Not allowing people to speak is censorship, and omitting truth is propaganda. I hope people realize this is taking place in what were formerly known as civilized societies. — Tzeentch

By far the most important issue here.

We are censoring debate among experts.

Not idiots on Twitter, not Russian trolls, not paid lobbyists...experts in their field.

The day we decide government-prefered narratives are more important than expertise we might as well go back to the dark age.

As the The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe notes about NATO:

The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (PL 103-447) provided a reasonable framework for addressing concerns about NATO enlargement, consistent with U.S. interests in ensuring stability in Europe. The law lists a variety of criteria, such as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for NATO membership. — ssu

Speaking of the Helsinki Final Act (Helsinki Accords), a few weeks ago the Russian government banned the Moscow Helsinki Group - one of the oldest human rights organizations in the world. It was started in the Soviet Union (which was a signatory of the Accords) as a watch-group to report on the compliance with the accords in the Soviet Union. Later, similar watch-groups were started in other parts of the USSR and in other countries. The US Helsinki Watch group, started a few years after the MHG, is now called Human Rights Watch. Naturally, the MHG was severely persecuted, but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union it operated relatively freely. Well, not any more.

Well, there are some degrees I guess...

outlawed (punishable by law)
loosely illegalized (can/will always find something?)
censored out
suppressed (like by independent publishers/media)
propagandized against
commonly scoffed at

Would it be worthwhile differentiating? (intentionally omitted "shoot on sight!")
I wouldn't say Chomsky "and a myriad of others" are being gagged. Besides, Chomsky ain't so easy to keep down. :)

Putin's Russia has been regressing ↘

:/

Russia’s Longest Standing Human Rights Organization Dissolved by State Courts
^{— Tony Spitz · Veuer · Jan 26, 2023 (1m:14s)} — Jan 26, 2023

An off-the-books mercenary army is gaining power in Putin’s Russia
^{— Zachary B Wolf · CNN · Jan 30, 2023}
Inside the battle for Bakhmut, where Ukraine's tech-savvy troops say Russia treats men like meat
^{— Debora Patta, Steve Berriman, Tucker Reals · CBS News · Jan 31, 2023}

Let's see what comments if any this can generate:

— Mearsheimer (paraphrased): Everyone should have known that Putin would have Russia attack Ukraine

— Others: Ukraine's defense and political dealings with the West ain't up to Putin to decide, and, besides, Ukrainian NATO membership wouldn't doom Russia to destruction ^{(Feb24, Mar18, Apr26, May7, Jun10, Oct27)}, let alone a Russia without Crimea

— Cynic: Bah, it's all just rhetoric, entitlement, propaganda, manipulation by everyone

Grabbing Crimea (2014) apparently was a surprise. Invading (2022) wasn't entirely a surprise ^{(2015, 2015, 2022)}.

Would it be worthwhile differentiating? (intentionally omitted "shoot on sight!")
I wouldn't say Chomsky "and a myriad of others" are being gagged. — jorndoe

That's not the point. The moment society places a higher premium on adherence to government-sanctioned narratives than it does on actual qualification we've lost.

It's not about degree, it's about the existence and active promotion (as we see enthusiastically here) of a notion that there's something instantly suspicious about people who speak out against the government.

Governments need to be held to account. They need to be frightened of their populace. Having three quarters of their populace actively doing their own propaganda for them by casting suspicion on dissent is beyond scary.

Would it be worthwhile differentiating? (intentionally omitted "shoot on sight!") — jorndoe

In my opinion, no.

It's great for the individual speaker that their tongues are no longer being physically cut out, being thrown in jail, etc., but the intentions behind the action and the net result for the public are the same.

— Mearsheimer (paraphrased): Everyone should have known that Putin would have Russia attack Ukraine

— Others: Ukraine's defense and political dealings with the West ain't up to Putin to decide, and, besides, Ukrainian NATO membership wouldn't doom Russia to destruction (Feb24, Mar18, Apr26, May7, Jun10, Oct27), let alone a Russia without Crimea

— Cynic: Bah, it's all just rhetoric, entitlement, propaganda, manipulation by everyone — jorndoe

Mearsheimer's statement is clearly true. Not only have the Russians warned the West about Ukraine for over 15 years, the American establishment itself recognizes the incredible importance of Ukraine to Russia, and in its own continued bid for global dominance.

Influential political scientist and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has underlined how Ukraine is part of a global pivot area along the lines of Mackinder's Heartland-theory.

I've tried to draw attention to this earlier in this thread, but it was predictably ignored in favor of propaganda regurgitation and surface-level analysis.

Here's what Zbigniew had to say about the role of Eurasia in American geopolitical strategy:

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.

About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for three-fourths of the world's energy resources.

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard (1997). p.30 - 31.


He argued principally that American dominance of Eurasia relied on control over pivot areas. Ukraine is a geopolitical pivot area, and such an area Zbigniew defines as follows:

Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location and from the consequences of their potentially vulnerable condition for the behavior of geostrategic players.

[...]

Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots, though both Turkey and Iran are to some extent -- within their more limited capabilities -- also geostrategically active.

- Ibid. p. 41 - 42.

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for
imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.

- Ibid. p. 46.

Given the growing consensus regarding the desirability of admitting the nations
of Central Europe into both the EU and NATO, the practical meaning of this question focuses attention on the future status of the Baltic republics and perhaps also that of Ukraine.

- Ibid, p. 50 - 51.


On page 101 Brzezinski states that the US bid for NATO enlargement came too late in 1996, and should have come earlier, in 1993, when Russia was at its most powerless point. That's two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, after which the United States and Germany made solemn promises to Gorbachev not to expand NATO. Cynical, eh?

Further, Brzezinski underlines Russia's geostrategic vulnerability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is important, because Russia has continually marked the matter of Ukraine as a security threat to them.

In brief, Russia, until recently the forger of a great territorial empire and the leader of an ideological bloc of satellite states extending into the very heart of Europe and at one point to the South China Sea, had become a troubled national state, without easy geographic access to the outside world and potentially vulnerable to debilitating conflicts with its neighbors on its western, southern, and eastern flanks. Only the uninhabitable and inaccessible northern spaces, almost permanently frozen, seemed geopolitically secure.

- Ibid. p. 96.


In his conclusion, Brzezinski writes the following:

How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy.

- Ibid. p. 194 - 195.

It follows that political and economic support for the key newly independent states is an integral part of a broader strategy for Eurasia. The consolidation of a sovereign Ukraine, which in the meantime redefines itself as a Central European state and engages in closer integration with Central Europe, is a critically important component of such a policy,

- Ibid. p. 203.


Anyone who understands the above paragraphs, understands.

The rest are just patzers.

Anyone who understands the above paragraphs, understands. — Tzeentch

Brzezinski is definitely one of the most influential experts to understand US geopolitical strategy (far more than Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Sachs are not even geopolitical analysts). Good you cited him. I was already discussing Brzezinski 3 months ago:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750556

You might be interested in an article by Harvard's Stephen Walt, professor of international relations describing with surprising accuracy much of the bullshit that goes on in this thread...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/29/the-perpetually-irrational-ukraine-debate/

What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”

Sound familiar?

This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse.

Mmm... I wonder if we could possibly find examples of such approaches anywhere nearby...

He concludes...

If the world is forced to choose the lesser evil from a set of bad choices, a more civil and less accusatory discourse would make it easier for policymakers to consider a wider range of alternatives as well as make it more likely that Ukraine and the coalition that is presently supporting it make the right call.

But hey, fuck it, it's far more important to score brownie points with the Twitterati by reminding everyone how much we agree that Putin is bad...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64455121

I expect what will happen ultimately is Ukraine will give up territory in return for NATO membership.

To join NATO a country needs to meet the following standards:

• a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
• the fair treatment of minority populations;
• a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
• the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
• a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
  
  Once admitted, new members would enjoy all the rights and assume all the obligations of membership. This would include acceptance at the time that they join of all the principles, policies and procedures previously adopted by Alliance members.

A functioning democratic political system presupposed a lack of corruption. On the other hand, Turkey is also a member, so, who knows.

Standards have never been much of an obstacle where politics is concerned. What's needed is a "solution" that both sides can find something to love and hate about.

A mutual defence pact with a country that doesn't have the necessary checks and balances to ensure it doesn't elect a dictator or abuse minorities doesn't go down well. While everybody is celebrating Zelenskyi, let's not forget the horrible corrupt shithole Ukraine was before the war. I doubt corruption will lessen when institutions and infrastructure are bombarded back to the stone age.

What the US strategy for incorporation of Ukraine into NATO has been so far, is to make Ukraine a de facto US/NATO ally (something they nearly achieved).

After that it's a matter of waiting until the time is right for further steps. Unless Russia invades in the mean time, of course.

As it happened, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian capacity to defend itself was such that the United States would commit to its defense fully, and that is unlikely to have been a coincidence.

I can agree with that and still hold to my prediction. Give it six months.

I want the Netherlands out of that pact anyways.

Sufficiently likely. Another reason I want the Netherlands out of that pact.

A mutual defence pact with a country that doesn't have the necessary checks and balances to ensure it doesn't elect a dictator or abuse minorities doesn't go down well. — Benkei

Yes, I think there are serious questions over America's membership...

... Oh, you were talking about Ukraine...

My understanding: Ukraine must be part of the West security system (inside or outside NATO may have pros/cons for Russia too!). Russia gave the West the justification on a golden plate. Ukraine (which is far more reliable then Turkey in containing Russia in that area) will be important later on, as soon as the military clash between the US and China materializes. To keep Russia out of it.

https://unherd.com/thepost/henry-kissinger-nato-membership-for-ukraine-is-appropriate/

My understanding — neomac

Rand corporation's expert opinion on the benefits and costs of continued war involvement for the US ...

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

(I've summarized their tables for ease of posting it as a quote).

Moderately significant benefits
•Fewer Ukrainians would be living under Russian occupation. The United States has a humanitarian interest in exposing fewer Ukrainians to Russian occupation.

Less significant benefits
•Ukraine could become more economically viable and less dependent on external assistance. Areas under Russian control as of December 2022 are unlikely to prove hugely economically significant.
• Ukrainian control of more of its sovereign land may reinforce the territorial integrity norm.

Highly significant costs
• Enabling greater Ukrainian territorial control increases the risk of a long war.
• There is a higher risk of Russian nuclear weapons use or a NATO-Russia war if Ukraine pushes past the February 24, 2022, line of control. Avoiding these two forms of escalation is the paramount U.S. priority.

Moderately significant costs
• Ukraine would have a greater need for external economic and military support during and after the war.
• More Ukrainian civilians would die, be displaced, or endure hardships stemming from the war.
• There would be continued upward pressure on energy and food prices, causing loss of life and suffering globally.
• Global economic growth would slow.
• The United States would be less able to focus on other global priorities.
• An ongoing freeze in U.S.-Russia relations would pose challenges to other U.S. priorities.

Less significant costs
• There is a possibility of Russian territorial gains. Russia is not likely to make significant territorial gains
• Russian dependence on China could increase. Russia will be more dependent on China than it was before the war regardless of its duration.

...but, you know, I'm sure your guesses are good too...

Sure and as you know, I agree with the sources you post, they tend to be the same ones I use.

However, it must be pointed out, that in areas of international affairs, you can find an "expert" defending any conceivable view, often quite horrible ones.

This isn't physics in that respect: for every Mearsheimer or Chomsky, you get a dozen state fanatics, with decent credentials too.

Of course, you would do well to point out that the level of the sources you cite are of much higher regard and respect than others. But than can be easily dismissed.

Absolutely. Part of what I've been trying to show here is that it's ideology, not facts which drive our beliefs. We seek out the theories (experts etc) which support those beliefs, myself included.

I believe that power should be held to account, so I seek out narratives which do that.

I've been trying to enquire about the ideology motivating those who want to exculpate the US, but thus far there's been nothing but a pretense that their positions are nothing but cold rational assessment of the facts.

That doesn't get us anywhere since none of us are qualified to comment on the accuracy of those facts. We can only discuss ideology.

Getting past the notion that one view is based on 'facts' and the other on 'misinformation' is a project which 439 pages in has yet to get anywhere.

I was skimming a book the other day, Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz, in which she says something to the effect of (I don't have it with me at this very moment):

"So how does it feel to be wrong? It feels like being right."

And as you say, that applies to us too, no doubt.

What I don't think should be in question at all is what you say: trying to take the discourse into a place in which we can have an effect (in principle) on policy, and that means our own countries, not a foreign one.

But this truism, is questioned as being doubtful.

At least those Russians who protested the war and who are now in jail understood that much. And they seem to have had been covered favorably. Oh well.

...but, you know, I'm sure your guesses are good too... — Isaac

You are confused (as usual). I'm not trying to sell my guesses more than what they are. In any case, the problem is not the lack of support from the experts (as Manuel clarified). The point is that my speculation concerns what the West is actually looking for in Ukraine, however this war ends, in terms of geopolitical endgames. Your analysis concerns costs/benefits suggesting what the US should do (avoid a protracted war) and which doesn't contemplate at all in what ways Ukraine is instrumental to the Western security system.
The question that you systematically fail to address in realistic terms is how on earth the US administration AND deep state (including the other Western administrations with their deep states) could possibly engage in such a war if the entire universe of experts you consulted have repeatedly for years suggested otherwise. Your only possible answers in the end are that either they are a corrupt evil cabala of alien-nazi-vampires or it's just a bunch of brainless wild monkeys. And multiply this for all world issues you think humanity morally ought to address. Since ever.

That doesn't get us anywhere since none of us are qualified to comment on the accuracy of those facts. We can only discuss ideology. — Isaac

What does "ideology" mean to you? Explain that to me. What is there to discuss when we can only discuss ideology?

My understanding: Ukraine must be part of the West security system (inside or outside NATO may have pros/cons for Russia too!). Russia gave the West the justification on a golden plate. Ukraine (which is far more reliable then Turkey in containing Russia in that area) will be important later on, as soon as the military clash between the US and China materializes. To keep Russia out of it. — neomac

What I don't understand is that you seem aware of the probable realist motives behind the United States' actions - Ukraine being a bulwark to contain the Russians in a future great power conflict, etc. - and at the same time seem to believe that those same realist motives aren't going to see Ukraine and possibly all of Europe served up as the sacrificial pawns when that great power conflict breaks loose.

Ukraine is going to be, no, already is, on the frontline of that conflict. You, probably rightly so, foresee more conflict in our future.

When and how exactly is this decision to join NATO going to pay off?

Under these assumptions, wouldn't the smart course of action be to tell Uncle Sam to fight his own battles? That's certainly the course of action I would have proposed from the European point of view.

I mean I could go on. Given the fact that this future great power conflict is likely going to take place between the United States and China, in the Pacific Ocean, on the other side of the world, what is the point of stirring up a conflict needlessly in Europe?

Now, my theory is that they didn't aim to keep Russia out (they wouldn't be able to), but to drag the Europeans in.

I've been trying to keep up with everything in Ukraine but I will admit I haven't really read a lot of the recent posts in this thread so I apologize if I'm posting something someone else already covered.

I just wanted to point out a recent news article on CNN:

Fighting Wagner is like a ‘zombie movie’ says Ukrainian soldier
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/01/europe/ukraine-soldiers-fighting-wagner-intl-cmd/index.html

In the article a Ukrainian soldiers mention the following "During a recent battle, soldiers say they were surrounded by Wagner attackers 'climbing above the corpses of their friends' to overrun Ukrainian positions".

While reading it it reminded me about a World War II story about German surrounded on all sides and being attacked by waves of Russian soldiers who would often attack in what was described as in in total disregard for the loses that they would suffer, nor would the Russians attacking would have much regard for their own lives. I will have to admit that when I read about it, it was a comic book I picked up when I was a teenager or in my early twenties:

Witches' Cauldron: The Battle of the Cherkassy Pocket
https://www.amazon.com/Witches-Cauldron-Cherkassy-Heritage-Collection/dp/B086WPF716

Here is a wiki link about the battle if anyone is interested in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsun%E2%80%93Cherkassy

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while reading the comic I thought to myself how horrible it must have been to be on either side because it was almost literally "Hell on Earth" as the title of the comic book describes. The only thing that eased my mind while reading it was that it happened during World War II and I assumed that it was highly unlikely that any modern country would try to fight a war in the same manner again.

Unfortunately, it sounds likely in some of the worse places in the war in Ukraine, the same thing is happening all over again. :(

Now, my theory is that they didn't aim to keep Russia out (they wouldn't be able to), but to drag the Europeans in. — Tzeentch

Of course, I don't exclude that possibility either. My point is that Ukraine may play a key role in the Western security system for future challenges, even after this war ends. Ukraine may offer plausible triggers to bend the NATO defensive alliance logic into an offensive operation, if needed. For the same reason, having Ukraine outside NATO has its risks for Russia too because it may keep re-militarised Europeans outside a direct confrontation (not military aid though) but it may also lead to some n-lateral military pact with Ukraine that is less "defensive".

Ukraine and possibly all of Europe served up as the sacrificial pawns when that great power conflict breaks loose. — Tzeentch

I do not see any soft way to come out of this game. So either Europeans learn to be and act as a great power (a bit late for that) or they must suffer the great power initiative. Peace-talking (even when successful!) is not a way to disengage from this dangerous game nor to avoid to be sacrificed, because great powers will always have the upper-hand in power dynamics and the less powerful will always pay the greater costs (wrt the benefits). In other words, si vis pacem, para bellum.

Putin says military must stop Ukrainian shelling of Russian regions
^{— Mark Trevelyan, Alexandra Hudson · Reuters · Feb 1, 2023}

Many people found themselves in a difficult situation, lost their homes, were forced to move to relatives or to temporary places of residence, faced interruptions in the supply of water, heat, and electricity. — Putin

(well then ... no, not The Onion)


, yeah, CBS reported it as well.

An off-the-books mercenary army is gaining power in Putin’s Russia
^{— Zachary B Wolf · CNN · Jan 30, 2023}
Inside the battle for Bakhmut, where Ukraine's tech-savvy troops say Russia treats men like meat
^{— Debora Patta, Steve Berriman, Tucker Reals · CBS News · Jan 31, 2023} — Jan 31, 2023

By "tech-savvy" they're referring to monitoring, recording, drones, ...
Apparently a good lot of the "zombies" are questionable hires by the mercenary groups.
Aren't there some human rights principles/edicts being blatantly violated here...?

What I don't think should be in question at all is what you say: trying to take the discourse into a place in which we can have an effect (in principle) on policy, and that means our own countries, not a foreign one.

But this truism, is questioned as being doubtful. — Manuel

Yes, I think there's an aspect, as Stephen Walt says, of managed guilt avoidance. People love an enemy who is completely removed from any aspect they themselves may have any control over (and so obligation to do/have done something about). Putin makes a great bogeyman - no voting required, very few purchases linked directly to Russia, no benefits to give up...basically people can rail to their heart's content and no-one gets to come back and say "well what are you doing about it?" That's very attractive, we don't often have the opportunity to do that.