Any insights on how the Italian and French diplomatic corps are looking at things? They're usually well informed and more independent thinkers than the British or Dutch.

Why don't you expound a bit on under which circumstances you see another party suffer more?

I can imagine nukes but I'd rather not. What other developments and circumstances do you think will viably lead to Ukraine having been shafted royally but where it will actually be another country who's bleeding out of its anus? Figuratively speaking of course.

You are of course right that no one can possibly win this war. The question now is more about who will lose the most, who will be crippled the longest. — Olivier5

By any measure that will always be the Ukrainians.

:cry:

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

same article :

His comments caused a stir, and the Ukrainian government quickly sought to clarify the matter. The spokesman for Ukraine’s foreign ministry, Oleh Nikolenko, tweeted that Mr. Prystaiko’s comments had been reported out of context. “Ukraine’s position remains unchanged,” he said. “The goal of NATO membership is enshrined in the constitution.”

And he didn't state no hope of joining but he would consider letting the plan go if it would avoid war.

In any case, Zelensky's statement can't set aside the constitution or change established NATO policy.

before getting into the substance of that, why don't you share a source?

following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority.On 21 February 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, the norms on the strategic course of Ukraine for membership in the European Union and NATO are enshrined in the preamble of the Basic Law, three articles and transitional provisions. — Wiki

At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference. — Wiki

Scholz was in damage control mode on 22 Feb, because on 14 Feb he said all countries have the right to choose their alliances freely, and the principle is not negotiable. That pissed off the Finnish.

Bombing cities lead -- I think -- to more deaths than cheerleading, so by your own yardstick it is morally far more disgusting to bomb civilians than to cheerlead anyone. And I agree with you! — Olivier5

I don't think this was the issue to begin with. But even so when people are manufacturing consent that we should support the Ukrainians no matter what, it makes people unreceptive to a more quantitative analysis in this regard. Just look how many pages it took to find some semblance of agreement when in fact the differences of opinion between posters here are minimal.

Ok, but the rules say an armed breach of sovereignty is a crime of aggression. So sometimes not helping the victim is morally right because the victim doesn't deserve our support (because he's a homicidal dictator). But there's still a crime. So what the point is, is that the qualification that something is a crime is not sufficient to decide whether the victim ought to be helped or not.

One measure is the moral quality of the victim for you. Fine. I can go along with that on case-by-case basis as sometimes this might not be all that clear (it was with Saddam).

It's been suggested here that another measure could be: what course of action leads to the least number of death. Now, this requires you to step in my shoes for a moment. I believe Crimea and this Ukraine war are highpoints in a proxy war the US and Russia have been fighting about Ukraine at least since 2004 (ssu put it even earlier). So what the US and Russia have been doing to each other using Ukraine to establish influence in the country in favour of one or the other has culminated in territory loss in 2014 and a war now.

You don't have to agree, just understand that that's my understanding of the context. Given that then the Ukrainians are victims of a larger power struggle and I would like to see the quickest, least deadly resolution to the conflict ensuring both the US and Russia will leave it alone. Does sending armaments make this more likely? Under some assumptions it does but it will drag out the war and will lead to more Ukrainian (and Russian) casualties but maybe those casualties are worth a better negotiation position against Russia. Under other assumptions it's worse, it just leads to more death and no better result in the long run. If the latter is the case then sending armaments is the wrong thing to do. That's not to say it's clear at this point what the right decision is but it's entirely possible sending armaments will result in a lot more death (especially since the Russians have no problems bombing civilians) without any meaningful gain in any area.

It's under such circumstances supporting Ukraine by sending weapons would be morally wrong because it only leads to more innocent people dying (and I would actually argue that even soldiers are innocent in this, because they just get send by the guys making the decisions. Well, it's a bit more nuanced when we're talking about war crimes but soldiers dying is as lamentable as civilians - they're human beings too).

I don't see how moral questions can be considered trivial or stupid questions on a philosophy forum. They are important, perhaps not politically but humanely. You don't want to ruin your soul for Putin. — Olivier5

But there is no moral question. We agree Putin is morally wrong and his war is illegal. We disagree about the role of the US. What is stupid is asking me to qualify Putin or the US as being better than the other. Criciticism of the US and NATO is in no way, shape or form excuse Putin's moral responsibility in this. A murderer can't excuse himself by saying another person is a murderer too.

I think your "popularity" questions are stupid. You as a person not so much, I've seen you post in other threads.

It's not a hard question. Who's morally superior the murderer or the rapist? The liar or the glutton? Are you getting the picture how stupid your "who's the better man?" question is?

There's nothing unclear about it. The Iraq war was a crime of aggression. If you can't figure out any circumstances where helping a nation defende itself against aggression, then obviously it follows that supporting Saddam Hussein was the moral thing to do. Yet you just stated it wasn't. So here's already a circumstance where you think it's not the right thing to do, to support a victim of aggression.

So we have a real life example where you can think of a circumstance supporting a nation against aggression is not right. So you're not being able to figure out other circumstances just appear to a failure to think.

Who's morally superior the fiend or the demon?

So you don't care about sovereignty and the crime of aggression is only aggression when you've established the victim of the crime doesn't deserve to be on the receiving end? Hey, I know, let's apply that to regular criminal law too. So if I murder a rapist, that's totally fine, because he had it coming!

That's a double standard. Either it's rule-based or it's not. If it isn't then Putin didn't commit any crime.

I think we'll always have poor people but if being poor still means you have dignity in your work (toilet breaks Mr Besos and other oligarchs!), get paid enough (minimum wage and corrections for inflation politicians!) to support a family on your own and live debt free and not one health bill away from losing it all (public healthcare), then being poor is acceptable I suppose.

Okay, so Putin is morally superior — Olivier5

If you have a fiend and a demon and the demon is worse than the fiend, should you conclude the fiend is morally superior to the demon?

I just can't figure out any circumstances where helping a nation defend herself against aggression would be morally worse than said aggression. If you think it is possible, do explain how. — Olivier5

So arming Saddam Hussein in support in his war against the US in the 2003 Iraq War was morally totally the right thing to do?

Similarly goes the civilian casualty figures. That happens when you fire rocket & artillery barrages at urban areas. And when you're out of wooden caskets, that tells something. — ssu

I was personally hopeful, once the war started, that this was going to be a slam dunk for Russia, not because I want them to win or think their cause is just but because I was hoping the civilians casualties would stay low that way. History has shown how little regard Putin has for civilians.

That's correct. — Olivier5

Why not?

You are confusing your own bad faith with sophistication. — Olivier5

I happen to think you say really stupid things at times. This is another one. You're very concerned with manners and sophistication and then turn around and accuse people of bad faith or of being liars. Very consistent of you.

I'm not asking him, I'm asking you. Under what circumstances would it be true that sending arms is worse? Or do you believe those circumstances don't exist?

And has he said it's worse or has he said it would make the situation worse, e.g. it doesn't help Ukrainians to send arms or to reach a negotiated settlement? Or do you disagree that a negotiated settlement is the best way out of the war?

See, after 100+ pages all I get from you is Putin is bad, NATO is good, which you haven't shown to be true. When people point out all the bad things done by NATO or its members in the recent past, we get the popularity contest question: Who do you like better? That's not an argument though and I've called out that particular stupidity 50 pages ago. (As I'm writing this, you've just accused one poster of lying and another of writing meaningless text without any amount of argument). It seems all you're here for is insisting that there's only one way to look at the world and that's your way, everybody else is a liar or delusional. That's not how it works.

Me, Isaac and Boethius distrust NATO (or more specifically, the USA as the main policy driver) almost as much as Putin. The only reason I trust USA in the are of war is because my country is a member ofNATO but that means nothing for any party outside of NATO. So our view is that NATO is bad, Putin slightly worse in this particular instance and limited to international relations, which is what we appear to be concerned with in this thread.

You can disagree but neither is Isaac a liar nor is Boethius writing meaningless posts. You are confusing your disagreement (and personal investment in your particular view) with bad faith on the part of others.

He said that sending arms to Ukraine is more disgusting than bombing Ukraine. Literally. — Olivier5

And under which circumstances/assumptions would that be true?

I haven't read everything. I was under the impression boethius, Isaac and ssu were cordial until the last few pages and then I'm just reading things I'm not used to from ssu.

No, you disagree with him what the best way to help the Ukrainians is. If the goal is to minimise causalties, he questions the wisdom of sending arms.

And any closer to a solution?

I do think block chain offers an interesting opportunity to track equity ownership that could be utilised to manage stakeholder equity in an efficient manner. I'm working on an idea where I try to combine that with a dynamic equity system. I used that in a startup and it avoided a lot of discussions and problems most startups have to deal with normally.

If the government sets it up and it offers a tax break (since redistribution is build into the system) it might actually just work within the existing system.

Not to learn something new or think issues from another point of view. — ssu

I find it funny how you pretend the other side isn't listening. Nobody has disagreed with what Putin has done is morally wrong and that the Ukrainians should be helped as much as possible. But if it's then argued sending weapons might not be the best choice for everybody involved or that the causes of the war are more complex involving a lot of shit from NATO and the USA that multiple people have warned about for decades to not to do, then there's simply condemnation and we get the stupid popularity contest questions again about who is supposedly worst? Or people whining about word choice because "mind your manners" is just another method of repression.

You have time and again been heard because nothing Putin has done is justifiable but you have certainly not listened to the other side. Neither I nor Isaac and Boethius are in this thread to bash NATO and the USA, but I do firmly believe in holding those to account that influenced these circumstances for the worst. That's not bashing, that's an attempt at putting the analysis in a broader context.

And I know you can do better so I think that this means you're truly worried about an escalation including Finland. I'm sorry if that's the case but I'm quite frankly a bit surprised that the real politik interpretation is one so difficult to accept for you. As a war/history buff that's what's it's always been, no?

I signed on for room and board for Ukrainians because my wife and daughter wanted to and am now left wondering why they never wanted to do that for Syrians. Meanwhile, Ukrainian refugees of colour are being discriminated against. What a surprise!

If anybody has an inability to read it's the two of you.

Boethius: "Valid criticism of the USA and NATO"

You: you're a "war cheerleader".

Maybe find a log cabin so the two of you can keep jerking either off.

Understood and understandable.

The article is about 'a problem like Putin' with a focus on his war.
We are concerned because of the wider repercussions and implications.
That includes our own countries.
Putin presents the biggest and most present danger not only to Ukraine... — Amity

Yes, sorry for not staying too much on topic. I guess the intricacies of these issues push me into abstractions even further without a clear way to get there.

I'm less concerned with fixing Russia before my own country and the EU are fixed. I think an intermediary step that is getting traction more widely is a stakeholder capitalism. If we must have a tweak, at least let's have that.

I think more economic and tax justice in our own countries will mean they are less prone to abuse by foreign oligarchs as well. An unintended consequence could be that foreign directive investment in countries where people already have it worse, will increase and they will be even worse off as the money allows the corrupt to stay in power.

Thanks. So territory seems the main issue. I think the southern strip of land also means Ukraine no longer has access to the sea.

Just that first one would not only diminish the likelihood of Putin staying in power but also other autocrats rising to power and greatly affect our own oligarchs like Besos, Zuckerberg, Musk, Gates etc. and all the corporate and political leeches benefiting from this system. The salient point in that essay for me was :

declarations that we are turning it off – that, as Boris Johnson put it, “there is no place for dirty money in the UK” – are laughable. A few names on sanctions lists and some loophole-ridden reforms to economic crime laws not backed by budgets to enforce them are close to meaningless while we still permit financial secrecy. — Tom Burgis

In a nutshell, declare "action taken", general population applauds, no extra money or effort just a few letters added to laws we don't really enforce, no change.

If we want to be serious about change, the change needs to be fundamental, which means more, better and more effective democracy, not just political but especially economical.

This is further complicated by hero worship having shifted to business men. We look to oligarchs for answers in fields they don't know anything about.

I think fundamentally a system that reduces everything into monetary value and measures effectiveness in what's cheapest, just doesn't capture what's essential at all. Not fucking up the environment means local produce instead of fish caught in Norway, frozen, shipped to China, defrosted, chopped into pieces, frozen again and sold in Europe six months later. But this happens because it's cheap, resulting in crappy tasteless fish everywhere and gallons upon gallons of gasoline spend to move things about. Economists assure me this is efficient; I call bullshit. I would think having a one day old fish on my plate that was never frozen is efficient.

So we need political, cultural and economic change and these changes need to be fundamental. The incremental or technocratic tweaking of liberals and democratic socialists is never going to be good enough.

NATO, EU, US, Russia, China, ..., what about the Ukrainians? They're the ones getting bombed, not NATO, EU, US, China, or Russia; rather, the bombing + invasion is on Russia's hands.
Putin demanded they don't become a NATO member, which they've come to terms with (big sigh on their behalf goes here :smile:). — jorndoe

I agree that Russia seems to be unnecessarily stalling based on what is public. I suspect, but can't be certain, that the proposed interim government is giving issues, and how soon and by what means they can be gotten rid of. Ukrainians want to be a mature democracy but aren't there yet and whatever happens in this area will set them back on that path. Then there's also issues of territory. The fact the Russians asked the Ukrainian soldiers in Marioupol to stand down, seems to hint towards their endgame.

I also wonder if such an order could even be effective because the relation between Dmytro Korchynsky and the government in Kiev is unknown to me. Based on what I've read in the past, he might not listen to Kiev whatever happens and his men are fighting in Mariupol.

NATO doesn't expand. Nations voluntarily join or they don't, and there are requirements for joining that must be met. I'd consider the Crimea event or the current invasion an expansion. — Hanover

Either you're unaware how the expansion happened or you're playing a semantic game. Which is it? Are you just taking issue with the word expand?

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda? — baker

History is full of it.

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others. — baker

Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.

Ah, the noble savages argument. — baker

No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology. — baker

I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid? — baker

Indeed why? Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.

What is lacking is that Putin would be saying that we are an artificial country, so I guess that's promising. — ssu

I guess what's promising is your membership in the EU.

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. — Article 42(7) TFEU

Benkei. That is exactly what I meant. Basically it's the Nuland Pyatt taped phone discussion and then saying that this is improper thing to do. And nothing else.

So where's the evidence that the US created the EuroMaidan protests, manufactured the students on to the streets? Or similar issues?

When you say that "the US overthrew the Ukrainian government", there really has to be that the US has been the major cause of the overthrow and without it, the coup wouldn't have happened. What in that article is said is in no way something like Operation Ajax which really was a US & British funded overthrow of a democratically elected government. — ssu

That's a matter of definitions I guess. I'll rephrase to “inappropriately and illegally affected the internal politics of a sovereign nation". You know the exact same shit those powers did across the world during the cold War? Also, to be complete it must be noted Russia was playing the same games at the time. Point being, the war about Ukraine was being fought by Russia and the US since probably 2004.

Just check how close the Finnish border is from St Petersburg and Moscow. — ssu

I live in Europe man, I know my geography. Finland and Sweden were never part of the former Warsaw pact, the stated sphere of influence for decades doesn't include them.

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing. — baker

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think.

I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not. — baker

There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them. The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil". — baker

Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!" — baker

How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence. So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy

Here's a summary.

Does anyone live under the illusion that Russia was not going to eventually invade Ukraine regardless of NATO expansion into other nations? Are we to believe that Russia really thought a NATO protected Ukraine might one day invade Russia despite the Russian nuclear arsenal and so this defensive move became necessary now? — Hanover

For this to work, you have to show it's reasonably possible for Russia to effectively occupy Ukraine. I don't think this is the case. Maybe Eastern Ukraine but then if Mearsheimer and Kissinger are to be believed only true neutrality would've seen them survive as independent countries.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 and has an outsized influence on NATO and a proxy war between Russia and NATO/USA may have been going on since then?

It's very easy to think trust in your own country is the most natural thing in the world and those who don't are just delusional but to make sense of this, you do need to look at it from a different perspective.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

Piffle. This isn't some democracy vs. autocracy battle. But nice example of US propaganda I suppose, let's pretend it's about ideals when we all know another game is being played. There's a reason NATO chose the expansion in certain countries and that reason isn't benign.

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move".

Will it help to tackle NATO enlargement? Sweden and Finland will now very likely join NATO. What do you get with that land corridor between Crimea? There's already a bridge connecting Crimea. But all this, being the new economic North Korea is really worth it?

No. It's like Hitler declaring war at the US after Pearl Harbour. What was the point to do that? How did it benefit Germany? If even 6 months or a year would have passed before the US would have joined the European theatre, how important would have been for Nazi Germany? (Just an example, let's not go to that). — ssu

It's not as if there's an "objective" measure as to whether it was worth it. That you think it isn't, doesn't make it so. Depends a lot also on what the alternative is that the Russians were worried about. Finland and Sweden joining NATO aren't really an issue; former Warsaw Pact members sharing a border with Russia appear to be.

What you get with a land corridor is less vulnerability since bridges are rather easy to destroy and now you have different ways to get there instead of one. It also gives access to Moldova, which might receive the same treatment. Then there are Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

So if Russia is serious about its "sphere of influence" any move by NATO to include these countries will likely result in another war. Putin has shown to be prepared to do what he said he'd do. So if I were any of those countries I'd be very careful about military integration with NATO since all NATO members give are thoughts and prayers and discounts on weaponry and debt. Despie the negative consequences, most of which were predictable and therefore accounted for, to reach this goal only war was available when NATO refused to stop the overtures.So, yes, strategically sound (even if illegal).