So show me a post where you gave a source after I requested it. Otherwise disinformation. — apokrisis

...

Great. You will have no problem providing expert sources arguing the opposite then. Look forward to it. — apokrisis


I've provided plenty of sources throughout my contributions, but on this particular issue (the motivation behind Russian foreign policy) there's academics like Daniel Treisman, experts such as Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrei Tsygankov, Richard Sawka, Marie Mendras... — Isaac

Even if it is opinion, I prefer it from someone with a name and credible credentials. — apokrisis

What counts as 'credible' for the purposes of the points you're trying to make...

US intelligence? Are we seriously surprised that information from US intelligence supports the US government position?

Newspaper editors? I mean....seriously.

Bloggers? Of which there are thousands (and as many opinions)

What is this measure of credibility you're wanting to apply, because the only relevant one I can think of would possibly be experience or expertise in military strategy or foreign affairs. That would rule in people like Mearsheimer (whom you've dismissed), Treisman (whom you've also dismissed), Scholsberg (whom you also dismissed) and so on...

I know they are more than some random dude on the internet. Even if it is opinion, I prefer it from someone with a name and credible credentials. — apokrisis

That makes absolutely zero sense on a debate forum.

Point here is to present analysis and then defend or reformulate it in light of critique and rebuttal.

Making a bold claim, then trying to switch the burden of proof is a a common fallacy.

Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, does not make it the default position that any dissenters must overcome a high burden of proof to critique, just makes it propaganda.

Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, does not make it the default position that any dissenters must overcome a high burden of proof to critique, just makes it propaganda. — boethius

Exactly.

That makes absolutely zero sense on a debate forum.

Point here is to present analysis and then defend or reformulate it in light of critique and rebuttal. — boethius

Yeah. And I'd add to that the fact that the claims here are asymmetric. One side is merely claiming a position to be plausible, the other is claiming that no other position than theirs is plausible.

The threshold of evidence required to demonstrate a position is plausible is quite low.

The threshold of evidence required to demonstrate that all other positions are implausible is enormous.

Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, — boethius

Simply because some random internet dude repeats un-evidenced claims, full of obvious holes, over and over again, doesn’t mean I am going to take them seriously.

I've provided plenty of sources throughout my contributions, but on this particular issue (the motivation behind Russian foreign policy) there's academics like Daniel Treisman, experts such as Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrei Tsygankov, Richard Sawka, Marie Mendras... — Isaac

No, no. I asked for actual articles or clips that present the case you want to make. But I have been reading Treisman on interesting issues like Russia’s information autocracy.

And I also wasn’t surprised that Treisman dismisses your talking point that Putin has no imperialist ambitions. So you see why I ask, where are the credible sources that support what you claim?

But in subsequent years, this grievance came back in ever more elaborate forms. And now a new identity has burst through. Putin no longer accepts the compromises of the Soviet past. His recent words and actions suggest he has become a radical nationalist, out to reshape borders and forge a single people out of Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians, despite the human costs of war.

Pre-1917 “historic Russia” included a range of territories beyond just Ukraine, some of which — like Kazakhstan, the Baltic states and Moldova — have ethnic Russian minorities. If Putin stays true to the convictions he embraced in his speech on Monday, the door he has opened may prove hard for the world to close.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/25/words-deeds-putin-shows-hes-rejecting-even-soviet-era-borders/

One side is merely claiming a position to be plausible, the other is claiming that no other position than theirs is plausible. — Isaac

You mean one side claims Kyiv was a feint, Russian forces have proved competent, Putin has strictly limited war aims. And the other side is meant to believe these implausible interpretations by unknown posters who can’t provide credible professional analysis to back up what they say. :up:

But I have been reading Treisman on interesting issues like Russia’s information autocracy. — apokrisis

Ah, so now he's a credible source. The moment he starts saying something you already agree with. And the others...?

I asked for actual articles or clips that present the case you want to make. — apokrisis

I'm not making a case. I'm criticising your claim that alternative narratives are "dumb" or "irrational", or uniquely "ideological". All I need to do to defeat such a claim is point to the fact that you've failed to meet the threshold of evidence required for such a claim (showing that there are literally no credible experts who oppose it). You can't seriously expect to get away with a claim of the form "all Xs are Y unless you prove otherwise".

I've given sources who disagree with your assessment, but even that is unnecessary since it is you who are making the claim that the alternative narrative is unsupported, so it's you who needs to present evidence to support that claim.

You mean one side claims Kyiv was a feint, Russian forces have proved competent, Putin has strictly limited war aims. And the other side is meant to believe these implausible interpretations by unknown posters who can’t provide credible professional analysis to back up what they say. — apokrisis

No.

No one here has claimed that. People have suggested it is plausible.

And no one has given any indication that you ought to believe it either. In fact, I've specifically said the exact opposite.

It is you who are making the claim of implausibility. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

And I really shouldn't have to point out to someone of your calibre that showing people agree with your claim does not constitute evidence that the counter claim is implausible. Nor does reversing the burden of proof.

People have suggested it is plausible. — Isaac

It is you who are making the claim of implausibility. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support such a claim. — Isaac

Many shreds have been provided. Might I dare suggest that is at least a plausible suggestion and thus join you in evading all calls for credible support for anything I might happen to say at any point in these proceedings, m’lud? :lol:

Might I dare suggest that is at least a plausible suggestion and thus join you in evading all calls for credible support for anything I might happen to say at any point in these proceedings — apokrisis

Yes.

I have no issue at all with you claiming your preferred narrative is plausible. I completely agree.

As for evidence, the threshold to prove a narrative is plausible is very low and has already been amply met by the sources you've provided.

Now we can talk about the far more interesting question...

Given multiple plausible narratives which are under determined by the evidence, why have you chosen the one you have?

Given multiple plausible narratives which are under determined by the evidence, why have you chosen the one you have? — Isaac

Which one do you think I have chosen? The options have been narrowed by batting away some of crazier views however.

Which one do you think I have chosen? — apokrisis

I'm not playing 'get to know you in 20 questions', there's no need for me to guess. I've got a pretty clear idea of the narrative you prefer, but if that's wrong you can just say so.

I know it involves an imperialist Putin, I know it involves a weak Russian military (mistakes and poor morale/equipment). I know both those just happen to serve the US's agenda (the imperialist Putin to support the 'no negotiation' policy and the weak Russian army to support the 'just one more arms shipment ought to do it' policy), but whether supporting the US agenda is part of your narrative or not is unclear.

The options have been narrowed by batting away some of crazier views however. — apokrisis

If you're including in that any notion of Putin being opportunistic rather than imperialist, or any notion of the Russian army being capable of occupying large parts of Ukraine for long periods of time, then you've failed to provide sufficient evidence that such views are 'crazy'. All you've provided is evidence that your views are not. Evidence that your views are not crazy does not constitute evidence that alternative views are.

Bad weekend for Russia. More videos of poor outdoor living conditions for conscripts and accelerating losses on both fronts. After the fall of Lyman, AFU seems to have been able to reorganize quickly, ahead of the Russians, and is advancing it what looks to be another attempted encirclement.

Videos from the pull out of Lyman suggest very high losses during the retreat/breakout. I'm a bit surprised they didn't have them sit tight and either force Ukraine to reduce the encirclement, inflicting attrition until the situation became totally untenable, or wait for an organized relief/breakout effort. That might just be because conditions in the pocket were already untenable, or it could be because resources for a relief effort would take significant time to mobilize.

Meanwhile, in the south Ukraine had the first major breakthrough in a long time, moving up over 15 miles over the weekend and seizing a major road that would allow it to carry out a large encirclement.

In terms of the information issues we've discussed, I think this suggests poor communications between field commanders and Putin himself. The decision to annex territories where you are set to lose substantial ground right after the annexation obviously isn't what Putin likely had in mind politically.




Also never a good thing to have your military leadership openly trash talking each other on social media, which came up this weekend.

Problem is his threat of low yield nukes … will the nutter play that card? If it carries on as a stalemate that delays it. If the Russians are forced out back into the unofficially recognised areas where would he deploy such a weapon. He would have to in an area where it wouldn’t affect his forces.

So this is the dilemma as through conventional means he knows he is losing.

Deploying those tactical nukes (in this day and age) would probably end the war…but then again would he then redeploy his forces to take more land knowing the advantage he has and resume the barbaric land grabbing Witt renewed impetus ?

I don’t even want to think of the wests response they can play dirty too and are probably counting on it.

I say bring it on.

"For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, top government leaders in Moscow are making explicit nuclear threats and officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir V. Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine.". NYT

I figured they've been doing this continuously.

I hope putin doesn’t feel like a cornered dog and with those grubby finger on the button whether he will press it is what a suicidal madman would do.

The problem is nuclear weapons existing at all, not a suicidal madman. North Korea has one, even crazier and he hasn't used them.

But I ask you, what country with nukes, would willingly accept humiliation in the battlefield? I think none. I pray he doesn't go for the last option, but he's not been given situations in which he could save face, which is what he needs to get out of this disaster.

I see only Hawkishness on all sides here, escalation after escalation. There needs to be dialogue. But how can dialogue be had when conditions are this dire?

It's a big problem.

There needs to be dialogue. But how can dialogue be had when conditions are this dire? — Manuel

There was dialogue during the cold war (thank god). There was dialogue with Hezbollah, the Taliban... The problem is we're having politics by fucking Facebook, I just hope there's someone sane in each of the warring administrations who are actually talking to each other before we blow the entire fucking human race to kingdom come because it gives us more 'likes' than negotiating.

So I find it hard to explain how the catastrophic sabotage of both pipelines (it looks like they are gone for good) could benefit Russia. — SophistiCat

Just spitballing:

Lots of Russian oligarchs see the war is going poorly; they just want to pull back the troops and reopen for business so they can start making money again. Putin blowing up the NS2 pipeline could be his way of telling these oligarchs that he is committed to this war and that there's no going back now.

Another reason it might have been sabotaged by Russia is to garner support for the general mobilization, which is also unpopular. An attack on a key Russian economic asset by NATO could be used to persuade the Russian people that this war is needed.

A good deal of LNG reserves are held outside of Russian territory. If Russia defaults, they lose these reserves.

Out of the European leaders, I think Macron has done the best, he did have relatively frequent meetings with Putin. But the other ones are an utter shame, and this includes the US.

This whole affair is akin to a d**k measuring contest, and to what end? I hope you are right too, there has to be at least one or two people IN NATO and the Pentagon who actually understands that more escalation can only lead to total disaster...

The decision to annex territories where you are set to lose substantial ground right after the annexation obviously isn't what Putin likely had in mind politically. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This exacerbates having partial control of regions where success now requires complete control. Before the annexation, the standard of victory was whatever Putin said it was.

He was actually trying to exert political influence on Macron before the war begun. He was offering Europe security to which macron rightly rejected.

I think our main saviour at the moment is that nuclear war would be bad economics. Whilst it behoves the American administration to whip up a social media frenzy to support their arms sales, it does them no good to go so far as to follow on when that mob starts baying for nuclear annihilation.

Whether Putin can be baited into doing it on the other side though remains open. I think he's unpredictable enough to do it if he's got nothing left. No one thought he'd invade the way he did in the first place. He's obviously got no scruples as far as humanity goes. So its a weigh up between his foreseeable economic losses vs his narcissism.

Ironic, given the recent focus on climate change that our obsession with oil/gas-fuelled materialism brought us much earlier to the brink of catastrophe because cheap gas was more important than a stable ex-superpower.

What he said to Macron was that he needed assurances that Ukraine would not be militarized. He did not get this, hence the invasion.

I do not think Europe has been wise here at all. This whole situation is because of NATO expansion - despite what some here are saying - which was promised to not be moved "an inch to the East" back in 1992.

This could have been prevented had they taken these negotiations seriously. They were not. And here we are. I see no wisdom in this. Nor is there wisdom in the invasion either.

I see ample lack of it.

Whether Ukraine would have been absorbed into NATO is nothing but pure speculation now.

The guy was obviously paranoid. Not only this but he wanted to return to the glory days of USSR where they had bigger territory.

This is where his real idiocy lies. Imagine the BRITISH empire going… fuck I miss the good old days let me take back those darn colonies.

You see he wanted to make Russia great again and now he’s fucked it up.

Stupid little man

I mean, so far the US and EU are being oh-so-confident that he won't do anything with nukes. I wonder how they can be so confident given what's happened.

I think your guess is as good as any. My intuition is that national pride trumps everything else. I'm unclear on something: You mean bad economics inside the US or in Russia?

Russia seems to be surviving somehow.