MR. KIRBY: Yes, we — we have issued the last drawdown package that — that we had funding to support. And that’s why it’s — it’s critical that — that Congress move on that national security supplemental request and we get more funding.

The — the assistance that we provided has now ground to a halt. The attacks that the Russians are conducting are only increasing. And now, as I talked about earlier this week, they’re using North Korean ballistic missiles to do their dirty work.

So, the — the need is acute right now, particularly in these winter months.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/01/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-and-national-economic-council-director-lael-brainard/

If the US leaves NATO, NATO might turn into a European military alliance or just end (if there is no shared understanding and willingness of what is the common enemy/enemies).
The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. Also the Balcan area, plenty of territorial disputes, may become hotter. Go figure what will happen if Trump will try to RECONCILE with Russia over Ukraine in order to weaken the Russian pact with China.
Besides the cost of boosting the defence industry (BTW what will happen about the European nuclear deterrence which only few European states possess? Should the other start a nuclear program? What will happen to the defence of the commercial routs around the world? Should all Europeans boost investment into the Navy too?) or maybe reintroducing the military service, the economic crisis due to the economic competition of the Americans (which may even become more hawkish after the end of their NATO partnership e.g. consider the market of microchips and technologies) and the problem of commodity supply under the control of more assertive and competitive geopolitical agents (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and the US), the difficulty of coordinating this effort among Europeans may have repercussions on the stability of the EU and resurgence of populist movements (with its unresolved anti-elitism and unresolved identitarian issues with immigration and Muslim community). European tensions inside European countries and between European countries will still be fueled by hostile or competing powers (including the US), which in turn may even more polarize and paralyze European democracies in their capacity to pursue their strategic interests unless they turn into authoritarian regimes and/or search protection from foreign powers (if not the US, which one?). Also the EU is in danger. And the demographic decline won't help either for the next decades.

Glory to the age of the multipolar world:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/04/08/dutch-journalist-writes-critically-china-targeted-bizarre-intimidation-scheme
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-embassy-in-stockholm-threatens-swedish-journalist/
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/journalist-03252019114547.html
https://www.asiapacific.ca/fr/asia-watch/czech-prime-minister-wants-chinese-ambassador-out

You need to understand that if Europe is under attack, we will never come to help you and to support you," Breton quoted Trump as saying during the Davos meeting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/we-will-never-help-europe-under-attack-eu-official-cites-trump-saying-2024-01-10/

BTW here some quotes from a year ago about security guarantees:

But the idea that guarantees are needed to enter into an international agreement is just a high school level and completely ignorant understanding of international relations. There is never any guarantees. — boethius


My impression is that you have no clue what you are talking about:

- International relations include a legal framework based on voluntary acceptance by acknowledged independent nations. Within this legal framework one can implement “security guarantees” (https://www.academia.edu/16541504/Legal_Notion_of_the_Terms_Security_Assurances_Security_Guarantees_and_Reassurances_in_International_Security_Law).
- The primary involved parties in the Ukrainian war are clearly interested in such “security guarantees”: Putin urges West to act quickly to offer security guarantees. (https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1067188698/putin-urges-west-to-act-quickly-to-offer-security-guarantees). And Ukraine showed interest in having one, given the consequences of the Budapest Memorandum about “security assurances” (https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/stvorennya-mehanizmu-bezpekovih-garantij-dlya-ukrayini-stane-76129).
- To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. The reason to me is obvious: the international legal framework increases transparency and trust, given the coordinated and codified procedures/roadmap to monitor and measure commitment and implied costs. — neomac

Dude, what you actually claimed is the following:

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians. — Tzeentch

"

To such rhetoric manipulation of yours and your sidekicks I commented:

Russia and Ukraine can agree on whatever ceasefire proposal, but if this proposal requires security guarantees from foreign guarantors, and foreign guarantors are not willing to provide them, then there won’t be a deal. — neomac

Concerning the Istanbul Communiqué, two points remain predictably uneasy to settle: the territorial claims over Donbas and Crimea, the security guarantees. Concerning the security guarantees, either they exclude Russia so they become a version of NATO which Russia couldn’t possibly like if that’s Putin’s issue, or they include Russia (the aggressor) which can at the very least sabotage any effort of Ukrainian Westernisation (as much as it happens with resolutions that go against Russian interest in the UN) while being spared economic and diplomatic sanctions. — neomac

So Chalyi's article confirms more what I argued than what you argued. You are dishonestly framing everything as to stress the MORAL responsibility of the West without even considering the reasons of the West. Even though you believe that states have no moral responsibility (since they are not moral agents) only legal and yet:

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

The US sought an excuse to invade Libya for reasons that had nothing to do with the humanitarian situation. Shame on the international community for going along with it, and in essence proving my point. — Tzeentch

Does "shame" express a moral, colloquial, legal, or strategic claim?

The sheer disgust you feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics is not enlightening but clouding your mind. Taking denouncing self-interest of a hegemonic country, like the US, and deconstructing propaganda hiding it as the best expression of a rational and intellectually honest task, EVEN WHEN ACCURATE, is still a myopic and populist prejudice. That is what is wasting your time on this thread in this philosophy forum.

Yes, because America is a pig, more powerful than the Third Reich ever dreamt of being, and the world is tired of America's abuse. America and Europe still have a colonial mentality, and America is rat shit crazy to dominate. Today is wakeup time, the world is changing. — boagie

Dude, you ain't gonna impress nobody with your foul mouth.

Why are not these nations of the East ever so grateful? — boagie

Because BRICS countries may have their own hegemonic ambitions, particularly China and Russia.

America is so caring, they just want everyone to be free, don't they? — boagie

America is caring for its own national interest, of course, and I find it rather naive and myopic to blame the US for it. Other countries' concern for freedom, civil rights, economic wealth, and democracy is instrumental to preserve the US hegemony, of course. If China and Russia invested the wealth accumulated with the globalization to support health, education, economic well being and civil rights for their own people, instead of investing in their coercive system to oppress their own people and support military projection overseas, they would have less military means and will to violently pursue hegemonic ambitions abroad. Germany and Japan after WW2 are successful examples of this strategy.

So the best sources are an eMail allegedly by Clinton and a supposed russian article reported by hearsay twice removed. — Echarmion

Clinton's email wasn't about Gaddafi's "ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar"
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide, the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659

The world is moving to a multipolar world, removing the America boot from their necks, soon it well become obvious to you as well. — boagie

I have no idea why you are so excited about it. "Multipolar world" means that the world is gonna be more peaceful, more equitable, more democratic?

Think about it, all the while the States has been subjugating if not destroying other countries' economies with their economic and military might, — boagie

Exactly the opposite is true. China and Russia economies could grow the way they did after the cold war thanks to the American-led globalization. This wealth boosted their military expenditures as much as their economic-military projection abroad.

Let's assume you are right whatever point you are trying to make, still “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Do you have anything to say about this? It's the third time I'm asking.

My prediction is that if Trump wins the elections, for sure Ukraine will have outlived its usefulness. — boethius

Meaning? What will happen then?

Really, typical? It seems to me boagie is literally the first participant in this discussion to present things as BRICS are good and America is bad. — boethius

The problem is that he didn’t make any arguments that you/Tzeench/Isaac wouldn’t make yourselves. So one may wonder why the different conclusion? BTW your/Tzeench/Isaac’s conclusion doesn't seem that different either. [1]


[1]

That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. — neomac


@Tzeentch's claim here is pretty easy to support.

We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism (however "soft" you want to call it -- being smothered by a pillow can have the exact same end result as being stabbed in the chest). — boethius

Again, you didn’t say anything that I didn’t already hear a thousand times in this thread and outside of it. That’s why I indirectly asked you: “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Still waiting for an answer.

Well, do you know what lead up to the invasion of the Ukraine. If not don't waste my time. — boagie

It's been a long thread. You didn't say anything we didn't hear already a thousand times.
Being you pro-Russian, it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong.

The goal is to drip feed arms to Ukraine enough to prop it up in order to damage Russia (which may not even be happening), super charge arms profiteering both directly to Ukraine as well as indirectly by creating a new Cold War, protect the USD from the Euro by having the Europeans destroy their competitiveness and fully prostrate themselves as meaningless vassals on the world stage. — boethius

What will be the goal (in Ukraine) if Trump wins the elections? Can you predict that too?

I don’t want to share that yet because it is too premature. — Bob Ross

Unfair enough.

It could be the case that no one is morally justified in sacrificing that child and that the child would have, if they were the sole survivor, no feasible living arrangement afterwards.

Perhaps this factors into your moral reasoning though: to you, does that reason count in favor of potentially sacrificing the child? I don’t believe so. — Bob Ross

It would factor in my moral reasoning. Not sure that would be enough to reach my conclusion though, I’ll come back to this later.

That child nor I can use other people as a means to and end, even if that end is saving other people. I cannot throw you into a moving car to stop it from running over my child. — Bob Ross

People as a means to an end? We find it permissible to hire people as a means to an end which is making our own living as much as they make their own living by doing business with us, and some may find morally permissible even to do business over currently illegal jobs like prostitution, selling organs, dealing drugs.
How about living creatures, animals? Can you torture and kill animals as a means to people’s end? One might obviously argue that we already do this, we eat animals after all, and the food industry from start to end is a torturing experience for animals. So what makes human beings so special?

if we must choose, would it be permissible to have child X to be safe at the expense of the rest of the human species to be immediately annihilated?

My answer would also be no. — Bob Ross

You have the choice to refrain from actively violating someone’s rights in both scenarios: what you don’t have control over is the predestined stipulations of the thought-experiment. You can say no and simply not be morally blameworthy for the annihilation of the human species (by my lights). — Bob Ross

But if the premises of your thought experiment are:
- your choice determines the fate of humanity
- the moral rule is something like “do not sacrifice any life to save another for whatever reason in all possible scenarios” (so it is neither permissible to sacrifice the remaining human species to save a child, nor to sacrifice a child to save the remaining human species)
Why am I not blameworthy for the annihilation of the remaining human species, exactly? My choice to sacrifice the remaining human species as a means to save a child would still break the rule “do not sacrifice any life to save another for whatever reason in all possible scenarios”.
There is no room for distinguishing choice abstention from choosing to sacrifice (not to mention that even abstentions are often perceived as morally blameworthy).

what lesson do you wish to draw from this hypothetical predicament?


Is consequentialist normative ethical theories valid in any scenario? That’s the question. — Bob Ross

I’m reluctant to accept the distinction between consequentialism and deontology because I’m not sure to find it intelligible. Sometimes we reason in terms of rules as it happens with non-moral rules, like when playing games according to conventional rules. Sometimes we reason in terms of consequences or instrumentally given certain goals. Other times we reason in terms of basic social norms: e.g. those related to human rights. But even basic social norms don’t need to be intrinsically and unconditionally compelling. How would I identify such “basic” norms? In hierarchical terms, if I see other social norms based on them. And/or in temporary terms, if I see social norms that vary, while these are preserved. And/or in psychological terms, how they have been internalised: as default behaviour/habit or degree of readiness to willingly sacrifice at least one’s or beloved ones’ comfort and life for the sake of it. Your deontological position seems to me focusing on cases testing such internalisation/commitment in some form toward other people as people. What I would find more interesting is to explicit the reasons for such internalisation/commitment and to what extent they are taken/expected to be universal.

you cannot violate that child’s rights, period. Doesn’t make baby hitler right in doing atrocities later in life, but we cannot violate peoples rights period; especially over ‘forseeable’ consequences of their existence (which I find really unreliable, but that’s irrelevant to my main point). — Bob Ross

OK, take a more real life case: abortion.
- Scenario 1: We may save either mother or baby during a difficult delivery, but not both. Yet we know the kid has developed a torturing and deadly disease which will make it die any time soon after birth, should we let the mother die so we are not blameworthy to kill the baby?
- Scenario 2: We may save either mother or kid, but not both, and if we do not intervene they both will die. Killing a mother/baby even to save the other is immoral, so we let both die but we wouldn’t be blameworthy for it?

Metaethically, I would say there aren’t any moral facts. With respect to normative ethics, I would say we must treat persons with respect as objects of intrinsic respect. Admittedly, I am still working out the details. — Bob Ross

You can at least draft arguments for why people must follow what you claim to be “moral rules”, can’t you?

I merely created a thought experiment taking this to its extreme: what if, right now, we had to perpetually torture a child (and I will let you use your imagination on what exactly is done to them) to prevent the immediate annihilation of the entire human species — Bob Ross

I am puzzled by your thought experiment. As it is formulated, it seems that the two scenarios are, respectively, one in which a single child X is annihilated and/or tortured while the rest of the human species is not immediately annihilated. The other scenario is one in which the entire human species (including millions of other children), including child X, is immediately annihilated. In other words, in both scenarios that child won’t be safe anyways. Even if you meant that in at least one scenario the child would be safe, one may wonder: how would a child even live and evolve as a psychologically and biologically sound human being if the rest of humanity would be immediately annihilated?

Even if we want to put aside our suspension of disbelief (but why exactly?), I would also wonder: if we must choose, would it be permissible to have child X to be safe at the expense of the rest of the human species to be immediately annihilated? Because if neither killing/torturing a child is permissible even when the rest of humanity would be safe, nor having the rest of humanity safe at the expense of killing/torturing a child, and we must choose anyways (why exactly?), what lesson do you wish to draw from this hypothetical predicament? If your thought experiment was designed to lead to a moral choice paralysis, I do wonder: what’s even the point of moral reasoning over thought experiments designed to fail in guiding choice and action exactly?

BTW, since we put aside our suspension of disbelief, we can be more fancy in elaborating the original thought experiment: let’s imagine that that child X whom nobody is permitted to sacrifice, is somebody who will soon develop a torturing mortal disease for natural causes and die atrociously even if the rest of the human species was immediately annihilated to save the child, or that the child is a psychopath who enjoys torturing living creatures before killing them for the rest of his life or a Hitler on steroids which will torture and exterminate the entire human species anyways and repeatedly if he only had the chance. What would be morally legitimate to do? What if the lesson we draw from the thought experiment varies remarkably depending on how the thought experiment is construed?

The problem is not much that there is a moral rule (where?!) that says “do not torture or kill any child ever for whatever reason” but more why would we be committed to such rule exactly? Saying because it is moral, it would shift the problem: how did this rule get the label “moral” in the first place? What is there in claiming “morality” that would me make me feel (?!) or taken (?!) to be committed to it or compelled BY DEFAULT and without consulting me first? And if it is not that what is implied, what else is exactly?

At this point the West has its own persisting issues with NATO which the enlargement didn't fix:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/12/15/i-haven-t-changed-my-number-macron-still-open-to-peace-dialogue-with-putin_6347805_4.html

Putin insists that his objectives are/were denazification, demilitarization, and neutral status of Ukraine.

So no Putin's intentions weren't just annexing Donbas, Crimea and a land bridge.

↪neomac
This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss, rather than throwing up semantic smokescreens. What you're doing now smells of deflection and sophistry. — Tzeentch

What I take to be a philosophical exercise is “to investigate very basic (mostly implicit) assumptions of somebody’s beliefs. ” Among such assumptions there is our basic (mostly implicit) conceptual framework. So addressing such conceptual framework and how it applies to concrete situations (like the war in Ukraine) is part of the philosophical investigation I’m engaging in. The fact that you take as “semantic smokescreens”, “deflection”, “sophistry” what I find legitimate to philosophically question in this forum proves at best how self-evident you take your conceptual framework to be. So much so that you don’t feel the need to clarify better any of your claims even when expressly and repeatedly solicited. As far as I’m concerned, you expressed beliefs about:
- When this conflict “started”
- What “primarily caused” this war
- What Europe or Ukraine “should do”
- The distinction between “colloquial” evil and “moral” evil
- The distinction between “moral” claims and “strategic” claims
- The nature of States as “abstractions and not moral actors”
- The “right to self-defence” as grounded on “international law and not morality”
- Who is to blame
Your clarifications about such claims in our recent exchange were rather poor to me: labeling your normative claims as non-moral without clarifying on what grounds you discriminate between moral and non-moral is not that helpful. Nor is it helpful to clarify it by means of other ideas that I expressly find questionable (like “primary cause”, “strategy”). Besides you continue applying them in a way that I find rather confusing if not confused, like “Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life”, as I argued. And I wasn’t even trying to put all the burden of the clarification on your shoulder, see my comments on your idea of the “primary cause” of this war , or your idea of when the conflict started, or your idea about normative claims about strategy, or your idea about what is “senseless waste of life”, etc.
Notice also that I don’t find your accusation of “semantic smokescreens”, “deflection”, “sophistry” self-evident either, so I can legitimately challenge you to clarify such ideas as well. But I’m fine to discuss the points of my previous post, for now. This is also to say, that I wasn’t deflecting (from what exactly?), I was doing what I think it’s most certainly appropriate to do in this forum, even when talking about the war in Ukraine. But you do not need to take my word for it, because my comments and questions remain philosophically legitimate EVEN IF I was deflecting. So the point is not really about my intentions in trying to play the philosophical game (as I understand it), but if you are interested or not to play it independently from my intentions.

↪neomac
You think playing coy is a way to be taken seriously on this forum?

Ask me three honest and straightforward questions, and I'll answer them for you. I have no patience for whatever game you're trying to play. — Tzeentch

Dude, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a philosophy forum, not a political forum, not a military forum, not a Tzeench-certified forum. So I have no idea what philosophy is to you, but to me it is at least to investigate very basic (mostly implicit) assumptions of somebody’s beliefs. That’s the game I’m trying to play with you and others for my own personal intellectual entertainment, as I repeatedly stated in this thread. And that’s the game I expect others to try to play here, especially if they want me to take them seriously. So I addressed many “honest and straightforward questions” about your assumptions to you in my last post according to the game I’m trying to play. I don’t expect you to try to answer all of them at once. But if you really have no patience to the game I’m trying to play here then my “honest and straightforward question” to you is: Why should I (colloquially, morally, strategically, legally, or politically) give a shit about it exactly?

“Evil” in a moral sense? — neomac


No, 'evil' in a colloquial sense… — Tzeentch

“Colloquial”? Not sure to understand. Is, for example, covid evil in a colloquial sense?
How about examples of colloquially “necessary evil”? Vaccins are necessary evil for unnecessary evil covid?

...so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war? — neomac


Because this conflict started when the United States (led by the neocon foreign policy establishment) expressed its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and they never over the course of some 15 years took Russia's objections seriously. — Tzeentch

That’s a very problematic claim for several reasons:
1 - the United States expressed their desire also in 2008, but grievances about the US involvement in Ukraine and the Soviet Union’s ex-sphere of influence started well before 2008 and before Putin. On the other hand, in 2008 it turned out that Western countries were reluctant to let Ukraine join NATO no matter what the American desire was. Besides the conflict with Russia didn’t turn into a “real” conflict until 2014, while the Westerners were still against Ukraine joining NATO (Russia’s could enjoy the support of France, Germany, Hungary, Turkey to veto this). Not to mention that we had Trump antagonising the West more than Russia. So there seem to be many starts here, and many conflicts involving the US’s desire to expand its sphere of influence in Ukraine which anyway weren’t sufficient to let Ukraine join NATO (and that also proves that the West took Russia’s security concerns seriously to the point of refusing Ukraine within NATO). BTW why did it take Russia so long to invade Ukraine if the provocation was so obvious and intolerable for 15 years?
2 - The idea that the conflict started with the US expressing “its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO” makes likely sense in Russian strategic perspective, not in the Ukrainian, American or Western perspective, because the West and Ukraine do not share Russia's strategic perspective as much as they don’t share the Russian national interest. For Ukraine, Russia may have likely started the conflict by protesting over its sovereignty and territorial integrity. For the US, the conflict may have likely started when Russia protested against the Western-led world order since the fall of Soviet Union. You can blame it on the neocon agenda as much as I can blame it on Russian imperialism which is much older than neocon agenda. And Russia couldn’t possibly expect that the US as the hegemon would refrain from “expressing DESIRES” because Russia demanded it, especially when Russia wasn’t still that scary. ESPECIALLY if the US wasn’t hostile toward Russia, because it offered globalization in return which empowered Russia (and made it scary as it is now) way more than the threat of Ukraine joining NATO weakened Russia economically and militarily. Am I right? Russia too didn't perceive NATO as significantly hostile since there NATO there were conjoint exercises with the Russians against Islamic terrorism (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_103663.htm) as the greatest security threat for the West and Russia. Right?
3 - We have repeatedly been told that Russians’ grievances started with the broken promise over NATO expansion, so by the same logic should we expect Russia will invade the ex-Warsaw pact states and ex-Soviet Union republics? Or should we just roll back NATO as requested by Putin in his diplomatic negotiations with the West to respect Russia’s strategic concerns seriously (https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/)?
4 - I still don’t see the reason why you keep talking about “primary cause”. A possible alternative could be “primary reason“ instead of “primary cause”, couldn’t it? It would make sense to talk about primary reason if we take incorporating Ukraine into NATO as the primary security concern to Russia under certain assumptions (among which we must include Russia’s “hegemonic ambitions”). So I do wonder why you keep talking about “primary cause” instead of “primary reason”. Also a rapist “primary cause” for rape may be the raped teenager was dressed sexy. If somebody said "the teenager started her rapist’s aggression", would make this claim sense to you? What would be the point of making such claim exactly?

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so? — neomac


States are not moral actors, so they have no moral rights. Individuals have moral rights.

And states obviously have legal rights because virtually all states on the world have signed the UN charter and thus recognize the legitimacy of international law, which includes a right to national self-defense. — Tzeentch

I’m not sure you understood my question: “How come that the abstractness of the notion of ‘state’ allows a state to enjoy legal rights but not moral rights?”
Given your input, I can reformulate it as follows: states as abstract entities (which I charitably understand as “legal institutions”, am I wrong?) can’t possibly sign UN charters nor recognise the legitimacy of international law by themselves, while individual agents as state representatives can and do. Who signs is a concrete individual human being or a bunch of concrete individual human beings, not an abstract legal entity, right? But individuals as state representatives can still be morally and legally accountable, even if that involves an “abstract” institutional entity, right? If so, state representatives (like Putin, Biden, Zelensky) are morally and legally accountable based on acknowledged state rights.

Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine, what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? — neomac


I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, — Tzeentch

I'm talking about this:

As you probably know, my view is that the Russians were provoked into invading Ukraine. — Tzeentch

It's clear to me that this war was purposefully provoked. — Tzeentch

but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later — Tzeentch

.

I still don’t get how come you keep talking about what Europe should do, so in normative terms, over legal institutions in other terms than legal. Apparently there are “strategic” normative claims besides “moral” and “legal” (and "colloquial"?), yet it’s not clear how you assess strategic normative claims. To me strategic normative claims in politics of national states should be processed by taking into account national states’ priorities in the long term: for example, Ukraine’s priority is to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity even at the expense of Russia’s hegemonic ambitions, for Russia is to pursue hegemonic ambitions at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the US’s hegemony, for the US is to pursue hegemonic ambitions at the expense of its competitors (including Russia). Concerning Europe, AFAIU, the priority is to preserve political stability under American protection (which is why Europeans can sacrifice trade relations with Russia and China).
Besides I don’t know how you assess the chance for success in strategy (especially if military goals must be distinguished from political goals). Does Hamas have any chance of military/political success in fighting Israel’s occupation of Gaza? Is it rational for Palestinians to support Hamas? Why do many foreign states (including Western state) politically, economically and/or military support Palestinians if they have no chance of succeeding? Should Europeans stop financing Palestinians and stop acknowledging Palestine as a sovereign state?

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life. — Tzeentch

How can Europe be “complicit” if European states and EU are just legal entities and Europe is not violating international laws by supporting Ukraine? Are you talking in moral terms?
If it makes sense to them, why do you call it “senseless waste of life”?
Given your military analysis, I understand why you reached your conclusion. Yet I don’t think military analysis suffices to determine political choices. I suspect that it is the other way around. For the good and for the bad. In any case, it is hard to prove that costly choices in the present would repay well in the future. This is the Russian bet anyways and the challenge to the West.

Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”? — neomac


The war in Ukraine is completely pointless and a shining example of the unnecessary evil of states - all states involved, including the state of Ukraine itself. — Tzeentch

Is this still a strategic claim? Or a “colloquial” claim? Or a “moral” claim? Or a “legal” claim?

Why not in the same way? What is the difference? — neomac

The difference is that Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution, but was snubbed by the Americans on every occasion.
Israel on the other hand did everything it could to prevent a diplomatic solution. — Tzeentch

Is this some colloquial/moral/strategic/legal normative claim or a factual claim? Because if it is a factual claim, it is questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process). Besides we do not know if diplomatic efforts would work with Russia, since Russia repeatedly threatened and violated Ukrainian’s sovereignty despite all past agreements. Agreements will give Russia the chance to stabilise its conquests and keep destabilising Ukraine.
Besides this shows another difference relevant for diplomatic solutions: Russia is threatening/violating Ukrainian sovereign integrity after repeatedly acknowledging it while Israel didn’t acknowledge Palestine as a sovereign state. The diplomatic solution sought by Russia is grounded on condoning a fundamental international law violation (territorial annexations) which even the Great Satan never dared to commit so far, right?

I'm a classic liberal in the practical sense, and an anarchist in an idealist sense.
For me, states are a 'necessary evil' at their very best, and more often than not just 'evil’. — Tzeentch

“Evil” in a moral sense? But if states are not moral agent, why do you call them “evil” or “necessarily evil”?
Are they evil in the same sense the covid pandemic is?

My arguments vis-á-vis Ukraine are not moral in nature, and the idea that this war is primarily caused by neocon foreign policy is not moral either.

Sometimes the sheer disgust I feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics shines through. Sue me. — Tzeentch

Those aren't moral 'shoulds' though, and attributing blame isn't necessarily moral in nature either. These are questions of cause & effect, strategy, etc. — Tzeentch

You mean the same disgust you would certainly feel toward the corona virus that has killed almost 7 million deaths (since Jan ’22) according to some estimates?
As far as I’m concerned, I find causal links very misleading in attributing responsibilities if we do not assume moral agency.
Indeed, how can you even determine that the war was primarily caused by neocon foreign policy instead of being primarily cause by what caused neocon foreign policy ? Or by what caused the cause of neocon foreign policy? O by what caused the cause of the cause of the neocon foreign policy?
In a pool of concurrent causes for this war haw do you determine what is primary and what is non-primary?
Wars are a very common pattern in the entire human history and most certainly well prior than the diffusion of “neocon foreign policy”, and we can find reasons for war across a wide range of incompatible regime driving ideologies, so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war?

States are abstractions and not moral actors, so they have no moral rights.

As I said, morality is simply not a useful lens through which to evaluate the behavior of states.

Note that in the case of the Israel discussion, Israel has no legal right to self-defense, which is why the discussion shifted to the question of whether it had a moral right.

And no, of course my belief is not that Putin has a moral right to invade Ukraine.

For the purpose of this discussion I've always supposed Ukraine had a legal right to self-defense and that Russia's invasion is illegal, and never claimed otherwise. The basis for that is international law, and not morality. — Tzeentch

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so?
How come that the abstractness of the notion of “state” allows a state to enjoy legal rights but not moral rights?
Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine,
what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”?

Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that? — neomac


No, I don't believe Russia is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine in the same way that Israel is responsible for the war in Gaza.

Russia is part of the problem, and its invasion and occupation are illegal. I can agree to that much. — Tzeentch

Why not in the same way? What is the difference?

The problem is Europeans' free riding can also weaken NATO deterrence power (given Russia, given China, given Trump). In the end, only wars can prove the reliability and efficacy of a military alliance.

Things are looking grim for Europeans. Despite the Western propaganda and the US hegemony, the compelling point of the "Western world order" was/is not much "the Rest of the world must be like us because we are awesome" but more "either the Rest becomes more like us or we will (need to) become more like them". The European populist and nationalist movements are already on the rise.

Is this simply the primacy of economics having become to ingrained, so European leaders have trouble actively shaping a geopolitical policy? — Echarmion

The war in Ukraine was a wake up call for Europeans:
Europe is not prepared for a war with Russia and is in danger of being “washed away” in a conflict, much as the Holy Roman Empire was broken up by Napoleon, Germany’s pre-eminent military historian has warned.

At a high-level defence conference in Berlin, several German generals also suggested that Nato might be unable to win the “first battle” in a defensive war on its eastern flank, because it would struggle to ship sufficient numbers of troops and equipment to the front line quickly enough.

Sönke Neitzel, professor of military history at Potsdam University and the leading academic authority on the modern German armed forces, described the logistics as a “nightmare” and said it could take at least 15 years before Germany was ready for
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/europes-weak-armed-forces-could-be-washed-away-by-russia-bmxbc22gc

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/04/white-house-ukraine-military-aid-warning

Zelensky is under pressure internally:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/12/4/7431535/
https://www.20min.ch/story/interview-vitali-klitschko-ueber-selenski-sprichwoerter-korruption-und-neid-263819931851

From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset. — Tzeentch

Meaning?

But my engagement in the discussion about the Ukraine war has never been moral in nature. Morality isn't even a useful lens through which to view the conduct of states, since they are not moral actors — Tzeentch

.

Do you mean that “those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego” and “how many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?” do not express moral evaluations? Neither “my perspective presupposes peaceful coexistence is (or "should be") the goal of nations. Sadly, many nations and certainly the U.S. are not driven by that goal”?

How about the conduct of Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Macron, Scholz, Boris Johnson? Can we assess their political choices morally since they are moral actors? How about “These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?” ? Does it express a moral evaluation?

Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law, which is something I would never deny.

You have to pay attention to what is said, not fill in the blanks with what you would like to believe "I meant". — Tzeentch

If you do not want me to fill in the blanks, as you claim, you should try to be more clear next time. Here is what I got so far, about your beliefs: Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law. But not right to defend itself from a standpoint of morality because… it is not a moral actor?
Now the question: Putin who is a moral actor (right?) can invade Ukraine and violate its right from a standpoint of international law because from a moral point of view Ukraine has no right to self-defence?

As for the rest, I believe Ukraine will achieve nothing by continuing to fight, except for a worse bargaining position and further destruction of Ukraine.

There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that, even if it's not what cheerleaders want to hear.

Yes, I believe Russia most-likely achieved its primary objectives. Yes, I believe the Ukrainiain bargaining position has only deteriorated since the negotiations of March/April 2022.

And on the topic of trust; it's Ukraine who stands to lose most in this war, so trust or no trust, refusing negotiations will only deteriorate its position further. — Tzeentch

What you have conveniently removed from this presentation of your views is all your normative claims about what Ukrainian should have done, what the US/Europeans should do, and who is to blame. Besides pro-Russian propaganda could make the same arguments, even if that’s what you do not want to hear. Indeed, you are still arguing based on factual claims that you believe compelling in their accuracy and sufficient to support surrender.
Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that?

Again easy to retort. You are cheerleading Ukrainian surrender to Russian demands. — neomac


No, I'm not. Quote me if you believe I'm saying that.

Perhaps you take my cynical views of Washington's stake in this war as 'pro-Russian', but that's simply a mischaracterization. — Tzeentch

I don’t believe you said that. I believe you mean that. Indeed, if these are your assumptions:
1. You believe that state do not have the right to fight in self-defence [1]
2. You believe that Russia succeeded in its military goals (faint around Kiev and securing land bridge in the south) and Ukraine failed (it didn’t free the annexed territories)
3. That the US support (followed by weak European leaders) is cynically exploitative. And that “If anything I believe the Europeans should stop backing the war in Ukraine and encourage the Americans to leave as fast as possible.”
4. You keep repeating that in March Ukraine had the best chance to end the war and that Ukraine should negotiate regardless of the broken trust.

The argument you are pushing is something like Ukrainians have no points:
- in fighting in self-defence of their country,
- in pursuing a military victory over Russia because Russia has won on the battlefield and Ukrainian objectives are unattainable
- in relying to the US military support (either because the US is exploitative or because if it wasn’t it should stop supporting Ukraine anyways)
But Ukraine should try to negotiate anyways despite the lack of trust from the Russians, at least at the conditions of March / April 2022 (which equates to a negotiation for surrender if there are no security guarantees from other countries, which ones? The exploitative US won’t give them and it can not be trusted anyways), if Russia accepts it (what if Russia wants more?) [2][3]. So practically without leverage (which was the American military support and willingness to keep fighting), with the priority to spare “many thousands of lives and billions in damages”, and with no territorial concessions nor security guarantees.
If that is not “surrender”, I don’t know what is.

But let’s have a look at how you argue when Russia is not the aggressor [4]. No argument to support the idea that Palestinians have no right to fight to defend their idea of state, that freeing Palestine with a war is unattainable and Israel is winning by grabbing and securing more land, that Iran is exploiting Palestinians (and other hegemonically ambitious players too in the Arab world and outside), and that Palestinians should negotiate with Israel with the peace deal on terms that Israel is willing to accept. It’s all about what Israel should do.



[1]

↪javra
I agree that there is such a thing as self-defense. I just don't think it applies to war in general because what is actually being defended is not a person, but an idea of a state, territory, national pride, etc. — Tzeentch

[2]

Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless). — Tzeentch

[3]

When peace talks were started in late March, that should have been the end of the war. — Tzeentch

How far should the situation in Ukraine deterioriate before we can agree the peace accords that were on the table in March / April 2022, scarcely a month into the war, should have been carried out instead of blocked by the US?

Those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego. Flipping Ukraine pro-western has been a decades-long project of the Neocon foreign policy blob, under leadership of chief blob Nuland.

How many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth? — Tzeentch

[4]

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally. — Tzeentch

They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem. — Tzeentch

The videos I posted clearly demonstrate the groups adoption of "Nazi stuff" is far deeper than just tattoos. — boethius

And Israel and jews do not seem as concerned as the Russians.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-jews-push-back-against-putins-neo-nazi-claim-as-they-gear-up-for-battle/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-4-months-in-russian-solitary-ukrainian-officer-visits-israel-tells-his-story/

On the other side in Russia:
https://theconversation.com/jews-are-leaving-russia-again-is-history-repeating-itself-189090
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/09/russia-inadequate-response-antisemitism-north-caucasus

Go on, explain how hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dying for war aims that are not accomplished and seems clear to everyone now was completely obvious to everyone all along that the war aims wouldn't be accomplished with the means supplied ... is "pro-Ukrainian”? — boethius

I already answered this question. Assessing military results depend on political aims. And political aims of national sovereign states are grounded on “national interest” which is identitarian matter. So it’s on the Ukrainians to establish to what extent it is worth fighting against the Russians. Besides until the Ukrainians want to fight and have the Western military support the war is not over. And if it will be over at some point without restoration of territorial integrity, there might be political ways to restore it (completely or in part) that wouldn’t have been possible without the Ukrainian war effort. For the US it took 20 years to leave Afghanistan.

Fortunately, Hamas is competent and savvy enough to avoid a path that gets hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed, only mere tens of thousands. — boethius

Tens of thousands over a population of roughly 2 millions is not that small either.
Fortunately, Israel is competent and savvy that didn’t kill more Palestinians, even if it had the means to do it.

More importantly, likely Hamas has achieved its war aims of demonstrating to the Arab world that Israel can be humiliated on the battlefield, this will motivate additional fanaticism for decades to come. — boethius

Hamas war ultimate aim is to liberation of Palestine, not to humiliate Israel on the battlefield. The latter is just one intermediary step.
Ukraine liberated Kiev from Russian assault and humiliated Russia too, but still is far from liberating all its territories which is the ultimate aim of Ukraine. And also the Russian atrocities may motivate Ukrainians to fight Russia for decades to come.

With enough irregular forces with enough asymmetric assets borne from modern technology, irregular forces that can't practically be deterred with nuclear weapons, there very well may come the day when the IDF loses to a ragtag collection of groups originally created, trained, financed and incubated in the wars of the US. — boethius

Maybe the Ukrainians could try to do the same then against the Russians.

It seems that the exchange of violence in this war disfavours the Palestinians, but that isn't their calculus. Hamas killed a meaningful percentage of the total Israeli population, whereas Israel has killed a meaningless percentage of the total Muslim population — boethius

The problem is that Hamas is not only an islamist but also a nationalist movement, so it doesn’t fight for all the muslisms but for the liberation of Palestine.
While the other muslim regimes do not seem particularly compelled to retaliate against Israel (not even Iran) in a more direct or aggressive way. So Hamas calculation doesn’t seem to make more sense than what the Ukrainians are doing: both are far from reaching their ultimate goal, both have sacrificed a good deal of people wrt their population, both see this tragedy as a motivational factor to continue the battle.

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I am trying to understand the conflict, not cheerleading for a side. — Tzeentch

Again easy to retort. You are cheerleading Ukrainian surrender to Russian demands.

positions that get hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians killed and do not accomplish the war aims, is not pro-Ukrainian. — boethius

Well that presupposes that you know what is pro-Ukrainian, but who the fuck are you to tell what is pro-Ukrainian?! BTW positions that get tens of thousands of Palestianis killed and do not accomplish the war aims, is not pro-Palestianian, right?

But it's good to know that the extent of the argument doesn't go beyond "Everyone who disagrees with me is a propagandist." :lol: — Tzeentch

As I said, many times, such accusations can be easily retorted. The sources we bring up which you disagree with are propaganda to you. However the deep issue behind this easy accusations probably concern our understanding on how propaganda works in general, how my arguments work in this thread, and our respective positions toward the US vs Russia. That's why I have no problem to qualify myself as pro-US while you seem to have problems to qualify yourself as pro-Russian.

If I remember correctly, the main counter argument was that "there are Nazi's everywhere" ... I ask from where else is there similar evidence of so many Nazi's causing such big problems ... nada. — boethius

Dude, I don’t even think you watch the videos you link (I checked 4 out of 5, since one wasn’t reachable). They too mention Neo-nazi and far right movements in Europe and the US committing brutal terrorist attacks. Neo-nazi are a Western issue, not specifically a Ukrainian issue.
The question is not if the Ukrainian Neo-nazi are a problem (most certainly not in the way Putin presented it to justify his war, because “electorally they are very weak, all the far-right parties together couldn’t clear the very low bar to enter the Ukrainian parliament. In terms of mass support in Ukraine, they don’t have it”, as in one of your videos the reporter states it clearly and repeatedly). But that RUSSIA IS NO SOLUTION TO THE NAZI PROBLEM NOWHERE (INCLUDING RUSSIA). Russia is the BIGGEST EXPORTER OF FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_nationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Russia#Groups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Utkin
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2022/opinion/russias-long-history-of-neo-nazis
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/pro-kremlin-neo-nazi-militia-inciting-torture-murder-ukrainian-prisoners
Besides, RUSSIA IS NO SOLUTION TO THE NAZI PROBLEM PARTICULARLY INSIDE UKRAINE because it’s Russia meddling in Ukraine and invasion that is nurturing particularly the Ukrainian neo-nazism (for historical reasons too).
Considering military campus for children, let’s have a look at what Russia is doing: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/children-as-a-tool-how-russia-militarizes-kids-in-the-donbas-and-crimea/
This nationalist polarisation is very common phenomenon in countries struggling for their sovereignty (see also Israel vs Palestine).

As if Heidegger couldn't do pro-Nazi propaganda, Foucault couldn't do pro-Islamist propaganda, and Sartre couldn't do pro-Maoist propaganda, because they are considered among the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.

• PART02

Now, whether this is inherently true or not, that any deal that is or was remotely feasible between Ukraine and Russia is "bad for the West", certainly, depending on the details, a peace deal would be better or worse for the West, and this is exactly the leverage Ukraine has, or at least had at one point.

How Ukraine could get concessions from the West is in threatening to go and make sure of doing exactly what you say would be bad for the West: i.e. threaten to make peace with the Russians in a way that embarrasses and weakens the West the most.

For example, Zelensky could have gone to the US, NATO, the EU, and said "look, you've slow played us into this disastrous war, if you don't give me some additional compensation (such as fast track EU membership), in addition to what the Russians are offering, so that I can do right by the Ukrainian people and we get something for giving up claim to Crimea, then I'm going to declare the West has abandoned us, no Western soldiers are coming, no no-fly zone is coming, we are alone, abandoned by our Western friends, arms and thoughts and prayers won't defeat the Russians, and therefore we will make peace with the Russians (and then imply a bunch of terms even more embarrassing for the West, such as allowing Russia to have military bases in Ukraine, station missiles, or just further economic cooperation with the Russians etc.).

At this stage of negotiation, the West would need to decide whether to play ball or not and participate in negotiations in order to be able to negotiate terms they can better spin as some sort of "victory" for the West (such as "security guarantees" for Ukraine, integrating Ukraine into other Western institutions such as the EU, and so on). If the West refuses to offer anything, well the Russian deal is still better than a disastrous war, and there's nothing to lose in trying to go get concessions also from other parties concerned. — boethius

I doubt that Zelensky would politically survive this plot twist in the face of the Ukrainians, his entourage, and his Western allies. Or be fully shielded from sabotage attempts. Besides you seem to give for granted that Zelensky can deflect his political responsibility by supporting the idea that Ukraine has been slow played into a disastrous war. But, unless Zelensky was really a puppet of the US and would now heroically denounce himself as such, maybe Zelensky bears a good deal of responsibility. Indeed, that is what is legitimate to expect from rulers of sovereign countries. Maybe he was abundantly warned behind doors by Western politicians (when politicians can put aside their rhetoric posturing and be more pragmatic) and his entourage (as the evidences of the internal struggle within Zelensky’s administration may suggest) of what risks he would have faced since the beginning of the war and of the potential constraints of the Western support. After all, the Westerners too suggested him to surrender (in the sense of giving up fighting) and flee at the beginning of the war, and after the Russians withdrew from Kherson Zelensky was again suggested by the Westerners to re-consider negotiation from a position of strength. As I suggested earlier maybe the US was just fine with freezing the conflict right there at that moment and Zelensky could have been satisfied just with his resistance against regime change and against demilitarisation, even assuming there was no peace deal and the territorial dispute was still open. This might have been enough to turn Russia into a rogue state and give Ukraine some breath while keeping the Western pressure on Russia. However Zelensky may have been compelled also by being in a unique political and historical position to take a greater risk for a greater reward with a last big push before the next American and Russian elections.

Ukraine's leverage was likely the highest before the war even started, as it's a big expense and a big risk to even start the war. Now, Russia wanted more a deal with the West, a new European security architecture, which the West refused saying it's between Russia and Ukraine (exactly because neo-cons at least believe that Ukraine fighting Russia, even if irrational for Ukraine, is better than any peace; no a surprise there), that was more comprehensive, but again Zelensky (if he wasn't an idiot) could have gone and threatened the West with peace into agreeing to negotiate with Russia a new framework in which Ukraine is neutral.
Then there is the first weeks of the war where an offer was on the table, Zelensky could have closed a deal had he wanted.
War crimes are definitely usual in any war, and their investigation can be part of a peace deal; it is simply another point to negotiation, and not a reason to refuse to negotiate (even if we are assuming it was indeed the Russians and not elements in Ukraine that don't want any peace). — boethius

And, why did Russia want a deal with the West and not with Zelensky, if for Zelensky “it's a big expense and a big risk to even start the war” (apparently, you really can’t help but sound like pro-Russian propaganda)?
If Russia didn’t have enough leverage to get what it wanted from the West, why are you so convinced that Zelensky had it?
If neoconservatives were bent to make Ukraine fight to the last person, even if irrational, and Zelensky is an idiot put there by the neoconservatives to play their script, why are you conjecturing that things could have gone otherwise?
Why would the leverage for Zelensky against the Europeans be bigger at the beginning of the war when Europeans didn’t experience economic fatigue than after the Europeans experienced economic fatigue for almost 2 years?
Why would Zelensky have more leverage with Europeans than with Russians at the beginning of the war? He could have exchanged Crimea and Donbas for economic compensations to Russia (or just for survival given Russian attempts to kill him) and turn into a Russian puppet right away, while sparing Putin all the fuss.
Why would any involved party trust other involved parties in this ornamental agreement with zero meaning given the historical penchant for “bad faith” on all sides?
If neoconservatives are such an evil specimen that loves to violently subjugate and exploit the rest of the world, how come that the neocoservatives’ support for post-Cold War globalization in the last decades boosted Russia (and China)’s economic-military-political growth and power projection outside their borders far more than the American “provocations” weakened their offensive power?
If neoconservatives are such an evil specimen that loves to violently subjugate and exploit the rest of the world, why do you think that the US would let the Europeans normalise their relations with Russia over a peace deal with Ukraine?
BTW can you teach me what about Zelensky’s ten points for peace negotiations in November ’22 was rational to give up (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-zelenskiys-10-point-peace-plan-2022-12-28/)? They also mention Russian war crimes among the negotiable points, as you suggested.
Again, your entire reasoning is grounded on a load of non-shared and historically decontextualised assumptions, which I even hardly find consistent as such. Apparently, history and geopolitics and national strategic interest is good to explain (justify?) Putin’s aggression of Ukraine and blame the US meddling in Russia’s backyard, but it is not good to explain (justify?) Zelensky’s, Biden’s, Europeans’ approach toward Putin.
What is so self-defeating in your all-knowing man-of-honour pedagogic stunt is that you can not use one single bit of your own impeccable definitions or military, economic, and moral omniscience to fix YOURSELF any of the rational failures, idiocy, evilness you are complaining about. You can at best whine over the internet along with your sidekicks wishing that this would do the fixing by others some day, as any random anonymous self-proclaimed man-of-honour from the internet would do, of course.

Another strong reason is that Ukrainians would like to keep the Western alliance and they could likely count on the decades-long support of the US: Ukraine is on the border of Europe, the historical core of the US’s sphere of influence. — neomac


Yeah, sure, and I'd like a toilet of solid gold.

Simply wanting something is not a rational basis to fight a long and costly war that you are very, very likely to lose.

The relevant question here is whether war is a reasonable way of getting what you want. Maybe it is reasonable for Ukraine to "like to keep the Western alliance" (that Ukraine is not apart of), but it does not follow from that to fight a long and costly war to join the alliance of which the purpose would be ... deter said long and costly war?!?! — boethius

I’ve been reasoning in geopolitical terms, so I meant a strategic alliance with the West, obviously.
I never argued in support of “fight a long and costly war to join the alliance of which the purpose would be ... deter said long and costly war”. Indeed, you can not quote me saying it nor saying anything that logically implies this.
The political objectives, as I understand them, could have been more maximalist (e.g. resist regime change and demilitarisation, regaining territorial integrity, join EU/NATO, overthrow Putin) or more minimalist (e.g. resist regime change and demilitarisation, and then weaken Russia through other means as a rogue state). If Zelensky might likely have felt compelled to be maximalist, the US might likely have felt more compelled to be minimalist. For the US even having Zelensky escape from Ukraine, might have been enough to try to turn Russia into a rogue state: SO FAR, the US has definitely got more than it prospected at the beginning of the war. Zelensky got less than what he hoped. But not a total defeat either so he can’t now just surrender without compromising what has been able to achieve so far. From a strategic point of view, things shouldn’t look as bad as you wish to depict them even from the Ukrainian point of view. BTW even if there was no major land breakthrough in the last push, yet the successful attacks against the Black Sea Fleet may be of particular significance also for a future ceasefire negotiation. What contributed to magnify this sense of failure is arguably the Ukrainian propaganda itself which (MAYBE unnecessarily) created a hazardous hype over something that was very difficult, if not most certainly unlikely to succeed, given the inadequate/slow military support from the West.

While Russia explicitly antagonizes the US hegemony and solicits anti-Western regimes to join Russia in this effort, so both the US and its enemies are compelled to see the war in Ukraine as a critical step to establish a new World Order at the expense of the US. So it is reasonable to expect this be of particular concern for the US. — neomac


Sure, maybe it's reasonable for the US to want Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian ... — boethius

I doubt it would be reasonable even for the Great Satan: if all Ukrainians got killed, there would be no resistance left against the Russians, if there are any left. So the Great Satan may want Ukrainians to spare human and material forces to continue fighting, as needed.

If you are right about your manipulative interpretation of what Sen. Lindsey Graham said, that proves at best he shares your views of what is rational. — neomac

I am right that the US is manipulating Ukraine. For example "whatever it takes" and "as long as it takes" are both obviously manipulative lies. — boethius

Again, a non-shared assumption. “Whatever it takes" and "as long as it takes" is propaganda but what you wish to infer from that depends very much on how you understand propaganda. As far as I’m concerned propaganda is a political tool as much as diplomacy, war and economic sanctions. Political propaganda’s purpose is not primarily to inform but to politically mobilise people. So the information may be presented not to maximise understanding but to maximise a politically desired reaction. However propaganda has: 1. its costs, like any other political tool, including reputational costs; 2. its targets, political propaganda for the general audience is not for politicians (they have all sorts of informal and formal secured channels to communicate more PRAGMATICALLY, they are expected to be the experts of political propaganda not be fooled by it) but they send a signal to the politicians on what narrative they intend to push to gain support, typically from their fan base (but non exclusively) 3. its constraints and side-effects, fore example I find most certainly reasonable to assess propaganda within the context of other actual/potential rival propaganda (that BTW can come from internal and external political rivals). It’s in the interest of any politician to have or pretend to have rivals overstretching with their propaganda beyond sustainability to then spin the counter-propaganda against failed promises by calling them “propaganda” and “manipulative lies”.
From this perspective, propaganda is simply part of the game. For any propaganda from one political administration there is a counter-propaganda from national competitors and foreign administrations. Any propaganda is expected to stress the flaws of one policy or highlight the benefits of alternative policies, to even claim merits for others’ deeds and blame others for one’s own faults, to present one’s own representatives and choices as rational and noble while opponents as evil or stupid. So having people denouncing propaganda and others’’ “manipulative lies” as you do is not rationally compelling in an environment where everybody is and is expected to spin their own propaganda. Indeed, it proves just how committed you are in spinning pro-Russian propaganda in this forum. The only point I can agree with is that the US will likely pay reputational costs by giving up on supporting Ukraine now and/or in the future (I guess significantly bigger than the ones paid for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan). That’s why I find it unlikely that the US will give up on supporting Ukraine, just they will support Ukraine on their own terms. We will see how things will change if Trump wins.

Likewise, the billions and billions and billions (and many more billions until you've said billions at least 50 times, assuming each billion stands for at least 2 billions) in hard currency and arms the US sends to Ukraine without any tracing or auditing etc. is also a de facto area of affect bribe to all parties in Ukraine who stand to benefit from billion and billion and billions of untraceable currency and arms. That is not only clear manipulation without even attempting to avoid a situation where the money and arms are de facto bribes, but it was well known ahead of times those arms would find themselves in "the wrong hands" (to use RAND's phrasing) and would supercharge terrorism and organized crime around the world. — boethius

To me that’s not enough to assess if this lack of transparency goes against the American or the Ukrainian national interest. Since we are talking about lack of transparency one can conjecture cases were lack of transparency may still serve national interest: e.g. if part of the Ukrainian elite was running on Russian bribing, maybe bribing them back is convenient, if the money and weaponry supply is not traced maybe it’s to protect the network of local informants and dormant Ukrainian insurgents, offering both plausible deniability against Russian complaints or even curbing Ukrainian demands, and protect politicians of the current administration from future counter-investigation by internal political enemies who may compromise national interest. The lack of transparency can also backfire, of course: Russia could steal and indirectly pass to Hamas American weaponry supplied to Ukraine, to let the Western “useful idiots” exploit this to conveniently spin pro-Russian counter-propaganda. Not to mention that all wars have their nasty collateral (not only killing civilians).

However, how this would "prove" Graham shares the same definition of rational as me, and what the point would be, I honestly don't see what that argument is or would be, so you'll have to explain it.

Whatever you're trying to say, rationality does not mean "good" only lacking in self-contradiction, and "self" is a key word as a rational position does not imply a universal position.

People who want to cause as much harm as possible and do as much evil as possible in their limited time, can be perfectly rational in such a pursuit. That they may lack self contradiction in pursuing their purpose to murder, rape and torture, does not make those actions good on account of being rational nor lend any weight to the position that such purposes should be universal and adopted by all rational agents.

It may very well be that it is rational for Senator Graham, relative his neo-con ideology and evil purposes, or even just plain-ol' US imperialism in general, to want Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. That being true would not somehow make it true that is rational for Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. — boethius

If we are talking about national strategic interest, my understanding is that its identitarian nature makes it inherently NOT universal. Yet that doesn’t exclude possible similarities or margins for convergence with the national interest of other countries. Then we can try to assess national interest as what is desirable wrt what can be done in a similar way as computer scientists assess algorithms, namely efficacy and efficiency. The problem is that algorithms are comparable on objectives that are defined to be computable from the same sets of conditions in a finite number of steps, but from a historical perspective objectives may evolve endlessly, generation after generation, and there are no same sets of conditions. One can try to reason by historical analogy: e.g. how long did it take, how much did it cost, how successfully was it for the jews to strive and fight for their own sovereign state generation after generation? Or, how long did it take, how much did it cost, how successfully was it for the Palestinians to strive and fight for their own sovereign state generation after generation? Ukrainians may be in an analogous situation. Is it worth it? Hard to tell and it’s ultimately not on us to tell because costs and risks are primarily on their skin, future prospects remain uncertain in the long term and national interest is inherently national matter.
One might however argue that, IN THE SHORTEST TERM, a containment approach instead of a maximalist approach may be less rewarding but also less costly and more likely to succeed.

But I find questionable your concept of “rationality” roughly for the same reason I find questionable your interpretation of what Sen. Lindsey Graham said. — neomac


How is my interpretation questionable?

If you find something questionable, moreoverso in a philosophical debate, you should explain what's questionable about it and, in the case of interpretation, provide your position on the matter.

How do you interpret Senator Graham's statement?

Before rebutting the rest of your post, I think it is wise to take a hiatus here and see if you even have an alternative interpretation.

For, if you don't (which your failure to support your "questioning" my interpretation by providing an alternative one, very strongly implies that you don't), then your thrashing about in the void is far more easily dealt with as obvious denialism (that even you clearly see in simply denying my interpretation without providing your own) of what Senator Graham obviously has stated (the "quiet part out loud"), and that equally obvious it is a direct and clear statement of US government policy (reinforced further by the lack of anyone from the White House even bothering to contradict Senator Graham, even just for appearance sake ... as it's so obvious an admission of what is so obviously actually happening that it's easier for everyone if the mainstream media simply never cites Graham in full on the US position in the war, much less discuss it). — boethius

To begin with, let’s clarify once again what I’m questioning. Here your quote [1]. You are inferring from Sen. Graham’s quoted statements the belief that “the US does not view Ukraine's choice as a rational one”. That is twice a manipulative interpretation of Sen. Graham’s quoted statements. Why? Since your inference is not a valid logic deduction from Sen. Graham’s quoted statements (“rational” doesn’t even figure in Sen. Graham’s quoted statements), you need some additional implicit assumptions concerning Sen. Graham’s understanding and application of the “rationality” claim to the Ukrainian case the way you do to make the inference logically valid: something like “fight to the last person” is irrational OR “fight to the last person” is irrational if a military victory is most certainly unattainable OR “fight to the last person” is irrational if a military victory is most certainly unattainable and military victory equates to regaining complete territorial integrity. But all such assumptions look pretty spurious to me. Indeed, Sen. Graham’s words make sense even without a specific “theory of victory” or chances of success you wish to question (which terms are not mentioned in the quoted statements). Sen. Graham (who also has a military background) is plausibly reasoning over necessary requirements to enable Ukrainians to military fight Russians: morale (“fighting to the last person” as upper limit of morale) and means (out of the military aid the West is capable to provide). And the former may be critically conditional on the latter.
Besides, the spirit of Graham’s rhetoric is that the Ukrainian willingness to fight to the last person (which is taken as a given not as something that needs foreign moral encouragement or chastising) is expression of admirable patriotism and freedom against the Russian oppression (denounced as a terrorist state) perfectly in line with American Republican values. Indeed, Ukrainians resisting the invasion reminded him of "our better selves in America. There was a time in America that we were this way, fighting to the last person, we were going to be free or die." https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-condemns-us-senator-grahams-comments-death-russians-2023-05-28/
Graham’s propaganda is obviously meant to boost military support for Ukraine by using Republican style rhetoric, with the likely understatement to his wider audience that Americans won’t do nor need to get directly involved in the Ukrainian war to beat Russians’ ass. Sure, it’s still a hawkish approach. But from a national interest perspective there is nothing intrinsically bad in being hawkish.
Your manipulation has two rhetoric intents: discrediting the Ukrainians (as irrational and fanatics) and the Americans (as exploitative). This is how Sen. Graham’s political slogans turn into an evident confession of exploitation by the Americans at the expense of the irrational Ukrainians in your pro-Russian counter-propaganda.

[1]

“I like the structural path we’re on here,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham declared in July 2022. “As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person.” — Aaron Mate


Which makes clear the US does not view Ukraine's choice as a rational one, but a good path for the US (what "we" refers to in this context).

And this is nothing new, using fanatical fighters as a proxy force to weaken a rival is post-WWII great-power conflict 101. — boethius