I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. That’s why he said it would depend on the situation on the ground, i.e., on his requests being met. Unfortunately, the West pretended not to get the message despite claiming that it had first-class intelligence on Russia’s every move.

So, basically, the West, i.e., US & UK, have been arming and training the Ukrainians for years against a Russian invasion, without doing absolutely anything to prevent the invasion. And that’s because they refused to give up their plans of unlimited eastward expansion. Ukraine has been a pawn on the West’s chessboard and is now paying the price for it!

I’m not sure destroying Ukraine’s economy to delay NATO or EU membership would be one of Putin’s objectives as the joining process would take years anyway. On the other hand, a destroyed Ukrainian economy and infrastructure will mean massive investments and virtual takeover by the West, probably in collaboration with local oligarchs and corrupt politicians, i.e., a repetition of the 1990’s, only worse than before, making Ukraine (or that part of it not under Russian control) totally dependent on the West.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

What are your premises for such a conclusion?

I think it's self-explanatory. Why would Russia invade Ukraine if it had no reason to do so?

PS You can google the Finnish translation if you don't understand ... :wink:

I think it's self-explanatory. Why would Russia invade Ukraine if it had no reason to do so? — Apollodorus

How is that explaining any valid premises for your conclusion? You conclude that:

Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. — Apollodorus

How do you know this? This would require you to first assume that any will to restore Russian empire borders are false. It requires a premise that assure that there will be no invasion whatsoever. There's absolutely zero evidence that Russia would abstain from invading if their demands were met, because the empire hypothesis still leads to invasion. The empire hypothesis is still the most likely one because it establishes a motive for Putin that is supported by all acts taken so far. Nato expansion into Ukraine would have meant Russia could never "reconnect" it to the empire. So the invasion is a desperate act to do so before that happened. It has nothing to do with security, it has to do with Nato intentionally or unintentionally standing in the way of Russia's attempt to expand back to old borders.

Because this hypothesis has validity to it and cannot be dismissed without clear evidence to the contrary. You might not agree with it, but it still means there's another hypothesis that doesn't compute with yours, therefore, you need to present premises that counter this and support your own conclusion.

So,

How are you sure that the demands are in any way truth and not part of the propaganda and a disinformation campaign? Taking Russias word at face value is NOT a valid premise, regardless of how logical you believe it is.

How do you know this? This would require you to first assume that any will to restore Russian empire borders are false. — Christoffer

On the contrary, there is no requirement, logical, legal, or otherwise, to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders" in the first place! :grin:

On the contrary, there is no requirement, logical, legal, or otherwise, to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders" in the first place! — Apollodorus

Again, can you please provide more substance for your conclusion? Stop trying to sidestep things like you always do. I'm waiting for you to answer this:

How are you sure that the demands are in any way truth and not part of the propaganda and a disinformation campaign? — Christoffer

My guess is that the size of their entry in Who's Who or a history book is probably not their main motivation, but ego is certainly a factor.

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here) — Bitter Crank

A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. He thought about the it and made a remark about the age of Xi Jinping being 68 years old (close to the same old as that my brother is) and that "men around that age" are often of a mind set of wondering what kind of what mark that they will leave on the world and they are often desperate to use whatever time/resources they have at their disposal to complete any unfinished business before they pass from this world to the next.

Putin is 69 years old so I think it is a given that if this issue could apply to Xi Jinping then it could apply to Putin as well. In a way it may sound like a trivial issue since it might not even be true, however if it is true and it is something that is effecting Putin's thinking then it may likely been one of the factors for going through with the invasion, and it may be one of the reason's he is willing to keep doubling up the risks even if things are not going according to plan. In a way it is not all that different then how some of the minds of young male teenagers think when they are starting to become closer to being an adult, for them it feels like their really is no real tomorrow for them (or any tomorrow they really want to be a part of) so taking any kind of risk, even dangerous ones like taking drugs or life threatening stunts, can be justified in their minds since the consequences of not taking such incredible gambles is worse then if they take them.

Putin is one of the riches people in the world and perhaps could be the riches person in the world, but all that money and power won't help him when he is no longer around. I could be wrong but I think if Russia tried to take over Ukraine covertly ( use poison or assassinate their president and other leaders who might oppose them, use bribes and spies to install their own operatives in order to take over positions of power, etc.) it might have had a better chance of working and/or been easier then is what is going on now. But that would have taken more time and wouldn't have been as dramatic as getting Ukraine to capitulate through a show of force, even "IF" the chances of getting Ukraine to ever capitulate where very slim to none from the beginning.

I could be wrong, but I think Putin may have gone from a cold calculating/insidious ex-KGB monster he once was to something more like a reckless/impetuous teenager that wants/needs immediate results much like a spoil kid often behaves. Whatever he really wants I believe it is something that can not easily be gotten with money and it is unlikely that for a man of his age he can waste a lot of time getting it in the old time consuming underhanded way he might have been able to when he was younger.

Also it is plausible the longer he waited to invade Ukraine the harder it might be to overwhelm them with a show of force, similar to the problem with China in that the more time China uses to get ready to invade Taiwan the more time the US and Taiwan has to prepare for said invasion and make it even more difficult for them if they do decide to invade.

I think you have some serious comprehension problems there. My exact words were:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. — Apollodorus

As stated already, there is no logical requirement to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" any more than it is to assume that everything America (or Finland) says is propaganda.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you've got nothing else to do ....

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. That’s why he said it would depend on the situation on the ground, i.e., on his requests being met. — Apollodorus

Yes.
The West is so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even conceive that someone else would not do the same.

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here) — Bitter Crank

I think the main reasons why so many people have such difficulty understanding Putin are these:

1. The very concept of "benevolent ruler" has become unintelligible to them. To them, it's a contradiction in terms. They do not believe that a benevolent ruler can even exist.

2. They are so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even imagine that someone else might not.

For both of these, democarcy is to blame. Democracy effectively absolves everyone (the voters and the elected) from any and all responsibility for the situation in the election jurisdiction, on account that responsibility is so dispersed that no single person can be meaningfully held responsible for anything.
Secondly, it encourages people to think in simplistic black and white terms, us vs. them. Thirdly, it lowers the political discourse onto the level of a battle of wills, with little or no consideration given to the quality of the proposals of each party. Fourthy, and most perniciously, it teaches people to understand only one thing: lethal force.

A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. — dclements

Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?!

The West is so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even conceive that someone else would not do the same. — baker

Absolutely correct. Who had the largest empire in history with colonies all over the world, plus millions of black slaves and Indian, Chinese, and Irish servants? Britain, not Russia!

And isn't the EU trying to rebuild the Roman Empire?

The whole blame-game accusing Russia of "imperialist" intentions is clearly designed to smokescreen the West's own imperialist actions. After all, it's NATO and the EU that have been constantly expanding, not Russia.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

Enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia

Union for the Mediterranean - Wikipedia

..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been. — ssu

I think it is almost a given that things are not really going to plan if Putin and those that support him in Russia where really hoping for Ukraine to capitulate or roll over after a small/quick invasion into their capital and major cities. However since it is plausible that the mindset of those in command of the Russia forces is one where they are willing to lose/sacrifice a lot of their men and resources in order to achieve their objectives, they might still be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat just yet.

From what little I know of the conflict it sounds like they have already lost around 10% to 20% of their forces from either being killed, captured, or wounded and I'm guessing that their loses in vehicles could be around the same number. Supposedly they are planning on replenishing such numbers with reservist in Russia and possibly from mercenaries from Syria and the Middle East.

I think the long term problem for them is if they continue to incur such loses in the future as they have in the last few weeks (and if the Ukraine resistance shows no signs of weakening) it might start getting harder and harder to keep deploying more men and resources to the region for them. Of course, it is likely those who are fighting the Russians hope eventually happens.

I don't know how well the propaganda war is going for them at home but I imagine they are doing everything they can in order to sort of "sugar coat" the issue for the people back in Russia. It is weird but sometimes if you can make people believe there is no real war going on and/or that your winning a war when you are actually losing, things may not seem so bad for those in Russia who don't really know what is going on. Here in the West many of us watching videos of Russian vehicles being destroyed, building being blown up, and civilians getting killed know that the conditions in Ukraine are mostly likely like hell for both the Ukrainians left there and the unlucky Russians sent in there to fight them.

Only time will tell whether the last few weeks where just a minor SNAFU/setback for the Russian military which they are able to overcome or if it will be part of are larger ongoing cluster you know what where the Russians are unable to maintain their occupation.

China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine. — ssu

Yeah it is kind of ironic that the US has stated that it is willing to protect Taiwan from China, but is unwilling to do the same for Ukraine because we are afraid of triggering "World War III". If we went to defend Taiwan from China then it is almost a given that it could escalate the war much the same way as if we did go in to help Ukraine. I think the only difference is that in the mind of those in power in the US we have been aware of this issue for a longer time and more prepared (perhaps more in a mental sense than anything else) if this actually happens. However to me it really isn't all that different.

If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure. — ssu

To be honest I'm not so sure either, but my guess is that Taiwan has been threaten for decades now by China of a possible invasion where as Ukraine it has been only a few years that this has been going on. As far as I know Russia really hasn't up until now threaten Ukraine with invasion so in their minds they haven't really considered the possibility of war with one of the biggest militaries in the world, so i guessing they haven't planned for it the same way as Taiwan has had to do.

Perhaps there really isn't that much of a difference, however there still is a body of water between them and mainland China and of course it is almost a given they will get more support from the US and her allies if China does try to invade, so I guess those are still two advantages they have going for them.

As stated already, there is no logical requirement to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" any more than it is to assume that everything America (or Finland) says is propaganda. — Apollodorus

How is this relevant to what I asked for? I asked for support in premises for your conclusion.
My example of propaganda has to do with a possible counter to your conclusion that can render it false. But you continue to just say the same thing as if it is true because you believe it to be true.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. — Apollodorus

Your beliefs don't mean anything, they are irrelevant if you have nothing to support your conclusion with. You haven't even provided an inductive argument for it. You just say it and then continue based on that assumption being true.

Provide support for the conclusion, please. I'm thinking that on a philosophy forum we break down each other's arguments in order to spot weaknesses. If I explain that your initial conclusion, the assumption, is nothing but your belief without any premises to support it, then you need to show a stronger argument in order to support your reasoning.

From the guidelines of the forum:

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).

This is why I ask you to expand your conclusion with better support. It's impossible to continue a discussion if the only way to do so is to first assume your initial conclusion to be true first. So, start at the beginning and answer these questions:

How do you know for a fact that Russia would have taken no action if the demands had been met from the start? How can you be sure that the demands weren't just part of the lies to hide the true intentions? How do you know that the motivation is exactly how you propose it and not anything other, like the empire expansion hypothesis (which would have led to an invasion anyway)?

Well, if you want to go by the "forum rules", perhaps you ought to apply them to yourself first ... :smile:

For your rhetorical "question" to have any merit, you would need to show that there was a logical necessity to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders". You haven't shown that, so you're wasting your time.

As I said, in historical terms, the West is much more likely than Russia to have imperialist intentions.

And, anyway, Ukraine was Russia even before the Russian Empire.

From the 9th century, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (which simply means “borderland”) were one country which was known as “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), and which became the core of the Russian Empire:

Kievan Rus - Wikipedia

Please refer to the other thread (Ukraine crisis) where I discussed this in detail, should you have any further questions.

Or try reading some history instead of baseless pro-NATO propaganda .... :wink:

I thought we already had a pro-NATO thread (see Ukraine Crisis), so I for one fail to see how having two is going to make the discussion "more objective". — Apollodorus

I can understand the confusion, but try to understand that sometimes when a thread gets to be 80+ pages long and there seems to be no real single subject that posters are talking about it starts becoming hard to know what the discussion is about.

When I started this thread i was hoping to focus on the "larger" issues and perhaps less of the ongoing day to day issues that may be currently going on such as the refugee crisis, civilians being bomb/attacked, whom killed whom, etc. etc. I know those are all real issues in an ongoing war, but they may not help us get a clearer picture at some of the larger forces at play. And that is why I created this thread to address.

BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this? — Apollodorus

IMHO, I believe Putin and those that support him in Russia would be more than happy to reintegrate any and all former Warsaw Pact (that are currently on less then friendly terms with Russia) back into the "loving" arms of mother Russia and for all of them and Russia to create a USSR 2.0.

That may seem either laughable or merely wishful thinking for those in power in Russia since up until a few weeks it was a given that Russia won't be willing to risk World War III in order to take over any former Warsaw countries through military force. Of course, there is the problem for Russia that many of these countries are not exactly happy to become merely "satellite states" (countries that were meant to bear the brunt of a attack if NATO tries to fight Russia) again and to be ruled by puppet governments controlled by Russian.

Part of this comes from the fact that China is considering doing something similar on the other side of the world and trying to expand it's base of influence. If you knew about that issue you might be able to understand some of the parallel developments/problems with that and things happening in Russia but that is a whole other can of worms that I shouldn't get into on this thread. If you would like to know more there is a thread I created where I discussed this issue with other forum members you can go check out:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1

For now I think it is safe to say that both the USSR,...oops I mean Russia wants to expand it's base of power in the world in order to become a super power that can rival the US and her allies and China is trying to do the same thing as well. While China's and Russia's goals and situation are not exactly the same, I think it is safe to say that they are not all that different.

In regard to the EU, it will be interesting to see how the Far Right parties will respond to the attack upon Ukraine. There has been support for Putin from them for the last ten years or so. — Paine

It has been kind of interesting how some in the republican party have become kind of cozy with Putin and those that support his pro-USSR agenda. I'm believe it is a combination of them lately liking to say things that are nor politically correct (likely Trump always does) and a kind of mentality that Putin/Russia is no longer really any threat. Of course it is unlikely that it is going to be easy to stay that way after the war with Ukraine started (which right now feels like it happened months ago). Being a politician that is/was cozy with Russia and Putin is kind of like in one of those science fiction where they are exploring another planet and they come across some cute and fuzzy creatures that look like they might make great pet. However once you get too close they bear their razor sharp fangs and coming at you in the hopes that they can turn you into your dinner.

As far as I can tell, Russia has been more or less been ostracized from the West and any politician that either has said nice things about Putin and or Russia will be questioned as to "whom" their actual loyalty lies with. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone wants to be thought of as a possible "manchurian candidate" at the present time. I believe at least we don't have to worry about Lindsey Graham having this issue as for Tucker Carlson... I'm not so sure.

Sen. Lindsey Graham's apparent call for Putin to be assassinated draws backlash
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084548984/lindsey-graham-putin

How Russia Is Using Tucker Carlson in its Propaganda
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russia-using-tucker-carlson-propaganda-pawn-1687402



I could be wrong but I believe once upon a time the republican party was pretty good at having a unified message/ideology and they where not as fragmented as the democrats were at that time. Lately it is hard to know what they really stand for other than just trying to be reelected.

While China's and Russia's goals and situation are not exactly the same, I think it is safe to say that they are not all that different. — dclements

The funny thing is that, historically, the term "imperialism" has been used in reference to 1800's Britain and France, and continues to be mainly associated with the West:

The term was and is mainly applied to Western and Japanese political and economic dominance, especially in Asia and Africa, in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Imperialism - Wikipedia

I think political, economic, and considering NATO, military dominance today is primarily exerted by the West, not by Russia. Any discussion that fails to take this into account is bound to be biased and not particularly balanced, IMO.

To be honest I'm not so sure either, but my guess is that Taiwan has been threaten for decades now by China of a possible invasion where as Ukraine it has been only a few years that this has been going on. — dclements

The historical background of the conflict in Ukraine needs to include Stalin's starvation of the country, where the agenda to destroy the Kulaks was combined with exerting central control over the 'Soviets.' It should be remembered that Ukraine was the kick off of the Holocaust, where the Nazi idea that Jews were behind Communism became a rule of engagement in Operation Barbarossa. The USSR only recognized a general loss of "innocent people" rather than a specific genocide after the war.

The policy of erasure and denial of people in Ukraine has been a Cheka legacy since the Bolshevik revolution.

With the politics of the Cold War leading to the Iron Curtain and the formation of NATO, Putin has taken up the language of ultranationalists to deny Ukrainian nationality now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exists. Putin forgot to hold a referendum in Ukraine on the matter.

Taiwan emerged on the other side of this Cold War dynamic as a resistance to Communism. The situation is very different in economic terms because China is integrated with production on a global scale where Russia is a big player in only a few industries.

Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?! — baker

I agree, but wanting to take something and actually taking it are two different things. I sure China would love to take over Taiwan's semiconductor making facilities but they would most likely have to invade Taiwan in order for them to have any hope in getting them. The problem with that such an invasion would likely be more costly and difficult than the one in Ukraine and it is highly likely that even "IF" they could capture such facilities that someone would deliberately blow them up or at least destroy most of the multi-million dollar equipment in order so that China can not use them.

In the words of Helmuth von Moltke "No Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy". I like to think Putin's plan to easily take over Ukraine is a text-book example of this issue.

No Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy
https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/military-and-outdoor-fitness-articles/no-plan-survives-contact-with-the-enemy/

The Trump wing of the GOP gets it ideas from Steve Bannon's fusion of identification politics in the U.S with a foreign policy based upon weakening the EU.

Tucker Carlson is merely the lipstick on the pig.

That's called a tu quoque fallacy.

I asked you to provide some support for your belief so that the rest of your argument can be built upon it. But you clearly don't seem to understand why you have to.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If people were to ask you to explain every one of your pronouncements, it'd take a whole separate forum - with Finnish translation attached!

The basis for my belief ought to be evident from the context and from my previous posts. It isn't my fault that you still don't understand. At any rate, you may rest assured that I'm not going to waste my time with another discussion on it.

And no, I don't need to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" at all. That is just part of your usual repertoire of weasel words and straw men.

The basis for my belief ought to be evident from the context and from my previous posts. It isn't my fault that you still don't understand. At any rate, you may rest assured that I'm not going to waste my time with another discussion on it. — Apollodorus

So you have nothing as a support for what you say. You can't argue without fallacies. And you are unable to engage in a discussion through a more proper philosophical scrutiny.

And no, I don't need to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" at all. That is just part of your usual repertoire of weasel words and straw men. — Apollodorus

Or you can start with supporting your own conclusion first so there can be a proper discussion and not some evangelical parrot game from you.

I asked nicely to let you provide support for what you say but it seems impossible for you to reach that point. You just seem to be utterly uneducated in philosophical practice when asked for it. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Well, you can say whatever you like, but I for one think it is irrational to blame others for your failure to understand simple statements that have been explained to you already.

You said that what I believe doesn’t matter. If that’s the case, then I think it would be more logically consistent for you to ignore my statement than to go on and on about it, ad nauseam.

Incidentally, as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t get upset just because someone’s views differ from yours. The whole purpose of discussion forums is to have a plurality of views, not to throw temper tantrums when others disagree with you.

It’s understandable to be upset that Zelensky is losing, but (1) it isn’t my fault, (2) I don’t see why this is of concern to Finland, and (3) according to some, Zelensky is a thug as are the oligarchs behind him, as explained on the other thread, which is why a more balanced, rational, and less emotional, analysis would be preferable.

As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.

The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. IMO a discussion based exclusively on the views of countries like Finland (or any others) that have nothing to do with Ukraine is not a proper discussion. But if you think it is, go ahead, I’m not holding you back …. :smile:

Well, you can say whatever you like, but I for one think it is irrational to blame others for your failure to understand simple statements that have been explained to you already. — Apollodorus

You have had numerous times to provide support for the belief I asked you to support. Instead you spend post after post talking about how "obvious" your statement is. If it's so obvious, then provide support for it. Provide how it can be the only conclusion possible. Because the entire stance you have in this matter is based on that conclusion being true. So you need to provide support for it. You're not on "unsupported opinion forum" you are on a philosophy forum. Me asking you to clarify in a rational way how a conclusion you use as a foundation for everything is pretty much in line with what this forum is supposed to be.

What's irrational is that you can't even provide such support. You just have opinions and opinions mean nothing without any kind of rational support for it.

You said that what I believe doesn’t matter. If that’s the case, then I think it would be more logically consistent for you to ignore my statement than to go on and on about it, ad nauseam. — Apollodorus

Instead of you tu quoquo yourself out of every kind of breakdown of your logic, maybe you could try and focus that energy into a proper argument instead?

Incidentally, as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t get upset just because someone’s views differ from yours. The whole purpose of discussion forums is to have a plurality of views, not to throw temper tantrums when others disagree with you. — Apollodorus

Or you could provide support for your conclusion instead of treating this forum as some opinion wall where people shouldn't counter your opinions with such radical ideas as asking "what's your support for that opinion?" This is the third part of your post that basically just tries to turn this around against me and how I should just supposedly accept your opinion as some kind of valid input regardless of post after post never ever providing anything as a foundation for it.

It’s understandable to be upset that Zelensky is losing, but (1) it isn’t my fault, (2) I don’t see why this is of concern to Finland, and (3) according to some, Zelensky is a thug as are the oligarchs behind him, as explained on the other thread, which is why a more balanced, rational, and less emotional, analysis would be preferable. — Apollodorus

Nothing of this has anything to do with what I requested and it just reads as low-quality nonsense. This is the fourth segment of your post that tries to derail from what I asked for.

As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.

The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. IMO a discussion based exclusively on the views of countries like Finland (or any others) that have nothing to do with Ukraine is not a proper discussion. But if you think it is, go ahead, I’m not holding you back — Apollodorus

Here you try, once again, to derail by focusing on my counter-argument first. We can go into that in detail once we've established any kind of support for your conclusion. I brought that perspective up because it's a hypothesis that counters your conclusion, and since you won't support your own conclusion, then we have this balance of two hypotheses that both need support in order to reach what's likely true.

So once again, I ask you to provide a foundation for your initial conclusion. Burden of proof please. You start with a claim, a conclusion, I ask you to clarify, expand and provide further support for it, you ignore, derail and try to turn this against me instead of providing what I asked for. Please do some fucking philosophy instead of this low-quality nonsense you're trying.

Here's your conclusion again, please provide support for it.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

Try to do it without getting distracted by my presence. I know it's hard, I know it's a challenge to do so as it seems that's the only thing you're capable of, but please prove to me that you can actually make some proper arguments. That's what I'm asking for.

IMHO, I believe Putin and those that support him in Russia would be more than happy to reintegrate any and all former Warsaw Pact (that are currently on less then friendly terms with Russia) back into the "loving" arms of mother Russia and for all of them and Russia to create a USSR 2.0. — dclements

The Warsaw Pact was an alliance between the USSR (aka the Soviet Union) and several countries that were never in the Soviet Union, even if they were expected to submit to its wishes. Do you mean the former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) or are you actually saying that Putin wants to somehow integrate the Warsaw Pact countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the eastern part of Germany) into a single country along with Russia and presumably all the former Soviet republics as well?

Please do some fucking philosophy instead of this low-quality nonsense you're trying. — Christoffer

You may not be aware of it, but doing philosophy is precisely what I'm trying to do.

Problem, you see, is that in order to philosophize you need to have the facts first, otherwise it's all just empty speculation.

If you ignore the facts and dictate to others what they should think, that's an approach that isn't going to get you very far.

My advice would be to acquaint yourself with the facts, especially established and well-known historical facts, first, and then attempt to philosophize.

If you knew the facts, then I'm sure you'd agree with me that Putin has got a point. To take the example of a trial in a court of law, you'd need to take into consideration both sides, not just one. Very simple and easy to understand, really.

So, demonstrate (a) that you have knowledge of the relevant historical facts and (b) that you are willing to engage in an objective and balanced conversation. If not, then there is nothing I can do for you ....

You may not be aware of it, but doing philosophy is precisely what I'm trying to do. — Apollodorus

:rofl:

Problem, you see, is that in order to philosophize you need to have the facts first, otherwise it's all just empty speculation. — Apollodorus

So when I ask for that, for your initial conclusion, it doesn't apply?

You do know that philosophy also requires logic, rational deduction and induction? As well as having as little bias and fewer fallacies as possible when providing an argument?

If you ignore the facts and dictate to others what they should think, that's an approach that isn't going to get you very far. — Apollodorus

So what are you doing then? You start out with a conclusion and I ask you for evidence or rational support to back that conclusion up, then your answer is that I shouldn't dictate anything?
Are you fucking serious? :rofl:

My advice would be to acquaint yourself with the facts, especially established and well-known historical facts, first, and then attempt to philosophize. — Apollodorus

What facts? I asked for facts and support for your conclusion, you provide jack shit of anything. The only thing your doing is trying to talk around failing to provide a proper argument for your conclusion.

I'm still waiting.

If you knew the facts, then I'm sure you'd agree with me that Putin has got a point. To take the example of a trial in a court of law, you'd need to take into consideration both sides, not just one. Very simple and easy to understand, really. — Apollodorus

That's not what you said though. You are not considering both sides:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

If that's the only thing you had to say in court, the judges, jury and people would laugh you out of the legal system. Then saying "if you all knew the facts, then you would view what I say as true".

You're like,"If you all knew the facts, you'd know that the killer had a point and when he says that he wasn't going to kill the victim, then he was truthful, I promise, I know this because I know the facts"
Then we ask "What facts? Make a proper argument for your conclusion and we can continue" and you reply, "If you all knew the facts as I do, you would agree with me that the killer has got a point. We have to consider both the killer and the victims side in this, it's very easy to understand really".

Give me a fucking break. This is just stupid. :rofl:

So, demonstrate (a) that you have knowledge of the relevant historical facts and (b) that you are willing to engage in an objective and balanced conversation. If not, then there is nothing I can do for you .... — Apollodorus

Give me a proper argument for the conclusion you've made. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of normal philosophical practice when asked to provide it.

I'm open for discussion, but if you start with a conclusion and I ask for clarification and support for that conclusion, whatever my stance in the discussion is irrelevant if you can't support your own initial conclusion first, then we can go into my counter-argument to your argument.

Demanding me to do anything and trying to ignore your own responsibility as an interlocutor, just means you won't take responsibility for your part in a philosophical discussion while demanding that others should take more responsibility than you. This is how a child rationalizes their status.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Very interesting. However, not particularly coherent or convincing, to be honest.

The way I see it, it is imperative to understand that this isn’t about your opinion but about facts. And the crucial fact is that NATO and the EU have been expanding for decades, not Russia.

After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew rapidly by including Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. The addition of West Germany into NATO prompted the Soviet Union to adopt their own collective security alliance, informally called the Warsaw Pact in 1955 … The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a number former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states requesting to join NATO. This prompted objection from Russia as it viewed these states as falling within its sphere of influence …

Enlargement of NATO – Wikipedia

The European Union (EU) has expanded a number of times throughout its history by way of the accession of new member states to the Union.

Enlargement of the European Union – Wikipedia

Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:

From a Russian military perspective, I can understand that they were worried when Nato was enlarged … It’s an awkward position for the West. It is true that the US and Nato have used force when they felt they needed to. Sometimes it was justified, as in the Balkans in 1995, but sometimes it was very dodgy like in Iraq. From the Russian perspective, I can see how they can make that argument.

In contrast, from what I see, you expect us to assume that everything that Russia says is “propaganda” and everything that America says is the pure and unalloyed gospel truth. But the fact is that America does use propaganda on a regular basis:

Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities … The US military defines psychological operations, or PSYOP, as: planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals …

Propaganda in the United States – Wikipedia

It certainly seems to have worked on you. In any case, an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situation would be to acknowledge that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism, the former being a mere reaction to the latter.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that Russia should not be allowed to react but must always allow itself to be acted on by America and its instruments of foreign policy like NATO and the EU, in any way or ways that Washington or Wall Street fancy .... :smile: