My work here is done. — frank

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty. — frank

@Benkei is simply trying to explain the obvious, which is that rights and decision making aren't the same thing.

It doesn't matter what Russia's and Ukraine's rights are ... if we can't enforce them.

The confusion between rights as a legal framework enforced by the state, and a moral concept applicable in all circumstances to focus on condemnation rather than decision making (and a framework of thinking that takes the state not only for granted but is the origination and precondition of "goodness" if "rights" are good and cannot exist without the state), is essentially the bane of liberalism.

Simply having a right to do something doesn't make it a good decision, nor good for society.

A right existing in some legal apparatus does not make it by definition moral.

Complaining about rights as a substitute to good decisions, is by definition a bad decision.

The harms caused by enforcing any given right may outweigh the benefits.

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty. — frank

Another person who can't read. I never said the first part.

The alternative moral and political framework to complaining about rights, is focusing on decision making.

The key word in this alternative perspective is "policy" which simply represents some political decision.

What is our policy vis-a-vis Ukraine? I.e. what decisions are available and what is the best decision?

Ukraine's rights don't matter if we don't have a policy to enforce those rights; it's just pointless babbling.

Indeed, by complaining about a right Ukraine has and not enforcing it, we are disrespecting Ukraine's rights just as much as the Russians.

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty.
— frank

Another person who can't read. I never said the first par — Benkei

Actually you did:

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia).
— Apollodorus

And a multitude of other cases
-ssu

Why do you disagree with this? I thought we already established the proxy war fought over the Ukraine since well before that? The strategic importance of Crimea and therefore the Black Sea seems obvious as well. Moscow being pincered by the baltic states and Ukraine in a sort of "C" around Belarus would be strategically worrying too. — Benkei

Actually you did: — frank

Obviously @Benkei can explain things again, however, to have a go at it, he does not say Russia has a right to invade Ukraine, merely pointing out the reasons for doing so.

However, if you want a rights based discussion, then it can be proposed Russia has a right to self defence, and the US is constantly threatening Russia and attacking and undermining it's defensive capacity since decades, funding bioweapons labs and Nazi's in Ukraine, and so Russia is preemptively striking Ukraine under the same right US had to preemptively strike Iraq over it's WMD's.

Now, let's say you successfully argue (at least to your own satisfaction) against the proposal Russia is acting in self defence: why would that matter? what changes?

Yes, I know you've dumped a lot of bullshit commentary in this thread. I stopped paying attention a long time ago - I just chanced on that delusional passage because it was quoted by someone else.

Sure, the evident military setbacks and losses are really all part of a cunning plan... I understand when it's Russian generals saying this - because what else could they say? - but it still boggles me why someone apparently disinterested would use such desperate arguments just to shore up his positions in a debate.

the US is constantly threatening Russia and attacking and undermining it's defensive capacity since decades, — boethius

The cold war is over. The US hasn't been particularly interested in Russia for decades.

It's China, guys. Climb into the present with the rest of us.

Ukraine mayor says Russian soldiers who kidnapped him knew nothing about his country — Olivier5

Ukraine mayor says? Which side do you think he is on, and how do you verify that? Russian soldiers, living in the country right next to Ukraine, training for possible SMOs, 'knew nothing about Ukraine?'

A country that voted for independence in 1991 is expected to welcome the presence of Russian troops attacking and blowing up their country with open arms?

I think something that needs repeating here is 'no-one is that stupid'.

The cold war is over. The US hasn't been particularly interested in Russia for decades. — frank

That's simply not true, the neo-con's and war hawks have constantly talked about preventing any regional "competitor" from emerging for decades, in which they have no problem explicitly citing Russia as an example. Arming Syrian "resistance" to push Syria into a failed state was a direct threat to Russia's military bases and port there.

US constantly blames Russia for cyber crimes ... simply because they blamed Russia for the previous cyber crimes. "Leaks" of banking and other information embarrassing to Russia. Supporting a violent anti-democratic coup in Ukraine that threatens directly Russian borders and their most important warm water port. The only reason Nord Stream 2 wasn't put online is due to US meddling (otherwise Germans want cheaper gas).

Now, you can say Russia is evil and therefore United States is right to treat it as an enemy all these years. However, it's in fact simply bizarre to say Russia is evil but United States has not been opposing this evil ... if United States is good.

However, my question was, assuming you win the argument about self defence, ok, what then?

Why does it matter? What decisions follow from being convinced Russia is not acting in self defence with a preemptive strike to avoid appeasing Nazis?

Point being, even if we all agreed Ukraine was acting in self defence and not Russia.

So what?

NATO could go send boots on the ground to enforce Ukraine's rights.

Ok, well, if we all agree NATO isn't and shouldn't do that ... what does that say about our respect for Ukrainian rights?

'no-one is that stupid'. — FreeEmotion

You'd be surprised.

what does that say about our respect for Ukrainian rights? — boethius

It says they have a right to defend themselves and we have the right to help them anyway we can.

Yes, I know you've dumped a lot of bullshit commentary in this thread. I stopped paying attention a long time ago - I just chanced on that delusional passage because it was quoted by someone else. — SophistiCat

How is predicting, 4 weeks ago, exactly what the Russians now do, bullshit?

It was obvious 4 weeks ago that they could just consolidate their land grab of a land bridge to Crimea (that they already achieved), destroy Azov, and declare core objectives achieved. With Ukraine now acknowledging not only will it never join NATO ... but Zelenskyy already asked and NATO said it would never be actually allowed to join, before the war! The biggest stated purpose for the war has been achieved as well.

Sure, you can disagree with Russia's moral justifications, and you can argue the cost outweighs the benefits to Russia (in direct military terms or then economic or political costs) ... but to argue they haven't achieved anything militarily and the Ukrainians have in some way "won" just doesn't make any sense.

And to be clear, I am not saying the military achievements are intrinsic justification or by definition worth it. I have repeated many time and made clear there has been serious costs, and I am completely willing to engage in a debate about whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

How this could have been prevented: Well let's imagine the President of the United States (whoever he is could be even Donald Duck for all I care, said something like this: would it have prevented war?

"Putin is a very smart man, so I said to him, look, this NATO thing okay so we promise never to admit Ukraine to NATO, happy? And another thing- this Donbass region and Lugansk thing... hey you are serious so we will send in UN peacekeepers. You have to agree to that. It is to stop genocide right, so ok we stop genocide"

" I also said that we were very concerned, I said very concerned about the way he has been acting lately so I said we are going to bolster Ukraine security starting with these things - long range SAMs, Artillery, attack helicopters, and those other things so in case you attack - but you wont' attack you are a smart man, so , cruise missiles, and another thing I said to him, we will have military drills inside Ukraine, you know, just in case, I mean who knows, If some crazy guy comes in if he is putin to power then he may do something crazy so we will be having military drills, the full thing, F-16s, F-35s , AWACS, so on. We will enter into an agreement to share satellite and targeting information with Ukraine, in case you attack but you won't do that you are a smart man, and so just to reassure Zelenskky his ratings are dropping like CNN so let's do this"

" I also spoke to Zelenskyy he is a smart man, an actor I understand, show business like me, so I say to him you are not NATO you will never be NATO so but lets pretend like we were kids we pretended, that you are exactly like a NATO country, the training, the command and control, all that, so just to make you feel secure and all that, Putin is a smart man, he would not attack under these circumstances, he just wants security they all do, look at North Korea, he wants security, that is why he is sending his rockets all over, and we can provide security we are the greatest nation with the greatest power and greatest military and greatest economy so we can do this."

it's going to become patently clear in the end who comes out on top — Baden

But back to philosophy. We have perspective. I'm assuming you're in your 40s perhaps 50s, no matter. Your "in the end" is limited to your lifetime, erm depending on your religious beliefs of course lol

Sure it becomes unrealistic, the idea that an incredibly small number of people can ever become a majority. But to assume what you "know" (what is "patently clear") when you close your eyes will be a constant absolute and someone else's reality (perhaps even you, again religion permitted) who opens their eyes in say fifty or a hundred of even a thousand years later is an affront to philosophy and the dynamic nature of reality itself.

Granted you're betting on a winning horse. Unfortunately, the pay outs are notoriously low. Ironic, perhaps.

It says they have a right to defend themselves and we have the right to help them anyway we can. — Olivier5

This is exactly the archetypical bane of liberalism I mention above.

For, if Ukrainians deciding to continue to fight "for their rights" rather than accept the minimal peace terms offered weeks ago (no-NATO, Dombas independence, recognition of Crimea), simply resulted in immense suffering for Ukrainians, degradation of their long term military capacity (and potential for self defence in the future), and short and long term economic damages (again, fundamental for self defense in the future) as well as loss of population that may not ever return in this scenario (but whom may have never left or then returned immediately if the war ended weeks ago) ... is this a good decision even for the purpose of self defence?

Likewise, if our "doing what we can" for Ukraine but not enough to provoke a dangerous escalation with Russia (i.e. not enough for Russia to be unable to achieve it's core objectives at acceptable losses)... how does this actually help Ukrainian self defence at all?

Furthermore, if the purpose of the arms shipments is not to actually help Ukraine defend it's "entire territory" (i.e. retake Crimea and Dombas) but, really, just to start a new profitable cold war and bleed Russia a bit (but not too much to avoid nuclear escalation), and also improve EU demographics with nice white immigrants that can be more easily assimilated ... is justifying this policy (i.e. the actual decision) under the pretence of rights also a right in itself for US and NATO to pursue their self interest?

the evident military setbacks — SophistiCat

I don't see why we should be expected to accommodate for your faux inability to tell the difference between what seems evident to you and what actually is evident.

Just because your limited assessment of a tiny proportion of the available data leads you to conclude what we're seeing is a series of setbacks, it doesn't mean that's actually the case.

You're sufficiently well versed in epistemology to tell the difference. Your failure to do so here is nothing but tribalism.

It was obvious 4 weeks ago that they could just consolidate their land grab of a land bridge to Crimea — boethius

I finally understand this land bridge thing. So there will have to be a border and a passage through the Eastern regions? Sounds risky, prone to guerilla attacks.

Also isn't the Euro-Russia-Ukraine econo/miltary block a real threat to American economic power? Self-sufficient in oil, gas, aircraft industries, all kinds of weapons, ballistic missiles, rockets to launch space payloads, friendly relations with Iran, Israel, maybe... sounds like a Eurodream. Maybe there is an article to back it up...

The American Dream Vs. the European Dream
Which dream will ensure a better future for all the world’s people?

By Jeremy Rifkin, August 18, 2005

Of this much I am relatively sure. The fledgling European Dream represents humanity's best aspirations for a better tomorrow. A new generation of Europeans carries the world's hopes with it.

https://www.theglobalist.com/the-american-dream-vs-the-european-dream/

Help is different than military aggression (or is it lol). If you want to be a soldier you join an army, wear a uniform, and lose your status as a civilian. All's fair they say...

Or become a secret agent. Those guys are cool. I'd become one myself but at the end of the day you'd be a fool to assume who's really calling the shots and what their true intentions advance.

Imagine if a meteor struck a country and their military was crippled. Everyone would be there to "help"... when push comes to shove I suppose.

Base human nature unrefined and untaught is little different than that of a worm or parasite. You take what you can when you can and try to not die. Perhaps invent a few barbarically inefficient things along the way to aid in said processes.

Weeee! :grimace:

Edit: Scientific cross-reference and proof of weeee provided per request.

if Ukrainians deciding to continue to fight "for their rights" rather than accept the minimal peace terms offered weeks ago (no-NATO, Dombas independence, recognition of Crimea), simply resulted in immense suffering for Ukrainians, — boethius

That's the shortsighted view of a slave.

Fighting back can be worthwhile on the long term, just to make sure your aggressor get the lesson and never ever tries again to attack you.

I finally understand this land bridge thing. So there will have to be a border and a passage through the Eastern regions? Sounds risky, prone to guerilla attacks. — FreeEmotion

I completely agree Russia has taken immense risks.

However, letting the situation fester (8 years of war in Dombas, eventual Ukrainian de facto, if not formal, integration into NATO; more and more advanced missiles they can just build themselves anyways, who knows what actual Nazi's will do etc.), so there are also risks (from their perspective) of not acting.

But for guerilla attacks on the land bridge (a relatively tiny region that can be passified, certainly easier than all of Ukraine), there was already a front all the way around the Dombas in addition to Ukrainian access to the Azov sea that could cause all sorts of military mischief to Russia.

So, if there's no peace settlement and it returns to years of opposing trench style WWI combat, Russia is now in a much better military position, with additional benefits from this war that includes possible peace. One big obstacle for peace was Azov.

There's no evidence Zelenskyy "liked" or "likes" Azov brigade. There's a story of him trying to go and reason with them and they threatened to kill him if he made peace with Russia. They are also on tape saying that if the Ukrainian military ever came to disarm them they would kill them all. So, removing Azov from the equation may make long term peace more, and not less, likely, even with a large acrimonious and destructive war ... that also allowed Russia's full military potential to intervene to degrade Ukrainians WWI trench warfare capacity, and send more than "volunteers" to help their Dombas friends.

Also isn't the Euro-Russia-Ukraine econo/miltary block a real threat to American economic power? — FreeEmotion

Yes, US is explicit in their policy (plenty of video of their "think tank" people discussing exactly this), that if ever Russia and EU were allowed to economically integrate this would be a threat to American hegemony.

The real threat to American power on the global stage is not China or Russia, but the EU.

Only the EU has both the economic clout and legal and cultural conditions to serve as a foundation and arbiter for world trade. Russia does not have the economic clout, and for cultural and legal reason, China can never play this roll (at least in its current configuration).

The EU, however, could serve as a foundation for world economic activity in a more peaceful way that actually solves problems (like environmental armageddon) with far higher mutual benefit to all parties involved. This is the US nightmare scenario and the reasons for treating Russia as an enemy to drive a wedge with the EU (and also reason for interfering in EU democratic processes since WWII).

The US "service" to the world is its military, therefore peace is the enemy.

To protect the world from itself, the world must remain at all costs a dangerous place.

That's the shortsighted view of a slave. — Olivier5

Maybe the human species evolved to have some of that? Fear of thwarting authority?

I think the attitude that you have to stand up for yourself has a slightly suicidal side to it:

"My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

"My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."

"Give me liberty, or give me death." — frank

I love the way a load of armchair-bound foreigners are invoking noble virtues of 'freedom' to explain their advocacy for someone else doing the fighting.

You know Ukraine are accepting volunteers don't you? If it's so noble, why aren't you and @Olivier5 on a plane already. I'll even lend you my rifle.

I'll even lend you my rifle. — Isaac

And my axe.

(Also just a loan; I expect it to be returned and not carelessly left somewhere in Mordor)

Not totally certain what it means yet. In practice, how would you go about establishing the fact that the Russians thought it would be a short and easy 'operation'?

but to argue they haven't achieved anything militarily and the Ukrainians have in some way "won" just doesn't make any sense. — boethius

You are projecting. I never asserted anything of the sort.

Russia has invaded Ukraine, it is fighting a war entirely on Ukrainian soil and holding some Ukrainian territory (which it wasn't already holding before the war). That is a military achievement, in a narrow sense. (What, in the long run, Russia is to gain from all this is another question.) But why, in arguing this obvious point (against whom?), do you find it necessary to give ridiculous rationalizations even for the campaign's obvious failings? Do you think this somehow makes your argument stronger?

You are projecting. I never asserted anything of the sort. You, on the other hand, in arguing the opposite point, find it necessary to give ridiculous rationalizations for Russian campaign's failings. — SophistiCat

In the same sentence that you deny ever saying Ukraine has "won" anything ... you claim pointing out Russia achieving it's stated objectives is the campaign's failings?

And again, Russia has failed but Ukraine hasn't made them fail and won in that sense?

But why, in arguing this obvious point (against whom?), do you find it necessary to give ridiculous rationalizations even for the campaign's obvious failings? — SophistiCat

It's not me saying what they achieved are their goals.

Russia literally states the goals at the start of the campaign, and now has largely achieved them, with the extra military achievement of connecting Crimea to Russian territory. So, has actually achieved more than what they stated were their demands weeks ago, that if not met they would achieve by force.

In the same comment you have taken issue with, I explain that of course it can be argued that the costs outweigh the benefits (military, political, economic, social etc.)

Now you seem just to be back peddling to say they have made "narrow" achievements.

But, however you qualify it, these achievements are what Russia explicitly stated it wanted.

So, that's, nominally at least, achieving one's goals.

I have not rationalised anything; I have simply pointed out what Russia said it wanted, and pointed out it has now largely achieved on the ground.

It's you rationalising that it's a Russian failure nonetheless. Which, sure, you are free to argue that Russia really had way more ambitions in Ukraine than it stated, many more secret goals, and now has lost in secret with respect to those secret goals ... but, Russians being overconfident and incompetent but also sly and crafty, only ever stated very limited military objectives since they simply forgot to boast about their overconfidence going in (they were too incompetent to sort out boasting about their overconfidence), and that's now played out well for them after Ukrainian chastisement. Lucky Russians? Is the argument?

How is predicting, 4 weeks ago, exactly what the Russians now do, bullshit? — boethius

LOL. The mage Boethius is with us.

LOL. The mage Boethius is with us. — Olivier5

These predictions were completely obvious and @Isaac and plenty of commentators on the internet made the exact same predictions.

Russia rolls through South Ukraine in a couple of days and takes the entire coast of the Azov sea and connects Crimea to Russia by land, "The" major military objective that plenty of analysts mentioned, before the war, could be the purpose of the Russian military buildup (indeed, one expert viewed the land bridge as likely the "most" ambition the Russian military may have considering the force size; indeed, the very reason everyone knows the term "land bridge", a term rarely employed, is because it was talked about for months during the coverage of the buildup).

It's only a surprise now and people interpreting these predictions as echoing Russia "saving face" by "scaling down their objectives" due to a entirely madeup narrative by the Western media.

It's only in the Western media that colonels and generals paraded through talk shows explaining Russia's goal of conquering all of Ukraine, what Putin is thinking and state of mind, what Russian soldiers feel, and why they don't have enough troops to accomplish what they've set out to do and it's going to be Russia's Afghanistan etc.

So yeah, if you're hooked on what the Western media is selling, I do understand how reality seems like magic to you.