And if so - what seems to be the issue, exactly? — Streetlight

Unclear, please rephrase.

Consider Putin's involvement in America's 2016 election — Metaphysician Undercover

As an excuse for democrats to offshore the fact that they irredeemably suck? What does that have to do with anything?

That quote, as a strategy. What's wrong with it?

Should people not be trying to increase the costs of war on Moscow? Should people not be trying to end the continuation of a war between unequal belligerents?

Who said there was anything wrong with it?

Fair enough, if you think it's a positive. I do too.

I do. Sorry to disappoint once again.

I'm not disappointed dude. We're good friends, remember?

FYI, I'm not a kangaroo. Don't get too excited.

We're good friends, remember? — Streetlight

Partners in crime (...like Putin and Trump) often become enemies when the chips are down.

I don't know what got into him. Today he seems to agree with our president. A few days ago he would welcome the total destruction of anything French.

Maybe his favorite kangaroo ran away with a Frenchman?

'Epistemically fallacious'? What could that possibly mean in the context of persuasion. — Isaac

I can be persuaded by rational or irrational reasons what to hold to be true. Being persuaded by irrational reasons is fallacious, and as long as it has to do with truth then it's epistemically fallacious.

Interested now in what an epistemically non-fallacious method of persuasion might be — Isaac

Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods, journalistic methods, administrative/institutional methods are such methods. They vary in scope, rigor and pre-conditions for their application. Even common sense is epistemically pretty reliable in our ordinary daily life.

So epistemically non-fallacious? Or not? — Isaac

Well that depends on the reasons why one would opt for violence in the given circumstances.

No. That is why they may. You've yet to demonstrate that they do. — Isaac

It's impossible to "demonstrate" in the sense of providing evidences for future events or counter-factuals. But the "rhetoric" force concerns people's expectations in condition of uncertainty: the ratio of increasing the military, economic, and human costs of the Russian aggression for the Russians is in deterring them (an other powers challenging the current World Order) from pursing aggressively their imperialistic ambitions, and this makes perfect sense in strategic terms given certain plausible assumptions (including the available evidence like Putin's political declarations against the West + all his nuclear, energy, alimentary threats, his wars on the Russian border, his attempts to build an international front competing against Western hegemony, Russian military and pro-active presence in the Middle East and in Africa, Russian cyber-war against Western institutions, Putin's ruthless determination in pursuing this war at all costs after the annexation of Crimea which great strategic value from a military point of view, his huge concentration of political power, all hyper-nationalist and extremist people in his national TV and entourage with their revanchist rhetoric, etc.), of course.

arguably — neomac
Go on then... — Isaac

It's boring to repeat myself.

it's OK that Ukrainians should drop dead on the West's behalf. — Streetlight

Ukrainians have chosen to fight the Russians who are destroying their life and their country. That concerns the Ukrainian national interest, Westerners legitimately decided to support them for Western plausible security concerns too, of course. And the fact that Ukrainians are more pro-Western than anti-Western is one more reason to intervene. There is no need to talk in terms of "benevolence" especially when the "benevolence" of the alleged pacifists are so instrumental in reaching the arguably worst outcome for the Ukrainians according to the Ukrainians, and supporting Russian imperialistic ambitions.

Westerners decided to support them for Western plausible security concerns too, of course. — neomac

You misspelled "so that they can siphon tax money to arms dealers and turn Ukraine into a debt prison producing Nikes for the Western middle class while eliminating a competitor model of capitalism that does not play by the West's rules while letting Ukrainians drop dead for those goals, thanks to a war they precipitated and did everything to encourage and continue to prolong".

The West does not, and has never had 'security concerns'. It only ever has had challenges to its genocidal model of global domination. Anyone who thinks the US in particular has 'security concerns' half-way across the fucking planet is a clown.

To the degree that the Ukraine is crawling with Nazis who decisively tipped the course of events into war, then sure, I agree that the "Ukrainians are more pro-Western than anti-Western". Nazis being a uniquely Western apogee of civilization.

Once Upon a Time in Londongrad

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/may/31/once-upon-a-time-in-londongrad-review-putin-deaths-russian

(on how Putin can kill whoever he wants to, wherever they are)

(on how Putin can kill whoever he wants to, wherever they are) — Olivier5

(And how London in particular let Putin ride roughshod all over it to get that sweet sweet Russian billionaire cash at the expense of their own citizens and their ability to afford to live in their own country).

That too I guess. Money talks and the Brits have always liked its voice.

30% information, 70% sarcasm and insults. — Xtrix

You might be a bit generous.

I'm not wading though these pages of muck to repost all the times you have played Nazi PR specialist, but you are welcome to search my posts for when I have called you out on it. Although probably don't bother as you wouldn't be able to read them correctly anyway. — Streetlight

Meanwhile, life goes on in Ukraine (for some at least), just a bit differently.

Bakhmut family with no gas or power cook outside (May 31, 2022)

Would it be worthwhile listing some peace-makers?
No NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't one apparently.
An obvious one is Putin taking his land-grabbing attempts down a notch, moving his troopers (and Nazi mercs) home, out of harm's way, well, if they also stop bombing.
...?

And if so - what seems to be the issue, exactly? — Streetlight

I don't have the information to agree with it because it really depends on what it costs us, or more specifically, what it costs Ukrainians, to "increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow". I think, in any case, it's a callous approach from the comfort of not actually fighting and if making territorial concessions to negotiate a lasting peace is the right approach then one assumption often seen (but not proved in my view) is:

1. Russia has imperial ambitions. If this is the case, then territorial concessions do not lead to a lasting peace. Some here are convinced Russia has these ambitions, others don't. I haven't seen definitive proof one way or the other.

Other questions it raises with me:

2. No country sending equipment seems to have asked the question whether support in the war effort is the right balance of interests between avoiding Ukrainian casualties and bleeding the Russians.
3. The last clear example of aggression (that got condemned) was Iraq invading Kuwait with a much wider range of coalition partners than we see now. That could be political expediency, energy dependency, cynicism in light of the Western double standard or a more nuanced view than propagated in Western media about the underlying reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine.

Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods — neomac

Weird. What scientific studies have you read about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Or weirder still mathematical ones? Did someone derive a new solution to quadratic equations which proves there are no Nazis in Ukraine? Does the theory that the US provoked Russia defy the law of the excluded middle?

...journalistic methods... — neomac

Do you mean phone hacking...?

administrative/institutional methods — neomac

...put the Kafka down.

common sense — neomac

Ah! Just when I'd finished playing cliche bingo and all, damn. I could have got "I arrived at my conclusions by Common Sense..."

Well that depends on the reasons why one would opt for violence in the given circumstances. — neomac

OK, so the 'epistemically non-fallacious' route would be?

the ratio of increasing the military, economic, and human costs of the Russian aggression for the Russians is in deterring them (an other powers challenging the current World Order) from pursing aggressively their imperialistic ambitions, and this makes perfect sense in strategic terms given certain plausible assumptions (including the available evidence like Putin's political declarations against the West + all his nuclear, energy, alimentary threats, his wars on the Russian border, his attempts to build an international front competing against Western hegemony, Russian military and pro-active presence in the Middle East and in Africa, Russian cyber-war against Western institutions, Putin's ruthless determination in pursuing this war at all costs after the annexation of Crimea which great strategic value from a military point of view, his huge concentration of political power, all hyper-nationalist and extremist people in his national TV and entourage with their revanchist rhetoric, etc.), of course. — neomac

Or not.

The point (the one you interjected about) is that your speculation here might work out, or it might not. You can't possibly say for sure. The empirical evidence is insufficient to choose between theories, there's been no scientific paper on it, no mathematician has compressed it into an irrefutable formula, it hasn't been rendered into truth tables... You just have to choose which to believe.

So why do you believe that one?

I don't have the information to agree with it because it really depends on what it costs us, or more specifically, what it costs Ukrainians, to "increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow". — Benkei

That's fair. I would assume that cessation of hostilities would take priority in the order of the two points mentioned. I guess I asked as well because there seem to be many here for whom "punish Russia/punish Putin" seemed to be the overriding concern, above all else. And if that was at least among the things Macron is pushing, then I wonder why the curious promotion of an article that unflatteringly compares him to Kissinger. Macron having been a target for many for not hewing entirely 100% to the US State department line. Just like, 80% only.

Your other questions are good too and it's hard to answer them. As for the second though, one can only look on in utter disbelief. The US created the Taliban no less than the Contras thanks to their pouring in of weapons, and to now pour them into the largest concentration of Nazis in Europe? Good lord it's horrifying. These are the same people, of course, who are materially supporting (rebranded) Al-Qaeda in Syria right now as we speak.

I think Biden is doing what he can. He needs to avoid escalation. — Olivier5

He mustn't be very good at "avoiding escalation" then, as he keeps escalating! :grin:

He's just agreed to give Ukraine advanced rocket systems:

The United States is providing Ukraine with high mobility artillery rocket systems that can accurately hit targets as far away as 80 km (50 miles) after Ukraine gave "assurances" they will not use the missiles to strike inside Russia, senior administration officials said.

Biden agrees to provide Ukraine with longer range missiles - Reuters

The likelihood that Ukraine will stick to its "assurances" seems pretty slim. Plus, the rocket systems (MLRS) that Biden is giving to Ukraine can be used to fire long-range munitions supplied by other countries or bought on the black market.

Obviously, this goes far beyond the original commitment NATO made to only send “defensive systems” to Ukraine.

I think what Biden is doing is escalate by stealth. And the same applies to Boris Johnson who has also called for the West to give Ukraine long-range weapons ....

As I live in a dacha outside Londongrad, you can perhaps understand from that article some of my cynicism concerning the morality of supposed democracies.

escalate by stealth — Apollodorus

Nice phrase. In other words, crank up the pressure on Moscow while avoiding WW3. I still think Biden is doing fine. His military establishment is as we know ultra-awkish. He has to proceed with a degree of caution and temper their enthusiasm.

Europeans have already warned the US against getting too giddy about a never ending proxy war. There is risk here, of the US believing its own propaganda. Biden needs to keep his head cool.

If you go back to the initial argument, I never pretended that democracies are moral. As you pointed out yourself, morality only applies to individual human beings.

What I said, originally, is that it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. On the contrary, it is the natural, logical, and moral thing to do. If one's philosophy leads one to see no difference between an offensive militaristic dictatorship and a defending democracy, then maybe one's philosophy is fucked up.

In short, equating Putin and Zelensky is not philosophical and sophisticated at all, far from it. It is being cretinous, callous, and lazy.

In other words, crank up the pressure on Moscow while avoiding WW3. — Olivier5

In other words, escalation that can sooner or later lead to WW3.

Biden did say "For God's sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power".

And don't forget the influence defense corporations like Lockheed Martin, that are making a fortune from selling weapons to Ukraine and other European countries, have on the US government.

So, when Russian TV says that NATO has already started WW3, it seems close enough to the reality on the ground, given that multiple powers are now involved in their proxy-war against Russia.

While it may be argued that the conflict is currently "local", it still has the potential to become worldwide. In any case, the more weapons America and NATO give Ukraine, the more Russia will feel forced to escalate. And all this could have been avoided by taking into consideration Russia's security concerns.

As for European countries, there are significant differences between them. The most belligerent seem to be countries with a long anti-Russian track record like England and Poland. A distinction must also be drawn between governments calling for all-out jihad on Russia and ordinary people for whom war is the last thing they needed ....

it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. — Olivier5

I think that is true only after due consideration of all the facts. But you have expressly stated that considering Russia's case would be "unprincipled". And taking things at face value while ignoring the underlying causes does seem superficial and unphilosophical.

What if your "democracy" isn't a genuine democracy but a front for rule by oligarchs and kleptocrats?
Even if a democracy is genuine, it can still be used by third parties to threaten Russia, for example by taking over the Black Sea and stationing nuclear systems on Ukraine's territory.

I'm ready to give him the benefit of doubt here. — Olivier5

I think the US has been quite decent in it's response. And what is notable that it has been a quite unified response from the West.

Biden did say "For God's sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power". — Apollodorus

Ain't that the truth?

you have expressly stated that considering Russia's case would be "unprincipled". — Apollodorus

Their lies and excuses are not worthy of consideration, unless you want to participate in their propaganda and help them kill more folks. If they care to be taken seriously, they could try and not insult other people's intelligence, and stop actively slaughtering innocent folks. Otherwise, they can go to hell as far as I am concerned, and so can any and all war crime apologist.

Yes, and that's comforting.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/would-we-do-better-hubris-and-validation-in-ukraine/

Penetrating article. Tx.