Are you likening that to Russia hankering for Kiev without consulting them? — Paine

I'm likening the arguments about legitimacy. I am saying borders are never legitimate or illegitimate, they are merely established or disestablished and stable or unstable.

Stable borders are the pre-requisite of a democracy and they therefore cannot be established democratically. — unenlightened

Well said.

If your Chez is actually attacked, and you choose to fight the attackers, that could reasonably be called self-defense. As a concept, that is not co-extensive with the question of boundaries, but neither are the ideas mutually exclusive of each. — Paine

This doesn't even approach the key question. No one is doubting that what the Ukrainians are doing is 'self-defence'. The question is over the moral weight we (outsiders) ought give to their decision (democratic or otherwise) to do so. The suggestion has been raised that we ought be encouraging Ukraine to accept a settlement which may involve losing Crimea or Donbas. The counter argument is that they have democratically decided to keep fighting for those regions (in, as you say, self-defence). But that democratic decision has no moral weight unless you can answer why that particular group are the ones who morally (not pragmatically) get to decide the future of that region.

You've yet to answer that question.

And what prevents anyone from rejecting that 'showing', why are they suddenly compelled by your second judgement when they weren't by your first? — Isaac

The shared rule. If we can't converge on such basic level, we remain unintelligible to each other.

The shared rule. — neomac

If we shared a rule we would have agreed on the first proposition. If there were some rule (which we agree on) that can be used to demonstrate the truth of a rational argument, such that it compels me to believe "you committed fallacy X", then it could have been used in the first place to compel me to believe your original proposition. I don't see why it suddenly becomes more compelling when used to argue for a fallacy.

If we can't converge on such basic level, we remain unintelligible to each other. — neomac

Nonsense. I can vaguely understand people even talking to me in a foreign language. Most of our words are just fluff. We needn't agree on much. I determine most of my opinion about what you mean from my experience of people and assumptions about what kind of person you are and what you might likely be trying to say. You become a character in my story, playing a role I determine. You'll fit that role all the while it's not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary because it's easier for me to predict your behaviour that way. It's just basic cognition. We're not powered by words and their meanings, we're powered by predictions, stories, expectations.

The shared rule. — neomac

If we shared a rule we would have agreed on the first proposition. If there were some rule (which we agree on) that can be used to demonstrate the truth of a rational argument, such that it compels me to believe "you committed fallacy X", then it could have been used in the first place to compel me to believe your original proposition. I don't see why it suddenly becomes more compelling when used to argue for a fallacy. — Isaac

Not sure to understand what you are saying. I could explicitly conclude “all cats are animals” from “all cats are mammals” and “all mammals are animals” according to the “Barbara” syllogistic rule. You could argue instead that I inferred that conclusion from “all cats are planets” and “all planets are animals” always according to the “Barbara” syllogistic rule. And since the premises are false, so is the conclusion.
Your counter-argument would be a strawman, since I didn’t infer that conclusion from the premises you suggested. The strawman fallacy expresses a rule that is different from the “Barbara” syllogistic rule.
And the shared “Barbara” syllogistic rule might compel you to believe my conclusion if it wasn’t for the fact that you failed to use the right premises either because you overlooked my actual argument by mistake or because you are intellectually dishonest. In the former case you may readily acknowledge the strawman charge, in the latter case you may still want to escape the accusation with some other sophism.

If we can't converge on such basic level, we remain unintelligible to each other. — neomac


Nonsense. I can vaguely understand people even talking to me in a foreign language. Most of our words are just fluff. We needn't agree on much. I determine most of my opinion about what you mean from my experience of people and assumptions about what kind of person you are and what you might likely be trying to say. You become a character in my story, playing a role I determine. You'll fit that role all the while it's not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary because it's easier for me to predict your behaviour that way. It's just basic cognition. We're not powered by words and their meanings, we're powered by predictions, stories, expectations. — Isaac

Not sure to understand the contrast between “words and their meanings” and “predictions, stories, expectations”, and how this relates to what I said. As far as I’m concerned your predictions, stories and expectations should still be based on shared rules to make sense to me. It’s also ironic that you are trying to evade my conclusion about nonsensical objections by calling it “nonsense” and still expecting to make sense to me.

, sorry, late response. I think Putin nuking, say, Kyiv over southeastern Ukraine is unrealistic. And Sudzha for that matter.

post-Soviet Russian hegemonic ambitions in short:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakov_doctrine

War in Ukraine has changed Europe forever. . From the NYT, good article

What do you think is good about it?

It talks about Europe as a "muscular geopolitical protagonist", Germany as having to reinvent itself to arm itself and Ukraine against aggression, etc. A lot of war trumpeting.


Not a word of Nord Stream 2.

The reality is, when the US bombed Nord Stream 2, a piece of major infrastructure critical to the German economy, all Scholz asked was how many tanks the US wanted him to send. He's an absolute tool.

As a European myself I find the Germans' servile attitude beyond shameful, and as indicative of the relationship between the US and Europe - one of vassalage. European political leaders are servants of the American agenda, not serving the European peoples.


The article represents what the US wants Europe to be, and it represents in essence why the US provoked conflict in Eastern Europe - to break ties between Russia and Europe, and to remilitarize Europe, so it can serve as a useful in ally in the looming geopolitical conflict between the US and China as a counterbalance to Russia.

The US isn't interested in peace (see the peace talks they blocked), nor is it interested in what the Europeans think of all this (see the bombing of Nord Stream).

It really wants the war in Ukraine to have set all this in motion, but it remains to be seen. The US narrative is losing ground all over the world, and that includes inside Europe.

What do you think is good about it?

It talks about Europe as a "muscular geopolitical protagonist", Germany as having to reinvent itself to arm itself and Ukraine against aggression, etc. A lot of war trumpeting. — Tzeentch

Um. Good? It's just saying that we might be at a watershed moment, bringing an end to the expectation of goodwill and cooperation that was in the air at the end of the Cold War. I think that means it's a once-in-a-generation type of shift. The article mentions that Europe (and the US) tried to ignore previous aggressive actions by Russia, but this time was different. Many Europeans, especially in the east, see Ukraine's fate as being tied to their own. Thus Finland is trying to get into NATO, Germany is moving to strengthen its military position, and so forth.

It's an interesting challenge to find something good about it. Other than making the kind of drama and bloodshed we turn into art, I'm drawing a blank.

You called it a good article, that's why I asked.

To me it smells of the kind of war rhetoric that must've been prevalent before World War I, but if anything I share your worry.

You called it a good article, that's why I asked.

To me it smells of the kind of war rhetoric that must've been prevalent before World War I, but if anything I share your worry. — Tzeentch

The article provided an interesting insight, so it was good. I don't smell any war rhetoric. The US is just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. Putin seems happy to allow the event to tear a new butthole for Russia, so I guess the wait will be extended.

The US is just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. Putin seems happy to allow the event to tear a new butthole for Russia, so I guess the wait will be extended. — frank

What indication is there of this, and why would the Russians be pursuing a strategy like that?

This sounds like wishful thinking to me. The same kind that predicted the Russian economy collapsing, the Russian army disintegrating, the Russian government being ousted, etc.

why would the Russians be pursuing a strategy like that — Tzeentch

I don't think Putin is following any particular strategy at this point. He's just painted himself into a corner.

The US is just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. — frank

So not sending billions of dollars of weaponry, increasing intelligence aid, setting up lucrative reconstruction deals, running propaganda campaigns and censoring dissent then...? Just waiting?

I think we all know the US is sending funds to Ukraine that could be used to fix our elderly infrastructure. No need to remind us.

I think we all know the US is sending funds to Ukraine that could be used to fix our elderly infrastructure. No need to remind us. — frank

Well then it's not "just" waiting is it? It's actively encouraging and pursuing continued war.

It's not just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. It's the architect of the idea and its main protagonist. Whilst most now think Ukraine cannot ever win back Donbas and Crimea, the US (and their war hawk press) are still delighted to profit from their attempt to do so.

But by all means, just underplay the whole thing. We might as well get it over with, we'll soon be in "pretend it never happened" phase.

But by all means, just underplay the whole thing. — Isaac

I imagine I would appear to be underplaying it. I'm not as close to it as you are.

when if the US bombed Nord Stream — Tzeentch

:brow:

the Germans' servile attitude beyond shameful, and as indicative of the relationship between the US and Europe - one of vassalage [...] European political leaders are servants of the American agenda — Tzeentch

We might say ...

riddled with babbling bureaucracy thumb-twiddling impotence sitting-on-hands — Dec 7, 2022

NATO has also helped dull national attention to defense — Jan 13, 2023

By the way, I can think of some that would like the US going all isolation and NATO closing up shop. Can't tell if that's what you're suggesting here; is it?

lot of war trumpeting — Tzeentch

Hmm Are you deliberately skipping who's doing the warring here, continuing the ...

Invasion/attacks multipronged, like conventional (e.g. artillery), intimidation/terrorism-like (bombing throughout, building instability, insurgency), cultural (e.g. re-enculturation, suppression), political (e.g. narrative-hijacking, annexations by fakery, land grab, propaganda) — Jan 10, 2023

...? Ain't Germany ...

FYI, how things are done in Moscow, reported by different sources, Yevgeny Prigozhin complains about his mercs not getting enough ammo from the Russian army to kill Ukrainians:

I’m unable to solve this problem despite all my connections and contacts. Those who interfere with us trying to win this war are absolutely, directly working for the enemy. — Prigozhin (Al Jazeera, Feb 20, 2023)

The chief of general staff and the defence minister give out orders left and right not only to not give ammunition to PMC Wagner, but also to not help it with air transport. There is just direct opposition going on, which is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Wagner. This can be equated to high treason. — Prigozhin (France 24, Feb 21, 2023)

They didn’t give us ammunition, and they still don't. It’s now 10 o'clock in the morning on 22 February. No steps have been taken to issue ammunition. What’s the problem? I will explain. I’m posting a photo below. This is one of the gathering places of the dead. These are the guys who died yesterday because of the so-called shell famine. There should have been five times fewer of them. — Prigozhin (Ukrainska Pravda, Feb 22, 2023)

So far, it's all on paper but, so we have been told, the principal documents have already been signed. I would like to thank all those who helped us do this. You saved hundreds, maybe thousands of lives of guys who are defending their homeland, gave them a chance to move on with their lives. — Prigozhin (Reuters, Feb 23, 2023)

There's a bit more commentary in the reports.

Meanwhile in Germany ...

Thousands protest in Berlin against giving weapons to Ukraine
^{— Kate Connolly · The Guardian · Feb 25, 2023}

Don't see much of those in Moscow (any more). The report has broader commentary.

By the way, I can think of some that would like the US going all isolation and NATO closing up shop. Can't tell if that's what you're suggesting here; is it? — jorndoe

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, NATO is a threat to European security.

Hmm Are you deliberately skipping who's doing the warring here, ... — jorndoe

So you're just going to support the US efforts to stoke the fires?

By the way, I can think of some that would like the US going all isolation and NATO closing up shop. Can't tell if that's what you're suggesting here; is it? — jorndoe

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, NATO is a threat to European security. — Tzeentch

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, Europeans better be outside NATO. Feeling better now?

FYI, how things are done in Moscow, reported by different sources, Yevgeny Prigozhin complains about his mercs not getting enough ammo from the Russian army to kill Ukrainians: — jorndoe

I remember reading that actually in Russia there's no legal stature for PMC's like Wagner to exist in Russia, which fits quite well to the dictators gameplay: even the existence of these groups is totally dependent on Putin.

And the division of Russian forces to the Armed Forces and the National Guard, and then to private armies like the Wagner group, is purely done to strengthen Putin's power by not centralizing the military power into a central command. Similar tactics have been (and are) played around with dictatorships, most well known example perhaps Hitler's Third Reich having the Wehrmacht and the SS, even with Göring's Luftwaffe having their own ground troops, even panzer divisions.

The obvious result is shown here happening in Russia, with Wagner and the military obviously being in bad terms with each other. Of course the good thing is that this division purely done by Putin's efforts to control everything helps the Ukrainians. It helped last year with the Ukrainian counterattack which focused on a section of the front manned by National Guard units, which weren't as heavily armed as army units (as their mission is to beat demonstators and hunt lightly armed insurgents.

Similarly Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of the Chechen republic and his Chechen, aren't in any way a political threat to Putin's power. But as both Wagner and Kadyrov's Chechen are needed, they can bitch about how things really are.

And as Putin as dictator basically think about himself, this kind of system of various actors and players can create a real shit show in Russia as Putin cannot live forever. (Even if the country has seen false-Dimitry's, likely we won't see false Putins. At least it's unlikely.)

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, Europeans better be outside NATO. Feeling better now? — neomac

:up:

Seems like (to some here) Europeans are just spineless lackeys and pawns, who should stand up against the system they themselves have been part of creating and now depend on. Bad Europeans, bad!

Explosions heard in western Crimea, test of civil defense alert system planned

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/01/ukraine-lobbyists-washington-defense-industry

Stupid, black-hearted, fucking monsters.

I hope you're all delighted with yourselves.

How can one expect otherwise? It's not pretty - in fact, it's likely of the highest criminal tier imaginable, to profit from war. There is an argument to be made that weapons manufacturing should be left to the state and this way one leaves out most profit incentives.

These companies have a role to play in wanting this war to be longer - the more bullets and missiles are used, the more they sell. How much can we attribute exclusively to this industry is an open question. I suspect that the Pentagon's stated aim, "to severely weaken Russia.", is the bigger culprit.

Then again, these things are quite entangled together and prove difficult to tease apart. In any case, expected but disgusting nonetheless.

suspect that the Pentagon's stated aim, "to severely weaken Russia.", is the bigger culprit. — Manuel

Possibly, though, as you say, hard to disentangle the two. To what end would the Pentagon want to weaken Russia other than to cement further economic monopoly for wealthy influencers? I have little faith anyone has much genuine ideology anymore, not even cold-hearted patriotism. Idealists are inconvenient and have mostly been sidelined.

The list of countries the US has 'weakened', or 'liberated' is remarkably similar to the distribution of oil, gas, semi-conductors, fertiliser, and cheap labour.

expected but disgusting nonetheless. — Manuel

Brains are fragile things, they go wrong often and it's unsurprising that one or two people end up losing their humanity. I think it's most important to have a culture which isolates (or fixes) these derailments, since we cannot expect to live without them.

We seem, at the moment, to have one which promotes them to high office.

Seems like (to some here) Europeans are just spineless lackeys and pawns, who should stand up against the system they themselves have been part of creating and now depend on. Bad Europeans, bad! — ssu

Are Finland and Sweden going to make it into NATO or not?

Are Finland and Sweden going to make it into NATO or not? — frank

Hungary and Turkey will milk what they can get from it, but I'm not worried.

Besides, for this time, when the countries have made the application for NATO, accepted by all but two member countries and hence yet aren't full members of NATO, the US, the UK and for example Poland have already given bilateral security guarantees. When you have already bilateral security guarantees from the US and UK (and other NATO member states), I wouldn't be worried about it.

In fact Hungary has come out saying that it won't accept Ukraine to the EU either.