Is there another plausible outcome, I’d like to hear it? — Punshhh

I doubt that. There's an entire internet full of alternative narratives, if you've seriously not come across any it seems hard to believe that you're actually interested in one.

Russia is not an economic superpower. And now it seems their so-called superpower army is a shambles.

I doubt that. There's an entire internet full of alternative narratives, if you've seriously not come across any it seems hard to believe that you're actually interested in one.

And your opinion as to the most likely outcome?

Try CGTN https://www.cgtn.com/?pid=mobilewebsite0&deep_link_value=haiwai

40 billion in war time bonds. Ukraine is fucked even if Putin loses.

Do you mean this? I don't have a source for the 40 billion figure.

Still, with Ukraine’s future in doubt, investors who own Ukrainian bonds will have a hard time selling them in the foreseeable future, says Trang Nguyen, emerging-markets strategist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “There might be international support to help Ukraine stay current on its debt at the moment,” she says. “But there is a big question mark about its sovereignty.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-08/ukraine-war-bonds-have-limited-reach-so-far

I was editing my previous comment but you already replied. :-)

The 40 billion is local currency, so only 1,5 billion USD. Not that bad if they hadn't already had huge debt with a debt to GDP ratio of over 65% in 2020. Yield for 10 year bonds is almost 20% at the moment. For comparison, Dutch is 1.09% and Germany 0.81%.

Russia is not an economic superpower. — Punshhh

No indeed, but irrelevant to the topic of whether we need be wary of provoking a military response.

it seems their so-called superpower army is a shambles. — Punshhh

'Seems' to whom? I've pressed @frank, @ssu and @Count Timothy von Icarus for some expert opinion on which they're basing their assessment, but all are being suspiciously tight-lipped. I suspect they're afraid of compromising their sources, deep cover assets in Russian intelligence no doubt...

And your opinion as to the most likely outcome? — Punshhh

I don't really have one. At a guess I'd say that there'll either be a deal which gives independence to Dombas and Crimea and an assurance of non-NATO membership for all, or America will succeed at drawing Russia into it's proxy war and we'll see (after a long drawn-out conflict) a full downfall and replacement of Putin with some new Western-friendly puppet who'll do what all western-friendly puppets have done in history - hand over massive contracts to US firms, build up huge debts, and slash welfare then get mired in conflict with resentful separatists. Meanwhile a few thousand more Ukrainians will be killed for the prize of having their own coloured flag hang over their debt-ridden, corrupt parliament whilst they slowly freeze because they can't afford the heating bills any more.

But at least Putin will have a minor setback in his plans so, hell all the thousands dead and immiserated will be worth it. Oh! The look on his face! Priceless.

Could Ukraine reestablish economic ties with Europe after the war? Or would that be a provocation?

Economics has never been the issue as far as I know. The question is the level of corruption and to what extent that's a barrier to integrate with the EU economic system.

Economics has never been the issue as far as I know. The question is the level of corruption and to what extent that's a barrier to integrate with the EU economic system. — Benkei

Russia would allow Ukraine to integrate into the EU?

Russia would allow Ukraine to integrate into the EU? — frank

How could they stop it, if the EU is willing? Nuke Brussels?

I seem to recall, but can't find it right now, that Russia explicitly stated economic integration with the EU wasn't the issue. Not sure what they mean with that since the EU has an assistance article in case of an attack as well for its EU treaty members. So maybe they meant association treaty or partnership and cooperation agreement.

How could they stop it, if the EU is willing? Nuke Brussels? — Olivier5

They could invade Ukraine and blow a bunch of stuff up, kill a bunch of people, try to take the Donbas region, get bogged down, kill more people, blow more stuff up.

Wouldn't that do it?

↪frank I seem to recall, but can't find it right now, that Russia explicitly stated economic integration with the EU wasn't the issue — Benkei

That doesn't really make a lot of sense though. Economic ties usually go hand in hand with political ties.

Now I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that the West is responsible for the attack because of overtures toward Ukraine?

Wouldn't that do it? — frank

Haven't they done that already?

> You just keep claiming that “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” without providing evidences and while being contradicted by the evidences: Ukrainian families got exterminated by Russian soldiers, no Ukrainian ruling class member has exterminated those families. — neomac
Are you suggesting that the policies of the ruling classes have resulted in no deaths?

I have no idea what you are talking about (which policies? Which ruling classes? Which deaths?) nor what relation it bears with what I wrote. So I’m explicitly asking you - now for the fifth time - to provide evidences of such claim “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”.


> Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.

Then I don’t see the point of your claim “defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason” since the “insufficiency” qualification by comparison to other alleged more relevant moral reasons (e.g. fighting against the ruling class, which you admit can be unacknowledged by the oppressed) doesn’t question the fact that Ukrainians actually have an acknowledged moral reason to fight for defending their nation and therefore feel compelled to act upon it as they do. Besides you were claiming that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. So, finally, can fighting for one’s nation be a defensible moral reason or not?


> Very little. Which is probably why I didn't restrict my assessment to the Russian ruling elite, nor the Russian poor.

OK then what is the relation between Russian and Ukrainian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian and Ukrainian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children?


> if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac
Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers. Which is probably why I have never suggested they are.

What?! So you are not claiming that the war in Ukraine is a war between American and Russian expansionism as great power politics in Mearsheimer-lingo, now?!
Anyway if your moral position and choices should not be constrained within a de facto clash of dominance between American and Russian powers, then also Zelensky moral position and choices should not be constrained within what a de facto war situation is, especially as framed by the enemy.

> I talked about math because you talked about multi-causal theory and multi causal theories would allow to evaluate the exact or statistical relevance of a cause in a given output. — neomac
How?

What?! You should tell me! You talked about multi-causal analysis, I didn’t! That’s your job, not mine!

> So what factor (or factors) governs the difference?

> So you keep saying, yet you seem quite clear on what dimensions are not to be considered. Perhaps a quick run down of these multiple dimensions would help?[/i]

As I said, I intend moral assessment an a posteriori comparative tasks about what people actually value in given circumstances to determine the lesser evil. The reason why I can’t do a priori moral assessments is because I can’t predict what people actually value (they could value many different things) especially when facing contingent and challenging events (like a war, a pandemic, an immigration crisis, a terrorist threat, etc.), with all that goes with it in terms of costs/benefits and responsibility ascriptions. The multi-dimensionality of moral assessments refers precisely to the fact that there are values to consider and comparisons to make depending on given circumstances that we can not predict.
In a given situation like this war, I made my moral assessment based on a posteriori comparative evaluation concerning how much Zelensky’s choices reflect what Ukrainians actually value (defending Ukraine from Russian aggression), how much Ukrainian values are closer to Westerners wrt Russians (Ukrainains are more open to westernization), how much proportionate Russian response to the claimed threat from Ukrainians was, how much Russian aggressive expansionism is an actual existential threat to the West (given the actual Russian cyberwar against the West, the actual nuclear threat against the West, the actual Russian aggressive expansion in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, and Putin’s actual aspirations to a new world order), and so on, and my conclusion is that I have moral reasons to side with Zelensky’s resistance against Russia.

> If you want to object to me for good, tell me if you would morally support Isis over America and why. — neomac
I already did, right at the beginning of the paragraph you're supposedly critiquing.

I have no idea what paragraph your are referring to. Quote yourself or repeat your point as I’ve done many times.

> Again, how on earth do you get from the notion that a puppet government wouldn't be so bad as to be worth thousands of lives to "I think we ought to depose Zelensky". It's just an insane leap of inference.

A suggestion is a pragmatic implicature not a logic inference. So if you contrast a Russian puppet government wrt Zelensky’s, praise the first and blame the second the obvious implicature is that Russian puppet should replace Zelensky. Also because that is very much consistent with Russian desiderata (like having a Russian puppet government instead of having pro-western government as Zelensky running Ukraine) which you are arguing we should readily submit to.
If one wanted to suggest to people that Ukrainians should replace Zelensky with a Russian puppet government without actually saying it, one would precisely to do the way you did: insist on the tragic mistakes of Zelensky on one side and stress the benefits of having a puppet government on the other side. There is no more straightforward way to suggest it without explicitly saying (it’s called comparative advertising in marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising).
Again, at best, you could claim that you didn’t mean it. At worst, you could keep disingenuously complaining. Either way, I made my point and I’ll stick to it for precisely the reasons I provided.

> It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.
Where else did I do that? Can you fully quote me? — neomac
I just did.

Where? So far we are simply arguing over a single claim of mine:

3. So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone, which is more than what Putin officially demanded?! Even Putin might cringe over your overzealousness. — neomac

This is where I claim you to be suggesting a replacement of Zelensky’s regime with a puppet government and we are arguing now about this claim. While you stated “It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.” as if I suggested that you want Zelensky gone other times. I’m asking you to fully quote myself where else I made such a suggestion.


> Poor people bring to life children that they are incapable of taking care of, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children? — neomac
Yes. I presume that would be why they try with every ounce of their soul to feed and protect those children.

> Palestinians bring to life children that they are incapable of fully protecting against the oppression of Israelis, don’t they have some responsibility for the death/sickness/starvation/misery of their children exposed to the Israelis’ oppression? — neomac
Yes. Again probably why they try so desperately hard to protect them.

Sure, but that’s also why you would consider the poor/Palestinian parents immoral because they are knowingly exposing their children to death/sickness/starvation/misery. Indeed you claimed “If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.”


> So shouldn’t they stop having children? — neomac
That's one solution, yes. Not the only solution, clearly.

The point is that’s the moral solution, you would readily support, considering the de facto power relations between poor and rich or between Palestinians and Israel, and the gravity of risks that poor/Palestinians are exposing their children to.
What are the other solutions you are talking about?

> The former is true, the latter is a strategic judgement. I'm not speaking to a Ukrainian so I can't interrogate their reasoning. I’m speaking to a non-Ukrainian, form the comfort of their non-bombed home and asking why they are supporting continued fighting so fervently.

What is the point of such claims, in particular the part I put in bold? I see none. First of all, you don’t know me, and you have no idea about my personal involvement in this story as much as I don’t know yours. So I don’t see any compelling reason to support your assumption. Second, we are in a philosophy forum where we discuss things precisely because we are drawn for whatever reason to such intellectual activity, and we can do that without involving anyone’s personal situation. Third, I can talk about moral reasons as fervently as I can talk about the propositional content of our thoughts or the conceptual reduction of time to perception or the logical form of a Devine Command Theory, especially if I encounter people making preposterous claims as you did repeatedly (actually on other philosophical debates over epistemology or metaphysics or logics I have been even harsher than I am with you). Fourth, investing energies in a debate over a war without any direct involvement in that war could be true for those who support continued fighting as likely as for those who do support surrender. So why are you depicting only one side in these terms? Fifth, if Russia is an actual existential threat to the West, we have a damn serious reason to be worried even from a position of comfort, precisely because we fear it won’t last as much as we can fear a pandemic spreading from China even if we are not actually sick nor living in China.


> BTW, for the third time, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? — neomac
Then for the third time, no, the outcome continued war is compared to matters.

Quote yourself where you said no to that question, the other 2 times.
I have no idea what “the outcome continued war is compared to matters.” is supposed to mean. Can you unpack your claim more extensively and highlight its moral implications? How else do you see the oppressed poor get better condition from an authoritarian ruling class without fight (history is plenty of violent revolutions and civil wars where the poor tried to fight against an authoritarian ruling class to improve their conditions), and therefore risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material well-being and life? I’ll remind you that you keep talking about the importance of ruling class oppression which is far more consistent than the oppression between nations, so would you exclude fighting against an oppressive ruling class (like the Ukrainian peasants’ revolts against the Stalin’s forced collectivization) as morally defensible for fear of worse consequences (like the Holodomor which is worse than what Russia has done so far in this war against Ukrainians)?


> What? You've not labelled p, q or r so I can't possibly use this.

Here you go:
P1. If, in the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, demands are unacceptable [p] or the assurances aren’t enough [q], then the negotiation fail [r]
P2. In the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, negotiation demands were unacceptable [p] and assurances weren’t enough [q]
C. The negotiation fail [r]


> But I support Ukraine. So does everyone writing here. We disagree about how. Are you claiming there are moral reasons to back particular strategies?

Yes I’m claiming there are moral reasons to back a particular strategy, and the particular strategy is supporting Zelensky’s resistance against Russian aggression. Does that sound new to you after all I already, repeatedly and extensively said? Because if it doesn’t, what was the point of asking such question exactly?

> Whenever I talk about strategy you switch to intention (1), when I talk about intention you say it's about 'moral reasons' (2) when I talk about morality you defer back to tactics again (3).

I can’t recall examples of (1) and (3) can you point me to where I did that? (2) happened because you tried to frame my claims from your assumptions not mine, and I didn’t just switch, I argued for my point to let you address it in a more pertinent way.
The fact that you feel talking about something doesn’t imply that your interlocutor sees it as pertinent, so the more you derail from what is perceived as pertinent by your interlocutor the more your interlocutor will likely switch back to what he perceives to be more pertinent (like when you feel like talking about the Yemeni when we are talking about the Russian aggression of Ukraine, or when you feel like talking about rich and poor when we are talking again about Russian aggression fo Ukraine, or when you feel like talking the deaths provoked by the Ukrainian ruling class when we are talking again about Russian aggression of Ukraine).
Besides you too switch from one subject to another, what makes it look suspicious though is that you are doing this when one is challenging the internal consistency of your own assumptions/claims (like the idea that this war is due to American expansionism, or that ruling class oppression is far more consistent than the oppression between nations).


> Fine. Replace all my uses of US, NATO and Europe with the names of their current leaders and influences and then answer the questions.

That’s your job. When you do your job, I’ll do mine.

> Not what I asked.

You asked: “If Putin's power consolidation was increased bu sanction and NATO involvement in the war, then ought we avoid those things?” I can’t/couldn’t give you a straightforward answer because that depends. If sanctions and/or NATO involvement consolidate Putin’s power within Russia but weaken his power outside Russia then we should sanction and get NATO involved. If sanctions and/or NATO involvement consolidate Putin’s power outside Russia then no we should not sanction nor get NATO involved. If sanctions and NATO involvement have equal opportunity to have Putin’s power consolidation outside Russia, then it’s indifferent what we do.


> Again, not even addressing the question I actually asked.

Which question? The piece of yours I was commenting (“So as far as the moral case is concerned, you concede the point that continuing to fight is not morally advised simply on the grounds of 'opposing Putin's expansionism' since it is a moot point what course of action would best do that.”) didn’t contain any questions, it was attributing to me a concession based on what I said earlier, so I was simply clarifying what I said earlier.
Nobody is forbidding you to ask your questions again. I have to do it very often with you.


> cruel and unfair treatment of people, especially by not giving them the same freedom, rights, etc. is morally defensible when it’s for punishing immoral people. — neomac
So you think punishing immoral people is unfair?

When we talk about unfair treatment we implicitly associate it with the idea of unjust treatment. Yet unfair treatment could simply mean unequal treatment for example by not giving someone the same freedom, rights, etc. But unequal treatment is not always unjust, unequal treatment of criminals is just. So, during our exchange, I hacked the latter usage of “fair” as an expedient to justify my unusual usage of the word “oppression” (when punishing the immoral) in the absence of a better word with the semantic features I needed (we do not have a word that allows to talk about just and unjust oppression). So, to answer your question, obviously no in the way we usually intend it, but yes due to the linguistic expedient I just clarified. I don’t mind if you disagree, though.


> There cannot always be an alternative, otherwise negotiations never end. At some point in time the agreement has to coincide with both parties' strategy.

Sure but the point is that you didn’t prove that you offered an alternative third strategy to which opposing parties could converge, you are just saying that one party has to converge to the requests of the other party as they are formulated.


> You can take side in accordance to your beliefs. So do I. Now what? — neomac
Well, you could start by refraining from referring to my beliefs as 'preposterous', if you accept that they're just beliefs.

Yet another preposterous claim. Even if you can act in accordance to your beliefs and your beliefs are just beliefs (?!), your beliefs can still be only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. And if I believe they are only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. I will claim so and argue for it, if necessary. You can do the same. Indeed we are in a philosophical forum discussing things, often we disagree because we have reasons to believe that our interlocutor’s belief are only partially true, false, contradictory, unjustified, nonsense, or preposterous. So your argument is flawed on so many levels that it deserves to be qualified as “preposterous”.

> So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government?
Never made such claims. — neomac
Good. So are they?

Are they what? Whom exactly are you talking about?


> I already answered: “So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge” — neomac
That's not an answer. All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer "because of some reasons", then we might as well give up here. I'm asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.

I didn’t get why it’s not an answer, I would understand better if you could show me how you would answer to your own question: “If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?”


> What matters to me is what Ukrainians and Western leaders consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms — neomac
Why? Why not, for example, what the various military and foreign policy experts consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Or what the various political commentators consider the “worst option” in geopolitically significant terms? Why put your faith in the Ukrainian leadership and the Western powers' leadership?

That’s not a full quotation. I was contrasting their opinion with yours and I explained why.
If you can suggest military and foreign policy experts or political commentators that disagree with my views or support your views, I’m open to have a look at them, of course.

Military integration resulting in all sorts of military bases surrounding Moscow is in my view the main worry of the Russians, which is why they are against NATO encirclement and what I see as the main reason for Russia to start the recent war. The declaration of NATO last year was the last poke of the bear, Russia demanded withdrawal, which was seen as a gambit to allow them to negotiate that no further expansion of NATO would take place.

Military integration resulting in all sorts of military bases surrounding Moscow is in my view the main worry of the Russians, — Benkei

Ok.

Wouldn't that do it?
— frank

Haven't they done that already? — Olivier5

Yes. I think the anti-corruption-democratic activities that went on in Ukraine were seen as a threat to Putin directly. He needed to squash that and the ties Ukraine had that reinforced that mentality.

He's not going to let Ukraine join the EU.

We shall see.

I think the anti-corruption-democratic activities that went on in Ukraine were seen as a threat to Putin directly. — frank

All accounts I read were reporting that corruption reform wasn't going anywhere.

which is why they are against NATO encirclement and what I see as the main reason for Russia to start the recent war. — Benkei

I think the main reason is Putin wanted a big chunk of Ukraine (or the whole thing) and thought he could walk in and take it.

All accounts I read were reporting that corruption reform wasn't going anywhere — Benkei

In Russia? That's expected.

In Ukraine. See: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/imf-review-ukraine-debt-gdp-linked-warrants-reform/

The IMF’s $5 billion financial package for Ukraine, agreed on in mid-2020, has stalled, with the most recent review mission ending in February without a deal on the next tranche of funding. The IMF is waiting until Ukraine’s leadership decides to recommit to the agreed priorities, which include bank independence and judicial reform, as well as anti-corruption measures. This is not the first time Ukraine’s cooperation with the IMF has been delayed due to the pace of Kyiv’s corruption reforms. Back in 2016, Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the IMF, gave a harsh warning to Ukraine that it would stop a $40 billion bailout program for the country unless it was serious about fighting corruption.

At the same time, the debt problem is only becoming more urgent. Ukraine’s public and publicly guaranteed debt increased from 50.4 percent of GDP in 2019 to a projected 65.4 percent in 2020, according to the IMF. In December alone, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry raised roughly $4 billion in government bonds, with the majority of the securities at interest rates between 10-12 percent. Among other debt, Ukraine also announced a $350 million short-term loan from Deutsche Bank that month. According to Ukraine’s finance ministry, the country will have to repay roughly $11 billion during the first half of 2021, or about 7 percent of the country’s GDP. It will then have to repay roughly an additional $10 billion during the rest of 2021.

But they'd been proposing to be less corrupt. The idea is dangerous to Putin. That made Ukraine the best candidate for empire building.

Unfortunately, Putin didn’t have the expertise necessary to take Kiev, so his plans went astray.

Putin knew NATO had no intention of threatening Russia militarily. He wasn't worried about that. He felt it was time to raise Russia's global profile.

Putin knew NATO had no intention of threatening Russia militarily. He wasn't worried about that. He felt it was time to raise Russia's global profile. — frank

Exactly right.

Well. They could. They've surprised me before with this war.

However, they have been warned about the use of chemical weapons. I don't think many people want to rush to WWIII, but who knows?

Putin knew NATO had no intention of threatening Russia militarily. He wasn't worried about that. He felt it was time to raise Russia's global profile. — frank

I find the argument that the NATO is purely a defensive alliance rather naïve. As if the US would accept a defensive pact between Mexico and China where China places ballistic missiles in Mexico.

It's also waylaid by the fact it took military action in Kosovo in 1999 which was most definitively not a defensive war but a "humanitarian intervention" where everybody pretended the KLA didn't commit them as well (and then retreated over the border to Albania in the hopes of turning it into an international conflict).

I thought the IMF was this evil western institution harnessed by the US to dominate the world. They are worth quoting now?

“seems” is based on what is coming through on the various media sources. The poor state of the Russian army is self evident. I was listening to a Russian citizen talking on the radio the other day. Saying that she knew of fighting age men in Russia going into hiding, because they were being conscripted at gun point.
Looks pretty shoddy to me.

So what does a negotiated settlement involve in terms of commerce, or emigration? The releasing of sanctions and back to normal. The splitting up of Ukraine. It doesn’t look likely to me. I note that today Putin admitted the talks had failed.