But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. — Jabberwock

You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality? — Jabberwock

Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament? — Jabberwock

Well, I have evidence why it would not be very relevant - Ukraine has pledged neutrality and Russia did not mention NATO when it has invaded Crimea. On the other hand, you say NATO was definitely a factor, because you say so. See the difference? — Jabberwock

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this. — Putin, 2014

You have given no support why we should think Russia would not attack — Jabberwock

No, Russia attacked after it has messed up, because its meddling has sparkled a popular uprising. — Jabberwock

Without Russian meddling Yushchenko would remain in power and Ukraine would be militarily neutral, just as it was decided by the parliament. — Jabberwock

However, given that you have acknowledged that it was not the main factor for the agression, that is all I need to reject your argument: given that NATO expansion was not the main factor in starting the conflict, all we have to do is to consider whether that main factors have ceased to exist before the further escalation of the conflict (which has never ceased, contrary to your claims). And the answer is, of course, no - Russia still had the same reasons, so it started the full-scale war. — Jabberwock

NATO is one line of US influence, and an important one. There are others. Why does the US want to expand NATO, support overthrowing a president, etc.? It's part of a very clear strategy for eastern Europe.
— Mikie

Sure, that is the US strategy, but that does not mean the US is the main cause of the processes. That is what you got completely wrong. — Jabberwock

France has supported the American Revolution, provided weapons and even troops to Americans, because it suited France's interests in the conflict with the British. Yet if I wrote that France has organized the American Revolution, therefore should be blamed for it, nobody would take me seriously. — Jabberwock

Mikie: 'Russia would not attack if Ukraine did not want to join NATO!'
Jabberwock: 'Russia has attacked Ukraine in 2014 precisely when it has abandoned its NATO aspirations.'
Mikie: 'Let us talk about something else! How about 2022?' — Jabberwock

I keep seeing the Hamas attack described as "unprovoked," as if Israel has not been occupying, dispossessing, blockading, and besieging a population. The attack is morally wrong but let's be honest about what its causes are. — Nathan Robinson

I don’t think this gets to the problem with Crash, which is utterly consistent. — Jamal

But notice that my metaphor (which I disagreed with) was pizza vs. turnip soup. The latter is good for you, but hardly a gourmet meal. — Jamal

For the satirically-challenged, I emphasise that this post is intended to be humorous, provocative, and tongue-in-cheek, and has no philosophical value whatsoever. It should not be taken to reflect the views of the forum moderators, supposing that they are sufficiently intellectually developed to have any, and may or may not reflect my own views, to the extent that I am capable of consistently holding any for five minutes together.

I am not a US national and I do not live in the USA. I am an outsider looking in. Considering his record of non-achievement, I am at a loss to understand why Trump appeals to so many American voters. Can somebody explain this to me? He had four years in office, but just look at some of his big-ticket promises, and consider how many he failed to deliver:

- Did the miners go back to work? No.
- Did the wall get built? No.
- Was the swamp drained? No.
- Did the USA win the trade war with China? No.
- Did the US economy boom? No.
- Did his peace plan bring peace to the Middle East? No.
- Did he resolve the Iran question? No.
- Did the US get an infrastructure renewal program? No.
- Did North Korea de-nuclearise? No. (In the aftermath of Trump's "negotiations", they actually accelerated their strategic weapons development program).
- Did the US get a new health-care program? No. (For four years he promised "we'll have something for you in the next few weeks" and, after four years, nothing. Squat).

Mind you, there were some positive achievements:

- Did moving the embassy to Jerusalem increase tensions in the ME? YES!
- Did his trade wars against China and the EU increase consumer prices in the US? YES!
- Did his trade wars against China and the EU reduce US export trade? YES!
- Did his abandonment of the Iran treaty grant Iran a de-facto license to resume nuclear development? YES!

So it isn't all negative.

With a CV like that, how can he NOT be re-elected in 2024? Well, of course, we all know that it will be down to electoral FRAUD ON A MASSIVE SCALE!! The Swamp, the Deep State, the Black Transgender Marxists, are using JEWISH SPACE LASERS to RE-PROGRAM OUR PATRIOTIC ELECTORAL MACHINES!!!!!

Of course, it's always possible that in two hundred years' time, the received historical wisdom will say that Trump was just another Washington suit, with a snake-oil formula, who mouthed and gesticulated, while the real machinery of government - the civil service - worked around him as best it could.

Nobody can deny that, for sheer entertainment value, US politics is the gift that keeps on giving. We are witnessing a Titanic contest: the last of the dinosaurs, faithful to the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, committed to dignity, honesty, courtesy, integrity in government, and at least a token commitment to the values preached by Jesus Christ, versus the modern generation of reality-TV, win-at-any-cost, screw tradition, and utterly amoral...

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians. — Tzeentch

The subject-object relationship is a fact of life, even in simple life-forms. — Wayfarer

Were you aware that Cronenberg made a film adaptation of the book? I wasn't aware that it even was a book — Moliere

But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis ¹. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object.

This isn't funny. — baker

Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac

But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
— Mikie

Some more dogmatic claims. — neomac

it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac

By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac

I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac

- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac

And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac

“Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so” is not a non sequitur. — neomac

“Intellectualizing”? Dude, maybe you are not familiar with the nuances of propositional logic 101 — neomac

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington — Mikie

You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac

If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake[/b].
— Mikie

Why mistaken?! — neomac

USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac

The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac

I rely more on geopolitical analysts — neomac

Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint. — Agree-to-Disagree

The very short counterargument is that individual acts of thrift and abstinence won’t get us the huge distance we need to go in this decade. We need to exit the age of fossil fuels, reinvent our energy landscape, rethink how we do almost everything. We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.

But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

The main reason to defeat the fossil fuel corporations is that their product is destroying the planet, but their insidious propaganda, from spreading climate-change denial to pushing this climate footprint business, makes this goal even more worthwhile.

If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem. — Agree-to-Disagree

“Non sequitur” is a Latin expression not English — neomac

everyone with a functioning brain, including Russia, are aware that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO” is about Ukraine and Georgia’s perceived historical threats coming from Russia. — neomac

but because Brzenzinski was an actual prominent national security advisor of American administrations, — neomac

By analogy, if YOU want to sensibly claim it’s US/West/NATO’s fault to provoke Putin because he perceives Ukraine joining NATO as a security threat, then YOU (not the Russians) have to provide strong reasons to support such threat perception. — neomac

What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference? — Mikie

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington
— Mikie
.
To assess if your fears are rational, you have to be at least able to reconstruct the reasons of your fears. — neomac

And again you don't know what that means — Mikie

And again you don't know what “non sequitur” means — neomac

(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake. — Mikie

I'll make it clearer how embarrassingly poor your reasoning is from a logic point of view, step by step. Ready? — neomac

In the second case, the propositional logic form of your comment is something like: “p ⊢ q” or “q (syntactically) derives from p”. In other words, from the premise p one can syntactically derive q by applying transformation rules governing logic propositional operators. — neomac

So, in propositional logic, your argument would be definitely false (q doesn’t follow from p, non sequitur). — neomac

too ignorant about logic to understand how logically confused your claim is. — neomac

To which I have asked how do you know that. I am glad now that you do admit that you cannot know that. — Jabberwock

NATO was the most convenient pretext this time for increasing the ongoing hostilities. But as we know from the Russian invasion of Crimea, any other pretext will do. — Jabberwock

Let me sum them up: you carefully ignore the fact that Russians got hostile at Ukraine in 2004, then in 2008 NATO supposedly provokes Russia, but Russia does nothing but protest (even though provoking Russia with NATO expansion supposedly causes wars - if it was worth the war then would be the time!), then Russia takes a break from being threatened and provoked by NATO expansion, invades Ukraine for related but distinctly different reasons (without even mentioning NATO expansion!), then goes back to being threatened by NATO expansion and invades again in 2022.

If that summary somehow misrepresents your views, please correct me. — Jabberwock

President Yanukovych was elected earlier this year, vowing to end Ukraine's Nato membership ambitions and mend relations with Russia. — BBC

As I understand, from your suggestion that I read about his position, you have a citation where Yanukovych says something completely opposite? Can you provide it? — Jabberwock

Was there a Russian invasion of Ukraine prior to the NATO provocation of 2008? — Mikie

Was there a war after the 2008 provocation? Because if the war in 2022 is the reaction to 2008 provocation, then it must be... how you put it? Oh, yes: 'Quite a delayed reaction'. — Jabberwock

If Russia invaded Ukraine in 2005, my position would be wrong.
— Mikie

Well, by that logic, given that Russia did not invade Ukraine right after 2008, your position is also wrong. — Jabberwock

I care about Putin's pretexts of post-USSR conflicts (because there were many) about as much as I care about Bush's pretexts of Iraq's second invasion. In today's world attacking other countries without casus belli is frowned upon, so they always try to come up with something. — Jabberwock

What you, in my opinion, fail to see is that the conflict runs much deeper and NATO expansion is just one of the points, not decisive one. The underlying issue is that Putin is no longer willing (or cannot afford) to allow losing Russian influence in the former republics, even against the will of their populations. — Jabberwock

So when BBC wrote that Ukraine 'effectively rejects any ambition to join Nato', they were completely wrong. I see. — Jabberwock

Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint — Agree-to-Disagree

I'm pretty sure those attacking it have no idea what it is or much appreciation of academic thought in general as they seem incapable of formulating a coherent argument that might discredit it. — Baden

long before any talks of NATO resurfaced again — Jabberwock

you are supposed to argue to support your claim: that there would be no war without the talk of NATO expansion. — Jabberwock

if you think the 2014 invasion and and the 2022 are unrelated then it is just bizarre — Jabberwock

not 2014, which is related but not the same. — Mikie

These are not two different wars, these are just the stages of the same conflict. — Jabberwock

No, it did not start at the Bucharest summit, which you yourself have acknowledged, citing as one of the causes the Orange Revolution, which happened in 2004. — Jabberwock

And how exactly I have 'ignored' the ouster of Yanukovych, given that I have cited the Euromaidan as the reason — Jabberwock

And no, Yanukovych's stand was not regarding NATO, it was about the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. I understand you do not make huge distinctions, but you are aware that the EU and the US are not the same? — Jabberwock

So yes, you still need that argument that Russia would not invade Ukraine again if not for NATO. — Jabberwock

It has invaded Crimea, then it supported an armed rebellion on the territory of Ukraine for eight years (which you are seemingly unaware of) and then moved to open hostilities again. — Jabberwock

So clearly I have referred to your own quote about Crimea. — Jabberwock

Yes, you do have to, because it is your claim that without NATO expansion the war would NOT happen. — Jabberwock

That the cause was NATO is just your assertion, which is seriously undermined by the facts: the hostile attitude toward Ukraine started at least after the Orange Revolution, not after 2008 as your claim, — Jabberwock

But military doesn't make it a product for the civilian market. — ssu

If (and when) you have a lot of entrepreneurship, these people won't be for trade unions. — ssu

Anne Case and Angus Deaton, the Princeton University economists who pioneered the study of deaths of despair, tell me that one factor in the rise of such deaths has been the decline of unions and the related loss of good working-class jobs.

Like many educated professionals, I used to regard labor unions warily. They insisted on rigid work rules, impeded technological modernization, suffered corruption scandals (which have dogged the U.A.W.) and sometimes engaged in racial and gender discrimination. They periodically manipulated overtime hours and leveraged the threat of disruption to rake in staggering sums.

In 2019 two Oakland, Calif., police officers “earned” more than $600,000 in pay and benefits, through absurd amounts of overtime; meanwhile, full-time dockworkers on the West Coast reportedly earn more, on average, than many lawyers or dentists in America, and dock foremen average more pay than physicians.

Yet executive pay seems even more scandalous, and I shed my disdain for unions as I reported on the crisis in America’s working class over the past 15 years. Having lost too many working-class friends to substance use and related pathologies and having witnessed the consequent crumbling of families and communities, I’ve come to believe that unions are good not only for individual workers but also for America itself.

But I don't have faith that humans will achieve what they hope for. — Agree-to-Disagree

lol I had to click through 2 warnings about how harmful that song is to see what it was. — Moliere