Whom is he working for? A former Putin ally who has fallen out and has an axe to grind?
When this is all over we will have a clearer picture.

We have no problem telling people when faced with a mugger, 'just give them your wallet and walk away, don't be a hero'. Stakes are much higher here but it seems fine to us to risk escalation because of the underdog narrative or whatever.

Running with the analogy and directing this at those who think Ukraine should be encouraged to fight on: suppose we have a friend who is being robbed by a guy with a gun. We have a gun too, but we don't want to fight the other guy with a gun directly because... mutually assured destruction. Is it morally justifiable for us then to encourage our friend to fight, maybe by giving him a knife? I mean, sure, he might do some damage but the chances are he'll lose his wallet anyway and come off much worse than the better-armed aggressor (who has made it into his house and is now burning his furniture). Note too that even if he asks us for a knife, it doesn't mean we're 'taking away his agency' by refusing to give one to him. Maybe we just don't want him to get killed.

No. It's not their only option. How about starting with a) oil & gas embargo, b) migration crisis, c) naval blockade, d) whatever else. Having a panic attack like some about nukes in truth is the last option. — ssu

I mean only military option ... of which less Russian soldiers on the border would be relevant.

Though I agree chance of conventional war is low in Finland, Poland, Baltics ... it's unclear to me that increasing the chance of nuclear war in exchange, even slightly, is a positive outcome.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that.
— frank
But does Benkei feel the same way? — ssu

I don't know, but Joe Biden does. That's what matters.

Man it's always nice to read a Zizek take - he gives form to thoughts that I don't know how to put together well:

While the global liberal-capitalist order is obviously approaching a crisis at many levels, the war in Ukraine is being falsely and dangerously simplified. Global problems like climate change play no role in the hackneyed narrative of a clash between barbaric-totalitarian countries and the civilized, free West. And yet the new wars and great-power conflicts are also reactions to such problems.

...While we should stand firmly behind Ukraine, we must avoid the fascination with war that has clearly seized the imaginations of those who are pushing for an open confrontation with Russia. Something like a new non-aligned movement is needed, not in the sense that countries should be neutral in the ongoing war, but in the sense that we should question the entire notion of the “clash of civilizations.”

The new non-alignment must broaden the horizon by recognizing that our struggle should be global – and by counseling against Russophobia at all costs. We should offer our support to those within Russia who are protesting the invasion. They are not some abstract coterie of internationalists; they are the true Russian patriots – the people who truly love their country and have become deeply ashamed of it since February 24. There is no more morally repulsive and politically dangerous saying than, “My country, right or wrong.” Unfortunately, the first casualty of the Ukraine war has been universality.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/hot-peace-putins-war-as-clash-of-civilization-by-slavoj-zizek-2022-03

--

Incidentally, the injunction to not 'cheerlead' means precisely to not give into the insane demand that one either stands with "the West" or else is some kind of Putin supporter. A false choice made for morons without power, by morons with power.

We should offer our support to those within Russia who are protesting the invasion. They are not some abstract coterie of internationalists; they are the true Russian patriots – the people who truly love their country and have become deeply ashamed of it since February 24

Besides, they are the ones that can change Russia.

Stakes are much higher here but it seems fine to us to risk escalation because of the underdog narrative or whatever. — Baden

To be fair, Rocky's epic duel with Ivan Drago is both a cinematic master piece and "feels" how reality actually works by divine scriptwriter intervention.

Ivan Draggo had overwhelming advantage. Russia has overwhelming advantage.

Rocky had heart. Ukraine has heart.

Ivan Draggo lost anyways. Russia will therefore lose anyways.

It's honestly difficult to argue with.

Same reason everyone was rooting for the Taliban all these years, and now super happy they "defended their country" and defeated the more powerful military and have returned to power to defend their nation and culture, such as barring girls over 11 from going to school.

do explain who cheerleads whom where, with quotes. Or just drop the accusation. — Olivier5

Sure. The first time I mentioned the word was in response to...

The leader of one of the largest countries in the world has just used the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine as a justification for war. If the best we can come up with by way of response is "shhh..." then we've lost all credibility as rational commentators. — Isaac


Rest assured that these allegations by a country waging war on its neighbour have been addressed here by rational commentators. Neonazis are not a significant factor in today's Ukraine. They are a more significant problem in the US or Russia in fact. — Olivier5

We were talking about Russia's rhetorical use of the Neo-Nazi issue and the most diplomatically strategic response, you blustered in with the tribal chant "there's no Neo-Nazis in Ukraine anymore!" completely ignoring both the context and the purpose of the discussion.

That - I stand by - is 'cheerleading'. Mindlessly chanting mantras supporting one side of a conflict without any relevance to the actual issue at hand.

The second time it was mentioned, in passing, was...

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


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

Here, you seemed not to disagree with the description at all, but merely the moral weighing.

Incidentally - on the subject of quoting, I note above a request for the use of a quote from you to clarify an accusation. A request you have yet to reply to.

And there's

Note that Isaac, StreetlightX and others are constantly contradicting themselves — Olivier5

Has the quote function broken? There seems to have been a flurry recently of posts referring to what I'm apparently saying without making use of it. — Isaac

If you're not prepared to accede to my requests from a fortnight back, I don't see why I'd be expected to trawl through to carry out yours.

...or just drop the accusation

Yeah, I was trying to convey to @Wayfarer earlier this very idea that propaganda is not just lies, but (more so, in my opinion) distraction, misdirection. I fear the point was lost.

I’m wondering if we should not think of 40M Ukrainians to be some kind of homogenised entity, all the more it’s true for ~8 billion of currently living people that constitute (still in small part) humanity at large, what makes you think we are even capable to decide what it is in the best interests of humanity at large?! — neomac

Nothing. Yet that is a necessary task (unless you advise we just guess). It is not a necessary task for us to assume a single goal for all Ukrainians, there's no unit of agency there.

I think this is a frequently recurring issue here - people are drawn into the empire narrative, as if 'Ukrainians' had an objective that was opposed to that of 'Russians'. It's that very narrative that got us into this mess.

mainly for the following reasons — neomac

You seem to have listed only one (albeit behemothic) sentence. Does it contain more than one reason? I can barely decipher it, but I gather you're taking issue with the use of evidence? Perhaps you could be a little more clear?

:up:
I agree that change, as difficult as it will be, has to come from within, with support.
Views of protestors from inside Russia.
Posted in the Shoutbox.

29dys ago, from @jamalrob:

I posted this in the Ukraine discussion but it's now lost in the propaganda war that's going on there, so I'll post it here, just because I think it's good to see this reaction to the invasion from inside Russia.

Russian Celebrities, Public Figures Speak Out Against Ukraine War

(The Moscow Times is an independent Moscow-based English language newspaper that's often highly critical of the regime)
— jamalrob

***

An update from me 25/03/2022:
Likewise posting this here instead of the lengthy Ukraine Crisis discussion.
It's good to see increasing Russian voices speak out in this way. Dangerous to them, no doubt.

Russian activists sign open letter calling for end to war in Ukraine
Campaigners write manifesto in broadest anti-war statement by Russian human rights community
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/russian-activists-sign-open-letter-calling-for-end-to-war-in-ukraine

“Russian citizens are being involved in military operations on the territory of Ukraine, where they become accomplices in war crimes and die themselves,” a draft statement says. “Our first goal is to help them avoid this, relying on the constitution and Russian legislation, and to assist all those who are illegally forced to participate in hostilities.”

The activists’ second goal is to provide legal assistance to the families of Russian military personnel who “find themselves in an information vacuum”.

“There is no official updated information about the dead, about the transfer of bodies to families, about prisoners, about their release or exchange,” the letter says. “It is difficult or impossible for relatives to find out what has become of their sons and husbands, or to get the bodies of the dead.”
----

In the letter the activists write that the war in Ukraine was a consequence of a culture of impunity for human rights.

“The war that has broken out in the centre of Europe is a consequence and continuation of Russia’s long-term refusal to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens and all those under its jurisdiction – once again recalled the unlearned lesson of the second world war: a state that grossly and massively violates human rights within its borders sooner or later becomes a threat to peace and international security,” the letter says.

“The lack of a proper reaction of the international community to these processes during the post-Soviet decades also contributed to the tragic development of events.”

It makes a change from 'mad' and 'idiotic', but it's not an improvement. When I was in primary school the insult of choice was 'spastic'. Ah, the good old days. — unenlightened

Halcyon days indeed! We could insult whichever mental condition we liked - what fun we had.

Fortunately for my tattered reputation, I used a lower case 'n' in narcissism (phew!), so I'm saved the pearl-clutching. It is, after all, a word simply to describe a person's non-pathological obsession with their own grandeur as well as the English for DSM-5 301.81

If Putin uses nukes, we shouldn't do anything. — Benkei

Letting then Russian tanks to the streets of Netherlands is doing a lot, not doing anything, actually.

Let's take the kindergarten morality out of hese equations please for fuck's sake I'm begging everyone before you cause the death of my children. — Benkei

Talk of an overreaction. Weren't you born during the Cold War? Seems you have been blissfully ignorant about nuclear deterrence or how it works.

Yeah, there's been some weird moral arguments raised as truisms which I thought had been put to bed long ago. This idea that we should support the weaker party by encouraging them to fight, as you say, seems incongruent.

The other is "we can't negotiate with Putin because he's a (war) criminal". Odd, because we negotiate with terrorists and hostile nations all the time, even war criminals (for example Prime Minister's Questions during Tony Blair's incumbency - [/satire]).

Also, a new one, is that democratically elected leaders must automatically be right (if Zelensky asks for military aid he must know best). I mean, we're currently governed by a philandering clown, I'd prefer we didn't start to normalise the idea that he automatically knows what's best for us.

And finally, the most worrying of all, the transition of holding authority to account from a moral duty of a citizen to a suspicious act of mental instability, a slippage into 'conspiracy theory'...

We were talking about Russia's rhetorical use of the Neo-Nazi issue and the most diplomatically strategic response, you blustered in with the tribal chant "there's no Neo-Nazis in Ukraine anymore!" completely ignoring both the context and the purpose of the discussion.

That - I stand by - is 'cheerleading'. Mindlessly chanting mantras supporting one side of a conflict without any relevance to the actual issue at hand. — Isaac

But that's not all what was said in this discussion. Important points were made re. Mr Putin's own closeness to neonazis, re. the marginal representation in parliament of Ukrainian neonazis, or about the obscene absurdity that bombing nations out of the blue would be a legitimate way to free them from neonazis.

This neonazi accusation is one of Mr Putin's justifications for war, as you pointed out. 'Cheerleading' would be to relay it uncritically. That would be 'Mindlessly chanting mantras supporting one side of a conflict'. We have not done that here; we have discussed this issue in some depth and have critiqued the claim made.

Have you? Did you read those points and address them?

I agree that change, as difficult as it will be, has to come from within, with support.
Views of protestors from inside Russia.
Posted in the Shoutbox. — Amity

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. If people here can safely go and protest the actions of the US and the West when the West has started wars with imperial ambitions (like the invasion of Iraq), you would think they would support those doing that in other countries where it's dangerous to do that and oppose similar wars of conquest.

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

The unfolding war in Ukraine has taken a backseat to petty point-scoring arguments by some.

A war of words on TPF is nothing new but this latest round has taken it to another level.

This neonazi accusation is one of Putin's justifications for war, as you pointed out. 'Cheerleading' would be to relay it uncritically. — Olivier5

What I think should be considered cheerleading was enthusiastically promoting the idea "Russia invading Ukraine has no truth to it and is only American media hype" or the idea that the US sponsors bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Or trying to argue (several times, actually) that Vladimir Putin isn't a dictator.

That kind of cheerleading has been seen in this thread. By various different people, I should add.

The unfolding war in Ukraine has taken a backseat to petty point-scoring arguments by some.

A war of words on TPF is nothing new but this latest round has taken it to another level. — Amity

In truth people were far more angry about police brutality in the US (George Floyd et al), but then it wasn't as divided.

Perhaps Ukraine is so far away...

What I think should be considered cheerleading was enthusiastically promoting the idea "Russia invading Ukraine has no truth to it and is only American media hype" or the idea that the US sponsor bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Or trying to argue (several times, actually) that Vladimir Putin isn't a dictator. — ssu

Yes, there's been that too. It's been a rich debate, let's put it this way.

Talk of an overreaction. Weren't you born during the Cold War? Seems you have been blissfully ignorant about nuclear deterrence or how it works. — ssu

I see you have no argument against my argument other than "this is how we've been doing it for decades!" Pretty cool of you to assume ignorance instead ofengaging my argument that clearly disagrees with nuclear deterrence as an acceptable policy.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

They'd probably tell Putin he has to give up all nuclear materials or face attack. He wouldn't give them up, and Russia would be attacked. It would be fucking horrendous, illogical as it may be.

Worth wile to see. — ssu

thanks for sharing this video, it was very instructive!

Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins.
— unenlightened

The problem is this is simply not true. — boethius

It's not quite true; the winners will be those far away and not involved - China and the US maybe, and S. America and Australia. But Russia can gain all their objectives and still lose. Lose a generation of young men, trade with the world, the intangible 'social capital' that they are already very short of, and of course military materiel and reputation. Kind of like the UK won a couple of wars last century, and lost an empire.

I don't disagree if you're talking about non-military things. For sure, war and sanctions isn't good for normal Russians.

But the competition is between states. Normal Americans and normal Chinese people don't benefit from the war either, but, certainly, neither normal Ukrainians.

Agreed, that China and US states (i.e the elites that run them) win in this war and EU loses. The insanity of committing to buy LNG gas from the US and build all that infrastructure ... even though the war will be long over, and normalising trade relations would be an immense diplomatic tool to actually end the war and bring peace (... never hear the EU saying that ... that peace would have benefits to everyone), and it's just using the war as an excuse to do the US's bidding.

However, even so, China's benefit is in anyways Russias benefit, as they are besties now.

US pivots towards China (this isn't viewed as a big warm hug by the Chinese), Russia comes to China and says the logical thing: "the US views you as their enemy, they talk about it all the time, they have no shame saying so, now they bring their ships and their planes and their submarines and their missiles to your shores, which are moves of war and not of peace--even though we Russians know you Chinese are a peaceful people and have never invaded us nor taken anything that wasn't rightfully yours--but war has come to you, even if neither of us want it we must accept that as a fact, and what I suggest, is that we are in fact in this together, and that this 'pivot' to threaten you, the US talks about, that it is simply the reasonable move in response, if we look on a map, to open a second front with the US, and force them to commit troops to defend in the West too: I can do this, bring American soldiers back to Europe, now that they leave the Middle East in fiery ruins, and, if you feel the same way, that we are in this together, then I will do this for you. For we Russians know the treachery of the Americans and have learned to deal with it, and we will take this heat in the West so you may have peace in the East."

Now, the US, indeed does benefit with harming their real competition (the EU) ... but can they say the same thing as the Russian state can: that they are also helping their allies in so doing?

And for those accusing me of being a Russian propagandist, simply seeing someone's point of view and what persuasive arguments they can make and reasonable strategic decisions they can make to advance their stated goals or defend themselves against a party that has no hesitation nor qualification in calling them the enemy, doesn't mean I agree with such arguments. If I was Putin, I'd go to Xi and say: "Have you heard of decentralised grass roots anarchism, pretty rich tradition, don't want to brag but Nordic style participatory creative education was actually an anarchist idea and first developed in anarchist schools, it's pretty cool actually, kids a lot happier and even more productive economically! who knew ... and, umm, and I have here a few brochures here I'm going to leave with you, ok just putting them under this gold paper weight, just take a look when you have a moment and think about it, my number's on the bottom there if you have any questions, and ... we're actually having a little anarcho-get-together in a few weeks at the Kremlin / new local community soup kitchen, feel welcome to come check it out, have a few drinks, maybe bring North Korea along--honestly, I feel they could actually really use a hot soup right now, and, you know, we're there for them."

Important points were made re. Mr Putin's own closeness to neonazis, re. the marginal representation in parliament of Ukrainian neonazis, or about the obscene absurdity that bombing nations out of the blue would be a legitimate way to free them from neonazis. — Olivier5

So? The argument was that you raised token mantras where they had no relevance in context. Their 'importance' is immaterial.

This neonazi accusation is one of Mr Putin's justifications for war, as you pointed out. 'Cheerleading' would be to relay it uncritically. — Olivier5

Indeed it would.

We have not done that here; we have discussed this issue in some depth and have critiqued the claim made.

Have you? — Olivier5

Why would I? As I said, I respond to the points made, that's what a discussion forum is for, it's not a fucking Facebook page for me to fill with my likes and dislikes. I haven't critiqued Putin's claims because no one here has posted supporting them. Why would I just blurt out random stuff I happen to think?

What I think should be considered cheerleading was enthusiastically promoting the idea "Russia invading Ukraine has no truth to it and is only American media hype" or the idea that the US sponsors bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Or trying to argue (several times, actually) that Vladimir Putin isn't a dictator.

That kind of cheerleading has been seen in this thread. By various different people, I should add. — ssu

I'm sure, given the newfound zealotry, @Olivier5 will join heartily in the calls for you to back up such accusations with quotes. Or does your insistence only apply to some and not others @Olivier5?

The argument was that you raised token mantras where they had no relevance in context. — Isaac

I did not. I tried to explain to you, that prior to your post, we already had a lengthy discussion on the matter in which the most reasonable posters among us concluded that the claim was an excuse to invade Ukraine rather than something serious.

The unfolding war in Ukraine has taken a backseat to petty point-scoring arguments by some. — Amity

If you don't understand the relevance of some of the points to the geopolitical situation, you can just ask.

Alternatively, if all you want is post after post emoting how bad things are in different ways then I suggest you try Facebook.

I tried to explain to you, that prior to your post, we already had a lengthy discussion on the matter in which the most reasonable posters among us concluded that the claim was an excuse to invade Ukraine rather than something serious. — Olivier5

Oh right, so just stupidity then. I can forgive that.

Oh right, so just stupidity then. I can forgive that. — Isaac

Mustn't you, to survive among the rest of us?