Yep, occasionally I reuse/post stuff from those text files, and yep I do type the darn forum code in myself. — jorndoe

Well that seems tedious, but kudos to you for doing so!

It’s a narrative that leaves out a lot of information — information that’s equally true and relevant. — Xtrix

Feel free to make mention of what my narrative fails to incorporate. I’ve been known to change my mind. :grin:

Well that’s a merit!

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman.

The US doesn’t act benevolently at this scale. Russia and their ally, China, have been defying the international order, of which the US is in charge, and this is threatening to US hegemony.

In my view, this is partly why we have a war, why the US is supporting Ukraine to the degree it is, and why it has and continues to discourage peace negotiations.

None of this is evident from the narrative you provide, however accurate it may otherwise be.

what Russia is doing is criminal — Manuel

It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game.

, I need a memory upgrade. Curiosity will get the best of me.

It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game. — jorndoe

I assume that when one says "Russia" or the "US" or "Ukraine", one is not referring to a land mass, much less to millions of people, with different opinions and perspectives.

The interest of a politician, or an oil baron, is not the same interest of that of a nurse, housekeeper, plumber or mechanic.

It almost always refers to the elites who are making the decisions, whether in military or private capacity, they are the ones who dictate policy. Granted, even in elite groups there can be dissent, but those aren't the ones making decisions.

You are right to bring it up, and although I have mentioned it a few times, not emphatically enough, it's an important topic.

As for Putin's agenda, sure. Similar to Erdogan or others who have some power. But he has nukes, which makes it very dangerous.

Forgot who was asking, but here is the evidence of US/Ukraine bombing of bridge:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html

Where is the verification of the following claim in the article:

"The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times."

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix

I’m no fan of the US. I’ve avoided even travelling there for 25 years. But the US level of provocation was tiny compared to the level of Russian escalation.

Do you think the Obama and the Trump years somehow left Putin no choice? Or that Biden arrived and suddenly Putin saw a leader of cunning and flair? In poker terms, Putin had to go all in on whatever cards were in his hand?

Sure, Western media is going to frame events in the standard Hollywood tropes. The US has its own domestic audience to placate. And it has even had weak presidents like Bush jnr who seemed to believe his own “fighting for a free world” script.

But in this conflict, you can’t claim the US engineered events. And you can’t blame it for taking advantage if a cheap opportunity now presents itself.

Sure Ukrainians will suffer to restore their sovereignty. But that’s the game and how it works.

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.

The US doesn’t act benevolently at this scale. Russia and their ally, China, have been defying the international order, of which the US is in charge, and this is threatening to US hegemony. — Xtrix

I side with analysts like Peter Zeihan who stress that the US has always tended towards isolationism because of its geography. It just needs to secure Canada and Mexico as part of its North American hegemony and life is sweet. Anything more is gravy.

Trump was an incompetent and yet even under him the US made its major steps in this direction, weakening Nato commitments, signing targeted trade deals with Canada and Mexico, then adding in Japan, Taiwan and Korea as a sufficient bulwark against China. Russia was already fading from importance. The Gulf likewise was captive to the petrodollar. It owns a lion’s share of the US debt, and so had to suffer the Fed money printing the US out of its every economic hiccup, while also watching the US again become a hydrocarbon exporter through fracking technology.

So your geopolitical analysis builds in outdated neocon presumptions about the US’s self interests. Although that doesn’t mean that the GOP and even Hawkish democrats have necessarily caught up with that seismic swing back to a withdrawal from the wider world.

Yes, the US will defend its hegemony. It’s people believe that to be their god-given right. Every Hollywood movie is designed to reinforce the message in a nauseatingly crass fashion.

But the nature of that hegemony has changed. It doesn’t need to be the world’s policeman making the globe a safer and fairer place for even its smallest and weakest. Given climate change and technology advance, it is better off becoming the isolationist regime that always made the most self-interested geopolitical sense.

From the US view, Russia was already on death row. Let Europe and Asia suck its last drop of oil and gas.

China is also about to fall off its demographic cliff. Let it try to pivot to an economics of domestic consumption as the US pulls all its manufacturing back to cheap and reliable Mexico.

Of course it will take another 10 years for the whole US system to itself reorientate to this new reality. Trump couldn’t articulate the change. Biden only becomes convincing when he recycles the lines of his yesteryear training. This new logic of disengagement only perhaps becomes visible in events like the careless abruptness of his casting aside Afghanistan as an asset.

But anyway, judge events in Ukraine against a backdrop that has itself changed. A neocon analysis is so 1990s - even if it is true that large chunks of US institutional thinking might be still stuck in that time warp.

None of this is evident from the narrative you provide, however accurate it may otherwise be. — Xtrix

Hope I have shown that my narrative is based on the world as it is, even if that is also a world in transition.

I don’t feel you’ve really understood me. A lot of your post is strawmaning. And I want it to be noted that it was you who started with insults, not me.

That said:

But the US level of provocation was tiny compared to the level of Russian escalation. — apokrisis

This comparison is meaningless.

Do you think the Obama and the Trump years somehow left Putin no choice? Or that Biden arrived and suddenly Putin saw a leader of cunning and flair? In poker terms, Putin had to go all in on whatever cards were in his hand? — apokrisis

No.

But in this conflict, you can’t claim the US engineered events. And you can’t blame it for taking advantage if a cheap opportunity now presents itself. — apokrisis

I never said the US engineered the events.

I can blame it for contributing to the war’s occurrence and its protraction — for reasons I’ve discussed at length.

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment. — apokrisis

I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. As is the case with most people who launch accusations like this, I don’t see much evidence of it. I see a standard narrative that conceals information.

I side with analysts like Peter Zeihan who stress that the US has always tended towards isolationism because of its geography. It just needs to secure Canada and Mexico as part of its North American hegemony and life is sweet. Anything more is gravy. — apokrisis

This is complete nonsense.

The US has been at war in nearly every year since its founding. It’s true that the population often doesn’t want war — at the beginning of WW1 and post Vietnam — but that has nothing to do with state action.

The current economy is also a global one. The US government, contrary to your claims, knows this very well.

It owns a lion’s share of the US debt, — apokrisis

It does not own the lion’s share of US debt.

Again I reiterate your own accusation: perhaps it’s best to know something about the actual world.

So your geopolitical analysis builds in outdated neocon presumptions about the US’s self interests. — apokrisis

There’s nothing “neocon” about my analysis of US foreign policy.

it is better off becoming the isolationist regime that always made the most self-interested geopolitical sense. — apokrisis

Doubtful. But even if true, it isn’t close to happening.

China is also about to fall off its demographic cliff. Let it try to pivot to an economics of domestic consumption as the US pulls all its manufacturing back to cheap and reliable Mexico. — apokrisis

There’s going to be less people in China. The US is also below replacement levels, though not as much.

Mexico has nowhere near the infrastructure and labor force China has.

Of course it will take another 10 years for the whole US system to itself reorientate to this new reality. — apokrisis

This new reality you talk about — apparently a move towards “isolationism” — doesn’t exist. It didn’t exist under Trump, it doesn’t exist under Biden. The people who run this country — corporate America — and their bedfellows (politicians) are nearly all neoliberals. This involves the rest of the world, both in commodities and in labor. That’s not going to change. What may change is US hegemony.

A neocon analysis is so 1990s - even if it is true that large chunks of US institutional thinking might be still stuck in that time warp. — apokrisis

My analysis has nothing whatever to do with neoconservatism.

Large chunks of US institutions are neoliberals — globalists. Both democrats and republicans. It’s not 1990s, it’s been every decade since roughly 1980 to the present.

Hope I have shown that my narrative is based on the world as it is, even if that is also a world in transition. — apokrisis

No, it’s the world you claim it is — and that claim is deeply inaccurate and made without any convincing evidence, historical or otherwise.

And I want it to be noted that it was you who started with insults, not me. — Xtrix

Insults?

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument? — frank

Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did, but my current claim is only that funding perpetuates war - makes continued war more likely than early peace.

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

Funny that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/05/meet-bidens-new-foreign-policy-team-same-obamas-old-foreign-policy-team/

You might have objected that it's incoherent or with little explanatory power and consequently I would have asked you for proofs. — neomac

It's this I was talking about.. But fine, you present 'conceptual frameworks' that apparently don't need proof and then ask for it from others. An odd habit, but understood. So. I'm asking you for you proof now then.

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? — neomac

I don't. You do. It's astonishing how frequently this is happening on this thread. A narrative is presented, it's critiqued, then that criticism is treated as the claim. I'm not objecting to your position at all. I'm objecting to your implication that it counters my position.

Let's say there are two conflicting narratives on a subject theory A and theory B, but they are underdetermined by the evidence such that it cannot be said which is the case. My position is A and yours if B. You have claimed that my A is mistaken, you propose the alternative B. I'm not claiming your B is mistaken. I'm only countering your claim that my A is mistaken. That's not the same.

I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken.

I'm not upholding the counter-position that A is correct and B is mistaken.

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 — neomac

Yes. There's no need to start over. Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons @boethius has already given - You have failed to take any account of the costs. It's insane to propose a course of action based only on the potential benefits without even holding a view on whether they outweigh the potential costs.

- 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 — neomac

Well then you should check your historical evidence...

As Janne Mende argues...

the Western human rights tradition cannot be equated with the contemporary human rights regime, which differs from its pre-1945 predecessors (Moyn, 2012). It was not the gradual increase of declarations or a smooth combination of natural law and citizenship rights that led to the foundation of the international human rights regime, but rather the international reaction to the genocide and atrocities committed by National Socialist Germany

Interpreting the pre-1945 declarations in their historical contexts reveals that they were not fully embraced by Western societies at the time but were the subject of highly controversial struggles (Bielefeldt, 2007: 182f.).3 What is more, pre-1945 non-Western movements and struggles encompassed similar or even further-reaching ideas that provided a foundation for human rights.

Critical accounts identify a tendency to overemphasize human rights violations in the Global South. This tends to construct a non-Western “other” that needs to be saved by Western states (Chakrabarty, 2008; Kapur, 2006). Thereby, the human rights regime creates a dichotomy between the Western embracement and the non-Western violation of human rights (Mutua, 2008). This dichotomy neglects human rights violations in Western states and disregards the complicity of the latter with the former (Chowdhry, 2005).

Deliberations within UN human rights for a highlight fault lines characterized by regional, substantial, and strategic alliances, not simply Western versus non-Western states. Human rights activists and diplomats from the Global South use the human rights framework to strengthen their demands. In a recent example, a group of non-Western states initiated a working group dedicated to drafting a binding treaty for corporate responsibility for human rights. The group was led by Ecuador and South Africa, and supported by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru, among others, as well as by NGOs from all parts of the world. Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union, they were successful in that the UN Human Rights Council founded an intergovernmental working group (Mende, 2017) that published its Zero Draft in 2018. — Janne Mende, Department of International Relations, Institute of Political Science, Justus Liebig University

Ahmed Shaheed gives some historical context...

Fifty-eight countries assembled in 1948 to affirm their “faith in the dignity and worth of all persons” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein a framework for preserving that dignity and fostering respect for its worth was offered. Among these states were, African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Thirty-seven states were associated with Judeo-Christian traditions; 11 Islamic; six Marxist; and four identified as being associated with Buddhist-Confucian traditions.

...It was Egyptian delegate, Omar Lutfi, who proposed that the UDHR reference the “universality” of human rights

...social and economic rights were placed on the agenda as a result of pushes from the Arab States and the Soviet bloc, respectively.

...the Soviet bloc, which demanded more emphasis on socio‐economic rights than referenced in the document

...the UDHR was formed with major influence from non-Western states, thereby giving it legitimacy as a truly universally-applicable charter to guide humanity’s pursuit of peace and security.

...states like Chile, Jamaica, Argentina, Ghana, the Philippines and others were vanguards for the advancement of concepts such as “protecting,” in addition to “promoting” human rights.

In 1963, for example, fourteen non-Western UN member states requested that the General Assembly include a discussion on the Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam on its agenda, alleging that the Diem regime had been perpetuating violations of rights of Vietnamese Buddhists in the country

in 1967, a cross-regional group of states from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean secured the adoption of two commission resolutions, establishing the first two Special Procedure mandates: the Ad-Hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa and the Special Rapporteur on Apartheid. The special procedures mechanism was thus established. Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining. — Dr. Ahmed Shaheed - UN Special Rapporteur

Your notion that human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda.

- 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? — neomac

None of those are figures, they're questions. I could provide the same level of counter-argument to the theory of a round earth - "how likely is it the earth is round?". Vague hand-waiving in the direction of possible counterweights does not constitute an argument that they do, indeed outweigh their opposing factors. As I said before, if all you've got is a vague 'feeling' that strategy (1) is more likely to succeed with less loss of life ultimately, then fine, but your vague feeling is not a counterargument to strategy (2) and shouldn't be presented as one.

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? — apokrisis

The answer is fairly simple. You find out first by actually trying rather than committing the world to the brink of nuclear war on the basis of some armchair psychology from a thousand miles away.

The extent to which this is all treated like some computer game is truly frightening. We're talking about the threat of nuclear war here, at the very least we're talking about a protracted an bloody land war. The idea that either should be risked for even another day on the basis of some guesswork about Putin's mental state is absolutely insane. Until absolutely every avenue for peace has been thoroughly and uncompromisingly pursued, then any recommendation other than peace talks is warmongering.

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. — Xtrix

Biden is wakening to the risk that Putin goes nuclear, so there's some progress there. But what you are talking about -- keep diplomacy alive in spite of everything -- is a job for Europeans, or Turks. Biden would have no credibility in that role.

Vladimir Putin on the edge of a precipice, with a nuclear warhead around his neck. This is how Wprost depicts the Russian president in its latest issue dated October 10. In its editorial, the Polish weekly believes that the Russian president is engaging in a nuclear bluff that has no chance of success.

Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny. — ssu

This was not the issue under contention. — boethius

OK, at least with this you agree. Yet you continue...

apokrisis's hypothesis is that no analysis and no expert is credible, other than the Russian military is incompetent.

Incompetence is a pretty high threshold and you can of course be competent and still fail, especially in a negative sum game such as war.

Even higher threshold is claiming "all credible analysis" agrees with your position. — boethius

Umm...just who is saying that the Russian army is competent and very effective? :roll:

There are several reasons just why people can argue that Russia's armed forces are incompetent, just starting from actual eye-witness stories and that performance on the battlefield. One can simply see themselves from the footage. The looting, the brutality towards civilians, the use of alcohol, failure of resupplying, it all tells of low morale and serious problems. Many armies suffer from these kind of problems, usually in the poor countries with low education levels and large social problems. It takes a lot, not just money, to create an effective armed forces. (Just look at the performance of the Saudi's in Yemen.)

The reasons for the problems in the Russian armed forces are many and start, as usually they start, from the society that the armed forces are part of. The Russian armed forces were formed from the Soviet Army, and that there is a really big bag of problems, which couldn't be easily reformed and modernized. The Russian army is enormous compared to the economy of Russia, which itself creates problems. Then there's the military culture. which starts from things like not focusing on the individual and him or her initiative, but a top-down command structure where initiative in lower ranks isn't promoted. Even the Finnish military manuals (that are public) say that the attack of the enemy can halt if the commander/commanding unit is destroyed.

It's said (quite convincingly) that the reason just why so many generals have died in the war in Ukraine is that they have had to lead from the front, literally. This isn't anything new. From the Russo-Georgian war there's video footage of the commander of the entire army, not a division commander or a battalion commander, giving orders surrounded to a large groups of officers and drivers on how the armoured spearhead should advance. He is standing next to the row of tanks on the road side and hence creating an obvious target assuming there would have been good forward observers and drones for the Georgians artillery (which they didn't have). It's basically WW2 style command when radios or any other communication equipment was scarce. Then comes everything else in the Russian system from corruption.

I could go on, but I don't think anyone would read me as it's a very long story.

Forgot who was asking, but here is the evidence of US/Ukraine bombing of bridge:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html — Manuel

Wow, Manuel. I knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this? This is your source of information? This is your standard of evidence?

On Friday, Ukrainian special forces organized a suicide bombing on the Kerch bridge connecting Crimea and the Russian mainland, killing three people and collapsing half of one span of the bridge. — World Socialist Web Site

"Ukrainian special forces organized a suicide bombing" - this is given as an established fact. How was it established?

The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times. — World Socialist Web Site

I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference.

In an expression of the consummate cynicism that pervades all aspects of US reporting on the war in Ukraine, the media acted as though the jury was out on who carried out the attack.

News outlets said Putin “blamed” the Ukrainian military and “alleged” that the suicide bombing targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure was a “terrorist attack,” as though this was not self-evident. — World Socialist Web Site

Wait, didn't they just say that the media - the New York Times, no less - already admitted this? Did they make that up? But who cares - it's self-evident!

The latest attack on Crimea comes despite Biden’s explicit public pledge that the United States would not allow its NATO proxy to attack Russian territory. “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders,” Biden wrote in May, announcing the deployment of the HIMARS system to Ukraine.

It has now emerged that this, like everything else the United States has said about limitations on its involvement in the war, was simply a lie. By pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems, backed by the full might of the NATO military-industrial complex, the US has allowed its NATO proxy to score a wave of battlefield advances that set the stage for the latest terror attack. — World Socialist Web Site

Here they simply brush off the fact (cited earlier in the article) that the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (накачка украины оружием - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook.

I currently cannot access the NYT articles, which are paywalled. You are correct that there is no link given for this claim.

As for the terrorist attack, it is defined in numerous ways, Oxford for instance defines it as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Is the bridge in Crimea used for civilian purposes in addition to military ones? Yes.

Is it a legitimate target? Sure. Was it a smart action to do this? I don't think so, look at the results of such actions. This much was predictable.

Of course, there is no doubt that Russia is committing, by far, the most terrorist attacks in Ukraine, it's not even a competition.

the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (накачка украины оружием - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook — SophistiCat

You are right. On the other hand, it is de facto taken to be part of Russia. Obama applied the mildest of sanctions when the Russia annexed Crimea. It has important military value for Russia, given the naval base they have there.

I don't think this area will be given back. The newly annexed territories are a different matter, this was a desperate attempt to save face given the counterattack.

The quoted phrase may indeed be out of the Russian propaganda playbook, but it is no less true for being so. You think Ukraine would've lasted much without such help?

I happen to think that the longer this lasts, the more civilians will die, which is not good for Ukraine by the way.

It's this I was talking about.. But fine, you present 'conceptual frameworks' that apparently don't need proof and then ask for it from others. An odd habit, but understood. So. I'm asking you for you proof now then. — Isaac

Proof of what? Its consistency? What is the proof you are expecting I should provide? Do you see
any logic contradiction or categorical confusion in claiming: “State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory.”? Do you see any contradiction between what I claimed here and all my past claims? I don't. Do you want me to prove its explanatory power? I would need an alternative conceptual framework to compare it within a set of identified phenomena? Where is this alternative conceptual framework? What phenomena are we talking about? No idea. Do you want me to prove that my conceptual framework matches standard usage? I don't think it's that relevant coz terminological issues can be fixed by stipulation, however I could show a dictionary definition for comparison: “state, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty.” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-sovereign-political-entity). Do you see any contradictions between what I claimed and that definition? Do you see any substantive mismatch between my claim and that definition, wording aside? I don’t. What else? Oh, what on earth your objection “Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty” has to do with my claim, its consistency or its explanatory power? No idea, my claim doesn’t even mention “representation”, so nowhere I said or implied that “representation is the same thing as sovereignty".
An objection is about what one finds questionable for hopefully “rational” reasons. What are you reasons to find my conceptual framework questionable and in need of proofs?

I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken. I'm not upholding the counter-position that A is correct and B is mistaken. — Isaac

This looks a good example of clashing idiosyncratic assumptions I was talking about, because the evidential indeterminacy claim is itself indeterminate as long as it is not grounded on a conceptual framework for collecting and comparing evidences for a given epistemic purpose: e.g. web app logins are designed to identify the web app accounts, not to identify physical users because 2 different physical users could use the same web app account. So while the usage of a web app account is evidentially determined by the login system, the user is not. Therefore one can not use a login trace as evidence for the fact that e.g. a blackmailing email was sent a by a given physical individual. Unless there are other contextual reliable generalizations or evidences that would ensure this by inference.
That is why it is pertinent to clarify our epistemic standards for assessing evidences.

Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons boethius has already given - You have failed to take any account of the costs. It's insane to propose a course of action based only on the potential benefits without even holding a view on whether they outweigh the potential costs. — Isaac

It is flawed according to your epistemic standards. The problem is that I too find your epistemic standards (like costs in number of war casualties vs vaguely potential benefits in terms of timing and likelihood) flawed and useless for my decision making for the reasons I explained.
Here another case to make it more clear: Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Let’s try to assess it according to your claimed metrics.
Costs: total killed civilians estimates in a range 129000–226000 out of ~72M (so ~0.2%-~0.3% of the population) in 4 days. Just for a comparison with the Ukrainian war: 6114 estimated civilian deaths out of ~43M population (0,01% of the total population) in ~210 days, https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/10/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-3-october-2022
Benefits (for Japan): democracy almost immediately after, human rights adoption (See art.11 of 1946 Japanese Constitution) and steep growth in GDP per capita in the next couple of decades (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?time=1941..2018&country=JPN~RUS).
Now was it worth it to nuclear bomb Japan according to these metrics? I don’t know what your answer is based on your standards and prescriptions (like "to be solely concerned for the well-being of the people there" as compassionate outsiders). In any case this would be an a-posteriori evaluation, because at the time when the decision was taken nobody had your figures for the future benefits of Japan. So at that time was it worth to politically support the nuclear bombing of Japan?
We are in the middle of historical events, future payoffs for each conceivable strategy are not as certain or evident (wrt their likelihood, timing and entity) as the actual costs. Besides, concerning the costs: civilian deaths is a too little metric to assess war damage (how about civilian injuries? How about psychological damage? How about infrastructural and economic damage? How about lasting and likely future effects of all these damages? How about international political equilibria?) but the larger is the number of metrics the difficult is their aggregation (do they have the same relevance or do we have to ponder their relevance? How to assign weights?) and comparison with other historical cases (because maybe not all those metrics are equally available or reliable) or imagine counterfactual scenarios (which depend on a set of assumptions that maybe be questionable).
Not to mention the theoretical and scientific difficulties in assessing the economic, (geo-)political, social, psychological, material links between costs and benefits of complex historical events over generations.
Finally the higher are the rational standards the less affordable they become to average people and the less realistic is our expectations they would comply to them.
That’s why I consider this “accountant”-like approach badly misleading for average people’s political decision making, especially in the heat of historical events, while broad geopolitical considerations and historical evidences (which, notice, change over time: before the nuclear bombing of Japan there was no previous case to compare to) would offer clearer and affordable guidance under uncertainty, in addition to experts feedback and daily news of course.

Well then you should check your historical evidence… — Isaac

Why? What exactly did I say that your experts’ quotations is questioning? Quote my claims that are contradicted by Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union or “Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining”. I can’t find any.
I’m talking about the fate of States that enter the Western sphere of influence not the ones that are outside for whatever reason. I’m talking in comparative terms about entity, likelihood, timing of the implementation of human rights supporting institutions within the Western sphere of influence as marked by NATO and EU membership (because these are Ukrainians’ aspirations) wrt non-Western countries, especially wrt authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran and their sphere of influence.

human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda. — Isaac

It is Western propaganda of course! But it looks also a reliable one within the scope I’m considering not in whatever ways you may think about it. Unless you are claiming that within authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran according to you and your sources human rights institutions are equally or better implemented than in the West. In this case, there would be another clash of idiosyncratic assumptions which, this time, I have no interest to deal with.

Vague hand-waiving in the direction of possible counterweights does not constitute an argument that they do, indeed outweigh their opposing factors. — Isaac

I see, here is the trend of “Human rights protection, 1946 to 2019” about EU&NATO countries (some are ex-Soviet republics and let’s not forget German reunification): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK

Is that enough?

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix

Which in the end you cannot disprove.

So countries wanting to join NATO because they fear Russia might invade them...which then becomes reality and Russia attacks them, is I guess the provocation. But what was the NATO prior to 2014 and where was it's focus?

This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. But let's forget the various number of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship, or just how silent the West was about the actions of Russia in Chechnya, because it was an internal conflict. All that doesn't rhyme with the US-is-out-to-get-Russia narrative.

In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries. The Brussels Summit Declaration from January 1994 defined the goals of PfP as expanding and intensifying political and military cooperation in Europe, increasing stability, diminishing threats to peace, and building strengthened security relationships.

On 27 May 1997, NATO leaders and President Boris Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, expressing their determination to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.” The Act established the goal of cooperation in areas such as peacekeeping, arms control, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and theatre missile defence. In the Founding Act, NATO and Russia agreed to base their cooperation on the principles of human rights and civil liberties, refraining from the threat or use of force against each other or any other state.

Is that enough? — neomac

No.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2011..latest&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK~ECU~BLR~BTN~ALB~CRI~CUB~IND~IRQ~LBY~MDA~UKR~USA~GBR

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence.

The United States falls below Cuba.

Belarus (a Russian puppet state) has made comparable progress to others in its economic group.

Some of the worst losses are in Spain.

Ukraine have made virtually no improvements at all since the Maidan.

Iraq and Libya both 'benefited' from exactly the kind of Western military intervention you're advocating and their human rights records have worsened.

So no. Once you stop cherry-picking the data to match your theory you see exactly the pattern the experts I cited have described - a big gain post 1945 followed by a very mixed picture unrelated to 'Western' countries.

I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference. — SophistiCat

Here's the same claim in that known hotbed of leftist radicalism... the telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/09/four-ways-ukraine-could-have-taken-crimean-bridge/

An unnamed senior Ukrainian Official corroborated this theory, telling the New York Times, Ukrainian special forces orchestrated the attack, loading a bomb onto a truck.

Oh, and the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-bridge-explosion.html

A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge.

So perhaps reign in the condescending bullshit.

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence. — Isaac

Costa Rica? :chin:

It's a long time since President Oscar Arias was angry at the US for using the country as a staging post for Contras. Something nearly 40 years ago.

From the State Department's website:

Beyond migration, U.S. assistance to Costa Rica helps counter drug trafficking and transnational crime, supports economic development, improves governance, and contributes to security in Central America.

The United States works hand-in-hand with a wide range of Costa Rican government agencies and non-governmental organizations to help secure Costa Rica’s borders, professionalize its police, strengthen its judicial sector, improve its corrections system, and empower at-risk youth and other vulnerable populations.

U.S. Embassy programs promote entrepreneurship, economic inclusion, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) works closely with Costa Rican security partners to build capacity and assist disadvantaged communities.

US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations (diplomatic relations since 1851). Costa Rica is quite under the influence of the West I would say.

From the State Department's website: — ssu

US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations — ssu

So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica?

Priceless. How're the boots tasting from down there?

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?
— frank

Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did — Isaac

So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea.

Oh, and just playing some more with your graphs (great resource by the way), have a look at this one...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=BLR~RUS~UKR

Remind me who came to power in Russia in 2000?

From Wikipedia...

Putin's regime, fueled largely by a boom in the oil industry.[9][10][11] However, lower oil prices and sanctions for Russia's annexation of Crimea led to recession and stagnation in 2015 that has persisted into the present day.

Oh look. Human rights abuses match...wait for it...wealth. Not ideology, not Western culture, not NATO... Money. Richer countries can afford better human rights (which makes America's appalling score all the more horrendous). So what effect do we think Ukraine's now enormous debt is going to have on human rights?

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.
— apokrisis

I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. — Xtrix

This isn't an insult you great boob. In my experience, you're often wrong. That's not an insult. It's just a fact. Everybody gets things wrong from time to time. Take it as an opportunity to learn and grow if someone points it out.

So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea. — frank

Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February.

Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February. — Isaac

Your theory is that whether the US funds a conflict, with no other goals in mind, comes down to how easy it is?

Ok. I think I understand you. I think you're wrong, but I guess you think the same about me. :up:

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence.

The United States falls below Cuba.

Belarus (a Russian puppet state) has made comparable progress to others in its economic group.

Some of the worst losses are in Spain.

Ukraine have made virtually no improvements at all since he Maidan.

Iraq and Libya both 'benefited' from exactly the kind of Western military intervention you're advocating and their human rights records have worsened.

So no. Once you stop cherry-picking the data to match your theory you see exactly the pattern the experts I cited have described - a big gain post 1945 followed by a very mixed picture unrelated to 'Western' countries. — Isaac

Cherry-picking is wrt a theory. My theory is here: "I’m talking in comparative terms about entity, likelihood, timing of the implementation of human rights supporting institutions within the Western sphere of influence as marked by NATO and EU membership (because these are Ukrainians’ aspirations) wrt non-Western countries, especially wrt authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran and their sphere of influence."

So I didn't say that Human Rights can be successfully implemented exclusively within NATO&EU (or western sphere of influence for that matter), so Buthan and Costa Rica are not good counter-examples. Nor that Western military interventions aim at or succeed at improving human rights (so Iraq and Libya are not good counter-examples). Not that Ukraine outside NATO&EU has improved wrt human rights, considering also how much of the Ukrainian political, military and economic apparatuses fell within Russian sphere of influence. Other random observations about Spain and Belarus, are pinpoiting over nothing that matters here: compare Spain under Franco vs Spain under NATO&EU, compare ex-Soviet republic Belarus state with those ex-Soviet republics that joined NATO&EU.
So you can not accuse me of cherry-picking.
The evidence that I gave to you is proof (however fallible and limited in scope) of what I clam and it's relevant to me, not to whatever random thoughts are hunting your mind.