While the Iranians (I mean ordinary people):
"Take that Palestinian flag and shove it up your A**!"
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202310090589

Here Jews protest against Netanyahu:


https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protest-outside-defense-ministry-grows-with-calls-for-netanyahu-to-resign/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/16/ifnotnow-jewish-voice-for-peace-protest-groups-white-house-biden
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/more-than-10-000-american-jews-express-solidarity-with-israel-at-rally-in-front-of-un/0000018b-1c9e-d08b-adef-1ffe20850000
https://www.tbsnews.net/world/thousands-israelis-protest-against-netanyahu-ahead-election-219646

Here Arabs (Palestinians) protest against Hamas:

















"Double standard" anybody?

Within the framing of his realpolitik approach, I think the argument works. — Echarmion

I doubt that his views about Ukraine can be easily located within the framing of his realpolitik approach which he called "offensive realism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism). And there are some Mearsheimer's theory's explicit tenets that are worth reminding to support my skepticism about Mearsheimer's recent views about Ukraine:
1. Great powers are security maximizers => so isolationism must no be expected as the most likely behavior from great powers.
2. States can never be certain of the intentions of other states => so no matter how many declarations and promises are made, great powers will not fully trust each others.
3. Geopolitics is not about moral condemnation but about understanding how states actually behave as a function of security dilemmas and actual capabilities => so "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault" and obsessing over "Russia's threat perception" (as if it is all that matters) may sound very misleading if we are talking geopolitics, especially within the realist framework.

Edit: I would guess everyone here has seen at least one of Mearsheimer's talks. I don't think the disagreement is about the basic analysis of the situation so much as about what the Russian leadership actually thinks and intends. — Echarmion

Don't worry they are going to re-post Mearsheimer's gospel again. The problem is that they are reading just the parts (skipping others, as much as Mearsheimer does) that are convenient to construe a strong moral case against the US, which plays in favor of Russia. And they are fine with that.

Is there anything that has been said in this thread which would make you exclaim: "I exactly see how this helps for this situation here"? — neomac


Nope.

But there is the issue of relevance to the ongoing issue, talking about say, Hezbollah potentially getting involved or Israel proceeding with the ground invasion raises more relevant and immediate moral issues than taking about a better moral situation. At least, that's how I see the issue, others may not see it that way — Manuel

.

Unless it’s still a good occasion to question convictions about “more relevant and immediate moral issues”, right?

Why aren't a war in Israel or in Ukraine a good occasion to do so? — neomac


I believe each of us is sincerely attempting to deal with complex moral issues. — Manuel

If the moral issues are so complex, I would expect more nuanced views on assessing evil and blame. Especially in a philosophy forum.
That’s not what I read, especially from the moderators of this philosophy forum.

For many, in this thread, "acting on moral intuitions" seems nothing more than broadcasting moral condemnations and blame attributions AS IF thinking that a peaceful foundation of nations is morally desirable, then it must absolutely be also possible. What if it is not possible as it seems it never ever was? — neomac


Well, at least where I live, there is nothing I can do to help alleviate the situation - there aren't even protests here, we have other issues so the Gaza situation does not arise, outside of headlines.

It's a topic I've followed closely since college, so it is somewhat more impactful to me than another conflict, due to time investment. A lot of this is also venting frustration, which is not necessarily bad. — Manuel

It can be bad though if it can be instrumental to politicians in a malign way. And that’s especially the case for protests since they do not seem the bestest occasion to question our deepest moral convictions nor to show nuances on complex moral issues. Unlike a philosophy forum, I dare to shamelessly suggest. Inshallah.

Yes the guru spoke.

It seems to me, and I suspect others here feel the same, that to call Putin's action "very reactive" is essentially absolving him of a significant share of blame. That, imho, is unacceptable. — Echarmion

Or , worse, putting most of the blame on the US while discounting others parties' influence in shaping the relevant events and their perception (including Ukraine and EU).

I don't exactly see how this helps for this situation here. E — Manuel

Is there anything that has been said in this thread which would make you exclaim: "I exactly see how this helps for this situation here"?

Should we question our deepest held moral convictions? I think so, on occasion it is good to do so. — Manuel

Why aren't a war in Israel or in Ukraine a good occasion to do so?

Maybe not always, otherwise we wouldn't act on moral intuitions. — Manuel

For many, in this thread, "acting on moral intuitions" seems nothing more than broadcasting moral condemnations and blame attributions AS IF thinking that a peaceful foundation of nations is morally desirable, then it must absolutely be also possible. What if it is not possible as it seems it never ever happened?

I can't help you more than this.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion.

It really is total barbarism. — Manuel

But if all modern nations are not founded by peaceful means (are there ancient nations? were they founded peacefully?), and yet our most deepest and most beautifullest moral convictions make us believe a peaceful foundation of nations IS INDEED ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE (possible like Santa Claus?), shouldn't we maybe become a little tiny micro femto bit skeptical about our most profoundest and most amazingest moral convictions? Would it be so abso-fucking-lutely crazy, Waaahnsinn, to start doubting about our so most heartfeltest and most spectacularest moral convictions?

What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None. — Mikie

What was the imminent threat to Russia in 2008 from NATO needing to expand to Russian borders? None. You are unable to argue why one needs to reason from Russia's perspective to attribute blame or most of the blame to the US. You didn't even explain why in 2023 Ukraine is not part of NATO yet if the US gives orders to its allies and wanted Ukraine inside NATO so badly since 2008, since ever.

And what Putin said at Bucharest:

if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7 — Mikie

LOL. Let's enjoy Putin's "opposite sentiment" (apparently all that must matter to the universe, especially to prove that the US is the Great Satan beyond any reasonable doubt, and let's call it - as it deserves - "pure logic"):


“This compromise, which was eventually adopted by all member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, did not suit Georgia, Ukraine, or Russia. Saakashvili was indignant. But even more indignant was Vladimir Putin, who arrived in Bucharest on the last day of the summit, when the decision not to extend the MAP had already been made. All the same, he was furious that NATO was still keeping Georgia and Ukraine hanging on by approving the prospect of future membership.
According to witnesses, at a meeting behind closed doors Putin flew into a rage on the topic of Ukraine. “Ukraine is not even a country,” he told Bush. “Part of it lies in Eastern Europe, and the other, more significant part was given by us as a gift!” He finished his short speech with these words: “If Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.”
Few paid attention to Putin’s warning, since all were focused on the smoldering tensions between Moscow and Tbilisi. The idea of conflict breaking out between Russia and Ukraine seemed preposterous. Besides, Putin only had a month left in his term. The inauguration of the new president, Dmitry Medvedev, was scheduled for May 7”.

Source: "All the Kremlin's Men" by Mikhail Zygar

Putin blames failure of US policy for Mideast conflict, Russia says talking to both sides:
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-violence-israel-palestine-shows-us-failure-middle-east-2023-10-10/

Hamas atrocities are extensively covered, but not one headline piece discussing the murderous rhetoric and actions from the Israeli government? — Echarmion

It doesn't seam to me:
https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-10/israel-hamas-war-netanyahu-mideast-policies
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/opinion/israel-hamas-.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/11/netanyahu-populism-weakened-israeli-security/

Maybe I was not clear — Jabberwock

You were clear. Abundantly.

Because I already proved why it is not, but I haven't seen any from your side. — javi2541997

I gave you some evidences for MY assessment:
Dude, it’s not that difficult to fetch stats about Russia on the Internet.
And overall Russia doesn’t stand a chance:
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/civil-liberties-index-eiu
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/unemployment_rate/
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/investing/currencies/top-10-strongest-currencies-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://ocindex.net/2021/rankings/?y=2023&f=rankings&view=List
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/
https://rankedex.com/society-rankings/education-index
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cleanest-countries-in-the-world
https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate
https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php?country=fr
Not to mention the possibility for avg Westerners to move and migrate for economic opportunities more easily within the West.
And I don't care if you do not trust my sources.

And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. — neomac

OK, I say the same regarding my evidences. — javi2541997

You are attributing to me beliefs, questions and claims that evidently do not correspond to what I wrote:
“Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you”
“You asked me for evidence and metrics on the Russian middle-class”
“you said that they are not reliable to you”
“you say that you want evidences in how it is to live in Russia”
“you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia”
“Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?”
I didn't do the same with you.

For some reasons, this emerged during our debate, and then I did my best at showing data. — javi2541997

But your “evidences of why Moscow or Saint Petersburg can be nice cities to live in” is not pertinent to answer the question I asked because I asked about your preference between the AVG standard of life in the whole fucking country of Russia compared to the AVG standard of life in a whole fucking European country, like Spain.

I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it — neomac


Hmmm...

I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World — neomac

.

And my objections weren’t about the evidences — neomac


Ah, if your objections weren't about evidence, why do you reject them all? — javi2541997

I told you: “since you were trying to answer my question by providing some evidences, I limited myself to question their pertinence.”
Now it’s you who seemingly has a hard time to understand the distinction between “pertinence” and “accuracy”, and despite the repeated clarifications.

Again, your arguments against my comments are twisted. I am pretty aware of what you were looking for when you started debating with me. I even answered you more than one time that I would rather live in an Eastern nation than a Western one, and I admitted that an Ukrainian has more right to live in the EU than me, frankly. To argue why I say those things, I provided reliable data along with my comments. Yet, you decided to refuse to accept them. As I said, that's your problem with not accepting that Russia is an important and likeable country, not mine. — javi2541997

No it’s you who is twisting things. I asked you one question and expected a pertinent answer. If I ask you: “what time is it?” and your answer is “In Australia is summer”, your answer however true is not pertinent, no matter how many evidences you bring to support the claim “In Australia is summer”. And it’s not my question that needs to be revised to fit your answer, it’s your answer that needs to be revised to fit my question.

On the other hand, the example of Chinese pizzerias is good. Nice try. But you should apply to yourself as well, because you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia. I ask you now then: Would you live in Bucharest or Jaén? Don't say that in this part of the globe, life standards are better per se and, because you visited some Western cities, the rest are exactly as you are thinking about. — javi2541997

That’s false, I didn’t say anywhere nor give for granted that “every Western city is more suitable than Russia” indeed you can not quote me saying it. And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. I simply asked you to compare avg standard of life between Western countries and Russia. At best you can question or ask me why it is relevant to me to assess AVG standards of life by country. But if you intend to sensibly answer my question as it is, then I’m obviously expecting a pertinent answer from you, that’s all. And if you fail to provide a pertinent answer, I’m free to signal it as such.

I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do? — neomac


This is hilarious.

1. Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?
2. Again, I am working pro bono to help you to reach out the truth. — javi2541997

1. I didn’t write anywhere “a Russian representative is necessarily a liar”. Again, I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand.
2. It was a sarcastic joke.


Anyways we are going off topic, here. Your misunderstanding of my question is completely marginal to the subject of this thread and seeing you embarrass yourself again is getting boring. If you understood the clarifications I’ve given to you in this post, good for you. If you didn’t, I’ll remember you in my prayers. If I’ll remember to convert before dying, obviously.

Next, since your answers weren’t focused on what I was asking, I gave you more clarifications as follows — neomac


But I see a bit of contradiction in your arguments, mate. Firstly, you say that you want evidences in how it is to live in Russia, not just for tourism. I showed you some evidence which you didn't like. Later on, you also said that you like Western countries because you travelled around them... That's contradictory. — javi2541997

Dude, this exchange is getting surreal. Or surrealistic.
Do you wear long pointy upward moustache by any chance?

I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it, and I even made it clear when I wrote the following:

“Do you prefer X or Y?” and “give me the reasons why you prefer X over Y?” are two different questions. I just asked you the first — neomac

So I didn’t ask you for evidences. It’s you by your own initiative to throw evidences at me with the following preamble:

Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you — javi2541997

And my objections weren’t about the evidences per se nor because I needed evidences, but since you were trying to answer my question by providing some evidences, I limited myself to question their pertinence.
It’s as if I’m asking you: “do you prefer to eat a pizza in an Italian pizzeria or in a Chinese pizzeria?”
And you answered:
- I know people who enjoyed Chinese restaurants.
- I would give a chance one day to try a Chinese restaurant.
- People can eat in a Chinese restaurant and be happy.
- Chinese restaurants are particularly trendy in China, and demand for it will grow in the next years.
- You can find the best Chinese restaurants in Beijing
- 100 millions of Chinese restaurants in Beijing. With a nice view on the Yellow river.
- 60% of the people in China can afford to eat in a Chinese restaurant.
- In China restaurants can serve you a meal in 3 seconds.
I hope you understand that no matter how true these claims are, none of these evidences are sensibly pertinent to answer my question “do you prefer to eat a pizza in an Italian pizzeria or in a Chinese pizzeria?”. Because the question is about pizzerias and not whatever restaurant one can find in China, and about comparing Italian pizzeria vs Chinese pizzeria, not about Chinese pizzerias per se or the pizzerias in Beijing.

Well it doesn’t work. You should try to help me see the truth by paying me instead. But I’m very expensive (and do not accept rubles, moy drug). — neomac


Well, you just accept that you are open to accepting bribes. Ha! Don't bother if a Russian politician does it as well. This is all that I have in my wallet. Take it or leave it! — javi2541997

I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do?

Winter is coming. Destabilizing the supply of gas in the Baltic as much as from the Middle-East to Western countries, has its benefits for Putin, I guess.

BTW, what would Putin, the "Russian security concerns" whiner, suggest to address Israeli security concerns?

But, as much as I can remember, our debate didn't start because of likes or preferences. You asked me for evidence and metrics on the Russian middle-class, and I have provided them using both Western and 'Pro-Russia' sources. Then, you said that they are not reliable to you, something that I must not complain about because I do not trust Western institutions either. You are not admitting it, but I feel that you ended up in the conclusion that Russia is a cool place in objective terms. Speaking subjectively, maybe it is not likeable for some people, including you, and I respect your position. If you think that the world governed by Western institutions is better, cool. But stop believing in false premises about Russia. — javi2541997

Then your memory is fooling you.

As far as I’m concerned the following is the relevant starting point:

I don’t love the Western world. I simply prefer to live as an avg Westerner than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You? — neomac

Next, since your answers weren’t focused on what I was asking, I gave you more clarifications as follows:

I don’t talk about tourism, I don’t talk about giving a chance. I talk about living your life as an avg person in Western countries vs in one of those authoritarian countries. Which one do you personally prefer? — neomac

Again, I’m not talking about privileged people, nor about the ability to live (happily or unhappily) in a country, nor about OTHER people, I’m asking you if YOU would prefer to live as an AVG person in China, Russia, Iran or as an AVG person in a Western country, let’s say, Spain, WHATEVER YOUR understanding of life in these countries is and whatever parameters YOU find relevant to assess life standards. — neomac

Next, YOU started throwing at me stats by yourself because, at his point, I didn’t ask you for evidence and metrics yet. So much so that you wrote all by yourself as follows:

Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you — javi2541997

But I was unimpressed because you offered mostly non-AVG aggregated metrics and trivia highlights which can objectively be misleading to assess AVG standard of life in Russia or in Moscow, EVEN IF THEY ARE ACCURATE (so the objection didn’t concern their reliability of your stats per se, but their relevance wrt what I was asking). And aggregated stats about Moscow can not be taken as representative of the AVG standard of life in the entire Russia. Most importantly, I didn’t ask you to compare cities (like Moscow vs Melilla), I asked you to express your preference as a function of AVG standards of life between states (e.g. Russa vs Spain), so I objected:

As far as I’m concerned, your data do not concern the AVG Russian life standards, I even doubt they are suitable metrics to asses the AVG life standards in Moscow. — neomac

----

I do not waste my time because I am helping you to see the truth. :smile: — javi2541997

Well it doesn’t work. You should try to help me see the truth by paying me instead. But I’m very expensive (and do not accept rubles, moy drug).

If European countries prefer to preserve or want to join American-led/supervised Western institutions like EU/NATO than it means they find such institutions as less oppressive than remaining exposed to the influence of other hegemons (like Russia or China). — neomac


I partially agree with some of these points and disagree at the same time.

There is a big debate about whether the EU countries established the European Union freely, or whether it was an attempt to not depend on the two blocks: not the USA and Russia (the Soviet Union back then). Yet, it is true that European institution ended up being more linked with Washington and not with Russia. I still see it as a notorious mistake. I don't attempt to ignore the USA because it is impossible, but I wish they had had a more neutral position, and don't perceive Russia as an enemy. I see this objective far more than ever, and I feel that the White House is satisfied with this.

On the other hand, there are some nations which were pushed to join those American institutions. One example is Spain. We had to join NATO to show that we were your friends, and then get accepted by the European Union. There was a big disappointment amongst the citizens because most of us were against NATO back in the day. You can check this out on the Internet if you want to, but I don't want to bother you with my irrelevant country — javi2541997

.

My premise still holds, states are expected to rule over a certain territory and pursue national interest with allies or against competitors in the international arena. Allies and competitors will exercise peer-pressure no matter how powerful a country is. But powerful countries will always exercise the greatest pressure, though. So politicians’ choices are always conditional on given power relations, whatever one’s wishes are. So even “pushing” needs to be qualified more carefully: there are “sticks” and “carrots”, so the proportion of these factors can make the difference. And, again, the difference must be taken in prospective and comparative terms. That’s what it means to me to be realistic when talking politics. I find European populist movements far from being realistic and definitely useful idiots for hostile foreign powers.
And it’s totally false to claim that Russia was perceived as an “enemy” by American administrations (despite the warning of the American analysts of the Russian threat). America financed Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union, returned the nuclear arsenal to Russia from Ukraine, opened the Western market to Russia (when USSR was the enemy, there was no globalization) and gave a free pass to Russia in Middle East and Africa when Islamist terrorism was perceived as the imminent enemy. Meanwhile Russia grew hostile to the West because still pursuing hegemonic ambitions not welfare or wellbeing of its people (the same story with Iran and China), while the American reputation was severely stained by the 2 infamous adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. And once the Americans realised that their globalization was nurturing hegemonic competitors and warned the EU, the EU underestimated the American security concerns. And still the response of the West was hesitant toward Russia, even after the invasion of Crimea. The Americans were still distracted by domestic issues (thanks also to Russia’s meddling) and China, while the EU was still needy of cheap Russian oil and gas and the Chinese market. So Russia got emboldened and moved on to take a larger piece of the cake. Not fear but opportunity pushed Russia into this war. And if America didn’t react as it reacted (and notice that its reaction is still softer than one might expect), the king would be perceived as naked. So here we are.

I read your link. But, again, my question was about comparing AVG in the West with AVG in Russia according to relevant metrics. — neomac


Well, I understand why it is so difficult to persuade you. If you do not give a chance to my evidence or metrics, it will be very complex to make your eyes open. There are some metrics which come from Western institutions or magazines, such as 'The Economist'. Furthermore, since the war started, it is complex to find out reliable information about Russia's reality because the Western media manipulates us and the Kremlin blocks the most information they can. But fortunately, there are some premises that we can consider as true:

1. Russia is a rich and developed country but with a few problems.

2. More than 50 % of Russians live in the Middle-class

3. Then, Russia is a country with high-quality living standards, but they must face some issues as every nation does.

Furthermore, even the International Monetary Fund - a great biassed Western institution - says that the purchasing power parity will keep rising in Russia in the following years: $36,135.834 (2024); $37,273.366 (2025), etc. Do you still think that the average family in Russia lives or will live badly? Is the IMF a reliable source for you?
Poverty line: 12.10% in 2020. This means that more than 85 % - the middle-class obviously - of Russians live well. More metrics from a Western lover institution: The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/home — javi2541997

You waste your energies because you do not understand what I’m asking nor why. If historical circumstances are such that I have to chose between two hegemons, I will chose the hegemon which lets me enjoy the most favourable ratio of carrots/sticks to MY taste, not to YOUR taste. The avg ratio of carrots/sticks in Russia (not to mention the countries under its direct hegemonic influence like Belarus) until now looks still undoubtedly shitty compared to the ratio of of carrots/sticks Western countries get under the US hegemony. I gave you the metrics relevant to me to measure the ratio carrots/sticks. And again stats are not the whole story.

I only argued that the US is a less oppressive hegemon to the West than Russia was for centuries toward the people it submitted and can still be given how they are treating the Ukrainians or Georgian or Belarusian, and the Russians themselves. — neomac


I think you should define 'oppression' if you want me to agree with you. If you truly think that Russia has been more oppressive than the US in the last centuries, we have a big issue here because you are away from reality itself. — javi2541997

As a starting point, I take “oppression” as an expression of political averse preference (which admits degrees and possible revision of course) by an individual or collective subject toward hegemonic influence wrt available alternatives. I say "starting point" because one can also make further distinctions: popular or elite, actual or potential, economic or military, compensation-based or comparatively-based, etc.
If ex Warsaw pact countries and ex Soviet Republics prefer to join the West (like EU and NATO) instead of remaining under Russian sphere of influence, it likely means that these countries likely perceive EU and NATO as less oppressive than joining Russian sphere of influence.
If Vietnam prefers to military/economically ally with the US instead of China, then it means that Vietnam finds the US less oppressive than China.
If European countries prefer to preserve or want to join American-led/supervised Western institutions like EU/NATO, then it means they find such institutions as less oppressive than remaining exposed to the influence of other hegemons (like Russia or China).

Some countries from those regions not all. East Europe like Poland, Baltic Countries and Ukraine? Asia like Vietnam, Japan and South Korea? — neomac


Tell how Russia treats countries such as South Korea or Vietnam oppressively, because they are so far away from their geopolitical ambitions. I am seeing you coming, and maybe you would say: Don't you remember how Soviet Russia supported Vietnam? And why not, mate? They are free to back up countries with similar ideologies. They also support Syria for the Baaz socialist party. — javi2541997

South Korea or Vietnam are more concerned by China than by Russia. So in their case I would say they feel the US to be a less oppressive hegemon than China.
Yet since the US is competing also with Russia then of course South Korea or Vietnam will likely act in line with what their hegemon has chosen to do against Russia. Do ut des.

Yes that’s exactly what non-oppressive hegemons are expected to do, buy popular consensus (not just oligarchy’s consensus) through shared rules, business agreements, sharing technologies, granting political and civil rights, communicate a peaceful and cooperative narrative between allies through words, acts and cultural exchanges. But OBVIOUSLY not to the extent of compromising their power advantage against potential/actual rivals. — neomac


Ha! ha! This one made me laugh :lol: — javi2541997

Laughing is not an argument, though. On the other side, risus abundat in ore stultorum.

OK now you may have given me an answer from your point of view, not mine though. I most certainly keep in mind that Russia is suffering a financial block from the West, since network of allies and enemies is also what can determine AVG standard of life of a country. — neomac


Mate, I am providing you with reliable information on the middle-class of Russia, but I feel that you do not believe in the metrics, or you just don't open the links I have shared with you. OK, don't worry that much, I will open the link and share the information and proven evidence in this thread. Nonetheless, keep in mind that if you do not believe in these metrics, it is your problem, not Russia's.

The HSE Centre for Studies of Income and Living Standards studied the dynamics of the middle class and its behaviour with regard to paid services. The study was based on data drawn from the HSE Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE) for the years 2000 to 2017, and the results were presented at the 20th April International Academic Conference hosted by HSE.

The HSE researchers applied three criteria for their study:

Material well-being;
Social and professional status;
Self-identification.

The middle class is identified according to the following factors: income, savings, property (durable goods), real estate and assets typical of villagers (land and farming revenue).

Although the overall middle class grew continually from 2000 until 2015 and levelled off only in the lead-up to 2017, the generalized middle class continued to expand right up until 2017.

The middle class is heterogeneous and includes several different groups:

The core. This includes those who satisfy all three of the above-listed criteria.

The semi-core. Those who satisfy two of the three criteria.

The periphery. Those who satisfy only one of the criteria.

The generalized middle class consists of those households belonging to the core and semi-core, while the overall middle class also includes those in the periphery.

Happy now? https://iq.hse.ru/en/news/276242940.html#:~:text=Russia%E2%80%99s%20Middle%20Class%201%20Between%20the%20rich%20and,for%20its%20active%20use%20of%20paid%20services.%20 — javi2541997

I read your link. But, again, my question was about comparing AVG in the West with AVG in Russia according to relevant metrics. That link at best shows the metrics and the source you care. My previous answer showed the metrics and the source I care. With an addendum: the direct experience or feedback I got from acquaintances from countries like Russia, Iran and China.
And when it's matter of my preference, of course it's my problem not Russia's.

Dude, I’m not here, in this philosophy forum, because I care for my family, my country, the West, the Ukrainians, Humanity. Or to convince anonymous nobodies from the internet about my beliefs. I’m here EXCLUSIVELY because I care about myself and the way I think. I’m here EXCLUSIVELY to clarify my own ideas to myself through the intellectual challenges other pose, especially if they are interested to do the same for themselves. In other words, our exchange is to me just an intellectual and self-targeted exercise. Like brushing teeth or go jogging. To do that I just need arguments, hopefully as compelling as possible.

But I’m pro-West and find all these countries more oppressive powers than the US so I support policies and a stance aiming at suppressing or containing the threat coming from these countries. — neomac


Although I understand what you are defending with arguments, here is when I disagree with you. Are you really sure that the USA is a lesser threat to the world?
Latin America, Asia, Africa and East Europe would disagree with you. It is obvious that the White House no longer bombs citizens and cities, but the ambitions remain in a more subtle way: imposing Capitalism worldwide, the rule of the Dollar, your military headquarters being settled worldwide (we have two!), Hollywood culture..., the homogeneous plan of speaking English worldwide, etc. If you do not consider those as a threat… — javi2541997

I never argued that the US is a lesser threat to the World. I only argued that the US is a less oppressive hegemon to the West than Russia was for centuries toward the people it submitted and can still be given how they are treating the Ukrainians or Georgian or Belarusian, and the Russians themselves.
The US is a great threat to countries with rival hegemonic ambitions like Russia and China, and yet the US wasn’t hostile toward them during the post Cold War era of globalization. Indeed that’s how Russia and China got rich, influential and bold. Russia and China didn’t use their wealth to increase AVG standard of life to the level of Western countries, they used it to strengthen their authoritarian regime, increase hegemonic influence and anti-Western narratives abroad. And that doesn’t sound promising even for the population of countries whose government seek partnership with Russia and China, like the Iranians. I sympathise with the Iranians not with the Russians.

Latin America, Asia, Africa and East Europe would disagree with you. — javi2541997

Some countries from those regions not all. East Europe like Poland, Baltic Countries and Ukraine? Asia like Vietnam, Japan and South Korea?

It is obvious that the White House no longer bombs citizens and cities, but the ambitions remain in a more subtle way: imposing Capitalism worldwide, the rule of the Dollar, your military headquarters being settled worldwide (we have two!), Hollywood culture..., the homogeneous plan of speaking English worldwide, etc. If you do not consider those as a threat… — javi2541997

Yes that’s exactly what non-oppressive hegemons are expected to do, buy popular consensus (not just oligarchy’s consensus) through shared rules, business agreements, sharing technologies, granting political and civil rights, communicate a peaceful and cooperative narrative between allies through words, acts and cultural exchanges. But OBVIOUSLY not to the extent of compromising their power advantage against potential/actual rivals. That makes perfect sense to me, if we are expecting more than this we are likely delusional and if we want more than this for us, we must be ready to pay the consequences, which for Europeans likely means moving the hegemonic conflict, political and military, from the margin of Europe, in the heart of Europe. And if the US loses, Russia will be the hegemon with a greater chance of exploitative/abusive behaviour than the US, given that Russia has more to get than to offer to Europeans and reasons to humiliate the West as a triumphant retaliation.

Still not enough, you have to compare the AVG living standards between Russia and the West. — neomac


OK. I will not give up on my beliefs, so here is the comparative between Russia and your lovely 'Western family'

Russia: GDP Increase $4.771 trillion
• Per capita Increase $33,263
Gini (2020) Positive 36.0
HDI (2021) Increase 0.822 very high.

Spain: GDP $2.36 trillion
• Per capita Increase $31,223
Gini (2021) Positive decrease 33.0[9]
HDI (2021) Increase 0.905

Greece: GDP $418.113 billion
Per Capita $22,595
Gini (2022) Positive decrease 31.4[7]
HDI Increase 0.887.

Are you happy now? And keep in mind that Russia is suffering an unfair financial block from the West. Imagine their development without our weird behaviour in Europe just to make the White House happy. — javi2541997

OK now you may have given me an answer from your point of view, not mine though. I most certainly keep in mind that Russia is suffering a financial block from the West, since network of allies and enemies is also what can determine AVG standard of life of a country.

Dude, it’s not that difficult to fetch stats about Russia on the Internet. — neomac


I don't believe those statistics. They are made by Western universities and foundations. They have zero relevance to me. — javi2541997

Whatever makes you happy.

China, Iran and North Korea are indirectly supporting Russia and its most ambitious stated goal to establish a new World Order alternative to the Western-led World Order, also through this war. — neomac

A fully understandable objective, don't you think? They are free to attempt to get a different type of world. Who are we to stop them? Maybe this is where the conflict could arise. The continuous obsession with implementing how the nations should be and live. — javi2541997

It’s not an obsession. It’s exactly what states are expected to do: rule over a certain territory and pursue national interest with allies or against competitors in the international arena. Allies and competitors will exercise peer-pressure no matter how powerful a country is. Powerful countries will always exercise the greatest pressure, though. As already argued many times Russia too has hegemonic ambitions in Ukraine which, in this case, means imposing by brute force how Ukraine should be and live.
Besides Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are countries with great competitive interests between them too, despite their conjoint effort to counter-balance the hegemon, perceived now as weak. To that extant I find their objective understandable. But I’m pro-West and find all these countries more oppressive powers than the US so I support policies and a stance aiming at suppressing or containing the threat coming from these countries.

Indeed I talked about AVG standard of life, meaning that it is important to see how public and private resources and services are distributed over the population, how large is the middle class, how easy it is to move from lower classes to higher, etc. — neomac


OK, I see you like the digits I showed, so I will continue to use others as well - they are reliable, don't be shy to accept them - :

Russia: In 2022, the Economist calculated that Russia did graduate into the category of high-income economies by 2022, if counted at purchasing power parity rather than the exchange rate, but could fall below the threshold because of invasion of Ukraine. In December 2022 in a study an economist at the Bank of Russia’s Research and Forecasting Department, finds that the import dependence of the Russian economy is relatively low, does not exceed the median for other countries and the share of imports in most industries is lower than in other countries. The key explanation for this could be the low involvement of the Russian economy in global value supply chains and its focus on production of raw materials. However, 60% of Russia’s imports come from the countries that have announced sanctions against Russia. Russia's expenditure on education has grown from 2.7% of the GDP in 2005 to 4.7% in 2018 but remains below the OECD average of 4.9% A 2015 estimate by the United States Central Intelligence Agency puts the literacy rate in Russia at 99.7% (99.7% for men, 99.6% for women). The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that Russia is fulfilling 86.8% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to education, based on its level of income. Russia 1
A member of the middle class is defined as someone who considers themselves ‘above average’ on two or more of the indices.

By this measure, almost 50.8% of all Russian families belonged to the middle class, up from 41.8% in 2000. Check this out!!! https://iq.hse.ru/en/news/276242940.html#:~:text=Russia%E2%80%99s%20Middle%20Class%201%20Between%20the%20rich%20and,for%20its%20active%20use%20of%20paid%20services.%20 — javi2541997

Still not enough, you have to compare the AVG living standards between Russia and the West.

I even doubt they are suitable metrics to asses the AVG life standards in Moscow. — neomac


I thought you would not like - or accept - the metrics of Moscow's living standards and economics, even though I made a big effort to share them with you...

That's why I get bothered. Why don't you believe in information related to Russia? — javi2541997

Dude, it’s not that difficult to fetch stats about Russia on the Internet.
And overall Russia doesn’t stand a chance:
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/civil-liberties-index-eiu
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/unemployment_rate/
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/investing/currencies/top-10-strongest-currencies-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://ocindex.net/2021/rankings/?y=2023&f=rankings&view=List
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/
https://rankedex.com/society-rankings/education-index
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cleanest-countries-in-the-world
https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate
https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php?country=fr
Not to mention the possibility for avg Westerners to move and migrate for economic opportunities more easily within the West.
Besides, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not only matter of stats. I’m taking into consideration all sorts of feedback I could gather through professional and personal acquaintances from around the world. So don’t waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

Still prefer it over Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. — neomac


Why are you always obsessed with these four countries? — javi2541997

Because this is a thread about the war in Ukraine, so I take to be pertinent to talk about the Western involvement in this war as much as the non-Western involvement in this war. China, Iran and North Korea are indirectly supporting Russia and its most ambitious stated goal to establish a new World Order alternative to the Western-led World Order, also through this war.

Russia and China are inspiring models.
Two main reasons for my argument:
1. They have economic stability, and they are important in the financial scene. Russia is the main supplier of oil and gas, and China the supplier of... everything. Imagine if they were not being banned or blocked by the westerners, they would be superpowers.
2. They do not have immigration problems or cultural conflicts. They are well known for keeping aside illegal immigration, and it is very difficult to establish ghettos in their cities. It is important to keep the cities safe. Are you going to ignore the illegal immigration problem in Europe too? — javi2541997

Even if we assume true your questionable claims about Russia and China economic stability or their lack of “immigration problems or cultural conflicts”, it’s not enough. Indeed I talked about AVG standard of life, meaning that it is important to see how public and private resources and services are distributed over the population, how large is the middle class, how easy it is to move from lower classes to higher, etc.

I’m particularly disturbed by military nuclear powers with an authoritarian regime... — neomac


This is outrageous. As far as I know, the USA - king of the westerners - is the only nation who dropped nuclear weapons on another nation: Japan. Or do you think that the Japanese deserved it because they were ruled by Hirohito? — javi2541997

I still take the US as the lesser evil. So much so that even Vietnam and Japan after having suffered a great deal due to past American administrations’ decisions (including something like being nuclear bombed twice), decided to ally with the US.
Besides you chopped my quote, if you hadn’t, you would see that my choice is still consistent even if the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country. As said elsewhere, I don’t take politicians to be morally committed to universal justice, nor I think there are known effective recipes to grant universal justice, so I limit myself to reason in terms of lesser evil, conditionally and comparatively .

I’m asking you if YOU would prefer to live as an AVG person in China, Russia, Iran or as an AVG person in a Western country, let’s say, Spain, WHATEVER YOUR understanding of life in these countries is and whatever parameters YOU find relevant to assess life standards. — neomac


Yes. — javi2541997

I appreciate your honesty. And I take it as a further (however redundant) evidence of your pro-Russian views. The easiest way for you to permanently migrate to Russia is to volunteer to join the Russian front in Donbas and fight the selfish Ukrainians and evil West/NATO/US to restore justice in this world. Meanwhile I can only wish you to migrate to Russia and be replaced by an illegal immigrant with more favorable views about the West as soon as possible. After what they may have suffered to have the opportunity to live in the West, they most certainly deserve to be part of the West more than you do. Do you agree?

Again, I’m not talking about privileged people, nor about the ability to live (happily or unhappily) in a country, — neomac


My arguments were not written in this direction, but I am perceiving that you want to twist them. Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you, despite the fact that you will not take them into account, because if they show high standards in those countries, you will not believe it...

Moscow: Gross Regional Product: €281billion / (€22205 per capita) The city has over 40 percent of its territory covered by greenery, making it one of the greenest cities in the world. Moscow has one of the largest municipal economies in Europe and it accounts more than one-fifth of Russia's gross domestic product (GDP). Overall, economic stability has improved in recent years. In 2019 the Economist Intelligence Unit's Worldwide Cost of Living survey put Moscow to 102nd place in the biannual ranking of 133 most expensive cities. There are 1,696 high schools in Moscow, as well as 91 colleges. The Moscow Metro is a world leader in the frequency of train traffic—intervals during peak hours do not exceed 90 seconds. The Moscow Metro is also the first and only one in the world to switch to this schedule. In February 2023, Moscow was the first in the world to reduce the intervals of metro trains to 80 seconds. It is the third metro system in the world (after Madrid and Beijing), which has two ring lines.
Moscow

It seems to me a pretty and attractive city to live in... — javi2541997

If you are arguing in support of your answers to my question “I’m asking you if YOU would prefer to live as an AVG person in China, Russia, Iran or as an AVG person in a Western country, let’s say, Spain, whatever YOUR understanding of life in these countries is and whatever parameters YOU find relevant to assess life standards” then it’s you who is twisting things. As far as I’m concerned, your data do not concern the AVG Russian life standards, I even doubt they are suitable metrics to asses the AVG life standards in Moscow.

still prefer to live as an avg English or Irish in Tatcher's era than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You? — neomac


Would you rather be a middle-class person in Russia or in a PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) country? That's the question we should care about, and how we can understand if some countries are worthy of living in, and others don't. It is not the Anglo-Saxon world only — javi2541997

.

PIGS, OF COURSE. You? And why is this the question I should care about?
I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World. I don’t particularly like the Anglo-Saxon World, at all. Still prefer it over Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

Gay marriage is not accepted even in Italy. — neomac


But then why do our Western media only focus on Russian abuse of gay people and not on Italy? Don't you really perceive the hypocrisy I am talking about? — javi2541997

The hypocrisy you perceive as many (but not necessarily all) double standards accusations are either irrelevant or unjustified to me. I don’t take politicians to be morally committed to Universal Justice as their rhetoric may suggest to naive people like you. And in geopolitics, one doesn’t treat actual or potential allies in the same way it treats actual or potential enemies, OF COURSE. I find this arguably VERY MUCH rational.
As far as I’m personally concerned, I too am partial and perfectly fine to be. I’m particularly disturbed by military nuclear powers with an authoritarian regime, historically infamous for being oppressive, and with such hegemonic ambitions to invest its accumulated resources by doing business with the West to economically blackmail, corrupt and intoxicate the political environment in the West, cultivate political hatred and revanchism against the West domestically, and go to war against Western countries instead of improving economic, political and social well-being of its own people at large. This is the reason you have to address with your bestest arguments, if you have any.

I don’t talk about tourism, I don’t talk about giving a chance. I talk about living your life as an avg person in Western countries vs in one of those authoritarian countries. Which one do you personally prefer? — neomac


I know a lot of people who are happy and find their lives satisfied living in China, for example. It is a country with a lot of opportunities. Before this useless war, Moscow was an interesting city for a lot of international stakeholders. Oh, one thing, they are not authoritarian just because the law is effective in their countries. I promise I want to try to live there for a while. Would you do the same in Romania or the South of Spain? Again, the Western World is not only the UK and US. :smile: — javi2541997

I traveled a lot around the world and also in authoritarian countries, I’ve a large network of personal and professional acquaintances around the World including from authoritarian regimes. I’m living and working in a multi-ethnic environment. I myself come from a foreign immigrant family and married with a foreigner (from a non-Western country).
Again, I’m not talking about privileged people, nor about the ability to live (happily or unhappily) in a country, nor about OTHER people, I’m asking you if YOU would prefer to live as an AVG person in China, Russia, Iran or as an AVG person in a Western country, let’s say, Spain, WHATEVER YOUR understanding of life in these countries is and whatever parameters YOU find relevant to assess life standards.

Your conclusion: Most countries are rubbish regarding the treatment of their citizens, but for unclear reasons, the Western world is more attractive than the East because *insert a senseless argument* — javi2541997

“Do you prefer X or Y?” and “give me the reasons why you prefer X over Y?” are two different questions. I just asked you the first and you still didn’t answer, while I answered the same questions I addressed to you and your questions too.

I don’t love the Western world. I simply prefer to live as an avg Westerner than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You? — neomac


Well, they have a good economic and beautiful cities, culture, museums, etc. Maybe I will give it a chance in the future. Who knows? What I am sure about is that I will not go to Mississippi or Ohio. I don't want to get shot by police officers just for being Hispanic. — javi2541997

I don’t talk about tourism, I don’t talk about giving a chance. I talk about living your life as an avg person in Western countries vs in one of those authoritarian countries. Which one do you personally prefer?

I want to know the truth, and it seems that the Western media is far from telling me so. — javi2541997

Good luck.

I personally don’t give a shit if Ukraine recognises gay marriages. — neomac

But they want to be part of the Western World, not the East! — javi2541997

Gay marriage is not accepted even in Italy.

The difference would still be that you can whine over Western hypocrisy against the British government and build a political protest over it, try to do the same in Russia. — neomac


You didn't understand anything of what I wrote... There were a lot of Irishmen who tried to criticise the hypocrisy and abuse of British politics, but they ended up dying of starvation or in jail... So the abuse of governments happens everywhere, not only in Russia. But we only feel astonished when they are the ones one who act in such a way. — javi2541997

You can counter claims I made, not the ones I didn’t. Governments can be abusive and oppressive, the UK was an empire so they also have a past and more recent history of oppression. But so fucking what? Let me help you with your pointless argument: everywhere is the same shit. All politicians are evil nazi pedophiles and cannibals especially the Western politicians, Biden is twice worst than Hitler and Stalin and Gengis Khan together. And all human beings are shitty selfish coward useful idiots, Westerners worst of all. Now the question remains: I still prefer to live as an avg Westerner than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You?
And to stay with your historical reference: I still prefer to live as an avg English or Irish in Tatcher's era than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You?

Iraq and Vietnam either, but we destroyed their structures and created a big division amongst their citizens. Do you perceive the hypocrisy of the Western now? — javi2541997

No. The American intervention in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan can be questioned from the American national interest point of view too. Yet the US has so far been the greatest hegemonic power, so we should expect that it reasons and acts as such. And commits awful mistakes as only great powers can do. Yet the US hasn’t been an oppressive hegemon for Western and pro-Western countries (European countries, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia) as much as Russia was at the time of Soviet Union (that's why when it collapsed, the Eastern European countries tried to join the West) and now against Ukraine. So much as so that despite the Vietnam war Vietnamese prefer to military ally with the US against China than to ally with China against the US: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/10/fact-sheet-president-joseph-r-biden-and-general-secretary-nguyen-phu-trong-announce-the-u-s-vietnam-comprehensive-strategic-partnership/

I respect your love and commitment to the Western world. — javi2541997

That's the Western world you love and care for — javi2541997

I don’t love the Western world. I simply prefer to live as an avg Westerner than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You?

Who am I to say that you are wrong? — javi2541997

Yet, sorry to accuse you that you have been brainwashed by the Western media to dislike Russia and everything related to East Europe. — javi2541997

No need to worry… you would just be a nobody saying to another nobody who doesn’t care about your opinion, he’s wrong or brainwashed. So say whatever makes you happy.
The bother I feel when I’m accused of being brainwashed is just part of an intellectual game, nothing I take personally.

I wish some would have the same empathy and respect for other cultures and preferences... — javi2541997

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not possible to have the entire world respect the entire world always at the same time under whatever condition, if that means to let others do whatever they feel like doing. So my belief vs your belief.

It is funny when our journalists - my circus country included, for sure! - are obsessed with showing how evil Putin is. He is attacking the sovereignty of Ukraine! - whilst nobody cared about Georgia back in 2008 - and he is a dictator because he poisoned his political rivals - whilst Ukraine doesn't even recognise gay marriage, but hey, they deserve to be part of EU membership and Western civilisation. — javi2541997

I personally don’t give a shit if Ukraine recognises gay marriages. I simply find dangerous for our standard of life to give oppressive authoritarian regimes with hegemonic ambitions the opportunity to destabilise the Western World. And Russia benefited from the Pax Americana SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than it got damaged by NATO/West/US messing in its Ukrainian backyard. Indeed if it didn’t benefit that much, it wouldn’t dare to aggress Ukraine the way it did.

Furthermore, are you aware of how the UK acted against IRA members in N. Ireland back in the 1970s and 1980s? Do you really think that's a moral and legitimate way to proceed? The 1981 Irish hunger strike left ten young boys dying for starvation due to their hunger strike. Margaret Thatcher showed zero empathy for them and zero respect for their deaths. Could you imagine the hypocrisy if this happened in Russia?
I ask you: Why didn't the world condemn - or block - the United Kingdom for such abominable behaviour? — javi2541997

The difference would still be that you can whine over Western hypocrisy against the British government and build a political protest over it, try to do the same in Russia.

Your rant about Western hypocrisy or lack of empathy doesn’t impress me.
Probably I and you hold non-shared assumptions about the relation between politics and morality (which I discussed a while ago in this thread). I’m most certainly sure that neither me nor you nor anybody in this thread nor anybody in the world nor any politician in the entire human history has a fucking clue on how to fix the world, bring justice for the entire humanity for ever and ever, even with the bestest intentions. So, as you can guess, my expectations about politicians by default are already very low as morality is concerned.

Ha! This is funny, you feel bothered because we identify American interests as not reliable, yet you are completely free to not trust Russian objectives. If you read your arguments deeply, you are agreeing with me indirectly. I said a lot of times in this thread that some users just call me 'troll' or 'Pro-Russian' for having a more neutral position and trying to understand the behaviour of Putin. Doesn't this position make you be a partisan of the Western world? Why do we trust in America and not in Russia when the latter is closer to our interests and reality? At least Russia never applied tariffs to Spanish products. On the other hand, the interests of Russia and the EU are absolutely legitimate. You are the ones who have always seen them as enemies, not us. — javi2541997

Dude, again, you didn’t read much of what I wrote in this thread. I never claimed to be not partisan. I never claimed to be impartial. I am pro-US, pro-NATO, pro-West, OF COURSE. And have always DECLARED it and I’ve always argued ALSO in terms of picking a side. But I always take this to be understood primarily in relative and conditional terms (e.g. in the current situation, given the geopolitical power relations what’s the lesser evil, side with the US or with Russia?). So it doesn’t bother me at all to be called pro-US, pro-NATO, pro-Western, and that is also why I do not need your permission to call you pro-Russians after reading your arguments. What may bother me is to be accused of being fooled by pro-Western propaganda. My reasons do not depend on pro-Western propaganda but on my understanding of geopolitics, history and personal preferences.
Claiming to be “more neutral position” and “the latter is closer to our interests and reality”, independently if you are right or wrong, point to the fact that you can not call yourself neutral, or impartial, or non-partisan. And the point that your ideas so cheerfully overlap with those of Tzeench, suggests that his views are partial and partisan as well.

The partisans of the Western world say that we don't have to buy Russian natural resources because they are evil. But hey! Let's buy oil and gas from Algeria and Qatar, countries where free expression doesn't exist and women are objects. Why don't we block them as well? It is easier to see the world in your bubble from Washington. — javi2541997

Because the West understands power relations more than the popular propaganda of freedom and democracy in the West suggests to people with a naive understanding of both power relations and Western propaganda. And Qatar and Algeria are not hegemonic powers threatening the West as Russia is doing.

The issue that bothers me the most is how we are wasting resources and time on nothing. Just to satisfy the caprices of a few. Russia is ready to end this war, but for unknown reasons, Ukraine and some - the UK and USA - don't want to. — javi2541997

The reasons are not that unknown: Ukrainian will to fight on one side, on the other bog down Russia in their own mess if Russia can not or should not be defeated militarily, on the American side. Russia is ALWAYS ready to peace if it’s on its own terms, of course. Also Ukraine and the US are ALWAYS ready for peace if it’s on in their own terms, of course.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians. — Tzeentch

Why “virtually inevitable”? Why do you keep calling it “coup”? If Washington supported a coup, who else organised the coup?

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object. — Tzeentch

So the Russian fears are the only ones we should care about if we want to talk about the genesis (and responsibilities?) of the war, not the fears of Ukraine, not the fears of Eastern Europeans, not the fears of Washington about Russia’s hegemonic ambitions. Why is that?
What evidences do you have to support the claim that Russia’s fears were about “Washington would create a fait accompli” despite the fact that “NATO membership was being held off”?
Is it another educated guess?
What would support Russian belief that “Russians wouldn't be able to object”? They kept objecting against NATO enlargement since the collapse of Soviet Union, and they had as leverage allies (Hungary), appeasing partners (Germany), a prominent NATO-averse country (France) and cooperative rivals (Turkey), lots of commodity business with the West, an international reputation that wasn’t as compromised as that of Washington, a US distracted with internal issues and China, AN ENTIRE populist political front in Europe and especially in the US sympathising with Russia, a nuclear arsenal to spend in case of aggression from enemies? Weren't Russians aware of these assets? So why all this fear if NATO was never as weak as it was before starting this war?
Why do you keep talking about FEARS and not OPPORTUNITIES for hegemonic expansion?

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible. — Tzeentch

What evidences are there to support the claim that “The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol“? If this was the case why didn’t Russia negotiate Ukraine’s NATO membership for Russia’s control over Sevastopol and Crimea (or independent Crimea)?
Besides Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners is not cut off if they lose Sevastopol, indeed they have other ways to access the Black Sea as much as when Baltic ex-USSR Republics joined NATO, this didn’t cut off Russian access to the Baltic Sea because Russians have other ways to access it.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation. — Tzeentch

Or a deliberate defensive move solicited by Ukrainians against a overly jealous historical oppressor.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term. — Tzeentch

Sure, but why do we have to care only about Russia’s security concerns apparently only grounded on their fears and nothing else? If we reason EXCLUSIVELY in terms of perception (why should we?!), then we can talk EXCLUSIVELY of perceived threats for the West posed by a overly jealous regional power with the imperialist history and military capacity of Russia too, right?
If yes how do you want to make them to coexist?
Ukraine should exist only as a buffer state and its foreign policies should be established and negotiated between Washington and the Kremlin? Is that what your educated guess suggests?
Cool, do you have any historical examples of buffer states that function as you suggest? Pls start with Russian history.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine. — Tzeentch

The other harsh truth is that the Ukrainians have to decide whom to side with. And this is what normally pawns don’t nor can’t do. Right?



Pls destroy my objections one by one as only you can. I beg you on my knees.

I was called 'Pro-Putin' for just defending Dostoevsky... *sigh* — javi2541997


My suggestion would be, don't waste your time replying to forum members that try to frame you as being partisan. They're not worth your time and effort.

For me, it is clear that Washington is so interested in degrading Russia and pushing EU members against them. A terrible situation for both Europeans and Russians, but not for Americans. Yikes! — javi2541997


Exactly. European and American interests diverge at key points, and the current European leadership is completely incapable of safeguarding those lines. — Tzeentch

So you are not partisans and yet you have identified the US as the bad guy and the fact that the interest of EU and the US diverge. You constantly repeat that the bad guy is the US, how is that not partisan exactly?

If the interest of the US and the EU diverge, what about the interest of Russia and the EU? Do they diverge or do they converge?

For some reason firefox doesn't let me see the links to twitter I made in this forum :chin:

Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad. — Tzeentch

C'mon dude don't be so sensitive.

Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:

- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.

- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin. — Tzeentch

I don't need any educated(?!) guess, just an educated factual acknowledgment of the fact that Putin has committed himself to two notions of "victories":
1. denazification, demiitarization, neutralization of Ukraine
2. establish a new world order

Annexation of land bridge and wrecked Ukraine was never defined as a victory. Surely it's what Russia might take as a compensation to justify the war in case the first goal fails and prevent an Ukrainian military comeback. But it can't be a victory if there is no international acknowledgement and no peace treaty. It will become just a frozen conflict.
Besides calling the second scenario a victory, would mean for us that the famous security concerns Russia was talking about by NATO enlargement were just a territorial demand over Crimea and a land bridge to protect Russian minorities, but this means that security concerns weren't about Russia proper (historical fear of invasion, the missiles against Moscow, etc). But if they were, then why isn't the threat still there given that Ukrainians hate even more the Russians now than before the war and might want to take revenge as soon as they can? So, no the threat for Russia would still be there and therefore no victory because Russia can't call itself safe. Actually it's way less safe now that it was before the war, as the attacks in Russia proper prove.
You calling it a "victory" for the Russians, tells more about you than about the Russians.

I couldn't have said it better. That's what is close to winning the war we ever could get. — javi2541997

Yes this is what I take to be Putin's most ambitious and long term goal. It's a long run though.

I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. — Tzeentch

What does "winning the war" mean exactly?

These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud: — Tzeentch

And she is not the only one: 'We are defending you,' says Zelensky on EU visit
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/european-union/article/2023/02/09/zelensky-addresses-eu-parliament-seeking-weapons-in-brussels-visit_6015008_156.html

What's the problem EXACTLY?

Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe. — Tzeentch

What do you mean by "instrumentalized" EXACTLY?

NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while. — Tzeentch

Why do you keep repeating it for a while? What do you mean by "NATO security at Ukraine's expense"? What is the problem EXACTLY?

What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest. — Tzeentch

Maybe it looks so stupid because there was no plan at all. Indeed when was the time to increase the military spending in Europe and to take a harsher position toward Putin, what did the Europeans do? Keep doing business with Putin financed his war machine too.
And If West and East Ukrainians are divided wrt to Russia. The same goes with West and East Europe.
If Europe outsourced to the US its security to avoid getting their hands dirty and just make business now they are paying the consequences.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe? — Tzeentch

Totally agree. Since the US might not handle it anymore given the pressure from within and from China, keeping Russia busy in an Ukrainian war will buy the Europeans time to re-balance and redistribute the burden of Western security? And maybe the re-balancing won't be homogeneous in Western vs Eastern Europe. And even if the US loses the grip on Western Europe, it's still on the Europeans to decide what to do next and to what extent coordinate their effort. Still it seems Russia can count on a wide popular and political support in the West. Yours included, since you do not see Russia as a threat to the West right?

Months before the coup take place. — Tzeentch

Terminology:

A coup d'état, or simply a coup, is an illegal and overt attempt by a military organisation or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership by force. A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from the Spanish: autogolpe), or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means. The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers

While a coup is usually a conspiracy of a small group, a revolution or rebellion is usually started more spontaneously and by larger groups of uncoordinated people. The distinction is not always clear. Sometimes, a coup is labelled as a revolution by the coup plotters to pretend to democratic legitimacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Do you have better definitions from your educational background?

Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? — Tzeentch

Did Nuland specify any deadline for "a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine"? A Unix timestamp in UTC format somewhere?

Putin:
“This is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. The question is much broader and more fundamental: we are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based.
Lasting peace will be established only when everyone begins to feel safe, understand that their opinion is respected and that there is a balance in the world, when no one is able to force or force others to live and behave as the hegemon wishes, even if this contradicts sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, and the foundations of peoples and states. In such a scheme, the very concept of any kind of sovereignty is simply denied and thrown, excuse me, into the trash.”
https://kremlin-ru.translate.goog/events/president/news/72444?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true

That's the most overlooked by the pro-Putin "cheerleaders" and Russian "propaganda-hopium" addicted and yet repeatedly emphasized Putin's goal: a new world order, which is a direct challenge against the West and mostly against the US. It's not about the past, but about the future. A future without the American hegemon. A future were everybody is gonna be happy, no more wars, no more exploitation, no more greedy elites, just nations and traditions coexisting peacefully or hand-in-hand. Putin as the new Messiah of the post-communist and post-fascist orphans.

The main problem I see in debating with people advocating pro-Russian views in this thread is that they seem to over-confidently rely on keywords like:
- “provocation” (as in “The West provoked Russia”)
- “culpability” (as in “Washington's culpability”),
- “belong” (as in “Crimea belongs to Russia”),
- “security” (as “the West ignored Russian security concerns”)
- “promises” (as in “the broken promises from the West to Russia”)
- “pushing” (as in “The US pushed the Ukrainians into this war”)
- “respect” (as in “We should respect Russian constitution”)
- "life" (as in the "No sense of the human life cost of this war")
all of which I find pretty mystiphicatory given how they are used.
Indeed their sense is practically never clarified in their meaning and implications, nor grounded on explicit assumptions about relations between states. Instead these keywords are taken as perfectly commonsensical and somehow universal, especially they can apply to issues concerning states or administrations as easy-peasy as a kindergarten teacher can apply them to two kids bickering over a toy. So much so, that even questioning them is taken to be hypocritical or unfair or propaganda-addicted or over-"intellectualising" or “childish” (since they are kindergarten teachers).
Yet these keywords can very much come loaded with all sorts of non-shared moral/ideological assumptions (and conceptual confusions too) which I find legitimate to question, especially in a PHILOSOPHY forum, because if philosophy is not ALSO about questioning anybody’s given-for-granted assumptions, I don’t know what is.