What have you to say for the group of people who are genuinely miserable as a result of their parents' choices, and for whom it can be said their parents' choice did go against their interests?

You must agree such a group of people exist, no?

'Possible persons' are imaginary – nonexistent – and, therefore, only subsist (A. Meinong), like every other mere possibility, (D. Lewis) without a moral status . — 180 Proof

Antinatalists, IMO, need to either (A) refute that proposition — 180 Proof

That's not very hard to refute.

Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now.

When the bomb goes off and wipes out this town, full of people who did not yet exist at the time of planting the bomb, do I get to say I'm without blame because these possible persons had no moral status at the time of my planting the bomb, thus I had no obligation to take their well-being into account?

This is child's play.

The parent is the one doing the equation.. That's the problem.. It can NEVER be the person it is affecting. Why should such significant and profound calculations be done on someone else's behalf when it wasn't necessary to do so? — schopenhauer1

This really is the core of the problem, and in my opinion it is an open and shut case.

The usual route people take to solve it is by arguing that the life they wishfully envision for their child is a positive thing.

Even assuming this approach would be feasible in the first place*, this skips the fact that no person has the wisdom, knowledge and capacity necessary to put their vision of their happy child into reality. The life of a person is simply too complicated, and the influence of the parents, while significant, too limited to take control of all the outcomes.

It's not just a choice on behalf of another, it is a gamble with that person's life.

*Since their idea of what is positive is subjective and may not correspond with their child's.

As a realist, you ought to have nothing to worry about, no values to defend, nothing you really care for is at stake here. Reality will continue to unfold in a real way, the way it tends to do... And that will be it. — Olivier5

Realism is a tool for understanding international politics. What one does with that understanding is up to them.

To say a realist does not have any values to defend is false. A realist simply doesn't let their subjective values taint their attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage.

The Ukrainians aren't going to just give up. — jorndoe

I don't presume to tell the Ukrainians what to do. It's their country being invaded.

Putin says a lot of things, like in 2014:

Don't worry, Putin says he doesn't want Ukraine (PRX; Mar 29, 2014) — jorndoe

I think United States meddling in the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 was a turning point in Russia's view on the question of Ukraine. I think a peaceful solution to the brewing conflict went off the table then and there.

And as a realist, you think that policy is wise, correct? — Olivier5

I am concerned with how states act and why they act that way. I'm no policymaker. If you want my non-realist opinion: states are run by crooks. Period. I expect nothing even vaguely resembling wisdom from any state actor, only self-aggrandisement.

So as a realist, are you saying that US presidents should keep on making profitable deals with dictatorships, human rights be damned? Kindly confirm whether this is what you mean by "realism". — Olivier5

As a realist I'll say that that's exactly what they'll do. (Note: there is no "should" in there) And lowe and behold, you just summed up United States foreign policy.

I'd love to see you try, ... — Olivier5

I don't need to try, since the realist - idealist split has been something that has characterized international politics for a long time and are concepts widely accepted in academia. If you want to argue that they don't exist that'll be for you to prove.

Idealism Versus Realism

A facile example: it is IMO ridiculously unrealistic and even lunatic to suggest that Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals. — Olivier5

[...] on behalf of whose ideals do you believe they're speaking other than their own? — Tzeentch

In reality, it just so happens that Wayfarer agrees with the values for which Ukrainians are fighting. — Olivier5

Indeed. They are speaking on behalf of their own ideals, they just happen to correspond. And to suggest such ideals should be a driving factor behind the decisionmaking process is, you guessed it, typically idealist.

This couldn't be farther from the realist perspective that argues actions and consequences, not ideals, are what matter.

So no matter what Putin does, the fault is with the West. — Wayfarer

No, given the geopolitical context in which trouble in Ukraine and Crimea started, which goes back to at least 2008, the fault is predominantly with the United States (and Europe by virtue of its complacency and blind adherence to the Americans).

In no way does that justify Russia's invasion. It does however give us an idea on where to look for solutions to this conflict.

This geopolitical context is explained in detail by thinkers such as Noam Choamsky and John Mearsheimer, both of which I have shared in this thread, and they come to that conclusion.

So do you think Putin's war is justified? — Wayfarer

No, of course not. But my moral judgement is irrelevant.

That Ukraine should just give up the fight and allow Russia to annex their country? — Wayfarer

I have no opinion on what the Ukrainians should do.

The United States and Europe could have done much to prevent this conflict and I believe they should have. I also believe the United States and Europe should not cheer on Ukraine on the road to its own destruction for the sake of hurting Russia.

We all discuss from our POV, you included. This is unavoidable. You too have beliefs and ideas. — Olivier5

Yes, but do I really need to explain to you the difference between realism and idealism, which is where we fundamentally differ?

It is absurd to try and make it personal. — Olivier5

What a joke that you of all people should say that.

I'm not making it personal. I'm calling apples apples. In this thread we are debating on Ukraine and some do so from their personal beliefs and fancies (idealism), and I'll happily argue why that is wrong and what the implications of it are.

Are you kind of suggesting that Ukrainians are going to sacrifice their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals? — neomac

That's the essence of the idealist approach to international politics.

When states that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, on behalf of whose ideals do you believe they're speaking other than their own?

Saying no to negotiations means one thing: to carry through this war to its bitter end. That will mean the destruction of Ukraine and the loss of thousands more lives, if not worse.

This thread is drenched with this type of naive idealism - the belief that one's personal dislike of Putin, however justified, should serve as a basis upon which to decide whether the conflict in Ukraine should be prolonged, and thus how many should continue to sacrifice their lives.

Sorry, I mistook your yappy dog syndrome for the false idea you had something to say.

Ok then, no negotiations.

"We" are going to "beat the Russians", and who do you suppose is going to make that sacrifice to uphold your ideals?

I'm guessing probably not yourselves?

Let's hear your plans then.

But it won't survive without everyone! — universeness

You are not everyone, nor do you have any influence on everyone.

Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team. — universeness

Doubtful. Why do so many fanatical sports fans get so mad when their team loses? Because they are powerless. They're invested in something they have no power over.

It's bad for you. Better to invest that energy in things you have real power over, like being a good person in every day life.

They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents... — universeness

Those were your words, not mine.

... you handwave the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. — universeness

I don't handwave anyone's pain. But pain is no excuse to act immorally, and that's why I cannot accept what you gave as a justification.

Watch the clips that DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips. — universeness

No thanks. Ten seconds in and it doesn't seem worth the time or the brain cells. If there's something specific you want me to engage with you'll have to write it here.

Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race? — universeness

Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.

It will survive with you, or without you, and none of us will be around to see it perish, if it does, but as time goes on it's exceedingly likely that it will.

If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest? — universeness

I would say that's a wonderful idea, yet one that doesn't escape the cold logic that I just laid out.

It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. Though arguably cheering for one's favorite sports team has more impact than cheering for the human race.

I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch

You are hairsplitting. — universeness

No, these two things are fundamentally different.

Existing is obviously not immoral.

Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation.

The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born? — universeness

For the most part, yes. After the child is born it's a new situation. The parents have made a moral error, and now it's their responsibility to make the best of it.

Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. — universeness

I've never heard the term 'instinctive imperative' before, but I don't believe instincts form a good guide for moral behavior, nor do they justify behavior.

We scrutinize individual behaviors through the lens of reason. That's how we evaluate the morality of certain behavior, with things like law.

If humans want to appeal to instincts to excuse their reckless behavior they're essentially saying "I'm an animal" - then they'll be treated as such. That's not to say we can be cruel to them, but I wouldn't have philosophical conversations with my dog either.

Needless to say, such arguments sound like an intellectual concession of defeat and I don't find them very compelling.

As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face. — universeness

Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear.

I'm not here to judge people, and I won't. All I'll say is that by my argument having children under such conditions would be an immoral choice. What they do with this is up to them.

And if that makes people violent, I would read that as simple fear that I am right.

No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born [...] — universeness

Potatoe, potatoe.

[...] and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop. — universeness

The 'species' is simply a conglomerate of individuals, and I believe the value of humanity, if indeed it can be said to have any value, lies in the moral behavior of each individual.

If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live my life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone.

What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition. — DA671

No.

If for whatever reason it could be accertained beforehand that a pregnancy would result in a child with deficiences (because of incest for example), the choice to get pregnant anyway is clearly an imposition. An imposition of those deficiences onto the child. Whether the child is not yet in existence is irrelevant. We know it will come into existence by our actions, and we know the consequences it will have.

It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best. — DA671

Indeed. Inaction is always neutral, except under the conditions I specified.

The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? — DA671

The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism. — DA671

If you read my argument carefully you will see I am not making a pessimistic argument at all.

I'm making the argument that we're fundamentally ignorant to the results of our actions, those actions will have monumental consequences for another living being, and thus our actions are irresponsible - immoral.

Not only that, but the parents are also largely powerless over the well-being of their child! So however benevolent their intentions and however good their capabilities as parents, much of it is out of their control.

One cannot make justifiable decisions on someone else's behalf when one is ignorant of the outcomes and largely powerless over the course of events.

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? — Tzeentch

Oh I have no problem with that, I merely ridicule the suggestion that such consent will ever be given by all humans that exist. Antinatalism is therefore a dimwitted forlorn proposal and a completely pointless suggestion. — universeness

That apparently even by your own estimation we're only talking about a relatively small number of people making voluntary decisions, does little to explain your defensiveness.

I'm only interested in the question whether it is moral to birth individuals into this world. What people do with the answer is up to them and not my business.

You are correct, there is no danger of the human race voting for their own extinction as they are capable of rational thinking. — universeness

Humans that proclaim to be heavily invested in the "survival of the human race" - something they hold no rational stake in, nor influence over - cannot be said to be rational.

Yes, I would broadly agree with that as it took 13.8 billion years of happenstance to produce us, so let's try to figure out why before we decide to vote for extinction. — universeness

I'm not voting for anything, nor am I telling anyone what to do - I'm just laying out an argument. Apparently you find that very threatening.

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place. — Tzeentch

Do what you can to help! — universeness

Ok! But being a good person has nothing to do with whether child birth is moral or not!

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" — Tzeentch

I have met many people who have told me so. — universeness

I was speaking specifically of people who are suffering harshly, whether it's physical, mental, emotional.

People who by their own account would rather die than live.

On what basis are you claiming they are living a wonderful life?

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

I disagree... — universeness

That's not an answer to the question. That's dodging the question.

Where do you get the right to suggest that the existence of life is immoral due to the possibility of suffering or whatever else you think is a logical reason to support the antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

You must present my position fairly. I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral.

And I do so on the basis of the fact that it is immoral to impose such monumental and potentially grave conditions on someone without knowing whether they consent.

In the case of an unborn child, gaining consent is impossible, so birthing the child is akin to taking a gamble with someone else's life (aka pushing someone out of an airplane knowing their parachute has a ten percent chance of failing). Something for which I can find no moral justification.

The universe does not have any known moral imperatives. — universeness

Yet all of us seem to agree that certain things are wrong. Things that involve doing things to other people without their consent. Rape, murder, that sort of thing.

It's just a matter of applying these principles consistently and we come to the conclusion that forcing people to live is wrong not because we want it to be wrong, but because the consistent application of logic dictates it.

Nobody is being forced to exist against their will. — DA671

Someone is clearly being forced. Whether it's against their will is unknowable. So I don't know how you can say that is "indisputable". I'm disputing it, certainly.

Anybody who believes to the contrary should not have issues with someone who says that clearly someone is being given a good they couldn't have asked for. — DA671

It's not up to you decide what is "clearly" good for someone else, and then simply impose it on them.

To a non-trivial amount of people life is not a welcome gift. Ergo, their parachute didn't open. And they were pushed, without their consent, into an abyss of suffering. It's clearly immoral.

The question is, given the fact that we do not know the status of the parachute before the imposition, is it ever morally justifiable to make that imposition.

One does know that most people do seem to cherish their lives despite the harms they face. If one doesn't know that the negatives won't necessarily outweigh the positives, then preventing all of them cannot be given approbation. — DA671

That some people, luckily, enjoy the experience is not sufficient reason to justify the whole ordeal. That would be like accepting those people who come to suffer and not enjoy life as sacrifical lambs. I don't see how that can be morally justifiable.

Beyond the matrix: the sequel we never got :p — DA671

:wink:

There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. — DA671

Clearly there is a being who is being forced. At the point of birth I don't think you can dispute that anymore.

And while we know little about a baby's desires since they're not yet capable of expressing them, they're clearly conscious and have little wills of their own. So again, there's an imposition based on a fundamental ignorance here that I don't think you can avoid.

But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed. — DA671

Certainly. But how does one know beforehand? And if one conceeds that one doens't know beforehand, how does one justify going ahead with it anyway, knowing the dire consequences one's actions may have, however benevolent the intentions?

I think we're outside the matrix. :snicker:

It's not an imposition. — DA671

An imposition means to force something on another.

By being born something (life) is being forced (the physical act of birth, to which a child cannot resist nor consent) on another (the child).

Which part of this do you not agree with?

If it can be seen as one, it can also be seen as a gift. — DA671

What we call it does not change the nature of the act.

A gift can be an imposition too, and before one gives someone a 'gift', isn't one morally obliged to ensure this gift does not hurt the recipient?

If one pushes someone out of a plane but their parachute doesn't open, could one justify themselves on the basis of what you've put forward? I think not. Giving gifts can be immoral too, regardless of its benevolent intention.

If not "imposing" is good, then not bestowing happiness is quite problematic. — DA671

Apart from those responsibilities that one has taken upon themselves by their voluntary action, I think inaction is always morally permissable. That is to say, if one's inaction prevents good from happening, then that is not immoral. As such, in the face of overwhelming uncertainty it may be better not to act.

A view within which 'not doing good' is immoral would require everyone to spend their every waking moment doing all the good they possibly can. What sinful creatures we would be, indeed.

I don't think that an act that doesn't go against the interests of an existing person can be an imposition. — DA671

Being born clearly is an imposition by the parents on the child.

If such a monumental imposition is morally permissible, then on what basis can be said that other impositions aren't permissable?

A few big drops cannot annihilate billions of other ones, even if they are smaller (and here, we are going to simply ignore Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, etc.). If one knows that their action would cause more harm than good, then it would obviously be wrong to go ahead and act in that manner anyway. However, since we don't know for sure, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. — DA671

I disagree, and here's why:

We cannot hide behind probability. It would mean nothing other than playing dice with other people's well-being. Probability simply hides ignorance. An attempt to appeal to probability is simply a concession that not only is one imposing, one is imposing in ignorance.

And that's exactly so! Because no parent has the ability to foresee the consequences their actions will have on the child or on other people.

You state that one has to act. I disagree. Not acting ignorantly on the behalf of others is much better.

Along the lines of, before one seeks to do good unto others, ensure one isn't doing harm, because no one is forcing you to get involved in the first place. A solid guide to moral behavior in virtually any other circumstance, and only contested here because we're predisposed to like the idea of having children.

It's certainly a monumental decision. Whilst I agree that it can be a disastrous one, it can also be one that results in joys that many would consider to be miraculously powerful and beautiful. If suffering matters, then so do the positives. — DA671

Well, in that case a one-sided portrayal of all that is positive also will not suffice.

Not only is there a lot of suffering in the world, there are also a lot of immoral people, all of which were birthed and raised because their parents felt they had the right to do so.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the people that followed them, were all two people's gift to humanity. What right did those parents have? Because they were ignorant to the consequences of their actions? Ignorance cannot function as a justifcation, though perhaps it can lessen their blame.

I don't believe that there are souls floating around in the void who have an interest in not existing that we are ignoring by creating them and deciding on "their" behalf. — DA671

This is a flimsy shield.

One ought to take into account the consequences for one's actions, and if the consequence of one's action is the birth of another individual, one should take into account that individual's behalf before one acts.

We do this on moral grounds all the time, especially in regards to childbirth.


The central question wasn't answered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

Perhaps by what you've said, I should assume you would in fact not consider it immoral to push someone out of an airplane under the conditions I listed? It would certainly be a first that someone is willing to take that position!

Something isn't vain just because it eventually ends. — DA671

Something is in vain if it's goal (the 'survival of the human species') is fundamentally unachievable.

However, due to the fact that most people do seem to cherish their lives (and optimism isn't inherently bad as long as it doesn't affect our overall analysis), I believe that it wouldn't be good to cease/prevent all the positives. — DA671

Why should the fact that many people enjoy their lives give them a right to impose it on others?

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible? — Tzeentch

Because we can be smarter than that. — universeness

Mental gymnastics?

If you're not interested in the moral argument then that is fine, but obviously any moral argument put forward should be sound.

If one believes as long as the ratio of happy to unhappy lives isn't getting close to 1:1000,000, then I guess you have a lot of work to do. Or did I miss the part where a million people's suffering is worth a single person's happiness, but your own convenience is not?

The difference is that following the antinatalist suggestion means extinction for our species. — universeness

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? Should they be morally compelled to prolong the species*, and if so, on what basis?

Not that there's any real danger of the entirety of mankind suddenly seeing the light. If there's anything humanity has never had a shortage of it's unthinking procreators.

Human suffering is an issue that humans have to deal with, ... — universeness

We don't 'have' to continue that cycle, so we don't 'have' to suffer, unless one believes the human endeavor is one that needs to be prolonged at any cost. But suffering isn't at the base of my argument.

We also have to deal with the knowledge that we will die but we are NOT ALONE, We can comfort, love, encourage, share, laugh, learn, change, grow, experience, ask questions, cry, complain, ask for help, give help etc etc.
What a wonderful life! — universeness

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place.

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" - and do you believe they would agree with you? Did their parents have a right to saddle them with this fate?


My central question remains unanswered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

* Something which is an effort in vain to begin with. Just like death is inevitable, so is the eventual extinction of the human species. If you're of the opinion that all moral boundaries should be thrown overboard in order to prolong it I would disagree wholeheartedly.

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. — universeness

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible?


Honestly, I think the way this thread is going is the wrong way to approach antinatalism.

The issue raised is unmistakenly a moral one, and moral problems must be dealt with on the level of moral agents, ergo individual choices. Any attempts at generalizing or externalizing moral issues fall flat.

In the case of two persons deciding they wish to have a child, it is between them and their future child.

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else?

Intuition speaks clearly here - should I push someone out of an airplane when I know there's a ten percent chance their parachute doesn't open, a ninety percentage chance that it does open and a fifty percent chance that they enjoy the experience?

The answer is clearly no. You should not push someone out of an airplane. Why not? Because such is not your risk to take. What makes child-having different?

Is the ego really concerned with self-preservation?

Isn't it easy to come up with examples in which ego-driven behavior is self-destructive, and purpusefully so?

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? — EricH

The United States has been moving towards incorporation of Ukraine into western power structures since at least the Bush administration without pause. Every subsequent administration has doubled down on this policy.

Russia has since 2008 made clear that turning Ukraine into a western bulwark would be a considered an existential threat to Moscow, and a red line.

If the United States was completely committed to incorporating Ukraine, how much agency did the Ukrainians really have?

In my opinion, it should have been the European nations to veto both NATO and EU membership to Ukraine, and force the United States to cease stirring up trouble in their backyards.

I think this conflict was entirely avoidable if the United States had accepted the fact that Ukraine was a bridge too far.

Would it have led to long-term peace? We can't be sure, I think it's certainly possible. In the time between 1989 and 2008 relations between Europe and Russia were improving, economic ties between the two regions were expanding. Ironically, Putin was seen by many western politicians as a sensible leader.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine, sacrificing all of this good will, if it did not have sufficient reason to fear Ukraine would slip into the western sphere? This is admittedly conjecture, but I don't think so.

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. — jorndoe

Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing. — jorndoe

I don't think my opinions on what changes to Russia would turn it into a more preferable state are in any way relevant to the question of Ukraine, and how it could have been avoided.

(Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) — jorndoe

You are referring to yourself that called me a Kremlin propagandist, I assume?

, ...but you live within the sphere of influence of the Kremlin ... — Olivier5

I don't live anywhere near Russia, but whatever makes you feel better.


Maybe you two should lay off the copium and come with some actual positions supported by arguments, instead of this parade of nothings.

And if you can't, maybe it's time to draw your conclusions and save yourselves some time and effort?

↪Tzeentch
, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else. — jorndoe

Party line? What kind of cheap rhetorical tricks are these? I go against your preferred narrative so I must be a Kremlin propagandist?

Up yours.

How about you come with a single coherent argument to support your position, instead of all this babble?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, ... — jorndoe

What are you expecting me to respond to that?

That I believe those things are bad and regrettable?

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, ... — jorndoe

... it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ... — jorndoe

By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). — jorndoe

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it's far from the only measure one could use to determine a nation's development. In fact, I would argue that the amount of death and destruction a nation exports is a far better measure, and for that the United States takes the cake, and it's not even close.

Earlier you shared an article calling Russia's actions in Ukraine 'genocidal'. How would the United States' conduct in say, Vietnam, compare? 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians and 1,100,000 North Vietnamese / Viet Cong fighters dead by official estimates.

But at least the benevolent United States allowed its citizens to openly criticize this butchery. How fortunate the Vietnamese must've felt to be murdered by such a free and open society.

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), ... — jorndoe

The Grand Chessboard: American Grand Strategy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives

I would recommend reading it fully, but read chapter 2 titled "The Eurasian Chessboard" to understand the underlying geopolitical landscape that to a large extent dictates how great powers act on the world stage, and especially the actions of the United States in relation to Europe and the Eurasian continent.

If the idea of the United States using divide & conquer sounds like a 'nefarious plot' to you, that tells me you haven't read enough on the subject.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think? — jorndoe

That's what Russia did prior to 2008, and things were looking good. As I said before, Putin has been moving towards Europe since he came to power. He was liked in the West until 2008, and even until 2014 to an extent.

Why do you think Russia and Europe built all these pipelines? Why did Merkel and Marcon for the longest time try to stop the Americans from provoking the Russians?

The question you ask has already been answered in recent history. Cooperation is possible. The actual question is: what changed for the situation to get where it is now? And in my view that has had to do primarily with the United States.

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, ... — jorndoe

That never stopped the United States from getting along with anyone.

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better?

Where do you think Putin learned all of this?

Or is it a "Do as we say, not as we do" kind of deal?

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗? — jorndoe

The article by Rumer and Weiss was good. I especially liked the point that was made about the situation being such that neither side is likely to back down, and also that a Russian military invasion is likely to be limited in scope (something that was confirmed by the number of Russian troops deployed).

Goemans's article not so much. It is filled with references to 'the Russian Empire' and 'Tsarist Russia' - unscientific, inflammatory nonsense that reeks of bias. His prediction was also that Russia would make a bid for the entirety of Ukraine - something which, again, is unlikely given the number of troops Russia has deployed being a magnitude below what would be required to invade all of Ukraine.

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; — jorndoe

Russia is most definitely not acting "genocidally" in Ukraine.

I understand that the violence inherent to war is repulsive. It should be to everyone. But to call Russia's conduct in Ukraine 'genocidal' is tasteless and tone deaf.

Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? — jorndoe

Russia under Putin has at least until 2008 looked for closer ties with Europe. Which is no surprise. Neither Europe nor Russia has much to gain from conflict and a lot to gain from cooperation. However, Russia is a big country and a former super power, so it's not surprising it didn't accept US vassal status that NATO membership amounts to.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States.

Neither does your opinion that Russia attacked Ukraine only because of NATO enlargement as a defensive manner. — ssu

That's not an opinion I hold. But if you want to make the claim it's territorial greed there's a burden of proof on you, not me.

If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass? — ssu

None of that matters.

If that nothern neighbor is powerful, Mexico will have to take into account its northern neighbor's interests or face the consequences.

Your opinion of that northern neighbor does not matter.

Whether you believe the interests of that northern neighbor are legitimate does not matter.

All that matters are actions and their consequences. And every party involved was aware of the likely consequences of their actions in regards to Ukraine. Russia even explicitly stated what the consequences would be, and the fools went ahead anyway, and now Ukraine is in ruins.

The fact you're unable to see how we arrived at this disaster does not speak to your merit.

By the way, the opinions/analyses of Mearsheimer matter as well, giving more angles; that being said, they're not the be-all-end-all of the situation.) — jorndoe

I would genuinely love to see some quality material that offers a different perspective.

Implying certain individuals inherently require assistance because of their demographic is patronizing and discriminatory in more ways than one, not to mention affirmative action has essentially failed across the board.

Do you believe Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine were acts of "unprovoked agression"?

You seem to believe that everything I've offered in terms of context are just pretenses that the Kremlin has used to disguise banal territorial greed.

I think such a stance is foolish, and even the sources or "proof" you have presented so far explicitly state they are part of this wider context which you seem to dismiss in favor of your view this was a 30 year old Russian scheme to expand their borders.

You've got it backwards.

Your position hinges almost entirely on the idea that the Russians act out of territorial greed (the "madman Putin" argument), and not on the protection of key strategic interests. Obviously the protection of Sevastopol and the Russian power projection in the Black Sea and the Middle-East cannot be classed under "territorial ambition".

Also, why don't you respond to the contents of my post?

The vice president of Russia saying in the 1990's that Crimea is part of Russia?

The Duma deciding that the joining of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950's was an illegal act?

If those aren't proofs of territorial ambitions on the highest level, I don't know what is. — ssu

When you say "territorial ambitions" I take it to mean as much as territorial ambitions brought about by imperialism or some such.

I don't think you've shown any proof of that. Nor have you made any attempt at linking what was said in 1992 to what is happening today. To me it shows that the same concerns that prompted Russia's invasion of Ukraine today were what created tensions back then.

Access which Russia actually has even without Crimea. — ssu

Hence your argument would make more sense if it would be to have control about the Sebastapol naval base. — ssu

Sevastopol is Russia's access to the Black Sea, and the source of its influence in the region.

It's no surprise that over the course of history many nations have attempted to hold the Crimean peninsula.

The question why the Russians don't simply carve a new Sevastopol out of the mountainside in Krasnodar Krai is simple; not only would it cost a lot of time and money, it's also a strategically inferior position. It's located on the edge of the Black Sea instead of in the middle, and it's seperated from Russia by a mountain range which makes it vulnerable.

(21st Apr 2010, the Guardia) Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, today agreed to extend the lease on Russia's naval base in the Crimea, in the most explicit sign yet of his new administration's tilt towards Moscow.

Indeed. Yanukovych signed that deal. Yanokovych was then removed from office during the Maidan Revolution. Isn't the significance of that event already made clear by the fact that Russia's invasion of Crimea was launched in response to it?

I can't spell it out more clearly than I already have. You're basically spelling it out yourself at this point. It's up to you to connect the dots.