Just read the Western press. The fact that the war is going terribly for Ukraine and that Zelensky is facing heavy pressure domestically and internationally is not controversial. — Tzeentch

"It's not controversial" is not a substitute for an actual argument. You make an awful lot of claims but never actually supply anything as justification. Just being able to quote Mearsheimer doesn't make you some sort of authority that merely has to share their wisdom.

Is the war going terribly for Ukraine? By an objective standard, it's not. It went amazingly well earlier, so the current situation might look bad in comparison. But reducing Russia to fight a positional war on a peer footing isn't a small feat for a country that, in 2014, was barely able to react at all.

Russia invaded Ukraine over NATO membership/US influence specifically, and the strategic vulnerability of Crimea more broadly. They have successfully waylaid plans for Ukrainian NATO membership — Tzeentch

Nah. Russia had troops on Ukrainian soil since 2014 an no way in hell is anyone joining NATO that is currently fighting the russian army.

You're not getting around that simple fact. Probably you'll ignore it like the others that make this same argument.

, and have taken 20% of Ukraine in the process, creating a landbridge to Crimea. — Tzeentch

If that was the plan then the Russian leadership must simply be stupid, since there's no way in hell these territories are worth burning through your entire stock of armaments.

The Ukrainian military and economy are badly battered and basically on permanent life-support. — Tzeentch

And so is the Russian military. Their economy is better able to absorb this in the short term, but this will likely be cold comfort to the average russian when the state runs out of means to cushion the domestic economy.

It's an absolute humiliation for the West — Tzeentch

It's an absolute humiliation for Russia. No idea why you think the West is humiliated.

That this would be the predictable outcome was clear to many when the war started back in 2022, and it has been quite frustrating to see how Western opinion got hijacked by propaganda and prolonged this copium-fueled war when it could have ended in March/April 2022. — Tzeentch

You mean it's frustrating that your predictions were wrong but rather than face the facts you're just going to repeat them in the hope that they'll eventually turn out true.

Ukraine's bargaining position has only deteriorated since then, and it still is deteriorating further. Zelensky and the neocons will be unable to admit defeat, and prolong Ukraine's suffering at least until the 2024 elections, which in a cruel irony Biden is set to lose anyway. — Tzeentch

The Ukraine is set to loose, Biden is set to loose, you should play the lottery!

The Russians with their tiny economy somehow managed to completely outfox the collective West. Again, it's the price the West pays for delusional leadership, but it's sad for the Ukrainians that they are the ones that have to pay the bill. — Tzeentch

I'm sure the many thousands of dead russians feel very smug about having outfoxed the west.

Ukraine was not in Russia's sphere of influence prior to the war, — Tzeentch

Apparently Putin did not agree with that though.

You can't make an omelette...seriously though, Germany and Japan suffered civilian casualties many orders of magnitude higher than what Israel has dished out (and will eventually dish out) and became better countries for it. — RogueAI

The burned and mangled corpses of men, women and children made Germany and Japan better countries? That's... a take...

Change is messy. War is hell. Innocent people get killed. — RogueAI

Which is to say, if you don't think about it, it isn't so bad.

What did the Palestinians and Hamas think would happen when they decided to go down this road together? Did they think it would end well? Did they think they could pull off something like 10/7 and not get the shit kicked out of them? — RogueAI

Hamas wants this to happen. They're not idiots, and the Israeli reaction is what anyone could have predicted. Every single dead Palestinian child helps Hamas.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. It's a fucking dumb argument. — Benkei

Agreed. Yet it's very popular. Probably because it's easier to shut your eyes and convince yourself what's happening is not really happening to people like you. They're others who have done something to deserve it. It can't happen to you, you're safe. Looking the horror in the eye is excruciating.

The classic purpose of defending against a superior force that will eventually win is give time for diplomatic actions.

There are only two available:

1. convince other parties to join the war. For example the UK defending against Nazi Germany to buy time for the US to join the war and save them.

2. Negotiate a peace using the leverage of the high cost of further fighting. — boethius

Right, because it's absolutely impossible for a smaller country to win against a larger one. Never happens, ever.

In the case Finland, military defensive strategy coherently supported diplomatic efforts. — boethius

And the Finns were right, while Ukraine is wrong, because?

Now, if you mean that some offensive actions support defence and that by "depends on the circumstances" you agree Ukraine's campaign to "cut the land bridge" and "retake Crimea" was a delusional fools errand, then we agree. — boethius

I don't have access to the intelligence Ukraine had when deciding on that offensive, so I have no idea whether the effort was delusional. They seem to have adjusted their tactics to the situation on the ground well enough.

Help too much the Ukrainians with too sophisticated weapons and Russia can easily say things such as the weapons are entirely dependent on systems and information support outside Ukraine and is de facto at war with NATO and then not only strike Ukraine with nuclear weapons but also strike NATO bases in East-Europe. — boethius

Now *that* is a delusional scenario unless we assume the Russian leadership is a suicide cult.

Russia would not use nuclear weapons in the current situation: because they are winning. Hence, if the West wants to minimize the risk of the use of nuclear weapons, then it needs to keep Russia winning by undersupplying Ukraine — boethius

What are they winning exactly?

I can't really blame anyone for not looking through the constant propaganda barrage, but the Russians are on track to decisively win the war. — Tzeentch

By waving their magic war winning wand, presumably.

He has cancelled elections because by now everybody understands Zelensky wouldn't be re-elected. — Tzeentch

Elections during wartime are against Ukrainian law, but your fantasy is interesting nonetheless. Care to share your evidence that Zelensky wouldn't be re-elected?

While Zelensky is still trying to sell the myth of a Ukrainian offensive, both people in Ukraine and the Western media are openly saying its a stalemate, Ukraine is running out of men, etc. — Tzeentch

Ah yes, "people are saying". Why have evidence or arguments when you can just say what people are saying?

But it's not a stalemate. Ukraine is losing, and it's losing decisively. — Tzeentch

The tanks will be in Kiev any minute. You heard it here first folks!

'Stalemate' is just a cope term, to save face, to avoid having to admit defeat to domestic audiences, and to not have to utter the words "the Russians won". — Tzeentch

Right. Russia lost three major campaigns, but since the Ukrainian offensive also failed to reach it's objective the status quo is now a decisive russian victory. That makes total sense.

If I told you in December 2021 that Russia would expend it's entire peacetime army, it's entire stock of artillery ammunition, a large part of its armored vehicles and artillery pieces, to conquer (parts of) three Ukrainian Oblasts, you'd call that a major victory?

The bottomline now is that Ukraine is not going to join NATO — Tzeentch

Ukraine was never going to join NATO with Russian troops on its soil.

I think this is all quite bleak and tragic, especially for Ukraine itself. I can't imagine having to make such sacrifices only for it to be in vain. But that's the price to pay for politicians who deal in delusions and fairy tales. — Tzeentch

Right, small states should just always do what their bigger neighbours want and not try to get out of there sphere of influence. Unless the neighbour is the evil imperialist US.

Well their projected military budget, if one assumes that all the shadow military budgets rise proportionally, would put Russia at the level of military spending the USSR had in the 80s. That did not go so well.

And all this to defeat just Ukraine. I think it's worth remembering, among the daily back-and-forth of the war, just how unexpected it is that Ukraine can put up this level of resistance at all. And that while Russia has certainly succeeded in wrecking Ukraine, it has also wrecked itself in the process. It'll take at least a decade for Russia to recover from the war, especially the disastrous first year.

In theory, maybe; but not in practice. Empires (via conquistadors, gunships, missionaries & systematic colonization), for example, are not "self-critical" emancipatory projects (pace Hegel, vide Aristotle). — 180 Proof

That's true, but at the same time would the pagan roman empire, if given modern tools, not be even more cruel and rapacious? There is a significant capacity for self-criticism in western philosophy, arguably inherited from the anarchist (or at least anti-authoritarian) side of Jesus' teachings.

I agree, although this point is somewhat self-contradictory in that you say people have agency, but then point out that we need a new mainstream that can steer them in a new direction. Meaning, people do not have agency, they are determined by directions of society. Which is what I say when I talk about narratives. The narratives that shape our perception of reality defines the choices made and if the perception of reality is skewed by power hungry narcissists and we fail to protect democracy from such people because we are lazy and naive, then they dictate the narratives steering society, not people with better intentions for humanity. — Christoffer

I did not mean to imply that the mainstream is some inexorable force. More that we need a mass movement that offers more productive activism.

We can never be free of narratives, they're part of the human condition. We can only focus on forming better narratives that focus on bettering ourselves, improving our well being and progress humanity into a better future for all, if we want that to happen. — Christoffer

Sure, but that doesn't imply the narrative needs to be cynically exploited to steer the stupid masses to enlightened goals.

The problem with the degeneration of democracy is that society have handled democracy in a sloppy and naive way. Instead of installing institutions that self-control democracy so that it never corrupts society from the core values of democracy, we just let society constantly balance on a knife's edge so that a nation could vote away democracy all together if they've successfully been manipulated enough. — Christoffer

There's no way to insulate democracy from the demos. A democracy that's immune to it's self-dissolution is kind of an oxymoron. German has an "eternity clause" in its constitution, stating that certain parts (like the basic democratic constitution) can not be altered under any circumstances. But obviously the constitution is ultimately just a "scrap of paper". Such a clause only works so long as the paper retains legitimacy

Which is why I think the more important institutions are the soft, cultural ones.

As long as democracy focus on voting on specific people and not ideas and solutions, we will always have a corrupt system as we are rather focusing on personality traits and theatrics rather than actual decisions for society. — Christoffer

How would that actually work though? Electoral politics inherently draws certain personalities. It's seems more useful to work around that than try to somehow make the process as impersonal as possible.

I think that the combination of capitalism and democracy have created this self-perpetual machine in which we have power hungry people who care nothing for society, only manage to take decisions for society because capitalism demands it, or else people will revolt.

Basically, no one's at the steering wheel. No vision exist, no ideas are being formed by knowledgeable people and instead society just flows by itself. That would have been good, if not for all the destructive messes it also generates. — Christoffer

This is true in a sense, since there is no overarching progressive vision. But of course there are people who actively do the steering. Some interests groups are definetly powerful and their particular interests have a noticeable effect on policy. It's not simply something as abstract as society in general.

That's only generated more populist movements with people using the speed of online marketing to manipulate themselves into power fast before anyone notice the problems they pull with them.

The solution is to fine tune the democratic system so that populist narcissists and people only interested in power gets replaced by people working for the needs of society more than pushing their own names and egos. If we had systems that removed people in power more easily when they abuse their power, and if politicians were forced to act more in-line with how the core democratic values of being "the people's voice" in politics, that would force democratic politics into being more focused on solving societal problems and help people rather than putting all energy into the illusion of helping or improving. — Christoffer

Isn't that what we're already trying and failing to do? No-one has a recipe for getting "the right people" into the job, and I think this is ultimately a fool's errand. The problem isn't really that the politicians are uniquely bad, it's that they're exposed to pressures and temptations that lead to bad decisions.

The way to avoid this is not to rely on a theoretical superhuman which is somehow pure and good, but to broaden the base these people stand on. More people need to be involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics, so they have an understanding of how they work, broaden the pool of possible candidates and are aware of how to effectively advocate for themselves.

A popular movement need not be populist. Populism is a particular perversion of the popular.

I don't think it collapsed, I think that the critique of capitalism is alive and healthy and with how extreme the difference between the rich and poor through the catalyst of neoliberalism has become I think we'll see more of it as time goes on. There's definitely gonna be pushes for more Marxist ideas through a Hegelian slave/master analysis going forward. — Christoffer

It's been 30 years since the SU collapsed and capitalism is running rampant. How much longer will that take?

The problem is that the polarized masses of left/right people who are uneducated on the actual concepts of criticism against capitalism just forms another part of the radicalized population who are stuck in a loop of non-solutions in society, battling out amateur interpretations and not actually doing proper philosophical discourse on that matter. — Christoffer

So your solution is to somehow conjure up a population of proper philosophers? How would that work?

One solution for the online sphere is to create a new space that is considered better than the rest. I've seen this happen with things like computer software. When all major corporations produce subscription based software that they constantly increase the subscription price on while slowing down on innovation and progress, people get fed up by it and as soon as something that's open source reaches a point where it actually competes with the paid options, people start to move over to it and the corporations lose money. Even if they later put money into innovation, they hardly get the users back since the trust is lost and people don't want to be stuck in a system of manipulation by the companies who mostly put on a smiley face and dance the marketing dance to form the illusion of comfort with their software. — Christoffer

Alternative spaces exist, but so far the holding power of the existing ecosystems seems to be too strong. X/Twitter is a good example where, despite bad management and various alternative platforms, the inertia of its huge membership is keeping it afloat (for now).

Convenience is king in the fast moving world and the social media giants are very adept at offering it.

People don't trust these megacorps, people don't trust Facebook or TikTok, they only tolerate them because there's no wide spread alternative. If an alternative grows and their promise and delivery matches and outcompete the others, that can shift society. It's basically playing by the rules of the free market game, but with open source solutions that democratize spaces away from destructive algorithms. — Christoffer

I would rather say that people live in denial of how they're feeding the machine. It's much easier to project all your fears about surveillance on, say, a vaccine app than to cut your social media ties. The mistrust and the lack of privacy don't have an outlet, so we end up with conspiracy narratives as one option. Or people simply embrace the lack of privacy as the price of admission.

Without a popular systematic critique I don't see how we get enough of a movement going to decisively shift away from the current domination by big platforms.

Think of Wikipedia. It's been tested and found out to be more generally trustworthy for the purpose of sources of knowledge than many established and paid for sources, regardless of what people believe is the case. And because it's widely used, widely known and "open source", there's no destructive algorithms to be found. It's focused on being a good function and a good part of our online experience.

If we can generate better social media spaces that focus on having a similar good reputation, that doesn't have a big business behind it, that doesn't have a tech guru front figure wanting to reshape the world based on their skewed point of view, and that focus on gathering people on positive grounds with algorithms pushing back at destructive actions and behaviors, and being free of ulterior capitalistic motives... then that might save us from these radicalization machines.

But it demands an effort to create something that first and foremost can compete on the free market and deliver a better experience than all the others. Maybe if nations around the world were to have a fund for it. In which democratic nations fund the development and management of such an online space based on principles like the UN, a united space that cannot be corrupted by a single nation or corporation, in which there's no other focus than having a space for all to gather in, free from market movements and the manipulation of the people in favor of the people in power or narratives of nations.

One could dream. — Christoffer

Well we'd need to generate the impetus for such a shift somehow. I don't think there's an alternative to building a movement to provide that.

Wikipedia was lucky in that it came up early, before a monetised alternative took root. With social media, we do not have that luxury.

We have somewhat of a problem today with how single words have become so loaded that any holistic point gets lost due to people just taking aim at singular words, like "these people" or "slaves", without looking at the grander context. — Christoffer

The point I wanted to make is that the people concerned still have agency. Part of the solution involves creating a new mainstream where the energy that these people currently expend on "conspiracy activism" is turned towards actually positive goals.

But instead, everyone polarize themselves into arguing over the symptoms. Trump is only one figure in all of this, there are Trump-like people in power all over the world and the threat to democracy isn't their specific shenanigans, but the underlying manipulation of people making democracy into a system of control. — Christoffer

I think part of the issue is that democracy was already well on the way of becoming a "system of control", because the democratic political institutions were being impoverished and starved.

So the solution probably involves reinvigorating democratic politics. Which means grassroots activism, political involvement beyond the ballot box via vehicles like unions etc. We could probably look at how e.g. Steve Bannon creates his political movement and take some cues from that.

People need to experience politics as something they actively do again, rather than as a succession of narratives being fed to them so they vote the right way once every four years.

The left also desperately needs to be more inclusive and stop focusing on every issue through the lense of one particular identity. Ever since the project of Marxism had definitely collapsed, the left seems to have lost its sense of an overarching, positive vision for the future. There have been important victories in particular fields like LGBTQ rights and anti-raciam and feminism, but arguably at the expense of splitting the left into ever smaller movement of individual identities. People like Bannon step into this vacuum and instead fill it with a horror story.

The counter culture that would help humanity to better ourselves is to fight against the system that radicalize ourselves into oblivion. We need a better internet, we need a better system not based on these privatized giants who doesn't care if the world burns as long as they gain massive wealth on the users. — Christoffer

Yes, we'd need to break the monopolisation of our internet spaces, and turn them into public goods. This will require a break with capitalist ideology, which unfortunately has been almost unopposed for decades now. So first the groundwork would have to be laid to make a critique of capitalism no longer the realm of fringe theorists or extremists. It would really help to have better online spaces for that. It's a real catch-22.

If they are slaves to the wave of misinformation and disinformation that makes them radicalized into things like Trumpism and right wing extremism — Christoffer

I don't think it's very accurate to consider them "slaves" though. Yes once in a certain information environment, it's hard to break out. But this is less because of some outside imposing force and more because emotional needs have become enmeshed with the information environment.

Two things are important to keep in mind: that however wrong the theories, the Trumpian kind of extremism takes up real feelings of alienation and catastrophic breakdown. These feelings aren't particular to Trump supporters. Second, plenty of topics are viable for conspiracy mongering because most everyone is in denial about them to some extent, so this denial is merely rerouted.

"The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?" — Christoffer

I think the online sphere acts more as a catalyst than as the source of the problem. Social Media in particular has hugely reshaped out culture and our beliefs. But it is not in and of itself the source of the feelings that the conspiracies are a response to. That source is a crisis of western ideology. The new information environment has enabled a radical retreat into a fantasy world that supplies our longing for community, self-actualisation and self-absolution as a response.

Humans don't need any special reason to split themselves up into groups and then hate each other. But Jews and Christians had a peculiar dynamic.

A jew could technically become a christian at any point by accepting the saviour. At the same time, the refusal to do so always included a sort of challenge to the christian majority. Reactions to this differed based in the ebb and flow of the fortunes of the overall community.

Jews were often tolerated explicitly to demonstrate christian superiority. The notion was to keep jews around as distinctly second class citizens to constantly remind them of their inferiority and entice them to convert.

But, when the fortunes of the overall community fell, this notion could fold in on itself. Then the separate, marginalised community could look like an intentional mockery. In the christian anti-semitic tales, such as the blood libel, there seems to be an element of christian practice, reflected in a distorting mirror.

What I wrote assumed Ukraine's goal of "freedom" and pointed out that freeing a few while putting the rest at risk makes no military sense.

Attacking prepared defences in a war of attrition as the smaller party is the opposite of military sanity. This is the point to make it more clear. — boethius

That entirely depends on the larger situation. You can't just sit on the defensive all the time either. There are plenty of plausible reasons why Ukraine might want to push even into prepared russian defenses - to fix troops in place, to keep russian commanders on the defensive psychologically, to seize tactically advantageous positions, to force the russian artillery to fire so they can be targeted with counter-battery fire. I could go on, but the point is your analysis is simplistic to the point of being useless.

Now, if the required sacrifices on the Western political altar led to the promised demise of the Russian state by mechanism that were and remain essentially voodoo (i.e. magical thinking without any precedent in history at all), then the military moves would have had to have made sense had the things that would have made them make sense happened to have actually happened. But they didn't. — boethius

Noone wants the demise of the russian state, that would be a terrible outcome for everyone. The west has plenty of good reasons to want Russia to fail in this endavour, do I need to list them?

But to play along to your obtuse delusions, "freeing" a bunch of people, more so in regions that had already largely been evacuated of anyone who wanted to leave to Ukraine, is not justification for military action — boethius

People have been bashing each other's heads in for scraps of territory for hundreds of years.

There was a tiny number of people to "free" in these regions compared to the total Ukrainian population, so therefore it would not be justified to expend valuable military resources to free a small number of people if it greatly increases the risk to the larger number. — boethius

This completely ignores how humans actually think. Noone is going to just hand away what they think is "their land" if they have a choice.

Going on these offensives is extremely costly to Ukraine in terms of men and material.

Now, if they "win" the war of attrition against Russia, then clearly they had those resources to spare, but if they don't win the war that is actually currently happening then it will become clear what the cost of expending large amounts of resources on offensives actually turns out to be. — boethius

War isn't fought on some excel spreadsheet where losses are added up and then the winner is decided. The territory matters. Initiative matters. Morale matters. Public opinion matters..

Losing 20% of their territory in the first days of the war, not even striking the bridges out of Crimea but letting massive columns go through and behind the prepared defences around the Donbas was definitely a military disaster. — boethius

Nonsense, holding off the russian invasion the way they did was a massive victory, way beyond what anyone had expected. It was a disaster for Russia.

Bahkmut was a military disaster. — boethius

More bullshit. How was it disastrous? Ukraine lost a single city, and that's it. There was no follow up on the side of Russia.

This latest offensive was a military disaster. — boethius

This is at least vaguely plausible, but still there's no evidence Ukraine has been decisively weakened by the failure to push further.

Now, if you think Ukraine can just keep grinding indefinitely like a tech bro in a coffee shop, then you're just completely delusional.

We are now at a phase of the war where it is accepted Ukraine has no potential for victory with some sort of maneuver warfare, which is, by definition, the only way to win against superior numbers and resources, so the only other way to win is through attrition which is a war that Ukraine can't possibly win.

I prepend "military" to all this analysis as there would still be the option of victory through some sort of revolution in Russia or total economic failing under the sanctions (the theory of victory when Ukraine rejected peace talks), which maybe someone here will still argue will actually happen "this time", but that seems a distant dream even to the present dreamers. — boethius

Everyone has limited resources. Russia doesn't have magical endless potential to wage war. Russia can absolutely loose a war of attrition in Ukraine. The soviet union, which was much stronger then than Russia is today, lost a war of attrition in Afghanistan.

Russia's use of glide bombs and attack helicopters has been covered extensively even by the Western mainstream press, so if you don't follow events in the slightest why do you feel you contribute anything to this conversation.

But to satisfy your lazy quest for knowledge here's a journalist from Forbes literally using the words "at will". — boethius

The point of glide bombs is literally that you can use them from out of range of air defenses...

And the helicopters cannot operate at will above the frontline, as the Forbes article you linked shows regardless of the poorly written last paragraph.

He's reporting what Zelensky said to him and his colleagues, what the administration said the day before, it would be a pretty bold lie which others in attendance could easily call him out on. — boethius

Given that he claims the US election was "stolen", bold lies seem right up his alley. What does it matter to him if he is called out? He's a MAGA republican so anyone who calls him out is a globalist shill and that is that.

More to the point, noone else is reporting these bold claims.

hardly implausible that's exactly what Zelensky stated. — boethius

It's very implausible if you actually follow how the war develops day by day.

This is the new copium of choice in recent comments ... for, if there is no collapse ... how exactly does Russia lose exactly? Isn't the key word in a "death by a thousand cuts" the death part? How exactly does Russia die by a thousand cuts without a "calamitous collapse" which could have "unforeseeable consequences for russian internal politics"? — boethius

The same way they lost in Afghanistan, or Chechnya. The same way the US lost in Vietnam or again in Afghanistan. They're fighting a limited war for political goals. Their opponent is fighting a total war. This has not often worked out for the side trying to fight a limited war.

The war is about separating Russian resources from German industry and locking in the Europeans as vassal states without sovereignty being even an option on the table anymore, destroy the Euro as a possible competitor to the dollar while we're at it. — boethius

Oh right, Putin invaded in order to turn the EU into US vassals, that makes sense.

Particularly because the US is well known for its policy of turning allies into vassal states without sovereignty. Just look at....uh....

Obviously if the intention was to actually "beat" the Russians then that's what would have occurred.

It didn't occur because that is not the intention. — boethius

I mean you're right about that, but your reasoning is odd.

There's a very obvious reason why the west wouldn't want Ukraine to "beat" the russians. The same reason why they didn't send their air forces to flatten the russian invaders. The west doesn't want to give Russia an excuse to use nukes.

So yes the western strategy is a kind of death by a thousand cuts. They prefer the russians to bleed themselves dry in a slow grind over some calamitous collapse which could have unforeseeable consequences for russian internal politics. They even prefer Ukraine to loose in a slow grind over such a scenario.

This is made worse by claims in liberal media spaces (e.g., John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight") that economists essentially agree that immigration has net positive impacts for all of society, providing benefits without significant costs. This is simply not the real consensus in the field. — Count Timothy von Icarus

AFAIK, the consensus is that immigration is generally a net positive on total economic output in the long term, and that the long-term overall displacement effect is small. But the displacement effect is there in the short term and it overwhelmingly affects people who are already in a precarious employment. Is that roughly how you would characterise it as well?

More to the point, I wonder if the current left wing stance reveals a bit of internalised market absolutism. The idea that more openness, more trade, more movement of people is always a positive. I would not be surprised if this idea, that exchange fixes everything, a pillar of today's capitalist ideology, is at the root of this.

Easy to be straightforward if you just ignore the parts of the story that don't neatly fit the narrative. Like the fact that the two-state solution was repeatedly rebuffed by Palestinian and Arab representatives as well. Or how the interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran also shape the conflict.



What do we do if noone has a just cause though?

It seems to me that, looking at the broad strokes, no "side" can really claim to have had a just cause. Individuals, certainly, but not those who ended up steering the larger situation.

Obviously we can condemn both sides for their respective unjust actions. But do we act beyond that? Should we revert to consequentialism in a situation where we cannot resolve the "just cause conflict"? Or should we ignore consequences and adopt complete neutrality?

Which then accomplishes what? What did the withdrawal from Kherson and around Kharkiv accomplish for the Ukrainians other than feeding the narrative they can "win"? — boethius

It freed a bunch of their territory and subjects from russian occupation?

That's kinda what the war is about, isn't it?

Oh right, because Ukraine only gets the "next thing" after suffering military disasters and so the "next thing" is no longer an escalation but can drag the war out a bit longer. — boethius

What military disasters had Ukraine suffered?

I just explained to you, after Tzeentch just explained to you, that Russia's aim is to attrit the Ukrainians to the breaking point (which just like every individual, every organization has). They do this by creating cauldron's around Ukrainian forces and hitting them with artillery and glide bombs until they leave. — boethius

So why are they loosing more men and materiel every day? That doesn't sound like winning a war of attrition.

The facts are Ukraine essentially does not have any air power and Russia seems to have now nearly completely attritted their air defence (just as the leaked pentagon papers informed us), enough to effectively use glide bombs and attack helicopters at will. — boethius

And your evidence for this is?

Zelensky was recently in Washington to explain that with 100 000 000 000 USD more that "maybe" they can achieve a stalemate for the next year. — boethius

Lol, yeah according to Josh Hawley, one of the people trying to turn the US into a Putin style "managed democracy". Why would I believe anything a known con-man like this says?

And given support of relevant foreign governments, even such a "clean" strike is not going to help Palestinian aims. But I don't think it follows they shouldn't do anything in such an event. — Benkei

I think this is a very difficult problem to deal with, morally.

If you are in a situation where you are clearly oppressed, but do not see any actually effective way out, what do you do? Are you allowed to attack your captor, jailor, torturer? Even if all that will do is result in one more death on the list? Is "fighting evil" a moral good in and of itself?

One can put the question in the reverse: At what point does participation in an immoral system strip you - in this specific context - of your right to bodily integrity, to liberty, to life?

I don't think this is an alien concept. Self-defense laws often work this way, though usually not explicitly. They follow the dictum that the person who puts themselves outside of the law by their actions then looses the protection of the law from the consequences.

This perspective seems to make the problem clearer: it is with identifying the fight against the system with the fight against specific persons. Maybe in turning yourself into an enforcer for a system, you're morally taking onto yourself its crimes?

"Correct reference" refers to the correct use of language, and "actuality" refers to "that which really is". What constitutes as "correct use" of language is a very complicated subject, as I'm sure you appreciate. It involves a wide variety of context-dependant linguistic and cultural factors that are entirely manmade. Social conventions and laws, political or artistic concepts and a litany of other concepts are all part of "correct reference". — Judaka

Interesting. So, is this a "it's turtles all the way down" situation, where language references only language with no other reference point / correspondence?

A basic example is ownership/private property. "It's true that I own the computer I'm using" is true by "correct reference". It's true according to the social conventions of the society that I live in, since I bought this computer, and it resides in my dwelling and I use it. If you want to treat concepts as though they're above language and manmade rules, and "truth" as beyond such things, then there's zero basis for believing that the concept of "ownership" is real. Or look at a card game like Yu-gi-oh or Pokémon, "It's true that Pikachu is a Pokémon", you'd probably agree, even though it's complete fiction. — Judaka

Of course social constructs like property and fictional entities are ultimately self-referential, and so your argument works here.

But what about rules that don't seem mutable by human though or action? What we call the laws of physics can be expressed in infinite ways linguistically, but the rules remain the same. Gravity will not reverse and pull you into the clouds if you define up as down.

Yep, that's right.

Though "truth" can also be used to directly refer to a hypothetical "correct reference", using the logic contained within words. Such as "hypothetical" applicability, something that could be correctly said, even if it wasn't said. For instance, it's true that I wrote this comment, because it'd be correct to say that I wrote this comment, it's true regardless of whether anybody actually makes the claim that I did. — Judaka

Aren't you making the claim by writing it? This is slightly confusing to me.

Another example is how people say things like "True courage is X", possibly to suggest that it's incorrect to reference Y as courage, because only X is correct to refer to as courage. I could say "I want to find out what true compassion is", "true compassion" is equal to "that which can be correctly referred to as compassion". In summary, your description is correct in this context, but we can manipulate that concept in these ways that you're undoubtedly familiar with. — Judaka

But isn't what people are concerned in this scenario the negation of a value judgement? That is they're not concerned with what the word means in the sense of a dictionary definition. Rather the goal is to exclude a certain behaviour from the positive value judgement that's emotionally connected to the language.

It's based on the "shared human experience", we could agree on that. It's also based on practicality, we want similar functions from our languages. — Judaka

But could it not also be a priori?

Conceptually that's true, but not in practice, as I tried to demonstrate here. — Judaka

Well it's sometimes true in practice. But of course in practice one is almost always wrong in some way.

Technically, truth does not respond to one's wishes, but it does respond to one's desires, values, logic and intended meaning. — Judaka

I think that's the core of our disagreement. From the perspective of some theoretical Maxwell's demon, everyone is wrong and their truths contingent on their beliefs, circumstances etc. But from the perspective of the people doing the talking and thinking, their truth is the truth.

That would be my response to the entire situation. You cannot demand security and refuse to give the other party the same. Reciprocity and all that. Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here. — Benkei

While I'm certain you don't intent to denigrate Palestinians, I find the usage of the dog analogy somewhat troubling. Because crucially a dog is not a moral subject and we don't expect a dog to have agency.

Isn't it at the core of human dignity that humans are responsible actors regardless of their situation? That is it would be dehumanising to treat humans simply as objects caught up in some situation, which then excludes agency and responsibility as two sides of the same coin.

If we're making a moral argument - as opposed to simply discussing the correct instrumentality to reach some result - we can't ignore the agency of either side. And this of course goes for Israel as well, where politicians all too often seek to avoid the moral argument by pointing to the allegedly inexorable demands of security.

I wonder if Hamas can only be permanently stopped by a police force within a functioning Palestinian state. Not that I think Hamas is the most pressing problem. — bert1

Hama seems to me to be an embodiment of an idea. Even if you kill every last Hamas fighter, you can't kill the idea.

I do not think it is wholly in the power of Israel or the Palestinians to bury that idea. It's bound up in more global phenomena as well.

Your understanding of the OP wasn't my intention, and I agree with you that truth has the same core function across different contexts.

Where we seem to disagree is on the core function itself.

The point of the OP doesn't make any sense using your understanding of truth's core function as referring to "actuality", and that's maybe why you didn't get it. If you try thinking about it from how I explained "truth" then probably you will. — Judaka

Maybe I should not have used the word "actuality", as it seems to have caused more confusion than it solved. I just meant it as what is actually the case as opposed to what's possible.

But if we both agree that the core function of truth is the same across different contexts, we probably don't disagree all that much.

I tend to stay away from technical discussions about what truth is exactly, since they never seem terribly productive. I like the somewhat playful phrase that truth is that which asserts itself regardless of your wishes.

Are you saying possibility/necessity etc are concepts that exist without language, and language merely corresponds to these (mental) concepts? — Judaka

Yes, though I would not claim it must be these specifically. Or that it's as simple as language using something that's there. It's probably a more messy kind of feedback loop.

But basically it seems to me there needs to be some common mental framework language can use, otherwise I don't see how we can, for example, decipher ancient languages noone speaks anymore.

Right, but it's only true that there's a tiger in the bush if it's "correct to say" that there's a tiger in the bush. It's only correct to say that there's a tiger in the bush if there really is a tiger in the bush. Even if "truth" is "correct reference" or "correct answer", it would have served the function you wanted in the example you gave.

I'll again reiterate that I am confident that you do not use the word truth to refer to actuality, you use it as "correct reference" or "correct answer". — Judaka

I don't understand this, specifically I don't understand why actuality and "correct reference" aren't one and the same here.

To answer if it's true that "There's a tiger in the bush", one must understand the concepts "is", "tiger", "in" and "bush". If the tiger is behind the bush or in front of it, or if it's a lion and not a tiger, or if it was in the bush, but already left, then "There is a tiger in the bush" is false. I could say "There is a predator in the bush" or "There is something in the bush" and these could be true as well as "There is a tiger in the bush". It's clear that "truth" corresponds to the "correctness" of the statement, which is based on the applicability of the language used. — Judaka

So truth always signals the applicability of the language used in the claim to the situation? I mean that sounds vaguely like what I believe, but I'm not sure I really understand.

Why must it do that? — Judaka

I don't know if it must, it just seems plausible to me.

I also find it interesting that the animal kingdom don't seem to have the revenge pressure that we have. — universeness

It's not just a revenge pressure that's notable in humans. Humans have a very acute sense of a) status and b) rules. We react strongly to any subversion of either. It has been shown in various experiments that humans will punish "cheating" even to their own detriment.

It is also I think clearly visible in our social structures, in the way we treat criminals or children.

If I was to offer some plausible sounding evolutionary mechanism, I'd say it's probably related to empathy and the very complex social dynamics we developed. Revenge is a kind of reverse empathy where we wish to punish a transgression by doing something we consider will be painful to the other.

But do note this is a guess which is probably wrong.

I think this is not something we can unlearn, but rather something we must endeavour to notice and (with effort) question.

This is kinda hilarious, given that Ukraine has a history of colonialism, and the coloniser was Russia.

I agree that there is such thinking that doesn't rely on language.

So, what is the relationship you're proposing between these categories and the words used to refer to them? — Judaka

Since humans are capable of entertaining counterfactuals and also of dealing with probabilities and necessary elements, I'd say that there needs to be some faculty for sorting things into possibility/necessity/actuality.

We'd then expect to have language that corresponds to these. So "truth" would correspond to actuality. If it's true that there's a tiger in the bush, I must act immediately. If it's merely a possibility, or a story, the proper reaction would be different.

It could have meant that, but it's part of a paragraph that goes on to explain those changes in qualities, which did not include any major changes to how truth functions. Using that context and my the context of my previous statements, I had hoped my meaning was made clear. Nonetheless, I clarified the misunderstanding, isn't this what I should've done? — Judaka

Well, my problem is that I can't really tell what your point is.

Based on your OP I got the impression that you were arguing for multiple truths. That is truth has multiple distinct meanings, or perhaps we could say functions. For example scientific truth, which is for empirical questions. And perhaps as a counterexample aesthetic truth, which applies for feelings of beauty or taste.

My response to this idea is that I do think truth has the same core meaning, or function, across different contexts. Specifically, truth does always seem concerned with establishing a reliable and reasoned basis for further decisions or debates.

This of course does not mean that any sentence that contains the term "truth" means the same thing. Context matters for language. And also it is obvious to me that a less precise claim, even if it's true, might not strictly imply any further conclusions, while a more precise claim, if true, might then imply very specific consequences.

But the above caveats, to me, are simply about all language in general and have as much to do with "truth" specifically as they have with any other term.

So maybe we actually agree and are just framing the issue differently.

What sort of categories are you referring to? — Judaka

The basic building blocks for thinking and experiencing. Like causality, basic logic operations, basic concepts that allow you to sort and make sense of sensory input.

You don't seem to understand my claim though. You seem to think I'm arguing that the "change" is a literal rewrite of the word's meaning and that's not the case at all. The "change" is:

That context is determinative of truth's qualities. One puts it together for themselves. Whether a truth claim is about "something real" or not. — Judaka

It seems like we're talking past each other and not getting our points across.

If you write that "context determines truth's qualities, then to me that sounds like "a literal rewrite of the word's meaning".

I understand "qualities" to mean the specific attributes that define something and make it distinct from other things.

If truth is a language tool then I think mental concept is equally a language tool. Science is just a biological activity, a special case of the same biological activity that allows the use of words like "truth" and "mental concept". — Apustimelogist

Ok. And how is this relevant?

What is a "mental concept"? — Judaka

One of the categories your mind uses to work.

Aren't all concepts linguistic? — Judaka

I don't see how that could be the case.

We use language to express our thoughts and feelings, a view I'm not convinced you oppose. Language is public, words are used by all, and so even when you say "things we actually expect to be real", you have to be more specific, what makes something real? Is beauty not real? What about kindness, or wisdom or whatever else? Is it not true that some movies are better than others? Or that someone can sing better than someone else? Is it true that I'm as good as Messi at soccer? — Judaka

I don't think it's useful to start fragmenting this into a million little questions if we can't even agree on the basics.

If I say "X is true" is that different from saying "I like X"? That is, is "truth" just an expression of my preferences or is there more to it?

Truth is a word changed by its context. — Judaka

Yes, that is the claim you're making, I know.

If I claimed that "X shop is selling doughnuts at Y price" and you asked, "Is that true?" I would fully appreciate that you wanted to verify the information was reliable. Equally, if I said "The doughnuts from X shop are delicious", and you asked, "Is that true?", I would appreciate that you knew this is not a matter where my opinion was definitive. If you ate some and said they weren't that good, you wouldn't call me a liar, you'd just know it was a difference in taste/opinion. — Judaka

But taste and price are already different. There's no need for truth to be different as well. This example works just as well if we assume the term "truth" does exactly the same in both sentences and the difference lies entirely in the claim itself.

Well, to discuss anything is to discuss language. But the buck must stop somewhere. Language must at some point reference back to a mental concept. Otherwise I don't see how communication would be possible. At some point thoughts must turn to language, and language back to thoughts.

So the question is is there some mental concept we (usually) address with the term "truth"? I'd say there is. It seems to be pretty obvious that we must have a mental concept for "things we actually expect to be real".

I'm not sure where this conversation is going. It seems to me this is turning more towards a general conversation about language and meaning rather than about truth specifically.

It seems to me that, taken to the extreme, your argument would be that "truth" really does not refer to anything specific, and is rather just a way to emphasize a statement. So it's just a language tool.

The contrary argument would be that "truth" is a fundamental category in the human mind. That would mean that regardless of the precision or imprecision of language, saying "X is true" would be an attempt to address this category.

Its hard to say then whether one wants to book. On one side it will never allow them to understand correctly the relationships between things in physics, chemistry and biology as they are, but it would still allow progress of a form. It would provide for all needs. — Benj96

The way I understand it, the book would give you an entirely "correct" understanding of all laws of nature, just that the set of laws would have as little as possible to do with the real underlying reality.

But, seeing as this underlying reality is in any case inaccessible to us, that doesn't seem to me that big of a drawback.

It rather sounds to me like a magic book which can resolve any empirical question, and essentially give you perfect empirical knowledge. The imperfection seems to lie with the metaphysical truth of that knowledge, but that isn't particularly relevant in practice. So it just seems to much of a boon to turn down, though I wouldn't force it on everyone.

Surely, neither merely believing something is true nor believing that no arguments against one's position are convincing does anything to guarantee reliability. It's one's reasons for believing something is true that determine that truth's reliability. Reasons that are measurable, and have been repeatedly verified are reliable, aren't such factors like these determinative of reliability? — Judaka

Right, I see what you mean, but I wasn't intending to go that far yet. I was merely looking at what we wish to express when we say "X is true".

If X is true, we can use it as a premise for further argument. We can assume it for the purpose of building some machine.

We would also expect it not to change arbitrarily. That is, we expect that we can give reasons for why something is true. Hence why many people don't think tastes or preferences have a truth value.

The next question is then why we believe something is true.

Words and ideas must be redefined within the context of science, and adhere to scientific standards, that's a prerequisite for doing science. — Judaka

But I'm not doing science here.

I agree that we must be convinced that something is true to call it true. "For someone to call something true, they must believe it is", sure I agree with that. But how does that give us reliability? — Judaka

Reliability means more than simply believing it. It means you're willing to risk something. It means that if everyone in the room believes that X is true, you can safely base your argument on it.

It means that within the context of science, someone saying X is true means it has met the prerequisites of science, and within the context of something else, like art, X is beautiful because it met the prerequisites for one to find it beautiful. Those prerequisites were just that they found X beautiful, and their belief just reflects their personal interpretation and experience. It wouldn't even cross our minds to challenge the "reliability" of the truth about X's beauty as it would in the scientific context. I was just saying that we don't treat truths the same across all contexts. It's the scientific process that gives the truth its reliability in the scientific context, rather than the truth being necessarily reliable. This is what my OP is about. — Judaka

I think the art example is problematic because not everyone would agree that "this picture is beautiful" has a truth value.

I'd like to instead use a moral argument. Say: "Murder is immoral". I think most people would agree that this statement has a truth value. It's not scientific though. Or take: "The sum of the interior angle measures of a triangle always adds up to 180°."

If we take these statements and compare this to something empirical, say "the gravity on earth has an acceleration of 9,81 m/s²", what do these statements have in common?

That's how I arrived at my conclusion that there are commonalities among things we deem true.

And I would further add that another common element is that the truth can be argued for in a specific way. The argument has to take a specific form, fulfill specific criteria to result is a true statement.

It seems to me what's different among the different contexts is the prerequisites of the argument.

Reliability isn't the only relevant quality but forgetting that, conceptually, truth should be reliable, but in practice, it depends on the truth conditions. — Judaka

What do you mean by "in practice"? Truth is a concept we apply to statements.

Within your argument, you use words such as "surprise" and "convincing", which are inherently unscientific. You can't measure the "convincingness" of an argument, right? If I find your argument convincing, that's no guarantee that someone else will. You could make the same argument with "reliability" itself. — Judaka

Yes, I intentionally used "unscientific" terms because they should apply to all kinds of contexts.

Is an element of truth that people agree on it? If not I don't see how it matters that people can argue about it. But if *you* believe something is true, then there cannot be a convincing argument to the contrary for you.

The quality of truth is dependent upon the truth conditions. Truths can have various truth conditions and have various qualities, right? — Judaka

I have no idea what this would mean.

It doesn't have to be a death cult. The Regime just has to be very desperate, to the point where they start thinking, "a few tactical nukes, strategically placed..." If it looks like Ukraine starts pushing Russia back to their border, or Putin thinks he's about to be overthrown, why not roll the dice, from his point of view? If he thinks it's likely he's going to be deposed and killed, what would he have to lose? — RogueAI

AFAIK Putin doesn't have the ability to unilaterally instigate a nuclear strike, he'd need the cooperation of the army high command. Which, in a scenario where his head is on the line, he presumably doesn't have.

It's hard to see how any use of nukes doesn't make the situation simply worse for Russia. It seems almost guaranteed that, if Russia uses any nuclear weapon, they'll loose their remaining allies. China isn't going to want to be associated with it, nor will anyone else.

It's also highly questionable whether any military advantage that's even remotely commensurate could be achieved.

Bombing the direct frontline will achieve little unless you positively blanket it with bombs. Hitting any kind of strategic target like transportation, C&C or production will almost inevitably involve hitting a city.

I don't think the Russian people will accept nuking a Ukrainian city as part of the "special military operation". Given Putin's reluctance to even call a general mobilisation, I think it's safe to assume he doesn't believe the population would accept a total war against Ukraine.

So really all that seems even remotely useful is to stage some kind of nuclear demonstration to scare Ukraine's western allies. But even that might just have the opposite effect and ensure an even more unanimous front against Russia.

And that's not considering the likely NATO response, which would probably be a no fly zone over Ukraine and possibly airstrikes on russian troops in Ukraine.

Yes. That's what worries a lot of people. — RogueAI

It has always struck me as kind of a useless worry though. Noone has been able to identify a scenario where any use of nukes makes strategic sense for Russia. Indeed this conflict seems like a very good example for the argument that as military weapons in the strict sense, nukes are useless.

While the possibility remains that the Russian regime turns into some kind of death cult and tries to burn it all down, it doesn't seem to make sense to base any decisions on this possibility.

Surely, science isn't "the pursuit of truth" but "the pursuit of truth under a particular set of circumstances", and these circumstances are what we call science.

Has the view that science is "the pursuit of truth" led to a misunderstanding of truth? Particularly in contexts such as philosophy and politics, where truth may operate under very different circumstances. — Judaka

What is the relevant quality of a scientific result? I would say it's reliability. You need to be able to rely on the prediction of what will happen, so you can base your decisions/ designs on this.

Is that a fundamental attribute of truth? I would say it is. For something to be true it must be a reliable. If something is true, this excludes surprise. It excludes a convincing argument to the contrary.

It's possible the whole reason for the annexation was to pre-empt pacifists in the higher echelons by forcing them to commit to "defending Russia".

If the exact borders are unclear that gives room for political maneuvers. Seems like the kind of thing Putin, still a KGB man at heart, would do.

Oh I think it can recover. Every year brings a fresh new batch of conscripts and the Russian military industrial complex can chug out a limited number of tanks, guns and ammo. It will be likely more than the West provides Ukraine.

I think Russia could make an offensive let's say next year spring/summer. — ssu

I think the best Russia can hope for in the foreseeable future is to force Ukraine onto the defensive and continue the kind of grinding single-target assaults that so far have been the only successful strategy.

I think it's unlikely Russia can do any sweeping offensive even if western aid to Ukraine is reduced.

So far neither side in the conflict has found a way to break through prepared defenses.

The only big game changer that seems in the cards is if either side gains air superiority. The state of Ukraine's air defense seems the best kept secret of the war so far. They seem to be doing fine, but it's hard to tell whether there is a secret crisis brewing. OTOH Ukraine will likely get at least some F16, which might make a difference (probably also depending on what kind of ammunition is supplied).

In other news it looks like the more moderate Republicans in the US are not going down without a fight. Jim Jordan might need to agree to further aid on Ukraine (which is still popular even with republicans, though less of them want to ship weapons directly).

In the US, Jim Jordan seems to be inching closer to the speakership. This would seem a victory for the extreme right of the Republicans, and possibly a serious threat to Ukraine aid.

If he gets the speakership, will he try to be more inclusive or shut the US down until the demands of the small group of extremists are met?

I don't think Mearsheimer even argued that it's simply NATO expansionism driving the Russian actions. He considers the expansion reckless and wrong headed, but iirc doesn't claim that Russia would be less belingerent towards its neighbours without it.

His position seems to be that the US shouldn't get involved in the region, since it's not vital to US interests, and should just allow Russia a free reign over it's neighbours. He makes no claim on what Russia intends to do with this freedom, or that this will be better for the people involved.

Within the framing of his realpolitik approach, I think the argument works. But it's focused only on avoiding a conflict between the big powers and doesn't support the argument that Russia wouldn't wish to incorporate (in some way) Ukraine if there was no NATO

You mean people predicted Russia would invade Ukraine when Russia amassed an invasion Army at the border and started making demands?

Their foresight is amazing.

Edit: I would guess everyone here has seen at least one of Mearsheimer's talks. I don't think the disagreement is about the basic analysis of the situation so much as about what the Russian leadership actually thinks and intends.

I think one can readily accept Cohen's analysis (which tracks with what I've read about Russia post 1991) without then arriving at the conclusion that NATO expansion was a main contributing cause of the 2022 invasion.

While the resentment and sense of hypocrisy was caused by western behaviour in the 90s and early 2000s, including of course the eastern expansion of NATO, it is not today simply a reaction to NATO. I think rather that the resentment (for which the West certainly deserves blame) has combined with other currents of Russian politics to form a toxic cocktail of nationalism, chauvinism, resentment and hybris.

And to say that this cocktail, which Putin represents, is essentially a reaction to NATO expansion is such a significant simplification and distortion that it has to be labeled false.

shows that US involvement was all over this conflict, and that Putin has been a very reactive leader — Mikie

I think that's the main sticking point here: That you're willing to give Putin this huge benefit of the doubt, despite the statements he made re Ukraine (that it's not a real state and just an unnatural creation that really should be part of Russia).

You're saying we are retroactively applying intentions to Putin. That's true. But that's how assessing intentions always works.

It seems to me, and I suspect others here feel the same, that to call Putin's action "very reactive" is essentially absolving him of a significant share of blame. That, imho, is unacceptable.

Note that I didn't refuse to explain. You'll find all the explanation you need in this very thread, with links, sources and all. I've probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all. If you're unaware of US involvement in Ukraine I would suggest starting at page 1. — Tzeentch

Noo, you don't refuse, you're just requesting I read 520 pages to maybe figure out what the fuck you meant.

No, thanks. Pointing to "a books worth" of text as supposed explanation for a single sentence is a dishonest move, as you should know.

Sometimes being an asshole and simply being honest look very much alike. — Tzeentch

No, I don't think they do. I think that this is rather too convenient an explanation.