It's worth keeping in mind that Ukrainian NATO membership would primarily mean limiting Russia's ability to move/act freely. — jorndoe

It would limit Russia's influence in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Middle-East significantly. That's the importance of Crimea and Sevastopol, Odessa and land bridges to these areas.

That's what's at stake here.

Maybe it's your opinion that it's not worth fighting a war over, but the Russians disagree and so they have made clear since 2008.

Sweden and Finland seeking membership as protective measures (like Ukraine) have been met with a casual, yet vaguely ominous, response from Putin. — jorndoe

Because Sweden and Finland aren't all that relevant to Russia strategically.

When Putin and compadres started rattling the nukes, NATO responded by dropping Ukraine's NATO membership application, and, after a bit of whining, Zelenskyy conceded the membership. — jorndoe

You call it a pretext, but after the 2008 NATO summit and 2013 Maidan protests, 2017 legislation being passed expressly stating that it is Ukraine's objective to become part of NATO, and continued attempts at incorporation into the European Union, isn't it more than obvious that the Russians take such words with a grain of salt?

I've already argued that all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored. And you don't have to take my word for it, since this comes from independent experts like Mearsheimer and Chomsky.

I'd love to hear an expert make a serious case for why the invasion of Ukraine is an act of unprovoked Russian agression / imperialism, and why all this context should be ignored. I've yet to see anything of the sort.

I appreciate that you're bringing some sources to the table, but this hardly constitutes proof of territorial ambitions.

If you read the articles you'll see that it's exactly the same concerns that lead to tensions then as today - Russian access to the Black Sea.

And lowe and behold, after 2008 and 2013 can't we objectively state the Russians were right to view Ukraine as an unreliable partner when it came to such a crucial strategic matter as access to the Black Sea?

This doesn't support your view of Russian imperialism. In fact, drawing lines all the way back to 1992 (I didn't know they existed, to be fair, so thanks for that) pulls the rug under all of this "Madman Putin" rhetoric. Apparently this issue has existed for three decades already and, sadly, it has now reached its boiling point.

Sad that without a tit-for-tat strategem, good folks will be culled from the herd. — Agent Smith

We all have to die some day.

Better to die a human than live as an animal.

But just why is it so utterly difficult for you to admit that Russia has all along had territorial objectives for it's war in Ukraine (starting with Crimea)? — ssu

What are you talking about? I outright stated it:

Right now it's clear Russia is going to take every strategically relevant region from Ukraine by force, ... — Tzeentch

If you want to argue that Russia has had these territorial ambitions before 2008 then you'll have to provide some proof.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective.

After 2008, when it became clear the United States would not back down from incorporating Ukraine into NATO, and especially after the Maidan protests in 2013, Russia has sought to protect its strategic interests in Ukraine by force.

Previously, Russian strategic interests were protected by treaties between Ukraine and Russia. With regime change looming in Ukraine, and the United States expressly stating it wished to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, those treaties could no longer be relied on.

Right now it's clear Russia is going to take every strategically relevant region from Ukraine by force, and that map is likely a pretty accurate depiction of the territories they're after - predictably all linked to (access to) the Black Sea; Russia's primary strategic interest in Ukraine.

It's not rocket science. In fact, it's pretty obvious. The reason no one talks about the elephant in the room is because that elephant (the United States) controls the narrative in the west.

Why would they do that? — Olivier5

To avoid being dragged into a war they are not willing to pay the price of victory for.

What we wish for: Ahimsa in all its glory - the complete abolishment of violence of all kinds.

What we actually get: Violence as a necessary evil - under existing circumstances, renouncing violence is madness/stupidity/both.

The best we can do: Violence, always a last option! — Agent Smith

Why think in terms of 'we'?

There's nothing stopping you or I from living according to principles of non-violence.

It gets more complicated when one seeks to have others live in accordance with those principles too. It seems desires to impose such principles on others are fundamentally at odds with the principles themselves.

Says who? — Olivier5

Mearsheimer, for one, in the video I linked you.

All this talk about future threats is nice but there is a very immediate threat right now in Russia... — Olivier5

If the United States wanted peace with Russia they could have it tomorrow. If they guarantee Ukraine will remain a neutral state and will not join NATO or the EU this war would be over.

But they can't. Not anymore. After 15 years of targeted foreign policy, plus all the rhetoric they have been using, it would be considered a humilation for the Biden administration and the United States as a whole.

That's exactly what makes this war so tricky.

Either in NATO or with it's own nuclear deterrence, Ukraine would have prevented an all out attack from Russia. — ssu

Nuclear deterrence for Ukraine is a ship that has long since sailed. No point in discussing that.

As for joining NATO as a means to prevent a Russian attack - Russia attacked Ukraine precisely because it tried to join NATO. Since 2008 it was clear to all involved that NATO membership for Ukraine would mean war.

So if your point is, "they should have joined NATO to avoid conflict" - they tried, despite Russia's warnings, and now their country is devastated.

A disguised moral argument is still a moral argument, and using 'realpolitik' to justify your moral argument is not actual realism.

You are dealing in justifications and shoulds / should nots.

Your stance seems to boil down to: Ukraine is justified in wanting to join the EU / NATO, because it prefers the EU / NATO and you present an argument as to why that is the case.

Therefore, Russia should not prevent Ukraine from joining the EU / NATO.


Yet here we are. No justifications and 'should nots' have prevented Ukraine from being invaded by Russia.

Moral judgements and idealism don't matter.


If I didn't represent your position correctly then please clarify what it is, because if this isn't it then it's completely unclear to me what is.

There's no reason to 'pivot' anywhere. The US is perfectly capable of chewing gum and walk at the same time. — Olivier5

That may have been the case during what is called the "unipolar moment": the time after the Cold War ended where the United States was the most powerful country in the world by a large margin.

This is no longer the case, and the world has moved towards multipolarity: a situation in which there are several world powers who are roughly equal in power.



(Note this particular video is twelve years old. That's how long this transition has already been underway.)


The United States will need to apply a great deal more, if not all, of its power if it wishes to contain China.

If China poses no immediate security threat, if they are not going to invade anyone militarily, why 'pivot to China'? — Olivier5

A pivot to China doesn't simply mean a military pivot, since the United States does not have only military means. It would mean the United States would shift it's entire focus away from Europe towards Asia, military, economic, political, etc.

Those things are connected. Having to fund Ukraine with armament, billions of dollars and potentially future troops means all of those resources can't be spent in Asia, not to mention that domestic politics can only handle so much conflict. Money spent on military means cannot be spent to secure Eurasian, Oceanian and African markets, etc.

But so far their power is mainly economic. — Olivier5

The power they've been using is mainly economic. China has the largest army in the world by active personnel, so clearly their power is also military. Also the number of aircraft carriers the PLAN has been producing suggests it has overseas ambitions, because that's what aircraft carriers are for - overseas power projection.


You could say something like: if China rises to hegemony peacefully, what's the problem?

To which I would answer: what makes you think the United States is willing to peacefully give up its position as hegemon?

Explain.

This scenatio seems too pessimistic to me. China has historically been a peaceful nation, ... — Olivier5

Regardless of the validity of this statement, China does not need war to become the world's most powerful nation, and thus deprive the United States of its hegemon status.

In fact, a serious argument could be made that unless it goes to war it will surpass the United States economically and rise to become the world's most powerful nation. If one accepts that premise, it's not unthinkable the United States will seek to drag China into some kind of conflict and force China's hand.


And the question is also whether China will remain peaceful once its rise to the world's leading power gets stifled by nations like the United States and US allies in East Asia. Tensions and flashpoints aplenty in East Asia.


However, none of this changes the fact that China is a peer competitor to the United States and Russia is not. Pushing the Russians into the arms of the Chinese may prove to be a costly strategic blunder.

From your realist perspective, this would be a smart strategy to follow, don't you think? Draw Russia into a costly conflict, and bleed it. — Olivier5

It's absolutely foolish, from a European perspective and from an American perspective.

The United States needs to shift its focus to China, which is an actual peer competitor that can challenge the United States' position as hegemon. Not Russia.

What the United States has done by provoking conflict in Eastern Europe is not only guarantee years of conflict and tensions that benefits no one (not to mention the risk of large-scale/nuclear war), it has also bound itself to the protection of Eastern Europe because no other country in NATO is able to stand up against Russia.

And that's not all. This conflict and the reaction by NATO / EU have driven the Russians straight into the arms of the Chinese and given them even more incentive to create a balancing coalition against the US / NATO - something which the Russians were not keen on before this conflict. The Russians and the Chinese have never been fond of each other, but United States meddling have given them a common enemy.

This conflict is disastrous from any perspective, but especially from a western perspective. China is the laughing third.

Now you are confusing several things.

My point has always been that from a realist perspective Russia's actions were entirely predictable, that the United States were aware of this and provoked Russia intentionally, perhaps thinking they were bluffing.

You are making a moral argument, that the United States is better than Russia, and therefore should have the priviledge to pursue its foreign policies whereas Russia does not. Or that it is preferable that the United States lords over countries instead of Russia.

To that I say, one's moral judgement is completely irrelevant. All the moral indignation in the world didn't stop Russia from invading Ukraine, did it?

That's because moral judgements don't matter. What matters is power, and states will do whatever is in their power to pursue their interests, and moral judgements only matter to the extent that they're backed up by power. That's realism.

Your preference for the United States is clear. However, if states behave on the basis of their own moral judgements and completely disregard other states' power and interests, it's a highway to trouble.

Ukraine preferred the United States, and chose to ignore Russia's interests and power, and now it's being devastated. Regrettable, to be sure. But also predictable.

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Umm...but isn't in a NATO country? — ssu

The United States has no real means to unilaterally influence Türkiye, that is to say, it has no power to force Türkiye to do anything, shy of a military invasion.

Yet if you argue to be a realist, you should observe that the tactics that the Soviet Union held to it's part of Europe didn't work so well. The Warsaw Pact collapsed. You can make a throne from bayonets, but it's difficult to sit on them. The only actual operations the Warsaw pact did was to attack and occupy one of it's members. That's not a "personal fancie". — ssu

I agree, but that's not what we're debating here. I'm not making a judgement about whether Russia's policies are effective or not.

Whereas the US empire by listening to Europeans themselves and favoring for example European integration has worked well: Europeans like to have the US here. — ssu

I think the Europeans mainly like not having to spend much on defense.

But I suppose your point is that US - European relations have been more cooperative, and thus better. That's a moral judgement, and realists don't deal in moral judgements.

The question is what conclusions does one draw from such a moral judgement?

Is the US/NATO better than other states and therefore gets to ignore other states' strategic interests in line with "American exceptionalism" or "Idealism"?

You're free to hold such a view, but we can see where it leads: war.

What I described was just facts what was included with the Soviet Union in "refraining from opposing the former's foreign policy rules". — ssu

You framed it as something highly undesirable. I don't think "Finlandization" is undesirable. It seems to me a very rational way in which small nations interact with big nations.

And I'm waiting for you to share a definition of 'Finlandization' that shows why it is so undesirable in your view.

For some reason you think that it's equivalent to be under US spehere of influence and under Russian / Soviet sphere of influence. — ssu

I don't think that.

But suppose we say it's better to be under the US sphere of influence than it is to be under the Russian sphere of influence. (A moral judgement)

Does the US now gain a right to incorporate every nation that is under the Russian sphere of influence?

We know where that leads: war.

They have quite a lot more to say than with being under Russian sphere of influence, that's for sure.

Just look at Türkiye. — ssu

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence.

Your genuinely saying that voluntariness of joining organizations by independent countries isn't a factor? — ssu

Yep. In geopolitics power, not our personal fancies, is what matters. That's the realist point of view - not because a realist likes it that way, but because a realist recognizes that's how geopolitics works.

Actually Cuba didn't join the Warsaw Pact.

And it did make the difference that the US didn't and hasn't invaded Cuba. The US has Guantanamo Bay base since in 1903 newly independent Cuba and the US made lease agreement, which has no fixed expiration date. Yet Cuba hasn't been invaded by the US. It surely has tried all kinds of ways to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro, yet Cuban deterrence has worked. — ssu

It threatened nuclear war, and as a result the USSR and the US came to an agreement about Cuba.

Cuba is under sanctions to this very day, over half a century later.

And are you aware of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion?

I also hope you're not trying to make the point that the United States would never do something like invade another country whenever their foreign or economic policy doesn't suit them. The list is too long to mention.

So you copy paste what wikipedia says Finlandization and then say I have opposing views about Finlandization? — ssu

Your use of the term "Finlandization" seemed contradictory to what I believe the term means. Tell me then, what definition of the term are you going by?

And you haven't answered my question.

What is the problem with "Finlandization"?

That small countries adjust their foreign policy to appease their more powerful neighbor in exchange for maintaining a degree of political independence seems no more than the logical thing to do.

Do you think European countries, being part of NATO, are free to pursue their own foreign policy if it conflicts with United States' interests? I can assure you they're not.

Yes, yes. And you then apply that standard one-sidedly and cry foul when other nations react negatively. That's is indeed exactly your position and it's hopelessly confused.

Of course the bad guys may react, as we may react to their invasion of Ukraine. Assholes are not the only ones entitled to react, if you think about it for a second. — Olivier5

Except that is not what you are advocating.

You believe NATO should get to expand and interfere all it wants because they're "the good guys", and when another nation reacts you cry foul.

Whatever your position is, it's hopelessly confused.

The Untied States is its military-industrial complex. 'It's' pockets are one and the same. And Eastern Europe just happens to be the current warzone de jour. They will pursue it anywhere, indifferently. — Streetlight

Is this the same as the "United States foreign policy establishment", also referred to as "the blob"?

What point in that this is a voluntary defense pact and the collective defense organization of Europe you do not understand? — ssu

Voluntariness is not a factor in this. This isn't about good or bad, it's about geopolitics and it's very real consequences.

Cuba also voluntarily joined a USSR-led military alliance. It made no difference to the United States. Of course not. What happened when Vietnam threatened to voluntarily become communist? What happened when Iraq voluntarily threatened US oil and the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency?

Nations do things voluntarily all the time, and it has never been a reason for great powers not to interfere.

Your asking a Finn about that?

Your asking basically a question: "What is wrong in a foreign intelligence service basically being in your government with veto-power and then being active on nearly everything and intervening in everything?" — ssu

"Finlandization is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system."

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

You seem to be using a different definition of the term than what I found.

By that definition Europe is essentially Finlandized by the United States.

So again, what's the problem?

That is how Soviet/Russia intelligence services operate. Now you can compare to your country, if it's in the West, the UK or Australia and ask how many video games has the CIA tried to censor in your country? How many times the US has threatened with retaliatory actions if your country picks the wrong candidate in the elections for prime minister or president? — ssu

The United States has dragged its vassals into numerous wars of greed, and is now in the process of dragging Europe into a serious large-scale conflict in Ukraine.

I wish its meddling would limit itself to censoring videogames.

Anyway, I'm not making the point that I prefer one over the other. That is completely besides the point, and that's the point you're continually missing.

Your views on right and wrong don't influence at all the very real consequences of provocative policy. "We are the good guys, so we get to provoke" is obviously not something other nations care for. They will react.

You can't seem to decide whether you're an idealist or a realist. I'm arguing from a realist perspective. if there was any doubt about that.

So your bottomline is that the United States military-industrial complex is pushing for conflict in Eastern Europe to fill its own pockets?

But this assumes that the Western metric of 'winning' is Ukraine keeping territory. It isn't, and never has been. The West does not give a shit about Ukraine. Nonetheless, the West is winning: — Streetlight

The United States will create a new permanent army headquarters in Poland and increase its long-term military presence across the length and breadth of Europe in response to threats from Russia, U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday. New U.S. warships will go to Spain, fighter jet squadrons to Britain, ground troops to Romania, air defense units to Germany and Italy and a wide range of assets to the Baltics, Biden announced at a NATO summit in Madrid. ... Steps by formerly neutral states Finland and Sweden to enter the alliance would make NATO stronger and all its members more secure, he said. read more.

Why would it be considered a victory to have Europeans arm themselves against a Russia that would never attack them anyway. Those troops are going to be sitting on the border doing nothing, because Russia would never invade a NATO country, and likely it wouldn't have dreamed of ever invading Sweden or Finland either.

Moreover, the Europeans are going to be mostly absent in any future conflict between the US and China - certainly European land forces have no chance of ever being deployed that far from their borders.

If the goal was to secure America's "NATO-flank" in a possible future conflict with China, then surely it would have been more secure with a neutral Ukraine and normal relations between Russia and Europe.

Now the United States is driving the Russians towards the Chinese, so Chinese gets a massively important strategic ally, while the United States gets essentially nothing.

And without NATO they would have likely attacked earlier. Some if not all Baltic states surely would either have Russian bases or have their frozen conflict and Russian "peacekeepers". — ssu

Now they have NATO bases and NATO peacekeepers. It should be pretty clear there's a political tug-of-war taking place in Eastern Europe, and the one-sided portrayal as the Russians as the baddies is just silly and unproductive unless one's goal is to steer towards large-scale conflict as fast as possible.

Also, what is wrong with "Finlandization"? Neutral buffer states have always been an ingredient, perhaps even a necessity, for peace. NATO's continued erosion of the buffer between NATO and Russia is what has produced our current predicament.

The use of the term seems to be contradictory in the parts you quoted.

It begs the question what their motive is, though.

Russia is reacting to decades of NATO expansion and over a decade of their warnings about Ukraine not being heeded. There is no question in my mind that this general is aware of this wider context.

Yet, it is willfully left out, despite the fact this would put into perspective any real risk for NATO countries being invaded by Russia: virtually zero.

So what is the purpose of war rhetoric like this? Just a "never waste a good crisis"-moment for the Ministry of Defense to get some extra budget?

Surely there is no point in increasing the budget and sending loads of forces to Eastern Europe to counter a threat that, honestly, doesn't really exist.

Or are they going to bring the fight to the Russians and provoke a possible WW3, in line with his reference?

Guess we'll get some more scholarly views in here - something that's been terribly lacking so far.



00:00 | Ukraine War – How does it end - Professor John Mearsheimer!
01:12 | Is arming the Ukrainians a good thing?
02:30 | Who is responsible for the Ukraine war?
03:20 | Why didn't Russia stop NATO expansions?
04:04 | Could Trump presidency prevented the war?
05:58 | Make Ukraine neutral and end the war?
06:43 | Should Russia return conquered Ukrainian cities?

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now.
Done, no more of the ruinage and killing, civilian and other, refugees could return home and rebuild. — jorndoe

Have you made any effort to understand the causes and the wider context of this conflict, and if so, on what basis do you dismiss all of it in favor of this one-sided narrative?

Do you have any academic sources that can back up your views?


If your goal here is not to come to some kind of deeper understanding of the conflict, then what is your purpose here? Cheerleading? Dumbing people down with oversimplified narratives so they're more eager for conflict?

Propaganda is always bad, whether it's anti-Russian or anti-NATO.

It's inflammatory, and brings large-scale conflict closer.

All here should realize that large-scale conflict in Ukraine will amount to a crisis greater than the Cuba Crisis, with an even greater risk of turning nuclear.

Not only that, but for the United States to become involved in a military conflict of that magnitude would give other flashpoints in the world a chance to present themselves while the United States is preoccupied. Think of places like the Middle-East, East Asia, India / Pakistan, etc.

If such an opportunity is taken by for example China to finally make its bid for Taiwan, the "world" has two choices:
1- Accept the end of American hegemony (with all the chaos that would bring)
2- World war

I'd urge anyone who would mindlessly parrot propaganda here - those who have chosen their "team" and will cheerlead it into its respective destructions - to carefully consider what it is exactly they're seeking and thus enabling.

... each person is developing a persona, based on the attempts to fit into the social order and understand oneself in a deeper way. — Jack Cummins

Is this true, though?

Can't one imagine individuals who become disinterested in attempting to fit in, and come to perceive the development of a persona as an unsuitable means of understanding the self?

Is a person who is in meditation developing a persona?

One may argue the identification of oneself with external concepts is a prerequisite for normal social interactions, however the development of a persona or identity implies we integrate these external concepts. Why do we do this? Is it not also an option to use these external concepts merely as tools without intergrating them?

One may use generalizations in their daily business as a tool, while at the same time understanding that generalizations should not be mistaken for truth.

Much in the same way one may use social concepts as a tool for social interaction, while at the same time understanding it does not represent the true self.

Can the self be understood merely in relation to other selves, ... — Jack Cummins

I don't see why that should be the case. Being alone doesn't prevent one from feeling and thinking.

Many would argue is that one discovers the true self precisely by being alone!

A person may think of themselves socially, in terms of meanings which are constructed intersubjectively, but this also relates to how people understand who they are, metaphysically, as beings who exist and have evolved in the context of ideas of what it means to be a human being. — Jack Cummins

The question remains whether these external ideas introduced to us through social interaction help us understand who we truly are or instead encourage us to take up a persona, in an attempt to fit in or perhaps simply out of habituation since many of these pillars of identity are introduced to us at an early age.

I would go with an entirely different approach.

To actualize the self (to become one's unique person) one must free themselves from all the psychological chains keeping one from doing so.

One of the greatest chains to break free from is notions of identity.

Identity is a means by which one defines themselves through the lenses of others. It's an external source of "self", thus not truly self. It doesn't introduce a person to their true self, but in fact veils it further in creating a persona instead.

Identity can consist of many things. Nationalities, genders, occupations, ideologies, past accomplishments or future aspirations, etcetera.

These are all arbitrary things which have little to do with the self of the person in the here and now, and thus have little to do with reality. It is no wonder then that when a person creates a persona out of these things, and thus has a large personal stake in things that have no basis in reality, it becomes troublesome sooner or later.

Try Twitter if substantiating your claims and opinions is so unappealing to you.

That's not proof.

First, you'll need to provide something other than "read the news" to support your claim that 90% of buildings have been destroyed. The pictures I've seen of Severodonetsk show that claim is almost certainly objectively false, since the majority of buildings are still standing.

Second, you may then make your case for "annihilation" being the goal, for example by showing how it is different from other similar wars that have been fought.

And likely what you'll find is that the destruction seen in Ukraine is the destruction seen anywhere where there is war, and that this claim of "annihilation" is just, as I said, inflammatory garbage.

Sounds like a bunch of inflammatory nonsense meant to vilify the political enemy.

What proof do you have that Russia is bent on "annihilation"?

This is hardly the first domino to fall in the ongoing assault against individual freedom.

Where were all the lamenters then?

Evolution is not something the individual has any influence over, nor is it something the individual will experience the fruits of in their lifetime.

Expanding one's scope to some abstract thing one holds no influence over, has little understanding of and will never get to see the results of seems like a major cop-out.

If one wants to expand their bubble beyond the self, something which I can only encourage, then I would suggest to focus on things one does have influence over, and will see the results of, not in the least part because one will get to take responsibility for their successes and failures.

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, by the way.

, I do not know what you are arguing for. — Jackson

Neither do I.

Those are your argument's logical implications.

I didn't find them very compelling either.

Apart from approximately 50% of accidental unplanned births, you should also consider the possibility that we don't have much choice in reproducing. Nature has shaped our bodies and our minds to procreate, or we wouldn't even be here talking. Even when we think we have decided to procreate, it's most probably due to natural physical and psychological drives that make it happen anyway. — punos

If one doesn't believe people have agency, then there's little point in arguing morality.

You're "free" to choose your individual path, others are willing to go through the pain of evolution, ... — punos

Individuals don't go through evolution. In fact, they don't even have a stake in it!

Doing things for the sake of evolution is absurd.

No wonder then that when people do things on the basis of absurd motivations nothing good and indeed much suffering comes of it.

I'm not advocating anything. I'm sharing thoughts and asking questions.

No one has to live. You don't like the planet, leave. Seriously. — Jackson

Is that really all you have in favor of your argument?

I wonder what would happen if we apply such a standard for morality more widely: as long as people don't violently extract themselves from a situation by suicide, whatever I did to them must be ok.