Chicago Riots killed 43 people, part of a series of about 50 such riots which, together with many peaceful demonstrations, brought about the changes in American civil rights.

The Ukraine war is currently killing 600 people a day. — Isaac

First this doesn't prove my point wrong. Secondly, you are comparing a political struggle within a hegemonic democratic regime to a war between Russia and Ukraine critical for the World Order. It's a bit of a stretch. Third tell me how many such examples you can find within the history of authoritarian regimes.
It would have been more fair to compare the Chicago Riots with Euro Maiden protests. But this was part of the genesis of the Russian aggression of Ukraine, so back to square one.

First this doesn't prove my point wrong. Secondly, you are comparing a political struggle within a democratic regime to a war between Russia and Ukraine critical for the World Order. It's a bit of a stretch. — neomac

To put 's question another way.

What is the price you are willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, for Ukrainian "liberation" of the 5 annexed territories?

What price are you willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, and Ukraine still lose the war?

Let's say Ukrainian military is in a position where they could easily defend the rest of Ukraine or could commit to all-in-offensives to liberate the occupied territory at the risk of exhausting their forces and total defeat.

What is your risk tolerance for a failed re-conquest of the annexed territories resulting in the even worse outcome of the complete fall of most or all of Ukraine into Russian control?

You seem to be arguing that Ukrainians fighting more, regardless of outcomes, is a humanitarian accomplishment.

If Zelensky sued for peace in the early stages of the war, say the first days, and basically Ukraine lost Russian occupied Donbas and Crimea and the war ended, are you willing to argue that would have been against human rights on Zelensky's part?

You seem to have disassociated the costs of your proposal from the imagined benefits (even if they are really there, which I find debatable for the same reasons as @Isaac, certainly not some guarantee, but that's simply an added risk for continued fighting--that the fight is for nothing human rights wise even in victory--but I'd be willing to agree that risk is lower than a straight-up loss to the Russians).

First this doesn't prove my point wrong. — neomac

You're obsessed with proving. It's you who raised the objection to my position, not the other way around. I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it.

you are comparing a political struggle within a hegemonic democratic regime to a war between Russia and Ukraine critical for the World Order. — neomac

No I'm not. I'm comparing the two options for humanitarian relief...

1) Continued war to retain Ukrainian control over the region and improve the population's human rights by political pressure from their membership of the EU/NATO.

2) End the war by ceding Donbas/Crimea to Russia and improve the population's human rights by supporting protest and political change in Russia.

In 2 fewer die.

You seem to have disassociated the costs of your proposal from the imagined benefits — boethius

Exactly. It's like war is treated as some comic book version where we all get to waive flags at the brave soldiers with nothing more than a bloodied bandage to show for their fight.

More tales of Russian incompetence. How the Kharkiv front was collapsed…

More tales of Russian incompetence. How the Kharkiv front was collapsed… — apokrisis

@jorndoe ^^

We might have a more profitable discussion if people were to actually address the arguments raised rather than treat the thread as a pro-Ukrainian news aggregator. — Isaac

Russia is the largest weapon provider to Ukraine right now.
— Olivier5

So no sources then. — Isaac

Here you go:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-10-07/rusia-se-convierte-en-el-principal-suministrador-involuntario-de-armas-para-ucrania.html

when it comes to those making the exact same argument about the uselessness of condemning Russia you become the solidarity-proclaiming keyboard warrior, when exactly the same is expressed against the US you become the hard-nosed pragmatist. You must get dizzy sometimes? — Isaac

It is not useless to condemn Russia on TPF. It has certain advantages, for instance in informing, pleasing or offending other TPF members. But it will NOT influence Russia. Likewise, you can usefully talk of the US foreign policy on TPF, if the 'use' you aim for is information exchange and/or debate with other TPFers. But it won't affect the US foreign policy at all.

It's like anything, e.g. quantum mechanics. Discussing QM on this site is kinda fun and you can't say it's useless. But I don't expect such discussions to have an effect on QM.

Likewise, you can usefully talk of the US foreign policy on TPF, if the 'use' you aim for is information exchange and/or debate with other TPFers. — Olivier5

Did you think I thought Biden might be reading?

it won't affect the US foreign policy at all. — Olivier5

Nothing does it seems, for you. We're all just helpless pawns who might as well bend over and submit to the will of our masters. I'm sorry but I don't hold to such a miserable world view.

So you are trying to influence the US foreign policy by posting your condescending mind farts over the interwebs? Good luck with that.

As I said, we have duty to hold our governments to account. If you want to just lay down and let them do whatever they like because you're so powerless, that's your bag, don't expect everyone else to be so weakly compliant.

negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works.
— frank

No they don't, and no it isn't. There aren't laws of physics about peace talks. — Isaac

You're probably right.

The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict.
— frank

What's the US's interest? — Isaac

I think it's just from previous promises to protect Ukraine along with some revenge for Russia's interference in American elections.

Here you go: — Olivier5

From the article...

The Ukrainian army is not confirming whether these numbers are accurate

Even so, Ukraine’s counteroffensive largely depends on the supply of modern weapons from its NATO allies.

Nowhere in the article are any comparative figures given all that's given are the estimates the Ukrainian government will not verify...

460 Russian main battle tanks, 92 self-propelled howitzers, 448 infantry fighting vehicles, 195 armored fighting vehicles and 44 multiple-launch rocket systems,

The U.S. has sent 126 howitzers and 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers so those two comparable units are false for sure. Not a good start. And there seems to be no equivalent of the 6,500 javelins. Where are the equivalent weapons on the Russian list?

The full US list... From https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3597492-heres-every-weapon-us-has-supplied-to-ukraine-with-13-billion/

Major weapons

High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and ammunition
The U.S. has committed 16 HIMARS since late-May. It is a lighter wheeled system that can allow Ukrainians to hit Russian targets within Ukraine from further distances.
1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
Manufactured by Raytheon, the TOW missiles are long-range precision, anti-tank and assault weapons that can hit targets up to 4,500 meters away.
155mm Howitzers
A towed field artillery piece that can hit targets up to 30 km, or 18 miles away. The U.S. has sent 126 of these howitzers, along with 806,000 155mm artillery rounds and 126 tactical vehicles to tow the howitzers.
105mm Howitzers
The U.S. committed to sending 16 105mm howitzers and 108,000 105mm artillery rounds to go with the howitzers. The United Kingdom has already provided the L119 model, which is a light weight howitzer that can provide direct fire support at armored vehicles or buildings or indirect fire to support combat arms in ranges over 10 km, or 6 miles.
120mm mortar systems
The U.S. Army uses three versions of the 120mm mortar systems, but they are designed to provide close-range, quick-response indirect fire during tactical combat. The U.S. has sent 20 of these systems, as well as 85,000 rounds of 120mm mortar ammunition.
National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, also known as the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, are advanced air-defense systems that can hit targets up to 100 miles away. The U.S. has committed to sending eight NSAMS, along with munitions for the systems.
Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. has committed approximately 700 Phoenix ‘Ghost’ drones to Ukraine between April and July. The systems, made by AEVEX Aerospace, are designed to attack targets.
Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. has sent over 700 Switchblade drones to Ukraine since March. There are two types of Switchblade drones and the U.S. has sent both, those its unclear how many of each type Washington has sent.
The Switchblade 300 weighs about five pounds and can fly roughly 6 miles, and is intended to target personnel and light vehicles. However, the Switchblade 600 can fly more than 24 miles and can stay in the air for 40 minutes.
Puma unmanned aerial systems
The Pentagon awarded AeroVironment $19.7 million in April to produce the Puma AE RQ-20 system for Ukraine. Designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, it has a range of 20 km, or about 12 miles, and has over three hours of flight endurance.
Mi-17 helicopters
The U.S. has provided 20 of the Soviet-era transport helicopters that can also be used as a helicopter gunship. Can carry as many as 30 passengers or 9,000 pounds of cargo
Harpoon coastal defense systems
The U.S. announced in June that it would provide two vehicle-mounted Harpoon systems, which are intended for coastal defense. The U.S. said in June that it would provide the launchers, while allies and partners would provide the missiles.
Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. sent 15 Scan Eagle systems as part of its Aug. 19 package to Ukraine for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition. These systems are just under four feet in length, and have an altitude of 16,000 feet above ground level. The Aug. 24 weapons package included support equipment for these systems.
VAMPIRE Counter-unmanned aerial systems
The U.S. first committed to providing the VAMPIRE system in its $2.98 billion weapons package announced Aug. 24. Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, said the VAMPIRE uses small missiles to shoot drones out of the sky.
Stinger anti-aircraft systems
The U.S. has provided over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. The Stinger has a range of 5 miles and can attack targets up to 15,000 feet.
Javelin anti-armor systems
The U.S. has provided over 8,500 Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Javelin is a portable anti-tank system that can hit targets from 65 meters to 4,000 meters away in most operational circumstances.
High Speed, Anti- Radiation Missiles
The Aug. 19 weapons package included an undisclosed amount of High-speed Anti-radiation (HARM) missiles. The Pentagon first disclosed in early August that it has sent these missiles, but didn’t specified which kind or how many. However, CNN reported that the U.S. has sent the AGM-88 HARM, an air-to-surface tactical missile that has a range of at least 30 miles, and is designed to find and destroy radar-equipped air defense systems.
Over 27,000 other anti-armor systems

Other equipment and small arms

Radars

50 counter-artillery radars
Four counter-mortar radars
Four air surveillance radars
Counter-battery radar systems

Vehicles/Boats

Four Command Post vehicles
Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels
Hundreds of Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
50 armored medical treatment vehicles
200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers
18 coastal and riverine patrol boats
40 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles with mine rollers

Explosives, Small Arms, Ammunition, Munitions

M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions (command-detonated fixed-direction fragmentation weapon for use against personnel)
C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment
Over 10,000 Grenade launchers and small arms
Over 59,000, 000 Small arms ammunition

Equipment

75,000 sets of body armor and helmets
22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment
Laser-guided rocket systems
Tactical secure communications systems
Night vision devices, thermal imagery systems, optics, and laser rangefinders
Commercial satellite imagery services
Explosive ordnance disposal protective gear
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment
Medical supplies
Electronic jamming equipment
Field equipment and spare parts
Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment
Mine clearing equipment and systems

Look equivalent to you?

we have duty to hold our governments to account. — Isaac

I regret to inform that your government is not in Washington but in London.

Let's say the US support is more diversified, but in terms of armor, Russia's abandoned tanks and carriers did 'give' to Ukraine more than all western nations combined.

The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. — Olivier5

So here’s the disagreement, then. I think this statement is naive. The motivations go far beyond defending Ukraine. If that’s truly where you think they stop, then we probably won’t get far in discussions. And that’s OK.

When the defense Secretary says the goal is to weaken Russia, I believe him.

Some people here are unable to discuss anything. They get all angry as soon as the slightest disagreement occurs. And that's okay.

Of course the US wants to weaken Russia. Who doesn't? But it does not follow that the US is pushing for war. The only ones who pushed for war are Russian.

Call that naive if you need to. It's just the truth.

I hear you. Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma.

Having said that, it's extremely difficult to get our governments to act in a more cautious manner, particularly when all of them tend to twist the facts to the benefits of each respective state - which causes the population to get a Disneyfied view of the world.

Can't blame them though.

As happens in war.

The US is buying anti-radiation medicine. How's that for Disney?

No, that isn't Disney. I think it's a rational move, given the dire circumstances.

I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians.

I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warnings by Russia.

I mean, if something erupted in Taiwan for instance - that being even more dangerous potentially, it shouldn't come as a total surprise, because China has been warning about this for decades. Kind of like Russia did too.

Though to be fair, I did not think Russia would invade, as you can see in my posts in the beginning of the thread, I did get that way wrong.

Some people here are unable to discuss anything. — Olivier5

I didn’t say I was unable or unwilling to discuss anything, but that we probably won’t get too far. Mainly because assumptions about the US’s intentions are pretty fundamental, and in my experience unlikely to change.

But it does not follow that the US is pushing for war. — Olivier5

Blocking or discouraging peace agreements and negotiations is pushing for war.

Blocking or discouraging peace agreements and negotiations is pushing for war. — Xtrix

Okay, so Putin is pushing for war and Biden is not. Exactly what I was saying!

Card games like Gin, Bridge, Canasta, Whist and their variations were made popular in Europe. These games mould a mind for congenial co-operative, diplomatic competition.

The card game Poker - most popular in the USA is a game that teaches one to calculate odds, study opponents idiosyncracies and bluff

The game GO - popular in China - is riddled with serpentine complexity and uncertainty - a long game requiring a myriad of simultaneous calculations requires patience and endurance

The game Chess - popular in Russia - is purely combative - there is no element of chance. Where as in GO the idea is to stymie your opponent - in Chess the objective is to capture and destroy.

Thus we have Gentlemen Diplomats v Showmen and Businessmen v Diligent Bureaucrats v Combatants

And remarkably or perhaps predictably - in a crisis - they each revert to type
The Europeans scamper about forming alliances
The US bluffs and sells a story
The Chinese patiently study the board and make moves no one understands
The Russians find a opponent and go to war

I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians. — Manuel

That attitude isn't in the sources I see. Don't know what to say about it.

As I said to Isaac, war profiteers are always there. They always have been, since there's been war. If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.

And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive.

I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warning by Russia. — Manuel

It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing.

Go is actually Japanese. The Chinese are more found of Majong.

If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.

And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive. — frank

Not at all, you are right. This is old indeed, well documented by, say, Smedley Butler, he painted the picture very clearly in that one.

It may not be the main motive, but it is surely a large one. The longer this goes on, the more money they get and the politicians too.

Yes, there are other reasons, namely NATO expansion, which I've mentioned several times. Now, if Putin adds crazy reasons once the war is running, OK. Hard to imagine giving good reasons for war in the 21st century. It's always about "liberation" and so on, no country is going to say "we will kill and enslave civilians."

I'm also not saying that there are legitimate Russian concerns in the Donbass, but a response of this scale is madness. Yet here we are.

It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing. — frank

I agree. It was one of the most stupid decisions in history, given how its turning out.

I only add, which is no small part, that the way the West has replied has been to enflame the situation. You can see the results right now. In a rational world both sides would look for negotiations NOW, but we have escalations.

Doesn't speak to well of the species that we are at this point after so much savagery in the 20th century alone, neverminded previous history.

GO is an abstract strategy board game for two players in which the aim is to surround more territory than the opponent. The game was invented in China more than 2,500 years ago and is believed to be the oldest board game continuously played to the present day.Wikipedia

What is the price you are willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, for Ukrainian "liberation" of the 5 annexed territories?

What price are you willing to pay, in Ukrainian lives, and Ukraine still lose the war?

Let's say Ukrainian military is in a position where they could easily defend the rest of Ukraine or could commit to all-in-offensives to liberate the occupied territory at the risk of exhausting their forces and total defeat.

What is your risk tolerance for a failed re-conquest of the annexed territories resulting in the even worse outcome of the complete fall of most or all of Ukraine into Russian control? — boethius

Do you yourself have answers to these questions? Can you show me how you do the math?

Honestly I find such quizzes about moral dispositions in different hypothetical scenarios (as in the ‘trolley problem’) highly misleading for debating the issue at hand and therefore useless for my decision process. This is why:

• Ukrainian lives are not at my disposal as money in my pocket.
• I’m not even a political leader with all kinds of information political leaders can afford, popular consensus and peer-pressure to take tough political decisions for long terms goals affecting an entire collectivity.
• I can’t even reliably calculate the costs I or my beloved ones will likely pay now or in 10 years or in 50 years if I now politically support Ukrainian struggles against Russian oppression.
• Actually I believe that everyone in this thread suffers from similar limits, even when they do not support Ukrainian struggles or the Western hegemony.
• I also believe that nobody can frame this war as a game theory study case where outcomes and their likelihood are given. Everybody has to struggle with their personal uncomfortable blindspots as the war progresses.

So my political support for Ukrainian struggles is grounded more on the reasoning I exposed earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949). Reasoning and evidences grounded on historical/geopolitical assumptions that go beyond this war, its major players and its short-terms results are more compelling to me then such quizzes.

You seem to be arguing that Ukrainians fighting more, regardless of outcomes, is a humanitarian accomplishment. — boethius

Then you seem to have misunderstood my argument.

If Zelensky sued for peace in the early stages of the war, say the first days, and basically Ukraine lost Russian occupied Donbas and Crimea and the war ended, are you willing to argue that would have been against human rights on Zelensky's part? — boethius

Not sure what you mean by “against human rights” in this case. But it’s beside the point. When talking about human rights I’m more interested in long-term and systemic outcomes not in short-term episodic outcomes (which is what you scenario looks to me like).
As far as I’m concerned, the critical point in geopolitical terms is that as long as Putin challenges the Western-backed World Order the outcome of the Ukrainian war must look a military and political defeat for Putin as convincingly as possible to all incumbent World Order challengers (Russian political elites included) no matter what Putin or the Russian propaganda says. And I political support this goal for the reasons I explained earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949).

You seem to have disassociated the costs of your proposal from the imagined benefits — boethius

How many lives do systemic and long term political conditions supporting human rights cost to you? What is the likelihood of their success as of today, or in 10 years, in 50 years to you? What compelling evidences do you have to back your claims up? What’s the math you are doing to calculate costs and benefits? Take your time.

You're obsessed with proving. It's you who raised the objection to my position, not the other way around. I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it. — Isaac

That’s a public philosophy forum, we discuss reasons, explore disagreements and assess how compelling arguments sound. And this is how I deal with your claims (like “As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there”). If you don’t want to play this game, I don’t care. If you don’t want to play this game with me, then stop answering me.

1) Continued war to retain Ukrainian control over the region and improve the population's human rights by political pressure from their membership of the EU/NATO.
2) End the war by ceding Donbas/Crimea to Russia and improve the population's human rights by supporting protest and political change in Russia.

In 2 fewer die. — “Isaac

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that “In 2 fewer die” is correct and that that’s all that counts. How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? The West has supported protests and political change for decades in Iran, North Korea, Russia and China with what results for their population's human rights? How about the ex-soviet union countries that had the chance to join NATO and EU?
This is hardly unpredictable: indeed there is a part of the local population in any of these authoritarian regimes that profits from the sanctions and political pressure from outside to preserve/increase economic inequalities and support authoritarian regimes to brutally squash local protests (and condemn the population to a miserable life in terms of freedoms, public and private services, or economic survival compared to western standards) or worse aggressively expand outside national borders to gain geopolitical influence (like through wars, proxy wars and terrorism).
Additionally, it’s questionable that “life” is all that counts (slavery wasn’t about killing people, Russian oppression isn’t about killing Ukrainians). Finally there is a hidden death toll that one must taken into account when talking about such authoritarian regimes given some inconveniences that add up to greater economic inequalities (the costs of boycotts and sanctions often end up oppressing the local population even more e.g. when the population lacks the foreign treatments necessary for their survivals, or gay or political activists are killed in prison).

Okay, so Putin is pushing for war — Olivier5

I think this is pretty obvious. Given that he invaded a country.

and Biden is not. — Olivier5

Biden — or at least his administration — is pushing for war as well. By blocking negotiations.

Exactly what I was saying! — Olivier5

If you’re not really interested in talking, please don’t waste my time.

Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma. — Manuel

True. Not sure if that corrective makes a difference.

but we have escalations. — Manuel

Yes. And now the US will be giving Ukraine a missile defense system so they can protect their people from Russian attacks.

It's horrendous that Putin would do this. I think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it.