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

Until you provide a reliable accounting model estimating how much military budget the US must spend wrt its security goals and geopolitical ambitions better than the impression the comparison between Russia/China military expenditure vs the US military expenditure has on you, your judgement doesn't sound that persuasive to me.

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

I'm not here to reason through slogans. But, as I said, we can't likely hope to be more than polarised political "meme" vectors in the geopolitical arena..

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

"Not in good shape" sounds good, "not likely be a security threat to the West for another couple of decades at least" sounds better.

Behold Ukraine's friends / liabilities: stingy and reactive. — boethius

They are still better than nothing. How many allies does Russia have, again?

From November 1 to December 31, 2022, call up for military service citizens of the Russian Federation aged 18 to 27 years who are not in the reserve and are subject in accordance with Federal Law No. 53-FZ of March 28, 1998 "On military duty and military service" call for military service, in the amount of 120,000 people.
https://rg.ru/documents/2022/09/30/prezident-ukaz691-site-dok.html

They are still better than nothing. — Olivier5

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?

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.

Ok. Sounds good.

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

Hm.

Comes to mind what a great ally Russia was to Armenia, when it was attacked by the Azeris. Didn't even provide arms, but least after Armenia lost the war held peace talks.

But then for Russia alliances are a way to control and dominate smaller states (hence the Russo-Chinese axis has it's problems).

Ukraine does not have allies. Ukraine has arms suppliers. — boethius

... and humanitarian aid (medicine, food, whatever), organized refugee aid, training and intelligence aid, UN support (68/262, ES-11/4). Putin's team has whined about NATO, this alliance is seemingly off the table.

if you are talking about international law, it should be a resolution within international law to establish what constitutes violation. — neomac

Possibly, not always. Many of the issues are the US's failure to ratify laws others have taken on.

when I talked about international law violation by Russia I'm talking about this: — neomac

So?

I didn't claim that the US didn't commit international law violation, I simply claimed that Russia did. — neomac

So?

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.

So what you're now saying is just that Russia broke international law. Yes. Well done.

How do you like our disagreement — neomac

We don't have one. I agree Russia broke international law.

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

Because I suspect the invasion has nothing to see with NATO blah blah. It would have happened regardless of anything related to NATO IMO. The real threat for the Putin regime is Ukraine ´s progressive liberalisation and ultimate EU accession, and the induced socio-economic development. 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.

There's a big difference. Allies would be in Ukraine right now fighting on behalf of their ally. — boethius

One of the ironies of the collective nature of NATO's decisions is that they protect Russia from individual nations joining the fight by themselves. Any boots on the ground from any member states would be treated as an attack by all. Cue WW3.

Russian confidence in NATO acting with restraint is shown by reports like:
“Russia had this ground force posture facing us for decades that is now effectively just gone.”

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

I'm curious then as to why...

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

Perhaps you could explain the origin of Putin's concern when, as of 2020, more than half of those leaving Ukraine chose to go to Russia?

Also, the second largest population of students studying abroad chose to study in Russia.

I'm curious as to why the...

goulag nations — Olivier5

...attracted the largest proportion of those leaving the...

progressive liberal — Olivier5

...utopia that is Ukraine.


Perhaps some bloke off of YouTube has an explanation you can share with us

Maybe the data from Migration Data Portal is wrong? I suppose you've never heard of it and it's not passed your rigorous credibility and bias checking. Is there perhaps a retired secretary whose sister once knew a guy in immigration you can ask?

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

He didn't point any "obvious error". You can't even clarify what the error is, as he couldn't. But I understand that as his sidekick you should try to come to rescue and troll once more over the same shit. "Same transparent strategy". Besides if you agree and what I say is mundane, where is the error? What's more catastrophic in your support to boethious' position is that he (not me) essentially believes that international law is ornamental and zero meaning, but if it's that the case then the putative examples of international law violations and injustice by the US are violations of something ornamental and meaningless! So what's the point of crying justice over something ornamental and meaningless? None, right?
I made plenty of claims, so it's not my fault if you both pick always the claim you finally end up agreeing with. Choose better next time.

So what you're now saying is just that Russia broke international law. Yes. Well done. — Isaac

Now? That's the same fact I claimed in the piece you yourself quoted: 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
Where is the error dude? Can you spell it out?
Besides I didn't just claim a fact, I brought it in support of my claim about Russian expansionist attitude "in defiance and at the expense of the West/NATO/US". Isn't that obviously true? it's all mundane and tautological, yes?


All I said about international law is consistent with what I already told you a while ago:

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, yes?

Maybe the data from Migration Data Portal is wrong? — Isaac

Or maybe this piece of emigration data means something different from what you think it means. Likely, it reflects historical ties.

Russia’s Justice Ministry puts Meta Platform Inc on register of extremist organizations
^{— TASS · Nov 25, 2022}

Russia's justice ministry adds Meta to 'extremist' list - Kommersant
^{— Reuters · Nov 25, 2022}

:grin:

Russia rains missiles on liberated Ukrainian city of Kherson
^{— The Hindu · Nov 25, 2022}

What a joke.
Maybe Monty Python took residence at Zhitnaya Street 14.

So now do you agree with that too? it's all mundane and tautological? — neomac

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.

maybe this piece of emigration data means something different from what you think it means. — Olivier5

Yep. Exactly. "Maybe".

So the question you keep dodging. Why believe that explanation and not the other? Why do you prefer the 'Russia bad, Ukraine good' narrative? Why do you interpret all evidence in that light?

Is it just a coincidence that it also happens to be the sales pitch of one of the most powerful industries in the world?

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

Probably, from past experience (and this quotation confirms it), when pushed or catastrophically fail to understand and rebut on rational grounds, you'll end up caricaturing your opponent's view to make a point. How pathetic. Ops, I just stated another example of boring and obvious truisms that everybody already knows ! LOL

when pushed or catastrophically fail to understand and rebut on rational grounds — neomac

There's nothing to rebut. I completely agreed. Russia broke international law.

There's nothing to rebut. I completely agreed. — Isaac

BTW, if you agree with all I wrote, then why did you write the following claim?

None of this nonsensical verbiage alleviates your error. — 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?

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. I find it natural to sympathize with the victim.

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.

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.

People are victims, not countries. And as we've seen, the people of Ukraine are not one homogeneous mass all of a conveiniently singular opinion which virtue-signalling westerners can adopt in faux solidarity.

That's a restatement of what the narrative is, not an explanation of why you choose to believe it. — Isaac

I chose to believe it because it was reported to me by reporters I trust.

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.

"Ukraine" in this context should be taken as meaning "the Ukrainian people".

Maybe Monty Python took residence at Zhitnaya Street 14. — jorndoe

Actually, what Russia would need would be it's own Monty Python.

Monty Python, and it's success shows a crucial great aspect of the English, if not the British: the ability to laugh at and ridicule themselves. Naturally an autocratic regime wouldn't tolerate any of it and would see Monty Python as a symptom of the decadence and impotence that the UK fell into after losing the Empire.

Just as an example, think what the reaction would have been during the times of the British Empire, early 20th Century or late 19th Century of the following Monty Python skit, the Queen Victoria Handicap:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32sd40

Nobody would dare to mock Queen Victoria in such way those times. Empires cannot laugh at themselves. Now it is very funny.

And actually this would come easily from the Russians as they have had totalitarian systems that they have joked about. A traumatic history is one of the best ways people find a fountain from jokes and comedy (just think about Jewish humour).

Yet when in the 21st Century a country has laws where uttering the obvious, that the country is in war when it is in a war, can get you jail time, for me it tells that the situation isn't on solid foundations at all. Such urge to limit simple talk is a sign of weakness and fear. And something that is unsustainable without a North Korean type dictatorship.

For the UK the humbling happened during the Suez Crisis and the Churchillian wing in the British leadership understood the the time of Empire acting by it's own was over...and wouldn't be coming back. Yet Monty Python is something that the British have they can be proud of. It shows that the British have no appetite for reconquering their Empire. A politician calling for the unification of the British Isles under the Union Jack, hence occupation and annexation of Ireland, would simply be called what he is: a lunatic. With the British (and they still are the British) we can know that they are quite independently thinking (Brexit and stuff), but they aren't a threat to the sovereignty of Ireland. And furthermore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK. Something that Russia should understand to do as how to keep it's minorities happy and chugging along.

For Russia to become a normal country and shed it's bellicose aggressive behaviour a humiliating defeat could do it. The Soviet Union came so splendidly and peacefully apart that people like Vladimir Putin understood it as a mistake, something you can and have to fix.

The Putinist empire builders have to become the butt of jokes. Otherwise Russia will pose a threat to it's neighbors. And actually to itself.

I chose to believe it because it was reported to me by reporters I trust. — Olivier5

Yeah, 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.

The difference..? RAND were saying something you didn't want to believe and ISW were saying something you did want to believe.

It's abundantly clear you choose who to trust because they agree with your preferred narrative. The narrative came first.

"Ukraine" in this context should be taken as meaning "the Ukrainian people". — Olivier5

Right. So...

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

ISW is of course staffed with US military types and they have their pro-US bias but they don't behave as a lobby. RAND on the other hand does, it channels more evidently (to me) the military-industrial complex's collective messages and interests than ISW.

This said, I haven't read ISW's assessment of the nuclear risk. I would think they care more about the safety of the nuclear plant at Zaporizzia (or whatever it's spelt) than about the tactical use of nukes.

In any case, the point of bias analysis is less to discard sources, than to interpret them correctly. To triangulate, IOW. It is generally unwise to discard a source entirely, unless it lies almost systematically. So I don't discount RAND, I just try to interpret its pronouncements at the light of its interests.

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

OK. So these sources who argue...

the risk of nuclear escalation is exaggerated by Kremlin-affiliated cretins — Olivier5

...what efforts did you take to 'triangulate' their pronouncements with those of experts offering contrary views. Talk me through how this process works.

When you later reduced it to nothing more than "Russia broke international law", I found I agree entirely. — Isaac

What was exactly that I reduced before reducing it? Can you spell it out? Can you quote me?
Indeed I said a lot more than "Russia broke international law". Here, I'll repeat it again:
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 till aiming at establishing a new World Order in alliance with at least two other authoritarian regimes (China and Iran) [1]. Besides 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), while increasing Putin's authoritarian regime and spiking Russian budget for military expenditure [2] with the money earned during Putin's 20 years of happy business with the West, instead of investing this money to improve and widen system of rights, education and welfare for his people.
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 (if you care for the West, of course).
Do you have any ideas about this issue? Maybe we can try see things from a different perspective: maybe it's not simply that the West is helping the Ukrainians but also that the Ukrainians are helping the West.
Why did you select just that fact from all I said, believing it was an "error" and then LATER you agreed with it. What is the error? Can you spell it out? Can you talk me through it?

Talk me through how this process works. — Isaac

I suppose the same way as you do it, just better.

What is the error? Can you spell it out? Can you talk me through it? — neomac

Yes.

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

So the problem I saw here was that violating international law is not in defiance of "the West/NATO/US" because "the West/NATO/US" have little respect for international law either.

aiming at establishing a new World Order in alliance with at least two other authoritarian regimes (China and Iran) [ — neomac

Same problem here. The West/NATO/US act as authoritarian regimes. In terms of their actual impact on the globe there's not sufficient difference in their approaches to justify the claim that Russia's intent was "a new World Order". It's the same world order.

Also, I found your evidence that this is, indeed, Russia's intent to be sketchy at best. A lot of supposition, very little empirical ground.

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

This doesn't seem to have a point related to the argument. You've stated a fact (Russia has this capability) but you've not made any argument about what is consequent to that fact. No one has expressed disagreement on those grounds, nor any argument assuming the opposite. So the statement just hangs purposelessly. Yes, Russia has that capability. So what?

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

This conclusion doesn't follow because you've weighed only one side of the argument.

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.

You've only concurred that, yes, Russia getting its way would be bad. This adds nothing to the discussion because we were all already agreed on that matter, it's right there in the argument.

To dispute the argument, you have to show that one is worse than the other. Not merely that one is bad.

if you care for the West, of course — neomac

I don't. I find such thinking disgusting. I care about humanity. Not just westerners.

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

This is simply irrational.

Neither side will overcome and defeat totally the other side. Hence there will be a negotiated peace or armstice (like between the Koreas). That's the totally logical.

The illogical or delusional reasoning is that "Russia not getting its way would be bad too (nuclear escalation)". Well, many even nuclear armed powers haven't gotten their way in wars. Their defeats have been smaller or larger, but having nukes hasn't change it. Last example was that the US had to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The illogical or delusional reasoning is that — ssu

People disagreeing with you doesn't make them illogical and delusional. I've shown quite clearly that normal intelligent and informed people think that right here right now in 2022 Russia are likely enough to use nuclear weapons that concessions might be a wise precautionary move.

As has been discussed at some length, your examples from history show only that it is possible for a nuclear power to lose a war without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. It does not prove that they always will in all circumstances.

Experts are of the view that they might use nuclear weapons this time, in this place, in these specific circumstances. It is recklessness beyond criminal to ignore their concerns for the sake of some localised nationalism.