It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient. — neomac
We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. — neomac
if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. — neomac
Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember? — neomac
> Who said anything about helping Russia win?
I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac
The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? — neomac
I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine. — neomac
From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it. — neomac
> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.
Then your objections were pointless. — neomac
And yet you claimed: “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.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on. — neomac
On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. — neomac
Basically Russian history tells us how we got here. — ssu
Yet Russia's actions aren't Western propaganda, to put it simply.It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation. — StreetlightX
Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest. — FreeEmotion
I believe in defensive alliances, not offensive. And alliances that really put emphasis on that between members, if they have differences, the military option is out of the question. This ought to be self evident, but that it isn't, you have the perfect example of the Gulf Co-operation Council. The GCC acted promptly when one of it's member was attacked (by then Iraq). Unfortunately in an area that desperately needs sound and peaceful policies, later the relations became so bad among the member states that one was nearly attacked militarily by others.Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression. — Olivier5
Just what is slipping up from them? — ssu
The only way there is probably us the US and Russia negotiate a non-intervention treaty — Benkei
Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.
So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad? — ssu
I don't think it's they simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare. — Count Timothy von Icarus
No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.
I really don't think all Russians accept or support Putin's imperialism. Some do, but I know some and actually many if not all of them are against Putin. Many were in shock about what Putin has done.Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this. — FreeEmotion
How were they kicked around? By inviting Russia to the G7 countries (to become G8)? At least by size of the economy South Korea or India would be more likely.As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it. — FreeEmotion
:up:Come, ssu, get with the program. Who cares about Russian history? History matters only when it revolves around the US. Everything revolves around the US. America is so powerful that it dwarfs all other causal factors, in all matters, everywhere.
Enough about Russia and Ukraine already. This thread, like every thread having to do with politics and current events, is about America. — SophistiCat
Similarly to my country, Ukraine's only deterrence would have been it's will to fight and ability to cause losses to the Russian army.Ironically perhaps, something nuclear missiles and NATO have in common is deterrence. Ukraine has neither, just ruined infrastructure, dead, etc, and apparently some war crimes committed. The ball's in the invader's court in that respect and has been for a bit. — jorndoe
It’s hardly “water under the bridge.”
— Xtrix
I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil. — Olivier5
A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. — Punshhh
But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it. — Punshhh
I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma; trauma that is compounded by factors such as proximity to the victim and the type of weapon used.
One of the factors that Grossman explores in detail is distance. If the victim is far away and out of sight, the mental impact of the act of killing is far less. When soldiers can’t see the victims it is easier to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions.
Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so. — ssu
Well I'm not.I am fine with living in a vassal state — FreeEmotion
Yes, that's what the Ukrainians are doing.but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence. — FreeEmotion
Do you understand just how crazy that sounds? Securing buffer states is imperialist jargon.I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two. — FreeEmotion
Imperialism is to assume you have a right for buffer states. Imperialism is to declare that another country is artificial, somehow incapable of governing itself and thus your country, as a stronger country, has the right to take charge of it and then exploit it because the weak have to fail and might makes right. Imperialism is to conquer more territory and subjugate other people. Because your better.Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth. — FreeEmotion
You should ask yourself right now, is Russia a free country for starters and what it's actually doing.Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations? — FreeEmotion
As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.
Not after losing Crimea without one bullet fired. — ssu
Add to the spectacular dismissal of the people in the FSB, who's job was to give intel about Ukraine. Obviously Putin was angry. Likely they had given him the intel he wanted to hear.Putin was probably hoping for a repeat of that when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 - an analysis of Russian preparations and the current status of the conflict might throw up clues as to how short the war was expected to be in the eyes of the Russian top brass. They seem to be at their wits end now that the stiff Ukrainian resistance has prolonged the Moscow's annexation plans. — Agent Smith
If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" — Xtrix
I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.