Irrespective of GDP - putting that aside, the money the US spends on the military is absurd. Anything Russia or China do pales in comparison to what the US does when it comes to spending. I do not see a good justification for it at all. — Manuel
So are you saying that you support the West or no? Based on this comment, I think you sound like a West is good (or least bad) type of person. — Manuel
What I would add, is that I don't think we have good reasons to believe Russia will come out of this war in good shape. It has a population problem, it's economy is far from being optimally used, without even considering the effects of the sanctions long-term. — Manuel
They are still better than nothing. — Olivier5
How many allies does Russia have, again? — Olivier5
Ukraine does not have allies. Ukraine has arms suppliers.
There's a big difference. Allies would be in Ukraine right now fighting on behalf of their ally. — boethius
Ukraine does not have allies. Ukraine has arms suppliers. — boethius
if you are talking about international law, it should be a resolution within international law to establish what constitutes violation. — neomac
when I talked about international law violation by Russia I'm talking about this: — neomac
I didn't claim that the US didn't commit international law violation, I simply claimed that Russia did. — neomac
How do you like our disagreement — neomac
How do you know they are better than nothing? How do you know without the West first making the entirely false promises and expectation that Ukraine would one day join NATO in a useful period of time (say anytime before Russia invaded) and also encouraging total war rather than a negotiated settlement early on, Ukrainians would not be far better off? — boethius
There's a big difference. Allies would be in Ukraine right now fighting on behalf of their ally. — boethius
The example of an open society next door is bound to give some untoward ideas of freedom and justice to folks living in the goulag nations of Belarus and Russia. — Olivier5
As of mid-year 2020, 6.1 million migrants from Ukraine resided abroad. ... more than 53 per cent of them resided in the Russian Federation — https://www.migrationdataportal.org/ukraine/migration-overview
goulag nations — Olivier5
progressive liberal — Olivier5
Back to the same transparent strategy you used last time when boethius pointed out your obvious error. Reduce the scope of your claim to something so utterly mundane that no one could disagree. — Isaac
So what you're now saying is just that Russia broke international law. Yes. Well done. — Isaac
Besides global governance institutions far from being an infallible or impartial normative constraining factor for geopolitical agents, they are often instruments of geopolitical power, so it’s naive to form rational expectations from global governance institutions and their history without considering the subjacent geopolitical power struggles or equilibria. Always for the same reason, prescriptions (moral, legal, epistemic) to be rational must be grounded on possibilities, means, powers. So we shouldn’t confuse the expert in the domain of what is allowed by the norm, with the expert in the domain of what can be done with proper means. Or infer from what the expert of the normative domain assesses as legitimate or illegitimate the conclusion that is what is likely the case (this would be a confusion between should and can) without further assumptions. Failing to acknowledge this would amount to another rational failure of yours. — neomac
So now do you agree with that too? it's all mundane and tautological? — neomac
maybe this piece of emigration data means something different from what you think it means. — Olivier5
Probably, from past experience, when pushed you'll end up claiming it only says that Russia exists, or that people sometimes think before they act. You seem to want to write at enormous length explaining boring and obvious truisms that everybody already knows.
I expect I'll agree with your next post too if it is, as I predict, a 500 word masterpiece concluding that, yes, there is a war in Ukraine. — Isaac
There's nothing to rebut. I completely agreed. — Isaac
Why "nonsensical"? why "error"? All that sounds contradictory with your claim that you agree with me, right? do you agree on that truism too?None of this nonsensical verbiage alleviates your error. — Isaac
Why do you prefer the 'Russia bad, Ukraine good' narrative? Why do you interpret all evidence in that light? — Isaac
Because Russia is currently governed by a ruthless, aggressive dictatorship that attacked Ukraine and other countries such as Georgia. Ukraine is the victim here, and it aspires to be a liberal democracy. — Olivier5
That's a restatement of what the narrative is, not an explanation of why you choose to believe it. — Isaac
Also, Ukraine is not a victim. That's a category error. Ukraine is a country, it's not the sort of thing that can have victimhood.
Maybe Monty Python took residence at Zhitnaya Street 14. — jorndoe
I chose to believe it because it was reported to me by reporters I trust. — Olivier5
"Ukraine" in this context should be taken as meaning "the Ukrainian people". — Olivier5
the people of Ukraine are not one homogeneous mass all of a conveiniently singular opinion which virtue-signalling westerners can adopt in faux solidarity. — Isaac
we've just got through demonstrating that to be bullshit. You can't provide a consistent criteria you use to judge who to trust. You dismissed RAND because of their connection to the military industrial complex yet 30 seconds on the internet tells us that ISW have exactly the same connections. — Isaac
the point of bias analysis is less to discard sources, than to interpret them correctly. — Olivier5
I just try to interpret its pronouncements at the light of its interests. — Olivier5
the risk of nuclear escalation is exaggerated by Kremlin-affiliated cretins — Olivier5
When you later reduced it to nothing more than "Russia broke international law", I found I agree entirely. — Isaac
What is the error? Can you spell it out? Can you talk me through it? — neomac
the problem I see is that Russia doesn't simply want to take a piece of land from Ukraine, but it wants to do it expressly in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US: starting with the violation of international law — neomac
aiming at establishing a new World Order in alliance with at least two other authoritarian regimes (China and Iran) [ — neomac
Russia is capable to blackmail the West (and the rest of the world) with wheat and gas supply (among others), threaten it with nuclear weapons, fund pro-Russian lobbies in the West, conduct cyber-warfare against Western facilities/institutions and project military assets in Africa, Middle East and Mediterranean sea through the Black Sea (basically encircling Europe), — neomac
So I do not see how exactly letting Russia get what it wants expressly out of fear of Russia under the eyes all other authoritarian challengers of the West is to the best interest of the West — neomac
if you care for the West, of course — neomac
This is simply irrational.The argument being made is that Russia getting its way would be bad, but Russia not getting its way would be bad too (nuclear escalation). Therefore some negotiated compromise between the two positions is the best course of action. — Isaac
The illogical or delusional reasoning is that — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.