I mean, I read the good ones... :chin:

> The link is to having reasons to post about it, not reasons to believe it. I know it's hard for the Twitter generation to understand but I don't feel compelled to post everything I think online.
[…]
I don't see why you're having such trouble with this, I don't have to provide a reason why I haven't posted something I think. It's quite normal to not post things one thinks.

Normal? Well that depends on how we apply conversational maxims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) to the present discussion. Notice that if you are more vocal about one side of the story, and more reticent about the other side of story, that’s ambiguous. E.g. abstaining from saying that Putin is blameless while insisting that the West is blameworthy, is consistent with thinking that the West is entirely blameworthy, or more blameworthy, or equally blameworthy, or less blameworthy in comparison to Putin as far as the genesis and continuation of this war is concerned, so it’s unclear what the point made is and if it’s enough to justify a suggested course of action. Now, my initial claim concerning your dialectical approach (not only yours though) is that if we are discussing moral/strategic reasons behind this war, then one proves his/her effort to be more objective by articulating their views on both cases also to better assess them in comparison. This expectation has nothing to do with your personal preferences or a Twitter generation’s compulsion, but all to do with what a more objective strategic/moral analysis should look like.


> Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? — neomac
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.

Why? Is this a basic moral principle of yours or did you deduce it from more basic moral principles? Can you elaborate on this? Of course nobody is fighting over a flag, literally speaking. If they do, that’s because they value some national identity that the flag represents, and that is deeply rooted into their personal history and upbringing within a certain community. In that sense, Israel for example has fought and is fighting over a flag against hostile neighbors. The same do Palestinians against Israel. The same did the Indians against the British colonial oppression, and the Algerian against the French colonial oppression. Are they all without doubt immoral?! I don't think so.


> Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? — neomac
Yes. I'm arguing against certain strategies, not the objective.

Do you mean that the only morally legitimate fight against a military aggressive ruthless tyrant is not through war but through economic sanctions and non-violent protests? Or what else do you see as morally legitimate strategy to fight against foreign oppression? BTW do you claim that strategy should be always constrained by morality also at the price of a more likely defeat?


> No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.

I find this example more misleading than enlightening wrt what I claimed. Let's make one step back. My assumption here is that we are not dealing with some simple and mechanistic causal link between intentional action and consequences, but with intentional interactions involving geopolitical agents with strategic interests, means to serve them (including propaganda), expectations about reciprocal behavioral patterns (including proven ambitions and risk aversion dispositions) and limited rationality in processing the preferable outcome. And the other assumption is that one can assess responsibility wrt some pertinent and preeminent moral principle (where there might be potentially conflicting moral understanding of the situation) by agents capable of free and informed choices.
Now, from a strategic point of view, the idea that Putin was knowingly and recklessly provoked into a war by the West sounds plausible only if, on one side, we reason in terms of containment of the Russian military expansionism (not in terms of Russian national security concerns) but, on the other side, we overlook the nature of containment strategies to give more credit to fabricated national security concerns. Indeed the lack of a credible imminent threat from Ukraine to Russia (since Ukraine has neither nuclear weapons nor proved aggressive expansionist intentions) makes the West interference in Ukraine look as a provocation to Russia as much as putting rottweilers and cameras around a villa looks as a provocation to burglars. And since rottwailers and cameras usually function as a deterrent more effectively than their absence, we can reasonably predict that they should reduce not increase the likelihood of being burgled. So this alleged “provocation” is defensive and not offensive, preventive and not aggressive, and should reduce not increase the likelihood of an attack. On the other side, Putin proved to be a ruthless tyrant, very much inspired by the idea of making Russia great again, aggressive in foreign politics, admittedly averse to Ukraine national identity and independence from Russia. In fact he attempted at Ukrainian self-determination repeatedly at least since 2004, so a while before NATO membership became the new provocation, the simple manifestation of Ukrainian national self-determination was already an intolerable provocation. Therefore, if you add to that the disproportion of military capability between Russia and Ukraine, then you can understand that Putin constituted a real imminent threat to the Ukrainians and could have likely tried to impose his will against any Ukrainian resistance by military means even without Western interference, as he did in Chechnya. In other words, Putin was a threat to Ukrainian national security much much more seriously than Ukraine was to Russian national security. That’s why Ukrainians were and are looking for the western military support.
Moreover, actions and reactions between geopolitical agents are not a one to one correlation. Western interference in Ukraine at the expense of Russian expansionist ambitions was balanced by not admitting Ukraine into NATO (whose raison d’être was already in question in the West!) and preserving economic ties with Russia, which put together resulted in a sort of “carrot & stick” logic of containment. So, Putin wasn’t cornered into waging war against Ukraine in any strategically reasonable sense, even if the perceived threat from NATO was more serious than it actually was, as once again the Cuban missile crisis proves. Putin could have countered Western interference through sanctions or military agreements. Or through whatever “carrot & stick” strategy was compatible with his expansionist ambitions.
From a moral point of view, the moral principle of legitimate defense applies to Ukrainian case more seriously than it does to the Russian case. While the moral principle that one shouldn’t put in danger civilian’s life & well being nor increase such a danger applies under two reasonable conditions. The first condition is that it doesn’t conflict with the former principle, in other words, that the pursuit and civic duty of national self-defense against foreign actual or potential oppression doesn’t count as putting the population in danger or greater danger (otherwise self-defense against foreign oppressors wouldn’t even be possible). The second condition is that the likelihood of a certain dangerous event is known, but we can’t exclude some serious miscalculations on both sides: indeed the West was unprepared to the eventuality of a full war between Ukraine and Russia, also because the US and the EU had different perceptions of Putin’s threat. On the other hand, Putin too didn’t predict such an evolution of the war, especially the reaction of Ukrainians and the EU, yet if he expected to win so easily, it means that Putin couldn’t perceive any serious threat to Russian national security coming from the West or Ukraine (in fact the annexation of Crimea). Finally, while the West is a collective geopolitical agent whose aggregated response toward Russia is not fully orchestrated by a single tyrannic leader, so it’s hard to assess how its putative collective responsibility can be shared or distributed across individual western states, especially if there are different perceptions of the problem at hand and dispositions to deal with it, however we can not say the same for all the aggressive actions taken by Russia against Ukraine.
Conclusion, the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications.

> If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West. — neomac
Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options.

So what would be the other available options that the strong-minded enough would go for?

> America is taking great pains not to equp Ukraine with any weapons which have a range long enough to present a credible threat to Russia. For this exact reason.

Well then there are no national security concern for Russia after all. But Russia could yell "not yet". Couldn't they? So until Russia can ensure a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine the risk is still there, even grater than before if Ukrainian are looking for revenge. And if national security was Putin’s concern before, it should be even more so now.


>Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you? — neomac
Why not?

Because you seemed to claim that Putin acted out of legitimate national security concerns triggered by the West. But if Putin didn’t act out of legitimate national security concerns, then there were no legitimate concerns that the West triggered in Putin leading him to start a war against Ukraine.


>Well then what forms of attack are you claiming Russia should have no fear of?

Any conventional or non-conventional attack that could seriously threaten Russian national security. The point is that there were no provable aggressive intentions from Ukraine against Russian national security, with the plausible exception of Crimea, but only after its forced annexation by Putin: so in this case it’s Putin who once again provoked the Ukrainians by attempting at their national security and integrity, not vice versa.

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country. — neomac
So? That doesn't influence their likelihood of being met.

Again, I was questioning the claim that Putin acted out of national security concerns provoked by Western interference. Ukrainian Neo-nazism, Russian genocide by Ukrainians, Ukrainian biochemical or nuclear weapons, could make the national security concerns narrative look more plausible. His actual demands however betray once more that Putin acted out of his aggressive expansionist ambitions and not out of national security concerns.

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets? — boethius

There was a revolution there once, I heard it did not turn out too well. And after the horrific "Arab Fall" yes I call it that, and the other military operations aimed at regime change that felt a lot like the Ukraine special military operation: Russia's Ukraine Special Military Operation "RUSMO", I call it, I am seriously not impressed with anyone but Gandhi. That involved some violence as well, however.

This is the usual route to democratisation. Someone concentrates all or a lot of power and, what goes along with that, is that no one in the second echelon has despotic ambitions.

And, Putin as a "dictator" is a caricature; Putin still needs to work within a political system with lots of actors and even democratic process. Certainly has concentrated power, but Putin's power within Russia is simply not comparable to Kim's power with North Korea or Xi's power within China. — boethius

President Putin and everyone else is suffering from too much 'help' not lack of it: and too much 'Democracy' from across its borders: endless interference in the region has really tipped the balance of power there, in my opinion. We need less Maidans and less Arab Falls and the like. Maybe you did not see the BBC item that reported that those who overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 were not finished and wanted to overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2015. People hiding behind Neo Nazi symbols these were. Is this what you call revolution? Constant turning of the wheel until you end up where you started?

Certainly not the typical actions of a "despot", such as Sadam Hussein who had his generals executed for retreating from a unwinnable suicidal battle. — boethius

Generals or innocent in drone strikes: I am not into name- calling or demonizing. They are all demons to some extent. I could never second-guess, them. In fact they do act in ways that could be explained by demon possession.

You mean, you were smart once? — Olivier5

Of course, looks like it continued. So Boethius has experience dealing with governments, which explains his patience. So who is really in control of Western governments? Is the people, which people then? In that case how can the people ever take control of Russia if it has never been done before?

They didn't take my advice ... but who knows, maybe they will next time. Luckily, since I live in a democratic society (at least the aristocratic population of a larger "democracy" Athenians would actually recognise) where I can affect policy, I'm able, indeed, to advise politicians and bureaucrats directly and perhaps affect their thinking for the better — boethius

How about democracy, then: direct democracy: Russians vote to hold a RUSMO and Ukrainians vote to fight to the last man. Has democracy solved the problem? Or will armed conflict settle the issue? It seems that war has a better record of settling issues, sadly.

In other news: CNN is at it again. Tiptoeing around the subject, and as I read the article, deep within it, I found again the heart of this thing that makes me once again sick an dismayed. Have we not progressed, I mean 'we' meaning them?

A far-right battalion has a key role in Ukraine's resistance. Its neo-Nazi links have given Putin ammunition
Analysis by Tara John and Tim Lister, CNN

Updated 1445 GMT (2245 HKT) March 29, 2022

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html

CNN teams in the area at the time reported Azov's embrace of neo-Nazi emblems and paraphernalia.

That's like reporting the Klan's embrace of white sheets.

The battalion still operates as a relatively autonomous entity. It has been prominent in defending Mariupol in recent weeks.

So if all the civilians leave they can fight to the last man.

In the not-too-distant past, Azov's leadership openly espoused ​White supremacist views and cultivated links with similarly minded groups and individuals in the West.
In 2010, Andriy Biletsky, now leader of the National Corps, the Azov movement's political wing, reportedly said his goal was to "lead the White races of the world in a final crusade," according to the Guardian.

At least they are a small minority about to get smaller. Still, hard to believe such words are being mouthed in 2010.

how can the people ever take control of Russia if it has never been done before? — FreeEmotion

Because they are human beings who can invent their own future. They are not machines bound to repeat themselves forever.

Maybe you could give examples of nations where its citizens are in control of its government. If they are being lied to then that breaks the feedback control loop.

You could take a course in political economy. But the short answer is: can you vote to fire the leaders of your country, or not. The French can fire Macron if they want to.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally.

And scary.

Mind you, some of them seem not to know what to believe, or even what is real. Probably too much screen time. If a Russian artillery shell comes through the wall of your building, that would be a wake-up call. Although not if it’s only something you read about in ‘the media’. Then, it’s ‘propaganda’.

What's scary is the uncritical assumption democracies work. That must be why special interests and lobby groups do so well in almost all of them (*Brexit* cough, *billions for defence*)
Or the confusion among people that democratic elections automatically lead to democratic decision making, which it obviously doesn't and really is a kindergarten level of thinking about democracy to begin with.

Especially France with it's insane disproportionate influence on training civil servants, top managers and politicians in ENA is a joke from a democratic legitimacy point of view.

Edit: yes, I know Macron has stated ENA will be closed at some point.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally.

And scary.

Mind you, some of them seem not to know what to believe — Wayfarer

That's what I call political nihilism: the belief that all politics are equally fake and exploitative. You could also call it the Zero Hypothesis of political economy: the idea that there's no real difference between political systems.

When they claim that Western propaganda is comparable to Russian propaganda, that Biden is like Goebbels, it's not just that they lack nuance to an extraordinary degree. It's also that they are afraid of change, they are afraid of freedom, and novelty. They want to be slaves. They are comfy in their lack of freedom. They like it this way, when there is no way out, no solution.

I suspect that fundamentally, they are afraid of their own hopes.

Erich Fromm ‘The Fear of Freedom’.

Especially France with it's insane disproportionate influence on training civil servants, top managers and politicians in ENA is a joke from a democratic legitimacy point of view. — Benkei

So because there is a school somewhere, we don't have a democracy. That's what passes for 'analysis' among the nihilists.

I bet you none of them has ever lived under a dictatorship. Or they wouldn't speak with such disdain for freedom.

It's also that they are afraid of change, they are afraid of freedom, and novelty. They want to be slaves. They are comfy in their lack of freedom. They like it this way, when there is no way out, no solution. — Olivier5

We have on the one hand people arguing in favour of the status quo and on the other those who say that the status quo sucks and you manage to conclude from that the latter group is against change? It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact you actually believe the shit you write.

You guys are arguing for the status quo ante here. Not us. We want Russia to be free. Do you?

Sounds interesting.

Yeah, that was totally the argument I was making "there's a school somewhere, therefore you don't have a democracy". Another stupid thing to say. But that you as a Frenchman do not see the lack of democratic decision making in your own country is a clear indicator you're not qualified to talk about democracy to begin with.

I haven't argued that at all and let's go back to what you and Wayfarer said:

When they claim that Western propaganda is comparable to Russian propaganda, that Biden is like Goebbels, it's not just that they lack nuance to an extraordinary degree — Olivier5

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally. — Wayfarer

This is not about Russia but about Western democracies, or lack thereof. The leaders of which you happily rim their assholes for because you're apparently incapable of imagining something better.

that you as a Frenchmen do not see the lack of democratic decision making in your own country is a clear indicator you're not qualified to talk about democracy to begin with. — Benkei

Have you lived in France? Are you truly qualified to talk about the French democracy, or are you just repeating racist propaganda?

you're apparently incapable of imagining something better. — Benkei

Be our guest: invent something better than global Putinistan.

I have lived in Lampertheim and worked in Strassbourg if you really need to know but it's totally besides the point where it comes to understanding France's democratic deficit. That only requires reading the news and dive a bit in its laws (le 49.3).

But you're not even capable of doing that, despite being French. Talk about nihilism. You don't even engage with the politics of the country where you're allowed to vote. Pathetic.

Be our guest: invent something better than global Putinistan. — Olivier5

Where it concerns France, just look to two countries north. It still has plenty of problems but it's already a lot better than France where it comes to democracy.

How about Americanism. Is it better? We are told it is better like someone walking up to us and slapping us in the face.

Americanism, also referred to as American patriotism, is a set of United States patriotic values aimed at creating a collective American identity, and can be defined as "an articulation of the nation's rightful place in the world, a set of traditions, a political language, and a cultural style imbued with political meaning".[1] According to the American Legion, a U.S. veterans' organization, Americanism is an ideology, or belief in devotion, loyalty, or allegiance to the United States of America, or to its flag, traditions, customs, culture, symbols, institutions, or form of government.[2] In the words of Theodore Roosevelt, "Americanism is a question of spirit, conviction, and purpose, not of creed or birthplace."[3]

Americanism has two different meanings. It can refer to the defining characteristics of the United States and can also signify loyalty to the United States and a defense of American political ideals. These ideals include, but are not limited to independence, equality before the law, freedom of speech, and progress.[1][4] — Wikipedia

Please tell me you are all non-believers.

David Gelernter argues that America is not secular at all, but a powerful religious idea—indeed, a religion in its own right.

Gelernter argues that what we have come to call “Americanism” is in fact a secular version of Zionism. Not the Zionism of the ancient Hebrews, but that of the Puritan founders who saw themselves as the new children of Israel, creating a new Jerusalem in a new world. Their faith-based ideals of liberty, equality, and democratic governance had a greater influence on the nation’s founders than the Enlightenment. — Amazon Books - David Gelernter

idealistic fighting faith it has become, a militant creed dedicated to spreading freedom around the world.

If America is a religion, it is a religion without a god, and it is a global religion. People who believe in America live all over the world. Its adherents have included oppressed and freedom-loving peoples everywhere—from the patriots of the Greek and Hungarian revolutions to the martyred Chinese dissidents of Tiananmen Square

Gelernter also shows that anti-Americanism, particularly the virulent kind that is found today in Europe, is a reaction against this religious conception of America on the part of those who adhere to a rival religion of pacifism and appeasement..

https://www.amazon.com/Americanism-Fourth-Great-Western-Religion/dp/0385513127

Not sure about the last part...

Looks like you have been a victim of President Putins' Propaganda Program.

That only requires reading the news and dive a bit in its laws (le 49.3). — Benkei

So you trust the news, huh? I thought it was all propaganda. What gives?

just look to two countries north. — Benkei

Which ones?

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not? — Olivier5

This just isn't relevant.

Experts merely constrain the range of options (to those which are not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary). Choosing between that range of expert opinion is not itself done by experts, it's done by politicians - ordinary people like you and me. We are not just coming up with ideas off the top of our heads (other than within our areas of expertise), were citing experts, were advising (insofar as we're advising anything at all) which experts to listen to. Something we are all, simply by virtue of being intelligent, engaged citizens, eminently qualified to do.

the belief that all politics are equally fake and exploitative. — Olivier5

Has anyone suggested such a thing? Or is this another case of you just randomly blurting out something you happen to reckon for no reason?

Where it concerns France, just look to two countries north. It still has plenty of problems but it's already a lot better than France where it comes to democracy. — Benkei

Speaking from experience, I did live in a country that was virtually a dictatorship. One ruling party and one member of the opposition. Actually two parties. I enjoyed the benefits of safety and stability, and that country has survived for many years, and is still thriving. At that time in the 1980s they confiscated newspapers across the border, and people criticized the government in private, quietly. Many things worked, especially the market economy.

How can I criticize a system that I benefited from?

I don't democracy think it matters unless you want to overthrow the government, then you and the government become a problem to each other. The poster children for democracy could have been a bit more attractive to convince the rest of us.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

Plato — Plato

"In the US view, this is not a short-term adjustment to regroup, but a longer-term move as Russia comes to grips with failure to advance in the north. The official said one consequence the US is concerned about is keeping the European allies unified on economic pressure and military support as Washington expects some of them to press Ukraine to accept a peace deal to end the fighting. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday cautioned that Russia saying it would be reducing hostilities around Kyiv could be "a means by which Russia once again is trying to deflect and deceive people into thinking it's not doing what it is doing."

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/us-intelligence-russia-ukraine-kyiv-strategy/index.html

An American horror story: that a peace deal is reached and there is no more war.

I don't know how this could be made any more clear: America wants dead Ukrainians, all the better to secure unipolarity.

An American horror story: that a peace deal is reached and there is no more war. — StreetlightX

What I do not understand is why at least agree to a deal that can be simply rescinded at a later date, like the Minsk agreements: Ukraines "Allies" do not even want to give them a even a temporary respite.

I cannot choose which is more disgusting, the language or the actions. If this is democracy it makes hell look attractive let alone North Korea, for its sheer lying injustice.

America wants dead Ukrainians, — StreetlightX

That is an awful way to put it, but assuming its true, which Americans? Those running the American War Establishment (AWE) ? Or the bottom 99%? Who is in control here?

Here is one conspiracy theory:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it — Name will be revealed later

How about Americanism. Is it better? We are told it is better like someone walking up to us and slapping us in the face. — FreeEmotion

That sounds like an unending drag. Who is presenting this to you? The company you work for? Your government?

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally. — Wayfarer

And the irony is that those who accuse the West of lacking critical thinking about their own corrupted and hypocritical democratic institutions, and warmongering/greedy imperialistic ambitions from the point of view of those who compete against the West (Russia, China, Islam) are just recycling criticisms originally coming from home grown and domestically popularised Western intellectuals: not surprisingly Osama bin Laden was an eager reader of Noam Chomsky.

--

Also imagine thinking voting means anyone in the West lives in anything remotely like a democracy. I mean bloody hell, at least Russians know they live under the thumb of an autocrat murderer - meanwhile, over in moral-rectitude-land, people really think, with a straight face, that they are self-governing in any way, shape, or form.