I don't see how that analysis makes any difference. I'm not painting those republics as utopia so you providing data showing they're not is irrelevant, and of course, a Russian invasion is going to turn people against Russia, but we're not (I hope) advising long-term policy be based on short-term hatreds for the actions of an obviously isolated dictator.

The point I made earlier still stands. There are two ways to solve the problems you highlight.

1. Fight a war to ensure they're under the control of a (marginally) better government
2. Fight a revolution to ensure it doesn't matter whose government they're under the control of

If we can beat Russia in war, I don't see any reason why we can't bring about internal change any less easily.

Rather, it's what you haven't said. You keep talking about Ukrainians as if they were the only ones dying, the only ones who can stop this, the only ones in need of surrendering... What about the Russians? Won't you advise them to surrender too? — Olivier5

I'm not speaking to Russian soldiers. Nor am I speaking to Ukrainians. I'm speaking (mostly) to Europeans, Americans and Scandinavians. So why would I use my posts to encourage Russians to surrender?

The people I'm speaking to (you lot) are encouraging continued Ukrainian resistance (and continued Western arms supply). I think that will lead to more innocent deaths for no (or minimal) gain, so I oppose it.

If a Russian soldier posted something along the lines of "we should keep fighting to rid Ukraine of those Nazis" I would oppose that too, but since there's been no such post, there's no cause for me to write such a response.

I'm not in the habit of simply announcing to the world things I believe to be the case (as though anyone cared). I respond to what is posted. I presume that's what the posters want me to do, or else why post?

Millions of Russians don't want to die for Donbas either, but you don't seem to care for their lives so much. — Olivier5

Wtf? What have I said that could possibly lead to that conclusion?

That it's a poor corrupt country where the people have been long angry about their ruling politicians? That even those who have promised them change have disappointed too? — ssu

Yes (insofar as any such description was in word only - not forming part of any conclusion). If you agree that Ukraine is no picnic and Russia not a totalitarian dystopia (yet) then why do you consider it worth thousands of lives to ensure Crimea is ruled by the former and not the latter?

when the leader who starts a war against a country says the "country is artificial", there's not much appeasement that the country could have taken to avoid the war. — ssu

Yes, and yet without a shred of evidence. Leaders lie all the time, the employ jingoistic rhetoric, they whip up a crowd. Taking a few soundbites and saying "well there's not much point in suing for peace, we might as well all die on the battlefield" is monumental stupidity. What Putin says in front of a crowd and what he's prepared to offer at negotiation are as night and day.

Surrendering would have only enforced the idea of Ukrainians being "lesser-Russians" or "little-Russians". — ssu

Not to the millions of Ukrainians who support more integration with Russia. not to mention the millions more who wouldn't give a shit about being considered "Little Russians" if it meant their sons and daughters were not killed in war.

I don't object to your assessment of Russia. I object to your assessment of Ukraine.

This need to polemicise is at the heart of the problem. Russia is no North Korea and Ukraine is not Utopia. It's not that citizens in Russia are controlled like robots, nor is it that Ukrainians are somehow immune to the US's billions. Influence doesn't only take the form of a Stazi with a cosh. And even then, Ukraine is not lacking in coshes.

As I've already shown, by every metric issued, by authorities such as the UN and the World Bank (with no love of Russia), Ukraine and Russia are simply not that far apart in indices of human freedom. You can post all the images you like, but I'll take the United Nations report over your photos.

Of course you don't. And these people came all with their own flags to the stadium, which they cherish so much. — ssu

Imagine thinking the Russians in that photo lack agency! They can't just decide for themselves that they like Putin's agenda. No, you have to go and assume they must be manipulated by some greater power, tsk! Shame on you!

Documented, recorded, with satellite images backing it... — Olivier5

I was referring to your conclusions, not your evidence. We're all just 'some guy'. The entire point of this forum is that we respond in some reasoned manner to the things that 'some other guy' says.

Dismissing them on the grounds that they're just 'some guy' renders the entire format redundant.

Yes. I'm firmly convinced of the fact that no minor fact of geographical or cultural heterodoxy will have any impact on the logical existence of two options, nor the global facts about which are better/more achievable.

When Russia invaded, did you caution our condemnation? Did you say "hang on, unless we have intimate geographical knowledge of this area we can't be sure bombing the fuck out of them is a bad thing".

If you have a point, make it. What local knowledge changes the options as I've presented them?

It seems the Ukrainians are successfully dismantling the group west of Kyiv, and have retaken Irpin.

An intercepted phone call recording was released by Ukraine’s Security Service late Tuesday, indicating total disarray on the Russian side in this area.

Ukrainians have agency alright. The Russians, not so much. An army of slaves. — Olivier5

So what? A guy says something and?

Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, neither your nor your nor @SophistiCat's taking offence at the suggestion changes the facts on the ground. People are not given agency because you're offended by the suggestion they don't have it.

And how well you know these independent states of Luhansk and Donetsk? — ssu

My knowledge of them is irrelevant. Even if we assume that life in 'independence' would be worse for the people there (a significant assumption), the fact remains that two options are open to us to do something about that

1. Keep fighting wars to keep them under the control of the (marginally) better government.
2. Keep fighting revolutions to make it not matter what government they are under the control of.

The latter has the advantage of freeing millions more from misery and you've presented little by way of clear evidence that the former is somehow so much easier as to commend on the grounds of achievability alone.

Neither Isaac or @StreetlightX or anybody else is saying such obvious pro-Putin arguments and willing to carve up Ukraine. Nobody else promotes such views. — ssu

Just to clarify, lest I'm absolved of guilt unfairly - I have supported 'carving up' Ukraine. I think an independent Donbass and a Russian Crimea are perfectly sensible solutions. I don't give a fuck whose flag flies over the government buildings and I'm not so naive to think that life in Russian Crimea is going to be materially so much worse that it's worth another ten thousand dead bodies to avoid it. We have as much chance of making Russia a more democratic and prosperous place for its people as we have of keeping a Putin-lead Russia out of Ukraine permanently. Give Russia the Crimea, stop the war, then overthrow Putin (and the like) so that it doesn't matter one jot what colour the passports are.

Of the two barriers to either strategy (improve Russia or militarily keep them out of Crimea), I can't see any compelling reason to think the latter is somehow the obvious, easier option. The last 20 years of failure in either cause would not seem to raise either one above the other.

Objection to 'carving up' Ukraine is misplaced, as if 'Sovereignty' were some kind of measure of human flourishing above all other, like if we all kept to our borders, everything else would be fine. The border between Ukraine and Russia is not the issue, the abject poverty, powerlessness and immiseration of the people on either side of it is.

It's not about agency, it's about power. Ukrainians could have all the agency in the world. They can't will a thousand Javelins, no less a billion dollars, into existence. Unless you're really subsumed by some kind of David and Goliath fairy tale version of warfare, Ukraine lacked the power to resist Russia, not the agency. The US (or anyone else) cannot lend power, it wields it, and so it is their agency in wielding that power that dominates the narrative.

I don't know if you wanted an answer from me or if my name was invoked rather as a hyperbolic (I even agree with Isaac!), but notwithstanding...

I'm broadly in agreement with @StreetlightX's analysis, so I won't repeat it. I will add that part of the reason I think this analysis works is because there reaches a point in societal responses (war, protest, revolution) where an ethical analysis simply ceases to be useful. It's not that the players don't have any ethical choices (they do, clearly) but that those choices are so constrained by material circumstances that analysing events using them is like adding the light of a single candle to the 1000W spotlight that a systemic analysis can provide.

That a few saints might come up with some genius method of passive resistance, or that a few devils will relish the chance to play Star Wars but with real guns, is irrelevant compared to the mass who didn't think they really had much of a choice (whether they actually did or not, being again, besides the point).

Something like invasion, or some of the stronger forms of oppression (apartheid springs to mind) are such gross infractions against our humanity that it would be perverse to expect any reasoned ethical choice to be made as to how to respond from those suffering from it, hence the legitimacy of any response seeming something of a pointless post hoc exercise.

Indeed, and not even a great deal of shape shifting required. Same old shite with a different bow around it seems to do the job.

If you look slightly to your right, my point will be on the shelf just above you.

Cool. Can you do this bit next? — Baden

Ha! Yes.

"shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians control the Earth."

I may run out of strike though before the end of the article!

a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian one-world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states. — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Fixed it. Not a conspiracy theory anymore.

@boethius

Of course, now the zeitgeist has changed, Caplan's popularity weathervane has shifted. He now informs us ...

Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations

...oddly only a few months ago when arguing in favour of enforced consumer compliance over vaccinations he assured us...

The public health movement today is international. It is deeply concerned with the rights of the poor and those who have very few resources

Apparently not anymore, if Twitter says it isn't.

Cease all research generally speaking? Or just in Russia? — boethius

Sorry, yes, just Russia. I've added a bit to the quote I cited, which was unclear.

Anyone wanting an example of the monumentally stupid consequences of the sort of pointless moral falg-waiving on this thread.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/970136

I think it's paywalled for non-academic access so briefly... Dr Caplan is suggesting

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.
Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.
The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

He's seriously saying that innocent cancer patients should be denied treatment because they're Russian

Of course we'd expect this kind of virtue-signalling bullshit from Caplan, but still...

This is where it all goes wrong. It's acting in bad faith. — baker

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "acting in bad faith", but I don't think accepting we've emboldened Putin matches any understanding of the term I know of.

I agree with the problems of acting in bad faith insofar as dishonesty, but I don't think that extends to necessarily being charitable, at least not with those in power. Those in power need to be held to account, it's one of the most important controls on power there is. So if Putin appears to be a tyrannical dictator I don't think anyone's under any obligation to look for the most charitable explanation of his actions, only one that is plausible and, most importantly, benefits those in most need.

My objection to the adolescent 'Putin bad man' argument so many posters here want to insist on, is not that it is a bad faith argument (he does seem quite bad, surely!), it's that it benefits those in power at the expense of those in need. It lends succour to the American arms industry, the 'reconstruction' loans, the IMF, by making it harder to sell any position other than 'fight to the death - every last man' (which just prolongs their extremely profitable war). Conversely it further impoverishes the powerless (in this case the Ukrainians) who must die in their thousands, just to keep Russia occupied for a bit, and then live as serfs to pay back the, now tripled, debts they owe at a new 'just-out-of-war' interest rate.

If all this bullshit moral flag-waiving actually got anyone anywhere I might quietly keep my English sense of disgust at the public display of emotion to myself, I don't mind the odd bit of bad faith among the drama-queen generation we seem to have somehow bred - but here, it's actually immiserating people and it's that which bothers me.

I hope Ukraine and Russia can work out a peace deal soon and avoid this insane bloodshed. — Benkei

Seconded. Unfortunately the popular media narrative is increasingly frustrating those efforts by painting Zelensky into a corner. The more Disneyfied the conflict is allowed to become, the harder it will be for either side to sell a realistic peace deal to their respective populace.

From the US and UK government, I'd expect no less. What's surprised me on this occasion was the ease with which social media has been wielded to further that agenda. It's scary just how readily such a powerful weapon can be put to such unilateral use.

Literally the first paragraph of your source...

For Ukraine, joining the NATO security alliance is an aspiration enshrined in its constitution. And although Western leaders say membership is at best a distant prospect at best, Russia regards even the possibility as an existential threat.

...explains exactly the point being so rabidly denied. That the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was something Russia viewed as a threat.

considering all the shit you raised about how important it was to get the facts straight (funding arms, not donating arms, remember?) and all the later shit about the word 'provoked'. To now claim that

"Maybe the question of open doors is for us like a dream.” While emphasizing that NATO membership “is for our security and it is in the constitution,”

...is the same as...

"clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO"

...is bullshit.

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO. — frank

Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he was only conducting a 'special operation' to de-nazify the independent regions.

Do you even know how diplomacy works?

I hate to break your little Disney version of the world, but global leaders lie.

Oh and Santa Claus isn't real either I'm afraid.

As already mentioned:

Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. — Olivier5 — Olivier5

So...you think all the experts cited didn't know that? What relevance does their exclusion have for the argument?

To remind you. It was claimed that...

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

I responded by citing a large number of experts who don't believe Putin's motivations relate solely to the expansion of Russia, but rather to the threat from NATO expansion.

You tried to claim my sources were out of date (without providing any relevant dates). Then you claimed that Georgia and Ukraine were not being considered for membership.

Given that all the experts I cited know this and yet still thought NATO expansion a motivating factor, I fail to see the relevance.

the quote is outdated. And so are your other quotes as well. — Olivier5

Well, Lyne spoke last year and Beebe in January, but whatever...

What dates do you have for all the other sources I cited, you must know them pretty intimately to be able to declare them all out if date?

And, more importantly, perhaps, what exactly dates them? Has NATO retreated? Has Russia had a change of heart about it?

Do you think that makes bombing the Saltivka residential district, killing Romanchenko, right? — jorndoe

Why would I think that?

(This was sort of a "meaningless" comment, ↪Benkei
.) — jorndoe

If you don't understand a comment, you can just ask.

Can you read what I wrote? — Christoffer

I quoted what you wrote at the head of my post.

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

Its clearly false. They point to how Putin's motivations relate other issues such as the threat of NATO.

I'm not going to repeat the flaw in your argument because if you didn't understand it when @StreetlightX explained it, I don't imagine I'd have any greater success.

can you conclude that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway? — Christoffer

No.

Can you conclude that Russia would have invaded anyway?

No.

So where does that get us?

Combining that with the research into his regime, there are a lot of puzzle pieces fitting together far better than much of the logical gap crap some people spew out over hundreds of pages in this thread. It at least pokes holes in the logic of your conclusions. — Christoffer

Well, that may be, but since you not provided us with a shred of evidence for anything you've asserted so far, I guess we'll have to remain in chair-clutching suspense. You old tease, you.

the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia — Malcolm Fraser

Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" — Former US defense secretary Bob Gates

[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level. If you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it. — Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia

Your turn. The experts concluding that

There was no provocation ... It's all on Putin. — Olivier5

...?

Quote them, then, — Olivier5

I already have, but sure...

In 1998 George Kennan warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia"

Henry Kissinger here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome. — John Mearsheimer

[NATO expansion is] the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed — Jack Matlock

if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential — Stephen Cohen

NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia. — Jefferey Sachs

I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests — Bill Burns

How many do you want?

The "facts" are either what Putin says directly, which is undoubtedly the most unreliable source for any kind of fact, or a historic fact with the rhetorical suffix that it somehow connects to such motivations without any real connection established. — Christoffer

Missed this gem.

So what Putin says and what Putin does are consigned to the wastebasket as far as evidence is concerned. What's far more compelling is what you think he thinks.

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

Oh I almost forgot...

Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-199.
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia.
George Beebe who used to be the CIA's top Russia analyst
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies
Frank Blackaby, former director of SIPRI

...

Every single one on this list and the previous one has implicated NATO expansion as the main provocation for war in Ukraine.

And the experts you've quoted saying its all Putin's empire building so far tally...?

Back on page 38...

Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'. — Isaac

Nothing since then.

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

So George Kenan, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Vladimir Pozner,Jeffrey Sachs, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General Pino Arlacchi, former CIA director Bill Burns, former US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates...

These are all what now? Non-experts on Russia?

On the subject of those kind, kind Western countries and their 'support' for Ukraine...

As bombing and shelling ripped through Ukraine’s towns and cities in the first week of the invasion, the Ukrainian government still made a scheduled interest payment to its private lenders on time. The lenders—mostly international finance institutions, banks, and hedge funds—are all queuing up to collect their debts, with no sign of respite.

Since the invasion, Ukrainian dollar-denominated bonds, which were issued as part of its 2015 debt restructuring, have been trading at around 25 cents in the dollar. This reflects the high risk of default, but also means that if Ukraine continues to make its debt payments, Western banks and hedge funds could make profits of 300%.

The response of multilateral institutions has been to give even more loans to Ukraine. Since the war started, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has given a £1.4 billion emergency loan, while the World Bank has provided a $723 million financial package that includes $589 million in loans. These new loans are being piled on top of Ukraine’s already unsustainable debts. — https://jubileedebt.org.uk/news/cancel-ukraines-debt

There was no provocation that I can see. So no, i don't agree. It's all on Putin. — Olivier5

So when you said...

we all or nearly all agreed that many errors were made — Olivier5

...what errors were you referring to and what were their consequences?

never ever said I wanted any conversation to stop. I am just explaining what purpose is served by blaming NATO again and again — Olivier5

Your explanation relies on an assumption that the conversation ought to have stopped. Without that assumption, there is no cause to impute ulterior motives on those who continue it. If the conversation about NATO can be continued legitimately, on what grounds do you assume those who do so are doing so illegitimately?

What are you even talking about now? — Christoffer

The argument into which you contributed your comment was...

once this [criticism of NATO] is agreed, you would expect the conversation to go back to Ukraine. — Olivier5

It uses this expectation as evidence for the analysis of interlocutors you, quite rightly, allow for.

Yet the utility of this (and your agreement) as evidence for ulterior motives relies entirely on an assumption that you (and the position you espouse) is just categorically right. Obvious and verified. Hence the suspicion levied at those who oppose it.

I'm suggesting the reality is simply that those who oppose it just disagree with you about the facts.

Presenting your opinion about what Putin would and would not do, how the US might or might not have responded, what influence they may or may not now have...is the whole point of a discussion forum.

Being baffled that anyone would disagree with you renders the medium pointless. I suggest you take up blogging instead.

Criticism of NATO was made here a long time ago, and we all or nearly all agreed that many errors were made and the US and EU have had their share of hypocrisy and immorality. But once this is agreed, you would expect the conversation to go back to Ukraine. Yet it does not... Some people want to talk about NATO again and again and again. — Olivier5

Criticism of Putin was made here a long time ago too, and we all or nearly all agreed. Does that mean no further conversation on the matter should take place?

The vast majority of this thread has been taken up with attempts to paint such criticism as apologetics for Putin.

The US did a bad thing creating the circumstances for, and provoking this war.

Putin did a bad thing responding to that provocation so violently and with such callousness.

We all agree on both.

So why do you want conversation about one to stop, but conversation about the other to continue?

I understood from what he wrote that cheerleading a Ukrainian is morally worse than killing a Ukrainian. — Olivier5

Well then there's little we can do to help you.

As for boethius, he wrote clearly about his moral preference for murder over cheerleading. — Olivier5

He wrote exactly what he wrote. The fact that you have to paraphrase rather than directly quote speaks quite clearly to your intellectual dishonesty. If @boethius wrote so 'clearly' of such a preference, you shouldn't have the slightest trouble quoting him saying so.