Criticism of US foreign policy isn't "pro-Putin". — boethius

Sure. Yet, so far, you just happened to offer recommendations in support of all Russian "legitimate grievances" and deal-breaker demands perfectly in line with Russian propaganda's recommendations (practically, copy and paste). Now you wanna teach me that Russian propaganda is not pro-Putin, yes?

Criticism of US foreign policy isn't "pro-Putin". — boethius


Sure. Yet, so far, you just happened to offer recommendations in support of all Russian "legitimate grievances" and deal-breaker demands perfectly in line with Russian propaganda's recommendations (practically, copy and paste). Now you wanna teach me that Russian propaganda is not pro-Putin, yes? — neomac

You can not serve 2 masters: you will love the one and hate the other. Clearly, you serve US interests in this conversation. — boethius

Your recommendations clearly serve Putin (=pro-Putin) so you love Putin and hate the US (=Americanophobe), yes?

This is an improvement from when you did not see any kind of Ukrainian identity as being germane to what is happening. — Paine

Still don't. There's no such thing as a Ukrainian identity. Ukrainians identify in all sorts of different, occasionally completely incompatible ways. That's why there was a civil war going on before this invasion.

The idea that an arbitrary line on a map encompasses a unique identity is patent nonsense.

The way you present it as an elective is odd. That would be more a reflection of intent if Ukraine was trying to invade Russia. — Paine

I'm simply saying that, in a conscripted army, motivations to fight are even more diverse than in a free one. Even in a regular army people's reasons might range all the way from borderline psychopathy to heroic selflessness. Most common seems to be nationalism. In a conscripted army, you can add to that range the fear of reprisals for refusal.

The idea that 'Ukrainians' are all fighting for the same reason is, again, patent nonsense.

As such, we cannot possibly 'take into account' their agency. They are not an agent, they are hundreds of thousands of separate agents with separate goals, taking them into account is nigh on impossible. It's certainly not something to be done by clinging slavishly to the account of their agency given by parties with a strong vested interest in presenting it a certain way.

Scale of alleged torture, detentions by Russian forces in Kherson emerges

This is in regards to why those selfish Ukrainians are giving their lives to defend their country, instead of "accepting the realities" and letting Russia steamroll over the rest of the country, as it originally intended (and apparently still does).

The numbers that are emerging on the scale of alleged detentions and torture, “point to widespread and grave criminality in Russian-occupied territory,” said British lawyer Nigel Povoas, lead prosecutor with a Western-backed team of legal specialists assisting Kyiv’s efforts to prosecute war crimes.

Povoas said there appears to have been a pattern to inflict terror and suffering across Ukraine, which reinforces “the impression of a wider, criminal policy, emanating from the leadership” to target the country’s civilian population. — Reuters

Maybe not that surprising.

Hacked Russian Files Reveal Propaganda Accord With China
^{— Mara Hvistendahl, Alexey Kovalev · The Intercept · Dec 30, 2022}

To the extent they're observable/quantifiable, effects might be interesting.

The idea that 'Ukrainians' are all fighting for the same reason is, again, patent nonsense.

As such, we cannot possibly 'take into account' their agency — Isaac

The matter of agency is whether the common response to being invaded has been to fight back. The issue has come up here in the context of those saying that such a response is insignificant because the people fighting are only ciphers in a proxy war. Your observation about personal reasons is an equivocation between different ideas. If there had been no willingness to fight back, siding with Ukraine would have been merely a feeling of regret rather than a life-or-death attempt to repel invaders.

Your argument is similar to boethius in the way the invasion itself plays no part in how the participants in the struggle are seen to have responded to it. Your willingness to take note of all the different motivations leads to an odd inverse assessment of their relevance.

What distinguishes your account of irrelevance from Putin saying Ukraine does not exist outside of Russia?

The U.K. recognizes that pandering to Russian Oligarchs was not double plus good.

I mean afterwards. When WWII ended. Nobody cared about Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc...

France and UK declared the war, yes. But we should recall some facts: the British royal family's connection with Nazis (The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Nazi Germany)
The resistance of Charles de Gaulle fighting against the Nazis, while France controlled (and continued to control...) all African possessions. — javi2541997

Picking up details and individuals, or the fact that the countries were colonial powers, doesn't make us to recall the fact that UK and France went actually to war with Germany.

And afterwards, well, there was the Cold War.

What I want to mean: hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests and I don't understand why the Western world is caring that much about Ukraine. I feel I am not seeing something. — javi2541997

And one if not the most important interest is their own security, their survival. Russia has had wars now with two of it's neighboring countries, has forces in all that aren't in NATO (or applying to) except China. If it would be just that, it would be one thing. But it isn't. The basic insecurity arises from that Russia makes territorial claims and has annexed parts from other countries and has made it clear by the words of Putin that it doesn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty, but sees it as an artificial construct.

Russia's actions basically has made the security threat quite real. Without the territorial annexations and claims it really would be different.

Europe isn't worried about their security. That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair, with Poland being perhaps the only notable exception.

Ukraine has the most powerful military in Europe by far, and there's been no sign whatsoever the other European countries have any interest in trying to catch up. Instead, they're sending whatever is left of their militaries to Ukraine, further diminishing their own capability to defend themselves!

Furthermore, they're pursuing a policy that has as its logical effect that a large force build-up by Russia will take place, yet again, there's no sign whatsoever European countries are gearing up to meet a Russian war machine they themselves are helping to create.

That in no way implies to me these countries are afraid they'll need to defend their borders any time soon. This is just an argument of convenience.

hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests — javi2541997

Why is self-interest hypocritical? Am I being hypocritical if I look after my own interests first? Are you?

States do not have ethics as much as they have interests. The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because the government thought it was in this country's interests to do so. It didn't make sense to me in either case, but then... who am I?

I think it is in the interests of NATO states to oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One could oppose the invasion on moral grounds, but that might be more hypocritical than self-interest. Europe didn't care that much about the USSR invading Afghanistan--who, outside a small circle of friends, did care? But Ukraine is WAY TOO CLOSE for comfort, being right up against NATO's and the EU borders.

The invasion of Ukraine is just appalling -- absolutely atrocious manners. Total disregard of international etiquette. Euro-invasions just aren't done these days! Didn't Vlad get the memo? That's all ancient history. Ukraine isn't going back to Moscow and Catalonia isn't leaving Madrid.

Your post contradicts itself. On one hand you note that states do not have ethics - a nice realist point-of-view with which I can definitely sympathize, but then you go on to call the invasion appalling, atrocious, etc., which is a clearly moral judgement.

There's the hypocrisy.

The reason why so many in this discussion cannot seem to get their heads around viewing this in any other grouping than by nationality. As if Zelensky (net worth $20 million), Putin (net worth $70 Billion), and Biden (net worth $9 Million) were not all in the same group, and far more separate from the working classes of Russia, Ukraine and America who each have far more in common with each other than with any of their ruling classes.

As if a flag carried more significance than being able to afford a roof, food, or medical care. — Isaac

Do you mean that once they get their heads around viewing Zelensky (net worth $20 million), Putin (net worth $70 Billion), and Biden (net worth $9 Million) in the same group (because of course so many here don’t see that, and desperately need guru Isaac tell them, indeed guru Isaac has a zealously edited record of all millions, billions, trillions and zillions of dollars that each and single Master of the Universe directly sucked out of millions, billions, trillions and zillions of working class children’s blood, right?), obviously it’s going to be evident that Ukraine must surrender to Russian deal-breaker demands and acknowledge its legitimate grievances in a peace deal, and affording a roof, food, or medical care carries more significance than a flag?
Or you mean that if Ukraine actually surrenders to Russian deal-breaker demands and acknowledges its legitimate grievances in a peace deal, there is a greater chance that so many in this discussion will finally get their heads around the fact that Ukrainian, Russian and American working classes have far more in common with each other than with any of their ruling classes? And that being able to afford a roof, food, or medical care carries more significance than a flag?
Oh no… you must certainly mean that if Ukraine surrenders to all Russian deal-breaker demands and acknowledges its legitimate grievances in a peace deal, we all are so much closer to have the working classes of the world united in rebellion against their ruling classes, and finally able to afford roof, food, or medical care for all humanity ever after, right? "Power to the Imagination!", right?

And caricaturing people’s views is so abso-fucking-lutely fun, right?

I'm simply saying that, in a conscripted army, motivations to fight are even more diverse than in a free one. Even in a regular army people's reasons might range all the way from borderline psychopathy to heroic selflessness. Most common seems to be nationalism. In a conscripted army, you can add to that range the fear of reprisals for refusal. — Isaac

Sure, I guess it’s the same for people who have to pay taxes: some agree with the taxes and are fine with that, some would have preferred softer taxes, some really hate paying taxes. So what?

As such, we cannot possibly 'take into account' their agency. They are not an agent, they are hundreds of thousands of separate agents with separate goals, taking them into account is nigh on impossible. It's certainly not something to be done by clinging slavishly to the account of their agency given by parties with a strong vested interest in presenting it a certain way. — Isaac

One thing is the agency of individual citizens, another the agency of government. The choice of Ukraine to fight with armed forces of conscripted individual citizens is taken by the Ukrainian government. So, first of all, do you have any compelling arguments showing that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate or is taking decisions violating national/international laws? Do you have compelling evidences showing how wide is the lack of support of the Ukrainian government?
Coz, you know, literally anybody can have strong vested interest in presenting Ukrainian agency in a certain way. Even anonymous members of this forum like you: e.g. if you are paid to spread pro-Russian propaganda, or if you are personally so frustrated by your material and social life that you can’t help but enjoy sharing your populist fantasies and memes with likeminded people, or if you are abso-fucking-lutely determined to sparkle a new glorious revolution with your old friend Engels in order to at last end capitalist exploitation on earth or at least break free from your asylum.

Of course Ukraine does not have its own history, language and culture. It's an arbitrary line on a map, it's absurd to think it somehow contains a natural grouping of language, history and culture. — Isaac

Of course?! It’s really baffling how many intellectual failures you can so skilfully concentrate in just a few lines.
First of all, of course, Ukraine has its own history, so much so that there are historians expert at it and giving lectures about it like “Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8)
Second, who on earth is arguing that arbitrary lines on a map contain natural grouping of language, history and culture?! Nobody. So what else may be the purpose of objecting to imaginary claims as if they were actually made by your targeted interlocutors other than scoring imaginary points?!
Third, it’s precisely the fact that grouping of language, history and culture are not natural but cultural that they may very much need inheritable historical record in order to preserve or extend such non-natural groupings over time.
Four, even our notions of natural groupings (e.g. racial division of human beings) have their history which in turn may very well depend on non-natural groupings’ history (like the emergence of states supporting universal human rights against racial discriminations and a public education denouncing pseudoscientific racial beliefs).

Calling the invasion of Ukraine an atrocious breach of etiquette and appallingly bad mannered was an attempt at sarcasm which, apparently, failed.

Presumably it is in Russia's interest to possess Ukraine, whatever the Ukrainians want. It is in Nato's and the EU's interest to resist.

That "states follow their interests" is an axiom that has exceptions. At least, it is sometimes damned hard to figure out what the interest is. China might want to occupy Taiwan, but it seems like it would not be int their interest to do so. If they invade Taiwan, it probably won't be an act of national interest -- it will be something else--like satisfaction of a long-standing resentment that Taiwan got away.

Calling the invasion of Ukraine an atrocious breach of etiquette and appallingly bad mannered was an attempt at sarcasm which, apparently, failed. — BC

Went right over my head. Fair enough then, I agree with your point of view.

Ukraine isn't going back to Moscow and Catalonia isn't leaving Madrid. — BC

Catalonian issue is more complex than press and media show. It is even a subject of a separate thread, but please do not waste your precious time in something worthless as Catalonia-Spain conflict. It is an endless political conflict that we the Spaniards are living during centuries. They do not have a solution and we either have.
To be honest, I think the only way to understand this, you need to be Spanish and living here between Barcelona and Madrid.

Nobody no longer cares about Catalonia and Spain anyway... hopefully, they will not ever remind about the stupid conflict of 2017.

The matter of agency is whether the common response to being invaded has been to fight back. The issue has come up here in the context of those saying that such a response is insignificant because the people fighting are only ciphers in a proxy war. — Paine

Yes? What connects the acceptance that there are motivations to fight back with somehow having to pretend those motivations are more politically important that the object of the most powerful nation on earth? The former is an argument about their mere existence, the latter is an argument about their importance in determining if western policy is morally acceptable.

Your observation about personal reasons is an equivocation between different ideas. If there had been no willingness to fight back, siding with Ukraine would have been merely a feeling of regret rather than a life-or-death attempt to repel invaders. — Paine

So now I'm taking too much notice of Ukrainian motives? If we ignore why Ukrainians are fighting, that's bad, but if we talk about all the different reasons they might have for fighting...that's bad too. No, the exact amount of notice to take of why Ukrainians are fighting is just enough to justify US foreign policy and no more. Once we've established that they want to fight back, that's it policy justified. No don't look any deeper as to why they might want to fight back, it might start coming undone...

Europe isn't worried about their security. — Tzeentch

REALLY???

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe?

I beg to differ here.

That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair — Tzeentch

And that obviously would have continued if Russia hadn't annexed Crimea and started this war in 2014. And NATO would have been happy in it's new role of international operations, not going back to it's old role of collective defense.

To have a country that basically ran down it's military and focused on international operations (because the Cold War was over, remember?) make a hasty 180 degree turn and opt to join NATO after 200 years of non-alignment tells that some countries are worried about their security. So yes, they are worried about Russia.

Yeah, Ireland and Portugal aren't worried about their security when it comes to Russia. They don't have bellicose neighbors. Especially when UK and/or Spain aren't declaring that they (Ireland or Portugal) are artificial countries and basically they belong to be part of their nations again. If the case would be so, that the dissolution of Spain-Portugal or Ireland not being part of Great Britain would be viewed in London and Madrid as the greatest accident or tragedy that has happened, they would be uneasy and commit to national defense on a totally different level.

They don't have bellicose neighbors. Especially when UK and/or Spain aren't declaring that they (Ireland or Portugal) are artificial countries and basically they belong to be part of their nations again. — ssu

I'm not going to bother correcting you. You just said that Ireland does not have bellicose neighbours who challenge their rights over territory.

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe? — ssu

There's a difference between actions and rhetoric. The former being worth taking note of, and the latter generally being no more than windowdressing.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so.

Isn't it strange that countries that supposedly live in fear of invasion every day take no steps towards protecting themselves?

And that obviously would have continued... — ssu

It did continue. Nothing changed since 2014 in relation to Europe's appalling military condition, something which it has been called out for by the United States on several occasions.

The only military that made significant improvements since 2014 is the Ukrainian military, because they legitimately feared a Russian invasion.

It should speak volumes that Ukraine, a relatively poor country, sports Europe's most effective military. And it is taking a beating as we speak. Yet, despite pursuing a policy that practically forces Russia to expand its military, there's not a hint of urgency in Europe's military expenditures.

Seriously? Are you that uneducated, or just so caught up in this media narrative?

You just said that Ireland does not have bellicose neighbours who challenge their rights over territory. — Isaac

Many countries can have border disputes and tense relations. Worst in Europe are perhaps Greece and Turkey, who likely have avoided a full-blown war because both are members of NATO (and thus honor NATO's article 1.) But these tensions aren't as high as the probability for war is very, very low.

But of course, things could have gone differently even not so long time ago with UK and Ireland:

It should speak volumes that Ukraine, a relatively poor country, sports Europe's most effective military. And it is taking a beating as we speak. Yet, despite pursuing a policy that practically forces Russia to expand its military, there's not a hint of urgency in Europe's military expenditures. — Tzeentch

Exactly. And also true of foreign policy in general. No efforts were put in place to significantly reduce reliance on Russian exports, no efforts were put in place to seriously address ties to Russian investment. No efforts were put in place to win over Russia's allies abroad.

The rewriting of history has begun. Now, apparently the country we all happily relied on for energy, and foreign investment. The one whose allies we happily rattled. That country we apparently always knew was a serious military threat because of it's obvious imperialist intent. It's not at all a hastily constructed narrative to promote war profiteering.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so. — Tzeentch

Really? Haven't taken any measures?

Let's take the example of Sweden:

So Sweden has introduced back conscription, has deployed troops on Gotland island (where earlier there were none) and increased military funding. And has a lot more exercises with NATO forces. From 10th of March last year:

Sweden’s government has announced plans for a significant boost in military spending to two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) “as soon as possible”, citing the security threat from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“The war in Europe is going to affect the Swedish people. We need to continue to strengthen the Sweden defence capability,” Andersson said.

“The security situation in Sweden’s vicinity has deteriorated over time. The Russian attack on Ukraine further exacerbates that,” she said.

Andersson also warned that the number of young people called up to do mandatory military service – which was reintroduced in 2017 – would increase.

The right-wing opposition is expected to approve the plan in parliament.

And I can say from my own country that the local armed forces have increased their level of readiness substantially. Key reservists could spend a month or more in military exercises last year, which was unheard of earlier. Naturally the administration has opted publicly to be very low key about it. The Kremlin gets the message.

You were misrepresenting history to promote the foreign policy of a country which openly profits from war. — Isaac

Wrong.

UK doesn't have any imperial aspirations towards Ireland... except naturally the part of the Island that it has. And that was the issue. Have you heard any politician arguing that Great Britain should take the whole island of Ireland back? I don't think so.

That's why Russia is so different.

UK doesn't have any imperial aspirations towards Ireland... except naturally the part of the Island that it has. — ssu

Classic.

Really? Haven't taken any measures? — ssu

Sweden has roughly 24,000 active military personnel. That's less than one tenth of the Ukrainian military when the invasion began, while Sweden has thrice the GDP of Ukraine.

Moreover, its military is outdated and mostly comprised of late '80s materiel.

It's a textbook example of a military that was left to atrophy after the Cold War ended.

It will take more than the Swedish government announcing "plans" to drag it out of the mud. Besides, that type of rhetoric is to be expected since they wanted to and did join NATO. They could hardly send the message that now that the United States will be covering their defense bill, they'll be sitting on their loins and spending the defense budget on social security and "progressive" government projects instead, but we all know that's exactly what is going to happen.


You have to differentiate between governments doing things, and governments doing things that are actually proportional to what you're proposing they are facing. You proposed they face a threat to their survival and a Russian invasion.

That's clearly not what is driving their actions.

Especially Sweden is likely acting on a potential deterioration of the security situation in Europe in the mid to long-term (which is markedly different from facing a existential threat or imminent invasion) and figured the economically smart thing to do is join NATO, because then the United States will be paying their defense bill instead of them having to pay it themselves.


I much sooner accept it when a country like Poland claims they fear an invasion, because they are actually acting the part. They have a functional, well-maintained military and their defense spending (read: their actions, and not just words) reflects that perceived threat.

Poland has double the GDP of Finland, yet its military (active personnel) is five times the size of the Finnish military.

Again, when we analyse the actual actions of states and put them into perspective, we are presented with a very different picture than what you are trying to paint.

Let's take the example of Sweden: — ssu

Not ot mention that we're building up civil duties, improving shelters, and we're now aiming for 2% of GDP going into defensive expenses. We're also aiming to put advanced radar planes on rotation over the Baltics to monitor in real-time the entire region. As well as aiming to double our 2 brigades to 4 brigades to cover requirements of Nato, meaning we can have 2 brigades abroad where needed with 2 as a defensive line.

Sweden has roughly 24,000 active military personnel. That's less than one tenth of the Ukrainian military when the invasion began, while Sweden has thrice the GDP of Ukraine. — Tzeentch

If some people think that Sweden isn't reacting to what's happening in Ukraine, they're obviously ignorant or badly educated on the matter. It was decades since we last did something like this. And what about Germany? They're building up its military with the largest amount of GDP funding in Europe. Who's even thinking of Europe "not doing anything" to improve their defenses?

Not to mention that Sweden has one of the most powerful air and sea units. We beat Nato with less than a quarter of their strengths based on strategy, experience and high tech sea weapons.

It will take more than the Swedish government announcing "plans" to drag it out of the mud. — Tzeentch

You think all we have are plans? :lol: You don't know what is going on here, obviously.

aiming — Christoffer

aiming — Christoffer

aiming — Christoffer

...

It was decades since we last did something like this. — Christoffer

You haven't done anything yet.

You haven't done anything yet. — Isaac

Oh, please educate me about what has been decided and not been decided by our parliament and military. The argument was that European nations hasn't taken any measures based on what is happening in Ukraine. All of these things are measures and some are already in motion or completed. So what's your point?

'Aiming' is not a measure, it's political rhetoric.

And the argument was supposed to be supporting the notion that Europe considered itself under growing threat from Russia since 2014. A couple of political gestures toward some token military changes hastily cobbled together to make a NATO application look less needy are hardly evidence of a long known serious threat.