Christianity ultimately led to their downfall as their value system (the one which helped with their rise and success) was replaced with another. The Empire couldn't stomach Jesus. :rofl: — BitconnectCarlos

I think the Roman empire was doomed long before the Christian religion became dominant. Really what's interesting is not that it fell, but how long it took. It simply was not viable given larger population dynamics.

I take it to mean a thread of history running from the Greco-Romans (as ↪ssu pointed out), running through Christendom in the Middle Ages (by way of preservation of these writings and carrying on in the format in a diminished fashion), with a sort of "rebirth" in the Renaissance/Scientific Revolution — schopenhauer1

That honestly sounds pretty off to me. The Christian heritage in western culture is huge. The enlightenment was not a rediscovery of ancient wisdom, it's heavily influenced by Christian theology of the middle ages. It is also quite possibly influenced by experience with the American peoples, whose often specifically anti-authoritarian political arrangements may have given Europeans a few ideas.

The separation of church and state, specifically, likely has it's precursor in the christian concept of "religion" as something distinct from the rest of your tribal / family identity (which is not at all a given). And also, of course, goes back to the special role of the catholic church as a supranational organisation.

at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, — schopenhauer1

Or perhaps the conclusion we should draw from the repeated failures is that the two states solution is not a good way to go about it.

It tends to focus the discussion on the "who gets what" and thus encourages the rehashing of old grievances and maximalist demands, rather than framing it in terms of the future cooperation of jews and muslims.

Pathetic — Merkwurdichliebe

Is what I call people that summarily declare large amounts of other people essentially subhuman.

I wouldn't even necessarily call the lockdowns an overreaction. When states felt that infection rates went beyond what could be handled, the lockdowns were reasonable as a short term solution imo. Perhaps they were even a bit late overall.

The problem came with the extension of limited, partial lockdowns and the proliferation of a bewildering array of contact regulations afterwards. A simple set of advisories, robust contact tracking as well as avoiding large (indoor) gatherings might have been just as effective and lost less trust.

It is pathetic that these sheep continue to double down on it all, despite the fact Coronavirus-2020-hindsight has proven lockdown and vaccine policy to be an absolute disaster. It is a case of too much pride and zero dignity. — Merkwurdichliebe

Obviously if you call someone an undignified, prideful sheep they'll not make a very great effort to second guess their choices. They'll just label you an anti vax conspiracy nutjob and ignore you.

The politicisation of the issue has made it very difficult to analyse the successes and failures.

For example, there's lots of criticism of the mandates on the "experimental vaccine", but little discussion on other issues with the vaccine policy. Like private firms holding patents for vaccines that were essentially publicly funded. Or the hoarding of doses by the richer countries which not only left poorer nations out in the cold, but also decreased the effectiveness of the program overall.

However, the evidence behind the above warning is strong enough for NBC to publish the story even in an environment of general denialism and white washing of the issue. — boethius

I love the logic of invoking denialism while posting a bunch of articles to then turn around and claim the articles are thus evidence of a much worse problem. It's the kind of backwards logic common to self-professed "free thinkers".

Also it should be noted that in context, the "chaos and insurgency" the article talks about is referring to the result of a russian takeover.

I even wrote to my country's leadership 3 years before the war started explaining that a lack of international leadership (for example rich countries narcissistically only focusing on themselves, and not creating a mobile medical battalion to bring relief to areas experiencing overcapacity) would lead directly to chaos and conflict, most notably in Eastern Europe.

Now imagine if the West also put resources into mobile hospitals during the pandemic to at least be sure to bring basic medical supplies to areas experience a peak.

Even if it wouldn't be all that successful, it's the kind of thing that would bring people together, symbolize our caring for each other. Of course, the danger of this concept is that it may have worked too well and there'd be no need to wait for vaccines.

My proposal was rejected and I was informed the pandemic was in the hands of the experts, not to worry my pretty little head basically.

Exactly the process I described took place.

Now you may argue my mobile hospital concept would not have prevented the war in Ukraine, but I also explained in my letter that the insular attitude, essentially ignoring international diplomacy, would also contribute to the same.

Again, experts are handling it.

But are they? Are they really? — boethius

This really just seems like more evidence that you are conceited about your own abilities, and that your incessant distortion and outright lies merely serve to protect your ego.

So, if you want to live in the real world — boethius

If one wants to live in the real world, the last thing they should do is believe anything you write.

However, now Ukraine seems to be essentially a police state, political parties banned, critical media banned, lot's of disappearing and murdering by the police state. — boethius

More lies piled on.

Really, you expect anyone to believe that you care one whit about peace, or lives?

I guess I could reject the framing of occupier and occupied and instead take the position that really Gaza has been given considerable autonomy as well as outside help, and it really should have been on Gazans to use these opportunities.

Yet this would seem to change little about my assessment that the position of the Israeli government seems destructive and unlikely to lead to any kind of peace apart from peace by displacement.

I can also adopt the position that Hamas has no claim to any legitimate resistance and is nothing more than a brutal crime syndicate. But this would not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that ordinary Gazans are particularly likely to actively fight them to achieve peace with Israel.

I do actually reject the position that morality can be reduced to some kind of oppression Olympics where the victim is right and the oppressor is wrong.

But from a purely practical perspective, wealth and security seem to be the most likely avenues out of the kind of extremism rife among Palestinians. I have always held to the position that the best advertisement for "western values" is to demonstrate that they work to your benefit.

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same… — schopenhauer1

I guess noone here expects that the Palestinians have much capacity to change, given their situation. Though one might also argue that this attitude is dehumanising in a way.

It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism.

Now, the Nazis in Ukraine are also a legitimate security threat — boethius

No they are not, unless you mean in the sense that any armed Ukrainian is a threat to russian interests in Ukraine.

These are facts. A just war theory would need to navigate these facts and demonstrate that the separatists deserved to be attacked and shell (Ukraine's war on the separatists had just cause) — boethius

Not really, since that is merely a civil war and thus an internal affair.

as well as the Nazis are a threat but not "enough" of a threat for Russia to justify preemptive war. — boethius

There is no justifiable "preemptive war" under international law. But, if there was some moral case for it, we would need to identify either an existential threat to Russia as a state or some grave threat to russian citizen. Like weapons of mass destruction being held in preparation for their use on russian cities.

This is not the case, and so there is not remotely any justification for a "preemptive war".

If Ukrainian Nazis are murdering and intimidating for political purposes in Ukraine, that wouldn't worry you? — boethius

What worries me personally is immaterial.

You'd have to be a moron to not have any fear of reprisal if you make peace and radical Nazi groups and affiliates disapprove of that, going so far as to murder a negotiator (negotiating on your behalf, you trust enough to send to talk to the Russians) to make the point. You'd have to be a moron to take at face value the reason for the murder was the negotiator was a traitor without evidence.

Now, if you really think Zelensky is that much of a clueless moron, feel free to state it clearly. Even I give Zelensky more credit. — boethius

This is just baseless speculation on Zekensky's motives.

If people can murder their political opponents as well as agents of the state without consequence that will influence things. — boethius

So you cannot actually provide any specific example.

Once you achieve enough military power that the state no longer applies to law to you (law enforcement are either on your side or too afraid to do anything), you are one step away from taking power. — boethius

But that is not the case.

Again, read the articles. If you just ignore the evidence presented that Ukraine Nazis are unaccountable and act with impunity, or then believe people with that kind of power can't affect people's decisions — boethius

Speculative generalities are not a replacement for an argument.

This is a paraphrase of the Nazi apologist position, here and elsewhere. If it's not quite exact, then feel free to interpret as Russia has the same Nazi problem as Ukraine. The main point in pushing the symmetry even to the extreme, is how would it matter? — boethius

It would matter if someone were to argue that Russia is worried about Nazi ideology in Ukraine and felt compelled to start a preemptive war to stop them. Because that would be a rather absurd thing to do if russian Nazis then simply replaced the Ukrainian ones.

How does Russian Naziism, assuming it's as rampant as Ukrainian, justify supporting Ukrainian Nazis? — boethius

Strawman.

My position is Zelensky is not a Nazi but that Nazis at this point basically control everything that matters in Ukraine, such as the police state. So it's a slight distance away from a Nazi coup. — boethius

Yeah and that is utter bullshit. So obviously untrue that it can only be called a bold faced lie.

Because we're not talking in some timeless vacuum of eternal abstract concepts.

In 2022, before the war, there were strong Nazi battalions that could act with impunity and unaccountability already, but they were small compared to the electorate and the regular Ukrainian army, so they did not have the power to stage a coup.

From 2014 to 2022 the Nazis main affect on history is keeping the war in the Donbas going, shelling civilians and being generally provocative, and frustrating any peace process. I would categorize them as a danger to Ukrainian democracy and clearly an obstacle to peace.

But they did not have the power before the war to just stage a violent coup.

Now, since the war, they grow exceptionally more powerful within the Ukrainian state but, more importantly, Ukrainian regulars are being destroyed.

If the process continues, at some point (which could exist even now) there would be no way for the Ukrainian state to resist a violent coup. — boethius

This just goes from hyperbole in the first paragraph into absolute fantasy immediately.

A slippery slope fallacy requires an end-point that is either absurd or the proposer of the alleged fallacy anyways rejects. — boethius

That is false. It's a slippery slope fallacy if it doesn't explain the intervening steps.

It is an important factor to consider. — boethius

But not in a manner that merely uses the facts of the matter as a stepping stone into a wild flurry of fantasy and speculation.

For example, if Nazis now have enough military and police power to simply take over the state, then they could leverage that to keep the war going to essentially extort the West. Obviously an actual Nazi coup in Ukraine would be a PR disaster for all the politicians and officials who have championed the war, so hardliners in Ukraine can hold that over NATO and to keep the money and the arms flowing.

Which would be my guess that they'd use their power for (and even if it's not clear they could take over, the threat needs to be considered) at this stage in the war.

As I say, it's a problem. Nazis aren't the only actor in Ukraine and in the conflict, but they are a significant force with their own agenda and have means to try to bring it about. — boethius

Yeah no. Obvious propaganda.

Point is, that there is an actual Nazi problem in Ukraine makes the propaganda work of motivating Russians to support the war far easier, even if you personally believe, and is critical to understanding the war and critical to take into account in understanding Western policy.

For example, if you're the US and actually want a war between Russia and Ukraine you would do nothing to stop the arming, funding and training of Nazis in Ukraine, and if your own country passes a law to make that illegal you just ignore that. — boethius

You're making an unwarranted leap here from arguing that Ukraine's Nazi problem is beneficial to Russian propaganda efforts to concluding that it was actually a reason for the russian government to invade.

partial control over as well as free rein to terrorize to affect political decisions and processes, is worrisome. — boethius

What does it mean that it is "worrisome"? What exactly is the worry?

another reason is certainly fear of reprisal from the Nazis — boethius

Certainly? No. You have no grounds to conclude that.

Second, Nazis are able to influence the political process with violence instead of electoral success. — boethius

As far as I can see, you have not provided a single example of them actually influencing a political process with violence.

Third, the Nazis are powerful enough in Ukraine that they can commit clear acts of terrorism and face no consequences. They may not totally control the state, but they act with "impunity", so one step away of taking control of the state. — boethius

No, it is not one step away from controlling the state. This is ridiculous nonsense.

Since we know Ukrainian politics is affected by various Nazi projects through the threat of violence, we have to consider the possibility different more legitimate political actors are influenced by violent extortion. — boethius

And we're in the realm of just baselessly spinning your narrative where you want it.

and polls are not only manipulative as we've seen but people can be intimidated to give one answer over another, — boethius

And some more fantasy piled on top. You just can't help but venture forth into the ridiculous, apparently.

make the case that Russia is basically a Nazi regime too!! — boethius

An interesting slip, given you just claimed that you're not arguing that Ukraine is a nazi regime.

just that saying the whole regime in Kiev is Nazi is a ever so slight exaggeration Russian propaganda has made. — boethius

This consistent effort to lie, manipulate and distort is really tiresome. You claim one thing, then a few paragraphs later you're already backtracking, as if you're somehow unable to go through even one post without dialing up your claims again.

Case in point:

If there's a literal Nazi coup, which is not out of the cards — boethius

So we went from "there's a Nazi problem in Ukraine that strengthens russian propaganda" to "Ukraine is only one step away from a Nazi regime and a Nazi regime might actually pop up at any time".

Needless to say that the latter claim barely even qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy.

Which is why I stated specifically we should go easy on this group during the first year. Give them a year to get their shit together. If they don't, then that's their responsibility and not mine. — Tzeentch

No one gave a fuck about healthy people who did not want to take vaccines - at no point during the hysteria were their concerns taken seriously, so I don't buy any allusions to community.

It was 'us vs. them', and healthy people were on the receiving end of it. — Tzeentch

But you seem to be simply perpetuating the "us vs them". You're merely placing yourself at the other side of the debate, not asking why it's that way in the first place.

There was no community. — Tzeentch

There is a real world community though, and it is inescapable.

Yes. Vaccines are there for people who feel unsafe to protect them. This is how vaccines have always functioned. It's a personal choice. — Tzeentch

Is it? I think vaccines have usually been considered a weapon against disease more generally. In the best case, a means to wipe out dangerous diseases completely.

The vaccines weren't designed to stop the spread. That story used to be perpetuated by politicians who tried to guilt trip their citizens into taking a vaccine that they didn't trust. — Tzeentch

They were designed to create antibodies. Not sure at what point it could have been predicted that this would not confer sterile immunity.

No, of course not. Normal, healthy people didn't have anything to fear from covid. — Tzeentch

Unfortunately for some people, they found out too late that they weren't in fact healthy.

But this cuts to the heart of the issue: that this is somehow a conflict between the "healthy" and the "unhealthy" rather than a communal problem requiring a communal solution.

The decision to take a vaccine is bound to a human right of bodily autonomy.

To me, that means something. If that means nothing to you, then I have nothing to say to you. — Tzeentch

Sure. But does that mean we can ignore whether someone is vaccinated (not just against COVID)?

Also, the idea that not taking the vaccine somehow turned one into a health hazard is completely made up. — Tzeentch

Well as I indicated I think the framing was bad. It seemed to be the framing that came naturally to everyone though. It was about the individually good people vs the individually bad people. Very similar to how the US gun control debate ended up. Encouraging people to look at themselves as the expression of some basic virtue rather than as part of a greater whole.

Ill-equipped in the sense that it allowed mass hysteria to take hold for several years. — Tzeentch

Well, once we collectively write off one side or the other as "hysterical", we made sure that further communication is impossible.

It's simply obvious fact that the Nazi groups that rose to positions of power and prominence — boethius

What Nazi groups rose to positions of power and prominence?

Because it's only the Nazis willing to shell civilians and keep the conflict going in the Donbas come what may! — boethius

Huh? So were the LNR and DNR troops shelling civilians on the Ukrainian side also Nazis?

What people want to inject into their bodies is none of my business (and what I inject into mine should be none of theirs, but alas the latter was not self-explanatory during covid...) — Tzeentch

Vaccination and vaccination mandates are not new concepts. Why was the realisation that your actions affect others such a problem during COVID?

Also there seems to be tension with this other thing you write:

Also, at what point do the people who voluntarily partake in unhealthy lifestyles get to take responsibility? — Tzeentch

Is not refusing a vaccine also "partaking in an unhealthy lifestyle"? Or is there some qualitative difference?

What is also remarkable, I think, is that both vaccination "camps" adopted a rhetoric that displayed the other side as a threat to their health and freedoms.

Our western societies seemed ill equipped to deal with the basic tension of individualism vs collective actions.

The health care sector simply isn't organized like this. Usually made up of either private enterprises or controlled by municipal authorities there doesn't exist a centralized command that a nation would need. — ssu

It might also be a symptom of adopting the business approach to healthcare. Neither the army nor the border guards are set up as a business. We accept that they have to provide a specific result, not just be efficient.

With medicine we followed the neoliberal line that market principles create efficiency, and efficiency is always good. Only we do actually care about getting specific minimum results in healthcare.

What is Israel's end goal here? Are they planning an occupation? That would imply some sort of rebuilding effort. — RogueAI

Well they have so far insisted that a second occupation is out of the question.

The pessimistic version is that the decision-makers in Israel know full well the problems that have been discussed re "pacifying" Gaza, and that the talk of the "second Nakba" is not just empty rhetoric. That is wreck Gaza, then leave and hope that the crisis forces people to leave and perhaps more importantly pressures Egypt to actually let them leave.

The optimistic version I have trouble seeing. Hamas is destroyed and some other authority rebuilds Gaza with the help of Israel?

To be a sovereign state that can exist without its next-door neighbor threatening its women and babies with rape and mutilation. :grin: — Merkwurdichliebe

Unfortunately for Israel it's sovereignty extends over Gaza (at least I have not heard a convincing argument to the contrary). So even in a legal sense, Israel cannot simply wash it's hands of Gaza and pretend it's some foreign country they don't have any responsibility for.

First you and anyone reading this notice the goal posts moving from " some 'generalized Ukrainian' that fights on the front" to just Ukrainians in general. — boethius

You're making stuff up again.

But as for the poll itself, there is a whole science on how polls can be manipulated. — boethius

Baseless speculation.

let's also ignore the fact alternative views to the government have been criminalized and critical media and opposition parties banned. — boethius

And some more lies.

The first question is manipulative as it presumes Ukraine can win — boethius

What laughable nonsense. That's not how language works.

The second question is likewise manipulative as it adds "as soon as possible", even if you are in favour of a negotiated settlement to terminate the war you may not be in favour of "as soon as possible" which sounds like simply capitulating. — boethius

Asking a narrow question instead of a broad one is not manipulation....

Not that Ukrainians (even with completely free and critical press and elections unbanned and legitimate non-manipulative polling questions) believing they should continue fighting would form a valid justification, but anyone interested in how the Western media deploys the cry-baby logic of "waaaah, stop asking for justifications and 'reasons' for things, Ukrainians want to fight!" it starts with a transparently manipulative poll to skew the results, in an environment where critical media is banned and skepticism about the war can get you killed, and also the government lying to their population regularly with constant fabricated propaganda (from ghost of Kiev to assuring people the Ukrainian military can and will win and casualties are low and so on). — boethius

This post of yours is transparently desperate bullshit and lies. Trying to somehow explain away the facts that are inconvenient to you by using a whole barrage of falsehood and fantasy.

You would have to back every single one of those claims up with evidence, but obviously you cannot.

Having someone act as a front is fraud and a crime. — boethius

It's not fraud. Maybe it's a crime in some jurisdictions but I'm not aware of any.

In transferring the asset's nominal owner, Zelensky is trying to obfuscate the real ownership and control of the asset, a crime in itself, and obviously for the purposes of further money laundering. — boethius

The crime and the laundering cannot be the same act. The whole talk about money laundering is just a very silly propaganda line that never made any sense.

Obfuscating the real owner of an asset is a crime. — boethius

Pretty sure shell companies etc. are legal in and of themselves.

The above, along with the offshore assets and accounts, are absolutely cut and dry, perfectly clear, smoking gun, caught red handed, indisputable proof of corruption. — boethius

Ok. But this doesn't just allow one to make any arbitrary claim about Zekensky's finances. "He's corrupt" isn't some fully general explanation for everything.

In this case, the war represents significant economic risks to Ukrainian citizens: jobs, homes, infrastructure, savings, everything. — boethius

This is true for all leaders. But unlike Zelensky, not all of them faced a very real threat of death.

and they obviously knew that offering the funds in this way would be a significant moral hazard to Ukrainian decision makers forming a conflict of interest with their constituents (i.e. a bribe). — boethius

Again you're simply equating moral hazard with a bribe and that just doesn't work. It's like saying not wearing a helmet is essentially a head injury.

So if I post the evidence, you'll agree the claim should be presumed true? — boethius

Then you'll have posted evidence and we'd have something to talk about.

They don't provide convenient totals, but the main support is the EU (82.7 billion financial aid and 2.4 billion humanitarian aid) and the US (46.6 billion in military aid, 26.4 billion in financial aid and 3.9 billion in humanitarian aid) and Germany (18.9 billion in military aid, 1.4 billion in financial aid and 2.7 billion in humanitarian aid).

The sub-totals of the top 3 donors are thus:
- 110.5 billion USD in financial aid
- 65.5 in military aid — boethius

The 80 billion from the EU apparently also include money made available for refugees. The EU itself only reports about 30 Billion in direct economic aid.

But I'm probably still wrong about "most" the aid being directly material. Which of course doesn't mean none of it is earmarked and just disappears into some slush fund.

A draftee is by definition not a voluntary occupation, moreso if you are banned from even leaving the country. If you're argument is that "they volunteered in their hearts" ... I guess we'll have to wait until after the war. — boethius

All the studies I have seen suggest that support for the war effort remains high.

Well apparently you need evidence that someone caught with offshore accounts and accepting a bribe through his wife deserves every possible suspension of belief when new allegations of corruption turn up. To myself and non-corrupt people you only get one chance to not-be-corrupt, and it doesn't really matter how much additional corruption you do — boethius

Then why bring it up? Ah yes because it's the hot new propaganda item.

Maybe the yacht story will prove true, maybe not, maybe just forgotten in the annals of the internet, — boethius

This is essentially admitting you dishonestly made a claim knowing you won't be able to defend it.

A justification would not only need to start with establishing Ukrainian just cause (actually demonstrate Ukraine's attack on the separatists is justified) — boethius

Russia attacked in 2022, not Ukraine.

but then need to further demonstrate that the course of action is worthwhile: aka. that Ukraine can make military gains that are worth the blood paid and that course of action is better than the alternatives. — boethius

It already has.

If Ukraine cannot win (as in has an exceedingly low chance of winning), then it is not ethical to send men (and women now too apparently) to their deaths for a cause that has essentially no chance of succeeding. — boethius

In the real world, winning and loosing isn't a binary. But again you're not even considering what Ukraine's interests may be so it's pointless to discuss this.

But it remains your point, so if it's important you should therefore provide evidence that most Ukrainians on the front choose to be there voluntarily. — boethius

Again I don't feel any need to play along with your bizarre versions of what I supposedly said. Just quote me or leave off.

If Ukraine can win ... how? — boethius

Ukraine has already achieved a number of their objectives by fighting. Whether they currently have something up their sleeve for gaining some significant territory or other advantage I don't know.

Again, it's your claim that there's some "generalized Ukrainian" that fights on the front with the same simplistic cry-baby logic as you and your fellows here as well as Zelensky. — boethius

No it's not.

But if you're interested in how Ukrainians view the war here is an interesting study from April specifically about people living close to the front. And here is a Gallup poll from October.

Unsurprisingly, people do actually care about the "cry baby logic" of who has the righteous cause and about defending their country.

Echarmion claims Ukraine's just cause is obvious, requiring no evidence nor argumentation — boethius

I did supply an argument.

Not only making a claim with zero evidence — boethius

I did provide evidence, I even provided you with the specific evidence you asked for. After which you just dropped the topic completely.

hen simply refuses to believe even Reuters has a proper understanding of the offer, equivocating on the meaning of "ceasing military operations" — boethius

It's not equivocating that the plain meaning of the words "halt military operations" are just that: halt. Not withdraw. If you want to argue something that wasn't written was meant, you're the one who has to supply the argument for that.

While we're discussing this, the lead negotiator of Ukraine does an interview where he confirms exactly what everyone understood at the time and more! Saying the only point of relevance was neutrality — boethius

The lead negotiator of course also said that their impression was that the Russian delegation was trying to get them to agree to neutrality simply as a play for time. If you're going to invoke the witness, you're going to have to deal with all of his statements, not just some.

Also note that Arakhamia has made other statements about the peace negotiations, e.g. here, where he said that the initial position of the Russian side was to merel "formalise Ukraine's surrender".

Another quote from the article:

"We cleaned up all the nonsense about "denazification", "demilitarisation", the Russian language and so on. We noted there that Ukraine was not ready to join NATO in exchange for tough and clear security guarantees. A framework for the agreement was prepared.

But then the delegations simply could not move further. We say, guys, the issue of Crimea and Donbas is about territorial status. No one here is authorised to even talk about it. Let the presidents meet and decide where to go. We need a meeting between the leaders", said one of the sources on Bankova.

Which makes clear that Ukraine did agree in principle to neutrality (as it had before), just not neutrality without any kind of security.

And even had Ukraine agreed to neutrality without any qualification, the issues of Donbas and Crimea were unresolved. So, russain troops would likely not have vacated the Donbas or the land bridge to Crimea before agreement could have been reached. If they did, what negotiating position would Russia have?

Transferring an asset in a fraudulent way to avoid accountability is already in itself money laundering. — boethius

No it's not.

I don't personally need more evidence that Zelensky is corrupt and knows that the proposal of sending hundreds of billions of dollars Ukraine's way he can take a little off the top. — boethius

Obviously you don't.

and that is a what corporate people call a "moral hazard". — boethius

And this "moral hazard" is here supposed to stand in for evidence and an argument, but I don't accept such a transparent shifting of goalposts.

The story about the yachts has actual evidence provided — boethius

You did not provide any. I'm not about to go trawl the web to find some reference that might prove your point.

So again, when the West offers Zelensky billions of dollars structured as a slush fund without any traceability to do their policy rather than accept a negotiated settlement (or even continue to negotiate "just in case" but rather repudiate entirely negotiations), it is not only a de facto bribe but the West knows Zelensky is "a player" who "does business" that way. — boethius

Just piling on spurius logic onto bullshit claims. The aid is not "set up as a slush fund", since most of it is material in nature. "Zelensky is corrupt therefore money flowing to Ukraine is a bribe for Zelensky" is entirely non sequitur and a laughably bad attempt to make on a philosophy forum of all places.

Before the war Ukraine had 250 000 soldiers about and then once the war starts mobilizes over 800 000 total soldiers. The majority of these are not volunteers. — boethius

You don't know that, and in any event your claim was that they "are not fighting voluntarily" which is different from being formally a volunteer. You can fight voluntarily as a draftee.

You do not need supporting evidence for this. — boethius

Oh I do.

If papers show up purporting to show 75 Million yacht purchases that's credible until proven otherwise as far as I'm concerned. — boethius

What papers? Where?

But only because I don't like corrupt politicians and money launderers. — boethius

Unless they're russian no doubt.

The bad argument without evidence is the idea that there needs be no justification for the war, no justification for Europe and NATO's financing and arming of the war, because "Ukrainians want to fight", an argument that has appeared numerous times in this forum. — boethius

I don't particularly care what you think happened numerous times on the forum. You could quote a specific instance of this that you want to adress but I suspect you cannot.

You're incarnation is to rebut the fact that simply supporting a war without any theory of victory is cry-baby logic ... Ukrainians on the front aren't cry-babies and want to fight! — boethius

This is of course utter nonsense, but I realize you feel unable to deal with the actual argument and so make up your own.

This is the position that has zero evidence. You provide zero evidence that most Ukrainians fighting want to fight and the law banning Ukrainians from leaving the country was totally unnecessary and superfluous because Ukrainians want to fight! at least for the most part, so there wouldn't a problem with recruitment. — boethius

I don't need to provide evidence for claims you make up.

The only reason I rebutted your claim that Ukrainians want to fight for Zelensky's various cry-baby statements, is because I honestly don't think it's true. — boethius

If you want to rebut a claim, just thinking it's not true isn't enough.

A-ha. So when western sources state something you dislike they can also be hand-waved as propaganda?

Seymour Hersh - a propagandist too I assume?

Noam Chomsky - a propagandist, obviously.

Ray McGovern - propagandist. — Tzeentch

Of the people you mentioned, only Hersh and Sachs can be considered "sources". The rest are analysts. As such we can consider their arguments, but these should stand on their own.

As for Sachs credibility as a source, all he offers is his own hearsay, which cannot be corroborated any further. As such all that can be done is look at his record, which isn't great. His activity in recent years was notably focused on defending China and Russia.

Hersh I'm willing to give a lot more credit. But Hersh also offers relatively little of substance. He claims that the US destroyed the Nord Stream Pipelines. His evidence there doesn't seem very good, but I don't discount the possibility.

He claims Ukraine's counteroffensive was a disastrous failure that thoroughly demoralised the army. Again plausible, given the evidence we have, though perhaps hyperbolic. He concludes from this that the war is over and Putin has won. These conclusions, as far as I can tell, are his personal opinion that seems rather fanciful.

That the war should be over after just a single failed Ukrainian campaign seems very unlikely given historical evidence and the size of Ukraine and it's military. And that the status quo, even if we imagine it becoming permanent, resembles anything like a russian victory, is begging the question of just what victory is supposed to mean. Is taking territory the sole defining factor here?

Anyways Hersh has lately been in the habit of doubling down when questioned. A common enough trait of old men with some claim to fame. They're not always wrong in this, but also not always right.

What dishonesty and propaganda are you talking about?

People like Mearsheimer and Sachs are dishonest or Kremlin propagandists to you? — Tzeentch

As should be clear from the context, I'm talking about @boethius filling their posts with lines from russian propaganda and making factual claims that are - at best - dead reckoning.

I think Mearsheimer's views have been discussed. His 2014 analysis seemed fine to me, if narrowly concerned only with the US' geopolitical interests as he sees it. His more recent statements seem much less reasonable.

If we're talking about Jeffrey Sachs then yes, he seems to have turned himself into a propagandist, though perhaps this is incidental to some other conviction he holds.

Zelensky getting caught laundering money is nothing new, — boethius

Money laundering? Perhaps you should look at a dictionary first. You're parroting propaganda to the point of embarrassment.

are you calling this Guardian article, the Pandora Papers and ICIJ Russian propaganda? — boethius

Another strawman.

Otherwise why would we assume new allegations of the same is Russian propaganda? — boethius

Claims need to be supported by evidence.

Honesty would be taking into account more Ukrainians fighting do not do so voluntarily than volunteer, — boethius

And do you have evidence for this or are you once again simply making up stuff as you go along?

and therefore the "Ukrainian soldiers' will to fight" is not an argument as it is not willing for most cases — boethius

Again, no evidence and also bad logic.

You're a master at closing the door to communication yourself. Both you and Bobo have had closed doors several pages ago and have just been talking to a screen and projected caricature of each other. And thus really only talking with one's self. — Vaskane

A fair assessment, but some effort to expose the dishonesty and propaganda seems warranted.

His best friends just bought 75 million worth of yachts for example, to add to his collection of European and African property. — boethius

A false claim invented by russian propaganda. You're staying current on that front I see.

People here could have proposed a way Ukraine could "win" on the battlefield; no one could — boethius

You not listening isn't the same as there not being an argument. You don't care to entertain any notion that goes against your fixed assumptions, but that is your problem.

Your incessant repetition of how it's impossible for Ukraine to win is not getting any more convincing, especially since you're still unable to even conceive of Ukrainian geopolitical interests.

And as for regular Ukrainians, this simplistic model that they are all just valiantly rushing to the front to defend Ukraine! and happy to lay down their lives on principle, is completely stupid. — boethius

Which only proves that you're unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.

The crybaby position references non-Ukrainians cheerleading Zelensky from a far without skin in the game and approving of or creating apologetics for NATO's policies that led to the war. — boethius

A fairly transparent fig-leaf, since you ascribe the same argumentation to Zelensky and the rest of the Ukrainian leadership.

At some point, you should lend some credit to the person who makes correct predictions: — boethius

You seem to be vastly overvaluing the novelty of your predictions. "You need heavy weapons to prevail in a high intensity conflict" and "breaking through a prepared, tiered defense will be difficult" is not exactly ground breaking stuff. Such analysis was widely available for anyone who cares to look.

I would give you credit for looking if it wasn't painfully obvious you're simply repeating whatever the current Kremlin propaganda is, and your correct predictions are an incidental result of russian success.

I predicted not only would it not be easy but Ukraine would not make any progress at all. — boethius

In which case you would be wrong, but again incidental to you simply repeating the Kremlin line.

It's only circular because at some point you understand that Ukraine is not going to reconquer all the territory (not that that would end the war anyways, as I explained at length at the start of the conflict) and that therefore the only resolution to the conflict is a diplomatic one. — boethius

Yes, Ukraine won't be able to conquer Moscow and force a peace. In case you think this is somehow some big revelation.

We then discuss the diplomatic and political problem Ukraine has (that it turned down a far better offer at the start of the conflict — boethius

I reject this claim as fundamentally unlikely and not supported by available evidence.

has the political problem of Ukraine fighting to a far worse negotiating position. — boethius

This is irreconcilable with facts on the ground, namely that Ukraine controls far more territory and has a much smaller disadvantage in Artillery and Armor as well as the West collectively having far greater economic reserves.

You even have no problem agreeing that Ukraine had more leverage at the start of the conflict than it does now, just quibbling over exactly which day — boethius

This is a distortion, you're substituting "at the start" for "at some point during the last year".

Although you're wrong about making a negotiation position public never being a good idea — boethius

That's not a claim I have made.

Not willing to accept the implications of what you yourself agree to, you retreat into your habitual way of resolving cognitive dissonance in just inventing whatever would be convenient if it was true and stating that as a fact. — boethius

I'm not willing to accept your version of what I say. That's not cognitive dissonance, that's just a result of you lying about and distorting what is said.

you simply invent that Ukraine is actually doing well in the war — boethius

In relative terms. They have managed a number of surprising feats.

Ukraine cannot retake the lost territory and that is clear now even to Zelensky and the whole west.

Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. — boethius

It is my estimation that, in strategic terms, the war is already a net loss to Russia, so if we look at the status quo we're looking at an operational defeat for Ukraine insofar as the objective of reconquering all territory is concerned, but a strategic victory insofar as Ukraine has retained an independent government in Kiev and continues to posses the ability to contest the battlefield against the best troops Russia has to offer.

Continuing to fight therefore brings Ukraine further away from any sort of "victory", destroys remaining leverage, and brings Ukrainian military closer to collapse. — boethius

Russia cannot currently replace it's losses in heavy weaponry which, as you so astutely pointed out, is necessary to pierce heavy defenses unless you're willing to take massive casualties.

Therefore Russia is also loosing leverage with every tank or artillery piece destroyed. Taking Avdivka will no more end the war than taking Tokmak would have.

Last year Russia needed to survive sanctions, needed to keep domestic population behind the war, and needed time to mobilize and train hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers, ramp up military production — boethius

It still needs to do all these things.

and that offensive capacity (that would be useful to have now in a defensive strategy) is mostly destroyed — boethius

That's just baseless russian propaganda again.

Air defence is not working fine, as Russia can now approach the line of contact close enough to drop glide bombs regularly. — boethius

You still apparently do not realise how glide bombs work.

The only root to a negotiated settlement is the collapse of the current Ukrainian government and essentially just accepting whatever the Russians want. — boethius

That was always the way to peace from the russian perspective. The idea that Russia would have easily given up the gains it made, or that it clearly assumed it could make, out of the goodness of their hearts is simply not credible.

The amount of resources and political capital Russia had already funneled into this project before the invasion even began would make such a solution a death sentence for Putin, both politically and likely in the most direct sense, too.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'll deal with an argument when I actually see one.

I think you should put some more Russian propaganda lines in your post. Someone might not have gotten the message. Perhaps some carricature of Zelensky as the greedy Jew? Or is that not up your alley?

Anyways it's quite hilarious that the people who decided to actually fight for their country are the "crybabies" while the guy waffling on the internet about how their favourite country is the best and most righteous thinks himself a geopolitical genius.

That's your view, I guess.

Their 'ultimatum' was surprisingly generous, considering what the western propaganda machines have claimed the Russians' goals in Ukraine were.

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians.

Funny, that. Imagine having Boris Johnson of all people tell you to continue fighting a war - a political walking corpse and who was obviously sent as an errand boy to take the fall in case things went sour, since his political career was already a train wreck.

What a bad joke this Ukraine debacle is. — Tzeentch

It must be very nice living in your head, having all the answers for everything without even needing to bother with evidence or logic. The superior mind simply knows instantly everything that happens.

To get this topic back to less circular territory:

The strategic situation currently seems almost a repeat of last year, Ukraine is on the strategic defensive and Russia seems set for another grinding assault on a fortress city. As last time they seem to be focusing first on encircling/ turning moves on the flanks.

Ukraine's presence on the eastern side of the Dniepr seems more solid, but it's hard to see what can come of that.

Ukrainian air defense is apparently still working fine, despite the various predictions to the contrary. It seems that sources of ammunition were found so far. The F16 project is still on the way, though we'll have to see what happens now with the Dutch political situation. Will a deal still go through with the deal if the Netherlands pull their support?

Germany seems to want to position itself as a major supporter of Ukraine, which seems kinda at odds with the Bild report. The strategy reported in the Bild is of course the kind of thing you can fit all kind of actual events into in retrospect.

I don't expect negotiated settlement quickly in any case.

The key is to navigate risk. — boethius

Your strategy to "navigate" risk involves just handing Russia whatever they want whenever they want it.

But actually even that isn't sufficient, because you have now added yet another wrinkle: other countries also need to act in Russia's interest, otherwise Russia might feel forced to take Ukrainian land in compensation for e.g. a pipeline project.

Everything Russia does is just an obvious common sense thing, while Ukraine is equal parts stupid, crazy, and controlled by the west. On literally any issue you take the most ardently pro russian position, repeating verbatim the official russian positions on the Euromaidan, the Donbas, etc.

You're even inventing entirely new justifications for Russia, like that they might have somehow substituted Nord Stream 2 for Ukraine, never mind that this goes against Russia's public statements and demands. Even Russia's propaganda would not expect anyone to take that one seriously.

To conclude, your proposed solution is to simply hand Ukraine to Russia. Your pretend reason for this is that this would avoid the war. Your statements though make clear that you would simply prefer Russia to win as much as possible.

Russia act vis-a-vis the risk — boethius

Right, but that's the precise problem. If it's the risk that Russia reacts to, then Ukraine's current status is pretty much irrelevant. Ukraine can do whatever it wants to remain neutral. As soon as Russia detects a risk to their interests they nevertheless act.

And since Russia clearly considers some domestic political changes risks, Ukraine would be forever under the threat of Russian aggression as soon as the political situation turns in a way Russia considers too risky.

If Nord Stream was opened, the situation in the Donbas remained unsustainable in the long term, but it seems to me extremely likely Russia would not have invaded in 2022, since it was pretty clear (certainly that's what the Western media understood) that Russia was amassing troops as pressure to open the pipeline, and refusing to open the pipeline significantly angered Putin and the Kremlin and invading Ukraine was one outlet for that anger. — boethius

Russia amassing troops made sure the pipeline would not be opened. The idea that Ukraine was just s convenient "outlet for that anger" is just utterly ridiculous, especially since you acknowledge the invasion must have been planned well in advance.

So there are other factors, but I would argue that military action in Ukraine was inevitable as long as Ukraine has joining NATO literally in their constitution and a conflict in the Donbas, and 3 years is reasonable time frame to prepare an operation as big as the invasion of 2022. In the meantime there's the pandemic as well as the completion of the pipeline. — boethius

It seems unlikely that the pipeline played much of a role. It seemed to still be on track in summer 2021 and was first suspended in November 2021. Invasion plans must have been well underway by then.

The event that seems most likely to coincide with the beginning of definite invasion plans is Putin's success in altering the constitution so he can be president for life. It seems plausible that, at this point, in the middle of the chaos caused by COVID-19, he felt Russia was strong enough to just get rid of the Ukrainian problem permanently.

Ukraine declaring it is going to join NATO, and NATO reciprocating by saying Ukraine is going to join NATO and cooperations and partnerships of various kinds and having NATO training and "advisors", are things that will clearly provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. — boethius

Except the two times when Russia did actually invade Ukraine, nothing concerning NATO had recently happened.

So clearly just not joining NATO isn't actually protection against a russian invasion either.

The point is, yes, trying to establish the 2010-2014 status quo, or even the pre-2019 status quo where joining NATO wasn't explicitly a constitutional goal. — boethius

So Russia gets to cuts off choice parts of Ukraine, and when this happens the best thing Ukraine can do is shrug and act like nothing happened?

Of course, by 2022 there is a significant "extreme nationalist" (some Nazi's, some just super nationalists) contingent in Ukraine that rather war with Russia than peace or any sort of compromise. The Russian language repression being one other clear provocative example of the power of the nationalists. — boethius

That did not happen in 2022 and had in fact long since been rescinded.

simply has a death wish. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think he knows he's a dead man anyways, as Putin will not tolerate any challenger, especially not from the nationalist camp. Might as well drive up the political costs for Putin by declaring himself a candidate. Girkin seems to be a gambler - not an unusual disposition given his background. Had the situation in Ukraine deteriorated sharply for Russia, the kind of attack from the nationalistic right he was making might well have succeeded.

What immediately precipitates the full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia is Ukraine amassing troops of their own to finish off the separatists. — boethius

I'm going to call this a straight up lie until I see evidence.

The strategic situation in the Donbas had not significantly changed just before the 2022 invasion.

If Ukraine remained technically neutral, it's only because it has no allies.

Russia's demands was a commitment to neutrality — boethius

Obviously if you declare your intention to join a military alliance and that military alliance not only creates all sorts of military partnerships and support but also reciprocates and publicly declares they'll let you in oh ... some day, that is not neutral.

If "neutrality" language is left in law or the constitution it is clearly irrelevant. — boethius

We were discussing what Zelensky could do to avoid the invasion in 2022.

Obviously Ukraine has no commitment to neutrality in 2022 whatsoever, literally has joining NATO in its constitution, and my point is committing to neutrality may have avoided the war.

More importantly, as Ukraine had and has no allies, committing to neutrality costs Ukraine nothing. — boethius

Which, as you may again note if have that reading comprehension you covet, is not neutrality, but a compromise position of keeping the status quo. Which, as you note, the status quo did not cause Russia to invade, or even make serious threats such as amassing troops on the border.

The status quo changes when the legally elected president who represents the above compromise position is illegally removed in a coup, by anti-Russian forces explicitly backed by Nuland and the CIA. — boethius

So, taking all these together: What Zelensky needs to do in 2022 is to somehow re-establish the status quo before 2014. And doing so would cost Ukraine nothing, because Ukraine has no allies and is practically neutral, while being obviously not neutral and heavily tied to NATO.

The adopted children that already exists are still evaluated under the idea of probability of harm in the future. It becomes an irrelevant factor if they exist or not because both focus on the probability of future harm. A child that isn't born yet will still be a child and we can still evaluate if a probable child will have probable harm or not. — Christoffer

Well, no, it will not be a child because your proposed solution is to not have the child born. So you'll have to explain who is supposed to be the subject whose rights you are protecting in this scenario.

It is primarily to give more support for the sake of children's well being, but you still need to acquire a license and those who are obviously evaluated as having problems cannot get one. For instance, if the psychological evaluation finds that one of the parents or both have violence tendencies, that can block a license.

We can also propose a license system, either as included in this, or it's own, that's basically the same as a driver's license. Meaning, you need to go through education on child care, take tests and pass it in order to become a parent.

Such a system would never block anyone to become a parent, outside of the most extreme cases, and would just push for becoming more educated in the needs of a child. — Christoffer

Some kind of education of monitoring program is a good idea, I'd agree. Schemes like that already exist, like regular checkups for children, where failure to attend leads to an appointment with child protection services. Of course such a scheme must be set up with special care so that it does not further aggravate the situation of families under financial pressure.

At the moment we have education for parents, but it's voluntary... make it mandatory instead. You have to pass tests that makes sure you know what it means to take care of a child and you have everything available to you for educating in the matter.

Think of it as an education degree for parenting. It's not an advanced course, but its enough to ensure that everyone becoming a parent has a knowledge foundation that is necessary to at least mitigate the risk of malpractice. As it is right now, anyone can become a parent, regardless of knowledge of child care. Which means that even among the ones who got good intentions, they can absolutely traumatize a child anyway because of a lack of fundamental knowledge. — Christoffer

Well, sure everyone should have basic knowledge. But at the same time the amount of problems caused by simply lack of basic knowledge seems small. The physical care of children is ultimately not that difficult. It's the emotional/ psychological side that's difficult, and that cannot easily be taught. Parenting is simply such a huge change to your life that you cannot really prepare for it.

This knowledge is also part of the increasing child psychology knowledge base, so with continuing research and science on the subject, we will continue to fine tune the well being for all children, at least mitigate the unnecessary harm that comes out of the naive pretense that all people understand what it means to handle a child over the course of many years. — Christoffer

Well, that's a good plan, but one does need to consider that the knowledge here is still very much in flux. While there may be broad agreement on what the psychological needs of children are, it's much harder to tell what this means in practice.

Even if it wasn't, knowing and doing is very different. It's one thing knowing in the abstract how you want to raise your child. It's quite another to actually deal with children. Parents are exposed to very strong emotions and I'm not sure how preparation for that would even look.

The number of people who are unknowing and ill-equipped to take care of a child is larger than people realize. Even people who seemingly had a good childhood, might not have had one, as we've seen in statistics from adult psychology addressing childhood traumas affecting adult lives.

A mandatory education for all parents can mitigate some of that and at the same time spot unseen patterns of bad parenting by interacting with parents undergoing this education. — Christoffer

Plausibly, education might improve things but I think a lot of bad parenting practices are a result of desperation. So I'd prefer first to improve the resources parents have available. This reduces the focus on the parents as the single point of failure and might be necessary to even provide the kind of time parents need for their education.

Why is this an issue? As a comparison, we do this for adoption parents. They have to prove to social services and go through a psychological evaluation before being approved to adopt a child. Care to explain the difference? — Christoffer

I'd say the relevant difference is that children up for adoption already exist, and since they cannot defend their interests, their guardian has to do it.

This is in contrast to licensing future parents, because their children do not exist. We thus cannot defend this scheme with reference to the interests of the child.

You are making these fallacies based on your own extreme fantasies about what such a system would imply, without engaging with the concept in a philosophical manner. No it's not automatically totalitarian, that is an emotional reaction to the concept and not an honest overview of its potential when built out as an actual infrastructure.

Changing society like proposed isn't a simplified "install license, end problems", it's large infrastructural change for social care and child care systems. It would require that a lot more tax is spent on the well being of children, out of the concept of deterministic strategies to prevent harm towards children, prevent childhood trauma and prevent future crimes that can result in such experiences for children.

Such change in resources throughout society mitigate much the needs for "after the fact" handling of crime and childhood traumas and harm. Some people with childhood trauma and damage have had their whole life being affected by it. Even among considered "balanced and psychologically healthy" adults there are childhood traumas that affect their ability to form relationships or function well in social structures. — Christoffer

The question then is whether the licensing itself has any relevant effect, or whether the actual effective part of the strategy is simply to provide parents with more support and childcare up to child protection services with more resources.

As has been pointed out by @unenlightened, our basic setup for parenting is kind of bad. And that means a lot of parenting traditions will be adaptations for that situation. That means a lot of bad things might be happening as a matter of course that we don't even recognize as "bad parenting".

Interesting yeah, this seems even more deterministic actually because there are enough background sameness to basically steer the trajectory a general way. But then can there ever be huge enough event to cause significant change? And conversely, how many little events add up to the kind of intransigent determinism you are proposing? — schopenhauer1

One of the pitfalls when doing alternative history is that in retrospect, all events seem inevitable. That's just how the notion of causality works. It can be very difficult to get away from the position that sees actual events as the default that was always going to happen unless you introduce huge changes.

You only need to make relatively minor changes and the Nazi invasion of France fails and now World War 2 never happens in remotely the way it did.

How much do you need to nudge events in the Korean war to get nukes dropped on China? Perhaps all you need is a general being a bit more persuasive in some meeting. Then you have a nuclear US-China war in the 1950s.

Had Kennedy not been assassinated, I don't think we'd have seen some hugely different policies in the US. Nor does it seem likely that social trends in general would have been much altered. Certainly the appeal of conspiracy theories seems independent of any specific one.

On the other hand it might easily completely change the entire list of presidents from Kennedy onward. Elections are responsive enough to the moment to moment circumstances that all the results might markedly differ. And that could have let to different decisions in various crises.

We could also bring up this quote from September 23, 2023, by Sergei Lavrov:

Of course, we recognised the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which Ukraine adopted when it withdrew from the Soviet Union. The declaration had a great deal of good written there, including that they will respect the rights of national minorities, Russian language speakers (Russian is specifically mentioned there) and other speakers. That was later reflected in the Ukrainian Constitution. One of the main points for us in the declaration was that Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances. In that version, on those conditions, we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And then in case someone wanted to argue that Lavrov here means that the only condition is Ukraine's non-block status, he says this:

We have no problems with the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was destroyed by those who carried out and supported the coup, whose leaders declared war against their own people and began to bomb them.

So Russia accepts Ukrainian sovereignty - provided of course the internal politics of Ukraine are agreeable to Russia.

And this is the official diplomatic version.

Ukraine is a de facto neutral country, with zero allies that comes to its aid when Ukraine is invaded, therefore it is of zero benefit to Ukraine to not offer neutrality in exchange for peace. — boethius

As Blinken explained in public long before the war, if to do what you say and arm Ukraine to the point of having a credible deterrent to Russia, then Russia will simply match that capacity and if you continue Russia will invade before the situation got out of hand (from their point of view) which is exactly what has happened. — boethius

So it is not, in fact, the case that neutrality costs Ukraine nothing or that neutrality would be sufficient to satisfy russian interests.

Instead what Russia demands is that Ukraine be not just neutral but (effectively vis a vis Russia) disarmed.

If Ukraine "bent the knee" and committed to neutrality — boethius

So you're well aware that what Russia demands is for Ukraine to submit, yet you blithely go on declaring that this is of no consequence to Ukraine.

In the case of Ukraine, what is clear is that the attempt to not-be-neutral would with near certainty result in the present war, and the strategy of fighting a war from a weaker position so as to avoid fighting a war in the future makes no sense. — boethius

It can make sense to fight a war now to avoid a situation where you'd have to demilitarise and thus be without any defense in the future. If you have the capacity to resist meaningfully and force concessions, which Ukraine clearly has.

You say it was all this Girkin and Russian mercenaries, and there was no popular support. — boethius

I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie so much.

Does putting "independent group" in quotes meant to establish this was only Russian mercenaries with zero popular support? — boethius

Who else do you think the fighters were, all upstanding Donbas citizens who just so happened to be on vacation in Crimea?

Zelensky has zero political or military experience — boethius

As opposed to you, no doubt.

I do not claim that if Ukraine committed to neutrality we know Russia would not have invaded.

My claim is that committing to neutrality would have cost Ukraine nothing. — boethius

But this is contradictory, because the cost is right there - if Ukraine is neutral it has much less protection against any future aggression. That is unless you think that for Russia, "neutrality" would mean simply that Ukraine is not officially in NATO but can otherwise get as much western military support as it wants.

Receiving arms from third party is does not compromise formal neutrality; neutral countries can still receive arms. — boethius

And you think that somehow this is an acceptable arrangement for Russia, that Russia would start a war over nothing but a formality?

My main criticism of Zelensky is walking away from peace negotiations entirely, making public ultimatums making public declarations that would be humiliating to walk back, and then committing to further warfare without any realistic military means to achieve military aims. — boethius

Neither side has definetly ruled out negotiations, and if you criticize Zelensky you'd also have to criticize Russia for reiterating maximalists goals.

I'm asking you why would it matter what the Russian terms were if Ukraine goes onto lose the war? Any terms at the time, such as cease fire in place, would be far superior to losing the war. — boethius

It matters because a lot of different scenarios can be called a loss, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. If Ukraine eventually looses some territory that's not remotely the same as, for example, Ukraine being split in two and ceasing to exist as a political entity.

Are you going to substantiate that? The wikipedia article simply describes the talks at that time as being based on 15 points, not some sort of draft treaty presented by Ukraine. — boethius

Neither party presented a draft treaty.

WTF are you talking about? — boethius

Im talking about the right to self-determination as understood in internation al law.

This one. Not an abstract notion of freedom.

Ok, well the way international law works is that the Russian action are de facto legal if there's no security council resolution that says otherwise; that's how international law is setup.

The security council is the authoritative body that has the power to interpret how international law applies to a given situation, and before and until that happens all legal arguments about the situation are merely legal briefs and opinions and are not legal facts.

What the Russians are doing in Ukraine is perfectly legal under international law until there is a security council resolution that says otherwise. — boethius

That's all quite wrong.

The UN-Charta rules out violence in international relations generally, in Art 2 section 3 and 4. The security council has some specific and far reaching powers (theoretically at least), but it is not the authoritative body on how to interpret international law. Nor does it need to declare something an attack in order for it to be one, as among other things Art. 51 of the UN-Charta makes clear. And of course there is an entire body of international law part from the UNC.

So yes please, please source the Igor Girkin movement to support your claim that there is and never was any popular support for the separatists within the separatists territory. — boethius

That is not my claim, nor does your demand make any sense in context.

But anyways here is Igor Girkin telling us about his role in the invasion of Crimea, so Girkin is in Crimea from February 21.

On April 12, the Slovianks Police HQ is taken, apparently by a well organised "independent group". Later interviews from Girkin make clear that he was the leader of that independent group 1, 2, 3.

Two weeks later, Girkin is acclaimed the leader of all separatist forces in Donetsk, and in May declares himself supreme commander of the DPR.

Was there anything more specific you wanted to know?

I do, however, see that if what you claim is true, and Girkin is the key to everything, then Ukraine could have easily won this conflict all the way back in 2014: — boethius

It could. But the russian military started shelling them and send regular army formations across the border to support the "separatists", at which point it became a stalemate as Ukraine wasn't at that point able to push into russian artillery and army formations.

This was the conversation in the Western media at the time. Russia was experiencing defeats and therefore could be pressured into a peace favourable to Ukraine ... though of course needing some compromise so that Russia accepts. — boethius

That military defeats might force russia to accept a peace more facourable to Ukraine is an entirely different argument from the one that russia always intended to offer such conditions.

Zelensky definitely is a stupid crazy person — boethius

Right. And this is why it's so useful to discuss with you.

But if you are conceding that NATO had just-cause in bombing Libya because civilians "might" get shelled, then certainly it follows Russia has just cause in invading Ukraine due to shelling of civilians in the Donbas .. — boethius

I don't think NATO had just cause in bombing Syria, and I think humanitarian interventions in general are highly questionable.

Now, "everyone" at the time in Western media, and also on this forum, discussed under the assumption that Russia would accept peace (that would include withdrawal) with some for of the three main points they kept repeating were critical to them: recognition of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and some status change in the Donbas, where considered the key elements (Ukraine would need to accept) to arrive at a peace. — boethius

This just seems a bizzare and obviously false claim. I can remember no-one making such assumptions.

If you want believe the peace deals that are reported by various parties as getting "close" and Zelensky himself saying terms seemed more realistic, was all either misinterpretation or then Russian bad faith, there's no way to completely prove otherwise. — boethius

This is a massive distortion, as negotiations hadn't ever reached a ceasefire, and all the talk about getting close and being more realistic obviously is in the context of stopping the fighting, not finding some overarching solution to the entire conflict.

But again, how is a cease fire in place at the time not preferable to losing the war? — boethius

We'll know when either side has lost. For now Ukraine holds a good deal more territory than it did at the time.

So if all this discussion is just to come to the fact that Ukraine's refusing neutrality before the war, and refusing Russian demands after the war broke out, is only reasonable (certainly at least in hindsight) if Ukraine can ultimately "win" (at least on the glorious nationalistic territorial dimension). — boethius

If it was so easy to make peace, why did it happen? Your argument is that either Zelensky is a stupid crazy person or he's being controlled by the west. Well in that case I can just argue Putin is a stupid crazy person and would attack anyways.

If we assume both leaders are reasonable and somewhat informed about the situation the only conclusion is that Russian and Ukrainian interests were fundamentally irreconcilable. And this happens to be exactly what the evidence suggests, from the rhetoric of demilitarise and denazify to the annexation of Ukrainian territories before they're even under russian control.