Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?

The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine.

Re the (existential) threats ...

Apart from Turkey, NATO members close to Russia don't host nuclear weapons (Canada not shown here):



↑ Source: What countries have nuclear weapons, and where are they? (The Conversation; Apr 1, 2022)

Something similar can't be said for Russia. Though, I don't know of anyone in Norway Finland Estonia Ukraine Canada that has detected ☢ with a hand-held Geiger counter. :)

• 352. Missile Defenses in Eastern Europe: Who Threatens Whom? (Wilson Center)

^{By the way, Bulgaria (pdf), for example, turned their armament down a bit before becoming a NATO member.}

Putin's NATO-phobia can't quite be due to nuclear weaponry on their doorstep, though they have aired complaints about radar and such defensive systems. Conversely, any Russo-phobia could be due to the nuclear weaponry; flauntery by autocrats doesn't help. Concerns over resources falling into the wrong hands is another factor.

• Russia says it may be forced to deploy mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe (Reuters; Dec 13, 2021)

NATO troop allocations could be a reason for Putin's NATO-phobia. Reported some months after the Crimean grab:



↑ Source: THE EUROPEAN CHESSBOARD: Here's A Map Of The Russia-NATO Confrontation (Business Insider; Sep 29, 2014)

• The map that shows how many Nato troops are deployed along Russia’s border (The Independent; Feb 5, 2017)
• Factbox: Where NATO forces are deployed (Reuters; Jan 24, 2022)
• Here's where Alliance forces are deployed across Eastern Europe (CNN; Feb 10, 2022)
• Number of military personnel in NATO countries in 2021 (Statista; Aug 5, 2022)

Putin's moves have resulted in NATO (and other) moves, which seems warranted enough. (Troop presence gives a kind of claustrophobia versus limiting free Kremlin movements/actions?) Mobilization (and perhaps transport) could suggest resource shortage, escalation intent, or some such.

Then there's a supposed cultural threat to Russia (has also come up prior in the thread).
Rhetoric, hot air.

Perhaps a mutually forthcoming/accommodating attitude, reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs, would go some way towards peace? Not easy when shams have been presented as legit, yet one step at a time? How about asking China to put pressure on Putin, however unlikely?

Then I return to being completely at a loss as to your argument. It seems to be little more than "Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is" — Isaac

Oh, you see “Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is” as equivalent to "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! Coz I don’t: in my claim I didn't talk about "biggest threat to civilisation". So far just more strawman arguments.

they seem completely unrelated to the point at hand. I'm disputing your claim the the Western world ought to help Ukraine best Russia by military force. — Isaac

Do you know the famous Kantian claim that “ought implies can”? Aside from how one wants to analyse it, my conviction is that a rational “ought” (as in “X ought to do Y”) must fall within what a subject “can”. Therefore rational expectations about what individuals, collectives and states likely can do are key to formulate rational oughts. In other words, I take “ought”-claims grounded on very “unlikely” expectations about individuals, collectives and states to be implausible and irrational. BTW I already made similar claims.
Now concerning the questions I addressed to you: my answers would be “unlikely” for all except the last one which is also crucial because if all authoritarian regimes would more likely resort to supplying weapons than using sanctions/diplomacy or in addition to using sanctions/diplomacy, and sanctions/diplomacy don’t turn to be effective as supplying weapons, then it could be very damn handicapping to just keep using sanctions/diplomacy against authoritarian regimes. But here some additional clarifications:

How likely is that Western citizens members of ethnic minorities (say Ukrainians, Iranians, Taiwanese) will see regional conflicts (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian revolts against the Iranian regime, the China's claims over Taiwan) as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in? — neomac

Moderately likely. — Isaac

Well that may depend on the issue, I can grant you that much. But knowing the example of the American Jewish community lobbying for the American support to Israel, it’s hardly surprising to find grass-root, high profile or even institutional lobbying activities from other minorities, including Ukrainians (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/congress-and-ukraines-relentless-lobbyists/) and even Russian activists (see the anti-Putinist Garry Kasparov). Among the Iranians one can find many popular anti-regime Iranian expat activists: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Hamed Esmaeilion, Masih Alinejad, Nazanin Boniadi. Here an example of how pro-Ukrainian and pro-Iranians protests united recently in London : https://globalnews.ca/news/9201763/london-ont-ukraine-war-support-rally/

How likely is that Western military and/or geopolitical experts (like Mearsheimer or Kissinger) will see regional conflicts as something the Western governments shouldn’t meddle in, especially when allies, strategic partners and Great Powers hostile to the West are involved? — neomac

Moderately likely, there's a range of opinion from isolationists to full on hawks. — Isaac

That’s unlikely even for isolationist (“Isolationism is a political philosophy advocating a national foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries including treaties and trade agreements” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) if the American National interest is at stake (e.g. America was isolationist until it joined WW2). And here is the explanation Mearsheimer could offer [1].
At best you could say that Russia is not perceived as a serious threat to the American national interest by some American military and/or geopolitical experts. But evidently they aren’t very influential since American anti-Russian stance persisted under different American administrations (even despite Trump).

How likely is that historians would find historically plausible to expect that Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts? — neomac

Pretty likely. — Isaac

There are no historical periods in which the West didn’t meddle in regional conflicts while at the same time mounting a multi-billion dollar campaign to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world (here a little reminder from the history of the US https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars). Not to mention the well known failures of foreign aid campaigns from the West. Or the failures of anti-Western forces (Islamic revolution and Communist revolution) to implement a better alternative to the Western social model, especially wrt implementation of human rights.
But you are absolutely free to imagine otherwise, of course.

Of course, I could continue: how likely that the Western Europeans will support American isolationism and say farewell to American military protection? How likely is that Westerners complying to Russian demands will not bolster other authoritarian regimes’ regional ambitions? How likely is that authoritarian regimes antagonising the West will not take a useful lesson if Russian nuclear threats scared the West away? And I didn’t even need to talk about the military-industrial complex or the big finance or the big tech yet.

In conclusion, as long as your “oughts” are grounded on unlikely expectations about how individuals, collectives and states behave, your “oughts” are irrational. And since a world where Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts, is grounded more on your wild imagination than on what one can see as likely from history or geopolitics, then neither your expectation nor your prescription is plausible. Period.

[1] My own realist theory of international relations says that the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power. The ultimate goal of every major state is to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region.
To be more specific, the international system has three defining characteristics. First, the main actors are states that operate in anarchy, which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. Second, all great powers have some offensive military capability, which means they have the wherewithal to hurt each other. Third, no state can know the intentions of other states with certainty, especially their future intentions. It is simply impossible, for example, to know what Germany’s or Japan’s intentions will be toward their neighbors in 2025.
In a world where other states might have malign intentions as well as significant offensive capabilities, states tend to fear each other. That fear is compounded by the fact that in an anarchic system there is no night watchman for states to call if trouble comes knocking at their door. Therefore, states recognize that the best way to survive in such a system is to be as powerful as possible relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it. No Americans, for example, worry that Canada or Mexico will attack the United States, because neither of those countries is strong enough to contemplate a fight with Uncle Sam.

https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931

Nothing about the progress of the invasion suggests it is going as planned for Russia. If it is a practice round, it is a very expensive one. — Paine

Indeed, the war in the Ukraine does not seem to be going well for anyone: not for the Russians - as you say, certainly not for the people of Ukraine, nor for the Europeans now suffering from gas and food shortages together with inflationary threats that are threatening now to de-industrialise western Europe competitive advantage, nor for the US economy or the global economy.

Whilst, Western Countries have at least politically acted in unison in its opposition to Russia's actions in the Ukraine, other significant powers have resisted Western pressure to sanction Russia. Notably, China and India, together with several Euro-asian countries now actively advancing economic alliances that not only include Russia but are intrinsically being created in opposition to the US led Western World. Several other cracks to the opposition of Russia are coming from Hungary, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Mexico... In France and Germany protests and strikes against these debilitating sanctions spread. In the UK, this economic pressure is causing political turmoil as yet another Chancellor of the Exchequer is replaced and now threatens to topple the - 30 day old - Truss government.

These cracks have appeared in during the Autumn. We must expect that the looming winter will only widen these fissures.

As the war in the Ukraine is not likely to produce a decisive result, it is these geo-political, economic factors that tower not only over Russia but over the entire world. And, here at least, there is a growing threat to the status quo, where the US led western countries and institutions have for decades determined the international order. On this battle-field Russia's open recalcitrance acts as an exemplar that most threatens to supplant US hegemony and usher in a turbulent transition to a multi-polar geo-political world.

Thus we witness just yesterday, a joint announcement by Erdogan and Putin to build a another pipeline thru Turkey - And Turkey is a member of NATO. This is an untenable announcement for a NATO member and will not be well received in either Brussels or Washington.

The Ukraine war is a domino, a symbol against Western Hegemony that has exposed a myriad dormant resentments between the Western World and the Aspirational majority.

The Ukraine war is a domino, a symbol against Western Hegemony that has exposed a myriad dormant resentments between the Western World and the Aspirational majority. — yebiga

Are you saying that Russia is the vanguard for this 'Aspirational majority'?

Is the Chechen society, as it exists now, a part of this group after decades of genocide?

Is Assad a paying subscriber to this majority?

Are the ultranationalists in Europe and the U.S., who have celebrated Putin as a champion of their cause, a member of this majority?

I am having trouble bringing your idea into view.

Oh, you see “Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is” as equivalent to "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin"?! Coz I don’t: in my claim I didn't talk about "biggest threat to civilisation". So far just more strawman arguments. — neomac

To be fair...

[There are] no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin" — neomac

...doesn't make grammatical sense. I've had to do some charitable reading. Why don't you try again to formulate what you're saying.

Aside from how one wants to analyse it, my conviction is that a rational “ought” (as in “X ought to do Y”) must fall within what a subject “can”. Therefore rational expectations about what individuals, collectives and states likely can do are key to formulate rational oughts. — neomac

The latter doesn't follow from the former. First you talk about the rational constraint on formulating what one ought to do (that it must fall within the bounds of what one can do), then you proceed to talk about likelihoods. Neither Kant, nor any rational argument prescribes that what one ought to do is connected to what is likely to succeed.

I take “ought”-claims grounded on very “unlikely” expectations about individuals, collectives and states to be implausible and irrational. — neomac

I see. So if I consider supplying arms to Ukraine is very unlikely to yield any humanitarian improvement, then we ought not do it?

my answers would be “unlikely” for all — neomac

Except that...

that may depend on the issue — neomac

...and...

At best you could say that Russia is not perceived as a serious threat to the American national interest by some American military and/or geopolitical experts. But evidently they aren’t very influential... — neomac

And then there's this classic (you and @ssu would get on well)...

There are no historical periods in which the West didn’t meddle in regional conflicts while at the same time mounting a multi-billion dollar campaign to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world — neomac

So because it's never happened before, it can't happen. Well. It's a good job you weren't around in the early twentieth century pointing out that never before had all the nations of the world got together to form a single organisation for co-operation and diplomacy. They'd have shelved the whole project.

Seriously? "If it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen". What kind of approach to ethics is that?

In conclusion, as long as your “oughts” are grounded on unlikely expectations about how individuals, collectives and states behave, your “oughts” are irrational. And since a world where Western countries “mount a multi-billion dollar campaign” to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts, is grounded more on your wild imagination than on what one can see as likely from history or geopolitics, then neither your expectation nor your prescription is plausible. Period. — neomac

This just confuses 'ought' with 'is'. You're describing the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. Following your principles no progress would ever be made. Imagine if in the middle ages someone were to describe the world of human rights, freedom of expression, secular government, democracy that we have now. You'd be the twat saying that all that was impossible because we live in a world where kings rule by divine power and religion is mandated by all powerful churches.

Are you saying that Russia is the vanguard for this 'Aspirational majority'?

Is the Chechen society, as it exists now, a part of this group after decades of genocide?

Is Assad a paying subscriber to this majority?

Are the ultranationalists in Europe and the U.S., who have celebrated Putin as a champion of their cause, a member of this majority?

I am having trouble bringing your idea into view. — Paine

We have in recent years witnessed a growing popular spectacle towards a kind of self loathing exemplified by many western educational faculties; inspiring those with left wing sentiments towards dramatic emotional displays in reaction to our colonial and imperial western history. Some, perhaps many and particularly right-wing circles question the sincerity of these displays and suggest they may be primarily a useful posture to achieve some sort of self-serving political outcome.

Given that even Westerners are aghast at their own history, should we doubt that the old colonised world has either forgotten its history of colonial humiliation or ignorant of its continued subservient status to those same powers in the world today? The plight of Ukraine is no doubt of some concern to the non-western world but it is not of primary concern. On the other hand, it has suddenly come to be of almost existential importance to NATO countries.

The Rest of the World - from China, India, Euro-Asia, most of Africa and South America - is naturally not only enjoying this rare moment of schadenfreude as Russia's ongoing impudence threatens to humiliate NATO, but if the leaders of these countries are at all cognisant of their own best interests, they cannot help but speculate whether there is here a rare opportunity to not only humiliate the oppressor but perhaps even force the hegemon's shackles to be permanently loosened.

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

The claim was

This was not the issue under contention.
— boethius

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

I honestly don't understand how saying "This was not the issue under contention" is construed as an agreement.

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: — ssu

Obviously I don't agree that "all credible analysis" agrees with @apokrisis's position.

However, I also don't agree with the position that the Russian military is incompetent.

You then point out anecdotal evidence that is basically only filtered and published by Ukrainian Intelligence, who we may suspect of not only providing a biased view but also fabricating evidence entirely.

So quality of evidence to come to any conclusions at all is dubious.

A war is a bloody fight, the Western media is basically only showing one fighter in a boxing match. (Even assuming what we are seeing is accurate) we black eyes, sweat, cuts, bruises accumulate on one fighter. Obviously, to conclude the fighter we get to see is losing because they're hurting more and more is non-sensical. The key question is obviously "how's the other fighter doing?"

Which we don't really know. How sustainable are Ukrainian operations is a big question mark.

If mobilisation is bad for Russia ... what would make us believe 7 rounds of mobilisation is good for Ukraine? If Russia not having total air superiority is bad ... does Ukraine have air superiority? Most importantly, if Russia is taking casualties, is Ukraine taking any less.

This kind of long conventional war is very much a statistical game of attrition. Seeing something "bad" happen to the Russians can only be evaluated with the full context (which we don't have). For example, if we see a Russian casualty our opinion would be very influenced if we knew how many Ukrainian casualties were caused before this Russian became a casualty.

As for discipline and crimes. Again, discipline is a statistical game and breakdown of discipline is pretty normal for a military, what matters is how much which we don't have much insight into.

As for war crimes, that has nothing much to do with military competence. US committed a lot of war crimes, including torture, in Afghanistan and Iraq but we don't say the US army is therefore incompetent. And, as much as people absolutely hate to hear how "crime" works in the Western "rules based system" we're apparently defending in Ukraine, we do actually need some plausibly impartial investigation and trial before declaring a war crime; just taking Ukrainian intelligence at their word isn't a system of justice. Ukrainians also have plenty of evidence of committing war crimes, dipping bullets in lard and all and posting to their social media. Again, if war crimes (according to us) mattered in terms of military competence, we'd still need some statistics that Russians are committing more than Ukrainians; which, is information we don't really have as war crimes maybe kept secret.

The Rest of the World - from China, India, Euro-Asia, most of Africa and South America - is naturally not only enjoying this rare moment of schadenfreude as Russia's ongoing impudence threatens to humiliate NATO, but if the leaders of these countries are at all cognisant of their own best interests, they cannot help but speculate whether there is here a rare opportunity to not only humiliate the oppressor but perhaps even force the hegemon's shackles to be permanently loosened. — yebiga

This is one of the things Westerners are for the most part oblivious to, but genuinely seem to be incapable of understanding it even when it's explained.

Is Russia bullying Ukraine ... or has NATO been trying to bully Russia these past decades?

Is Ukraine standing up to Russia ... or is Russia standing up to NATO?

Is Russia humiliated because they didn't win in 3 days against a military waging continuous war in Donbas, supplied and trained and advised by NATO with US intelligence? Or is Russia humiliating NATO by taking Crimea and then taking the land bridge to Crimea and surviving sanctions and building an alternative payment system?

Westerners will immediately reject these questions as essentially illegitimate.

However, even if we somehow knew the answers in absolute terms without needing to reason to them or overcome criticism, the questions are still relevant in understanding the world in that not everyone may agree with our absolute truth of the matter, and if they disagree they may act in inconvenient ways.

For the West, this war is an highly emotional one because white people are being attacked in a context where other brown people wars can result in mass starvation and children starving to death and the West couldn't care less, but for the non-white world that seems hypocritical.

Now, Westerners may rebuttal that they don't give a shit if non-whites find them hypocritical, but that may also be seen as hypocritical, as white countries definitely expect non-white countries (aka. the "jungle" that is "the rest of the world" in the words of EU foreign minister Josep Borrell) to, at minimum, listen to their point of view (as the EU is a "garden" and therefore the gardeners know how to "cleanse" the "jungle").

The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership.

A I've mentioned before, the "rest of the word" ("well you know what I mean" also according Josep Borrell) world is ideologically much closer to Putin than they are Western idealism (of course, in practical terms, the West is also closer to Putin than it is its own ideology).

Ukrainians also have plenty of evidence of committing war crimes, dipping bullets in lard and all — boethius

Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? No torture, no rapping, no murder of civilians, but the purely symbolic act of greasing a bullet...

Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? — Olivier5

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war

Better...?

Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? No torture, no rapping, no murder of civilians, but the purely symbolic act of greasing a bullet... — Olivier5

There's plenty of these allegations as well. But the bullets in lard was self-posted, and a clear war crime that no one denies.

For example, using a civilian truck as a bomb is a clear war crime and act of terrorism (making the driver a witting or unwitting suicide bomber), but Ukraine is ambiguous about it, sometimes saying Russia attacked their own bridge.

If there's a case where the accused side is denying it, then you do actually need some plausibly impartial investigation and trial to say a "crime" has been committed and who's guilty of it, at least in the Western "freedom" ideology of innocent until proven guilty.

For example, if it wasn't a tuck bomb but a missile and the truck a military target, then no crime! If it wasn't the Ukrainians after all (which even with Ukrainian officials celebrating it and making a stamp, even explicitly taking credit, it's always possible that those officials don't actually know what happened, just happy about it and assume it was Ukraine and a great victory), then the Ukrainians aren't guilty. How to claim to know such things without even a plausibly impartial investigation of anything?

Can war crimes be staged by one intelligence service against another?

Definitely, that's what many in the West has been saying, at least speculating, about the Nord Stream attacks, that Russia blew it up themselves.

Of course, if you go on international television and say you'll shut down Nord Stream 2 one way or another, you have ways of doing that ... as a bluff, well then you're just really stupid to set yourself up to being framed if, for some reason, Putin really did want to blow up those pipes.

War crimes should of course be investigated and anyone guilty held to account.

But to have any credibility, the West would need to first investigate war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and go after, especially, the torturers, but chooses not to. Why expect anyone else to do differently?

And, to be clear, I don't put it past the Russian Intelligence to have blown up Nord Stream or even their own bridge.

Likewise, I don't put it past the Ukrainian Intelligence to fake Bucha and just go around calling entirely legal graves of mostly Ukrainian caused civilian casualties "mass graves" of Russian attacks.

The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership. — boethius

Fixed. Morality and geopolitics don't mix well.

the bullets in lard was self-posted, and a clear war crime that no one denies. — boethius

I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime.

Fixed. Morality and geopolitics don't mix well. — Olivier5

I agree that the war crimes debate doesn't have all that much relevance. Even to the extent war crimes accusations are the justification for escalation or doubling down on the war effort (on both sides) I would still argue that the policy is chosen beforehand and the war crimes just fit (or are crafted) into that pre-existing policy.

However, I disagree on the fundamentals. Wanting geopolitical dominance is still an ethical system. "Realpolitik" is still a moral code, it just deviates from the Western self-image, as either a standalone ethical system or then justified by the need to defend the docile "way of life" of the tender ignorant citizen through unsavoury, albeit "necessary", means.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, moral condemnation also has strong geopolitical affects, such as the a significant amount of the post-WWII institutional framework influenced by condemnation of the NAZI genocide.

Indeed, the European support for the war in Ukraine is entirely moral condemnation based and in contradiction to any realpolitik view of the situation by most European countries.

I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime. — Olivier5

Oh! Really? You're saying there would need to be an impartial investigation and trial to really have some solid sense of what is and is not a crime and who's guilty of it? Interesting.

[There are] no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin" — neomac
...doesn't make grammatical sense. I've had to do some charitable reading. Why don't you try again to formulate what you're saying. — Isaac

Unfortunately there was a typo: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin”.

The latter doesn't follow from the former. First you talk about the rational constraint on formulating what one ought to do (that it must fall within the bounds of what one can do), then you proceed to talk about likelihoods. Neither Kant, nor any rational argument prescribes that what one ought to do is connected to what is likely to succeed. — Isaac

Fair observations, hence my warning (“Aside from how one wants to analyse it”). First of all, the reference to Kant was just introductory, not a commitment to Kant’s views. Secondly, and most importantly, my claim is that rational “oughts” (as in “X ought to do Y”) should be constrained by what one “can”, to the best of our knowledge of course. To say the least: “can” must be identified/assessed in broadly logical terms. One can not smell a number, or read and not read a book. How about physics? Is it rational to prescribe someone to go faster than the speed of light? No, because he can’t according to laws of physics. How about chemistry or biology? Again I find prescriptions grounded on expectations that violate laws of chemistry or biology irrational. Should we stop here? I don't see why. Indeed there are salient empirical regularities also in human & social sciences: psychology, sociology, economy, anthropology, history and geopolitics, according to which we can assess what individuals, collectives, States can do. So by “likelihood” I was referring to such assessments. Examples of these are Mearsheimer’s geopolitical claims: “the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power.” or “the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region” . Now I don’t know if they are true (maybe even the laws of physics we believe to have identified will be proved wrong one day, how the hell would I know?) but I take such geopolitical claims seriously, and not because Mearshaimer said it, but because history as far as I know supports it enough and Mearshaimer’s theory turned out to have some predictive power too. Now how about the claim “Western countries can ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”, what are the historical evidences or geopolitical actual dynamics that would support it? I really see none, and for sure none that would seriously challenge Mearshaimer’s (or American isolationists’, for that matter!) claims.

So if I consider supplying arms to Ukraine is very unlikely to yield any humanitarian improvement, then we ought not do it? — Isaac

For a starter, in your prescription you are talking about what “we ought”, so if you are including me in that “we ought” then no, of course, because I’m not concerned with “humanitarian improvement” in such generic terms.

my answers would be “unlikely” for all — neomac
Except that...
that may depend on the issue — neomac — Isaac

Fair observation, hence my warning (“But here some additional clarifications” in between the 2 previous claims of mine). The second claim was not meant to disclaim but to restrain the scope of the first claim: there are interested immigrant minorities living in Western countries that welcome Western meddling in their original country’s affairs e.g. to support Ukrainians and Iranian protesters and I offered some pertinent evidence for this.
What is also interesting to me in those cases is that they do it in the direction that I would welcome of course, which unfortunately is not always the case: e.g. Trita Parsi and Farnaz Fassihi are widely suspected by Iranian protesters to be covert pro-Iranian regime lobbyists in the US.

Seriously? "If it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen". — Isaac

That’s a caricature of my view. Besides I previously warned you that I’m taking into account the limits of historical evidence [1]. My point concerns a non-negligible rational constraint for cognitively fallible and historical creatures as human beings are. In general, when/if things do not go as expected we could find a better theory to guide our expectations, instead of getting rid of any theory. Concerning the power of human creativity in history (as undeniably expressed in the technological progress and in the evolution of social institutions), I limit myself to observe that rational expectations can rely on human creativity only to the extent that its activity falls within the known regularities. How so? As planned technological progress is grounded on original/smarter ways to exploit natural laws by people who have the means, see how, and want to do this, so planned socio-political progress is grounded on original/smarter ways to exploit human and social regularities (often in addition to technological progress) by people who have the means, see how, and want to do this. And I’m afraid that nobody here can be qualified as such.

This just confuses 'ought' with 'is'. You're describing the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. Following your principles no progress would ever be made — Isaac

There is no such a confusion at all. Here is why: from the single premise “X should do Y” we can not logically conclude that “X can do Y”, nor we can logically conclude that “X should NOT do Y” from the single premise “X can NOT do Y”. Failing to acknowledge this amounts to a categorial confusion between 'ought' and ‘is’.
However from the 2 premises “if X should do Y then X can do Y” (which is not an empirical claim but a rational requirement) and “X can NOT do Y”, then we can logically conclude that “X should NOT do Y”. Failing to acknowledge this amounts to poor logical skills. So it's not advisable for you to insist on this.
I addressed the rest of your objection when talking about human creativity in history.

[1]

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. — neomac

I agree that the war crimes debate doesn't have all that much relevance. — boethius

???

Relevance is a relative term. Relevance to what, and for whom?

War crimes may be irrelevant to you, but they are relevant for the Ukrainians, and others.

I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime.
— Olivier5

Oh! Really? You're saying there would need to be an impartial investigation and trial to really have some solid sense of what is and is not a crime and who's guilty of it? Interesting. — boethius

Nope. I am just saying that greased bullets aren't mentioned in the Geneva conventions defining war crimes, and that mentioning such red hearing in a discussion about war crimes amounts to trivializing the subject.

Better...? — Isaac

Better but not fair. That's better and more fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

Thus we witness just yesterday, a joint announcement by Erdogan and Putin to build a another pipeline thru Turkey — yebiga

Was there another meeting between Putin and Erdogan? Where was this reported?

Putin and Erdogan met on Thursday. Putin floated an idea of a gas distribution hub in Turkey that would allow exporting more gas to Europe through the existing TurkStream pipeline. Erdogan said that they would conduct a study. Everyone else said that Putin must be living in his own alternative reality.

This is one of the things Westerners are for the most part oblivious to, but genuinely seem to be incapable of understanding it even when it's explained. — boethius

Western Rationality is relentlessly undermined by all forms of media determined to condemn all things Russia and all things Putin into Dante's 9th circle of hell. The myriad articles, opinion pieces, dramatic images, accompanied by stirring music is all a powerful psychedelic that warps otherwise normal people, who care nothing about geopolitics nor have any real interest in the matter, now spontaneously tell you how Putin is literally evil.

This is our world now

Even here - in our philosophy forum - smart, erudite and normally rational posters
- on the subject of this conflict in the Ukraine - often find it impossible to refrain from tit for tat partisan jibes.

товарищ, I see that you have to have joined the party of Александр Дугин:

Dear Russian people! The global American empire strives to bring all countries of the world together under its control. They intervene where they want, asking no one's permission. They come in through the fifth column, which they think will allow them to take over natural resources and rule over countries, people, and continents. They have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Syria and Iran are on the agenda. But their goal is Russia. We are the last obstacle on their way to building a global evil empire. Their agents at Bolotnaya Square and within the government are doing everything to weaken Russia and allow them to bring us under total external control. To resist this most serious threat, we must be united and mobilized! We must remember that we are Russian! That for thousands of years we protected our freedom and independence. We have spilled seas of blood, our own and other people's, to make Russia great. And Russia will be great! Otherwise it will not exist at all. Russia is everything! All else is nothing! — Alexandr Dugin

You guys seem enthusiastic. Not sure where you going to receive income after you win your war.

Western Rationality is relentlessly undermined by all forms of media determined to condemn all things Russia and all things Putin into Dante's 9th circle of hell. The myriad articles, opinion pieces, dramatic images, accompanied by stirring music is all a powerful psychedelic that warps otherwise normal people, who care nothing about geopolitics nor have any real interest in the matter, now spontaneously tell you how Putin is literally evil. — yebiga

You've got to stop dropping acid before you read the newspaper.

Dear Russian people! [...]
— Alexandr Dugin — Paine

And that snippet is more subtly echoed by Putin, Matviyenko, and probably a few I forgot (including in the US). A call for nationalism in a category that history has seen before. Such like has been noted a few times recently (UN, 2019), not that anyone listens/cares.

Is Russia bullying Ukraine ... or has NATO been trying to bully Russia these past decades?
Is Ukraine standing up to Russia ... or is Russia standing up to NATO?
Is Russia humiliated because they didn't win in 3 days against a military waging continuous war in Donbas, supplied and trained and advised by NATO with US intelligence? Or is Russia humiliating NATO by taking Crimea and then taking the land bridge to Crimea and surviving sanctions and building an alternative payment system? — boethius

The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership. — boethius

the European support for the war in Ukraine is entirely moral condemnation based and in contradiction to any realpolitik view of the situation by most European countries. — boethius

What you are talking about is at best a propaganda battle (which you are deeply engaged in, by the way, given the way you are caricaturing it), not the central geo-political question. Propaganda is just one tool of the geopolitical game, with costs, limits and unintended consequences.
Besides the propaganda battle is essentially played in the West because in authoritarian regimes there is less tolerance for views conflicting with the government propaganda (so it's another form of asymmetric war since foreign and hostile powers can more easily infiltrate the Western "market" of ideas).
If you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating from. But, a part from that, do as you like of course.

So if you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating forced to eat from. — neomac

Yes, that is why so many ultra conservatives and alt right thugs have had a crush on Putin for years. But Putin used to play footsie with the world order they wish to dissolve. Putin liked getting invited to parties while attending G8 meetings and having his gang launder money in London. That activity does not mix well with the Dugin war against the West.

Why forced? Westerners are free to migrate to Russia, China, Iran and live there.

, these scrolled by a while back (your mileage may vary) ...

Why white evangelical Christians are Putin's biggest American fan base (MSNBC; Mar 2, 2022)

Putin’s Propaganda Machine Is What America’s Far-Right Wants (Defense One; Mar 11, 2022)

Whatever is going on, it doesn't look pretty.

Why forced? Westerners are free to migrate to Russia, China, Iran and live there. — neomac

Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic.

Unfortunately there was a typo: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin”. — neomac

That's not really clarified matters - something 'causing' Putin doesn't make sense. so I thought you meant that nothing else in that list is causing as much damage as Putin... but then you denied that too. So I'm at a loss.

there are salient empirical regularities also in human & social sciences: psychology, sociology, economy, anthropology, history and geopolitics, according to which we can assess what individuals, collectives, States can do. So by “likelihood” I was referring to such assessments. — neomac

But such assessments vary - different people reach different conclusions. So I don't see how that makes any progress. You're still just providing an option. Don't forget the argument here. I'm not claiming your position is irrational. You are claiming mine is. You disputed my position, not the other way round. If the best you've got is that your position is plausible, then we have no disagreement.

how about the claim “Western countries can ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”, what are the historical evidences or geopolitical actual dynamics that would support it? I really see none — neomac

I don't. Neither do hundreds of academics and campaigners committed to promoting such an action. Again, if the best you've got is "I don't think that'll work" then fine, I'm not claiming it definitely will. If your claim is "No-one thinks that will work", that's a far bolder and more unlikely claim (given the existent campaigns for just such an outcome). It would need similarly bold evidence. As has been highlighted before the fact that some people agree with you is not evidence for a claim that everyone agrees with you.

I’m not concerned with “humanitarian improvement” in such generic terms. — neomac

Well then we probably have very little to talk about. I assume my interlocutors share such concerns. If not, then our differences are probably more to do with irreconcilable differences in values.

I addressed the rest of your objection when talking about human creativity in history. — neomac

You really didn't.

Better but not fair. That's better and more fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine — neomac

So when a post makes claims about Russian war crimes I expect you've been similarly at pains to point out Ukrainian transgressions to ensure a fair hearing? How far does this need extend? Ought we include the US's misdeeds too, just to get a proper picture? Probably ought to list the Wagner group too, and maybe Chechen loyalists. British intelligence services, German arms dealers, Turkish negotiators... Or...we could read posts like grown ups and assume that not everything has to contain moral condemnation of Russia.

Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic. — Tzeentch

I asked you for clarifications: the idea of being "forced" suggests me the idea that you can not free yourself from something which you find undesirable. So if you live in the West and you do not like it, what is preventing you from leaving it?