I gave a sample of reports above. There are others, if interested.

Please do post / repost anything you have. I'm genuinely interested.

https://www.salon.com/2022/10/11/ukraines-victory-almost-a-done-deal-military-expert-on-how-invasion-imploded/

So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. — Olivier5

Funny how the threshold of evidence suddenly increases dramatically when criticicing the US.

You seem to have no trouble saying...

Let's face it: the Ukrainians are not really interested at this point, and nor are the Russians. — Olivier5

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then.
— frank

There was no fight back from Ukraine. We can't sell weapons to an army that isn't fighting can we? — Isaac

Oh, c'mon. Be genuine for a second.

Oh, c'mon. Be genuine for a second — frank

If Ukraine don't mount an armed response we can't very well sell them weapons for it can we? I don't understand what your problem is with that argument.

Of course.

Then again changes take place a person at a time, at all levels of society. Even if the circle is very small, it's still a circle.

If Ukraine don't mount an armed response we can't very well sell them weapons for it can we? — Isaac

Sell them weapons? Who sold anybody any weapons?

Sell them weapons? Who sold anybody any weapons? — frank

Sorry, I meant military aid. The arms industry sells them the government because they're donating them to Ukraine. Point is the same, that can't happen if there's no fight to start with.

Sorry, I meant military aid. The arms industry sells them the government because they're donating them to Ukraine. Point is the same, that can't happen if there's no fight to start with. — Isaac

Kiev condemned the annexation. A war could have happened. Obama was criticized for failing to support an armed retake.

And somehow the US passed up an opportunity to blow some shit up. :chin:

I now read them. I agree that in May, the US admin was getting giddy about the prospect of a proxy war, and this is I think exactly when I wrote against this giddiness. Still, I didn't know that Johnson had (alledgedly) this effect on Zelensky.

A war could have happened. — frank

Sure. Maybe Biden would have pushed harder. But the situations were not the same. Numerous other factors were at play, the main one being that there wasn't a war to fund.

And somehow the US passed up an opportunity to blow some shit up. :chin: — frank

To be fair, they were quite happily occupied blowing shit up in Afghanistan.

Odd coincidence the appearance of a new war to fund barely a few months after leaving the last one.

Sure. Maybe Biden would have pushed harder. But the situations were not the same. Numerous other factors were at play, the main one being that there wasn't a war to fund. — Isaac

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?

By KAZANEVSKY (Ukraine), Cartooning for Peace.

Still, I didn't know that Johnson had (alledgedly) this effect on Zelensky. — Olivier5

You’ve also heard comments made by secretary Austin about the US’s goals:

“we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine."

US officials, however, had previously been reluctant to state as plainly that the US' goal is to see Russia fail, and be militarily neutered in the long term, remaining cautiously optimistic that some kind of negotiated settlement could be reached.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html

That’s what troubles me — not the fact that the US is helping Ukrainians defend their country from an invasion. They should do that, as should the whole world. But in conjunction with that defense should also be equally serious pressure to engage in peace negotiations.

The justification for not doing so — that Putin is a war criminal, that a guarantee on not joining NATO is unacceptable, etc. — is less than unconvincing, in my view.

The justification for not doing so — that Putin is a war criminal, that a guarantee on not joining NATO is unacceptable, etc. — is less than unconvincing, in my view. — Xtrix

I would think that after Bucha and all the other crime scenes, it's easy to understand why the Ukrainians would want revenge and wouldn't be interested in diplomacy.

On the US side, they have the Red Army right where they want it: in a trap. It is also easy to understand why they don't press for diplomacy.

The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him.

Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that.

Talks could start by Putin calling Zelenskyy, or Zelenskyy calling Putin. That'd be fantastic. :up:

Meanwhile, Putin rolled out the submission-machine months ago, which has been offloading artillery fire and missiles since. A fairly impressive amount at that, occasionally unleashing the mercs during Vodka breaks.

• Stop attacks on health care in Ukraine (Mar 13, 2022)
• Ukraine sees room for compromise, as 20,000 escape Mariupol (Mar 16, 2022)
• Ukraine: Deadly Attacks Kill, Injure Civilians, Destroy Homes (Mar 18, 2022)
• Bucha massacre (Mar 31, 2022)

The daily killing of civilians, the torture, disappearances and other violations must stop. If the hostilities will not stop, then the absolute minimum required is to fully respect international humanitarian and human rights law and commit to protecting every civilian woman, man and child and those hors de combat. — Matilda Bogner commenting on findings Feb 24 - May 15 2022

• Ongoing shelling has led to homes being destroyed with many living in bomb shelters without access to basic services. (Jun 22, 2022)
• Russia’s War in Ukraine — The Devastation of Health and Human Rights (Jul 14, 2022)
• at its disposal is the scorched earth tactic, based on artillery superiority (Jul 17, 2022)
• Russian strikes on Zaporizhzhia kill at least 12, Ukrainian officials say (Oct 9, 2022) | Missile strikes on Zaporizhzhia leaves at least 12 dead, dozens injured (Oct 9, 2022; 2m:27s youtube)
• Dozens of Russian missiles hit multiple Ukrainian cities (Oct 10, 2022)

^{↑ Image source: Russian Missile Blitz Signals Escalation (Oct 10, 2022)}
• Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO
(anyway, reports continue on)

We're not just talking some skirmishes between combatants out Donbas way. The kind of madness here calls for guarantees, more than just he-said-she-said. I can see why Ukraine sought NATO membership, like Finland and Sweden since did.

Commitments to questionable future predictions aren't that easy to come by here, especially not in the case of handing over self-power. Loss of any trust there may have been doesn't help, either.

Diplomacy difficult, even if welcomed. :/ The destruction bombing onslaught shams is what there is to deal with.

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. — Isaac

Spoken like a Ukrainian fighter? ;)

Another aspect of the situation and thread could be a purely military strategic tactical discussion. Might not have enough (real) information, would have to make assumptions along the way.

The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him.

Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that. — frank

Yep. The danger is that Putin is locked into his own spiral of escalation. And such trajectories are exponential. Each step grows bigger and riskier. Time for him to be gone. The will of Ukraine means it would be nuts for the West not to support this opportunity if the escalation narrative holds water.

Biden says Putin is a rational actor who is now making wild miscalculations - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html

The obvious reason this could be the case is that Putin has become the victim of his own information autocracy. He has narrowed his contact with the real world to the degree even his inner circle can’t be honest with him. He presides over a systemically corrupt state - one that exists by faking competence - and now that means he no longer has the good advice and information on which to base his rational calculations. The bullshit about Russia being functionally competent is believed. Only in the battlefield is that bullshit exposed.

But Putin has to continue to fake strength and control. And indeed a purity of intention to cover up the stench of a state structure rotting away ever faster each day. To hold power, he must double down.

Better that violent energy is directed inwards right now rather than allowing it to continue spreading outwards by saying sure, take Ukraine, help yourself. We can live with these “small incursions”, even though they grow bigger each time.

How would you negotiate with someone who is rational and yet who has constructed his own echo chamber of disinformation as to the power he wields? What inflated set of terms would he be willing to accept? And having inflamed the whole of Ukraine as a nation, why would anyone expect them to accept a patently bad deal?

The West had to make a choice given the conditions that are of Putin’s doing. What is rational as its own war aim now that war is what is happening?

Crimea wasn’t a step too far. Donbas separatism wasn’t a step too far. But taking over Ukraine to add to Belarus as part of the new Russian empire expanding back towards its “rightful” place in the world is where you might want to rationally call a halt. And given the chance of a people only too eager to lead their own fight, the US at last had a chance just to spend the dollars and not get directly involved in the way that always goes wrong.

No evidence, no 'proof'. — Isaac

No evidence, no 'proof' of what exactly? I was just exposing a conceptual framework.

The requests for 'proof only started when I objected to that position. — Isaac

That's false. Your objection started with: "How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746158)
To which I answered: "I didn't equate representation and sovereignty anywhere. I was talking about pre-condition for the implementation of state institutions that support human rights. State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory." (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746177)
So no, I didn't ask you for proofs in this case. On the contrary I exposed once again my conceptual framework. You might have objected that it's incoherent or with little explanatory power and consequently I would have asked you for proofs. But such a random objection like "representation is not the same thing as sovereignty" simply means you didn't understand what I was talking about. That’s all.

You present a position without proof, I object to it, you demand proof of my objection. That's the game we're playing. It's a game of toss and catch with the burden of proof. — Isaac

First of all, I don't feel compelled to prove all I say by default to anybody nor expect others to prove me all their claims by default. For those claims that I find questionable I ask for proofs, if others didn't provide any. Others can do the same, as you did: I take your objections to be about what you find questionable and in need of proofs about my claims. Hence I don’t see anything worth complaining about, so far. Secondly, these shifts of burden of proof are kind of common when we experience a clash of idiosyncratic assumptions, but if your point is that I was unfair to you because you most of the time provide evidence when I ask while I don't when you ask, then you provided the wrong argument to support that conclusion as I explained. Thirdly, if you claim: “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”, then why on earth do you keep making objections?

Classic example...

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? — neomac


No, let's instead do that with the actual claim I'm arguing against. If you think 1) is the better course of action then you give your figures to support it. And if you just 'reckon' it probably is then stop being so hypocritical in expecting others who disagree with you to do so to any higher standard of proof than you yourself use. — Isaac

This argument is a failure on all grounds: not only because it is another wrong argument to prove a putative "classic example” (and 2 bad examples are not really good stats), but also because all you are asking now I already answered in previous comments and complemented in that part you intentionally left out in that quotation. All that also suggests that you evidently failed to understand "my standards”:

- Let’s start with my standards as I already specified them:
“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.” (By “such quizzes” I’m referring to a certain way of accounting for costs and benefits of this war that seem relevant to you, in other words we are looking at different kinds of figures https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747341).

- How about “my figures” to support option 1 according to my standards? Here: how likely is that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU) than by being within the sphere of influence of an anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights (see first step), if not now in the future? I say it’s more likely, based on historical evidence (see Germany, Italy and Spain after WWII) and ex-Soviet Union countries that joined EU and NATO after the Soviet Union collapse. Also the democracy index is telling (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/democracy-index-2022-europe.jpg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking): Russian democracy index is lower than any country in the EU and Belarus which is under the sphere of influence of Russia is even lower than Russia, Kazakhstan better of Russia for few points. Is this enough evidence? If not why not? (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949).

- How about “my figures” to question option 2 according to my standards?
Here: “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).” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747342)

The obvious reason this could be the case is that Putin has become the victim of his own information autocracy. He has narrowed his contact with the real world to the degree even his inner circle can’t be honest with him. He presides over a systemically corrupt state - one that exists by faking competence - and now that means he no longer has the good advice and information on which to base his rational calculations — apokrisis

Obama echoes that same sentiment.

Hah, yes. Putin is no longer Putin as he himself is now a fully paid up member of the cult of Putin.

The dynamic is so similar to that of Trump. Another escalation machine with cultish informational autocracy - the faking of competence as a political structure.

This kind of influencer social dynamic is breaking out everywhere in modern life. The medium is the message as they used to say.

Ukraine exploited this new information environment to spin up its own sense of national identity in double quick time. All the drone videos and cell phone intercepts.

Elon Musk is another aspect of this phenomena. The Murdochs of old had to hide their power. The new influencers become its open face so as to publicly own the resulting disinformation bubble. How dangerous will Musk eventually prove?

We are in a different era of geopolitics and its reality making realism. Those who think Ukraine is a minor special operation that now needs rational negotiation, just haven't adjusted to that fact.

I would think that after Bucha and all the other crime scenes, it's easy to understand why the Ukrainians would want revenge and wouldn't be interested in diplomacy. — Olivier5

Right, all the more reason why the examples I mentioned are poor justifications — given by the US — for not encouraging talks. It’ll only get more people killed as this escalates, with the potential for nuclear war. That’s just madness. I don’t by any means blame the Ukrainian people for not being calmly rational about all this, but the US and UK certainly can try to be — for the sake of both the Ukrainians and the world.

On the US side, they have the Red Army right where they want it: in a trap. It is also easy to understand why they don't press for diplomacy. — Olivier5

Yes, and then consider what I quoted earlier:

To put it simply, the U.S. position that the war must continue to severely weaken Russia, blocking negotiations, is based on a quite remarkable assumption: that facing defeat, Putin will pack his bags and slink away to a bitter fate. He will not do what he easily can: strike across Ukraine with impunity using Russia’s conventional weapons, destroying critical infrastructure and Ukrainian government buildings, attacking the supply hubs outside Ukraine, moving on to sophisticated cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets. All of this is easily within Russia’s conventional capacity, as U.S. government and the Ukrainian military command acknowledge — with the possibility of escalation to nuclear war in the not remote background.

The assumption is worth contemplating. It is too quickly evaded.

So while it’s easy to understand, it’s not easy to accept — at least for me. I think the US is making a terrible and potentially fatal mistake. To roll the dice like this is, again, madness.

The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him. — frank

I don’t pretend to have any special knowledge about Putin’s motivations. I’m sure this played a role. I’m sure egoism played a role, etc.

Then we can listen and hear the explanations he’s given and see what we think. When he claims that NATO expansion was a threat to Russian security, we can ask if that’s played a role as well. I think it undoubtedly has.

So there’s a lot to be said of why he’s committed this crime. I’m more interested in how my government is involved and what it can do to stop the war. Which is what we were discussing — not speculations about Putin’s intentions.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. — frank

Yes— an idiotic and suicidal notion, but seemingly the current policy of my government. That’s what I’d like to change.

Sorry, this may seem out of left field and no offense is meant, but I’m wondering: do you write all of these links out yourself, or are these somehow copy-and-paste jobs?

Seems like a lot of work if the former— and a shame, because my instinct is always to ignore them entirely. I’m not sure why — maybe too much information, maybe it looks like a paste-job, etc. But I’m curious either way. You do it often.

Honest question: did you not realize Biden is a hawk when you voted for him? Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead?

When Biden said to the world "We're back!" after he was elected, what did you think that meant about US foreign policy during his presidency?

I guess I'm looking to get a handle on exactly how blind American voters tend to be.

Crimea wasn’t a step too far. Donbas separatism wasn’t a step too far. But taking over Ukraine to add to Belarus as part of the new Russian empire expanding back towards its “rightful” place in the world is where you might want to rationally call a halt. And given the chance of a people only too eager to lead their own fight, the US at last had a chance just to spend the dollars and not get directly involved in the way that always goes wrong. — apokrisis

That’s probably all true, in my opinion. But it’s not a complete picture. It’s a narrative that leaves out a lot of information — information that’s equally true and relevant.

Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead? — frank

:lol:

Apparently not. Ya didn't pay attention.

do you write all of these links out yourself, or are these somehow copy-and-paste jobs? — Xtrix

By and large, they're docs that scroll by elsewhere (notifiers, friends, family, feeds, facebook, twitter, the evening news, etc), then I scan through some for broader context, do a bit of searching/checking, and keep some in text files. Yep, occasionally I reuse/post stuff from those text files, and yep I do type the darn forum code in myself. :) I suppose it is a bit of work, though it has become a habit to do fairly quickly. (Some of these forum posts of mine were typed into a text file first, including this one.)

FYI (not that it matters here), elsewhere I started a pandemic tracker mid-2020 or so, which has grown to a tediously long list of docs/links/events/whatever. Over time it became littered with anti-vaxxer stuff and such, probably as many as scientific studies.

(if that answers your question)