I'm not wading though these pages of muck to repost all the times you have played Nazi PR specialist, but you are welcome to search my posts for when I have called you out on it. Although probably don't bother as you wouldn't be able to read them correctly anyway.

Now what? We all congratulate ourselves for correctly identifying that this is a 'bad' thing? — Isaac

Well,

How long are those millions of people be away from Ukraine? What will be the effect of millions of Ukrainian children now growing up in a different country? How much will it change Eastern Europe? What are the effects for Ukraine as such a huge percentage is now refugees?

Or more to your liking: is it racism that East Europeans have taken up with open arms the refugees coming from Ukraine, but the migration several years before (and still taking place now in the Mediterranean) wasn't.

That could be a discussion.

So just your typical ad hominem bullshit.

Of course.

So just your typical ad hominem bullshit — ssu

Yeah like all the ad homs where you literally could not read and then ran away with your tail behind your legs when it's been pointed out to you. You are worth exactly the minimum effort and not a finger more.

How long are those millions of people be away from Ukraine? What will be the effect of millions of Ukrainian children now growing up in a different country? How much will it change Eastern Europe? What are the effects for Ukraine as such a huge percentage is now refugees? — ssu

How the hell should I know? I'm sure there are people out there with far more expertise on the progress and impacts of mass migration than any of us here have. What's the point in us just guessing? Have you come across The Internet? It's got loads of stuff on it.

is it racism that East Europeans have taken up with open arms the refugees coming from Ukraine, but the migration several years before (and still taking place now in the Mediterranean) wasn't.


That could be a discussion. — ssu

Ah, you mean like here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/667030

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673863

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670630

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/663647

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/696548

And here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670619

So well put on page 3 of this thread.

StreetlightX is deranged as usual. — frank

Ah, you mean like here — Isaac

As I said, more to your liking. And the topic isn't how bad the US is, so at least it's something different.

Institutions mold people. — Moses

The real problem isn't with the Russian people, but with Russian institutions, namely the military culture.
— Moses

We can't say that the Russian people aren't the problem either. — neomac

______________________________________________________

The common good is more like it. One must tolerate a lot of unpleasantness to live in society, but if we spread this unpleasantness around equitably, then it becomes a fair, and hence tolerable, social contract. — Olivier5

You will hear no argument from me to contradict that an equitable society that promotes the common good is both a pleasant place to live and at least in these respects a moral society, though that is sounding a bit socialist. Do you broadly agree with the observations of others quoted above, that there is an intimate entanglement of people and institutions such that they mould the people that create them and are remoulded by the people they create?

Yet in the end, the principle upheld at the Nuremberg trials was that moral responsibility is always on individuals, those who made immoral laws, gave immoral orders, and each of those who obeyed them. there is no collective responsibility, no institutional responsibility, no national responsibility, and thus no morality of nation or government other than the morality of those individuals.

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.
— Xtrix
Yes. — ssu

Okay. And you acknowledge its current influence on world affairs.

Putting these things together, there’s every reason to assume the US has a hand in this conflict — even if we know next to nothing about the particular event. So we’re in agreement.

You go on to ask why this is discussed over other issues — which is what I meant by “matter of emphasis.” I think it gets discussed at length because when it’s pointed out it gets misrepresented as a defense of Putin— or simply denied, when it should be taken for granted. (Just as condemning this invasion should be taken for granted — I see no one excusing Putin’s crimes either.)

Personally, as a US citizen I often bring matters back to my government’s involvement for the simple reason that I feel I can do the most to change it (and admittedly little at that). They supposedly represent me, after all. But that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring Russian responsibility.

We all agree we want this to end, yes? So discussing every part of the issue is important. One part is the United States. Happens to be a major part. Still missing where the gulf lies.

Lol:

"Russia has exported MORE oil since the war began (of course for much more money) than in the year before it. And case study in hypocrisy, the United States, while pressing the world to put sanctions on Russian oil, in March 2022, almost doubled how much it imported from Russia to 4.2 million barrels a month. Note the explosion of Asian export vectors. So much for sanctions. As for the EU’s comic announcement today that they will embargo Russian oil, except not for 8 months, and excluding oil delivered by pipeline (lucky old Hungarians and Germans). And of course any seaborne cargo with only 49% Russian oil is permitted, the other 51% may be itself 49% Russian molecules, shake and repeat until you have a seaborne cargo supplied by a cunning Greek shipping magnate and a sly Zurich commodities broker, which is deemed non-Russian but in fact has possibly 99% Russian molecules." -via a comrade.



Not even the West believes in the bullshit the West is peddling. Which leaves only forum flag-wavers to actually buy into it, who in turn get mad when critics of the West simply agree with the West that it is up to it's neck in bullshit and blood. What even is the level of patheticness it takes to run interference for people who don't believe in the very things they get the people to run interference for them over?

the topic isn't how bad the US is — ssu

More distraction and diversion from the NATO Troll in chief. :grin:

IMO "how bad the US is" is very much the topic, given that according to Russia it invaded Ukraine to keep NATO out which, as everyone knows, is an instrument of US imperialism.

American imperialism - Wikipedia

Plus, it is America that is bankrolling and driving the West's jihad on Russia.

Not only are you a self-identified defender of American imperialism and Natoism, but you've failed to explain why you're trying to hijack the thread if you're not a pro-NATO propagandist and activist.

And what exactly makes you think that the world must see this conflict through the eyes of Finland???

Even for Biden&co it's already hard to tell if they are moving just with great prudence or lack of resolve. — neomac

I think Biden is doing what he can. He needs to avoid escalation.

And if Russia will manage to get away with their territorial plunder (BTW considering the late Russian military success against the Ukrainian resistance, can we really exclude the risk of a Ukrainian resistance's collapse?), Russian may still claim a victory that could erode Western confidence or resolve.

Dombass is collapsing as we speak, and retaking it will be very difficult according to military analists. I don't think it will affect the 'west' as much as it might affect the Ukrainian forces' resolve. We shall see.

there is no collective responsibility, no institutional responsibility, no national responsibility, and thus no morality of nation or government other than the morality of those individuals. — unenlightened

I believe so, yes. So I agree with you: we are all responsible for what we do, including the Russians.

You stated:

Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world). — Isaac

And yet, when offered by @ssu an opportunity to discuss just that, you were not interested:

What will be the effect of millions of Ukrainian children now growing up in a different country? How much will it change Eastern Europe? What are the effects for Ukraine as such a huge percentage is now refugees?
— ssu

How the hell should I know? I'm sure there are people out there with far more expertise on the progress and impacts of mass migration than any of us here have. What's the point in us just guessing? Have you come across The Internet? It's got loads of stuff on it. — Isaac

Your pants are on fire.

There's been much discussion here, and I've only skimmed a good portion of it, but my feeling is that Isaac is correct in the following: that we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, — Manuel

This is the passage I summarized by stating that: to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if you live in Russia) or immoral (if you live outside of Russia).

To what extent have I distorted your position? By replacing "convenient moralizing" by "immoral". Okay so allow me to rephrase:

According to you, to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside Russia).

I think Biden is doing what he can. He needs to avoid escalation. — Olivier5

His wavering on the MLRS rocket launchers is telling. The weapon system is very effective, especially the M30/31 projectile with 70km range can avoid counter battery fire. No need to give then the ATACMS version with 300 km range, but to tell that you don't give weapon systems that can reach Russia when the Ukrainian forces are still in many places on the border with Russia is a bit strange. And Ukraine can reach (and has fired on) targets deep in Russia as it has tactical artillery missiles like the Tochka with 120 kilometer range and perhaps the HRIM missile with 350 kilometer range. Already the Ukrainian anti-ship missile has been used quite successfully.

Still the mainstay in the artillery duels is the old venerable BM-21 Grad with 45 km range, even if Ukraine has Smerch and Uragan systems from the Soviet era. But that now it's the M270 MLRS system that is debated does show how attitudes have changed as Ukraine has been able to fight Russia for so much time.

It is illegal, as a matter of fact, in Russia. It's an empirical affair. Not morally wrong in the least, actually the opposite.

According to you, to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside Russia). — Olivier5

Correct.

Where you live affects this, in my opinion. If you live in Poland or Finland, I think it's different. If you live in say, France, the US or Australia, then yes, most of what I hear (not all) is convenient moralizing.

to tell that you don't give weapon systems that can reach Russia when the Ukrainian forces are still in many places on the border with Russia is a bit strange. — ssu

I am beyond my expertise level, but let me try an experiment here. Considering the lack of credible arguments proposed lately by our dear friends the "peace lovers", the lack of a "loyal opposition" if you wish, which results in a toxic debate with endless ad hominem, let me argue the pacifist side for a moment. I will try and put forth substantive arguments for a de-escalation. For the sake of the argument.

I might even convince myself once I get into the role. In any case, let us see if we can do a better, more productive debate, perhaps, than what we've been treated with so far.

Considering the risks involved in this situation and the 'fog of war', ie the fact that we probably can't know all the actual risks, it might be a good idea to play it a bit safe.

The risks as we can assess them include 1) escalation into a broader conflict involving, say, Belarus for a start, Finland later, maybe even NATO ultimately; 2) the risk of a future radicalisation of the Ukrainian government into some extreme nationalist regime, following the next election or the one after that; and 3) the potential capture of NATO weapons by the Russians.

Risk #1 is permanent. I wonder if in Biden's mind there is not the potential yet haunting image of a missile made in USA crashing into a Russian apartment complex. Something like that making the morning news could send us all into a spiral of death.

I trust the Ukrainians are better than that but radicalisation being a frequent effect of wars, historically, risk #2 cannot be ruled out.

Regarding risk #3, ie the potential loss of NATO weapons to the Russians, I note that the M777 given to Ukraine were sent without their computers, precisely to avoid the Russians getting acces to the code. That tells something: the trust in the strength of the Ukrainian forces is not total in the Pentagon.

Finally, any weapon system that they would decide to deliver only now will not avoid the loss of Dombas. It's too late. It will take a month before it's delivered, and two months before it becomes operational, minimum.

How did I do?

I said: either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside of it). In an "either / or" sentence the two things after "either" and "or" are not the same thing, but different. The phrase presents an alternative.

Yes.

The first one (it being illegal) is just a fact. But not morally wrong at all.

As to the convenient moralizing, yes, with the caveats mentioned.

Worth noting, that, contrary to the story-tale that Ukraine 'chose' to deal with the West, the West couped Ukraine exactly at the time at which it choose to stop dealing with the West, as outlined in the article. — Streetlight

Indeed. If that article is true regarding the coup to overturn a free and fair election, it is well worth noting. If the free and fair election was not a free and fair election(if it was rigged), then perhaps there's more to the story. Given the known history of recent Russian elections, and given that Russia backed the ousted leader, and given that Russia is known to interfere in the elections of others...

...I remain unconvinced, although I'm currently less confident about the goodwill for goodwill's sake.

Thanks.

Since the war started at the end of February, Ukraine has destroyed about 10 Russian tanks per day.

Meantime, the facts on the ground show that it's NATO that is constantly expanding (from 12 countries in 1949 to currently 30!), not Russia .... — Apollodorus

Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken. I understand that Russia feels insecure and vulnerable with so many US allies and installments surrounding it. I do understand that that could feel like a threat.

Yep. Empire and domination is "rhetorical drivel" when talking about America but "gospel truth" when talking about Russia. Well done, you can congratulate yourself on your impeccable objectivity! — Apollodorus

You say this as though it is either an accurate or an appropriate thing to say to me. It's neither. For whatever that's worth around here.

I do not quite understand the sentiment hereabouts that seems to suggest that either one is with the US or against it. As if acknowledging the role the US has played in the escalations in Ukraine is somehow pro-Putin or Pro-Russian, and in being so is anti-American by default.

:brow:

Russia started the war, but who caused the war?

when offered by ssu an opportunity to discuss just that — Olivier5

Let me see if I can explain this at your level.

We are not experts in military strategy, refugees, foreign relations... Even were one of us to be, we would only be one among many.

As such, speculating via our own pet theories about these matters is pointless. If we disagree, we've absolutely no ground on which to resolve that disagreement, and if we agree we're just building castles in the air.

What we can discuss is our reasons for believing some expert or other. In other words, our political opinions, our narratives. On a thread about Ukraine, these will be (substantially) to do with the effects on Ukraine. That's not the same thing as idlely predicting what the effects will be. It's talking about why we believe someone else's predictions about what the effects will be.

The topic is still the effects on Ukraine.

The mode of discussion is not lay guesswork.

Has that got anywhere? Do I need to render it in pictures?

That's not a scoop though: we all know you are clueless already. You wouldn't even know how assess your sources.

Fact: you have not talked at all about the effects on Ukraine.

Fact: you are a serial liar.

Russia started the war, but who caused the war? — Agent Smith

God. He wants a nuclear Armageddon.

Yes — Manuel

Okay, so I did not misrepresent your position. Thank you.

God. He wants a nuclear Armageddon. — Olivier5

:snicker: Any ideas why, of all the things possible, he'd want that?

Ares up to mischief, again?