in Russia students of 15 years of age demonstrate a level of knowledge “below average”

The paper you got this from is citing the Programme for International Student Assessment, which is an OECD study. The same study, for example, ranks Russia above Sweden in 2003–2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#PISA_2018_ranking_summary

In the latest data Russia is around 30th. China is first. If you're wondering how Russia can change its politics, education isn't the primary problem.

See this PDF for an overall assessment of education in Russia: https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_RUS.pdf

So, maybe not "little to no education", but I wouldn't call any of this quality. — Christoffer

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. — jamalrob

So ignored everything else? Like how schools shut down in villages, which supports the concept of concentration of education to the major cities, where most of the anti-Putin critics exist and are well educated.

So, me asserting the education of rural areas outside major cities in Russia, which features a large portion of Russians, is education that is low, non-existence or in low-quality, together with how many Russian soldiers, who definitely didn't get drafted from the educated city-people, don't even know what country they are in... isn't a logical assertion of the state of education in Russia? And the propaganda-based narrative of learning history and about the outside world?

What do you call all of this then? Quality education that equally creates an educational foundation for all Russians that is focused on facts and reality? It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image.

How would you evaluate the Russian educational system? Equal, unbiased, and enabling free thought? Most people in the major cities get their balance from being able to go online and see, hear and read other perspectives than what the state provides. Part of the privilege of those people is to self educate past the basic education. And education can be really good, as long as it doesn't conflict with Russian interests. I mean, most political thinkers and philosophers that criticize Putin would be in jail now I presume.

My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then?

Education in Russia has some big problems, primarily funding. As the OECD overview I linked to says, "spending per student is still low, about half of the OECD average". And as you say, many rural schools have closed. I don't know for sure, but this latter fact could be associated with rural depopulation (which is obviously not to let the state off the hook in any way, if levels of education are deteriorating).

It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image. — Christoffer

"As of January 1, 2021, 109.3 million inhabitants lived in Russian cities, opposed to 36.9 million people living in the countryside."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009893/russian-urban-and-rural-population-size/

My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then? — Christoffer

So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true.

The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true. — jamalrob

To be more charitable @Christoffer, it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics.

Interesting thread, comparing Putin to a mafia boss.
https://twitter.com/AndrewPRLevi/status/1511000355781365767?s=20&t=3nD3A_OEWFEWX36lWBJEow

I have no clue why that passes for interesting to you.

Western narrative built up the Western highway as "the big battle to siege Kiev" — boethius

That description was closer to what was happening: an attempt (that failed).

But of course now the focus should be on the present and what seems to be a withdrawal of Russian troops in the north. It actually makes sense. If the objective cannot be met (at least with these forces), it's logical to retreat back to Belarus and Russia. The Ukrainians won't follow, yet they have to leave forces to defend Kiev from a possible Russian attack. Hence Ukrainians can then send only some units to the east or south from Kyiv. Likely the focus will be now on the Donbas and Putin carving up that Novorossiya. And perhaps have the war nice over before May 9th.


...Or then it can go on longer and longer.

If you're wondering how Russia can change its politics, education isn't the primary problem. — jamalrob

I think Russia can change and it isn't destined to be in a vicious circle of totalitarianism and gangster capitalism. The future isn't an extrapolation from history: even if Russia has only few short attempts of having democracy, that isn't an obstacle that it couldn't overcome.

A extremely humiliating defeat on the hands of the Japanese paved way for reforms in Czarist Russia. The outcome wasn't what happened in the West, but sometimes good things can become from bad things.

So, you mean that the fact that a large portion of Russians is educated, especially outside of the denser cities, is racist? — Christoffer

Yes, partly just on the grounds that you've provided no evidence at all, but simply assumed it. But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny...

If one needed any specialist equipment to discover some aspect of science, one could make a reasonable argument that poorer societies, on account of their poverty, would not have that knowledge. But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required. So what you're implying with your assessment is that the people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them. That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how to do it.

Is Russian soldiers not even knowing what Ukraine is or what Chernobyl is because they didn't get any education about any of it... racist? — Christoffer

Yes. Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have, applying it to those that don't and then taking the absolutely enormous leap that they therefore don't know how to run their country, how to be good citizens, how to rise up against their government... It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes. You can't possibly have missed the "50% of Americans believe..." type reports that come out again and again. American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) would have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl?

a nation under a government that is corrupt or has little means to handle poverty on their own and almost no people educated enough to be able to work to better the nation's situation, does not need to change that status quo? And helping those nations with getting children free education so that this structural problem can be bypassed in order to have a new generation that can build something better on their own... is racist? — Christoffer

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why can't a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage?

you don't understand what I mean with education enabling active thinking about ongoing problems in their nations? Like, you don't get that I'm implying that education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve. — Christoffer

No. I disagree with you about it. Your inability to tell the difference between someone not understanding and someone disagreeing is at the heart of these problems. Something might really seem clear to you, that doesn't make it a fact, it doesn't mean that people who disagree have somehow failed something. It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently.

I, of course, mean that they have gotten an education that gives them the tools, the knowledge to deconstruct the problems in their nation. — Christoffer

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools" to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck. And what they need is for us to remove it.

If you get poor nations free education, you give the people the ability to more effectively think about their own life and their country and how to fix things that are broken with it. — Christoffer

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us. These people have a cultural heritage stretching back tens of thousands of years. Are you suggesting that in all that time they haven't worked out what we in 'the west' worked out in the last few hundred? Do you not see how that plays into racist stereotypes of the violent savage and the enlightened westerner?

But it is a fact that the Russians who want to get rid of Putin, the corruption, the war and everything are the educated, more wealthy citizens of the major cities. — Christoffer

Right. So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin?

Nowhere did I even remotely imply that poor nations have lesser intellects, that's your words, your writing, your concept in mind, not mine. So stop making that part of my argument, I talked nothing of the sort. — Christoffer

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken...

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. — Christoffer

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those (bolded) things from his or her parent? From his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things?

Might be true:

The Ukrainian military claims that Russia has begun to secretly mobilize reserves and will give priority to mobilizing people with combat experience. The Moscow authorities hope to mobilize an additional 60,000 troops.

I am afraid Finland is not the model.

But then there's the socialist extreme left who think inventing utopias in their heads solves real problems people face right now. So far I'm all for structuring away from neoliberal market societies, but the radical socialists have dreams just as problematic. And how is that a solution to what I'm writing about?
How is that a solution to freeing the people of Russia from Putin's authoritarian boot? This is the problem I'm talking about, you have no actual real-world solution, you have a utopia in your head, a conceptual dream that won't help anyone until their basic needs are met. — Christoffer

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case.

Because if you want to change for the better when every one of them is bad... you pick the lesser evil. — Christoffer

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new?

I want you to pick a type of society that can actually be implemented in Russia that will enable a better outcome than my example. — Christoffer

Again, you've not supplied a reason why the society that can actually be implemented must already exist. New types of society can be implemented. That's how we make progress.

I just have a greater understanding of the concept of time and change. Political landscapes are just like geography, mountains stand strong because they change slowly. Changes that are stable and fundamental for a nation might take many generations to reach its final stable goal and when reaching them they have merely become a synthesis of more concepts than originally thought up.

But such change needs a foundation so it can change. If free speech, free and independent media, free communication, free education, free knowledge, and a great protection of the people and their voice against power is there at the foundation, it is the soil that new types of societies can grow out of. If you take that away, like in Russia, like in many nations with authoritarian regimes, you take away the soil and the growth dies, becomes dirt and static death.

Utopias mean nothing if there's no soil for them to grow out of. Dreaming of such utopias means nothing if the goal is to change the world. You start with the soil and go from there and if the fact of the world today is that this "soil" is most common in westernized nations, then so be it, that's a fact of reality right now, start there and build from there instead of trying to grow where there is no soil. — Christoffer

Again...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case.

What I find interesting is how the Putin’s behaviour can be viewed through the prism of a mafia boss. As opposed to a strong man, a mad man, a megalomaniac.

The author Andrew Levi is an experienced Kremlinologist.

hmmm... I don't find much use in trying to project an archetype on Putin. It seems like psychologizing just for the sake of trying to categorise a person. It says more about the person doing that than Putin himself.

Never heard of Andrew Levi though and he seems to be an investor.

I'm wondering if the harsh sanctions may have been a mistake. If it just closes Russia off to the rest of the world, that's unfortunate. — frank

They are. No doubt about it to my mind. Perhaps isolate sanctions to oligarchs and Putin, try to make these bite, other sanctions only hurt the population. — Manuel

In the past, Western sanctions against Russia attempted to spare the majority of the population by targeting mostly individuals and selected military-industrial entities. That didn't seem to have any effect. Now sanctions are explicitly aimed at the entire nation. Such total sanctions are really a war by other means, and just like in the conventional hot war, the entire nation suffers. The thinking behind such sanctions is that, even if they don't directly motivate the rulers, they may build up pressure from below. (What they don't take into account is that public discontent is more likely to be directed at those who impose the sanctions, as seems to be happening in Russia.) At a minimum, they will degrade the country's ability to make trouble abroad - but that can only happen in the long run. Sanctions won't stop an ongoing war.

Do sanctions generally work? That's a tough question. Studies of past sanctions claim to show that sanctions have achieved some objectives in a minority of cases, but also that they were more likely to succeed when objectives were modest, such as changing some trade policies. But discerning the impact of sanctions on decision making can be difficult. If Putin did not order the invasion, would that be credited to the threat of sanctions? Not likely, given that most people did not expect a large-scale invasion to happen anyway (despite warnings from Western intelligence). In Putin's case they would probably be right though: he cares little about such things.

In deciding to impose sanctions, there is a significant factor of moral outrage and moral signalling, perhaps more significant than any pragmatic calculations. We want to punish the bastards. The latest escalation of sanctioning activity is a good illustration of that point, as it followed on the heels of gruesome imagery coming from journalists who got direct access to freed areas around Kiev. Images of a dozen dead civilians lying in the street produced a stronger reaction than credible reports of hundreds of people dying from indirect fire in Mariupol and elsewhere. Let alone the estimated 95% of Afghan population that are not getting enough to eat, partly as a result of Western governments' action or inaction.

The example of Afghanistan and Yemen too, are quite illustrative. They say a lot about "the West".

Not that this should mean we should not care about Ukraine. We should extend that care to others who are in an even worse situation, however hard that may be to imagine.

You're quite right about sanctions being related to moral outrage. But it's a bad reaction to have, because it increases tensions even more. These damn calls for no fly zones that keep popping up are a damn problem.

If I were Ukrainian, I would likely (maybe) call for them too. But I doubt they truly understand what this entails. It is not smart to isolate an enemy and try to embarrass them.

I don't like Putin. This war is a total catastrophe. But we should approach this level headed, too much is at stake.

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you? — Isaac

you should whip up a new thread, e.g. "The victims of capitalism", something like that

Maybe this is your kind of thing?
I'm thinking that differentiating socialism and communism is needed.

Kremlinologist — Punshhh

Kremlinology is actually a word and a thing. How about that. :)

(seems a bit close to criminology but nevermind)

So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true. — jamalrob

Or that it's hard to reference when getting aural information from experts not easily referenced. But on top of that quality issue, you can also add this from 2007, which would mean that the people right now, like soldiers in Ukraine, suffered from this very issue.

At present, Russian society is experiencing powerful and swift social segmentation which includes strong differentiation in access to higher education. It took 10 to 20 years to change the previous system, to leave behind the free higher education to which we became accustomed over the 70-year history of the USSR, and move to a higher education system which is not free. Social segmentation has increased in the post-Soviet period and inequality in education has become much more significant as early as at the pre-school level. The barriers at this stage are the same as at others: family income, geographical factors (the most vulnerable groups are residents of rural and less urbanized areas where the network of kindergartens is not sufficiently developed), health factors (barriers exist not only for the disabled, but also for those in poorer health) and the information parents are able to gather (Monitoring 2003, Seliverstova, 2005). As early as kindergarten the same question of equity emerges: what kind of education is accessible, if it is accessible at all mass or elite education, “bad” or “good” (the latter offering a greater range of services but for fees)? And if mass and “bad” are becoming synonyms, what social functions does such education perform? These questions, of course, are identical to those that appear in analyzing the situation at the level of secondary and higher education. It would seem that today’s educational inequalities in Russia will tend to grow, as the process does not contain any counteracting forces, governmental or societal. In this context, the position of the best-resourced groups in society will continue to be reinforced, while the position and opportunities of the weakest will continue to
deteriorate. Although inequality is not officially endorsed, it is gradually becoming the norm, becoming more legitimate, more institutionalized (via corruption, for instance), more rigid, more entrenched and more persistent. In the context of mass higher education, inequality is not so much inequality in obtaining a higher education as such, but inequality in obtaining a higher education of good quality, an elite or specialized higher education. Without a set of adequate compensatory counter-measures, this situation will lead to the crystallization of elite groups, the very sort of class inequality which Russia set out to escape from in the early twentieth century. Gaps in public policy have contributed to the development of inequality in access to higher education and in constitutional rights to free higher education. Having minimized all the mechanisms of governance and control, and the distribution and redistribution of revenue, the state is yet to develop policy directed towards reducing inequality. This task ought to become an essential focus of public policy.

The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic. — jamalrob

People around Putin are also afraid to speak the truth to him. Fear pushes people down, but as with that paper, the inequality in education renders a lot of people unable to get a quality education. In order to take part in questioning the government and not just learning the basics of reading and writing in order to do earn a living, it requires the exposure to other perspective, other people in education, outside views. If that is not available, it's easier to find solace in bias towards the status quo. I think the simplistic view is to just boil all of this to russophobia.

it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics. — jamalrob

I'm not talking about politics that springs out of bad education, I'm talking about education freeing the minds of people in a nation so that they can start questioning things around them. If all you learn is to always do as told, as parents tell you, other grown-ups tell you, the state media tells you, if all you get is spoon-fed truths, then that is the only reality you have. I'm using "education" in this argument as a broader term for opening doors for the mind to explore the world more critically, which is an important part of a good education. If the education fails in that quality, or you are out of luck because of inequality in education, then you might not have the ability to think critically. It's easy for any of us who's on a forum about the very act of being critical, skeptical, and interested in deconstructing different concepts to take these things for granted, but one who's never had the chance of actually exploring this way of thinking will not magically have the knowledge of such tools without reinventing the wheel of critical thinking. Just check out what the Russian soldiers are thinking, how oblivious they are to everything around them. Would that happen if they had quality education? Would they dig trenches in the Red Forest if they had basic education? Would a person who had the ability to explore concepts from all over the world be able to be easily tricked by state media? Wouldn't such a person also actively explore such perspectives further, have more insight into how to get other sources of information than what the state provides?

And if it is as you say, that a majority is well educated, informed and still support Putin, even if things like Bucha happen, then they are well informed, educated people who support genocide, and should be treated accordingly. If you think it's russophobia to argue as I do here, how do you think the conclusion becomes if we conclude that they are actually well informed and support murdering civilians? I'm giving them the benefit of doubt, that they don't have either access to truth or have never been granted the tools to be critical of the government. Because if they have a great education, have the ability of critical thinking, but still support Putin after things like Bucha, then they can actually go to hell.

> The part in parentheses was "even if sometimes only figuratively", Ie not necessarily referring to an actual flag. The flag represents control by the government of that country. Control over some aspect of Ukraine's government (either by having them sign a binding agreement, or by installing a friendly 'puppet' governor in some region) would reduce their risk from foreign influence.

Now it’s clearer. I disagree with this claim “The flag represents control by the government of that country” even when this can be a plausible conversational implicature. National flags as Ukrainian and Russian flags (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_flag) are symbols of a nation not of their governments. Governments can change and yet the flag and the nation that the flag represents can remain the same. I’m not saying this to be pedantic, but for its motivational implications as well as strategic and moral. People who are fighting against a puppet governments of some foreign power (as Yanukovych was to the Ukrainians) in defence of their national identity and independence are not fighting against their flag, but for their flag as expression of their national identity and independence. And I find this kind of fight morally defensible.


> Well then your agreement is nonsensical. I don't know what more to say. Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't become wrong or right based on the interpretation of some specific historical event. If your agreement that "fighting over a flag is always wrong" is dependant on how the Ukraine war is interpreted, then how did you decide before Russia invaded Ukraine?

First of all, my agreement was conditional and you should have reported as such, as I explicitly asked. If you found my conditional agreement nonsensical or confusing, you could have protested or asked for clarifications, instead of misinterpreting it the way you see fit and move on. Secondly, I formulated my conditional agreement to address an ambiguous theoretical assumption of yours that could be interpreted in different ways. Indeed, to avoid confusions about my position I also immediately explained what I meant in that post, and reiterated in the following posts. If fighting a war over a flag literally amounts to fighting over a piece of coloured fabric as an ornament of a building, then I find it preposterous and 100% immoral. If it’s understood in a metaphorical sense (which is the opposite of talking about “the insignificance of flags”), then we should clarify the metaphor and if you take the national flag to represent a government (yet this too could be morally defensible, for example if the alternative is between a democratic and mafia government), then I disagree with that reading too for the reasons I explained previously. Finally, each of us is presenting and tentatively defending a certain understanding of this war based on moral and strategic assumptions and their implications, so it’s on us to clarify how to understand our metaphors as well as our examples wrt to the issue at hand.
Concerning your alternative “Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn’t” is that fighting over national identity is morally defensible (even through war) because people can morally value things more than their own lives, like national identity and independence and unlike a piece of colored piece of fabric on top of a building or a puppet government.


> So you'd have to forward some argument to that effect. It's no good just saying 'for me' at the beginning and expecting that to act as an excuse not to supply any reasoning at all.

I have no such expectations. My expectations are instead that you ask for clarifications, if interested, as I did when I needed clarifications from you. Notice also that I had to reiterate my request for clarifications to you (for example wrt your alleged third strategy or your understanding of “fighting over a flag”).

>Why do you see it as a matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. Why not, for example, a matter of American expansionism vs Russian expansionism? To quote from the article @StreetlightX posted earlier…

Indeed the war between Russia and Ukraine can be seen in both ways, namely as “American expansionism vs Russian expansionism” and as “Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism”, the reason why I privilege the second depends on genealogical and moral considerations. The clash between American and Russian expansionism in Ukraine is shaped as it is because it is nested in a more ancient clash between Ukrainians and Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationalism), which echoes in the chaos of narratives about the Ukrainian national identity among Putin and Ukrainian authorities, academics and society at large (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians#Reactions, https://uacrisis.org/en/55302-ukraine-identity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Popular_opinion_in_Ukraine). Indeed the clash of empires doesn’t really become meaningful to people (at least ordinary people) until it resonates within their moral landscape and personal experiences: knowing that in this war USA and Russia are fighting a proxy war in a piece of land called Ukraine for human and material resources, doesn’t tell me enough to decide whom I have to side with in this war. Knowing who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, knowing that the oppressed is fighting for something I would value too at his place, knowing that this fight is a conventional war with its toll on civilians and their homes, etc. all this is more relevant for me to decide if one should support America or Russia or neither.


>Diplomats are not the arbiters of whether a negotiation has worked. If a process stops the war, everyone can see that it has worked, we don't rely on diplomats to tell us this.

You didn’t get my point. Negotiation is a practice based on complex and institutionalised speech acts like making offers and requests, give assurances, cut deals between participants. As all speech acts , they are governed by conversational maxims, one of which is sincerity. So if all diplomats would always lie to each other during the negotiation, all negotiations would fail and the practice wouldn’t even exist. Surely diplomats my occasionally lie, and lie to the public is much easier than lying to other diplomats, yet all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case.


> I'm only claiming that it might. I only need to demonstrate that it is possible in order to substantiate that claim. Those who argue that Ukraine shouldn't negotiate because Putin lies, have the much harder task of demonstrating that such a process never works, otherwise it'd still be advisable to try.

I see no need for such a demonstration to support the idea that is not worth negotiating with Putin, were this the case. If successful negotiations are generically possible and we may have case studies of successful Russian or Ukrainian negotiations, yet negotiations may also fail also due to deep mistrust: indeed, what credible assurance could possible give Putin to not attack Ukraine again if Ukraine gives up about NATO given that Russia has already broken past agreements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ? The same goes for Putin, if Putin thinks that the Ukrainian diplomats are too influenced by the US who want this war to continue, then Putin would have no reason to go for a negotiation unless for taking time to better supply his war machine?
And, interestingly, they both could be right while the negotiation will stall.


> That matter is undeniably secondary to actually partaking in negotiations. The parties involved must actually be negotiating in order for it to even be a question.

At this point partaking is not the problem, because there have been many negotiation sessions between Russians and Ukrainians, but they got stalled.


> ...that you find some arguments persuasive is irrelevant to this claim. Your claim is that arguments of America's culpability are not supported by an objective analysis of the facts. I asked how you justify that claim when so many experts, after having made an objective analysis of the facts, reach a different conclusion.

> I don't see what difference this makes if those decisions all tended in much the same direction.

The experts you are referring to (like Kennan, Kissinger and Mearsheimer) converge enough in the analysis of the genesis of the current crisis and claim how wrong the West effort to expand east-ward at the expenses of Russian strategic interests was. I can get how insightful they were on the assumption that the end of the Soviet Union didn’t mean the end of the cold war mentality, especially in the Russian political/military elites from that generation (as Putin is). Yet their claims and advise do not necessarily converge with your views in some relevant aspects. E.g. Kissinger advises “It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. […]. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html). While Mearsheimer concludes that: “The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.” (https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf).
Anyway, as far as “great powers” politics goes, I can get that there are many good reasons to consider antagonising Russia a “strategic blunder” for the US: Russia is not a strategic threat to the US as much as China since Russia is a declining power anyways, normalising relations with Russia could have helped turn Russia into an ally against China, getting NATO involved in a war useless to the US will ruin whatever is left of NATO’s reputation if Ukraine is lost to Russia. So too much at stake for little reward on a lower priority strategic front for the US. On the other side, one big concern for the US is to preserve their long-term influence over Europe against the ambitions of Russia and China, or against Germany becoming more assertive (https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ICS-USEU_UNCLASS_508.pdf, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/could-europe-fear-germany-again) and for the EU (especially for the easter European countries) the concern is to preserve NATO’s protection against any military threat especially from Russia. So the US can not overlook the national interests of its partners and allies in Europe, as much as in Middle East as much as in Indo-Pacific. Even more so, given the technological and economic power concentrated in the EU. Additionally this war is a tragic but maybe necessary wake up call for Europeans against the existential threats coming from authoritarian geopolitical powers and the risks of relying only on the US military support.
And we could go on by wondering what a “strategic blunder” was for Putin to start a war in Ukraine, etc. And it wouldn’t be over yet, because we should also strategically analyze the possible outcomes of this war, etc. and how the rest of the world could react to each of them.
While all this is certainly precious feedback from experts and governmental advisors, yet government foreign policies and foreign policy trajectories over decades are the result of such an overwhelming informational and motivational selective pressure on decision makers (or generations of decision makers) and executive branches by all kinds of teams of experts, lobbies and world events that no strategic analyst could fully rationalize within their theoretical framework, I’m afraid.

But the major problem is the unresolved logic tension between strategic view and moral view. If you want to talk about morality and moral responsibility you need moral principles and agency (capacity of making and executing free informed decisions). Now from great power politics, however morality is relative (“national identity is just a flag”) or instrumental and agency is always reduced to “causal” reaction to perceived existential threats or opportunities (which sounds as an oxymoron wrt so-called realist view in geopolitics), so preventive moves to increase deterrence, reciprocal threats and ping-pong blame game are structurally embedded in this view. Indeed the competition between Russia and NATO didn’t begin with NATO enlargement’s provocation simply because it never really ended with the Cold War (https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/96-98/cottey.pdf, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/09/21/yeltsin-vs-clinton/442ba04d-23c7-4d8b-9732-2dda43e1544b/).
And geopolitical agents are theoretical abstractions that may hide very different situations for real political agents. Putin’s dictatorial power extends over the last two decades so he could take all his time to prepare for this war and take effective decisions consistent with his goals, meanwhile in the US there have been five different administrations (including a philo-Putinist Trump) in loose coordination with an even greater number of changing and politically divided EU leaders and governments, decided also thanks to a growth of anti-globalist populism that Putin contributed to feed with his money and troll armies. So not exactly the same situation for responsibility ascriptions.


> The west is delivering weapons to the oppressed. Whether that's 'helping' them depends entirely on your analysis of their options.

Sure, then again the West tries to help the oppressed by delivering weapons instead of trying to help the oppressor.


> So? How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.

We who? I’m interested in the method too though. You are interested in metrics? No idea of the number of victims on both sides. Do you? Nor have I an idea about the weight you would assign to each causal factor of your multi-causal analysis. Do you? Out of curiosity, can you give me a rough idea about what your math to calculate the Ukrainian misery based on your multi-causal analysis would look like ? Can you list, say, 3 causal factors and tell me the weight you would assign to each of them and why?



> 4. Ukraine seems more open to share our views on standard of life and freedoms than Russia. — neomac
What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/


> 1. This gives Russia no more than is de facto the case already, so it doesn't give an inch on Russian expansionism, it just admits that we've failed to contain it peacefully as we should have. Russia already run Crimea, Donbas already has independent parliaments and make independent decisions, NATO have already pretty much ruled out membership for Ukraine, as have Ukraine.

A perfect summary of Putin’s negotiation tactics, well done. Yet this tactic didn’t sound that convincing so far and BTW also the US had a de facto puppet government in Afghanistan for 20 years. So no, you didn’t offer any third strategy equally opposing the West and Putin, you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all.

> 2. I care very little about Russian expansionism when compared to the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainians.

Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism, (worse than any Islamist terrorism has been so far to the West).

> If you want to throw them in front of the tanks to prevent it, that's on you, but I'm not going to support that.
> Now explain how it's morally acceptable for us to throw Ukrainian civilians in front of Russian tanks to help us achieve these goals.

Who is us? I didn’t throw anybody under tanks. And the antecedent of that conditional is false. Nothing to explain here.


> What 'moral reasons'?

Putin is a murderous and criminal oppressor of innocent Ukrainian civilians. This claim is intelligible without any multi-causal talks and arguments ab auctoritate. So Western leaders have moral reasons to contrast Putin offensive expansionism the best they can, as long as they can.


> We're talking about the US and Russia here, not Isis. The US 'method' is causing more deaths in Yemen right now than are being caused in Ukraine by the Russian 'method'. And Yemen isn't even the US's only theatre of war as Ukraine is Russia's.

Sure, but your preposterous claim about the immorality of fighting over a flag or national identity was general. And so I offered you another counter-example to make my case even more clear.
If you want to talk about the US and Yemen open another thread. Concerning “methods”, I simply claimed they have moral implications and therefore I take them into account: a stick and carrot strategy (a mix of incentives and deterrence) may be morally more defensible than a full blown-war as in this case.


> Care to expand on these clandestine 'personal preferences’?

Well it was a minor point of a general consideration, but let’s say as a mere hypothetical example that Putin paid you with his precious rubles to support his propaganda in this forum against the meddling of the West in Ukraine. Prior to the war, I would have considered it just something I dislike, now I would consider it immoral.


> That just goes back to your disagreement that Russia had any reason at all to see NATO's actions as a threat (ie arguing that NATO weren't even shaking the table at all). The problem is, an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts disagree with you and you've not provided a single reason why anyone would take your view over theirs.

Indeed, I offered reasons mainly to question your 2 moral claims:
Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West).
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.
And in this post I could complement my arguments with a few more comments about the experts you were alluding to. I didn’t do it earlier simply because I didn’t know whom you were talking about.

Hey neomac.

It would be easier and quicker if you just quote whomever. All you have to do is highlight the posters sentence and/or paragraph and click the black "Quote" box, and you'll see that segment quoted in your post.

Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral. — neomac

Like so.

But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny... — Isaac

I said nothing of that, that's your words. This is your problem, you reshape someone's argument to fit your anti-western narrative. I said nothing of "western education". You simply cannot read someone's post without looking though your own narrative of what is being said.

But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required. — Isaac

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education? No wonder you write as you do in here since you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases. You really don't think "thoughts" can be manipulated? What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing? Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments.

they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens — Isaac

Because we have such good examples through history of this actually working? How naive are you? This is basically the "common sense" argument and it has zero validity when breaking down people's biases. "Common sense" taught down to children is extremely biased towards whatever opinion those parents have. Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works.

That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how do do it. — Isaac

And I call this bullshit because you don't understand a single thing of what I write. I have not said anything of teaching "uncivil" natives". I've been talking about the problem of education and the problem of propaganda in education, limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically. It's a universal thing and I could apply it to the US as well and their awfully unequal educational system.

You just make up shit to fit your counter-argument but it's hollow when you basically are unable to understand the actual conclusion being made.

Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have — Isaac

Chernobyl was a globally known incident that is very relevant primarily to Russia. Don't even try rationalizing your point here.

It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes. — Isaac

I'm beginning to think that you're just playing a game of mentioning "racism" as much as possible until it becomes the true narrative. Much like how propaganda works.

American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl? — Isaac

No, they don't, but I'm not talking about Americas education really, I'm talking about what is going on in Russia. I couldn't really give a fuck about American education because America is not my measuring stick for quality, it's my measuring stick for western failure. There are far better examples of "good western societies", but you really like to make everything into a Russia/American dichotomy because I think it's the only way to argue for your point of view. If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously.

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why cant a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage? — Isaac

Do you really not see how naive this point of view is? Like, forget a moment that you just push everything through the narrative of "western teachers" and all your racist twisting and turning, if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda, if you want to turn to the American perspective of education again... *sigh* ...you get propaganda as well, but as I said, I don't give a flying fuck about the Americans, I'm speaking of neutral education, facts, knowledge, as they're published as it is. "Quality" education means quality in that neutrality, otherwise it's not a quality education, because it's biased towards something non-neutral.

But as always, you cannot understand anything of this without applying your racist bullshit narrative. You cannot grasp that there's another perspective here than some American imperialism. I'm not American, I don't give a shit about that perspective and it's not the perspective I'm arguing from.

No. I disagree with you about it. — Isaac

Disagree about what? What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias?
Read it again:

Education enables active thinking about ongoing problems in the nation. Education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve. — Christoffer

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit? In that case, you are hilariously derailed in thought :rofl:

It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently. — Isaac

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge? Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom? Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth?

You lack the imagination of understanding this perspective because you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically. It's the fucking point. What you describe is to value some "common sense" ideas and ideals, uncritically, as valid perspectives of thought. Which is an absolutely apologetic view of accepting anyone's opinion as valid, even if that is purely pro-Putin propaganda or even American imperialism. Why don't you also then value the indoctrinated exceptionalistic education American schoolkids get? Or is that then bad because it's America, it's really confusing how you rationalize your argument here.

In my perspective, your perspective here is the door that opens to extremism, regardless of type. This is the way to get a biased uncritical point of view, without the ability to question it. Your naive defense of "common sense" thinking doesn't even try to rationalize past these problems.

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools". to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck. — Isaac

You really pull a blanket conclusion over all of them do you? Even those who ask for help to get good education to their nations. Even those who want to kick start their nation as a self sustaining society, but don't have the necessary education to do so. I mean, when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them.

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot?

Have you even talked to people from these poor nations? Do you have any real knowledge of what they actually want but don't have means to achieve?

You seem to not understand that "western intervention" is not just "American imperialism", but it can also be economic contributions and projects to help get them on their feet and into independence. You seem to view everything through having "America" as the "western" part of the argument. What about Sweden's contributions? We pay more of our BNP to help poor nations than most other nations do, we have a strong presence building up education in poor nations, and none of that education is some American propaganda being taught.

It's like you don't really have any insight into any of this past your American imperialistic criticism, nothing that's even close to what my perspective really is here. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say, over and over. How can anyone take you seriously if you do that?

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us. — Isaac

Not at all, your words again, not mine. It doesn't imply anything other than "education". Giving access to facts about the world, reading, writing, math, geography, history and of course methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point.

If you mean that they cannot keep their heritage while still having gained the knowledge of unbiased thinking that has been fine-tuned through philosophy and science over hundreds or even thousands of years, then you don't really understand what I mean when speaking of education.

You are speaking of propaganda. But if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas. If set ideas and traditions that keep someone stuck in a loop of destructive behaviors, sociologically or psychologically, and they want to find a way past it, such tools of thought become invaluable.

That is not fixing, it is sharing. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. But you seem to talk about education as telling them what to think, I'm talking about enabling tools for them to think for themselves, beyond cultural and human biases, methods that are universal for channeling the human intellect, regardless of cultural preferences. But you seem unable to understand this difference or you are just choosing to misinterpret it so that it fits your opinion here. But you just come off as being fundamentally unable to understand the argument I present without having to change it completely to fit your anti-racist rhetoric.

You invent conclusions I didn't make to apply some racist narrative here, it's such a low point that I cannot take you seriously.

So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin? — Isaac

A mass of people opposing a government does not need wealth to topple that government. But the mass in Russia is suppressed, by low numbers, themselves or a lack of knowledge that shows them what is true and what is propaganda, and because they don't reach "critical mass" for such a "singularity", they are more easily suppressed by authoritarian force.

Not even the wealthy dare oppose Putin. Just look at Roman Abramovich.

The lone individual, the small gatherings can't do anything. But if millions marched against Putin, he cannot just imprison or "make them disappear". And how do people gather like that? Because they all have the knowledge to see through the propaganda and the ability to organize against it. If you don't think this is a solution against the authoritarian regime Putin has, then what is a solution? Apathy?

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken... — Isaac

Do you have a reading disability or am I just not competent enough in English?

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. — Christoffer

Aren't I implying here that learning all of that enables tools for the intellect of those people? Tools that the intellect can use within those people?

Or are you just again intentionally interpreting in your own way to fit your argument?

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those thing from his or her parent? from his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things? — Isaac

Then let them. If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this. Instead of realizing that "education" is not some western imperialistic interference just because you require that for your argument to work. But can instead be a way to give people a chance to fix things themselves. You know, education does not have to be some western ideals being taught, it can be tools of knowledge that are universal. Giving people facts, giving people methods, like in math, giving people the knowledge of math isn't some western imperialistic push.

Your rhetoric of all of this being racism requires that your very specific interpretation of "education" is true, which is not the case here, so stop pushing bullshit about racism and take a single second to try and understand something outside of your biased point of view.

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case. — Isaac

I'm still waiting for a rundown of that alternative form of society, which is what I haven't seen so far.

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done; is to help the more westernized part of Russia to gain power in order to install better protection for people in terms of freedom of speech and reduce corruption in election and politics, because these people are the ones who primarily push against the state for such reforms (think, led by Navalny), then people say, NO they should not install anything "westernized" and fix things in some other way...

...what then is that "other way"?

Can you give an actual real-world solution? Practical philosophy. How can Russia get rid of the corruption, propaganda machine and state violence against its own people?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this, but so far I haven't heard a single rational solution. Maybe you confuse "solution" with "interpretation of status quo", very different things, one is a progressive proposition and the other is just opinions of interpretations.

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new? — Isaac

Pick what? I still haven't heard of an actual functioning system that can be implemented practically in this real-world event that is going on? You are dreaming up utopian solutions when I try to practically form a solution that is actually realistic. So if you cannot actually describe how this unmentioned system is supposed to be applied, then it's just fantasy, utopias in your head of reforms just "happening" without any logical casuality.

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want. The main thing here is the basic rights and anti-corruption methods. The "soil" to grow something new from as I've put it.

Now, what's your form of society that fixes the problem they have now? Please pick an alternative that is a practical reality and not just some fantasy, because what I describe is able to happen if people like Navalny get into power since there's already a foundation for that kind of society. If you have some radically different society in mind, that is not a practical reality and doesn't help anyone at all. Come back with those ideas when stability is reached and there are freedoms implemented in the country to be able to progressively change towards that.

Again...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case. — Isaac

You haven't presented any alternative, nor anything other than dismissal through misinterpretation or downright putting words in others' mouths to enable your argument to make sense.

The fundamental bottom line of your rhetoric and argument is: "You are wrong and here's how I think you are wrong by changing your argument to become wrong so that I can be right". That is a truly low point to sink to and I cannot take your arguments seriously because of it. It just becomes negative noise

[quote: The New York Times]As Russia Pulls Back, the Horror and Atrocities Mount[/quote]

Like other sensible peace-loving people, I am totally opposed to Russia's attacks on Ukraine, aka "war". However, I am surprised by the official and press reactions to dead bodies, particularly dead civilian bodies. As Sherman observed, "War is hell!" Why would there not be civilian casualties? Granted, corpses with tied hands and a bullet in the head look like executions, and we are right to ask "What the hell is going on here?" But people get killed in war, and not just soldiers.

It's been a long time since armies met on a field and did battle away from the civilian populations. Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. It goes with the territory.

It stirs the passions, quite understandably, but it's very reactionary and does more harm than good. Plus, we seem to have ADHD brains in the West. Remember that Syrian refugee boy who drowned trying to reach Europe? That picture of the boy was massive, but it was forgotten quite quickly.

As you say, this is very, very ugly and one would not be so analytical if we were inside the war, but, what do they expect? Dodgeball?

The point is to stop this, by doing more sanctioning, we are further isolating them.

It's been a long time since armies met on a field and did battle away from the civilian populations. Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. — Bitter Crank

Highlighting civilian deaths is a proven propaganda tactic. So is making believe that this is the only war ever fought in history - recent history. Obviously we need something else, but take note that the United States is planning for more wars - this is a fact - and more civilian deaths.

Today's headlines.

EUROPE
International outrage grows over civilian killings — BBC

Civilian killings where? Yemen? Iraq? Other conflict regions we cannot name because the news does not name them?

I am willing to bet international outrage grows over Western governments hypocrisy. Hopefully this is the first step in a long downward sloping trend in credibility. It is not news anymore. I have no use for subjecting myself to eternal bias.

It reminds me of the unsophisticated attempts of some communist countries to imprison people and subject them to loudspeakers blaring "Communism is good" 24 hours a day. It is torture, and in this case can be escaped at the click of a button.

Civilian killings where? Yemen? Iraq? Other conflict regions we cannot name because the news does not name them? — FreeEmotion

And this can't be stated enough. Yemen is the "worst humanitarian catastrophe" according to the UN.

Afghanistan is starving too.

But we seem to care less about them. It's sad.

On the other hand, it is legitimate to be extra worried about this, because it involves a nuclear power in a very delicate situation. So there's that.

The US wants to persecute Putin at the ICC. What, the same body they threaten every time they dare raise the prospect of investigating American war crimes? The same one whose statutes they have not ratified? Fucking joke.

Oh, and the US calling for Russia to be kicked off the UN Human Rights council. My God. A comedian couldn't write better lines if they tried.

I think we need to make the distinction between the people of the United States, the people of Russia, and the regime, the Biden Regime, in this case. There is a large disconnect between the what the people want and what the Regime wants, in many cases.

Why the need? Those regimes don't come to power in a vacuum.

So who puts them into power? The Biden Regime enjoys a little more than 51% support. That is already a division. Voter turnout was

In 2020, 67% of all citizens age 18 and older reported voting, up 5 percentage points from 2016 (Figure 1).

That works out to 34% roughly. Factor in the vast sums of money spent on media and campaigning, and you only have to decide if the money was totally wasted, or had some influence on the election.

I never found out if Russian meddling swayed the election in 2016, which works out to a colossal failure in the democratic process. But never mind, I'd rather watch North Korean TV, at least it is obvious whose side they are on, no meddling of any sort there.