Not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia, if that was the aim of an invasion. — jorndoe

So what about the contested regions? Russia thinks they're part of Russia now and "not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia".

Does the unwillingness of the UN to ratify the sham referendums somehow change the relative military advantages?

I'm struggling to reconcile "a NATO-supported Ukraine were no military threat to Russia" with "NATO-supported Ukraine could easily take parts of (what Russia now considers) Russia"

Who is "We" ? Who are those who make "sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past." ? Why "sweeping"? Why "very tangentially"? — neomac

Again, I'm not handholding you through fairly simple concepts, you need a minimum level of comprehension.

That's not even a counterargument. — ssu

That's not even a counterargument.

Russia is failing this war but it was able to cause lots of damage at different levels to Ukraine and the West. So the possibility that Russia is in no condition to win the war, doesn’t imply that Russia can still cause lots of damage (economic, infrastructural, human, political). — neomac

The key word was 'serious'. Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No.

It is the use of the 'evil, world-threatening Russia' trope as s justification for the huge military involvement which is at odds with the notion of it also being a bumbling has-been shambles of an army.

Yes, a bumbling has-been shambles of an army can still cause damage. So can a bad public health strategy. Seems hard to find so much as a few quid to fund those.

You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is. — ssu

It's a fairly standard argument against historicism. I thought you'd already be familiar with it. We can always point to some subset of the hundreds of factors leading to some historical event and say those factors are similar to these factors in some modern setting and so the historical event is instructive regarding the modern circumstance.

The trouble is that we can pick virtually any event, with any one of dozens of different end results and claim it to be relevant to modern circumstances simply by choosing a different subset of 'relevant factors'.

Thus we can use evidence from historical events to support literally any theory simply by selecting our preferred outcome and picking those factors which make our chosen event 'similar' enough to seem relevant.

Historicism is useful in eliminating that which is implausible (say, if it's never happened before), bug it's useless in the manner you're using it - to advance some theory. All it shows is that your theory meets the bare minimum threshold of being plausible, but no one has denied that so it's not a claim you need you support.

I see your understanding of historicism is about as strong as your understanding of underdetermination

Keeping up the reliance on expert opinion I see.

Negotiating with Russia is like appeasing Hitler — Some hack no-one's ever heard of

.

There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end. — ssu

More historicist crap.

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end.

History is useless at the scale you're attempting to apply it. We can find examples from history of things playing out just about every way imaginable. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick.

I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. — ssu

You said...

For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu

I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win.

And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? — ssu

Who said Russia cannot be stopped?

what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:

1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict. — ssu

Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. No-one is claiming your view is ridiculous so you've no cause to be so defensive about it. I'm quite content in the plausibility of the view you hold, I'm interested in why.

The point is that this view being plausible is not suffient reason to believe it because other contrary views are also plausible.

...but this is treading old ground. I'm most interested here in why you think Ukraine couldn't successfully invade Russia (not why you think they wouldn't, why you think they couldn't)

There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. — ssu

I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia.

I am also interested in why it is a rational and defensible argument. — Graeme M

I can't make sense of this expression. It sounds like you've already decided the argument is rational and defensible, but you want to find out why. That seems like an oddly dogmatic approach.

This is just restating what I have proposed. ... If after that an individual prefers to act contrary to the principles outlined, that is their choice. — Graeme M

No, I wrote about people reaching different ethical conclusions to you, not about people agreeing with your conclusions but ignoring them.

Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends? — Graeme M

The answer is "no, with caveats". It's not a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. There are caveats where we use other humans to our own ends, there are caveats where we kill other humans to our own ends. That is the conclusion of the examples I gave. It's the reason I gave them.

In the case of human rights, we are specifically constraining our ethical concern to how human beings affect other human beings (relations between people). — Graeme M

I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former?

Show the incoherence. — neomac

There's nothing complicated to it. If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised?

At any point of history one can claim that bot that the world is changing and that we are living the consequences of a failure to realise that for anybody by anybody. You included. Now what? — neomac

We make judgments based on the details of the circumstances we find ourselves in rather than sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia?

I think in addition to the points you've both mentioned, we shouldn't ignore the very thing we're doing here. Putin is an autocrat, which means his power is maintained by his image of power. He can't actually fight down the entire population, he can only appear to do so for any individual group that might consider revolting. One thing that differentiates this war from any that have preceded it is the degree of control over the narrative globally - globalised social media platforms. This obviously means that it's much harder for the autocrat to control the narrative within his country (unless he is in control of those platforms - but I'll not go there).

There are two strong narratives on social media - 'Russia is evil and must be stopped at all costs' and 'Russia is useless'. Putting aside for now the fact that these two narratives aren't even coherent (who cares about that anymore), the first is actually of no concern to Putin because his ultra-nationalist support base expect other nations to think of them as evil. they thrive on the conflict with other nations. But the second... It is antithetical to the image Putin needs to maintain to retain his power.

In addition, social media is a very fragile tool. It is extremely vulnerable to emergent features (being mildly chaotic) so 'setting off' some concept on it is a bit like throwing a pebble onto an scree slope in an attempt to block the road below - a significant force multiplier, but you can't always predict where it's going to go.

Both the West (via democracy) and Russia (via fear of revolution) will have their actions guided by the opinion of social media and yet that opinion is vulnerable to extremes which none of the actual participants would rationally want.

We're in a different place. One in which the threat of escalation needs to be taken much more seriously. @ssu's rather lazy historicism here would be a grave error. The world changes and we're living the consequences of a failure to realise that.

the actual topic isn't whether my proposition is perfectly correct but rather why is it the case that an ethical society shouldn't wish to treat this ethical issue seriously. — Graeme M

If your position wasn't correct, would that not be an ideal candidate for a reason why it is not taken seriously?

I have explained why the ethical basis for the proposition is consistent with everyday human ethics and why we can make similar decisions about the things we do in this regard. — Graeme M

You don't do 'explaining' here because such an activity is reserved for when the notion in question is to be understood by the interlocutor (such as a teacher-student relationship, or the giving of an instruction). You've presented a proposition which may or may not be coherent. Either clarifying, defending or modifying it is the response to criticism.

In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, then your personal choice would be to buy only meat and dairy from those kinds of producers. — Graeme M

This just re-affirms the obvious - that we each act according to our own ethical standards. It's conceited for you to assume that others not acting so compassionately toward animals is an indication that they just haven't thought about it. It may be an indication that they have thought about it but reached a different conclusion to you.

I am saying it is not controversial to argue that humans have a right not to be treated the way farmed animals are. As I am proposing that the exact same ethical principles should apply to other species, it is therefore not ethical to farm them. Whatever reasons can be adduced that show why we cannot do so to humans also apply to other species. — Graeme M

No, they can't.

Firstly, we've agreed there are many caveats to the principles you've outlined, even for humans. Take children, for example. Are they free to leave the school grounds or the home whenever they feel like it? No. Are children free to dress and behave how they see fit? No. Are children considered the property of their parents (in that their parents have the right to treat them in any way that is within legal boundaries)? Yes. So already for nearly a quarter of the population we have exceptions to the liberty ethic on the grounds that "it's for their own good". We also have various arrangements set up where liberties are exchanged for welfare gains (most employment arrangements are like this, but the capitalist economy as a whole can be seen as such an arrangement). We have exceptions to killing too, such as in war ("for the greater good"), euthanasia (where one's liberty and one's lifespan conflict), and you mentioned self-defence.

So we have a few general principles which are punched through with contextual exceptions.

Animals aren't humans, So their context is different. If their context is different, then their contextual exceptions will be different. Their particular set of caveats will be different to the set humans have.

To demonstrate this, consider if you saw on the news that humans were being chased down and killed by armed thugs. You'd feel compelled to stop this situation. But when, on a nature documentary you see a gazelle being chased down the street by a lion the ethical response would not be the same. If you don't allow this exception, then you are suggesting (as I know some radical vegans do) that we should bring about the extinction (or otherwise render harmless) all predators. Why don't we?

So if you're going to simply say "look at the animals that are farmed - we wouldn't ethically treat a human that way so we shouldn't do so with other animals" and call it an argument, the easiest counter is to say "look at the prey animals that are in the wild - we wouldn't leave any humans in those circumstances so we shouldn't do so with other animals".

If you have an answer to that question - if you have a reason why you think it is wrong, or unnecessary to interfere with the 'appalling' conditions that prey animals live in in the African savanna, conditions we would be monsters for allowing other humans to endure unaided, then you have your first caveat, your first difference of circumstance between humans and other animals.

Other people simply have a different such list perhaps to you.

So any debate about veganism has to be a debate about what is on that list of differences and why.

It would be good if you were willing to be more open to the proposition rather than simply trying to find weaknesses. — Graeme M

Then I'm unsure why you would post it to a public discussion forum. I should think a leafleting campaign, or blog would be the more appropriate medium for seeking approval or support.

The claim is straight-forward. — Graeme M

It may seem that way to you. The point of posting in a discussion forum is surely to discover if it also seems that way to others. If you already have all the answers then one wonders what the point was.

other animals deserve to have their basic interests protected. If a basic interest is to be free to conduct one's own life (which is what is meant by the right to life, liberty, freedom and not be enslaved), then a) we should not breed them to be used as property and treated as a means rather than an end, AND b) we should not kill them when we do not need to. — Graeme M

Neither (a) nor (b) follow from your premise alone. You've drawn no connection at all between liberty and being used as an end.

Workers are all used as ends (their labour), yet we don't say that humans are mistreated to be used that way.

Nothing about killing something interferes with it's liberty other than by foreshortening its life. If foreshortening life is unethical, then it's hard to see how lengthening it (above average) is also unethical. Farmed animals often live longer than their nearest wild equivalent.

You need to show some link between being farmed and some conflict with what you have good reason to believe the animal's best interests. Welfare-friendly farming gives animals a pleasant life, longer and easier than their wild ancestors. They are killed before dying naturally, but this doesn't foreshorten their life because absent this arrangement they would have most likely died beforehand from the sorts of natural causes the farmer protects them from.

They are 'used' toward an end, but so are all employees.

Your objections either don't seem to apply, or apply also to humans where some exchange of freedom for welfare is made.

To my mind, existential means — Olivier5

...

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language. — Olivier5

You were the one refuting my claims against the naturalistic fallacy (ancestors etc). Thus I refuted that refutation. — schopenhauer1

A claim is not defended by pointing out that an alternative claim is wrong unless the two claims are mutually exclusive.

Just because some journalists made a click bait out of the concept, doesn't mean it's right. — Olivier5

It's written by Michael D. Swaine, director of the East Asia program at the Quincy Institute. Not a journalist, a foreign policy expert.

And if experts on foreign policy are not arbiters of the correct use of the term in foreign policy, then who is? You?

My argument is that if we wish to protect the interests of other species we probably should choose not to hunt animals for food. — Graeme M

But you said...

am arguing for the same consideration of basic interests. Is it ethical to own slaves? I would say no, and I think that is generally agreed by most people today. The issue isn't how well the slaves live, it is the fact they are slaves in the first place. — Graeme M

I don't see how that applies to hunting. You seem to have gone back to this being about foreshortening life.

as a society we have agreed that a fair wage is sufficient to minimise this form of exploitation. — Graeme M

As a society we've agreed that farming is a reasonable way to create food. I don't see how your argument works here.

I don't believe I ever talked about death. The claim is that other species have a right to their own lives. — Graeme M

Then I'm unsure what ethical concern you're raising against welfare-concerned farming. The animals 'have' their own lives.

The argument is that other animals have a right to their own lives and to be treated fairly, including the right not to be treated cruelly. On these grounds, we should choose not to farm animals for the same reasons we shouldn't farm humans. That is, it is not ethical to own a human, to treat a person as property, to use them as a means rather than an end. — Graeme M

So you've no objection to hunting?

How do you feel about factory work? Is it your view that factory workers have chosen to work in those conditions of their own free will?

What about free-grazing? Would you object to that?

If under Articles 3-5 it is not ethical to enslave humans, then we have already specified what is ethical. The same applies in the case of other species. Which is exactly what veganism is. — Graeme M

No. Veganism would preclude hunting, for example.

I was critiquing your ancestors theory. — schopenhauer1

Why? This is @Graeme M's thread about veganism and you posted a claim on it. Why are we now discussing a caricature of a theory of mine that I haven't even mentioned?

Just defend your claim or leave @Graeme M's thread to the discussion of Graeme's OP.

I’m arguing against your position — schopenhauer1

Why? This thread isn't about my position. Its about veganism. If I wanted a critique of my position I'd have posted it in an OP. You posted...

if you can survive without eating meat, why do it other than it tastes good? How do you not commit a naturalistic fallacy in justifying it? We can choose, and have reasons. Enough there to choose not killing large mammals and birds if we don't have to. — schopenhauer1

...if you're not willing to defend that position, then why post it?

Partly, yes. Though my meta-ethics is not that simple. But I don't see what my personal meta-ethical stance has to do with your position.

How does your caricature of my position further your argument or counter the points I raised against it?

No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language. — Olivier5

In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation through the possession of an ability and intent to exterminate the U.S. population, presumably via the use of highly lethal nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. Any threats that fall below these two definitions do not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

An example of it in use...

Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.

Does that disturb you? — jorndoe

Yes. Yes, it does. I'm deeply disturbed my masses of influential voices (the public at large) being so easily directed by the media. I'd be delighted if they all had just suddenly grown a conscience, but seeing as there's absolutely zero interest in any other punitive control exercised by loan agreement, that seems very unlikely. As such it's more likely that such a hypocritical position is an unexamined one, and yes, unexamined positions worry me.

the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine

I think this gets to the nub of the problem. any suggestion that this is a proxy war is treated as if it were a suggestion that this is a mere proxy war. Any suggestion that the US are influencing events is taken as a suggestion that the US are solely influencing events. Any suggestion the the UK are directing the course of negotiations is treated as a suggestion that the UK are autocratically directing the course of negotiations... And so on.

The point, though, is that these polemic positions are not taken because that's the way the arguments seem. It'd be, I think, quite impossible to take any post here (or in most serious media) and point to the aspect of it's presentation that gave the impression the poster was implying anything like such unilateral control. So why are these comments being interpreted in this polemic way - to what end?

we cannot prevent a free human being from dying in a car accident or being seriously injured from getting into a fight. But that person is at least free. — Graeme M

So now you're talking about freedom, not death. If the animals were free prior to us killing them for food, then it would be ethical? I can see that as an argument. It would still apply to pets, which, by and large, aren't free.

Genuine pet ownership, where the well-being of the pet is important, could be seen to be a form of guardianship. — Graeme M

How? Dogs are perfectly capable of living free, they do so in large packs in many southern European cities. So how is restraining them on a lead and imprisoning them in a house 'guardianship'?

CAFO breeding of chickens for meat and eggs is not about their well-being in any shape or form. — Graeme M

No. We've already agreed that improvements to farming are required.

Other animals being alive is not the objective. Acting ethically is. — Graeme M

Yet all you have given so far as unethical is lifespan (the foreshortening of it). The only thing about eating animals that is necessary is killing them first. Nothing else is necessary (factory farms, penning them in, industrial slaughterhouses, wing clipping etc). So if all you've got as non-ethical is the reduction of lifespans, then high-welfare farming is the most ethical way to treat animals.

if animals are farmed in CAFO systems or skinned alive to produce fur, an ethical member would choose not to buy such products and would support legislation to prevent such systems. — Graeme M

Agreed. But that's not the argument you made. It's got nothing to do with Veganism.

Veganism is the idea that we act ethically towards other species. — Graeme M

Then you're using a different definition to most. That might be part of the misunderstanding here...

one thing all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat (including fish, shellfish and insects), dairy, eggs and honey - as well as avoiding animal-derived materials, — https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Veganism is not just a position that we ought act ethically toward animals, it is a declaration of what that ethical treatment should entail. It bypasses the debate about what constitutes ethical treatment and substitutes its pre-conceived notion of the solution.

something (highly sentient) getting killed and something not seems like a distinction that is pretty recognizable as an event — schopenhauer1

Yes, but in my list was 'seeking relationships'. That's also massively different from 'going for a walk'. You've singled out killing a sentient prey animal and just declared it to be of some other scale. You're begging the question. I'm asking why it is of this other scale.

Our ancestors did a whole bunch of X things. Doesn't make our ancestors right. Or, perhaps more nuanced, doesn't make it right anymore. — schopenhauer1

It might do. You've not given any account of what makes things right yet, so 'our ancestors did it' is currently as good a contender as any.

Not my place to. I'm critiquing your post. — Isaac


And I was critiquing yours. — schopenhauer1

Then I don't understand the critique. How does my not having presented a definition invalidate my criticism of your position?

I don't see the equivalency of taking a walk in the park and killing certain highly sentient animals. I'm not sure why you are playing dumb here and equivocating. Seems to be stalling. — schopenhauer1

So because you don't see it, I must be playing dumb? Seems a theme. One wonders what exactly you expect from a discussion forum whilst assuming everyone else simply must see the world the same way you do.

To assume that we it is fine to eat meat because our ancestors did or because other animals do, would be wrong. — schopenhauer1

Why?

A competing theory? You never provided one. — schopenhauer1

Not my place to. I'm critiquing your post.

Except the second was preceded by supporting evidence from two experts in the field. Hence the adjunct "nothing but".

Had your position been "also" Western propaganda and I still raised it as a complaint you might have a point, but as it is, the difference between nothing but propaganda and also propaganda is cardinal.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that a position can be wrong simply because it matches some propaganda.

In your case your assumption was wrong because it was contradicted by those with expertise on the matter (not to mention your own data). That is was Western propaganda was proffered as an explanation for your fault, not evidence of it.

If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter. — frank

I agree, but that's not the point. We're not talking about something I've chosen to believe because Putin said it, we're talking about something I've chosen to believe because it seems plausible which Putin also happens to claim (because it suits his agenda to do so). The argument levied is that Putin's echoing the sentiment makes it less likely to be true (or in some other way problematic to repeat). I'm saying that if I find some position plausible, whether Putin finds it propitious to repeat has absolutely no bearing on the matter's veracity.

The argument "that sounds like Russian propaganda" has no weight. Anything that's anti-Western may end up in Russian propaganda, whether it's true or not.

it's the Ukrainians' choice to make. — jorndoe

Funny how this has all of a sudden become a rallying cry.

We've had over half a century of foreign aid being tied to economic reforms, punitive measures when loan repayments are not met. There's not a single country in Africa nor most of Eastern Europe that isn't having it's economy managed by the IMF or the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation on the grounds of their holding the purse strings.

Suddenly, the fact that the US and Europe are funding this war carries no duties or influence. Now we've apparently grown a conscience after 50 years of abuse and are now passionate about self-determination despite being loan recipients.

I look forward to a similar amount of indignation being raised against all the predatory loan arrangements that repress the economies of half the developing world.

Any minute now...

...

...

That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously. — frank

Right. Well that was a distracting waste of time. So you actually agree with the sentiment that we didn't ought to treat the notion that some talking point is Russian propaganda as having any bearing on whether it's true or not. It might be true and they're taking advantage of that, or it might be false and they're lying. The fact itself is not rendered untrue by it's being used by Russia to further it's campaign to discredit Western governments. Western governments do, in fact, do unjust things from time to time, and if Russia became aware of one of these unjust actions, it would proclaim it loudly. As such, someone who wishes to hold their own government to account for injustices is going to end up frequently echoing the same talking points as Russian propaganda.

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever.

it’s not the norm that animals are raised this way (nice pastures, good food, etc). — schopenhauer1

No. It ought to be.

if you can survive without eating meat, why do it other than it tastes good? — schopenhauer1

An odd question. As if we do other things for other sorts of reasons. Why do you go for a walk? Why do you seek relationships? Why do you listen to music? I'm struggling to see why eating meat has to have some existential urgency to it that other activities lack.

How do you not commit a naturalistic fallacy in justifying it? — schopenhauer1

The naturalistic fallacy just expresses your belief that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. It might be. It's not like you've got some competing theory of what is good that is more coherent. I think that if we want to eat meat, but we also want to see animals happy, we have to find a way of achieving both, or balancing those desires. I'm not seeing any argument as to why one of those desires must be met but the other is to be discarded.

If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2 — ssu

Exactly...

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others. — Isaac

You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant. — frank

No, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. If Putin only sometimes lies then the argument is false. Anti-US sentiment may or may not be appropriate regardless of whether Putin echoes it or not.

It's nonsensical to say that we should not repeat anything Putin happens to say. Some of what he says will be true, some lies, so if something we think is true happens to also have been said by Putin that fact has no bearing on the matter.

Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing. — frank

I see how that would work, but I don't see how it relates to the argument. If there is some legitimate criticism of the US, Putin may, or may not repeat it.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point @Manuel was making.

If you can't understand the concept of underdetermination I can't help you. You have do meet a minimum threshold of comprehension.