The Chinese government put a lot of money into that infrastructure, they must be very upset. — FreeEmotion

Somehow I don't think they'll be writing it off as their loss. One more cost the Ukrainians apparently ought to pay for our schadenfreude.

Once again, do you agree that we have a duty not to lie? — Olivier5

No. That would lead to famously daft situations such as not lying to the Nazi asking where the Jewish family are hidden. One ought to lie in that case.

We have a duty not to lie, in my view. Do you agree? — Olivier5

Not talking about something which is the case is not lying about it.

It has to do with your selective attention to nazis in Ukraine at the expense of nazis in the Kremlin. — Olivier5

The only times I've mentioned Nazis in this thread have been to undermine the Disneyfication of a complex geopolitical situation and in reference to the role their presence plays in Putin's justifications to Russians and his allies.

What relevance would Putin's support of Neo-Nazis in Europe have to either of those points?

It's just another case of this childish notion that we have to pass moral judgement on every fucking thing we say.

If can describe the rules then I understand them — Janus

Agreed. So can you?

That's why I provided the example of the ball hitting the line. In it one 'describes' a rule, but it is shown that they don't then understand it. The whole rule following paradox is about the underdetermination of any description of the rule.

If I can't understand a rule without demonstrating it, then how could I be sure that I had understood consensus without demonstrating it — Janus

I tried to expand on what I see as the difference. Understanding how to play chess and understanding how gravity works are two very different states of affairs. Likewise, understanding a rule and understanding that there is a consensus are two very different states of affairs.

An embarrassing load of crap, Isaac; you should be ashamed. — Janus

If that's the quality of reply you're reaching for just a few posts in we'll leave it there.

What alternative do you have in mind? — Olivier5

Peace.

Rather than fighting against neo-Nazis, Putin has been supporting far-right extremists including white supremacists, for years. Russia has nurtured neo-Nazis and used mercenaries and other extremists to wage a separatist war in Ukraine, while also seeking to execute Russian foreign policy abroad, and has deployed disinformation and misinformation tools to manipulate the narratives. — Olivier5

Yes, so I read. Disgraceful. Not sure what that's got to do with denying there's a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine.

It could be worse. — Olivier5

It could be better. I was asking why you declared a preference that it continue this way.

language, which enables me to understand the rules, without having to implement them. — Janus

How does it do that?

If I couldn't be sure that I understood rules, how could I be sure that I understood that there is consensus? — Janus

Consensus is a fact of world. Certainty about consensus is an entirely different process.

One might be wrong about F=ma, but unlike a rule, F=ma is a constraint the external world places on our models of it. We could all be wrong about F=ma, because that's what to be 'wrong' means in the context of a scientific model. But with a rule, we cannot possibly all be wrong. There's no rule-maker we might all consult with and find out we'd all got it wrong, it's just not what 'wrong' means in the context of a rule. 'Wrong' here means something like 'to treat the matter one way and not be understood to have played by the rules'.

So all the while you declare balls in tennis to be 'out' and there's an understanding that you're playing (or otherwise partaking in) tennis, you are following the rule, it's enacted. But the moment you claim - the rule is "all balls hitting the line are declared out", you're no longer demonstrating an understanding of the rule, you're declaring a belief of your about the rule. You're no longer playing tennis, but talking about tennis. You maybe even talking about what the rule ought to be. But it's not what the the rule is.

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far. — Olivier5

Really?

2,224 civilian deaths, of which 173 are children, 5 million refugees, 3,000 soldiers dead, countless infrastructure destroyed, $600 billion of damage...

...and you hope that continues?

If it is the agreement of others that shows what the rules are then my having watched many games and finding a consensus about the way the game is meant to be played is sufficient to show me that I have understood the rules. — Janus

Having admitted that it is the agreement of others which determines the rules, how can you then say that your own personal judgement of whether you have understood what the consensus is, is now sufficient?

Let's say, for example, that you watch one hundred games and in each one, every time the ball lands on the line it is declared 'out'. You might think you understand the rule "every time the ball lands on the line, it is declared 'out'". But in the one hundred and first game you watch, you see a ball land on the line and not be declared 'out' because light conditions are low that day and the rules say that a ball on the line is declared 'in' when light levels are low to give the benefit of the doubt*

* I know nothing about tennis, these are example rules I made up.

buy into the propaganda — SophistiCat

So the Soufan centre are propagandists now? What evidence do you have for that accusation?

I experience a state of comprehension. — Janus

What? Have you never experienced a state of comprehension but later found you were mistaken? In what way is your personal conviction that you understand the rules of tennis a measure that you do, in fact, understand the rules of tennis?

if I didn't understand the rules of tennis, I would not be able to demonstrate them, by either implementing them or describing them. — Janus

Of course you would. I could well demonstrate following the rules of rugby despite not understanding the rules of rugby. An entire game might go by without my breaking a rule I didn't even know existed.

If I did implement them or describe them to your satisfaction; how would I know that you were a competent judge — Janus

All the while no-one disagrees. Rules are a public affair. We can't all be wrong about them - otherwise there'd have to be some 'truth-bearer' of rules outside of human culture.

This creates the general impression that there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem." — SophistiCat

No. Reports from international counterterrorism experts like the Soufan Center are what give the impression there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."

That's a stupid question, Isaac. It's obvious — Janus

If it's obvious, then it shouldn't be too hard to write it down. Humour me. What is the obvious state that 'understanding' a rule consists in?

The rules of tennis are perfectly comprehensible to me, and yet I haven't played the game. I know I understand the rules of tennis — Janus

How do you know you understand the rules of tennis?

Nuland admitted to biological research labs with contents such that it would be a concern if Russia obtained them.

Putin invented some fantasy about Slav-killing viruses to help his anti-Western propaganda.

I don't understand why you're having such trouble distinguishing between the two issues. The non-existence of the latter is obvious, but has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the former.

you would first have to understand a rule — Janus

So what does 'understanding' a rule consist in?

One could understand a rule without ever implementing it. — Janus

Could one? What would 'understanding' the rule consist in?

Having a belief about what ought (or can) be done next? That would just be to have an opinion about the rule, nor to understand it.

Knowing what ought (or can) be done next? What would distinguish 'knowing' from merely 'having a view on'?

@Banno's point about the proof of the pudding is not merely about the difference between knowing and proving, it's about the fact that a rule is necessarily public and so a merely private understanding of it remains a mere opinion until demonstrated.

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it. — Olivier5

Uh huh... made the mistake of thinking we were having a grown up conversation. We'll leave it there.

Why are you so angry at folks who think that giving in to Putin would create more suffering than resisting him? It's a perfectly valid opinion, no? — Olivier5

That I'm angry is entirely a fantasy of yours, I can't account for your overactive imagination.

And I've not once argued against the reasonableness of the view that giving in to Putin would cause more suffering. I've argued against the view that the alternative position is 'preposterous', 'apologist', 'kremlimophilic', 'supporting Russia'...and all the other pathetic attempts to avoid any actual argument by tribalistic cheerleading.

I think the view that giving in to Putin might cause more suffering in the long term is perfectly reasonable. It's supported by a range of experts in their field. I happen to disagree with it. My view is also reasonable and supported by a range of experts in their field.

What interests me here is why, given two reasonable views people could adopt, they choose the one which exculpates the West (mostly their own nations) and puts all agency on Russia (the one nation they have absolutely no say in, nor responsibility for). I find that choice suspicious in motive, but it's still one of the plausible options.

The US and Europe supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. It ought to be mentioned as the fastest way to bring this war to a close, even though it would be a catastrophy for the world. — Olivier5

Why would we be interested in the 'fastest' way? The fastest way would be to launch nuclear strikes on both Russia and Ukraine. No countries, no wars. Job done.

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that I wasn't talking to a bunch of sociopaths and we all had reducing human suffering as a goal.

In that respect, it seems the difference of opinion is over whether 'giving in' to Putin's bullying is going to cause more suffering long-term, or whether a long drawn-out war followed by crippling debt would.

But that's just exactly the contrast I've been pointing to for the last 200 pages. Apparently it makes me a Putin apologist, because it seems concern for the well-being of ordinary folk has to take second place to flag waiving for the 'goodies'.

Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition. — Punshhh

So, because he's not short of ammunition, that makes discussing his ammunition irrelevant? I don't see the link.

If twenty people each give a criminal a gun, it's not irrelevant to discuss one of them on the grounds that there were 19 others, that just makes no sense.

The rampant hypocrisy in Western countries with regards to stuff like this is a large part of Putin's propaganda which keeps him in power and provides support for his actions. This is an example of that. You can't use the fact that there are many other examples as an an argument that any given example is irrelevant.

It’s irrelevant — Punshhh

...

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets. — Punshhh

Surely that's makes it relevant? You've not explained what the criteria of relevance are.

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. — Punshhh

How so? We've been talking about the role of hypocrisy in bolstering and providing cover for Putin's invasion within Russia (and other sympathetic states). It might be irrelevant to the political discussion you want to have. Feel free to refrain from replying if so

From Putin's speech...

This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine. — EricH

1. The US and Europe continue to supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war - thousands more Ukrainians die, eventually they lose Donbas and Crimea, because (without boots on the ground, they can't win)

2. The US and Europe stop supplying weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war and instead put all that money and effort into brokering a serious peace deal.

3. NATO send troops into Ukraine, set up a no-fly zone, bomb the shit out of the invading Russian army and hope to God it doesn't start World War Three.

Option 1 leads nowhere but more death and destruction, yet it's the option currently being taken. Option 2 could save thousands (if not millions) of lives, risks 'giving in' to a bully, but little more. Option 3 could also save millions of lives, doesn't risk 'giving in' to a bully, but does risk global annihilation.



Do you not think we should even try option 2? If we ought, then there's your answer. There's what you should persuade your political leaders to do.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation — boethius

Speaking of...

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/19/ukrainian-workers-flee-modern-slavery-conditions-on-uk-farms

"Nobody cares what happens to seasonal workers. I thought our rights would be well protected in the UK but this has not happened. Working on the farm is probably one of the worst experiences and worst treatment of my life"

She and her boyfriend worked on a cherry farm, where they were not allowed to wear gloves, leading to their hands bleeding and skin beginning to peel off.

She said workers on one farm staged a protest over the poor conditions and were punished by being suspended for a week.

...sorry. I meant how much support we in the west have for Ukrainian flags. They're everywhere, we love 'em! Ukrainians themselves... meh, apparently not so much

then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here... — Olivier5

Off you go then.

You complain about black and white thinking yet you exclusively blame Putin for everything.

You complain about partisanship yet you assume anyone critical of NATO is 'siding with Russia'.

You accuse people of trying to play 'smarter than the experts' yet you refuse to cite a single one and claim your own rational induction is superior.

You complain about ad hominem attacks yet can't write more than two paragraphs without using one.

You complain about the gutter-ward direction of the tribalism in this thread yet fill half your posts with invective about 'the other side'.

You clearly have compartmentalising down to a fine art. I'm impressed.

the reason for the invasion can only be one or the other — Christoffer

Yes, but what kind of dogmatically blinded idealist would be so stupid as to assume such a complex situation was all down to one reason or another...?

So, yeah, this is all Putin. — Christoffer

...oh, yeah, I remember.

being critical of Russia means Russophobia — Christoffer

I know! Fancy thinking that being critical of one party makes you a supporter of one or the other...

everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it — Christoffer

the other Kremlinophilic idiots here — Olivier5

being rational means understanding more sides than one. — Christoffer

I see. So just point me in the direction of any of your posts which are understanding of the arguments that NATO provocation was partly responsible for this war?

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine — Christoffer

Russia is bombing the shit out of it. Can you quote a single person denying that?

their intellectual delusions by trying to sound smarter than all experts in the field, — Christoffer

I've repeatedly asked you for citations from experts supporting your position and you've repeatedly refused. Experts in the field have repeatedly warned successive US governments that NATO's actions may provoke a war. I've cited several. You cited no one. In fact when I asked, you've specifically said...

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment. — Christoffer

So who exactly is "trying to sound smarter than all experts"? The ones directly citing them, or the one claiming he doesn't need to cite them because he does his own 'deep dive' research and his amazing 'rational induction of the facts'?

Always ask 'who benefits'. — FreeEmotion

A good principle. Seems to lose against 'who's benefit does it benefit me to ask about'.

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US. — ssu

I've quite clearly included Europe and NATO in my analysis, referring often to 'the West' or "US, Europe and NATO", so no, it's not all about the US, just mainly so. I've been quite clear about my reasons for that. 'The West' is where I live and where virtually everyone here lives, it's the governments over which we have some say and some responsibility for.

you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US. — ssu

How does the subject matter of the conversation here exculpate Russia? Russia invaded a country. No one's disputing that, and seeing as no one has said that it was OK for them to have invaded a country, there's no exculpation. you're actually arguing that the US did nothing wrong (not morally wrong, anyway) that's far from saying 'other players were also wrong' (as I am in focusing on the US), it's actually saying 'no other players were wrong' ie exculpation.

In other words, it's not exculpation to say that other people were also wrong. It is exculpation to say they weren't.

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine. — ssu

...and a dozen other things.

you simply blatantly disregard everything else. — ssu

I've written hundreds of posts. I haven't 'disregarded' anything. My most recent reply to you...

The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have. — Isaac

That doesn't disregard what you said. It directly quotes it and then takes issue with it. Just because I don't agree with your position, it doesn't mean I'm disregarding it. You seem to be falling into @Christoffer's trap of confusing saying something is the case with 'explaining'. You're not my teacher, nor are you an expert, so when you say something, I may well disagree with it.

Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state? — ssu

A combination of alienation, condescension, and provocation in its foreign policy which (knowing the type of person Putin is) was knowingly more likely to lead to the situation we have now then not. I mean this isn't crazy 'out there' thinking. It's what foreign policy expert after expert has been warning successive US governments about for years. I've already cited them saying exactly that.

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe. — ssu

This is a great example of the issue you have confusing 'explaining' with discussing. I didn't just make up what I said did I (I mean, if you seriously think I'm just going to take a guess about something as specific as LNG imports...) So you looked up something, I looked up something... but you just assume the difference simply must result from me being wrong - blinded by my ideology - and not, say, you being wrong.

If you're struggling, a normal conversation would go "oh, those aren't the figures I've got. Where did you get yours from?"

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals. — Isaac

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China? — ssu

Russia. Ukraine's third largest export market. To the East of Ukraine, no?

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe. — Isaac

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets? — ssu

Well, because there's a war on, obviously. So they act to ensure it continues rather then end it as soon as possible.

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice. — Isaac

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU. — ssu

EU - 1.2 billlion, IMF 1.4 billion on top of the 27 million already lent. But yeah. The EU will shaft them with pecuniary loan terms too. So?

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action. — ssu

That's literally saying exactly what I suggested. That all this fortune merely accrued to the US (and Europe) by chance. It's all Putin's actions and they just happened, by sheer good fortune, to be exactly those actions which most benefit the West.

Cui bono.

I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico. — Olivier5

Yeah, 'cos America never bombs anywhere. In fact I'm struggling to think of anywhere America has bombed...does it even have any bombs...?

Yep.

A situation has come about in which...

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East.

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market - something NATO has been pushing for for years.

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe.

4. American financial institutions make 300-400% increases in the value of their loans to Ukraine, not to mention the increased income from future reconstruction loans.

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals.

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice.

...

But what we're being asked here to accept, by @ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead...

...because the real cause lies with a Russian psychopath (simultaneously somehow a danger to Europe and an incompetent fool) and a Ukrainian army whose winning properties no one can even define without reference to those very external forces we're told are largely irrelevant.

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant. — ssu

Then why did you use the word 'only'? Pretty much anything from the list I gave at the end of my post would have had just as much chance (if not way more) of stopping the war. In fact, an empty promise to fight, backed by nothing but wild optimism (at the time) would have had virtually no effect at all. Why would Putin have even taken such a claim seriously?

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe. Almost without exception. We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West. this latest is no exception. Are you expecting me to accept it a mere coincidence that if...

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

...that just so happens to also exculpate the West?

You want to paint your contributions as merely helping us to 'understand' the situation, but it's hard when the 'understanding' you want us to have universally acts to remove all blame from the West even at the expense of making sense.

I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”) — neomac

Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong. But since your argument was that my position is actually 'preposterous' rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else? — neomac

Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

...and that 'fairly' translates as...

you want to help Russia win — neomac

...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity...?

> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself. — neomac

No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother. Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with? If the former, then we can just stop there. I'm more than happy for you to disagree with my assessment, indeed I fully expect it. This is a complicated situation and it would be highly unusual for 7 billion minds to look at the data they have available and reach the same conclusions. But if it's the latter then the quote above needs no citation.

when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. — neomac

I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?

even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman — neomac

Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is). I don't think laymen can just dip into expert analysis and start critiquing their data gathering and analytical methods. We're no more experts in those fields than we are in military strategy...unless, of course, you are...in which case it would have been easier for you to just say so.

if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum. — neomac

I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven't.

What on earth did you just write?! — neomac

Do you want me to explain it to you? Or are you happy enough with the complete hash you made of understanding it which followed from this rhetorical question.

These are all examples of morale winning out over equal or sometimes bad tactics — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think anyone was questioning the role of morale. What I was questioning was the the idea that morale was disconnected from material circumstances, that some nations are just pluckier than others. Ukrainian morale (to the extent that it was unusually high) didn't just spring out of nowhere, nor did the low Russian morale just spring out of nowhere. Forces acting on both armies caused both morale effects.

The statement I took issue with was ssu's...

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have.

But one can't just change theory to suit one's motives. If those peoples didn't lack courage or resolve, but rather had material circumstances constrain it, then it has to follow that Ukrainians didn't have an unusually high natural endowment of courage and resolve, but rather material circumstances bolstered those traits (and hampered them in the Russian army).

Yet an analysis of what those material circumstances are would be an absurd puff piece if it were to ignore the fact that the largest military, economic and intelligence powers the world has ever seen supported them with everything short of actually fighting for them. The Western world's press treated them a superheroes, they deified their leader, they flew their flags, they banned their opponents form even speaking, they re-wrote the rules just to suit them, they threw money, guns and intelligence at them. All the while their enemies were treated like the worst examples of humanity.

It would be nothing but dogma to suggest all that had no effect. And yet all that occurred after the invasion, none of it was in place beforehand. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the only thing that could have prevented the war was some declaration from Ukraine about it's willingness to fight. That would have made no difference at all, at the time. A declaration from the US that they would absolutely pariah Russia and lionise Ukraine - that might have had an effect (should Putin have been amenable to such tactical considerations, which now seems unlikely), but a small force making a promise to defend their nation that (given knowledge at the time) they really couldn't stand by, would have made virtually no difference.

The US and NATO telling Russia exactly what support they would give in the event of an invasion, however, is far more likely to have had an effect. But that's exactly what they didn't do.

The UN/NATO taking the wind out of Putin's propaganda by promising Ukrainian neutrality, agreeing to independence votes in Donbas and investigations into far-right groups might have made it more difficult to manufacture a pretext for invasion. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

Or alternatively, a clear fast-tracked membership of NATO, or strong assurances of military aid (boots on the ground type aid) in the event of an invasion might have had an effect. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

But instead of addressing these issues, people are trying to construct this ludicrous narrative which excludes these powers from the story. But to do that, the Ukrainian's morale has to be not only invoked as the primary reason for success, but this morale has to spring out of nowhere, has to just arise from strength of character alone - all very well for the Ukrainians, but how does that make the rest of the subjugated world feel? Like they lost because of their own native lack of pluck.

If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too. — ssu

Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership. — ssu

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight? — ssu

Right. So not 'will'. Weapons, governmental stability, and foreign support.

Who's providing the weapons, the governmental stability and the foreign support to Ukraine? The very countries you don't want anyone to talk about.

All that's left to talk about is the Ukrainian 'will'. The one thing you won't admit to making any difference on its own because to do so would mean you'd have to simultaneously admit that others simply lacked 'the will', rather than lacked the weapons, and the support.

You've just listed three aspects contributing to the difficulties in Afghanistan that the US were absolutely instrumental in. You've just admitted that it was those things, not 'the will' of the Afghans which made the difference when compared to the case of Ukraine. And yet you continue to disparage talk about the suppliers of those very factors in Ukraine as misguided, a distraction...

what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it). — EricH

No, you didn't miss it. I'm no expert so wouldn't presume to be able to come up with a plan. I am of the belief that if one thinks that one's government's plan is harmful, one should hold their feet to fire over it.

They may well have found the 'least worst' option (though I doubt that very much in this case), but that's not something we need overly concern ourselves with.

If we incidentally hold our government to account for something they've genuinely tried their best at, but just just couldn't find a better way, then all we get is hurt feelings (and that's exactly what they signed up for). If, however, we incidentally let our government off the hook, thinking they could have done no better when actually they could, thousands die (or are further immiserated). To me the proper course is obvious.

Western arms firms are making a fortune out of this war. Western financial institutions stand to gain billions from reconstruction loans, Western corporations stand to gain millions from the resultant 'Westernisation' of Ukraine. Maybe all that just so happens to come along with the 'best' solution for Ukraine, maybe it's all just a happy coincidence. But if it is, and we yell and scream about the injustice of it anyway, then all we're going to get is a few upset executives, I'm sure they'll get by. If, on the other hand, it turns out decisions actually are being made to further this objective and not to benefit the people of Ukraine, and yet we let it slide because we 'reckoned' it's probably the least worst option, then we've been complicit in a monumental injustice.

So...

What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction? — EricH

I don't know. If I were you, I'd make as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do.

As far as my own personal opinion, I think that moving forward from the deal on the table currently will cause less suffering than a continued, probably futile, battle to get a better one.

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine. — ssu

Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'?

I say that indeed nations have a morale in relation to other nations. It is not fixed, but variable. — unenlightened

So what factors are responsible for that variation?

to presume that if one discusses one thing, one is (a) discounting everything else — unenlightened

So that would be a bit like assuming that everyone talking about American, European, and NATO culpability is thereby discounting everything else? Now, where might I have come across that kind of attitude recently...?

Of course, ssu using the word "only" was a bit distracting to one's attempt at remembering that he's not "discounting everything else". Where I come from, you see, 'only' means 'discounting everything else'.

and (b) making what one mentions absolute and eternal. — unenlightened

Things which are not absolute and eternal vary according to forces which themselves are absolute and eternal (on a human scale). So if a nation's morale varies over time, there are factors which cause that variation and such relations will themselves be invariant.

We have here a choice of theories to answer the question 'Why has the Ukrainian defence been stronger than anyone anticipated?'

We could go with A (@ssu's theory) the Ukrainian's just turned out to be better than anyone expected. Since the reasons you listed for variability in defensive aplomb were all know beforehand except for pluck (or luck - but that wasn't on ssu's list), then we can only conclude that the Ukrainian's are simply pluckier than most (the 'most' on which these strategic expert's previous assessments were based).

Or we could go with the alternative B, that the hundreds of experienced and knowledgeable strategic experts were pretty much right about the Ukrainian defensive capabilities (not good), but that the most powerful nation on earth used it's enormous reserves of military, economic, political and intelligence forces to tip the balance.

Apparently it's just obvious that it's A - Ukrainians are just pluckier than all the world's military experts expected.

Apparently B (despite being exactly what's happened in every single fucking war ever) is just delusional nonsense arising from a pathological hatred of America.

Who'd have thought it...

That is a parody argument. — unenlightened

A parody of what?

Pluck, luck, and whatever the fuck can all be factors of success and failure. — unenlightened

Indeed. So are we to say that some nations are 'pluckier' than others? Because if not, we can simply divide through and cancel it out as a useful metric. It's the same in all cases. When attacked, a nation will defend itself with all the gusto it can muster. So to limit our analysis to 'pluck' doesn't really tell us much, does it?

So are leadership, geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, culture, and bunch of other shit. — unenlightened

Yes, but my post was in response to @ssu talking about...

this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

The very specific claim that Putin (and the West) were surprised by the Ukrainian defense. That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom?

...and...

A bunch of other shit - would that include, or exclude the support of the most powerful nation on earth?