Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'? — Isaac

Well, let's see.

I think those who fought for the previous regime, the Emirate of Afghanistan, surely didn't lack 'the will'. If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too.

So the question is about the will of the ANA, Afghan National Army and the government of Afghanistan. If you would be an Afghan soldier, what would you fight for? The pay? Good if you got it. Those who prosper from have "dead souls" in the unit roster whose salaries the put into their pockets are everywhere. Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership.

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight? Especially when US President after President have always declared that they will leave you, ship out tomorrow? And you know the other side will just wait. How much does that instill in you a fighting spirit?

Especially in civil wars, there has to be reasons for the fight. And that's why the bloody and long civil wars tend to divide between lines of religion and ethnicity.

Meanwhile I imagine most people who are not in kindergarden will probably lean a bit more into the material support of almost the entire Anglo-continental world as a preponderant factor of Ukranian action. — StreetlightX

Well, I do have noticed the absolutely huge arms shipments made to Ukraine. The numbers are quite astonishing. Even my country sent there some stuff, first time in history. So did Sweden, second time in it's history. So did puny Estonia. So did many other countries, so it's not only an American action.

All that stuff wouldn't matter if nobody would be willing to use them.

...precision guided weapons like cruise missiles are so popular. They don't disengage from the attack if there's a lot of tracers around them. A human pilot might do that. — ssu

Especially in civil wars, there has to be reasons for the fight. And that's why the bloody and long civil wars tend to divide between lines of religion and ethnicity. — ssu

Ha! Kamikaze and suicide bombers have a machine mind - the highest possible morale. No doubt no fear, no regret. "I am a Camera Mine."

Kindergarden for you it is, I guess.

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? — ssu

To be fair, since WWII the US has more or less given up on winning wars. Their modus operandi is to go in, absolutely ruin a place, then withdraw while leaving said place in total ruin. By that track record, Ukraine knows very well what to look forward to.

It's been said actually that many of the kamikaze pilots weren't so eager to die. And you have very ugly examples of just how "voluntary" some suicide bombers can be. But I guess the majority were quite willing volunteers.

To be fair, since WWII the US has more or less given up on winning wars. — StreetlightX

Sometimes, even if quite rarely, you may say something rather smart that I agree with. (One exception that proves the point: Gulf war and it's limited objective of liberating Kuwait.)

I think the reason is that whole society has been separated from being at war. You don't see it anywhere. Once the military is made up of volunteers, the military is just a service provided by the government. I guess the last years in Afghanistan Americans didn't even remember that Americans were still there.

Or that even now today there are American troops still fighting the "War on Terror".

I think the reason is that whole society has been separated from being at war — ssu

*yawn* more psychology babble. More likely because fighting wars across the other side of the planet does not work very well as a logistics excercise.

And besides there is alot less profit to be made in winning than just perpetual, low to medium level conflict.

More likely before fighting wars across the other side of the planet does not work very well as a logistics excercise. — StreetlightX

Why? Colonial wars have been fought now for hundreds of years.

What do you mean about logistics?

Why? Colonial wars have been fought now for hundreds of years. — ssu

Yes but the US does not (directly) colonize. Except for that one time in the Phillipines maybe.

What do you mean about logistics? — ssu

https://gprivate.com/5ywvn

Edit: Also, you think US society is 'seperated from war????' They have a militaristic culture that belies caricature. They're their own living parody of a nation that cannot shut the fuck up about war and the military, even when going shopping. They prey on (poor) high school students to be cannon fodder for Gods sake. Never seen a society with so pathological a relationship with murdering people overseas, regulalry.

what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it). — EricH

No, you didn't miss it. I'm no expert so wouldn't presume to be able to come up with a plan. I am of the belief that if one thinks that one's government's plan is harmful, one should hold their feet to fire over it.

They may well have found the 'least worst' option (though I doubt that very much in this case), but that's not something we need overly concern ourselves with.

If we incidentally hold our government to account for something they've genuinely tried their best at, but just just couldn't find a better way, then all we get is hurt feelings (and that's exactly what they signed up for). If, however, we incidentally let our government off the hook, thinking they could have done no better when actually they could, thousands die (or are further immiserated). To me the proper course is obvious.

Western arms firms are making a fortune out of this war. Western financial institutions stand to gain billions from reconstruction loans, Western corporations stand to gain millions from the resultant 'Westernisation' of Ukraine. Maybe all that just so happens to come along with the 'best' solution for Ukraine, maybe it's all just a happy coincidence. But if it is, and we yell and scream about the injustice of it anyway, then all we're going to get is a few upset executives, I'm sure they'll get by. If, on the other hand, it turns out decisions actually are being made to further this objective and not to benefit the people of Ukraine, and yet we let it slide because we 'reckoned' it's probably the least worst option, then we've been complicit in a monumental injustice.

So...

What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction? — EricH

I don't know. If I were you, I'd make as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do.

As far as my own personal opinion, I think that moving forward from the deal on the table currently will cause less suffering than a continued, probably futile, battle to get a better one.

If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too. — ssu

Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership. — ssu

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight? — ssu

Right. So not 'will'. Weapons, governmental stability, and foreign support.

Who's providing the weapons, the governmental stability and the foreign support to Ukraine? The very countries you don't want anyone to talk about.

All that's left to talk about is the Ukrainian 'will'. The one thing you won't admit to making any difference on its own because to do so would mean you'd have to simultaneously admit that others simply lacked 'the will', rather than lacked the weapons, and the support.

You've just listed three aspects contributing to the difficulties in Afghanistan that the US were absolutely instrumental in. You've just admitted that it was those things, not 'the will' of the Afghans which made the difference when compared to the case of Ukraine. And yet you continue to disparage talk about the suppliers of those very factors in Ukraine as misguided, a distraction...

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor? — Olivier5

Irrelevant.

It's from 2013, although they also have assurances for Ukraine dating to the 1990s, these were more explicit, and recall US "nuclear umbrella," language.

It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time, and China has had to move to clarify after the recent invasion. It's now repositioning it as "a gaurentee against nuclear weapons," which still has relevance for Russia's first use "escalate to descalate" doctrine.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-nuclear-parasol/

I think the goal was to get such an agreement in "the West," as a bit of a power play, but might also have been aimed at Russia. Despite the various incentives for Russia and China to play up their cooperation, as a balance to US alliances in Europe and Asia, the two countries have a great deal of outstanding differences. They might get along better now that Russia is so dependant on China, and because China's relationship with India has gone from bad to shit recently, and they are sort of hard up for strategic allies with any economic heft.



Is there any real argument that the collapse of Afghanistan's defense forces didn't have to do with morale?

Even with all the ghost soldiers, the ANA still had probably 100,000 soldiers and a lot of quality hardware for mounting a defense against the Taliban. The extremely rapid collapse of the ANA after their initial pushback on the Taliban advance in May 2021 didn't stem from any strategic route, but from morale collapsing. The Taliban took provincial capitals without a shot being fired and road in to cheering crowds. They were at the very least seen as the lesser of two evils, at least in Pashtun areas.

Meanwhile, in the Panjshir they had 8,000 fighters and resistance has remained for 9 months, with it even stepping up as of late. The key difference is morale and support (or lack of it) in a minority area for what is partly a Pashtun nationalist government at this point.

There are plenty of other examples from modern and ancient history. The proto-IDF was at a significant equipment disadvantage in 1948, with surplus Czech Kar98ks (ironically with swastikas stamped on them) the main foreign aid (from the Soviets, not the USA). However, they had a significant morale and leadership advantage. (The Arabs also had an advantage in jets, tanks, etc. in the later wars, but arguably it was inferior hardware in those cases).

The Soviets had a major equipment and manpower advantage in the Winter War and faired terribly due to poor leadership and high Finnish morale. Hannibal did everything right, inflicted massive losses (Cannae is still one of the highest death rolls for a single day in history), but couldn't overcome Roman morale and willingness to keep raising more armies.

The Siege of Antioch may be the best example. The Crusader army trapped in the city was starving and disease ridden. Against all the doctrine of the era, they left the safety of the city walls to attack a force twice as large, with significantly more heavy horse (the dominant battlefield factor of the era). Due to being insanely hyped up from a priest having unearthed "the spear that pierced the side of Christ," and in a religious frenzy, they somehow managed not only fight through the Turk's flanks, but to envelop most of the host, killing a large portion of them. The massive amount of manpower lost in a single day paved the way to the existence of the Crusader states.

Judas Maccabeus defeated a Seleucid host of 20,000 infantry, 10,000 calvary, and 22 elephants with 10,000 not well equipped or trained, but very fired up religious zealots.

Or there is the White Army failing everywhere in the Russian civil war by tanking peasant morale everywhere they went by promising to return land to the landlords.

These are all examples of morale winning out over equal or sometimes bad tactics (Antioch was suicidal tactically, but worked), and against larger, better armed, forces. This is as opposed to some sort of underdog win through tactical/strategic genius (like say, Napoleon in the Italian campaign winning again and again with inferior forces; all evidence is that the professional armies he faced had fine morale, he just had a preternatural ability to lead battles and sieges).

Money is not a problem. There's vast amount of it everywhere. Europe is rich. Now that the Brits are gone, the EU has a better chance of making progress. We were slowed down by these free wheelers. — Olivier5

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that.

1. The Brits will never be “gone”. They will always be there operating in the shadows to promote US (and their own, i.e., the City of London’s) interests.

2. Europe is “rich” in theory. In practice, it hasn’t even got its own armed forces.

3. If money was “everywhere” and not in banks controlled by governments and other people, the West wouldn’t be able to put a ban on Russian banks, freeze Russia’s foreign currency reserves, or seize them for its own purposes.

In fact, the current situation pretty much shows who controls the world’s finances and I don’t think this is about Ukraine at all, but about the Western drive for a unipolar world dominated by America and its European client-states.

The whole pro-NATO rhetoric is full of arguments that don’t really hold water, for example:

The notion that the more weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, the quicker the conflict will end in Ukrainian victory, can only be true if Russia (illogically) decides to cut and run instead of (more logically) retaliating and escalating, and eventually winning.

Another dodgy claim is that shifting Europe’s energy dependence from Russia to America and other sources is intended as a punitive measure against Russia. But it isn’t clear whether this “punishment” is temporary or permanent.

By definition, measures to make Europe independent of Russian energy supplies are permanent or at least long-term. This means that if Russia decides to withdraw from Ukraine tomorrow, those measures aren’t going to be reversed anytime soon, Russia’s economy is going to be crippled or degraded permanently, and all incentives for the Russian government to change course on Ukraine or other issues that are of importance to the West, disappear.

IMO it just doesn’t make sense and it rather shows that the destruction of Russia as an economically, financially, and politically independent nation is the true objective of America’s economic and military jihad in the region.

Meantime, it looks like not everyone in Europe agrees with a ban on Russian oil and gas:

Any sanctions that cut off the westward flow of Russian gas need to be well-thought-through, otherwise those laying the sanctions might suffer more than those sanctioned, according to multiple German business and labour leaders.
The question of whether to lay an embargo on Russian fuel is tying Europe up into knots. On the one hand, few want to buy Russian oil and gas and funnel payments to a country that has attacked its neighbour, Ukraine.
But, on the other hand, most of Europe is unsure how it will heat its homes and power its economy without Russian fuel, which makes up a significant portion of the continent's fuel imports. Germany is particularly reliant on Russian gas to keep the lights on, with 50% of its gas originally from Russia.
In a joint statement, umbrella groups representing German employers and unions told dpa that they are worried that not enough care is being put into making sure that any sanctions are targeted, apply pressure properly and prevent harm to the economies implementing the sanctions.
"We don't see that in the current gas embargo debate," said Rainer Dulger, head of the Confederation of German Employers' Associations (BDA) and Reiner Hoffmann, head of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB).
The two said current proposals would harm the German economy and employment levels more than it would those same factors in Russia, arguing that no gas means production stops, industrial slowdowns and loss of jobs.
The way to help Ukraine, they argued, is to make sure Germany has a stable economy and labour market.

Germany eyes Russian gas import ban nervously, fears economic damage – DPA

These are all examples of morale winning out over equal or sometimes bad tactics — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think anyone was questioning the role of morale. What I was questioning was the the idea that morale was disconnected from material circumstances, that some nations are just pluckier than others. Ukrainian morale (to the extent that it was unusually high) didn't just spring out of nowhere, nor did the low Russian morale just spring out of nowhere. Forces acting on both armies caused both morale effects.

The statement I took issue with was ssu's...

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have.

But one can't just change theory to suit one's motives. If those peoples didn't lack courage or resolve, but rather had material circumstances constrain it, then it has to follow that Ukrainians didn't have an unusually high natural endowment of courage and resolve, but rather material circumstances bolstered those traits (and hampered them in the Russian army).

Yet an analysis of what those material circumstances are would be an absurd puff piece if it were to ignore the fact that the largest military, economic and intelligence powers the world has ever seen supported them with everything short of actually fighting for them. The Western world's press treated them a superheroes, they deified their leader, they flew their flags, they banned their opponents form even speaking, they re-wrote the rules just to suit them, they threw money, guns and intelligence at them. All the while their enemies were treated like the worst examples of humanity.

It would be nothing but dogma to suggest all that had no effect. And yet all that occurred after the invasion, none of it was in place beforehand. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the only thing that could have prevented the war was some declaration from Ukraine about it's willingness to fight. That would have made no difference at all, at the time. A declaration from the US that they would absolutely pariah Russia and lionise Ukraine - that might have had an effect (should Putin have been amenable to such tactical considerations, which now seems unlikely), but a small force making a promise to defend their nation that (given knowledge at the time) they really couldn't stand by, would have made virtually no difference.

The US and NATO telling Russia exactly what support they would give in the event of an invasion, however, is far more likely to have had an effect. But that's exactly what they didn't do.

The UN/NATO taking the wind out of Putin's propaganda by promising Ukrainian neutrality, agreeing to independence votes in Donbas and investigations into far-right groups might have made it more difficult to manufacture a pretext for invasion. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

Or alternatively, a clear fast-tracked membership of NATO, or strong assurances of military aid (boots on the ground type aid) in the event of an invasion might have had an effect. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

But instead of addressing these issues, people are trying to construct this ludicrous narrative which excludes these powers from the story. But to do that, the Ukrainian's morale has to be not only invoked as the primary reason for success, but this morale has to spring out of nowhere, has to just arise from strength of character alone - all very well for the Ukrainians, but how does that make the rest of the subjugated world feel? Like they lost because of their own native lack of pluck.

It's really amazing how there's this practially spontaneous regurgitation of the American interest of obsuring it's obscene power in the world, covered over by mythical plucky Ukranians just fighting the good fight.

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. — Isaac

Evidently you didn't get my point at all. So I'll try to explain.

Deterrence comes up from many issues. That the army will fight is only one, but that is crucial. Because if it won't, not much else will help. Then come obviously the weapons the armed forces has. Starting from the obvious like nuclear weapons, but here are also those Javelin and NLAW ATGMs are important building that deterrence. Without them stopping Russian tanks isn't so easy. Ukraine was also lacking so-called modern 'offensive' weapons, like modern artillery systems. Especially modern aircraft Ukraine lacked and it didn't have modern air defense systems, but largely legacy systems from the Soviet era. Offensive weapon systems was something that wasn't keenly given to them as prior to the Russian invasion, the West didn't want to escalate the situation. And of course Ukraine isn't the richest countries, hence it couldn't go on an arms buying spree like Saudi Arabia.

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant.

idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders

So you are describing an oligarch feudalism?

This, or anything like it would soon collapse any large scale political organisation, erode that wealth and power they crave and we would descend into another dark age. I know some ghoulish oligarchs might look as though that where they’re headed. But I doubt it. They are heading back (in their minds) to a rose tinted view of 19th century imperialism.

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity.

I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”) — neomac

Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong. But since your argument was that my position is actually 'preposterous' rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else? — neomac

Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

...and that 'fairly' translates as...

you want to help Russia win — neomac

...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity...?

> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself. — neomac

No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother. Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with? If the former, then we can just stop there. I'm more than happy for you to disagree with my assessment, indeed I fully expect it. This is a complicated situation and it would be highly unusual for 7 billion minds to look at the data they have available and reach the same conclusions. But if it's the latter then the quote above needs no citation.

when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. — neomac

I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?

even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman — neomac

Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is). I don't think laymen can just dip into expert analysis and start critiquing their data gathering and analytical methods. We're no more experts in those fields than we are in military strategy...unless, of course, you are...in which case it would have been easier for you to just say so.

if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum. — neomac

I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven't.

What on earth did you just write?! — neomac

Do you want me to explain it to you? Or are you happy enough with the complete hash you made of understanding it which followed from this rhetorical question.

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity. — Punshhh

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant. — ssu

Then why did you use the word 'only'? Pretty much anything from the list I gave at the end of my post would have had just as much chance (if not way more) of stopping the war. In fact, an empty promise to fight, backed by nothing but wild optimism (at the time) would have had virtually no effect at all. Why would Putin have even taken such a claim seriously?

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe. Almost without exception. We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West. this latest is no exception. Are you expecting me to accept it a mere coincidence that if...

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

...that just so happens to also exculpate the West?

You want to paint your contributions as merely helping us to 'understand' the situation, but it's hard when the 'understanding' you want us to have universally acts to remove all blame from the West even at the expense of making sense.

Yep.

A situation has come about in which...

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East.

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market - something NATO has been pushing for for years.

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe.

4. American financial institutions make 300-400% increases in the value of their loans to Ukraine, not to mention the increased income from future reconstruction loans.

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals.

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice.

...

But what we're being asked here to accept, by @ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead...

...because the real cause lies with a Russian psychopath (simultaneously somehow a danger to Europe and an incompetent fool) and a Ukrainian army whose winning properties no one can even define without reference to those very external forces we're told are largely irrelevant.

Irrelevant. — Xtrix

As was your whole absurd scenario... I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico. It's all some big BS you made up.

Duh it's not like keeping Russia down has been one of the top three foreign policy objectives of the US ever since the fall of the Berlin wall as amply documented by every other FP document on the topic worth reading. Just crazzzzzy circumstance, and of course, if you raise these issues, you're basically just doing what anti-semites do while sleeping with a Putin body pillow.

I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico. — Olivier5

Yeah, 'cos America never bombs anywhere. In fact I'm struggling to think of anywhere America has bombed...does it even have any bombs...?

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that. — Apollodorus

Of course not. It must be said again and again and again that NATO is evil evil evil. Of COURSE!

The US has the best bombs.

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

That's a lie.

That's a lie. — Olivier5

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's all over the place and can't hold two thoughts in his head at the same time. What can we expect from someone who's against education; a breakdown of the ability to actually discuss with any kind of progression of thought. This thread is just going on repeat now, with them continuously holding the same drawn line however things get explained to them. Can't discuss with people unable to do normal philosophical scrutiny and arguments.

A minimum level of intellectual honesty would be required for an average conversation, not to mention for a philosophical one, and Isaac has proven many times that he lacks any of it. He just another compulsive liar. They keep coming. I don't know where they make them.

You two are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off PowerPoint presentations.