Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side? — jamalrob

I have a thing about recognizing victims. I don't know why, I just need them recognized. They don't show up in what we've been calling the "objective" view as anything but powerless debris.

Compare this to the thread on systemic racism in the US. Any attempt to try to understand white people as if they're truly our brothers and sisters is met with accusations of Uncle Tomism. Why? It's a philosophy forum, why can't we explore it objectively?

It comes down to what you're willing to accept about the world and about yourself. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a psychic problem if looking at something morally irritates you, but it might.

Tolstoy, Special Operation and Peace — jamalrob

Sublime. :up: :100:

...all of absolutely no use to us in understanding how this was allowed to hspen, he could have just cut all that without effect, yes? — Isaac

Notice what you quoted yourself. Because I was exactly referring to with the quote you made: "the leading NATO countries, in order to achieve their own goals, support extreme nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who, in turn, will never forgive the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents for choosing reunification with Russia."

The talk of neonazis ruling Ukraine is simply and absurdly delusional. This has been explained to you again and again and you simply aren't willing to get it.

Putin attacked and invaded all of Ukraine this year. This year isn't 2014. There isn't a Maidan revolution going on.

Even the mainstream media has picked up how delusional this rhetoric is:



Simply put, the idea that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, would have left it alone, if only NATO and the US had kept to it's own devices and been passive is not credible. Because all the issues I have many times repeated. By annexing territory, you obviously have quite different motives than just to stop security arrangements between third parties.

Well, well. Quelle surprise! So, you are finally admitting that annexing Crimea wasn't Putin's idea but had been a strategic objective of Russia before the time of Putin. — Apollodorus

Yes.

But others likely wouldn't have gone to do it with war and military force. That is the point here.

You see, there could have been a policy to be friendly to Ukraine. Not to bully them. As I posted earlier, polls in Ukraine earlier show that prior to everything that happened in 2014, more people in Ukraine favored a security arrangement with the CIS than with NATO and most believed in neutrality.

So you ask yourself, why couldn't have Putin shown restraint as he showed in Central Asia, where for some time in Tajikistan there were both a US military base and a Russian military base. Did he bully the Central Asian states because they had contacts with the US military? No. Russia waited and worked behind the scenes. And now there are no US bases in Central Asia.

Without a military annexation of Crimea things would be different. Add to that Russia would have had good ties to the West and NATO countries would have continued to dismantle their armed forces as they done.

That's the real tragedy, it's all because Putin (and you) think Russia is entitled to a bigger land mass than it now has.

If Putin would have made first priority to be the economy, not security, he would have had a far better chance of holding Ukraine in the sphere-of-influence voluntarily.

in Tajikistan there were both a US military base and a Russian military base. Did he bully the Central Asian states because they had contacts with the US military? No. Russia waited and worked behind the scenes. — ssu

I expect that was all to do with Afghanistan and probably not very comparable.

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

But this is not Putin's ambition. He's aiming for rebulding a Russian empire, he wants to be a "big man". I think most people are so into traditional geopolitical discussion and reasoning that they forget that there have been dictators who weren't driven by economic reasons. He doesn't care about money, we even see that as evidence in how he reacts to economic sanctions. He doesn't care about it because he cares about rebuilding "the empire". People need to understand that Putin acts are more in line with Hitler than any regular head of state in the world today. He has another vision for his rule, his "empire".

To blame the US for this is just plain stupid and just follows the propaganda machine from Kreml. Of course Putin uses blame as reasoning for his actions, but his goal has nothing to do with the US expansion, unless it just interferes with "the empire". He has no right to invade nations that are independent today in order to expand his empire and any "interference" by the US, or rather, NATO by making these nations members isn't anything more than threatening his ambition to invade and claim these nations for himself.

To say that a defensive alliance like NATO is an offensive threat to Russia when they make nations bordering to Russia members is just uneducated on what NATO actually is.

The truth is simple, NATO is NOT a threat to Russia other than blocking Putin's ability to easily invade and claim these nations for himself. THIS is the threat Putin feels from the west. NATO would NEVER attack Russia, it's not what NATO is about. But since they block an easy invasion, it makes Putin desperate. There's no wonder Putin invades Ukraine, even at a great cost, because he fears Ukraine joining NATO to block his invasion attempts.

This is what is going on.

If Putin is indeed the mad man everyone paints him, then why the fuck have the US and Europe spent the last decade poking him with a fucking stick? — Isaac

Read the above. They're not "poking him" they're blocking his delusional attempts at reclaiming nations that are today independent nations. Without NATO, Putin would have no problems invading any one of them and he would have done it long ago.

Which strategies for stopping Putin don't involve America? — Isaac

Who cares? It's like your argument is that if the US is not involved, then it's all fine, but since the US is part of all of this, then it's all just some evil geopolitical agenda. You have no argument.

I see. So when Putin talks about...

the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders.

...we should ignore what he says, all propaganda? — Isaac

Do you actually just listen to Putin and take his word as truth? A former KGB mastermind who's now a dictator, violent towards his own people, aggressor and invader of Ukraine and murderer of civilians?
You don't think that he tells the story that gives him what he wants?

NATO is a defensive alliance. You don't seem to understand what that means. That Putin complains about NATO moving east, he wraps that in a false narrative of NATO invading Russia. But the truth is that he won't want to be blocked from expanding his "empire" west. This is probably why NATO has been expanding east in the first place, to push back against Russia invading nations that are today independent nations.

Now Putin has put his nuclear capability on high alert.

Can people finally understand why Putin is a fucking threat and needs to be put down? Is this becoming clear to all the naive apologists of his agendas and ideas? This is serious.

Can people finally understand why Putin is a fucking threat and needs to be put down? — Christoffer

Yes, Putin is clearly a mad man who needs to be put down.

But... which is the main goal of having nuclear weapons? I do not see the value of having a destroyed world. Then, I do not see any powerful country interested on using them.

But... which is the main goal of having nuclear weapons? I do not see the value of having a destroyed world. Then, I do not see any powerful country interested on using them. — javi2541997

People need to understand that it's not Russia that is acting here, there is no Russia, there's only Putin. It's his actions, his decisions, his rule. It's like asking the question about a serial killer: "Why would he use these guns and knives? Why would he just destroy everything?". He doesn't care, he's old, he wants to be remembered. If he faces embarrassment as an outcome of this invasion, the entire image of him as a macho leader with great power falls.

And in that fall he will take the world with him. This is not some off-brand Marvel-movie villain shit, this is a real threat to the world and people have to understand this fact.

To say that a defensive alliance like NATO is an offensive threat to Russia when they make nations bordering to Russia members is just uneducated on what NATO actually is.
The truth is simple, NATO is NOT a threat to Russia other than blocking Putin's ability to easily invade and claim these nations for himself. — Christoffer

People need to understand that it's not Russia that is acting here, there is no Russia, there's only Putin. — Christoffer

:100:

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...? — Isaac


It's from a book by a guy named Sakwa. This is his third book on Putin, called the Putin Paradox. — frank

The whole book? I don't suppose you'd be willing to present any of here... Otherwise "what I'm saying is true...it's in a book" isn't awfully helpful. Do you think there aren't books blaming it all on American imperialism?

Oh look! https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side? — jamalrob


I have a thing about recognizing victims. — frank

The two are quite unrelated. What has identifying an antagonist got to do with recognising victims. We can lament the loss of life in Ukraine even if everything Putin said is absolutely correct. "It's lamentable that so many innocent civilians are put at risk by, this necessary operation for the greater good"...blah blah, blah. It's hard to see how identifying Putin as the sole perpetrator has anything to do with respecting the recognition of victims.

The talk of neonazis ruling Ukraine is simply and absurdly delusional. This has been explained to you again and again and you simply aren't willing to get it. — ssu

We've been through this. Quote me anywhere saying that I think neonazis rule Ukraine. I won't ask again but I will simply flag your posts. This is crossing the line.

Simply put, the idea that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, would have left it alone, if only NATO and the US had kept to it's own devices and been passive is not credible. Because all the issues I have many times repeated. — ssu

If the best you can do is "You're wrong...because of all the things I've said already" then it's clear this conversation isn't going anywhere"

Do you actually just listen to Putin and take his word as truth? — Christoffer

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? All you've done differently is decided in advance which of his words you're going to believe - the ones which fit the narrative you've already committed to.

I expect that was all to do with Afghanistan and probably not very comparable. — jamalrob

Not actually. US military presence in a country is US military presence in a country.

Especially with Kazakhstan, Russia's belly would be exposed to the US with US forces there. And Kazakhstan for example holds the Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is quite important for Russia. Obviously now the US would desperately need any airbase in the area from where to check Afghanistan. it had bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with intense training and support with Kazakhstan.
Yet now, Russia simply said no. It held the Central Asian states close and btw sent forces to quell riots Kazakhstan. And nobody in the West raised a finger.

In short, to influence countries it's better to be a friend than a threat. Just look at how well the "Monroe Doctrine" works in Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua.

He doesn't care, he's old, he wants to be remembered — Christoffer

He will be remembered as a leader who switch on a war in XXI century. It sounds lunatic if he is somehow proud of it

I often face it with Russian stuff. I have to show I'm passionately anti-Putin before people pay attention to anything I'm saying. — jamalrob

That is unfortunate but not really what is happening in this thread, I don't think.
I hope @Isaac answers my questions.

What exactly do you mean by 'wearing one's heart on one's sleeve' in this context?
Where has anyone suggested that you need preface every paragraph in such a way, or else you are a monster? — Amity

***

Who am I that I need to show how I feel about things? — jamalrob

You are a human with an opinion. You don't need to show how you feel unless you want to.
Sometimes it helps the dialogue, especially if supported by informed reason, listening and responding.
Such a conversation can educate.
Knowledge always comes in handy when it comes time to vote, if allowed.

I don't think you need enlightening as to the benefits of the freedom to speak out.
A dictatorship kills that freedom stone cold dead. No opposition allowed.

***

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side? — jamalrob

Let's turn it around.
Why not a demand for condemnation of a dictator's actions, especially in this war?
Why not discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation?
What is the philosophy of politics about?

If it excludes the subjective aspects of power- the ruler and the ruled - then what good is it?
Theory and history give an excellent background but what about the current characters.
The Here and Now. The consequences of propaganda on all sides.

Who knows the truth or can show it in a way that is undeniable?
First-hand accounts recorded as they happen. Like this:

I'm much closer to the people affected than most members of the forum. I personally know Ukrainian people here in Russia who are worried about their children in Ukraine. My wife has many Ukrainian friends in Kiev who are sending her messages and videos, frightened people who are leaving the city to get away from the conflict — jamalrob

We have brave war journalists in the midst of it all and talking to people; people who have just had their houses bombed. Women and children walking or crushed in trains to flee Ukraine. Lives and relatives left behind.
Videos of tanks. One running over and squashing a car and its occupant, others being stopped in their tracks by citizens saying ''No! This is not right''. We can all see that.

***

I don't usually mention these things here, because they have nothing to do with why the invasion happened, don't shed any light on the position of the Russian government, don't reveal what divisions there might be among people in power in Russia and thus how the regime might change, and so on. — jamalrob

I'm glad you did mention the real and personal. It sheds light on the impact of dictatorship and its consequences.
As to how the regime might change - still a matter for speculation.
How important then these images, protests, condemnation and action taken by ordinary people?

***

Do people need me to tell them that war is bad, that invading other countries is bad?

That's where I'm coming from — jamalrob

Yes. Sometimes people do need to be told precisely that. And more besides...
When they are manipulated into black and white thinking - you are either with us or against us.
Who is war good for?

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? All you've done differently is decided in advance which of his words you're going to believe - the ones which fit the narrative you've already committed to. — Isaac

Because I actually research through what experts and researchers on eastern politics, Putin and Russia concluded.

The evidence for why you can't take his words as truth is right there in the videos he makes. He's been lying every time about this invasion. Even to the extent that he recorded the message about the invasion at the same time as he spoke about "diplomacy" with the west. We know this because of the metadata analysis of the video.

The inductive conclusions I make is based on the gathered expertise from researchers on this topic. But what you are doing is just guessing and having opinions based on taking his words as truth.

If you lack the ability to understand where to draw the line between truth and propaganda, then you have not done enough research on this topic. The research informs how to decode what Putin says.

He will be remembered as a leader who switch on a war in XXI century. It sounds lunatic if he is somehow proud of it — javi2541997

He doesn't care. Why did terrorists like Breivik do what he did? Is he proud? Does he care that people hate him? No, he was driven by a narcissistic ambition to be known. There are thousands of examples of this all around the world. It's just a matter of time before a leader of a nation has the same kind of mentality.

If the best you can do is "You're wrong...because of all the things I've said already" then it's clear this conversation isn't going anywhere" — Isaac

So to @Christoffer you answer:

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? — Isaac

I think this answer tells it all.

:up:

And lastly, that part of history really hasn't anything to do with the current government of Ukraine, so what is the connection to this thread? Or is it just a side mention? — ssu

The connection to this thread:

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

Fucking disgusting.

If Putin really makes a reality of using tactical nukes against the west, then a lot of people in this thread will go silent with their naive ideas.

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

Was he a neo-nazi? Vitalii Skakun, who blew up the bridge in Henichesk at the cost of his own life, is a graduate of Lviv Polytechnic

:100:

The whole book? I don't suppose you'd be willing to present any of here... Otherwise "what I'm saying is true...it's in a book" isn't awfully helpful. Do you think there aren't books blaming it all on American imperialism? — Isaac

Is there some reason you can't discuss this without flaming?

Fucking disgusting. — SophistiCat

Yes :100:
But I don't think I've ever heard you swear before!

***

The exchange I had following that outburst:

Hello and thank you for the links.

I note that the first article is from 2015 with a particular focus on a woman's group.
Do you think that all the citizens who must stay and fight against an invasion are the same?
— Amity

How could I possibly? No. Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia. — Isaac

I ignored but possibly should have tackled.
Glad you see what I see :sparkle:

It makes sense if you know the context. The US forces were there during the Cold War when the Warsaw Pact represented a much more substantial threat to Europe than Russia does today, particularly directly after WWII when Russian forces were numerically superior by a descent margin.

After the USSR collapsed it was unclear what would happen in Russia, and with nuclear weapons and so much military hardware floating around, it made sense for US forces to stick around. It was a great blessing and a surprise that the collapse of the USSR was as peaceful as it was. It could have been a massive cluster of civil wars across the Warsaw Pact.

There were wars in Europe following the fall of communism though, and genocide, in the break up of Yugoslavia. NATO intervened there in multiple instances, hence the US forces in Europe needed a staging area. US forces also acted as Peace Keepers in Somalia until the "Black Hawk Down," incident. Other NATO members intervened to varrying degrees in the major African wars of the 1990s, and were able to be supported by US labor and logistics in Europe. Europe was also a staging point for the Gulf War, and prior defensive intervention after Iraq invade Kuwait.

So, the bases saw continued use, but force levels did decrease significantly after the Soviet threat decreased. Then you had 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, which invoked Article 5 of NATO (and this involved coordination across Europe) and the second war with Iraq.

Look at a map; it is obviously what the US gains from NATO bases. When the US has operations in Africa and Asia, it helps to have well established bases and supply lines across the Atlantic. It's a network for force projection. It is why we also have based in Japan, Korea, etc. The bases haven't been primarily aimed at Russia for a while now (Russia attacking it's neighbors is changing that). Having a base with modern first world hospitals closer to the Middle East was crucial for medevacs out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are crucial for staging material. Moving equipment from Germany to Saudi Arabia is a hell of a lot easier and faster than moving it from Chicago.

The US can also support its allies in their operations. US intelligence backed the European intervention to oust Qaddafi, with analysts and recon elements operating out of Italy. German bases were used to stock UK and French bombers with munitions.

There is plenty of reasons the bases still exist. Building bases in Poland with high end medical facilities, etc. would be massively expensive and quite antagonistic to Russia. There is no point.

Given the absolute cluster fuck of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that Ukrainian AA is still downing Russian aircraft, that they are still flying sorties, yes, it is fair to say NATO doesn't need the US to stop Russia. NATO even without the US looks like it could establish almost instant air superiority against Russian incursions, but that isn't why the US forces are there.

Thanks for keeping up the good work :sparkle:

That is unfortunate but not really what is happening in this thread, I don't think.
I hope Isaac answers my questions. — Amity

Your answer...

The connection to this thread:

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity


Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac


Fucking disgusting. — SophistiCat

Ukraine’s National Guard ...which include a thousand-strong neo-Nazi unit. — https://labourheartlands.com/uk-denies-it-agreed-to-train-neo-nazi-linked-ukraine-unit/

It's a fact, but we're not allowed to mention it (on pain of insult) because the Ukrainians are currently victims of an oppressive invasion. There was no end of discussion about the neonazi elements in the Ukrainian military in the press and foreign policy news up to now, but now they're under attack we're required to pretend they're all "brave, brave citizens" rather than discuss the complexity of supporting one side over the other (in disputes over independence) when each have unsavoury elements.

That's what I mean by having to wear our hearts on our sleeves. I didn't answer because I don't see discussion of it as relevant.

No, he was driven by a narcissistic ambition to be known. There are thousands of examples of this all around the world. It's just a matter of time before a leader of a nation has the same kind of mentality. — Christoffer

So very true. Unfortunately. The mentality is already there, it just needs the right conditions.
I don't see this being stopped anytime soon...

we're required to pretend they're all "brave, brave citizens" rather than discuss the complexity of supporting one side over the other (in disputes over independence) when each have unsavoury elements.

That's what I mean by having to wear our hearts on our sleeves. I didn't answer because I don't see discussion of it as relevant. — Isaac

Re: ''brave, brave citizens''. Those are your words and not mine.
My original long post, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/658160

You are not required to pretend any such thing.
It is clearly a complex subject which includes relevant personal elements.
See my post to @jamalrob https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/660109

Is there some reason you can't discuss this without flaming? — frank

What is it about a request for a book summary you find to be flaming?