US to Africa: Kindly drop dead from starvation so we can win our proxy war I mean you're only black people who cares lol:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/world/africa/ukraine-grain-russia-sales.html

"We, however, will continue to buy the oil and gas we need #BLM".

https://ridl.io/en/the-russia-ukraine-war-100-days-in/

You disbelieved Putin's statement (and Lavrov's earlier) deciding that only an analysis of their actions would suffice. — Isaac

Yeah. How dare I disbelieve what Putin or Russian officials sometime say:

(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:

Why are you demonstrating that Putin and Lavrov are liars? Has someone suggested they aren't?

I think they're both liars — Isaac

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've read the first few pages of the thread before the invasion, and I don't see anyone Triumphantly believing Russia.

Mostly people seem to expect the war will happen, and are worried of escalation.

I guess this phrase could be interpreted as "fizzling out" meaning the war doesn't happen.

I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). — I like sushi

... or ... or ... could be interpreted to represent exactly what's happening now.

Yeah. How dare I disbelieve what Putin or Russian officials sometime say: — ssu

It's great how you are so completely incapable of comprehension that you don't recognize that the point is not that you "disbelieve Putin", but that you slavishly believe war criminals like Biden.

@boethius @Isaac @Olivier5 Deleted a moderation complaint and replies to that. Moderation complaints go into feedback.

Since we have gone off topic (I agree with @Olivier5), that is going to be my last post on this side issue (désolé).

And if we disagree about those judgements? — Isaac

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.
Another point I would make is that while politics, moral, philosophy are domains where disagreement is frequent and persistent, reaching consensus may be a major issue for the former two, namely politics and moral, not for philosophy. Indeed philosophy is the kind of activity where people can try to rationally examine their own political and moral beliefs without being pressed by consensus concerns and as long as they are willing to put some effort into it. And, again, that effort should go into rationally elaborating arguments, not into acknowledging or listing contentious points or their popularity distribution among people, intelligent people or competent people.

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

Where is the pertinent argument proving that I broke the rules? And what shared rationale rules are you talking about? If you honestly disagree with my argument proving that you failed to logically process a modus tollens (under the implicit assumption that you fully understand what a modus tollens is and must be correctly applied by anybody, me and you included), you have to provide pertinent rationally challenging arguments yourself.
We play games with actual moves in the play field, not by news reporting about them from the stands.

To convince me (or others) to believe the same. — Isaac

Then - as I already anticipated - 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. So, at best it expresses your intention to withdrawal from rational confrontation.

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

Here my comment:
First, I’m not not sure what the sentence “I'm not claiming that nothing is objectively irrational” is supposed to mean, maybe you should rephrase it. And if what you wanted to claim is that you admit objective and rational judgement then how could you at the same time claim “There’s literally nothing more that can be appealed to other than our judgements” or that my claims are completely subjective?!
Second, can you tell me then what is the shared meaning of a claim like “all of the above are completely subjective” through words whose meaning you assume we share and how could we possible share meanings if all my and your judgements are completely subjective?
Third, “contradictory things can be equally rational” looks a poor phrasing for the claim that people may have classificatory disagreements because the concepts used suffer from some indeterminacy. Agreed, so what? The indeterminacy can be still disambiguated in a way that is still intelligible by relying on the use cases where indeterminacy doesn’t arise and other shared concepts not suffering from such indeterminacy. In other words indeterminacies must be commensurable to still be intelligible as indeterminacies of certain classificatory concepts. Besides some epistemic rules at the core of our rational methods are so basic and cross domain that putative indeterminacies would quickly escalate into nonsense if they resist rational examination: e.g. you can not possibly understand and apply the modus tollens in a different way from what I did , unless you did it by mistake. And if I’m wrong about it because I missed something in the given circumstances that would justify that apparent transgression, then go ahead and show me what that is with an actual counter-argument.

Not without providing some evidence. It would be a ridiculous claim. — Isaac

Here “some evidence”: you said “the West and Ukraine bear the blame of this war so now Putin is morally justified to send his army to bomb kill rape loot Ukrainians”.
“Evidence”, “providing some evidence”, “ridiculous claim” would still be matter of my completely subjective judgment and differ from yours. And I could play it all the ways I want since there is nothing you can appeal to except my own judgement and completely subjective interpretation.
And again why would I need to provide evidence? Why would I care if you claim that I’m ridiculous? If I needed your consensus it would be easier for me to feed your informational bubble, not to question it.

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

Here my objections:
First, I don’t care if there are whatever other possible use cases of the word “say”. I care about the ones that make sense to apply to your claim against mine in the specific context you used it. So pointing me to some unrelated idiomatic usage of the word “say” is pointless.
Second, your actual usage was contrasting my actual claim with some other claim you misattributed to me (“Now you're saying you don’t”) to suggest an inexistent inconsistency. And that’s exactly another example of objective intellectual failure, because when rationally challenging peoples’ claims and arguments, accuracy and clarity are key. Certainly loose or ambiguous talk may be tolerated to some extent yet not at the expense of your opponents’ actual claims as they have been formulated, especially if you have objections to raise against them.
Third, there are different interpretations as there are mistakes, and it’s a very bad self-serving line of reasoning to admit the former to question the possibility of admitting the latter and dispense people from acknowledging their own blatant mistakes, as you keep doing.

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

Once one has learnt an arithmetic rule like summing natural numbers, the application of the rule doesn’t change if one is no longer supervised by the professor of math or in a math class. The same goes with the rule of the modus tollens or the rule of accurately reporting people’s claims.
And as you don’t deliver your scientific results through insulting people, repeating ad nauseam claims, alluding to risks of ostracism, sarcastic comments, accusing people of serving some political agenda, and expect others to question your scientific research in the same spirit (not with rebuttals like “I disagree with you and you didn’t literally give me anything more than your completely subjective judgement as a measure”), then you can as well deliver your rationally compelling arguments in the same spirit here and expect others do the same with your arguments.

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

My opinion that you are not meeting those standards results from arguments applying precisely those standards I’m appealing to (and distinct from my judgement!). So yes, there is literally more than just my opinion that you are not meeting those standards: there is an argument from which that conclusive opinion results as a corollary. And you are challenged to address that argument with a counter-argument possibly more effective than mine in applying shared rational standards. Claiming that you disagree with that opinion of mine is totally missing the point I’m making.
Worse than this, I find your claim “There’s literally nothing more that can be appealed to other than our judgements” empty because it applies equally to all our judgements (including those “appealing to” evidences and authorities) at any moment in any circumstance no matter if they are correct or wrong. And even the concept of “appealing to” which we all have learnt as referring to normative principles distinct from our own judgement is misused and voided of its normative force when every “appealing to” is eventually reduced to our own personal judgement.

So what I'm asking is what is your method for demonstrating that I'm wrong in that disagreement and you're right? — Isaac

There is no method of demonstrating the rule that has been infringed other than showing how the rule must have been correctly applied. 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.
And it would pointless to still observe “you just ‘keep saying’ you applied the rule correctly” because even claiming to have applied some rule correctly is an activity which should be again correctly executed to grant claim accuracy wrt actually shared epistemic rules. In other words, by providing actual pertinent arguments I’m thereby illustrating to you exactly all those epistemic rules I must assume sharable with you, intelligible to you and applicable by you in the same way in that context, also when correcting you.

So what method (if not numerical) is used to perform this 'aggregation' and reach the assessment? — Isaac

The aggregation can be numerical or not, all depends on how it is implemented of course. My point was that instead of directly calculating the numeric probability of a Russian nuclear attack against some NATO country, it could be easier to ask some security expert or team of security experts how likely a Russian nuclear attack against some NATO country is, where the “likelihood” parameter ranges over a non-numerical ordered set of values like very unlikely, unlikely, possible, very likely, practically certain ).

Moscow: We're not gonna invade Ukraine

Washington: Russia's definitely about to invade Ukraine — ssu

As usual, you aren’t just ignoring the actual sequence of events, but you don’t seem to think your statements through. :grin:

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!

On 8 June 2017, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law making integration with NATO "a foreign policy priority”.

On 14 September 2020, Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of a distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO".

At the same time, NATO members were arming and training Ukrainian forces. Theoretically, this could have been for "defensive" purposes. But "defense" could have implied taking Crimea and the Donbas region.

Certainly, Ukrainian membership of NATO would have meant (1) Ukraine trying to take Crimea and the Donbas with NATO assistance, and (2) NATO threatening Russia’s southwestern flank.

NATO occupation of Crimea would have been particularly unacceptable to Russia as it would have resulted in Russia losing its Crimean naval bases that it has used since 1783, and in the Black Sea (which Russia needs for transit to the Mediterranean) being turned into a NATO- i.e., US-controlled, lake.

On December 23, 2021, Putin said:

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?

The fact that Russia massed its forces on the Ukrainian border didn’t necessarily mean it was going to invade no matter what. It could have meant that it was going to invade IF its security concerns were ignored.

On the other hand, why was America so damn sure that Russia was going to invade? Because it knew that it wasn’t going to meet Russia’s requests or even consider them, dismissing them as a “non-starter”:

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"

Russian demands are 'non-starters,' says U.S. diplomat – The Week

And the reason why America refused to even consider Russia’s requests is that it sees Russia as a threat to US hegemony. As former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski put it:

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.

- The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Clearly, America sees Russia as an obstacle to its “God-given primacy and hegemony”, that needs to be eliminated. This is reflected in NATO’s expressly stated aim to “keep America in Europe and Russia out”.

IMO it follows that Ukraine is just a victim of America’s aim to achieve unchallenged global supremacy and, in particular, control over Europe.

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

The disagreement is about what is rational. It's about whether I have or have not stuck to those rules you mention. It's about whether I have or have not provided those 'rationally compelling arguments'. How do we resolve that disagreement? More 'rationally compelling arguments', about which you and I will inevitably disagree over whether they are such?

you have to provide pertinent rationally challenging arguments yourself. — neomac

This just begs the question. The question is whether I have actually provided rational arguments (you disagree) and you're claiming that to make my case (that I have provided rational arguments) I must provide rational arguments to that effect. If we agreed on what constitutes 'rational arguments' then there would be no question to answer in the first place.

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

Not at all. As I've expressed here several times, there is a substantial difference between rejecting an argument that has overwhelming evidence to the contrary and accepting an argument which doesn't. The important distinction is that one is compelled to do the former (if one wants to remain rational), but one is not compelled to do the latter (many such arguments exist - underdetermination). Hence the focus is erroneously on which arguments must be ruled out by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rather than on the reasons for choosing among those which remain.

Most of us are intelligent enough to have already discarded theories which are overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, those of us that are not can simply defer to experts (who are). Thus it's very unlikely that any theory being seriously discussed is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, and us such none of us are compelled by the 'rules of rational thought' to discard it.

What remains are the range of theories which are not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary - the plausible theories. From among these, however, rationality is useless as a method of choosing. all rationality can tell us is that the theory is plausible (which we already knew by its inclusion in this set). There's no evidence that can be brought (all theories in this set have supporting evidence), there's no logic that can be used (all theories in this set are logically valid). So the arguments persuading people to adopt one theory over another are not rational ones, they are emotional ones, social ones, ethical ones...

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

Exactly. Notice the two uses of 'everybody' there? Notice the complete absence of any reference to 'everybody' in your claims?

You cannot demonstrate that I have summed 2 and 2 incorrectly by simply saying that I have. The only way you can do so is by reference to 'everybody else' - some maths professor, a few students, day-to-day life... the argument is "that's not the way we do it", but to sustain that argument there must be a 'we', your word is not sufficient. If you think I've failed to process a modus tollens correctly, but I think I haven't, we have nothing more to appeal to that "that's not the way we do it", but for any argument much more complex than 2+2=4, you will fined different people do it different ways, so where does that leave your recourse to such a claim?

What may be useful (covering both this issue and the OP topic) is if you provide the modus tollens you think I've failed to process properly. We can both agree to the rule that...

P1: If X, then Y.
P2: Not Y.
C: Therefore, not X.

...follows.

So what are X and Y in the matter of some issue pertinent to the thread over which you and I disagree? No long winded exposition. Modus tollens does not accommodate such, just two propositions, X and Y.

Deleted a moderation complaint and replies to that. — Benkei

I was pocking fun at it, not complaining.

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

What do you call Russia's activities then?

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?)

The Ukrainian parliament fired their human rights commissioner for poor reports and such.

Ukraine Official Fired Over Handling of Russian Sexual Assault Claims (May 31, 2022)

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)

"Germany doesn't want to be 'too successful' at replacing Russian natural gas because it wants to move away from the fuel in the long run, economy minister said"Yahoo

Yay!

What do you call Russia's activities then? — jorndoe

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.

And considering that since the dissolution of the Soviet Union it has been NATO, not Russia, that has been expanding and planning to expand, Russia arguably has a right to invade Ukraine as a defensive measure.

There are several theories why it took Russia so long to invade Ukraine, that involve a number of factors. One of them is that as America refused to even consider Russia’s requests, Russia was hoping that European governments – especially those whose economies depended on Russian oil and gas – might put pressure on America to do something about Russia’s requests.

Unfortunately, Europe decided to do as told by America (and its British poodle), and at that point the invasion became inevitable. The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine doesn’t mean that it would have invaded no matter what. It might have decided not to invade, had its (I think legitimate) demands been met.

At any rate, IMO, NATO must bear some responsibility for the invasion.

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

No-NATO isn't a peace-maker, hasn't been for some time. Worked as an excuse for a bit, though, but not any more. Instead, Sweden and Finland are heading for NATO membership as a result of the invasion. Putin called out, and ought to quit the Ukrainian ruinage, looting, pilfering, killing, displacements, deportations, land-grabbing attempts, possibly creating a lot of haters that will take time to reverse.

NATO must bear some responsibility for the invasion. — Apollodorus

What does that mean in practice, though?

Sweden and Finland are heading for NATO membership as a result of the invasion. — jorndoe

Sorry, but this isn't about Sweden and Finland. The question is whether and to what extent NATO has been a cause to the conflict.

What does that mean in practice, though? — Olivier5

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.

It’s exactly the same logic. And since both sides can’t expand indefinitely, expansion must lead to conflict. Therefore, we need to see who is causing the conflict, for example, by expanding in the direction of the other.

NATO was created to keep Russia out of Western Europe. But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its new objective was to keep Russia not only out of Western Europe but also out of Eastern Europe.
While NATO has been massively expanding (from 12 to 30 countries!) Russia has not.

Moreover, it isn’t an existential issue for NATO to stop expanding in the direction of Russia, but it is an existential issue for Russia if NATO keeps expanding until Russia ceases to exist.

So, I think it is a fallacy to look at it from the perspective of international law, (a) because international law was created to defend the interests of the British Empire and its American successor, and (b) because international law isn’t applied equally in all cases (see Germany, Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc.).

It makes more sense to look at it from the perspective of justice. As I said before, justice is a fundamental element of Classical and Christian philosophy.

Essentially, justice demands that one doesn’t take more than what is proper so as to upset equality, harmony, or peace in relation to one’s neighbors.

According to Aristotle,

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 has a “right of infinite expansion”. But the rights of the individual (or group of individuals) are not unlimited. They are restricted by the rights of others. And what applies to relations between citizens also applies to international relations. It is a clear violation of the principle of justice for a party to take more than what is proper or to disproportionately restrict the rights of others.

NATO expansion and Ukrainian claims to Crimea are obvious violations of justice as they ignore the rights of countries like Russia.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with Ukraine being independent and joining NATO. But if Ukrainian independence means that Russia loses its naval ports and bases in Crimea, and Ukrainian membership of NATO means that the Black Sea is taken over by NATO or America, then this creates problems for
Russia to which it has a right to react in ways that it thinks are necessary to defend its national interests.

Independence was Ukraine’s decision and action, not Russia’s. Therefore, the onus was on Ukraine to insure that its action didn’t infringe the rights of Russia.

Otherwise, what we’re saying is that Russia can’t have security concerns, can’t feel threatened by NATO, and generally can’t do anything and should allow itself to be acted on like a piece of driftwood swept away by America’s ever-expanding NATO sea.

In other words, Russia has no right to exist except as a colony of America and its EU-NATO Empire. IMO this comes very close to what Hitler planned for Russia.

In terms of NATO bearing responsibility, it should (1) accept responsibility and (b) work toward an end to the conflict that takes into consideration Russia’s security concerns.

Unfortunately, NATO was created to protect US interests and as things currently stand it's hard to imagine Europeans breaking free from US domination any time soon ....

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

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.

It’s exactly the same logic. — Apollodorus

You sure have a bad sense for logic.

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

Just like NATO has a right to welcome new voluntary members, Russia has a right to welcome whichever country, region or people willingly wishing to join it...

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

Well, I disagree. Something isn't "ridiculous" just because you say so.

Expansion doesn't happen for no reason. There is an intention and motive behind it.

Therefore, the legitimacy of the intention/motive needs to be examined first.

The method and manner by which the expansion is conducted is a separate issue and comes second.

Therefore, the legitimacy of the intention/motive needs to be examined first. — Apollodorus

Motives have nothing to see with legitimacy. Hitler had good intentions too.

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.

But carry on, since I don't agree with either of you.

"Putin, speaking with students on Thursday after visiting an exhibition about Peter the Great, Russia's first emperor credited with making the country a major power in the early 18th century, compared himself to the ruler and said they were both destined to expand Russia."
Insider

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

So you are making a moral argument. There are a few problems with that, in these circumstances.

1. The point made by Apo was about legitimacy, not morality.

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.

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?

God? Putin? Or even better, Putin as the scourge of God?

1. The point made by Apo was about legitimacy, not morality. — Olivier5

Then his point should stand uncontested. A country definitely has a legitimate right to expand. There is no law preventing expansion.

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

A typically ludicrous argument. You might as well say that we can avoid talking about the 'morality' of voting since governments are not moral agents. We support, or not, these institutions. Our support is moral or not depending on the actions of those institutions we support. Imagine if NATO had as a goal the extermination of the Jewish people. Do you think it would be in least bit relevant to point out that condemning such a goal as barbaric would be irrelevant since the institution itself is not a moral agent?

If NATO are acting immorally, then supporting them is immoral. We're not (despite your pathological obsession with the idea) standing in judgement of global actors. We are judging what we ought to do.

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

Why would we need to prosecute them? Again your obsession with judgement and punishment is your own, there's no need to drag everyone else into your Judge Dred fantasy. The rest of us are talking about what we ordinary people ought to do. Which institutions we ought to support, which institutions we ought to criticise...

There is no law preventing expansion. — Isaac

The UN charter does.

You might as well say that we can avoid talking about the 'morality' of voting — Isaac

Voting is an individual act, not an institution, so you don't have a point.

If NATO are acting immorally, then supporting them is immoral. — Isaac

Back to category error. 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.

The UN charter does. — Olivier5

There is nothing in the UN charter against voluntary uniting countries. As such it does not rule against expansion.

Voting is an individual act, not an institution, so you don't have a point. — Olivier5

The government one votes for is an institution. Since institutions are not moral actors it would be perfectly moral to vote for the Nazi party then, after all, the Nazi party are an institution so cannot do anything morally wrong?

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

Why?

There is nothing in the UN charter against voluntary uniting countries. — Isaac

In this case, there's nothing voluntary about it, so you don't actually have a point.

Why? — Isaac

Because NATO was never meant to be a moral agent, but an effective military alliance.