It is a description that shows the result of only considering "groups" of individuals and their opinions to adequately represent people living together in a particular society. All the different ways people work, judge themselves, mate, educate children, and govern themselves are not simply an aggregate of their opinions. — Paine
Opinions, by themselves, do not do anything. — Paine
You present the absence of Ukrainian agency as a fact, authorizing the removal of their voice from any moral calculus. — Paine
You champion Mearsheimer's theory of International Relations as the best explanation of the events unfolding in Ukraine. You discount previous behavior by Russia as indicative of anything happening in this conflict. — Paine
All of your 'moral' arguments are made upon the basis of what you have argued to be happening. — Paine
One thing that should be noticed is that it's missiles only, which shows basically that Russia failed from day one until today to cripple Ukrainian air defenses and Ukrainian airspace is too dangerous for Russian Air Force to fly in. The lack of air superiority is extremely important: Ukraine can move it's formations around an they aren't taking losses when not engaged on Russian ground forces. Another issue is that it's cities, not the Ukrainian army, which is a far harder target to get at, are the target. And to use for example surface to air missiles in the surface-to-surface role is quite inefficient as the missiles don't have a similar high explosive charge as actual artillery missiles and rockets.The only potential issue for Russia is the depletion of its stocks of long-range munitions at a much faster rate than the industry can produce. But they are already supplementing their dwindling stocks with hundreds of cheap Iranian strike drones, and according to Western intelligence, they are also negotiating to buy Iranian ballistic missiles. — SophistiCat
In any case, the way they have been bombarding Ukraine is completely unconscionable and must be prevented, thwarted or stopped by any means necessary. — Wayfarer
Argues that Putin's success would entail uncontrollable nuclear proliferation, whilst his defeat will deflate the attraction of nuclear weapons. — Wayfarer
No. It argues that "If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine..." — Isaac
The Greatest Nuclear Threat we face is a Russian Victory, The Atlantic.
— Wayfarer
:up: — neomac
KYIV/BERLIN, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Ukraine pleaded on Thursday for the West to finally send it heavy tanks as the defence chiefs of the United States and Germany headed for a showdown over weapons Kyiv says could decide the fate of the war.
[...]
A German government source said Berlin would lift its objections if Washington sends its own Abrams tanks. U.S. officials say the Abrams is inappropriate for Ukraine, because it runs on turbine engines that use too much fuel for Kyiv's strained logistics system to keep them supplied at the front.
Poland and Finland have already said they would send Leopards if Germany lifts its veto, and other countries have indicated they are ready to do so as well. Britain added to the pressure by breaking the taboo on heavy tanks last week, offering a squadron from its fleet of Challengers, though far fewer of these are available than Leopards.
Germany has been reluctant to send offensive weapons that could be seen as escalating the conflict. Many of its Western allies say that concern is misplaced, with Russia showing no sign of backing away from its onslaught against Ukraine.
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon's top policy adviser, said on Wednesday Abrams tanks were not likely to be included in Washington's next massive $2 billion military aid package, which will be headlined by Stryker and Bradley armoured vehicles. — U.S., Germany head for showdown over tanks for Ukraine - Reuters
↪boethius Perhaps it is no coincidence that Germany ousted their last defense minister and appointed a new one yesterday. — Tzeentch
The argument is completely nonsensical; all non-nuclear nations that might develop nuclear weapons would be for deterrence purposes, and mainly from the United States and not Russia or China or other neighbour's, they would not look at nuclear weapons as a means to expand their territory.
Thousands of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are required to threaten the entire planet. — boethius
the major powers will reduce their nuclear stockpiles, lower nuclear tensions and be generally more reasonable, and in exchange the non-nuclear powers will not seek nuclear weapons. — boethius
You might be interested to look at historical analyses of US Lend Lease aid to the UK, and later the USSR. The aid was critical, more so to the UK, eventually supplying a large proportion of all UK material and a substantial proportion of food as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's hard to argue that the US was "drip feeding" the Brits or Soviets. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The quickest way to get vehicles out would be to set up maintenance facilities in Poland and have them staffed by NATO personnel. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It makes sense to stockpile some stuff in Poland and not to turn it over yet, as the material can be neatly laid out in warehouses without fear of Russian missile attacks — Count Timothy von Icarus
Point being, people underestimate how long this stuff takes. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the prior Lend Lease is any indication, peak flows won't start until late 2023 or later. — Count Timothy von Icarus
... but any journalist who can, with a straight face, argue that the best way to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict is to provoke a nuclear power, has lost any right to be taken seriously.
... but then it's The Atlantic, so ... — Isaac
Define "Russian victory" and provide evidence from Russian officials in support of it. — neomac
In any case, the way they have been bombarding Ukraine is completely unconscionable and must be prevented, thwarted or stopped by any means necessary. — Wayfarer
Why would countries have sent Ukraine weaponry back in 2008? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Georgia and Ukraine had hoped to join the NATO Membership Action Plan,[3] but, while welcoming the two countries’s aspirations for membership and agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO", the NATO members decided to review their request in December 2008.
So, if "these countries will become members of NATO" why not in 2008? And if not and declaring so may significantly increase tensions with Russia and send events towards this current war but for [insert reasons] Ukraine won't be allowed to join NATO before the reason for it (not being invaded) actually happens ... but, because we're nice, we'll send arms, then, yeah, why not start the training on all the potential weapons systems Ukraine may need in 2008.
— 2008 Bucharest summit - Wikipedia
It had a pro-Russian government through 2014, and there was a path towards soft "annexation" ala Belarus for Russia. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And to use for example surface to air missiles in the surface-to-surface role is quite inefficient as the missiles don't have a similar high explosive charge as actual artillery missiles and rockets. — ssu
Yet I think that creating simple "el cheapo" rockets/missiles to this role is quite possible even with the sanctions etc. Scuds were made in the 1950's and then there wasn't much computer chips around. Russia is likely transforming to a wartime economy and likely changes to the military industry can be done in a year or so. Hence likely a continuation of the missile barrage against Ukrainian cities will continue and I'm not so sure if the missiles will run out. — ssu
The Germans and French vocally disagreed with the US about the threat of war, and even top level US diplomats seemed skeptical about an actual war right up until the invasion. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Ukraine's long term survival didn't seem obvious until later in the spring of last year. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Western countries didn't give Ukraine tens of billions in aid before Russia invaded because they did not think Russia would actually invade — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's basically an issue of time: Russia can transform it's military industrial complex to wartime in year or two. The idea that sanctions work is nonsense, especially in a country which does have the knowledge to produce missiles and tanks.Still, we are likely going to see primitivization of their weapons production, just as we are already seeing primitivization of civilian production (car manufacture, etc.) — SophistiCat
If Russia ends up in the long run with more territory but does not actually defeat Ukraine then it's up for debate if the price paid for the land was worth it overall, certainly not an outright victory over Ukraine, but of course Ukraine would have paid orders of magnitude, possibly 2 or 3, higher price and didn't win anything. If the "strategic defeat" concept proves true (which now seems extremely unlikely as Russia seems to have transitioned their economy successfully) then perhaps it's a "win" for NATO, loss of some sort for Russia (not great, not terrible), and a clear immense and unmitigated loss for Ukraine — boethius
The US and Russia are reluctant to offer a clear definition of "victory" and "loss". — neomac
To me, if at the end of this war, Ukraine remains a sovereign non-pro-Russian non-Russified non-demilitarised country (even without Crimea), NATO members will increase in number and military capacity at the expense of Russian security, the overall Russian military projection capacity and reputation will be significantly decreased, the Russian propaganda machine in the West wrecked, and Russian economy impoverished & decoupled from the West long enough (whatever else being equal like the Rest relative neutrality), then Russia has much more likely lost its strategic power competition against the US and the power status it wanted so badly to be acknowledged by the West. So it doesn’t matter if Russia keeps Crimea&Donbas and sells this as a victory against the US/NATO/West to the Russians. Anyways, I’m not sure that the West is ready to leave Crimea to Russia, neither that the Russia nuclear threat is enough deterrent for all annexed regions (including Crimea). Besides this year is going to be decisive also for the future presidential elections, in Russia before the US. So there are domestic politics incentives pressing for a resolution of this war. We will see. — neomac
It should the authors of statements like "Russia must be stopped" in various forms or "a Russian victory in Ukraine must be prevented because it would encourage more 'rule breaking' or nuclear proliferation etc." to very precisely define what they mean "stopped" or "victory", otherwise they are of course setting themselves up to just move the goal posts later. — boethius
If you're willing to say "if Ukraine has lost 100 000, then that's worth it for the harm to Russia so far, and another 1, 2, 3, hundred thousand dead would be worth it" then say so, rather than complain it's emotional blackmail. You are only considering the harm to Russia and not the harm to Ukraine, for you position to be coherent you must either state unlimited harm to Ukraine is worthwhile to achieve limited harm to Russia or then there must be somewhere you draw the line: 500 000 KIA, a million? — boethius
but it is either the morally acceptable sacrifice to achieve your goals in your framework and "anything goes" or then there must be a line somewhere between tolerable and intolerable losses for these military objectives. — boethius
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.