I don't think anything was going to deter Putin from invading Ukraine except its membership in NATO. He thought he could just waltz in and take over the country. — RogueAI

Funny, that's almost exactly the view that the US government and arms industry needs you to hold in order to justify it foreign policy.

But that would only be a problem if you'd formed that view entirely based on intelligence reports from the US government and opinion pieces in the media from experts with ties to the arms industry... and no one would be that daft...

And you do your useless stereotypical rant as you usually do.

And as usual, quite clueless.

Like "Stand with Somalia". Well, the Somalian government (that use the blue flag with the white star) are happy that the US are back. But that small detail doesn't matter I guess.

Somalia’s newly elected president is welcoming word that U.S. special operation forces will again be based in Somalia to help in the fight against the al-Shabab terror group.

Hassan Sheikh Mohamud thanked U.S. President Joe Biden in a tweet Tuesday, calling the United States “a reliable partner in our quest to stability and fight against terrorism.”

As I said, the War against Terror goes on. Unfortunately.

I don't see anyone on here claiming Putin is a good guy or is in the right. — Xtrix

But there's the anti-US team that thinks everything bad happens because of the US and is extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. Their main argument is that it's the actions of NATO and the US which lead Russia to start the war and hence it's the fault of the US. And the rest is just ad hominems.

But there's the anti-US team that thinks everything bad happens because of the US and is extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. Their main argument is that it's the actions of NATO and the US which lead Russia to start the war and hence it's the fault of the US. And the rest is just ad hominems. — ssu

"Everything bad happens because of the US" is, of course, an exaggeration. Who believes this? Think about it. Does anyone believe this?

No.

So let's leave that aside. Has the United States, as the world superpower, contributed to this mess in Ukraine? Yes, of course it has. Does anyone argue that this isn't the case?

So what the fuck are we talking about here?

I don't think anything was going to deter Putin from invading Ukraine except its membership in NATO. He thought he could just waltz in and take over the country. — RogueAI

Who knows what Putin was thinking. Whatever he was thinking, this was a stupid decision.

But to argue nothing would have deterred him from invasion except for NATO membership, when there's reason to believe that it was NATO's advancement that contributed to the decision, is pretty unrealistic -- in my view.

I tend to listen to the likes of John Mearsheimer on this issue. Pretty good scholarship there. Been lecturing about this for years.

extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. — ssu

Let's be absolutely clear, because the entire thread is on record. The issue has been entirely with your 'side' complaining about any and all mention of anywhere except Russia.

Literally your second post

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/648631

...complaining about mention of US culpability.

ISW and others have reported that loyal Russian military bloggers who generally support the war (such as "Strelkov," ex-FSB and former leader of "DNR") have been increasingly critical of Russian war effort.

And thus Putin's narrative (propaganda-style) has been adopted and propagated. :up: :grin: Worked. — jorndoe

Somehow not interested to reply to such bullshit. — ssu

Good idea. I don't get why anyone would even want to give the time of day to these fuckwits. The less attention they get the better.

Let's be absolutely clear, because the entire thread is on record. The issue has been entirely with your 'side' complaining about any and all mention of anywhere except Russia. — Isaac

Except I've said about the mistakes like the Kosovo war and of course leaving Ukraine hanging dry with promises of NATO membership in the distant future. Or how stupid the post-Cold War era "New NATO" thinking was and how only now, after 2014 and 24th of February this year NATO has found itself again.

But those are things you won't notice. The mere mention that when a country annexes parts of another, it's main objective isn't to stop the enlargement of a third party international organization seems to be blasphemy for some.

At least I'm having first row seats to see just how much this all has been about NATO enlargement. Because here's the big NATO enlargement!

Good idea. I don't get why anyone would even want to give the time of day to these fuckwits. The less attention they get the better. — SophistiCat

Yeah.

But this is a Philosophy Forum and if someone who usually writes nonsense says something good or true, I'll give him or her my approval. Engaging with people that disagree with you can be beneficial and if people who are interested in Philosophy cannot speak to each other, then all is lost. We'll just look at each other through the sights of our rifles.

So let's leave that aside. Has the United States, as the world superpower, contributed to this mess in Ukraine? Yes, of course it has. Does anyone argue that this isn't the case? — Xtrix

To the extent that nothing occurs in a vacuum, sure, the existence of the US as a threat to Russia and the expansion of its influence through NATO sparked conduct on the part of Russia.

Who's to blame for Russian boots on Ukraine soil. I'd say Russia.

Moral responsibility rests not with the every actor along the causal chain, but upon the actor who interrupts that causal chain with a specific intentional act resulting in the specific bad act.

It's why we don't throw bad parents in jail for the acts of their children. It's that quaint notion of free will. That you killed because your parents sparked all sorts of bad conduct might be true, but if you pulled the trigger, it's on you and only you.

But to argue nothing would have deterred him from invasion except for NATO membership, when there's reason to believe that it was NATO's advancement that contributed to the decision, is pretty unrealistic -- in my view.

I tend to listen to the likes of John Mearsheimer on this issue. Pretty good scholarship there. Been lecturing about this for years. — Xtrix

Well, what then you think of John Mearsheimer's correct forecast in 1993 published in Foreign Affairs?

Most Western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear
weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by
President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were
to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet
Union." The United States and its European allies have been press
ing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to
the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about
Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared
independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fash
ion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become
a nonnuclear state is a mistake.

A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imper
ative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means
ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with
Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself
against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons and no
state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful
security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only
reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. If the U.S. aim is to enhance
stability in Europe, the case against a nuclear-armed Ukraine is
unpersuasive.

See The Case for Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent

Nukes might have been the solution. Not a popular idea, but still plausible. Unfortunately then the West was far more afraid of those nukes ending in the black market than the sovereignty of Ukraine.

:up:

Nukes might have been the solution. — ssu

:up:

At the beginning there was a sort of battle for public opinion going on, with well funded efforts on both sides of the propaganda war doing their best through traditional and social media to push their narrative, so there was some sense in this thread echoing that battle for public opinion.

This battle has been won by Ukraine. At least for the moment, at least in 'the West'. Look at the Eurovision vote. Look at the Finnish parliament vote for NATO accession.

Billions of equipment and ammunition later, and with Finland + Sweden now on their way to joining NATO, I personally feel less urge to fight it off here.

The most argumentative 'peace lovers' -- they are argumentative aren't they? -- here make a lot of noise but they represent 5% of public opinion in Europe.

The issue of NATO's role was well summarized (for many of us anyway) by @Hanover. Now it's water under the bridge, in any case. It would be better to focus on the way forward.

Well said. The status quo has been upended. The future is unlikely to be a reset of the previous deals.

Exactly. Therefore the discussion must move on. I'm not interested in some archeological discussion on how the war in Ukraine goes back to Methuselah.

Well, the Somalian government (that use the blue flag with the white star) are happy that the US are back. But that small detail doesn't matter I guess. — ssu

Last I checked this is exactly what Russia has claimed of Ukraine. But sure, pick your propaganda as you see fit for the side of the imperial murderers you like best, whom you do your utmost to cheerlead.

I'm not interested in some archeological discussion on how the war in Ukraine goes back to Mathusalem. — Olivier5

I am, though. I need to understand the Mathusalem angle. Like who is he?

It's why we don't throw bad parents in jail for the acts of their children. It's that quaint notion of free will. — Hanover

Ah yes, the infant-won't-go-to-bed theory of international politics. Nevermind that the US activtely encouraged and spurred on this war, and frankly couldn't be more enthusiastic about every dead Ukranian that gets blown to bits by Russian bullets. Yeah, in the face of tens of thousands of dead people, the best we can do is - because apparently humans are incapable of any sense of complexity and must treat their international politics like a bedtime story - 'pick a side'.

"Free will". Imagine using this Christian metaphysical bullshit to think about how to understand the geopolitics of Ukraine and expect to be taken seriously.

need to understand the Mathusalem angle. Like who is he? — frank

:-)

Apologies, it's 'Methuselah' in English. According to the Book of Genesis, Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. He had the longest lifespan any human ever reached, dying at 969 years old....

Noah's grandfather! Interesting.

Other than just taking whatever opportunity you have to reiterate your narrative that you have an advanced and nuanced sense of understanding otherwise lacking everywhere you search, how exactly did what you say contradict what I said, even if what you said were true?

Time Magazine in Janurary 2021:

At a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security in September 2019, Soufan urged lawmakers to take the threat more seriously. The following month, 40 members of Congress signed a letter calling—unsuccessfully—for the U.S. State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization. “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years,” the letter said. Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, later confirmed in testimony to the U.S. Senate that American white supremacists are “actually traveling overseas to train.”

The hearings on Capitol Hill glossed over a crucial question: How did Azov, an obscure militia started in 2014 with only a few dozen members, become so influential in the global web of far-right extremism? ... From across Europe and the U.S., dozens of fighters came to join Azov that year, many of them bearing tattoos and rap sheets earned in the neo-Nazi underground back home. The Ukrainian authorities welcomed many of them, and in some cases granted them citizenship."

https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/

Propagandized fucking morons in March 2022: "lol Nazis in Ukraine are Putin propaganda lol"

What Turkey Wants From Sweden and Finland in NATO Expansion Spat (Bloomberg; May 17, 2022)

• No Kurds
• No restrictions on Turkey's arms trading

Mainly targeted at Sweden.
Might actually speak in Sweden's favor? :chin:

I'm not out to "contradict" what you said, I'm out to dispute the frankly infantile framing of what you said. Can you imagine a state department lackey writing a white paper on geopolitics of Ukraine analyzing things in terms of "free will" and "moral responsibility"? They would be fired on the spot or else laughed at and told never to write that again on pain of infinate embarrassment. It's just so incredibly stupid.

Xtrix asked if the US contributed to the mess in Ukraine. And your response is a parable about bad parents and free will? What is this? Seasame Street?

I'm aware everyone hates each other and we are possibly in an episode of Sesame Street where Big Bird beheads Snuffleupagus and hangs the Cookie Monster from a lamp post, but can we dial things down a notch, please?

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St.

Mind blown.

I'm not out to "contradict" what you said, I'm out to dispute the frankly infantile framing of what you said. Can you imagine a state department lackey writing a white paper on geopolitics of Ukraine analyzing things in terms of "free will" and "moral responsibility"? They would be fired on the spot or else laughed at and told never to write that again on pain of infinate embarrassment. It's just so incredibly stupid.

Xtrix asked if the US contributed to the mess in Ukraine. And your response is a parable about bad parents and free will? What is this? Seasame Street? — Streetlight

No, what you're frankly out to do is continuously reiterate your narrative that you have some special understanding of the situation that somehow evades everyone else and so you stomp your feet around like that should make us better believe you.

What I said was that the Russians are morally responsible for their decisions. Somewhere you read into that that my position was that the best course of action for the US is to do that which would instigate immoral activity on the part of the Russians. That interpretation of my bad parenting analogy must also mean that you think I thought bad parenting was perfectly acceptable simply because they wouldn't be responsible for their children going out and committing murder.

In terms of the white paper you envision either of us being summoned to write, I suppose I would write it seeking to obtain whatever pragmatic objective I wanted to achieve, and I generally don't get sidetracked with moralizing. However, I do thank you for letting me know the consequence if I did moralize, as I'd be fired, laughed at, scolded, and just embarrassed until my face was so bright red that I'd never be able to show it ever ever again.

Who's to blame for Russian boots on Ukraine soil. I'd say Russia. — Hanover

Of course. Again— I don’t see who’s denying this.



I’m not in favor of increasing nuclear weapons — so I disagree.

A lot has changed since 1993, incidentally.

@Streetlight
And you do your useless stereotypical rant as you usually do. — ssu

I like his rantings. It's like a gadfly

I'm aware everyone hates each other and we are possibly in an episode of Sesame Street where Big Bird beheads Snuffleupagus and hangs the Cookie Monster from a lamp post, but can we dial things down a notch, please? — Baden

Awww really... do we have to?

Personally, I feel like a debate on war, especially an active war, should be as aggressive and vitriolic as possible. How else will we be able to identify which side people support?

For example:

I support the right of an aggressor state to invade another, and occuppy it if possible. I also support the right of a victimized state to repel its aggressors, and sanction the fuck out of them if possible...you motherfucker!

See, it works great :ok: