They naturally ought to fight, and that fight has been proven very successful. An invader that thinks your sovereign state is artificial, that ought to be part of Russia (because of history) and you ought to be Russian and you don't deserve to have your own country, as we have seen from what kind of actions implemented on the occupied territory, is the worst kind of occupier.It's a simple question. Ought the Ukrainians fight this imperial aggressor to regain their lost territory? Not "will they?", "ought they?" — Isaac
if you fall in line with Western Propaganda (US, EU, British, Australian), you are being brave, support democracy and are against dictatorship.
If you disagree and think this war should end now, then one is a Putin Supporter and a sympathizer for dictators. — Manuel
By now the Palestinian cause is widely recognized, up until the mid-early 2000's, if you supported Palestine, you were a terrorist sympathizer. Do they have a chance to get a two-state solution? Israel is uninterested and is instead stealing everything of value in the West Bank. What options do they have? They could try and change Israeli society from the inside through the Arab parties - unlikely to happen but it's an option.
Or they could keep forcing for a two-state solution, which is what is recognized by international law. Regardless of how they act, they will be killed, as can be seen almost every day in Israeli news. It makes sense for them to get a state, if only to be able to live a semi normal life.
The Kurds have been betrayed by everybody at one point or another. They do have a quite advanced society, which merits autonomy. Will they get it? Who knows. These topics deserve whole threads not brief comments. — Manuel
But on to the important issue, what was there in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union cared enough about such that they would resort to nuclear war? Did "the West" sanction the Soviet Union for going into Afghanistan? Did the West say that victory for them means that the Soviet Union cannot win this war?
Was the global economy in a fritz because of Soviet war in Afghanistan?
No - these are quite different times. The stakes are much higher in all respects. — Manuel
How could you possibly know that I’m not one of ‘them experts’, for one — Olivier5
My analysis is that a very small risk of nuclear escalation exists, additional to what this risk has historically been before February. This risk has evidently already been factored in by NATO members, as evidenced by the lack of allied support for a brand new Ukrainian airforce for instance. That decision was already some form of yielding to the superpower nuclear status of Russia. I think it was enough. In fact I wonder if we shouldn’t revisit the issue of some no-fly-zone, given the current abuse of civilian targets by Russia. — Olivier5
They naturally ought to fight — ssu
Now we've got past the pointless repetitions of the mere fact that they're probably going to fight and into the matter of interest - on what moral grounds ought they fight?
Do they have a moral right to some piece of geography? If so, did Russia have a similar moral right to Chechnya?
Do they have a moral duty to fight aggressors? If so, then why do we not? Why is NATO not there too?
Do they have a moral right to respond as they see fit? If so, does that autonomy extend to Pro-Russian elements in Crimea and Donbas? — Isaac
If you do not clarify what you consider "moral ground" vs "non-moral ground" and "moral right" vs "non-moral right", "moral duty" vs "non-moral duty" and there is no convergence in the usage of such notions, you and your interlocutor will inadvertently talk past each other. — neomac
So that's our uniformed, pointless analyses done. How dull. — Isaac
Like why you prefer your analysis over that of the experts reaching a different conclusion? — Isaac
Most experts I've read from (French dudes you wouldn't know of) seem to agree that Ukraine has a good chance of recovering territories, that the Russian army is disorganized and liable to collapse, that Putin's territorial ambitions need to be pushed back against, that the risk of nuclear escalation is exaggerated by Kremlin-affiliated cretins, and that it won't succeed in intimidating Ukraine or NATO. — Olivier5
do tell what the 'experts' that you are reading about are saying. — Olivier5
As far as I'm concerned something like "moral ground" just defines a set of conditions. The debate is about what sorts of conditions belong in that set. If I pre-define the set, then the conditions which belong in it become a matter of mere accordance with that (my) definition. A fairly boring exercise in consistency - we might as well be doing maths. The interesting discussion is in the disagreements about the definition (about what belongs in that set) and the reasons for believing in those criteria. — Isaac
This is why I like discussing with you. You never fail to disappoint. — Isaac
So that's our uniformed, pointless analyses done. How dull. — Isaac
Anyone following the thread can see that I've already done that in spades. — Isaac
We're having a discussion. So to take part you need to be able to support your position, explain why you prefer some explanations over others. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss. — Isaac
My go-to experts on military mattersd in Ukraine are Michel Goya, ex-colonel and military historian and commentator, Xavier Tytelman from the website Air&Cosmos, ex-military pilot and aviation specialist, and the good guys in ISW. I also consult this Youtube channel, signaled here by another poster and generally informative. — Olivier5
the risk of nuclear escalation is exaggerated by Kremlin-affiliated cretins — Olivier5
why did you choose to believe them over, say, Swift Center analysts, or Alexander Vershbow, NATO’s deputy secretary general from 2012 to 2016, who said that Western leaders had concluded that Russian plans to use nuclear weapons in a major crisis were sincere, raising the risk from any accident or misstep that the Kremlin mistook for war, or Dmitry Gorenburg, an analyst of Russian military policy who said "The escalation dynamics of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia could easily spiral into a nuclear exchange", or Samuel Charap ... — Isaac
I don't know who these guys are, never heard of them, and have not assessed their credibility and biases critically and effctively. — Olivier5
this Youtube channel, — Olivier5
Should a times come when I need to study those guys, I will study them and their biases, and I might end up using them if I can trust them enough. — Olivier5
So, your study of the credibility and biases of the sources you do use — Isaac
(I supplied their qualification details) — Isaac
I could come across one of these guys saying something I find interesting or dubious enough that it warrants additional review.What might prompt such a time? — Isaac
What checks did you carry out as to their credibility and bias? — Isaac
I don't know even their organisations. — Olivier5
So whatever nuance and impartiality one may want to put in their own views, it is likely going to get lost in the process of collective choice making. In other words, we can reason and analyse geopolitical conflicts of such magnitude for the intellectual fun of it (or for moral concerns?) in a forum but in the end we can't likely hope to be more than polarised political "meme" vectors in the geopolitical arena. — neomac
The story of those people fighting for their "claimed" land for generations shows that their motivation and endurance is not weakened by to the kind of reasoning that makes you think their fight is pointless. And Ukrainians may show analogous motivation and endurance wrt the Russians, no matter how much land Russia has currently annexed nor to what extent it has military means to preserve it. — neomac
You are moving from what is at stake for Afghans (which is relevant to guide our expectations about their behavior and prospects of success), to what is at stake for all other players. So I’d say we concur on a couple of points: first, if we want to better assess the relevance of a conflict for us we should move from the stakes of one player to the stakes of all other players directly and indirectly impacted by such conflict (including us). — neomac
Which is why I said that this situation in Ukraine now bears little (save superficial) resemblance to Afghanistan.
Yes, they will need to consider what would be a fair deal to them, as well as to Russia. It won't be trivial, but it must be done. — Manuel
You don't know who NATO are? Never heard of RAND Corporation? Never come across Carnegie Endowment? — Isaac
maybe it's not simply that the West is helping the Ukrainians but also that the Ukrainians are helping the West. — neomac
Do they have a moral right to some piece of geography? — Isaac
It's not about duty. It's simply a very rational response. When you can defend and protect yourself from a hostile attack, do so. Russians aren't control of Kyiv as they wanted. They failed to capture it and put a puppet regime in place... and get that Novorossiya, that they have dreamed about.I can clearly see a moral allowance for fighting back. If someone comes to take what's your by force, it seems fair use equal force to retain it. But I can't see how you're getting from a moral allowance to a moral duty - that they actually ought to fight back, not merely that they could. — Isaac
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.