Here we go:

CNN has not been able to independently confirm the details around the men's deaths. — CNN

Note the URL

/ukraine-images-russia-invasion-what-matters/index.html

If a video of civillian bodies along the roadside is taken as proof of Russian atrocities, then there is no need for either further comment or explanation.

This is the reason wars happen: because reason never settles the issue.

I can find you someone who has met Putin, but I don’t think it would help. Putin has a poker face, is an ace poker player. Those Kremlinologists who have met him have come to similar views. He must be judged by his actions. I’m not here to talk about Andrew Levi though, I’m here to discuss what Putin is up to and the tweet I quoted lays out the argument that he is the equivalent of a Mafia boss.

Forgive me, I wasn’t aware of discussion you were involved in with regarding the track record of the US.
I have no argument with you there. We do need to focus on the actor who has committed an act of aggression though.

It's also neither here nor there. If we want peace, if we want to stop the killing now, we need to go through the Russia that is now and the way it is under Putin. And secretly of course the wish for "fundamental change" is for Russia to roll over and accept US hegemony and pretend it doesn't have any interests or rights other than those that exactly align with what the UK/US want them to be.

So you are of the opinion that peace can be achieved with Putin in place? Provided he is held in a weak position, with some stability, I would agree with you. But this may not be possible and it might not work for him. Perhaps these acts of aggression are required for him to maintain himself in power and he would feel threatened if he is left weak. There are the problems of what might happen in Russia if it is relegated to a world pariah. He could then lash out in a more dangerous way, or the Russian people could react in some aggressive way. There is also the geopolitical considerations in which China could align with Russia and the world could divide into those states who are with Russia and those who are against.

For NATO, leaving Putin to get bogged down in Ukraine, depleting his forces until sanctions bite might have the best outcome. But this may involve the destruction of Ukraine, a sovereign state and war crimes on a massive scale. Can NATO stand by and watch this happen.

https://craneip.com/china-remains-ukraines-largest-trade-partner-in-2020/

The most popular categories of goods that were imported into Ukraine were mineral fuels, oil and its distillation products, reactors, boilers, machinery, equipment and mechanical devices, and vehicles.

The main countries-suppliers of goods to Ukraine were China (with a share of 15.3%), Germany (9.4%), and Russia (8.5%).

Could it be said that China helped fuel Ukraine's war machine?

As Benkei (an actual lawyer) has already pointed out, there does need to be some sort of credible investigation, chance for the accused to defend themselves, and, ideally, some sort of impartial trial to determine war crimes, or crimes in general. — boethius

But of course.

In the case of the shooting down of MH17 there was an extensive investigation by the Dutch Safety Board and the criminal investigation was one of the largest in Dutch history with dozens of prosecutors and 200 investigators. And those responsible were found. Of course this incident appears to have been an incident of "collateral damage" as usually shooting downs of civilian aircraft are. Actually earlier Ukraine accidentally shot down a Russian airliner using a truly old SA-5 surface to air missile (which has it's own radar in the missile and can fly very far). The ordinary thing would be to acknowledge the mistake (Oops.) and pay compensation for the families. The US did that when USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner.

But this is not the way how Russia operates. It's just denies the truth perpetually. If you deny it, someone will believe you.

Additionally, war crimes by individual soldiers or units (which I do not doubt has happened; it's essentially guaranteed in any war) do not automatically translate to being war crimes of the military or the government. It must be some sort of institutionalised policy or direct order. — boethius

Again something very obvious. In Abu Ghraib the military policemen didn't invent out of boredom to humiliate the Iraqi inmates. They were specifically told to do so. It's actually rather difficult to hide a chain of command is something is perpetrated by en masse compared to one individual event.

When it comes to warcrimes, you can see when something is an act of one individual and when something is done systemically.

accidentally shot down a Russian airline — ssu

As I recall it was an Ukrainian air force plane, a large one, at altitude, which should have sent alarm bells ringing. Interestingly, the route over Ukraine was changed due to the war there.

On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport aircraft flying at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) was shot down

In April, the International Civil Aviation Organization had warned governments that there was a risk to commercial passenger flights over south-eastern Ukraine.[3]: 217  The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region.[61][62] 37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Other than that I find your optimism misplaced. Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Tokyo ring a bell? How many were court martialed? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo? Anything? Torture and renditions? What's Cheney doing nowadays anyway? — Benkei

I don't think I was an optimist in any way. I just explained that even if nations can be theoretically against warcrimes and try preventing civilian casualties, it doesn't mean that warcrimes wouldn' happen. Yet if your strategy is to affect the civilian population, be it the firebombings of Japan, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or the way Russia fought in Chechnya (and seems to be fighting in Ukraine), there something more to it than just the act of random violence. It's just then that the scale can be far greater.

At least Arthur "Bomber" Harris had the decency to understand that he would have been tried as a war criminal if the UK had lost. I'm not so sure how Curtis LeMay thought about it. He perhaps would have wanted have that nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Russia had only a few ICBMs. He surely saw the "brief but bloody" war something that would prevent from the "long and bloody" war, which is quite dubious.



But of course, we are here talking about the war in Ukraine that was perpetrated by mr Putin.

As I recall it was an Ukrainian air force plane, a large one, at altitude, which should have sent alarm bells ringing. Interestingly, the route over Ukraine was changed due to the war there. — FreeEmotion

I was referring to this case:

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was a commercial flight shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. The aircraft, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members. Most of the passengers were Israelis visiting relatives in Russia. There were no survivors. The crash site is about 190 km west-southwest of the Black Sea resort of Sochi, 140 km north of the Turkish coastal town of Fatsa and 350 km south-southeast of Feodosiya in Crimea. The accident resulted from combat-missile launches during joint Ukrainian-Russian military air-defence exercises. The exercises were held at the Russian-controlled training ground of the 31st Russian Black Sea Fleet Research center on Cape Opuk near the city of Kerch in Crimea. Ukraine eventually admitted that it might have caused the crash, probably by an errant S-200 missile fired by its armed forces. Ukraine paid $15 million to surviving family members of the 78 victims ($200,000 per victim).

Provided he is held in a weak position, with some stability, I would agree with you. — Punshhh

That contradicts what you shared though. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be.

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea? — frank

I think people can explain themselves better.

But at least @Isaac has been pretty consistent in his reasoning that he doesn't want that the US would be seen as a "A Knight in White Shining Armour".

Yet if one side tells the truth in favorable terms and the other side fabricates an utter lie, is then the best thing to look for the truth in the middle?

No.

You have to disregard the lie and understand the agenda of the other.

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for. — Christoffer

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all.

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking? — Isaac


What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4. — Christoffer

I had said that if specialist equipment were required then one could understand a more developed country obtaining some knowledge derived from it. You countered with "what about critical thinking!" I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out.

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument. — Christoffer

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case.

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking. — Christoffer

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs.

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals. — Christoffer

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem?

The same goes for critical thinking. — Christoffer

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education.

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms. — Christoffer

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least.

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids. — Christoffer

Yes, that's right.

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems. — Christoffer

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions.

It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture. — Christoffer

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this?

what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know. — Christoffer

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing.

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world. — Christoffer

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males.

Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation? — Christoffer

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials - two things denied them in most early agricultural and developing industrial economies.

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer. — Christoffer

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter.

if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn. — Christoffer

It's not about alternatives. It's about you learning that, contrary to your strongly held assumptions, logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought. What prevents their use is largely scarcity - being hungry, poor, stressed... Remove those and you will have people able to think critically without having to teach them anything.

that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages. — Christoffer

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments?

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice. — Christoffer

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact.

Elaborate on the disagreement. — Christoffer

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine.

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things — Christoffer

There's no evidence for this at all.

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them... — Christoffer

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture.

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education? — Christoffer

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged. Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong. To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions. You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong.

you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia, — Christoffer

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged.

it's difficult to really get into [a moral discussion] because of the war and events moving forward. — boethius

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur.

Yet if one side tells the truth in favorable terms and the other side fabricates an utter lie, is then the best thing to look for the truth in the middle? — ssu

I don't understand this proposition at all. If you already know the 'truth' (such that you know one side tells the truth and the other lies) then why would you "look for the truth" at all? You already know it.

Nice is-ought mistake there. — Benkei

No, that one is only in your mind. I'm not going to defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

Selective in your history too.

*sigh*

I didn't say all societies throughout history had a soldier class.

And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same.

Your use of "we" says otherwise.

And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy.

Then you need to read up on infanticide in animals:

In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of the same species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) but including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.[2] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable.[3] This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice.[3] It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well.

And, of course, intrauterine cannibalism.

The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You are really mean. I addressed a topic, and you shot it down with a taboo.

Is this a philosophy forum or the watercooler??!!

I don't understand this proposition at all. If you already know the 'truth' (such that you know one side tells the truth and the other lies) then why would you "look for the truth" at all? You already know it. — Isaac

Of course not... :roll:

OK: Consider for example the case of Putin's little green men. A picture from the 2014 invasion:



Do the above men look as to be part of a Crimean volunteer force that sprang up because of the turmoil in the country? Or do they look like Russian paratroops that don't have the Russian flag insignia on their arm?

In order to draw a conclusion which possibility is correct, perhaps you then have to have some idea about just what would a "volunteer force" during political turmoil would look like and what Russian paratroops in their newest gear would look like. And if you don't know anything about the gear, then look at the age of the men. Volunteer militias are usually made up of young and old men while armies are made of fit service age males.

Yet during that time, this was all too confusing for journalists who I remember clearly didn't want to make conclusions at first just who the soldiers were... because it wasn't told to them. So they were "little green men".

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur. — Olivier5

You didn't read either of my comments.

I said moral discussion of first principles, which you are not doing.

You assume Ukraine has just cause, you are not discussing your moral theory about it nor anyone else's, nor why Ukraine happens to have just cause with respect to your moral theory.

You are not discussing morality, you are mostly just condemning Russians and praising Ukrainians based on moral ideas you already have, and accusing people you perceive as helping the former at the expense of the latter. I.e. you are implementing political objectives: to influence and shape perceptions.

A moral discussion would be circling back to issues such as how many Nazi's would justify invasion, to be confident it's not Russia who has just cause.

Which, each side claims they have just cause and therefore they can lie and their crimes can be excused, as crimes by soldiers and even institutions in warfare can be expected; either as "shit happens" or then the means justify the just ends and the warrior has to do sometimes difficult things, hard choices have to be made.

Or then, maybe neither side has just cause and individual soldiers are better off deserting.

Perhaps even both sides can have just cause in a moral relativistic theory driving identity politics ... which suddenly I don't see, where did it go? Is it under this rock? Nope, not under there. Maybe behind this tree? Nope, not over here either. Funny, I was certain it was around here somewhere.

If you actually look at the moral arguments, they essentially are structured around a sort of original just cause that justifies whatever deception or otherwise crimes that follows that. However, if original just cause justifies lying, the problem is it justifies lying about the original just cause as well.

In your system of reasoning that's solved by simply assuming you have just cause and even challenging that to see if it would survive critical scrutiny would undermine the belief in the just cause, a belief required to win the just war, therefore even scrutinising the original just cause would be immoral as it undermines the belief in the just cause, which you know is true without any scrutiny, which would be immoral to really cary out in a good faith way, but you know it to be true anyways.

Yes like passing through the eye of a needle. I find it difficult to image such an outcome.

I don't see how wars and events prevent a moral discussion. That's a non sequitur. — Olivier5

As for "preventing" that's a completely absurd representation of my position.

I said if you want the bloodshed to end (that's your moral objective in the here and now), then it will end by one side winning or then diplomatic resolution.

That doesn't prevent discussing from first principles just war theory and the moral theories upon which such just war theories would be built, it's just unlikely to help end the war one way or another (which I mention Ukraine "marching on Moscow" would be one way to end it, and does not require thinking about the Russian perspective much).

. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be. — Benkei

If that's true, we should expect trouble going forward. His actions have eliminated Russia's market economy. He's transitioning to some sort of command economy, like N. Korea's.

So he is headed backward economically speaking. Ties to the west: gone. Russian middle class: severely reduced. His economy: permanently contracted.

That doesn't bode well for the overall health of Russian society.

A moral discussion would be circling back to issues such as how many Nazi's would justify invasion, to be confident it's not Russia who has just cause. — boethius

And lo and behold, we have found it quite possible to have this discussion here, in spite of the war going on, so I don't see the link between a war going on, on the one hand, and a moral debate, be it on first principles, on the other hand. These are two very different things and I can see no causal mechanism between them, where one would prevent the other...

Camus wrote the Letters to a German Friend while WW2 was still raging. He didn't find it a problem. Why do you?

And?

https://odysee.com/@Orf:b/hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinfo:b

Or

https://odysee.com/@Orf:b/lab-leak-conspiracy-theory-mashup:4

Both sides lie. So why believe one and not the other?

And lo and behold, we have found it quite possible to have this discussion here, in spite of the war going on, so I don't see the link between a war going on, on the one hand, and a moral debate, be it on first principles, on the other hand. These are two very different things and I can see no causal mechanism between them, where one would prevent the other... — Olivier5

Time is limited.

Every word you consider saying you could first debate in your head 10 years the first principle reasons before saying it. Nothing prevents you from carefully reflecting in such a way.

It may however prevent other goals the word under consideration was intended to address 10 years ago.

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate.

People have existing moral positions in which they are approaching the war in Ukraine and try to do, or a least promote, their moral objectives.

My moral objective is to contribute to a diplomatic resolution, which is just boring talking.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution, but if you have a proposal on what is the ultimate moral first principles and how to apply them to believe what and to say what and to do what about the war, feel free to teach me about it.

Here's an interview with Yanis Varoufakis. He's saying much the same things as we're saying here. The point I want you to note is the first part

Back in 2001, I labelled Vladimir Putin a war criminal because of the murder of 250,000 people in Grozny, Chechnya. It was in a Senate meeting of the University of Athens, which was discussing the motion for awarding an honorary doctorate to Putin, who had just become president of Russia. And I was in a minority of one opposing it.

https://unherd.com/2022/04/ukraine-cannot-win-this-war/

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin"

I'm not necessarily agreeing with this theory, just saying that if you follow Andrew Levi's assessment then this is what you get.

I happen to think it's wrong. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss". Putin came from more or less nowhere and had held the reins of power in Russia for decades. He's not stupid and I see no good reason to replace the stated warnings by Russia over the past decades, eg. "don't fuck around with our sphere if influence" (I paraphrase) with convenient archetypes that prop up our narrative as "west good, Russia bad".

It doesn't fit his personal history and it doesn't fit official Russian policy for decades. Andrew Levi is just a convenient story to push UK policy.

You clearly have no idea how long debating from first principles takes and that the war will be likely long over (hopefully long over) before we even make any progress in such a debate. — boethius

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded.

And it has zilch to do with a war going on or not.

Philosophical debates are not really geared to reach a deal, as when two businessmen debate some deal they both want to strike. In philosophy debate is more a way for each debater to develop his or her views, to present them under different facets, to see how arguments are attacked, and hence how they can be improved.

Your argument was just pulled out of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. And that's all I have to say about it.

. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss" — Benkei

Mob bosses aren't evil or irrational. They're a form of governance. You pay the mob as part of the price of doing business. That's exactly what Putin is in Russia.

They butcher, sure, but in an environment where the police can kill minority Americans and get away with it, it's good to align yourself with someone who has established a relationship with the police. It's corrupt, sure. But it provides some stability for people who would be vulnerable.

I think the point is that it's not Russia that just invaded Ukraine. It's Putin. A number of pundits have made that point. It's not insulting.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin" — Isaac

I don't think you understand what I was asking, but I think I do get it now.

I understand how unproductive any philosophical debate can be in terms of reaching agreement, but this is a 'productivist view' which I find a bit narrow minded. — Olivier5

That's why I don't say "reach agreement" but rather

before we even make any progress in such a debate. — boethius

... which does not include the word "agree".

However, whether you refuse for the purposes of deflection or then you genuinely don't understand, I am not against discussing moral issues from first principles.

It is simply not my priority and I have also pointed out no one here, including yourself, is doing so. If people wanted to do so, I could not "prevent them", but I would engage insofar as it seemed a productive use of my time (of which I do have a 'productivist view', despite even your disagreement), which, if it seemed to help reach a diplomatic resolution then I may participate in such a debate insofar as it does so.

Your argument was just pulled our of your behind in a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

How did I prevent anyone expressing their views?

And, notice how the only mechanism available for me to prevent people from expressing their views .. is expressing my view, which, because you assume you have just cause without any scrutiny of the belief, my view (which was simply mentioning it does take investigations and hearing what the Russians say to even start some credible process) is somehow preventing other's from expressing their views about it?

Does it really though? Or does it simply take the edge off the circle of self adulation and pats on the back?

a futile attempt to prevent folks from expressing their views on the Busha crimes recently uncovered by the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

This is interesting. What is the mechanism you propose by which this prevention is achieved?

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole. — Christoffer

No, that's all your doing. I said I want every country to be self-sufficient:

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.) — baker

If it were up to me, I would enforce self-sufficiency at all costs. How this works out in any particular case depends on the particular cirucmstances.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further.
— baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

The masses cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. This is the entire scope of my claim.
That doesn't mean I "defend authoritarian dictatorship". The masses want panem et circenses. If they are allowed to pursue that, they will destroy everything.

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society.

I favor self-sufficiency.

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot?

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of limited natural (and other) resources.

A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

The way people in Western society are different from one another is trivial, superficial. Those differences are merely artificially trumped up, so that people can brag about them and their "tolerance".

The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact.

You should read some modern Western books on psychology, such as the DSM. Then you'd understand what authoritarianism really is.

I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

Being able to criticize those in power is overrated anyway. It doesn't affect those in power (other than to give them reason to retaliate). Moreover, the critics just want to air their outrage, vent their emotions. They aren't interested in constructive action.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

How politically correct.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what?
— baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

In the West, we have no freedom in terms of sex, food, how we go about relationships, what we think the meaning of life is, and so on. It's all prescribed, all standardized, normativized.
The freedoms that we do have pertain only to trivialities. It's a golden cage we're in.

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

More pc.

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

The differences are only in terms of practical circumstances, but not in terms of morality.

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this.

I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it.

Or, more likely, you're so politically correct that your "criticism" doesn't "rub anyone the wrong way".
From what you've said so far, you sound very politically correct, just the kind of person Western societies like.

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia.

Again, you're failing to see the similarity.

Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here?

You're unable to see the similiarity.

Understand the grey area we're discussing?

Hold on. You call it a "grey area"??

France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

Try being poor in France then.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

And I said: self-sufficiency.