In mid-May, the United States sent an alert to 14 countries, mostly in Africa, that Russian cargo vessels were leaving ports near Ukraine laden with what a State Department cable described as “stolen Ukrainian grain.” The cable identified by name three Russian cargo vessels it said were suspected of transporting it.
The American alert about the grain has only sharpened the dilemma for African countries, many already feeling trapped between East and West, as they potentially face a hard choice between, on one hand, benefiting from possible war crimes and displeasing a powerful Western ally, and on the other, refusing cheap food at a time when wheat prices are soaring and hundreds of thousands of people are starving.
You disbelieved Putin's statement (and Lavrov's earlier) deciding that only an analysis of their actions would suffice. — Isaac
(Nov 23rd, 2021) Russia will not attack Ukraine and is not harboring “aggressive” plans, a Kremlin spokesman said Tuesday while also not ruling out military action following what Moscow considers fearsome threats from Kyiv.
“Russia is not going to attack anyone,” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told reporters Tuesday morning, according to a translation of his remarks. “It’s not like that.”
(Jan 10th, 2022) Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."
(Jan 28th, 2022) Russia's top diplomat insisted on Friday that Moscow isn't going to start a war with Ukraine. But with more than 100,000 Russian troops massed along the country's borders, he also said Moscow would not "be ignored."
"If it depends on the Russian Federation, there will be no war," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
(Jan 30th, 2022) “At this time, they’re saying that Russia threatens Ukraine — that’s completely ridiculous,” Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, said Sunday, according to the Russian news agency Tass.
“We don’t want war and we don’t need it at all,” he said.
(Feb 9th, 2022) Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Wednesday said Russia doesn’t plan to invade Ukraine and blamed the US for "aggressive plans."
The hype around Russia’s hypothetical invasion of Ukraine is similar to what was happening in the US media in the early 2000s, before the US and its allies started the military operation in Iraq, she said. Then, lots of reports were stoking tensions, including on television, the diplomat said.
"That looks very much like this false narrative regarding Ukraine now and some ‘aggressive plans,’" she said. "We don’t have these aggressive plans, but I have a feeling that the US has."
"We learn from US newspapers that we will attack Ukraine," Zakharova said. "That’s even as we believe we and that country are a people that has a common history."
She said it was "absurd" to say Russia nurtured any aggressive plans about Ukraine.
And should I remind that some people on this thread seemed to be openly and triumphiantly believed Russia and enjoyed smirking at US alarms: — ssu
I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). — I like sushi
Yeah. How dare I disbelieve what Putin or Russian officials sometime say: — ssu
And if we disagree about those judgements? — Isaac
Right. And I disagree that those rules have been broken (by my claims). I think they have been broken by yours. So now what? How can I now argue (using those same rules) that you broke those rules. We're just going to end up in the same position (you think you didn't break them, I think you did). — Isaac
To convince me (or others) to believe the same. — Isaac
I'm not claiming that nothing is objectively irrational (it's a word in a shared language, so it has a shared meaning, not a private one). What I'm saying is that you cannot get further then the range of shared meaning. Several contradictory things can be equally rational (they all fit the definition of the word). Take 'game' for example. A Cow is not a 'game', it's a type of farm animal. Anyone claiming a cow is a game is wrong. But the question of whether, say, juggling is a 'game' is moot - some say it is and others say it isn't. There's nothing more you can do from there to determine whether it's a game or not, there's no outside agency to appeal to. Whether an argument is 'rational' is like that. — Isaac
Not without providing some evidence. It would be a ridiculous claim. — Isaac
Here's a dictionary explaining what the Idiom "you're saying" means in English. As you can see, it doesn't literally mean that you actually spoke (or wrote) those exact words. It's an understanding of your meaning. Hence, again, what you think is objectively false only seems that way to you. Other interpretations see it differently. — Isaac
I do. Absolutely none of which is happening here. There have been no scientific papers produced on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, no statistical analysis, no accepted methods and no peer review. But it's not these standards that make for a filtered set of theories in the scientific journals - it's the agreement on how they're measured. If I published a paper in which the conclusion was "I reckon..." without any reference to an experiment or meta-analysis, we'd all agree that's a failure to meet the standards. We're talking here about situations where we disagree about such a failure. You keep referring to epistemic standards (as if I'm disputing they exist), but the question is not their existence it's the resolution of disagreements about whether they've been met. — “Isaac
The problem here is that you keep insisting I'm not meeting those standards, but you’ve got nothing more than your opinion that I'm not. No evidence can be brought to bear, no external authority appealed to. It's just you reading my argument and concluding it is not 'rational' and me reading it and concluding it is. There’s literally nothing more that can be appealed to other than our judgements. — Isaac
So what I'm asking is what is your method for demonstrating that I'm wrong in that disagreement and you're right? — Isaac
So what method (if not numerical) is used to perform this 'aggregation' and reach the assessment? — Isaac
Moscow: We're not gonna invade Ukraine
Washington: Russia's definitely about to invade Ukraine — ssu
We have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. Is there anything unclear about this? Are we deploying missiles near the U.S. border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? What is so unusual about this?
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, however, made it clear that Russia's proposals are not on the table. Russian demands that Ukraine be barred from NATO membership and that the alliance cut back its deployments in Eastern Europe are "non-starters for the United States"
Potentially, the most dangerous scenario [for U.S. domination] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.
Disagreement is not the problem, since we could still rationally explore the extent of our disagreements. And for that you still would need rationally compelling arguments which are possible only thanks to a shared set of epistemic rules and shared ways to apply them. Rebutting to your opponent’s objections by expressing a disagreement without providing rationally compelling arguments amounts to withdrawing from a rational confrontation. That’s all. — neomac
you have to provide pertinent rationally challenging arguments yourself. — neomac
I would exactly do all I did, so what is the point of claiming that my judgements are completely subjective as yours or anybody else’s? We would still be in condition to possibly convince others based on rational compelling arguments! Claiming that all my claims or judgements are completely subjective is devoid of any cognitive meaning. — neomac
When you fail to calculate an arithmetic sum, I can show you how to calculate it correctly by actually calculating that sum as everybody learnt to effectively calculate it. When you fail to process a modus tollens, I can show you how to process it correctly by actually processing the modus tollens as everybody learnt to effectively apply it. — neomac
I think it makes perfect sense for Russia to have said that it had “no aggressive plans about Ukraine”, given that the problem was not Ukraine but NATO! — Apollodorus
Ukrainian NATO membership was already conceded by both NATO and Ukraine (albeit not committed to official paper and stamped and sealed); bombs are still falling; OK, not going to cut it, not a peace-maker. — jorndoe
On 31 May 2022, the Verkhovna Rada dismissed Denisova, with 234 deputies voting in favour of her dismissal. The main reason given was that she failed to facilitate humanitarian corridors and prevent Ukrainians under Russian occupation from being deported to Russia. Some deputies also accused her of making unverifiable statements about alleged sex crimes by Russian troops. — Lyudmyla Denisova (Wikipedia)
What do you call Russia's activities then? — jorndoe
Ukrainian NATO membership was already conceded by both NATO and Ukraine (albeit not committed to official paper and stamped and sealed); bombs are still falling; OK, not going to cut it, not a peace-maker. — jorndoe
(↑ a month ago or something?) — jorndoe
NATO must bear some responsibility for the invasion. — Apollodorus
Sweden and Finland are heading for NATO membership as a result of the invasion. — jorndoe
What does that mean in practice, though? — Olivier5
Justice is that state in virtue of which a just man is said to be capable of doing just acts from choice, and of assigning property – both to himself in relation to another, and to another in relation to a third party – not in such a way as to give more of the desirable thing to himself and less to his neighbor, but assigning to each that which is proportionately equal (Nicomachean Ethics 1134a).
NATO claims that it’s got a “right of expansion”, allegedly, as a “defensive” measure in response to "Russian aggression". But if NATO has that right, so does Russia.
In other words, if NATO expands for fear of Russia, Russia invades Ukraine for fear of NATO. — Apollodorus
It’s exactly the same logic. — Apollodorus
If NATO has a “right of expansion”, so does Russia. If NATO can say that it feels “threatened” by Russia, Russia also can say that it feels threatened by NATO. — Apollodorus
This is ridiculous Apollodorus. There is a big difference between an organization like NATO expanding because other countries are willfully joining, and a country expanding through forceful invasion of another. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore, the legitimacy of the intention/motive needs to be examined first. — Apollodorus
If I raise a canvas on my land just to frustrate the view my neighbour has, I might have a legal right but I'm then abusing that right. Intent matters and legitimacy is not a substitute for morality. — Benkei
1. The point made by Apo was about legitimacy, not morality. — Olivier5
2. A few posters here have rightly pointed out that morality applies to individuals, not to institutions, so to speak of the morality of NATO is making a category error. One needs to morally indict presidents, generals and the likes but not a country or an alliance of countries. These entities need to be assessed against their stated goals, which does not to my knowledge include the boy scout pledge, or adherence to any other moral creed. — Olivier5
3. Even if one could morally indict a 'system' as wholly corrupt, eg if a vast majority of its leadership was found totally compromised morally speaking, and the rules of the system pipped in their favor, then who is to prosecute and indict these NATO officials and dignitaries with their deserved punishment? — Olivier5
There is no law preventing expansion. — Isaac
You might as well say that we can avoid talking about the 'morality' of voting — Isaac
If NATO are acting immorally, then supporting them is immoral. — Isaac
The UN charter does. — Olivier5
Voting is an individual act, not an institution, so you don't have a point. — Olivier5
NATO is a military alliance between nations meant to protect its members, not to be a boy scout club. People ought to judge it on its own merit: whether or not it protects them. — Olivier5
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.