When the Russian army is getting is ass kicked in Ukraine and has massed it's troops there, what better time to join NATO?As I said, ssu would be in a better position to answer this question. I would guess they are now more scared of a possible invasion than they were before the war in Ukraine. — Olivier5
When the Russian army is getting is ass kicked in Ukraine and has massed it's troops there, what better time to join NATO? — ssu
But I guess there's no worth to discuss it if the response is just rants and ad hominems and the only correct topic are the evils of the US. — ssu
https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apartA decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. [...]
Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?
So I would refer to what I said a month ago here. It's also useful to listen to the comment of an Finnish ex-prime minister who tells our position quite well and the what is left of the idea of Finnish "neutrality". After all, Putin is both against the EU and NATO. — ssu
Yes. Basically we have simply lied to ourselves that we can have NATO membership as an option and also have good ties to Russia. Well, Putin doesn't care about having good relations.Yes, there's that too, I guess: an opportunity to seize now -- when the Russians cannot do much about it, busy as they are elsewhere, can't even argue credibly against Finland's need for protection, and when the Finnish people support it -- or perhaps never. — Olivier5
Bravo. :100: :cheer:Such self-flagellation by affluent yet guilt-ridden westerners would be entertaining and even occasionally rightful, if it wasn't also worrying in terms of collective security. — Olivier5
Likely they will ask to join.I remember that earlier discussion. For Finland and Sweden, the benefit of joining NATO is deterrence. So will they join now? — frank
The West isn't weak. The people simply aren't asked to be brave or anything else than to pay taxes. — ssu
Yet the people aren't actually as materialist as they even think they are. Put them into a tight spot and actually those old values that everybody thought nobody cared are important.It's now a fully materialist world, in which one measures quality of life only by the amount of stuff folks can accumulate. — Olivier5
BTW, I take exception to this. I appreciate Russian culture and folks. I've read Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Andreï Makine, Nabokov... Nothing in my comment pertained to a supposed Russian race or ethnicity or even to their culture. When I speak of 'the Russians' I mean their army. — Olivier5
when I and Christoffer already discussed the matter a month ago and then discussed the frantic communication between Stockholm and Helsinki and the shuttle diplomacy before this. — ssu
And now I don't understand why Ukraine didn't join earlier. — frank
The sinking of the Moskva could mark a serious escalation in the conflict. And I think as long as the West is content with its role as cheerleader, happy to "fight until the last Ukrainian" it will not bode well for Ukraine. — Tzeentch
you have to prove that the Ukrainian ruling class’s policies cause far more deaths than the Russian soldiers as working class are causing to Ukrainian families. — neomac
according to (2), you didn’t claim that Ukrainians have no moral reason to fight the Russian armies to defend their nation — neomac
It’s on you to analytically clarify how your unrestricted claims should be properly understood not on me to do the job for you. — neomac
I don’t see how one could possibly have an intellectually “honest conversation” in a philosophy forum without clarity and arguments. So until I see some effort in this direction from you, I can’t take your “honest conversation” proposal seriously. — neomac
If Zelensky’s choice (e.g. between keep fighting or surrender) should be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation (Russian control over Crimea and some Donbas lands) as you claim, why shouldn’t your related choice (i.e. Ukrainian keep fighting or surrender to Russian demands) be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation as you framed this war from a geopolitical point of view (i.e. “American expansionism vs Russian expansionism”)? — neomac
> Who said Zelensky was 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances?
I am, based on how you framed the negotiation best outcome — neomac
Multi-causal analysis refers to the identification of a minimal set of causal factors (where the concept of “causal factor” goes beyond agency and intentionality) and each causal factor has a certain weight (statistical, i.e. depending on the stochastic correlation between causal factors and effects, or probabilistic, i.e. depending on the ratio between one factor and the total number of factors) in contributing to a certain effect. — neomac
it’s on you to clarify why Zelensky bears some responsibility along with Putin for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families, and how much Zelensky is blameful wrt to Putin for what happened. — neomac
What do you mean by “arbitrary”? — neomac
Here: “It’s not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet”.
And now here:
“Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.”
This is called comparative advertising in marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising) and it explains how you strongly suggested your support for a puppet government over Zelensky’s patriotic government, without saying it.
So it is evidently plausible to say you are suggesting to replace Zelensky’s government with a puppet government, which is even more than what Putin asked in the scenario we discussed. — neomac
First of all, I see “regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor” in both options. So since it doesn’t make any difference, what was the point of putting it? — neomac
Second, what does support your claim “less crippled by debt” and “less in thrall to the IMF”? — neomac
For the West the chances of another war against Russia can only grow bigger if option 2 was the case, and Russia pushed further its geopolitical agenda (so again more deaths and destruction also for the Ukrainians if the war will involve again Ukraine, this is also what buffer states are for right? ). Indeed Sweden and Finland are thinking to join NATO. So provocations are not over yet right? — neomac
It’s a similar line of reasoning as the previous one, right? — neomac
Why stupid? — neomac
wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is — neomac
It’s important you answer those questions because you are the one who claimed “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” and believes it’s pertinent in the debate about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
I provided evidences to support not the truth but the plausibility of P2 as expressly intended, so your objections either are wrong or missing the point. — neomac
Yes seriously. — neomac
You are not saying it, yet you are suggesting it. — neomac
Let me notice first this: you talk about your personal preferences (+ some comparative criteria) in trusting some experts and yet you do not take this to be arbitrary right? But when I talked about preferences (not only mine! + some comparative criteria) in my approach to moral assessments you dismissively said “a list of arbitrary preferences”. That doesn’t sound fair, does it? — neomac
during the covid crisis there were experts (like Luc Montagnier) with titles and no evident conflict of interests but whose reliability when talking about covid was still pretty dubious. — neomac
I don’t even know how you would assess “sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest” without adequate background knowledge — neomac
it’s not like I have my moral or strategic understanding of this war and then I look whoever expert is confirming it. — neomac
I can compare for example ... their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts — neomac
That is why you want to help Russia win against American capitalist imperialism — neomac
since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? — neomac
Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. — neomac
Now here is the ACTUAL mistake that NATO did.And now I don't understand why Ukraine didn't join earlier. — frank
I think he (Putin) will portray this as he has been correct all along. See how treacherous Finland and Sweden have been? The West is out to get fortress Russia all along! That's the official line in Moscow. Old puny enemies are gathering up. So likely we will be portrayed as nazis too who discriminate ethnic Russians and are the worst scum on Earth. It's totally in a different reality. Of course the Western media isn't where it was in 2014, so that the good thing here.All while if we join Nato, the pressure from the north will make Putin sweat even more while they default on payments and crash the economy even more. — Christoffer
It is absurd.The more I learn, the more absurd that seems. — frank
I don't know why Moscow thinks an accident sounds better. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I was trying to give a fair hearing to the idea that the Ukraine invasion was provoked... — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.