral option?

After considering also your subsequent claims, I guess that your position would be less ambiguous if you stated not that you have no reason to morally condemn Putin but that you have moral reasons to not voice your moral condemnation of Putin’s actions even if they are immoral because this would hypocritically deflect attention from Western’s moral responsibilities in the genesis of this war, and would be taken to promote the immoral indirect interventionism of the West.



> recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral.

Any demand that a ruthless tyrant of a nation can make against another nation (e.g. as Hitler made against Poland or Kim Jong-un makes against South Korea) that goes unsatisfied can be seen by him as a provocation, so should we meet his demands whatever they are to avoid a war and so endangering millions of people's life and wellbeing? And who is to decide that? What if his success would make him stronger in terms of resources and determination to oppress other independent nations with further demands? Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? BTW do you consider the West immoral only when provoking a Russian ruthless tyrant or also when supporting his ruthless regime and ambitious geopolitical goals through economic ties?



> I assume it's because Putin is an immoral turd and would probably applaud them.

Well if Putin is such a moral turd then the moral responsibility of the West in the genesis or the continuation of this war doesn’t seem as morally questionable nor reckless as you claim. Not morally questionable, because an immoral turd doesn’t need any specific strategic provocation by the West to wreck Ukraine the way he’s doing in this war (the Ukrainian neo-nazi narrative could have worked just fine even in the absence of the NATO expansion narrative), except for playing it as a counter-propaganda against the West and its public opinion, to create division and so weaken Western governments’ resolve to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine. Nor reckless because the West may just have provided enough military support to Ukrainians to precisely withstand such eventuality, while reliably counting on its antibodies to neutralise Russian propaganda against the West. It’s worth noting that Ukrainians remember very well that Soviet Union under Stalin provoked a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians (and nobody was talking about Ukraine joining the NATO or the neo-nazi Ukrainian regime at that time), so the fact that Putin, ex-KGB, considers the collapse of Soviet Union “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and is deeply convinced that Ukrainians are not a distinct nation from Russians may sound quite threatening to them if they value their national identity. By consequence, Ukrainians may have a very good reason to fight by all means against the eventuality that such immoral turd has such a control over Ukraine that would enable him to repeat the Holodomor if he so pleases.
Therefore what you claim to be an immoral provocation by the West toward an immoral turd with strategically pertinent concerns about Russian national security, may be seen by Ukrainians with strategically pertinent concerns about Ukrainian national security and national identity preservation as a morally laudable support in preventing an otherwise unavoidable national capitulation to such an immoral turd.


> unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you? — neomac
Yes.

If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.


> An interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric).
[…]
How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place? — neomac
By serving as a base for much better equipped allies like the US.

Then Putin’s aggression will result in a total failure if he will not at least put a pro-Russian regime, because the West is already military equipping Ukraine even if Ukraine is not yet a NATO member and still has a putative "neo-nazi" regime, and will likely do it even more so once Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Not to mention the fact that all other eastern countries that feel threatened by the Russians, including Sweden and Finland, will increase their military equipment to fight against any aggression from Russia.


> why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns? — neomac
I'm not.

Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you?


> BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia? — neomac
Because his concern is not an attack on Russia. A land invasion of one's country is not the only thing that comes under the umbrella of a security concern, obviously.

What?! I talked about attacking Russia, not about land invasion on Russia.


> why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia? — neomac
Because those demands were more likely to be met.

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country.


> It was Yanukovych's attempts to create just such a relationship and the EU's refusal to countenance it that acted as one of the precipitators of this whole thing.

Yet Yanukovych’s fall didn’t compromise the economic ties between West and Russia as badly and probably long-lastingly as the decision of Putin to start and protract his aggression against Ukraine.

> all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns. — neomac
Not sure what the 'all' is doing there.

I meant that the lack of an actual immanent threat from a declared hostile country (as the US experienced during the Cuban missile crisis and dealt with without destroying Cuba or bring about a regime change), the aggressive geopolitical strategy beyond national security concerns (lobbying parties, trolling the mass media and hacking companies in the US and in the EU, and establishing a prominent military presence in the Middle East and in Africa), Putin’s official declarations against the current world order, and his being an immoral turd or ruthless tyrant make his national security concerns look less pertinent and more as a piece of propaganda to promote his ambitious geopolitical goals. Actually by acting as he did, he just compromised more and more rapidly Russian national security. Besides this war could seriously threaten his own regime too more than anything else has done so far.

I'm not Russian, nor talking to any Russians. Why would I morally condemn them? This is a discussion forum, not a socialising site. You're not 'getting to know me better' by my writing a little puff piece about all the things I like and dislike. — Isaac

To think strategically or morally about this war doesn’t require you to be Russian, nor to talk to Russians. So your question is grounded on a non-sequitur. Maybe what you are implying here is that your readiness to voice your moral condemnation of the Russian aggression is conditional on your capacity of affecting their choices. But that’s a very weak argument, indeed if you can not affect directly their choices (assumed you could just by being Russian or speaking to Russians), you could affect them indirectly by promoting western governments’ decision to support Ukrainian defense precisely because Russian aggression is morally wrong. Additionally it sounds contradictory wrt your further claim: this is a discussion forum, so we can discuss things just for the sake of discussing them.
Finally the purpose of my argument was not to socialise but to discuss in a philosophical forum about this war. And the point is precisely that your analysis about this war instead of proving to be more objective, it just proved your preferences.

Morally - People have implied (outright said in some cases) that 'the West' bears no responsibility for what's happening. I think that's morally wrong, so I oppose it. No one has said that Putin's is blameless, so there's no cause for me to write anything morally condemnatory about him. — Isaac

And what are the moral principles or the moral values which the West has infringed and therefore should bear responsibility for the Russian aggression of Ukraine? Besides if the West did something morally wrong, why isn’t the West being attacked by the Russians but Ukraine? Are you including Ukraine in the West?

Strategically - Again, no one has commented to the effect that we should not take America's strategic interests seriously, so there's no cause to write anything to the effect that we should. People have, however, treated Putin as if he were a psychopath with no legitimate security interests, I think that's wrong so I oppose it. — Isaac

That people are treating Putin as a psychopath should be welcome if it advances western strategic interests, unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you? Or do you believe that Western strategic interests are better served if people do not treat Putin as a psychopath?
And, even if you discuss for the sake of discussion, what do you mean by “legitimate security interests”? First of all if we reason in strategic terms, then no geopolitical agent has legitimacy beyond what its competitors are willing to accord, precisely because we have excluded morality as a primary source of legitimacy for strategic action. Besides any geopolitical agent can rationally decide to respect or infringe any agreements and sphere of influence if it proves effective in advancing as long as possible their strategic interests. In other words, even legal legitimacy based on international law is strategically irrelevant if it is not granted by a super-national overwhelming deterrence power.
Secondly, why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns? Just because Putin claimed so? I think that there are enough strong evidences that is matter of geopolitical influence not of national security per se for the following reasons:
How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place? And if the threat Putin perceives is about letting Ukraine have nuclear missiles in some far future, then why didn’t he demand an agreement analogous to the one between US and Soviet Union during the cuban missile crisis in the first place, instead of invading Ukraine? Besides no other eastern European country has nuclear missiles even if they are NATO members, so why having Ukraine inside NATO is a security threat for Russia as a nuclear power?
BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia?! Or why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia?!
Finally the military presence of Russia in the Middle East and in Africa has nothing to do with national security concerns, but with a world power struggle. And Putin’s strategic choices wrt all other eastern European countries [1] and western European countries (given the Russian lobbying in American and European politics) seem more aiming at becoming more politically influent in Europe then supporting national security concerns per se. Indeed economic ties would have been sufficient to preserve peaceful relations between EU and Russia, and things could have gone even more awesomely if Putin boosted democratisation and the rise of a middle class in Russia to the point of making Russia eligible to join NATO as he wanted. So all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns.



[1]
“The demands, spelled out by Moscow in full for the first time, were handed over to the US this week. They include a demand that Nato remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe, including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. Russia has also demanded that Nato rule out further expansion, including the accession of Ukraine into the alliance, and that it does not hold drills without previous agreement from Russia in Ukraine, eastern Europe, in Caucasus countries such as Georgia or in Central Asia.”. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)

All right, I’ll expand my argument with a premise. I see 2 distinct kinds of possible evaluations on the current Ukraine-Russia conflict: one is strategic and the other is moral. From a strategic point of view, what counts is how geopolitical agents can maximise benefits and opportunities while minimising costs and risks wrt actual/potential competitors, independently from any moral considerations. Indeed moral considerations are seen as instrumental in the form of propaganda or soft-power in winning consensus against geopolitical competitors. On the other side, from a moral point of view, an action can be good or bad without necessarily being strategically good or bad, yet strategic thinking should be constrained by moral considerations. Given this distinction one can argue that while letting Ukraine free to choose to join NATO was morally good because we value freedom and sovereignty, yet it was not strategically good because it challenged Russia to react in a way we weren’t neither ready nor capable to properly contain; or argue that the Western propaganda is hypocritical in trying to downplay the role of neo-nazi movements or even hide their indirect support to neo-nazi militia, yet this propaganda is strategically effective in winning the consensus of the western public opinion for supporting the Ukrainians.
The distinction I just pointed out is at play also in your (and not only your) comments when, on one side, you morally condemn the the Western hypocrisy (see the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.) and “warmongering” propaganda at the expenses of the Ukrainians. On the other side, you switch to strategic thinking mode when the subject is Putin, so the point is no longer to condemn the propaganda or the inhumanity of the Russian aggression of Ukraine, but to evaluate costs/benefits of a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia. And expect your interlocutors to do the same.
This dialectical approach is twice flawed:

• You are switching between two modes of thinking as you see fit, and you may take it as a sign of intellectual - if not moral - dishonesty when your interlocutors do not follow you on this or, worse, they do the opposite of you (i.e. they morally condemn Putin, while thinking strategically about Ukrainians and Westerners can do against Putin). But you didn’t provide any compelling reason why your way of switching between strategic and moral evaluations is more legitimate than alternative ways of doing it.
• This switching between moral and strategic thinking is also misleading you into thinking that your reasoning is more objective and detached than the one of your opponents when you reason strategically. But that’s not the case because: A. If you want to talk strategy then also propaganda is part of the game and must be judged accordingly for its effectiveness, no matter how much you feel morally above any propaganda. Indeed, from a strategic point of view any moral claim, can be exploited for achieving non-moral goals: e.g. your view too is or can be instrumental to the Russian propaganda! B. You are limiting the scope of your strategic analysis to how much or how likely the Ukrainians can lose (e.g. in terms of human lives or political/territorial integrity) in this war as if this is all that matters. This might be true from a moral point of view (even if I have difficulties to understand how this can match the interest of humanity at large), or from Ukrainians point of view (but they do not seem to think like you), anyway that is not certainly so from a strategic point of view at large because what is at stake in this war goes beyond Ukraine’s fate and its outcome can destabilise the world order in ways that no other war after the end of cold war has done.

Worth wile to see. — ssu

thanks for sharing this video, it was very instructive!

I expect he'll end up getting more than what he asked for before the war. And a real danger is the longer it goes on, the more he may demand. — Baden

A real danger? You keep asking for evidences (which already seems to clash with the idea that we are living in a news environment poisoned by propaganda from any side) what evidences do you have to support the idea that the longer it goes on, the more Putin may demand? I think we have more evidences to the contrary. Indeed he wanted to denazify Ukraine in the first place , which also implied a regime change, along with having Ukraine forever outside Nato, securing Crimea annexation, and keeping the independents Ukrainian regions independent. Now he is not talking of denazification or regime change on the negotiation table.

If some Ukrainians (they are not, as I keep having to repeat, some kind of homogenised entity, they are 40 million diverse people), if some Ukrainians ask for help in the form of military aid, then our governments (and us in our role as their mandate) have to decide whether it is in the best interests of humanity at large to give such aid. It is totally up to us to decide what's best for them, that's the nature of the power relationship. We have the weapons they need, so we must decide whether what they're asking for is in their (and other people's) best interests. — Isaac

I’m wondering if we should not think of 40M Ukrainians to be some kind of homogenised entity, all the more it’s true for ~8 billion of currently living people that constitute (still in small part) humanity at large, what makes you think we are even capable to decide what it is in the best interests of humanity at large?! In any case your dialectic approach looks to me deeply flawed mainly for the following reasons: you as many other contributors here want to keep the privileged moral position to denounce ("critically think" about) the hypocrisies of the West, its propaganda machine and showcase your pity for the Ukrainian population’s fate while accusing your opponents of “cheerleading” the Ukrainians against the Russians (and this position indeed is not a strategic stand wrt a geopolitical power struggle), and then expect from your opponents a rational and detached strategic analysis (assuming anybody here is as competent and reliably informed as strategic analysts who shape our government’s choices are) based on evidences which you may claim are compromised by propaganda if coming from western mainstream media, to understand Putin’s aggression of Ukraine, Putin’s demands and the likely evolution of this war to convince you that the best options for Ukrainians or “some” Ukrainians (and not humanity at large) is to accept Putin’s demands as soon as possible to end this war (which I doubt it’s a strategic objective for the Ukrainians or “some” Ukrainians or other indirectly involved parties who support Ukrainians).

all I care if you can explain to me how this war can be ended without conceding to at least some of the Russian demands. — Baden

Who knows? Maybe it will end as the Afghan wars with the Soviet Union first and with the US later ended. But most importantly, since making concessions to Putin's demands will have strategic consequences for the economic and military security of all players around the world, and not just for Ukraine, one can not possibly think that what is at stake is just Putin's demands to end this war. As long as the Ukrainian feel like fighting against the Russian oppression, whoever might feel strategically threatened by Russia and the imperial ambitions of authoritarian regimes around the globe now or in the near future can not do other than side with the Ukrainians one way or the other, forced by the same logic that Putin claimed to justify his attack against Ukraine and fend off the putative threat of having the NATO at their doorstep. And BTW Russian representatives are not stopping to spread their military threats against the West beyond what's happening in Ukraine: they clearly want the world to take the Ukrainian case as an example of the Russian Superpower status and so influence whatever "new world order" may come with it.

so it's like we are trading with a terrorist. Are concessions the best strategy to deal with terrorists?