This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left. — Manuel

They're getting aid from several countries, so it will be a while.

This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left. — Manuel

I suspect that Russia is sustaining much heavier losses than might be assumed or reported. But heavy losses in personnel has not deterred the Russians in the past. It has been more convenient to push divisions of lower status ethnicity troops to the front line as cannon fodder to solve two problems at once.

The issue is if the weapons arrive in time before Ukraine is destroyed completely. Arming civilians sounds nice and brave but it sets them up to be massacred.



I've heard about this too and it's highly probable. And troops lost is part of the story, the other part are the sanctions, which are brutal.

They have to measure severity of sanctions vs. putting Russia in a position in which it sees it has no escape other than a massive escalation of this war.

I don't know, I haven't yet had the opportunity since you've offered zero citations to support the notion. Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'. — Isaac

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment. Like how things changed drastically when nuclear weapons came into talks. I'm doing my own analysis and if I were to publish a paper of course there would be citations on a whole other level.

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?

As you allude to - the killer, poverty, social exclusion, gun control, parenting, schools, video games, erosion of social value, government deafness, corporate dehumanising...

And what would we discuss in such cases? Not the killer themselves, there's nothing we can do about that, some people just go wrong. We'd discuss everything else... The bits we can actually do something about. — Isaac

But you're the one who keeps talking about who's to blame for all of this, so who is it? I'm the one who speculates about solutions. But I've also speculated that Putin might as well be fucked in the head, delusional, living in a fantasy of power, much like terrorists like Breivik, but with much more power under their thumb. But you keep returning to blaming the west and the US and NATO. What is it? Who's to blame?

If you want to create some fabrication where none of those factors apply then you're simply asking "if the only person to blame is the killer, then who's to blame?" That's just definitional, the question is whether this is such a case. — Isaac

My scenario was an analogy in order to find out who's to blame. Putin came from KGB, with great power during the Soviet era, then it collapsed. Then Boris Jeltsin started reforming and getting drunk, dancing around Bill Clinton. Even if the economy started recovering, when Putin came into power, the seed of his will were already planted. He must have felt embarrassed to see Russia in the way it was in the 90's. His ambition to build the empire back has nothing to do with the US or NATO. US imperial crimes and all the shit they've done is another discussion, there's no disagreement there that the US has blood on their hands and is guilty of a lot of shit, but none of that has anything to do with Putin's ambitions other than challenging his ambition. He might have seen the US expansion, trade, influence as a threat to his inflated idea of a new empire, and since USA is part of NATO, of course he felt that its expansion was a threat. But NATO is an alliance of defense, the "police" in my analogy (it's just an analogy for security). Russias "friends", the former other nations of the Soviet Union, had no ambition to be part of Putin's delusional ideas, but they knew that they can't just say no. They knew that they would either conform and surrender as a puppet (like Belarus), be invaded and assimilated, or have the option to join NATO in order to feel secure from Putin's aggression.

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.

I have yet to hear exactly what the form of "the west's" fault fit the narrative of Putin? Did "the west" push influence and western ideas into Russia after the wall fell? Probably, and probably because that was a natural reaction to the corrupt propaganda machine that fell with the wall (and was later built up again) opening up new channels of info and communication to the rest of the world for the people of Russia. There's no wonder that Putin has the strongest supporters among the oldest generation people in Russia while most young people are against everything that Putin is doing, wanting a more open society, more communication and collaboration with other people in Europe.

So I ask again, who's to blame? If not Putin and his embarrassment and will to rebuild the Russian empire? If not Putin and his delusional skewed image of the rest of "the west". Every time I hear people talk about why Hitler did what he did, it's like the biggest question of the 20th century, the "nature of evil" etc. Why would Putin be any different? Can he not be exactly as delusional in his own ambition and goal just as Hitler was in his? How is that not a perfectly plausible conclusion to Putin's action? Why would "the west's fault" be any more rational as a conclusion? Because my conclusion (as well as many researchers as I mentioned) is too similar to "an American off-brand Marvel movie"? Maybe just take out that Occam's razor and look at the facts.

The issue is if the weapons arrive in time before Ukraine is destroyed completely. Arming civilians sounds nice and brave but it sets them up to be massacred. — Manuel

They already have weapons with more on the way from Germany.

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-89-russias-financial-meltdown?utm_source=url

More good shit from Tooze on the economic front.

On the one hand, you claim to be looking for solutions, on the other you focus on attributing blame. Let's suppose, for arguments sake, this is 100% Putin's fault. Now we are precisely zero steps closer to finding a way to deescalate the situation.

putting Russia in a position in which it sees it has no escape other than a massive escalation of this war — Manuel

There is no need for that. While negotiating on the Belarus border, Russia is intensifying attacks elsewhere. They can send in wave after wave of troops to destroy Ukraine without any massive escalation.

I don't know. You want easy answers, and then get mad when the world doesn't offer them to you. — StreetlightX

No, the "answers" or rather speculations I conduct are not easy answers. They're just in a compressed form. Why do you think papers are hundreds of pages? I'm not gonna write an essay form length answer just to convince people who cry "everything is the west and US's imperialistic's fault" as an answer to "how do we solve this?"

But no one seems interested in actually discussing this. So it's hard to deep dive when people just want to talk about "the west's fault".

I'm quite willing to admit that 'what needs to be done' is the kind of thing more suited to others better versed in the situation. Some principles of action include minimizing harm, stopping war, and deescalating as much as possible - how they can are are translated, I'm not so sure. — StreetlightX

Good, this is what I'm talking about. Practical philosophy. So how do we deescalate and minimize harm when dealing with someone like Putin?

But what I know for sure is that it is not suited to fatasists like yourself who dream of putting Putin in the Hague, or paint him like a cartoon villain who 'shoots staff to blow off steam'. — StreetlightX

Hague is a real possibility. They're investigating the invasion as it unfolds. That's not my "fantasy". And "shoot staff", well maybe not shoot, but he poisons people on a regular basis. People have been killed. What if he actually is as delusional as some speculate, as some have speculated on analyzing his behavior the past weeks. I don't grab these scenarios out of my ass. I think it's more likely that you picture all of this in a cartoon way and downplay the seriousness of a delusional madman with the power he has.

Your need for some kind of 'punishment' or 'payback' and 'blame' - which seem to be the principles animating what you say - is literally genocidal. — StreetlightX

I don't care about punishment or payback. Whatever makes you reach that conclusion is totally up to you. Why I'm talking about Putin getting killed or removed or end up in a Hague court, that is not "punishment" but the removal of an unstable power from office in order to not have some trigger happy madman holding parts or the world hostage with nuclear threats and murdering people in the name of the empire. It's YOU who interpret what I say in this way because you cannot seem to grasp the fact that violence in this in this situation of war is a solution. Of course, the following events can be chaotic, but the immediate threat is happening right now.

No one who treats the world like a fucking Disney movie ought to be offering any opinions whatsoever. — StreetlightX

That's your interpretation of what I say and you also just pointed out that I should be silent, I should shut my hole because you don't agree with your own wildly inaccurate interpretation of what I'm talking about. It's not a good sign when you ask for better quality and give that as a response.

Exactly. That is the essence of NATO's deterrent. Don't tell me it does not work because NATO would have been then a total waste of time.

On the one hand, you claim to be looking for solutions, on the other you focus on attributing blame. Let's suppose for arguments sake, this is 100% Putin's fault. Now we are precisely zero steps closer to finding a way to deescalate the situation. — Baden

That was in response to Isaac, since he countered all my speculations on solutions with "the west and US is to blame".

But since we are on a philosophy forum, we can try practical philosophy. What could we do? Seriously, what could we do in the situation the world is in with Ukraine and Russia?

Remember Biden already promised to fuck up Putin over interference in American elections. This would be the time to do it.

It's making me wonder why Putin didn't do this while Trump was president. Trump would have just cheered him on.

Third, Putin will stay, and there will be a profound transformation of his regime and the world’s geopolitical order.
— Number2018

This is the most likely outcome. Putin is too stubborn and Kreml has spent years creating an image of him as a tough guy. So he will try and spin the narrative so that a loss is still a win in Ukraine and then because of the broken trade and probably some sanctions left as a punishment for his actions, he will isolate Russia more, going in the direction of North Korea's relation to the world.

Fourth: He will never surrender, never ever, ever. He will not go out without a bang and he orders nukes on big capitals in the west. Either people just accept his order and do it, or they refuse, as has happened during the cold war. He will then spin the narrative in some way, or shoot some of his staff to blow off steam. — Christoffer

I agree that it is the most likely outcome. Putin can appeal to
ancient Russian archetypes of 'saving the motherland’ from getting defeated. Further, the iron curtain would again isolate Russia from the rest of the world, with an unprecedented nuclear, military, and ideological confrontation level. Are western leaders, decision-makers , and strategists taking this scenario into account?

What if he actually is as delusional as some speculate, as some have speculated on analyzing his behavior the past weeks.

...

I don't grab these scenarios out of my ass. — Christoffer

"What if [wild speculation]? [ I totally don't make shit up]."

but the immediate threat is happening right now. — Christoffer

The 'immediate threat' has been underway for years, but because you seem intent on plugging your ears at any mention of the US or NATO, you're structurally incapable of framing any solution in any terms other than immediate blame, and, it seems, sheer escalation.

You think Putin wouldn't have done it if the Ukraine was a NATO member?

"What if [wild speculation]? [ I totally don't make shit up]." — StreetlightX

Just explained how I work on my speculations, but you ignore that and just blah blah blah

The 'immediate threat' has been underway for years, but because you seem intent on plugging your ears at any mention of the US or NATO, you're structurally incapable of framing any solution in any terms other than immediate blame, and, it seems, sheer escalation. — StreetlightX

Chill down please. I've explained in length exactly how US, NATO and Russia/Putin ended up where we ended up. All that threat and danger was all there, I'm just pointing out that US exceptionalism ideals and imperialistic goals or economic proxy wars has little to do with the ambitions driving Putin to the actions we see now. They've provoked him through it, but not as aggressors, but as a hindrance to his empire dreams. But you can read all of that if actually read what I write instead of talking about how "structurally incapable" I am. If you want to act childish it's up to you.

My understanding of President Putin is that although he may make a foolish decision, he is not stupid. As you know, any attack on a NATO member - let me quote:

The treaty was created with an armed attack by the Soviet Union against Western Europe in mind, but the mutual self-defense clause was never invoked during the Cold War. — Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty

The entire article is worth reading, as well as the map showing the virtual encirclement of Russia on the western front by NATO countries, the number growing from 12 to 30 countries.

Anyone knows that NATO will have to respond militarily, even a token gesture otherwise NATO's credibility, the entire NATO concept would lose its credibility. Some things are more or less mechanical given the environment : for example you try to grab the weapon of an armed soldier and there is a guaranteed response.

Anyway that is what I think.

If Ukraine survives this attack as an independent state, next thing it does will be to join NATO. Russia will then come in direct geographic proximity with NATO, and it will be all thanks to Putin.

If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state and is absorbed (formally or not) into Russia, then Russia will de facto come into geographic contact with NATO (since Poland, Ukraine's western neighbour, is part of NATO). And it will be all thanks to Putin. — Olivier5

For some reason NATO is unwilling to admit Ukraine into NATO. The final agreement may include this condition. Ukraine is a large, resource - filled country of 40 million - look at the map. It will not be neutral.

If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state, well then Russia will get what it wants - a large buffer state between itself and NATO, and in any case is bordering one NATO country. Given the demographics this will be a very tough situation to manage and Putin knows this. Maybe he is desperate.

The move from 12 NATO members to 30 NATO members leaves me a little confused: the all expected to be attacked by Russia - wouldn't this make attack more likely?

The NATO was set up to confront communist threat. What threat Putin causes to the west? It's a capitalist state. Ukrain will remain capitalist. And capitalism will fuck the world up anyhow.

The ruble is worth less than one cent. This shit is getting real.

The ruble is worth less than one cent. This shit is getting real. — frank

Putin can stop it. He could spin the news however he wants, make it look like he "won and withdrew all the brave saviors of Ukraine" and then push to remove the sanctions. But he won't, because he doesn't care about his own people, his economy, or anything other than the creation of his glorious empire.

Even in his talk with Macron he mentioned the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine as his reason. If that were just bullshit propaganda, it's odd that he uses the same rhetoric in a private call with Macron. It hints at him actually believing his own lies. If you lie long enough you start believing the lie.

So he will probably sacrifice his people's economy, sacrifice Russia before admitting any kind of defeat.

So he will probably sacrifice his people's economy, sacrifice Russia before admitting any kind of defeat — Christoffer

I don't think he wants that though. I thought Russia's debt would keep this from happening.

He helped give us 4 years of Donald Trump. Now half the global economy is going to crash his economy. :razz:

I thought Russia's debt would keep this from happening. — frank

With the rate this is going, he won't be able to access anything soon. I just have hope that his and his Oligarchs money gets transferred into help-aid in Ukraine. I would have a celebration if Anonymous hacked that into reality leaving some embarrassing message on the servers.

With the rate this is going, he won't be able to access anything soon. — Christoffer

Yep. Remember, Russia already has logistical challenges to a prolonged military campaign in Ukraine. Their industrial capacity is already maxed out, and now they're going to dive into a recession.

He's going to have to pull back.

He's going to have to pull back. — frank

He won't, it's too embarrassing.

...if he doesn't cook up a really good story for his state media to spin so his people won't unity in hanging him outside Kreml.

Russia almost has a tradition of revolution as intense as the French so I wouldn't be surprised if Putin gets fucked by his people at some point.

He won't, it's too embarrassing — Christoffer

Then he should attack Ukraine as hard as possible now. Obliterate Kiev. The problem there is that he'd have to then occupy Ukraine (with American troops taking up residence).

Nah, he's going to have to retreat.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin gets fucked by his people at some point. — Christoffer

I don't think so. He's been really good for Russia (up until last week :rofl:)

Then he should attack Ukraine as hard as possible now. Obliterate Kiev. The problem there is that he'd have to then occupy Ukraine (with American troops taking up residence).

Nah, he's going to have to retreat. — frank

This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die".

I don't think so. He's been really good for Russia (up u til last week :rofl:) — frank

No no, he is still the best for Russia, he says so himself and all the media also says so. If someone says otherwise in his close proximity, they will just be corrected by him so they can arrive at the truth that he is still best for Russia, he is the best. Russia can never have another best leader than Putin. If the world says otherwise he will show them his nuke and then everyone will love him and his big nuke.

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. — Christoffer

The citations you should have provided to back up claims like

this is all Putin — Christoffer

...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...

You still don't know what is going on right now. — Christoffer

I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. — Christoffer

Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that

this is all Putin — Christoffer

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make? — Christoffer

I cite them as I go. You can look back over my posts, here's the main sources I was using for analysis of the US and European involvement

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771

But you're the one who keeps talking about who's to blame for all of this, so who is it? — Christoffer

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments...

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here. — Christoffer

No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid.

So I ask again, who's to blame? If not Putin and his embarrassment and will to rebuild the Russian empire? If not Putin and his delusional skewed image of the rest of "the west" — Christoffer

Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor?

...

And you've still not answered my very simple question.

What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour? — Isaac

This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die". — Christoffer

Why do you think that?

No no, he is still the best for Russia, — Christoffer

He really has been though. Russia had to reinvent itself in the 1990s. There was no recipe for how to do it. Putin did a great job.

But since we are on a philosophy forum, we can try practical philosophy. What could we do? Seriously, what could we do in the situation the world is in with Ukraine and Russia? — Christoffer

Cristoffer, we all understand your concerns. No-one wants people to get killed. In our school textbooks we are taught about war, it is glorified, not condemned, and until people come around to think war is an unacceptable option, criminal even, things will not change too much. Maybe if children are taught about Alexander the Killer of Men rather than Alexander the Great, when they become adults they may have a more circumspect view of war.

What if nations resorted to other means other than lethal force? Cyber attacks, media manipulation, paying off politicians, blackmail, threats, secret deals, guarantees of immunity, and covert operations. Would that be any more morally acceptable? Surprisingly, NATO has the right approach:

Article 1 of the treaty states that member parties "settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." — WIkipedia - North Atlantic Treaty

Very noble.

Solutions? What about a ceasefire and UN Peacekeepers? It has been proposed before:

In September 2017, talk of a settlement picked up after Russia circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution proposing the deployment of UN forces along the front line separating Kyiv’s forces, on one side, from Kremlin-backed separatists, on the other.

Moscow had ignored Kyiv’s calls for peacekeepers since early 2015, so its proposal was regarded with suspicion by Ukraine and its Western allies. Most saw the small force envisaged along the front as a non-starter, more likely to freeze the conflict than end it. Nonetheless, the proposal spurred fresh thinking about ways out of the stalemate. — Crisisgroup