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

It doesn't seem that way to me. People tend to use the terms interchangeably and he seemed to want to make a moral argument. My point was about intent being relevant, even for legitimacy. Courts will rule against people who abuse their rights. So it's both a legal and moral argument, they can happily coincide.

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 any other moral creed in their case. — Olivier5

God, that must be why we have a whole approach to institutional morality? Because it doesn't exist. And even Aristotle wrote about social justice, you know, how to arrange institutions in such a way that we have socially just outcomes? But that has nothing to do with morality, my bad.

Seems to me a few posters simply don't know what they're talking about but it's opportune to agree with them because it avoids having to question how NATO functions, what it was set out to do and what it is doing now. In a very practical sense virtue ethics can be applied rather easily to institutions.

3 isn't relevant given the above.

In this case, there's nothing voluntary about it, so you don't actually have a point. — Olivier5

Russia's claim is that the independent nations of Donetsk and Luhansk asked for military aid. And are now, after a successful mission neutralising Ukraine's military, the only areas substantially still occupied. Making their actions completely legitimate.

This, of course, depends on whether that is actually what happened. But questions of fact are legitimately decided by courts of law, not loonies off of the internet.

So yes, their actions so far can be said to be legitimate.

Personally, I prefer to condemn them on moral grounds, but I can see why you'd want to avoid doing that, it might take the sheen off the Top Gun poster on your bedroom wall.

Because NATO was never meant to be a moral agent, but an effective military alliance. — Olivier5

So you're saying we cannot morally condemn the actions of an institution without a moral objective. So the SS were fine as far as you're concerned. The whole concentration camps, gas chambers...no moral judgement from you on those? After all, they were set up to kill Jews and they did that very well didn't they.

No moral condemnation for the gas chambers of the SS, just a hearty round of applause at a job well done, eh?

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

People tend to use the terms interchangeably and he seemed to want to make a moral argument. — Benkei

He was not, from what I can tell. But maybe he will clarify what he was trying to say.

So the SS were fine as far as you're concerned. — Isaac

The SS were only men. There were not 'an institution'.

Ukraine fires 5,000-6,000 artillery shells a day, says deputy head of military intelligence
by AFP and Le Figaro

Ukraine has exhausted all of its Russian and Soviet-made weaponry and now depends exclusively on weapons supplied to it by foreign allies, including Western artillery, according to several US military sources. In fact, Ukraine's deputy military intelligence chief, Vadym Skibitsky, told the Guardian that his country has been firing 5,000 to 6,000 artillery shells a day since the start of the war. " It's an artillery war now [...] and we are losing in terms of artillery ", alerted the official, indicating to our colleagues that " Ukraine has one piece of artillery against 10 to 15 pieces Russians ”. “ It all depends now on what the West gives us ,” he added.

As soon as Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, Westerners mobilized to support Kyiv, which demanded arms and ammunition, while avoiding at all costs taking any action that could be seen as a provocation by Russia -- for fear that the conflict will spread beyond the borders of Ukraine. Without saying so, they also feared that their advanced weapons would fall into the hands of the Russian army.

The West therefore turned to the former Soviet bloc countries, which still had Soviet-standard ammunition, to replace those that the Ukrainian forces were firing at the Russian army. But even these stocks have run out, and Europe's Russian-made arsenal " has disappeared from the face of the planet ", a military official told AFP.

This is why the United States and the other NATO allies have decided to ignore the risks of the conflict spreading or technological leaks. Washington began handing over to Ukraine heavy equipment such as howitzers at first, then advanced equipment such as Himars rocket launchers, high-precision artillery pieces with a range greater than those of the Russian army.

The allies are trying to coordinate their military assistance to Kiev, and to synchronize it so that the Ukrainian forces receive a " continuous flow of ammunition ", but also of spare parts and light weapons, another American military official explained.

This is the stated objective of the Contact Group for Ukraine created by US Defense Minister Lloyd Austin, whose first meeting was held in April in the presence of some forty countries in Ramstein, Germany.

After a second virtual meeting in May, Ukraine's allies are due to meet on June 15 in Brussels.

And if Western weaponry seems to be trickling into Ukraine, it's because the allies want to make sure Kyiv is able to absorb it safely and limit the risk of bombing its ammunition stocks. The United States is therefore sending its military assistance in installments, the latest of which, of 700 million, announced on June 1, included four Himars artillery systems, but also 1,000 additional Javelin anti-tank missiles and four Mi-17 helicopters. , 15,000 shells intended for Howitzers, 15 light armored vehicles, and other ammunition of various calibers. “ We try to maintain a constant flow ,” the second military official said.

Asked about the low numbers of Himars as Ukrainians appear struggling in Donbass, US Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said on Wednesday that Washington wanted to make sure Ukrainian soldiers had them under control well before send more. The Himars is a " sophisticated " system, and " you have to certify these boys, make sure they know how to use these systems correctly ", declared the highest ranking American. It is necessary to train the operators, but also the soldiers in charge of maintenance, as well as the officers and non-commissioned officers so that they are deployed where it is necessary, when it is necessary, he explained.

For Washington, this first shipment is above all a trial balloon to ensure that Himar technology does not fall into enemy hands and that the Ukrainians use this expensive and sensitive equipment wisely. But that does not prevent the Pentagon from preparing the next tranche of military aid. Additional Himars and their ammunition are already prepositioned in Germany, and they will be sent to Ukraine if the experience with the first four proves positive, according to another American military source.

On the other hand, Washington has ruled out granting Kiev long-range combat drones like the " Grey Eagle ", whose range reaches 300 km, enough to hit a major Russian city, according to this source.

He was not, from what I can tell. But maybe he will clarify what he was trying to say. — Olivier5

What's there to "clarify"???

If you unlawfully (or unjustly) kill someone, you'll rightly get jailed for murder. If you do it purely in self-defense, or in defense of others, you'll get acquitted or (depending on the circumstances) even praised for doing it. So, intention and motive are absolutely crucial in determining legitimacy.

This is why it is imperative to investigate NATO's intentions and motives instead of uncritically blaming it all on Russia.

The SS were only men. There were not 'an institution'. — Olivier5

What are NATO then, robots?

What's there to "clarify"??? — Apollodorus

As explained, the question raised was whether your argument is about morality or legitimacy.

If you unlawfully (or unjustly) kill someone, you'll rightly get jailed for murder. If you do it purely in self-defense, or in defense of others, you'll get acquitted or (depending on the circumstances) even praised for doing it. — Apollodorus

Therefore, Ukrainians and their allies are worthy of praise, since Ukraine is acting in self defense. Thank you for recognising this.

What are NATO then, robots? — Isaac

For your info, NATO is an alliance, composed of several signatory nations.

For your info, NATO is an alliance, composed of several signatory nations. — Olivier5

Ah, well in that case, for your info. The SS were an organisation composed of several administrative and operational units.

So are we back to judging the SS purely relative to their goals now? Well done them, eh?

So you think some administrative units are evil?

So you think some administrative units are evil? — Olivier5

Yes. I have no problem with the notion that the SS was a morally repugnant organisation because it facilitated the genocide of millions of Jews.

As has already pointed out, this is not in the least bit unusual. We have notions of institutional morality, institutional blame...etc.

But let's not pretend you don't already know that. You're just looking for a way to wriggle out of having to deal with any moral judgement of NATO because that leaves you without the social support of the zeitgeist.

Are we at the "defending the SS" stage of discourse?

Just a bunch of guys, just doing their jobs...

I recall there was some kind of trial involving that.

Are we at the "defending the SS" stage of discourse? — Streetlight

Seems so.

Amusing to see just how far people will go to maintain their narrative that NATO are the good guys. I wasn't expecting a full on exculpation of the SS...yet here we are...

Glad I could cheer you guys up.

It was my last post on the side issue. I don't mind to answer you in pvt or in a new thread.

Even the Jews flee from the Russian anti-Nazi:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscows-chief-rabbi-leaves-russia-amid-pressure-back-war-ukraine-2022-06-08/

Ukrainians and their allies are worthy of praise, since Ukraine is acting in self defense. — Olivier5

Nah. As usual, it looks like you didn't think that one through, in addition to not paying attention! :grin:

1. Note that I said "purely in self-defense". If other motives are involved, then it isn't unqualified self-defense.

2. You haven't established that it is unqualified self-defense.

3. Russia can also argue that it is acting in self-defense. An invasion can perfectly well be part of a defensive war. And as they say, offense is the best defense.

4. The West has always aimed to destroy Russia, going back to the Franco-Russian, Napoleonic, and Crimean wars of the 1700’s and 1800’s.

After the Russian revolution of 1917 there were Western plans to dismantle the Russian Empire and divide it between England, France, and other Western powers:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, indeed, even before it had dissolved, there were calls in the Bush administration for Russia to be dismantled:

When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick [Cheney] wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world

Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, p. 97

In addition, there were a string of “color revolutions” aiming to topple governments in the region that Russia believed to have been instigated by anti-Russian Western powers: Yugoslavia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), Kyrgyzstan (2005), and especially, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution of 2014.

So, when Putin in his 2014 annual speech said that the West wanted to see Russia “collapsed and dismembered like Yugoslavia”, I think it’s fair to say that he did have a point.

In March 2022 he said:

The collective west wants to divide our society... to provoke civil confrontation in Russia and to use its fifth column to strive to achieve its aim. And there is one aim - the destruction of Russia

Again, given that Western-backed opposition groups with links to the “color revolutions” elsewhere were also active in Russia, he wasn’t far of the mark:

- The opposition group Open Russia was founded by Russia’s richest oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2001 and later run from London.

- The Anti-Corruption Foundation was founded in 2011 by operatives of telecom firm VimpelCom (co-founded by the American Augie K. Fabela II) and associated industry and finance consortium Alfa Group (controlled by the Gibraltar-based CTF Holdings), whose boss Michael Fridman is Russian representative on the US Council on Foreign Relations.

- Alfa Group bosses were also involved in founding the opposition party People’s Alliance, etc., etc.

In any case, the contribution of US foreign policy to the conflict with Russia has been acknowledged by the policy makers themselves:

(p. 157) Moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake. Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. The roots of the Russian Empire trace back to Kiev in the ninth century, so that was an especially monumental provocation. So NATO expansion was a political act, not a carefully considered military commitment, thus undermining (p. 158) the purpose of the alliance and recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests. During the Cold War, to avoid military conflict between us, we had to take Soviet interests into account. When Russia was weak in the 1900s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view, and of managing the relationship for the long term. All that said, I was now President Bush’s secretary of defense, and I dutifully supported the effort to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. (p. 159) I made a difficult situation with Russia worse by signing off – the day after I was sworn in as secretary in December 2006 – on a recommendation to the president that the United States locate ten long-range missile defense interceptors in Poland and an associated radar installation in the Czech Republic. The Russians saw the proposed deployments as putting their nuclear deterrent at risk and as a further step in the “encirclement” of their country ….

Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War

It follows that the West must acknowledge its share of responsibility for the conflict and work toward ending the conflict as soon as possible and in a way that takes Russia’s interests and concerns into consideration. In fact, IMO, it has a moral obligation to do so.

1. Note that I said "purely in self-defense". If other motives are involved, then it isn't unqualified self-defense.

2. You haven't established that it is unqualified self-defense. — Apollodorus

You haven't established that it's not. And I don't see why other motives would matter. If it is self defense, then that's what it is. What else do you need? A pure heart?

But let's not pretend you don't already know that. You're just looking for a way to wriggle out of having to deal with any moral judgement of NATO because that leaves you without the social support of the zeitgeist. — Isaac

:up:

Individual Ukrainians may or may not act in self-defense to some extent. But if their ultimate goal (individually or collectively) is to take what rightfully belongs to Russia, e.g. Crimea, then their "self-defense" is necessarily qualified by their intention to take something that doesn't belong to them. So, it very much does matter.

In terms of the NATO-Russia conflict, given that NATO, not Russia, keeps expanding, it is Russia that is acting in self-defense, not NATO.

And, as US foreign-policy makers like defense secretary Robert Gates have admitted to having played a hand in causing the conflict, I think it is right for America and its NATO Empire to assume responsibility for their actions .

to take what rightfully belongs to Russia, e.g. Crimea, then their "self-defense" is necessarily qualified by their intention to take something that doesn't belong to them. So, it very much does matter. — Apollodorus

Who Crimea belongs to is open to debate.

And, as US foreign-policy makers like defense secretary Robert Gates have admitted to having played a hand in causing the conflict, — Apollodorus

Did he though?

Nothing new under the Sun? Loose cannon?

Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands (The Guardian; Jun 10, 2022)

^{Putin compared himself to Peter the Great, 350 years after the birth of the founder of the Russian Empire. Putin said Peter the Great's wars against the Swedish Empire were not conflicts of conquest but were taking back historically Russian land. While referring to the Battle of Narva in modern-day Estonia, Putin said it's fallen on him to take back and strengthen historically Russian lands. Speech seen as an appalling threat to neighbors.} :fire:

I semi-seriously wonder if the soul of Putin died some decades ago and his body taken over by the malevolent spirit which also animated Josef Stalin, which lurks around the Kremlin waiting for some potential body to inhabit. After all, Putin's high- school teacher couldn't remember Vlad, he was such a colorless and unexceptional pupil. So now he's just become a carrier for that same industrial-scale cruelty and malevolence that his predecessor exhibited.

A court in the separatist-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic of Ukraine convicted two British fighters and one Moroccan on Thursday of seeking the violent overthrow of power, an offense punishable by death in the eastern territory controlled by Moscow-backed rebels.

The men were also convicted of mercenary activities and terrorism.

Who Crimea belongs to is open to debate. — Olivier5

Well, according to some, it isn't open to debate at all. Allegedly, Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine belongs to NATO, and NATO belongs to America .... :grin:

If all you do is listen to Western propaganda or selectively trawl through news programs to watch Ukrainian houses being shelled by Russian artillery, then you will probably get mad at the Russians. But if you’re less selective you might hear this guy from Soledar in Donetsk say that “they need to withdraw the troops from residential areas as otherwise the Russians will hit civilians”, and you might come to realize that there is more to the story than what news programs are trying to convey.

Essentially, getting emotional in situations of this type isn’t a good idea as emotions can impair your ability to think straight and makes you more susceptible to being influenced and manipulated by propaganda.

This is why Plato rightly says that emotions should be controlled by reason and reason should be guided by justice. A cool head seems to be essential in good philosophy as much as in rational thinking generally.

So, I think you guys should try to familiarize yourselves with the historical and geopolitical background of the conflict and with what Russia actually wants, instead of speculating, fantasizing, or pointlessly “philosophizing” about it.

At the very least, you could do yourselves (and the forum) a favor and quit uncritically swallowing Zelensky’s and NATO’s propaganda and lies.

Anyway, here’s some food for thought from proper experts who IMO have a much better understanding of the situation than any (or most) of you:

What The West (Still) Gets Wrong About Putin – Foreign Policy

If you think about it, Russia has absolutely no means of taking over Europe and it definitely isn’t about to invade New York, London, or Paris.

The truth of the matter is that while Europeans are hiding under the bed for fear of Russia, it’s America that is taking over Europe by stealth:

Revealed: the quiet US takeover of Britain's arms industry – The Telegraph

And it isn't just Britain. The problem is, the American public are ignorant of what’s really happening in Europe and Europeans are in denial about the American government’s intentions - or the intentions of the defense corporations that are currently flooding Europe with overpriced US tanks, howitzers, and rocket systems. Germany alone is spending EUR100 billion on defense this year, much of it on US-made stuff like F-35A fighter jets (USD78 million apiece).

And, of course, a lot of the weaponry being dumped by the West on Ukraine, will end up in the hands of criminal gangs and smugglers and make its way to Western Europe.

A large number of weapons sent to Ukraine will eventually fall into the hands of criminals in Europe and beyond, the director general of Interpol said on Wednesday (June 1st), urging states to take an interest in tracing these weapons.
“The wide availability of weapons during the current conflict will lead to the proliferation of illicit weapons in the post-conflict phase," German Jürgen Stock told the Anglo-American Press Association in Paris, where he had visited from Lyon, Interpol's headquarters. "Criminals are already focusing on this right now," he continued, seeing in the European Union "a likely destination for these weapons, because the prices of these firearms on the black market are significantly higher in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries."

Guerre en Ukraine : Interpol craint un afflux d'armes illicites après le conflit – Le Figaro

Meantime, Biden is sending Latin American immigrants to Spain like England used to ship blacks to its colonies. Yet some still insist that America isn’t treating Europe as its colonial possession ….

Putin's high- school teacher couldn't remember Vlad, he was such a colorless and unexceptional pupil. — Wayfarer

Yep. And because he was a "colorless and unexceptional pupil" it logically follows that he is "animated by a malevolent spirit".

And, of course, malevolent spirits only lurk around in Russia. Never in Western Europe, China, Africa, America, or the Middle East. And Australian Aboriginals gave their country to the Brits of their own accord ....

Well done, mate! :smile:

Test.

Test 2.

Very funny. You seem to be related to @ssu, after all. Or maybe to that clown Zelensky. :rofl:

The fact is that there is very little knowledge of history, geography, and politics in this discussion, and even less serious analysis and objectivity.

The way I see it, most objective analysts ascribe some responsibility for the conflict to the West.

According to John Mearsheimer, Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago,

The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. – Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault

See also:

There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.
But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

(Originally published in The Economist, March 19, 2022.)

John Mearsheimer On Why The West Is Principally Responsible For The Ukrainian Crisis

Incidentally, the West calls Moroccan and British mercenaries fighting in Ukraine “heroes” and Kurds fighting Turkish occupation “terrorists”. And NATO keeps saying that "Turkey has legitimate security concerns", but Russia doesn’t.

Yet some still believe in the "objectivity" of the Western media and politicians!

As I said, give Tibet back to the Tibetans, Cyprus back to the Cypriots, and Kurdistan back to the Kurds, and you might stand a chance of sounding credible.

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view?