blindly prostitute [...] that's all it is — Tzeentch

It's comments like these that make me take them less seriously here. (Sanctimonious indignation or something?)

It's comments like these that make me take them less seriously here. (Sanctimonious indignation or something?) — jorndoe

It is what it is.

When you've got substance to bring to the table let me know.

What do you think such a statement really means, when the United States is already training and supplying Ukraine like its gearing up for another Vietnam? You need to get a sense of reality. — Tzeentch

The assistance Ukraine got...which in earnest only happened only after Russia attacked Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have had for a long time have had training exercises with NATO, had the capability to operate with NATO and did participate in NATO operations ...and didn't belong to NATO and had no guarantees from NATO. And membership wasn't going to happen.

And these were two EU countries, which Ukraine isn't.

The big difference is that they applied to NATO and vast majority of the alliance accepted in their own Parliaments and some NATO members have given security guarantees for both countries. Unlike Ukraine. Ukraine's NATO application simply was left aside. No NATO Parliament started to discuss it. You had only vague promises... because NATO couldn't accept that Russia have a veto-vote.

In fact, it is you who should get a sense of reality: with totally ignoring actual Post-Soviet history of Ukraine and Russia's huge influence in the country can someone say Ukraine was geared up like (South) Vietnam for war ...or everything happened because of US actions, like John McCaine visiting the country or Bush promising NATO membership for Ukraine.

In fact, the February 24th attack 2022 by Putin just shows how much Russians assumed to have Ukraine in their pocket. Last time when they invaded, the Chief of Ukrainian Navy changed to Russian uniform and Ukraine didn't oppose military the quick invasion.

I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac

That doesn't seem at all intuitive. Why would you think maintaining control over resources a moral imperative? Is it, for example, a moral imperative for me to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can? — Isaac

Your example is misleading.
First, I’m talking about moral imperatives for governments, not moral imperatives for ordinary citizens. Maintaining control over resources can be a moral imperative as much as a forced collectivisation of means of productions by a communist government to ensure the end of human exploitation on earth (which you likely must sympathise with) can be a moral imperative.
Secondly, the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. And even if maximising national security would somehow equate “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can” under certain circumstances (like the ones prospected by Mearsheimer’s theory of International Relations that you champion [1]) so be it.


[1]
BTW if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert:

You champion Mearsheimer's theory of International Relations as the best explanation of the events unfolding in Ukraine. You discount previous behavior by Russia as indicative of anything happening in this conflict. — Paine

Yes. What's that got to do with the argument here? — "Isaac

That’s the theory of International Relations you champion:
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

The assistance Ukraine got...which in earnest only happened only after Russia attacked Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have had for a long time have had training exercises with NATO, had the capability to operate with NATO and did participate in NATO operations ...and didn't belong to NATO and had no guarantees from NATO. And membership wasn't going to happen.

And these were two EU countries, which Ukraine isn't.

The big difference is that they applied to NATO and vast majority of the alliance accepted in their own Parliaments and some NATO members have given security guarantees for both countries. Unlike Ukraine. Ukraine's NATO application simply was left aside. No NATO Parliament started to discuss it. You had only vague promises... because NATO couldn't accept that Russia have a veto-vote. — ssu

Your point was that EU countries blocking NATO membership was a big deal.

Then how do you explain this:

Ukraine defense minister says Kiev is a “member of NATO de facto”

Also, why do you only respond to half my post?

I’m talking about moral imperatives for governments, not moral imperatives for ordinary citizens. Maintaining control over resources can be a moral imperative as much as a forced collectivisation of means of productions by a communist — neomac

It isn't made so just by you saying it. Why does a nation gathering more resources become moral when a person doing so would not?

the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. — neomac

That's the same thing. 'Security' in this context means nothing more than 'I control it, not someone else'. The fight is over the control of the resource-crucial Donbas region. Russia wants it. The West want it. Ukraine wants it.

if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert: — neomac

Where in any of that does it even mention morality?

Then how do you explain this: — Tzeentch

Just the way as the Ukrainian defense minister admits it in the article: Ukraine is not de jure member of NATO, which means that Russia didn't attack NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine. And that is my point: it is Ukraine's war. Hence it is quite expendable. NATO Ukraine is either past lies of American Presidents or now Russian propaganda: both false and only political rhetoric without any connection to reality.

Hence Ukraine's situation is, with similar reasoning, the same as was for the former (now collapsed) Afghan Republic. With that country you could argue similarly that because Afghanistan and it's Former Afghan National Army were trained by the US and NATO, armed by the US and NATO and financed by the US and NATO countries and only having the exception to Ukraine that there were ALSO troops from the US and NATO fighting in the country, that Afghanistan was a de facto NATO country.

And oh by the way, that regime collapsed. And people just forgot about it's humiliating end.

Also, why do you only respond to half my post? — Tzeentch

Likely for the same reason you don't answer to all the questions I make you: limited time and these threads explode.

Although I would like to hear just why you think Ukrainian victory will need is going to involve NATO boots on the ground, as you said here .

Why does a nation gathering more resources become moral when a person doing so would not? — Isaac

Your question is misleading. To understand my point one needs to get one step back. Moral rules like legal rules do not grant compliance by themselves. What’s worse is that differently from any legal system moral rules do not offer a procedure to resolve moral disputes , so a community can rely on central governments that are committed to promote a certain moral code within their sovereign territorial domain. How can governments comply to their commitments ? Through power (coercion, wealth, propaganda, etc.). Securing power within a sovereign territorial domain is how governments can both exist/function and accomplish their moral commitments wrt their people. Notice that these are transversal considerations wrt regime/ideology (communist, fascist, capitalist, theocratic, democratic, authoritarian, etc.).
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power.
And that’s also how the notion of “sovereignty” can ground legal/political relations among states also in moral terms.

the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. — neomac

That's the same thing. 'Security' in this context means nothing more than 'I control it, not someone else'. The fight is over the control of the resource-crucial Donbas region. Russia wants it. The West want it. Ukraine wants it. — Isaac

No it’s not, because there are also non-pragmatic normative constraints (i.e. legal, moral) that one doesn’t need to ignore nor dismiss as Mearsheimer would do, like the ones related to the notion of “sovereignty”. Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats.

if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert: — neomac

Where in any of that does it even mention morality? — Isaac

Exactly. But that's not a problem for me, I'm not the one championing Mearsheimer's views. You are. You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. That’s why your moral arguments are just wishful thinking by your own standards.

How can governments comply to their commitments?...
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power. — neomac

Why would governments need to use power to comply with their commitments? If government A and government B both have similar commitments it's not morally necessary for either government to have power over that territory in order to bring about it's moral objectives. Clearly either government will do the job.

The idea that governments need to secure territory in order to carry out their moral commitments only applies if the alternative government (the one competing for the territory) doesn't share those commitments. If it does (or if it's even better), then it doesn't make any difference, the moral commitments will be met, just by a different government.

It's as if I make a committent to care for an elderly relative and then set about murdering any rival carers on the grounds that I need to see them off so that I can keep the commitment I made. It's an absurd argument.

Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats. — neomac

So? What's any of that got to do with the moral case? Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty?

You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. — neomac

If you can't understand the difference between how things are and how things ought to be then that explains a lot about your failure to engage with any moral arguments.

Just the way as the Ukrainian defense minister admits it in the article: Ukraine is not de jure member of NATO, which means that Russia didn't attack NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine. And that is my point: it is Ukraine's war. Hence it is quite expendable. NATO Ukraine is either past lies of American Presidents or now Russian propaganda: both false and only political rhetoric without any connection to reality.

Hence Ukraine's situation is, with similar reasoning, the same as was for the former (now collapsed) Afghan Republic. With that country you could argue similarly that because Afghanistan and it's Former Afghan National Army were trained by the US and NATO, armed by the US and NATO and financed by the US and NATO countries and only having the exception to Ukraine that there were ALSO troops from the US and NATO fighting in the country, that Afghanistan was a de facto NATO country.

And oh by the way, that regime collapsed. And people just forgot about it's humiliating end. — ssu

You are beating around the bush. You responded to my earlier post by stating that it's supposedly a big deal that Germany blocked NATO membership to Ukraine, and that it somehow proves that NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't the driver behind this conflict:

The Germans actually only showed that this attack (February 24th 2022) wasn't at all about NATO: because German's openly before the attack declared that they wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO. But guess what: Putin attack and tried to capture Kyiv. — ssu

That's what we're discussing.

And what I'm arguing is that what the other NATO countries thought about NATO membership for Ukraine is completely irrelevant, because the policy that the United States pursued made Ukraine a de facto member of NATO anyway, whether the other member states liked it or not.

Coming back to my point, the Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict. It's the United States that can stand up to Russia, and the Ukrainians had no illusions about the Germans, the French or the English coming to rescue them.

Although I would like to hear just why you think Ukrainian victory will need is going to involve NATO boots on the ground, as you said here ↪Tzeentch. — ssu

Because Ukraine will run out of Ukrainians before Russia runs out of Russians.

and that it somehow proves that NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't the driver behind this conflict — Tzeentch

Because why then Russia would attack? Mere muscle flexing in one large military exercise would have done it. No need to attack Ukraine.

And what I'm arguing is that what the other NATO countries thought about NATO membership for Ukraine is completely irrelevant, — Tzeentch

This answer shows how little understanding of NATO you have.

It's a defense pact between members states which all have to accept new members. It's not just a sock-puppet of the US President as you think it is. Just look at how many times the US has gone to war without NATO and how many times US Presidents have been angry about the whole organization. And we should remember that it's sister organizations CENTO and SEATO have already sidenotes on history pages.
— Tzeentch

because the policy that the United States pursued made Ukraine a de facto member of NATO anyway, whether the other member states liked it or not. — Tzeentch

Now you are totally making things up: the US doesn't make NATO members. The US can give assistance, military aid, train together and have all kinds of relations with one country, but that doesn't make it a "de facto" NATO member. Israel isn't a NATO member and so wasn't Afghanistan before turning again to an emirate.

Coming back to my point, the Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict. — Tzeentch

Do not play a role?

That's simply utter bullshit.

Let's start with the real committers to this war: Estonia and Latvia have committed to Ukraine military and financial aid equivalent of 1% of GDP. Basically the Baltic States and Poland are throwing as much as possible as they can +the kitchen sink to help Ukraine. Yes, they are small, but the European commitment comes to be huge by aggregate: when you add all of the things provided by various nations together, it becomes quite substantial.

Let's take for example tanks and armoured vehicles. The US has given 200 armoured vehicles and no tanks. Only Poland has given over 300 tanks and armoured vehicles to Ukraine. Czechia has given 153 tanks of which 90 have been upgraded by Netherlands and over hundred other armoured vehicles.

And then let's look at what Germany has given and has now promised to give:

107 border protection vehicles*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
168 mobile heating systems*
20 rocket launchers 70mm on pick-up trucks with rockets*
15 armoured recovery vehicles*
13 tank transporter tractor Oshkosh M1070*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
143 Pick-ups*
216 generators
35 load-handling 8x8 wheeler trucks
26 reconnaissance drones*
36 ambulance vehicles*
36.400 wool blankets
12 heavy duty trailer trucks*
55 anti-drone sensors and jammers*
30 drone detection systems*
6 lift trucks*
Iris-T system and SLM missiles*
60,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
18,500 projectiles 155mm
18 load-handling trucks 8x8
50 MRAP vehicles DINGO
3 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER*
10 unmanned surface vessels*
14,000 sleeping bags
Mi-24 spare parts*
ammunition for multiple rocket launchers MARS II
spare parts for heavy machine gun M2
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
17 heavy and medium bridge systems*
5 multiple rocket launchers MARS II with ammunition
14 self-propelled howitzers Panzerhaubitze 2000 (joint project with the Netherlands)
200 tents
116.000 winter jackets, 80.000 winter trousers and 240.000 winter hats
100,000 first aid kits*
405,000 pre-packaged military Meals Ready
30 self-propelled GEPARD anti-aircraft including circa 6.000 rounds of ammunition*
67 fridges for medical material
counter battery radar system COBRA*
4,000 rounds practice ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
54 M113 armored personnel carriers (systems of Denmark, upgrades financed by Germany)*
53,000 rounds ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
20 laser target designators*
3,000 Panzerfaust 3 with 900 firing devices
14,900 anti-tank mines
500 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STINGER
2,700 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STRELA
22 million rounds of ammunition for fire arms
50 bunker buster missiles
130 machine gun MG3 with 500 spare barrels and breechblocks
100,000 hand grenades
5,300 explosive charges
100,000 m detonating cord and 100.000 detonators
350,000 detonators
10 anti-drone guns*
100 auto-injector devices
28,000 combat helmets
15 palettes military clothing
280 vehicles (trucks, minibuses, all-terrain vehicles)
6 palettes material for explosive ordnance disposal
125 binoculars
1,200 hospital beds
18 palettes medical material, 60 surgical lights
protective clothing, surgical masks
600 safety glasses
1 radio frequency system
3,000 field telephones with 5.000 cable reels and carrying straps
1 field hospital (joint project with Estonia)*
353 night vision goggles*
12 electronic anti-drone devices*
165 field glasses*
medical material (inter alia back packs, compression bandages)
38 laser range finders*
Diesel and gasoline (ongoing deliveries)*
10 tons AdBlue*
500 medical gauzes*
MiG-29 spare parts*
30 protected vehicles*
7,944 man-portable anti-tank weapons RGW 90 Matador*
6 mobile decontamination vehicles HEP 70 including decontamination material
10 HMMWV (8x ground radar capability, 2x jamming/anti drone capability)*
7 radio jammers*
8 mobile ground surveillance radars and thermal imaging cameras*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
1 high frequency unit with equipment*
To be delivered:
2 air surveillance radars*
40 infantry fighting vehicles MARDER with ammunition (from Bundeswehr and * industry stocks)
air defence system PATRIOT with missiles
100,000 first aid kits*
114 reconnaissance drones*
17 mobile heating systems*
26 load-handling trucks 15t
2 Pick-up
18 wheeled self-propelled howitzers RCH 155*
90 drone detection systems*
2 hangar tents*
7 load-handling trucks 8x6*
7 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft systems*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
6 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
42 mine clearing tanks*
3 mobile, remote controlled and protected mine clearing systems*
5 mobile reconnaissance systems (on vehicles)
393 border protection vehicles*
1,020 projectiles 155mm*
156,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
5 armoured engineer vehicles
3 heavy and medium bridge systems*
16 self-propelled howitzer Zuzana 2* (joint project with Denmark and Norway)
78 heavy duty trailer trucks*
3 air defence system IRIS-T SLM with missiles*
12 communications electronic scanner/jammer systems*
field hospital (role 2)*
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
14 truck tractor trains and 14 semi-trailers*
2 tractors and 4 trailers*
10 protected vehicles*
vehicle decontamination system
5,032 man-portable anti-tank weapons
200 trucks*
13 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER*

In fact, the German military is now days so small, that it's surprising how much they have been able to give to Ukraine. (For example, Germany has 312 Leopard 2 tanks of which only 130 are operational. The older types Leopard 2A4 there are only 24. In 1989 they had over 5 000 tanks.)

This navel gazing and focusing just on the US is becoming ridiculous.

Because why then Russia would attack? — ssu

Now you are totally making things up: the US doesn't make NATO members. — ssu

Of course it does. That's why the US decided in 2008 that Ukraine would become part of NATO even though that was against the will of Germany at the time.

And notice that despite the protests from NATO members, the United States pushed ahead with it anyway, going so far as to support a coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2013.

At the end of the line, whether Ukraine got the official label of NATO member or not was completely irrelevant (and as such the opinions of the European member states were completely irrelevant) as long as the United States was there to guarantee its independence, NATO or no.

As it happened, Russia invaded before the United States was in a position to completely commit to a Ukrainian defense, which was probably why the Russians invaded then.

Israel isn't a NATO member — ssu

You're just missing the point. Clearly had Ukrainian ties with the United States threatened to become like those of Israel, we'd be in the exact same position, with Russia invading before such a defense pact could be sealed.

The only reason we keep talking about NATO membership is because that is the most obvious way Ukraine could get its security guaranteed by the United States. However, if Ukraine gets that guarantee on a bilateral basis it leads to the same outcome.

Again, the Europeans don't play a role of signifance here. They were never going to guarantee Ukrainian security, simply because they couldn't.

Basically the Baltic States and Poland are throwing as much as possible as they can +the kitchen sink to help Ukraine. Yes, they are small, but the European commitment comes to be huge by aggregate: when you add all of the things provided by various nations together, it becomes quite substantial. — ssu

Nice list. And where is Ukraine now? On a course to defeat.

Commitments, equipment, sanctions - it's all fine and good, but when the end result stays the same it was all for naught.

Had the United States not been involved in Ukraine, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and all of Ukraine would have been Russian now. (Except perhaps that this could have prevented the conflict, but that's a different discussion). That's why I say the European involvement does not play a role of significance, and the evidence for that is crystal clear.

1,200 hospital beds
18 palettes medical material, 60 surgical lights
protective clothing, surgical masks
600 safety glasses
1 field hospital (joint project with Estonia)*
field hospital (role 2)*
500 medical gauzes*
100,000 first aid kits*
67 fridges for medical material
medical material (inter alia back packs, compression bandages)
vehicle decontamination system
6 mobile decontamination vehicles HEP 70 including decontamination material — ssu

vs.

107 border protection vehicles*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
168 mobile heating systems*
20 rocket launchers 70mm on pick-up trucks with rockets*
15 armoured recovery vehicles*
13 tank transporter tractor Oshkosh M1070*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
143 Pick-ups*
216 generators
35 load-handling 8x8 wheeler trucks
26 reconnaissance drones*
36 ambulance vehicles*
36.400 wool blankets
12 heavy duty trailer trucks*
55 anti-drone sensors and jammers*
30 drone detection systems*
6 lift trucks*
Iris-T system and SLM missiles*
60,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
18,500 projectiles 155mm
18 load-handling trucks 8x8
50 MRAP vehicles DINGO
3 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER*
10 unmanned surface vessels*
14,000 sleeping bags
Mi-24 spare parts*
ammunition for multiple rocket launchers MARS II
spare parts for heavy machine gun M2
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
17 heavy and medium bridge systems*
5 multiple rocket launchers MARS II with ammunition
14 self-propelled howitzers Panzerhaubitze 2000 (joint project with the Netherlands)
200 tents
116.000 winter jackets, 80.000 winter trousers and 240.000 winter hats
405,000 pre-packaged military Meals Ready
30 self-propelled GEPARD anti-aircraft including circa 6.000 rounds of ammunition*
counter battery radar system COBRA*
4,000 rounds practice ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
54 M113 armored personnel carriers (systems of Denmark, upgrades financed by Germany)*
53,000 rounds ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
20 laser target designators*
3,000 Panzerfaust 3 with 900 firing devices
14,900 anti-tank mines
500 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STINGER
2,700 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STRELA
22 million rounds of ammunition for fire arms
50 bunker buster missiles
130 machine gun MG3 with 500 spare barrels and breechblocks
100,000 hand grenades
5,300 explosive charges
100,000 m detonating cord and 100.000 detonators
350,000 detonators
10 anti-drone guns*
100 auto-injector devices
28,000 combat helmets
15 palettes military clothing
280 vehicles (trucks, minibuses, all-terrain vehicles)
6 palettes material for explosive ordnance disposal
125 binoculars
1 radio frequency system
3,000 field telephones with 5.000 cable reels and carrying straps
353 night vision goggles*
12 electronic anti-drone devices*
165 field glasses*
38 laser range finders*
Diesel and gasoline (ongoing deliveries)*
10 tons AdBlue*
500 medical gauzes*
MiG-29 spare parts*
30 protected vehicles*
7,944 man-portable anti-tank weapons RGW 90 Matador*
10 HMMWV (8x ground radar capability, 2x jamming/anti drone capability)*
7 radio jammers*
8 mobile ground surveillance radars and thermal imaging cameras*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
1 high frequency unit with equipment*
To be delivered:
2 air surveillance radars*
40 infantry fighting vehicles MARDER with ammunition (from Bundeswehr and * industry stocks)
air defence system PATRIOT with missiles
114 reconnaissance drones*
17 mobile heating systems*
26 load-handling trucks 15t
2 Pick-up
18 wheeled self-propelled howitzers RCH 155*
90 drone detection systems*
2 hangar tents*
7 load-handling trucks 8x6*
7 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft systems*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
6 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
42 mine clearing tanks*
3 mobile, remote controlled and protected mine clearing systems*
5 mobile reconnaissance systems (on vehicles)
393 border protection vehicles*
1,020 projectiles 155mm*
156,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
5 armoured engineer vehicles
3 heavy and medium bridge systems*
16 self-propelled howitzer Zuzana 2* (joint project with Denmark and Norway)
78 heavy duty trailer trucks*
3 air defence system IRIS-T SLM with missiles*
12 communications electronic scanner/jammer systems*
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
14 truck tractor trains and 14 semi-trailers*
2 tractors and 4 trailers*
10 protected vehicles*
5,032 man-portable anti-tank weapons
200 trucks*
13 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER* — ssu

:chin:

Of course it does. That's why the US decided in 2008 that Ukraine would become part of NATO even though that was against the will of Germany at the time. — Tzeentch

It cannot. If the members oppose what the US wants, then the US has to forget the organization and go to bilateral defense agreements. That happened with CENTO and SEATO, if surely the US did want the organizations to continue. You simply have false ideas about how international organizations work: their charter is important on how they operate. The US didn't decide anything in 2008. The promises of US Presidents hold until a new President changes them. And no process, like with Sweden and Finland, has even been started with Ukraine.

You're just missing the point. Clearly had Ukrainian ties with the United States threatened to become like those of Israel, we'd be in the exact same position, with Russia invading before such a defense pact could be sealed. — Tzeentch

No, you miss the point. If one can stop a defense pact only with the threat of war, then you only maek the threat. Period. You don't go to war. It's called logic, @Tzeentch.

However if you want to reconquer a country and be again a Great Power, what better way to hide your imperial aspirations than by accusing others and try to convince others that your only acting on purely defensive reasons. Some idiot will always fall for it.

- it's all fine and good, but when the end result stays the same it was all for naught. — Tzeentch

Just how can you be so sure?

Nice list. And where is Ukraine now? On a course to defeat. — Tzeentch

Oh, that you must in your knowledge about the future know.

It cannot. If the members oppose what the US wants, then the US has to forget the organization and go to bilateral defense agreements. — ssu

As I said:

Ukraine manoeuvred itself into a grey area where it was both almost a NATO member and almost a US ally. In both cases, what mattered is that the United States would guarantee its independence and provide a credible deterrent against Russia. — Tzeentch

___________________________________________________

The US didn't decide anything in 2008. — ssu

It decided, and I quote: "... that [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO."

Bucharest Summit Declaration

You simply have false ideas about how international organizations work — ssu

I think it's quite the opposite. You're grossly overstating the importance of countries who have no real power to speak of.

No, you miss the point. If one can stop a defense pact only with the threat of war, then you only maek the threat. Period. You don't go to war. It's called logic, Tzeentch. — ssu

I don't see any logic here.

Threats didn't work for Russia, so it used brute force.

However if you want to reconquer a country and be again a Great Power, what better way to hide your imperial aspirations than by accusing others and try to convince others that your only acting on purely defensive reasons. — ssu

A nice theory, but there's no evidence to support it - a point which Mearsheimer makes repeatedly.

Ironically, there's a lot more evidence to suggest that it is the United States who aggressively pursued incorporation of Ukraine into its sphere of influence, despite repeated warnings from Russia. So who is the fool, really?

How can governments comply to their commitments?...
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power. — neomac

Why would governments need to use power to comply with their commitments? If government A and government B both have similar commitments it's not morally necessary for either government to have power over that territory in order to bring about it's moral objectives. Clearly either government will do the job. — Isaac

How could a government govern if it does not have the means that allow it to govern?! Governing in compliance with some moral commitment still needs enabling means to govern. That's a rational constraint. Any government A,B,C,…,Z with exactly the same commitments or totally different commitments or half similar and half different needs means to govern people within a territory. The territory delimits the community and the resources within a government’s reach, the perimeter of its sovereignty.

The idea that governments need to secure territory in order to carry out their moral commitments only applies if the alternative government (the one competing for the territory) doesn't share those commitments. If it does (or if it's even better), then it doesn't make any difference, the moral commitments will be met, just by a different government. — Isaac

No, even if different governments share the same commitments they would still need to secure a territory. All Western, Ukrainian, Russian governments of all political regimes needed to secure their territory against invaders and/or separatist forces in their history. The territory is the geographic scope of governments’ governing activities so it's very much factored in the notion of governing activity. Congectures over what government is doing or can do better are still irrelevant at this point of the analysis.

It's as if I make a committent to care for an elderly relative and then set about murdering any rival carers on the grounds that I need to see them off so that I can keep the commitment I made. It's an absurd argument. — Isaac

I’m talking about political governments as we know them from history (city states, national states, empires): governments establish laws, impose taxes, have tribunals, law enforcement bodies, build infrastructures, hold their jurisdiction over a certain territory, etc. and they do it in a self-preserving way. They are political organisations that emerge as historical products from social dynamics within certain geographic coordinates and centralising certain public functions within those geographic coordinates. This is roughly what political governments are, with or without moral commitment. I’m just arguing that they can ALSO gain moral legitimacy wrt the people they rule over to the extent they are committed to support the moral standards of the people they rule over and exercise their governing functions accordingly.
Territorial disputes undermine governments’ resources (so their operative capacity and authority) if not their existence, with or without moral legitimacy. IN ADDITION to that they may threaten their moral legitimacy. For example, Ukrainians do not want to be governed by a pro-Russian regime, nor make territorial concessions. So if the Ukrainian government doesn’t commit itself to do what the Ukrainians want nor act accordingly, the Ukrainian government will lose also moral legitimacy in addition to see its sovereignty severely shrunk.
So the argument you take as a good analogy, not only looks absurd, but it’s very poor analogy. So poor that it’s even hard to improve. But I’ll give it a try anyway, here: X’s only job ever is to take care of client Y, but a rival carer Z wants to replace X in part or completely (so X may lose in part or completely his means of subsistence), and to that end Z is trying to convince Y accept him by forcefully entering in Y’s flat and repeatedly kicking in his stomach as hard as he can just in front of X. If X doesn’t intervene to defend Y, not only X may lose part or all of his revenue (were Z to succeed in his “special persuasive operation”) but X also betrays his deontological commitment as a care giver if there is one.

Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats. — neomac

So? What's any of that got to do with the moral case? Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty? — Isaac

I’ve already answered both questions. I argued that “national security” can also be a government's moral imperative (this is true for all types of regime and ideologies). So if Western governments believe (and I would add "reasonably so") to secure their sovereignty against Russian threats by supporting Ukrainian resistance, and act accordingly, they are morally warranted.

You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. — neomac

If you can't understand the difference between how things are and how things ought to be then that explains a lot about your failure to engage with any moral arguments. — Isaac

It isn't made so just by you saying it. If states can’t act or are rationally expected to not act based on moral oughts as the offensive realism theory you champion would claim, your claims about what states morally ought to do are doomed to be frustrated, not occasionally but systematically whenever they clash against state security concerns. So it’s precisely because, according to your own understanding of international relations, oughts can never inform political action in the international arena that your claims about what states morally ought do in the international arena are irrational. It’s like a farmer yelling at a cow: you morally ought to stop to eat grass over there because that’s not our field, and failing to do so it’s immoral! This would be a moral ought claim distinct from a fact, yet an absurd moral claim because addressed to a subject that can’t act or is rationally expected to not act according to moral claims. Now imagine the farmer objecting me like you did: "Dude, you do not understand the difference between facts and moral oughts that's why you can't engage with any moral arguments". Apparently you have a very poor understanding of your own conceptual framework.

How could a government govern if it does not have the means that allow it to govern?! — neomac

There's no moral requirement for any specific government to govern any specific peoples or land.

Governing in compliance with some moral commitment still needs enabling means to govern. — neomac

No it doesn't. Clearly some other government could bring about the same committent. If I'm committed to building the biggest sandcastle ever, I can easily step aside and let someone else finish the job. Building the biggest sandcastle doesn't require that I have the ability to build sandcastles, only that someone does. Likewise a government committed to a moral objective does not require that they have the means, only that someone does.

The territory delimits the community and the resources within a government’s reach, the perimeter of its sovereignty. — neomac

So? This clearly has no impact whatsoever on a government's ability to commit to programmes of any sort since borders are always changing. I listed above over 40 major internation changes in border in the last 30 years. In no case did the governments of those countries cease to be able to carry out their objectives in their remaining territory.

even if different governments share the same commitments they would still need to secure a territory. — neomac

Why?

All Western, Ukrainian, Russian governments of all political regimes needed to secure their territory against invaders and/or separatist forces in their history. — neomac

This is just bare assertion.

IN ADDITION to that they may threaten their moral legitimacy. For example, Ukrainians do not want to be governed by a pro-Russian regime, nor make territorial concessions. So if the Ukrainian government doesn’t commit itself to do what the Ukrainians want nor act accordingly, the Ukrainian government will lose also moral legitimacy in addition to see its sovereignty severely shrunk. — neomac

Nonsense. A government is not morally required to carry out all actions it's citizens request. Again, this just obvious nonsense if given even a moment's thought. If the Russian population unanimously voted to bomb a hospital, it would still be immoral for the government to do so and it would still be a war crime. Things are not made right by voting for them and governments are not automatons devoid of moral responsibility.

I argued that “national security” can also be a government's moral imperative (this is true for all types of regime and ideologies). — neomac

No you didn't. You just said it.

if Western governments believe (and I would add "reasonably so") to secure their sovereignty against Russian threats by supporting Ukrainian resistance, and act accordingly, they are morally warranted. — neomac

Nonsense. A government has no moral right to the territory it governs. All border changes would thereby become immoral.

If states can’t act or are rationally expected to not act based on moral oughts as the offensive realism theory you champion would claim — neomac

Nothing about political realism says governments can't act differently. It's a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one.

it’s precisely because, according to your own understanding of international relations, oughts can never inform political action in the international arena that your claims about what states morally ought do in the international arena are irrational. — neomac

It's not my claim... It's yours. Here...

I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac

Simple enough moral starting point: the invaders ought to go home (mercs included). — jorndoe

, check news, what do you think they've done and continue doing? Ain't going to keep repeating, but may add updates I suppose (spraying bombs, spreading destruction, letting their mercs run free, flattening towns, killing, shamming, re-enculturating, fear-mongering and calls for nationalism at home). Why do you think I posted the suggestion that they ought to leave anyway (affirming/denying omitted I noticed)? Actually, many draftees probably want to. Any "how" could follow any "ought".

There are children, future children, millions affected outside of Ukraine... — Isaac

And inside. A few already affected. Subsumption under Kremlin rule no good, wrong trajectory, what they don't want, but...repeating again. So, contrary to the UN, do you think it wrong that "the invaders ought to go home"? Had Ukraine just capitulated (or sought incorporation into Russia), the situation would be different. Probably more nervousness in Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia and elsewhere with the Kremlin expansion.^{(Putin, Patrushev, Matviyenko)} You can be sure that (would-be) autocrats + others are taking notes.

With millions, are you referring to Ukrainian farm production + export impact + consequences elsewhere? (As an aside, Putin's Russia apparently managed to sneak stolen farm goods off to Syria.) Are you thinking of a (nuclear) world war three? Something else?

Anyway, getting too close to complicity in Putin's Russia subsuming Ukraine isn't really the best, be it persons or continents. By conscience at least, I'd rather flirt with complicity in standing up to the ruthless oppressive regressive autocratic untrustworthy land-grabber Kremlin. I guess, analogous to the Uyghur situation and the old Canadian Indian residential school system (children here too). Fringe style, supposing there was enough anti-resistance or laissez-faire type attitude in the 1930s-40s, would Berlinian Hitler-Jugend have subsumed scouts and schools in Europe? More victims to be sure.

Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty? — Isaac

Because, like Sweden Finland others, they don't want to be under Putin's thumb? Might be...risky for vocal individuals to try it + report back. We might ask what the refugees want to go home to. Had Russia been on another trajectory, perhaps buzzing with transparency freedom whatever, then things might have been different. We've seen it.

Okie, enough repetition already. It's what these comments are, over and again. Any new aspects? Developments? (I can appreciate 's suggestion for chessboard analysis, though lots of guesswork involved.)

_{And now to something completely different:
New Tesla Model To Include Undercarriage Thresher To Shred All Evidence Of Running Someone Over
^{— The Onion · Oct 24, 2022}}

Ain't going to keep repeating — jorndoe

So you think that was the first suggestion that Russia ought to withdraw? 434 pages in and no one had mentioned it?

Why do you think I posted the suggestion that they ought to leave anyway — jorndoe

Virtue signalling.

Subsumption under Kremlin rule no good — jorndoe

As has been proven over and over Russian rule over Crimea produced a virtually identical record on human rights to Ukraine's rule over nearby Donbas. The record is unequivocal, there's little to no improvement under Ukrainian rule for average folk compared to Russian rule (and in case it needs clarifying, that means they're both awful, not that Russian rule is fine). Factor in the pecuniary loan and 'reconstruction' agreements of another year of war and there's zero reason to believe anyone's life will have improved sufficiently to justify a complaint letter, let alone a war.

do you think it wrong that "the invaders ought to go home"? — jorndoe

Frankly I don't care. They certainly ought to stop committing war crimes, but that's not the same thing as giving up territory.

I don't give a fuck who owns what. I care what they do with what they own.

With millions, are you referring to Ukrainian farm production + export impact + consequences elsewhere? (As an aside, Putin's Russia apparently managed to sneak stolen farm goods off to Syria.) Are you thinking of a (nuclear) world war three? Something else? — jorndoe

Yes. And more. Millions of people outside of Ukraine are affected by the continued fighting there. I can understand why the Ukrainian government might not take their needs much into account, but our governments ought to.

Because, like Sweden Finland others, they don't want to be under Putin's thumb? — jorndoe

I said 'anyone else'. Why do we care what Ukrainians happen to want. Do we care what Russians want? This idea that there's some moral value to what an arbitrary group of people happen to want is just nonsensical. That only institution that need concern itself with what Ukrainians want is the Ukrainian government, that being their duty in a democratic system.

Any new aspects? Developments? — jorndoe

I'm not a newspaper. You posted something. I presume you did so to garner feedback, which this is. Otherwise, why bother?

With a significant number of heavy tanks from the West now heading for Ukraine, including the Leopard tanks from Germany. Things just escalated! Much bigger booms coming or Russian bust?

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

90 seconds to midnight. The closest it's ever been. Posted by people who are not idiots by the way. This cannot be forgotten, regardless of who one "supports".

It can tend to fade into the background given immediate deaths, but, it's a real problem.

90 seconds to midnight. The closest it's ever been. Posted by people who are not idiots by the way. This cannot be forgotten, regardless of who one "supports".

It can tend to fade into the background given immediate deaths, but, it's a real problem. — Manuel

It's winter. We'll start back up in the spring.

You're grossly overstating the importance of countries who have no real power to speak of. — Tzeentch

When you are saying that Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict, US can solely decide what countries join or not NATO when it's charter say something else etc. I think there's no use to engage in a discussion where you have things so wrong.

And btw, you fail to give any reasons why you assume that " Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground" even if asked several times, this discussion isn't really not worth wile.

A nice theory, but there's no evidence to support it — Tzeentch

No evidence...you are hilarious! Yeah, Don't mind taking into account what Putin says and the Russians have done earlier and are doing now, like annexing more parts of Ukraine to be part of Russia, just pick your quotes about NATO and insist there's nothing more to it.

- a point which Mearsheimer makes repeatedly. — Tzeentch

?

Mearsheimer argued earlier that Ukraine should have nuclear weapons, because otherwise Russia can attack it and thus it was a really bad decision to push Ukraine to give them to Russia.

And actual quote from Mearsheimer from November 17th 2022. Mearsheimer's response:

What we were talking about back in February was whether or not he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine, occupying it, and then integrating into a greater Russia. And I do not think he’s interested in doing that now. What he is interested in doing now that he was not interested in doing when we talked is integrating those four oblasts in the eastern part of Ukraine into Russia. I think there’s no question that his goals have escalated since the war started on February 24th, but not to the point where he’s interested in conquering all of Ukraine. But he is interested for sure in conquering a part of Ukraine and incorporating that part into Russia.

So your only "truth teller" that you have put on a pedestal is saying that Putin is interested conquering part of Ukraine and incorporationg that into Russia. Well, I would call conquering parts of another country and incorporating them to your own imperialism, but I guess that is semantics. That Russian jingoists has wanted Novorossiya to be part of Russia (and have that land corridor to the already annexed Crimea) has been something quite long known. Something that apparently came as a surprise to Mearsheimer.

When you are saying that Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict, US can solely decide what countries join or not NATO when it's charter say something else etc. I think there's no use to engage in a discussion where you have things so wrong. — ssu

You're just deliberately twisting my words at this point. The United States clearly decides what happens in NATO, and even if NATO member states stop NATO membership, nothing stops and nothing did stop the United States from turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, which it did. The Europeans had no say.

And btw, you fail to give any reasons why you assume that " Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground" even if asked several times, this discussion isn't really not worth wile. — ssu

I gave you exactly the reason why I believe that, so stop making things up.


And as for Mearsheimer and his points regarding alledged "Russian imperialism", for which again there is no evidence whatsoever:

(time stamp 27:55 onward)



(time stamp 15:10 onward)




Note Mearsheimer has been making a consistent argument for over 7 years, and during all that time and before it, no evidence whatsoever exists of your theory about "Russian imperalism".

If you want to disagree with Mearsheimer and claim there is evidence for Russian imperial ambitions, then go ahead and post that evidence here.

So your only "truth teller" ... — ssu

A sad attempt at discrediting a well-respected scholar.

I'm not sure what to say about this. If you're not interested in the views of experts, wallow in your ignorance I guess?

And as for Mearsheimer and his points regarding alledged "Russian imperialism", for which again there is no evidence whatsoever: — Tzeentch

You really respond to what Mearsheimer said last November 2022 with a lecture that he has given in 2015 as a refutation? (The latter video isn't working)

The United States clearly decides what happens in NATO, and even if NATO member states stop NATO membership, nothing stops and nothing did stop the United States from turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, which it did. The Europeans had no say. — Tzeentch

Good that you finally acknowledge that NATO member states can stop NATO membership. (Just look at Sweden and Finland and the problems they have with Turkey and Hungary.)

Well, in a defense pact that relies on nuclear deterrence and mutual defense, membership is extremely important. Otherwise there is no deterrence, only what we have seen: sanctions and tapid arms shipments. You have to understand the difference. We wouldn't call it start of WW2 if in response of the German invasion of Poland, France and UK had responded with sanctions and arms shipments to Poland, not with war declarations. Alliance and warm words are two different things.

Hence talking about "de facto NATO membership" is wrong. Far better would be to talk about Ukraine as a "US/NATO proxy" as it cannot be refuted that Ukraine crippling Russia's military works well for those East European countries afraid of Russia. I know now how it felt for Swedes when Finland defended itself in the Winter War, because Ukraine is doing it for many East European countries.

f you're not interested in the views of experts — Tzeentch

You have one expert, I take experts in plural and understand that they can different opinions and even if they can have good points, not all of them have to be taken as lithurgy.

With a significant number of heavy tanks from the West now heading for Ukraine, including the Leopard tanks from Germany. Things just escalated! Much bigger booms coming or Russian bust? — universeness

I wouldn't actually call it significant number. And it will take months before they are on the battlefield.

Politicians want to meddle with the specifics, so they approve / disapprove what weapon systems are sent to Ukraine and what individual types are held. It's like the Johnson administration during the Vietnam war choosing some targets to bomb in North Vietnam and declaring others out of bounds assuming that for North Vietnam the war was some kind of diplomatic game of escalation (which was nonsense).

Basically with heavy tanks Ukrainian formations have the ability to make attacks and counterattacks. Of course there's more than just the tanks: there has to be enough artillery and rockets, enough other armoured vehicles and enough drones and a working battlefield intelligence and command and communication structure to have the ability to do maneuver warfare on the battlefield. One weapon system won't do it.

Russia has lost likely over 1600 tanks and Ukraine 400 tanks in the war. The US is contemplating to send 30 Abrams tanks, the UK 14 Challengers and Ukraine would be if it could get 100 Western tanks. That is basically enough for one armoured brigade and likely the tanks will be spread out and first used in the mobile reserve. It's not a game changer as the numbers are low. Ukraine likely would need three times more in order to take again the initiative in the war.

Leopard 2A4 and M1 Abrams

You really respond to what Mearsheimer said last November 2022 with a lecture that he has given in 2015 as a refutation? (The latter video isn't working) — ssu

Of course, because it proves your argument stems from a decade prior, and it didn't hold any water then, and it doesn't hold any water now.

The second video is called "The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war, a lecture by John J. Mearsheimer" and comes from 2022, in which the same arguments are once again debunked.

You see, Mearsheimer has been at this for over a decade. That's why I value his opinion.

Hence talking about "de facto NATO membership" is wrong. Far better would be to talk about Ukraine as a "US/NATO proxy"... — ssu

And you think calling Ukraine a US/NATO proxy would have eased the Russians' minds?

You've been claiming Ukrainian NATO membership was not the reason the Russians invaded. You think it would have mattered to the Russians whether Ukraine became NATO member or became, your own words, a US/NATO proxy? You don't think those two amount to basically the same thing in the minds of the Russians and perhaps in general?

My argument is that whichever one you choose, they're clearly a massive provocation towards Russia and that's what the United States has aggressively pursued for 15 years.

You have one expert, I take experts in plural ... — ssu

Here's Noam Chomsky, an intellectual of some caliber, making a comparable argument and highlighting the American role in the Ukrainian conflict:





We could play this game where you pretend the experts I base my views on aren't good enough for you, or that there aren't enough of them, but I'm under no illusion that this is nothing other than you not wanting to face the fact that there are other valid viewpoints than the one you've chosen.

You've been claiming Ukrainian NATO membership was not the reason the Russians invaded. — Tzeentch

NATO membership, yes, because NATO membership could be and was easily thwarted like Turkey's long standing EU application.

What your error is the idea that reason for the war is singular, NATO enlargement, and that the imperial aspirations are unimportant/fake. Unipolar reasoning for wars is typically incorrect. The obvious inability is to see that Russia a) wants parts of Ukraine and b) wants to dominate Ukraine. Yes, prevention of Ukraine slipping to the West is part of that domination. Controlling the "Near Abroad" isn't just about NATO membership, just ask the Moldovans. It all aligns perfectly well with the imperial aspirations. And the simple fact is that Russia has perpetually had a problem with it's borders.

And I've said years ago, far earlier than even this war started that in Russian military doctrine the number one outside threat was NATO enlargement. But when you can thwart that membership without a war, then you don't go to war just because of it. Russia achieved this well simply by waiting out the US in Central Asia. The US had bases all around Central Asia, the -stans, I think in Tajikistan even both Russia and US did had both military bases. And now the US is out.

Hence it isn't only because of NATO enlargement and to then argue that the war wouldn't have happened because NATO enlergement is incorrect. Pretext reasons could always be given. Russia could have easily gone to war let's say because stronger ties with Ukraine and EU. But of course an attacker disguises his aggression as a defensive measure.

NATO membership, yes, because NATO membership could be and was easily thwarted like Turkey's long standing EU application. — ssu

Easily thwarted? What makes you say that?

It's taken repeated "red line" warnings by Russia for nearly a decade, then a coup d'etat in 2013 and an invasion in 2014, and all those red flags still weren't not enough to thwart Ukraine's fast track to NATO membership that the United States pursued.

Ukraine's NATO membership wasn't "easily thwarted" - it took all-out war. Had these things not taken place, and had Russia simply accepted US ambitions to incorporate Ukraine, then it would have surely happened.

What your error is the idea that reason for the war is singular, NATO enlargement, ... — ssu

Putting words in my mouth.

NATO membership for Ukraine and Ukraine's incorporation into the American sphere of influence is the primary reason this conflict takes place.

I never said it was the only reason.

...and that the imperial aspirations are unimportant/fake. — ssu

I've said there is no evidence for it, and you have yet to present any.

Easily thwarted? What makes you say that? — Tzeentch

Did it happen? Even before the war.

No.

I've said there is no evidence for it, and you have yet to present any. — Tzeentch

Annexations of many parts of Ukraine are quite obvious evidence if this for all to see. You cannot refute it.