My pointing out the fact that the US-lead world order was beneficial to its allies is vacuous hand-weaving as much as your reference to “the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability — neomac

No it isn't, because your 'pointing out' was in direct response to an attempt to take those victims' lives into account in determining if such strategies are worth it.

As such, you need to justify the relevance of your 'pointed-out' fact to that argument.

The only relevance I can think of is that the various regime changes were worth the lives lost and could not have been achieved any other way.

Now maybe you had some other relevance in mind. We don't know because you haven't made that argument.

@Baden, on the other hand, was merely pointing our that your hand-waiving was inadequate as an argument (which it is). The two are in no way equivalent.

To be clear -

That the US has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is not in doubt.

That the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is a bad thing is also (hopefully) not in doubt.

So nothing further needs to be demonstrated on that side.

That the removal of these regimes resulted in a net improvement is in doubt. So bringing that claim in without argument is hand-waiving.

, that's your response to the massacre?
(by the way, nah, that's not a summary of "the last 400 pages"; I notice you've picked up @Streetlight's torch here (unless @Streetlight is typing in the background :smile:), is that what you mean by "we"?)

, OK not silence. :up: Feel free to elaborate if you have something further.

As for the rest, the implicit acknowledgement that the millions of civilian victims of western aggression since WWII are not appropriately categorised as "enemies" and thus disregarded, but better as "innocents" is enough for me to consider the substance of my original objection well made. — Baden

There are innocent victims also in the war in Ukraine. But I’m not the one who keeps mentioning it even though it would be a convenient argument to support the Western military aid to Ukraine. Others do. You know why? To ultimately put the blame again on the US/West, even though such innocent victims are LITERALLY killed, raped, deported by the Russians that the US/West are indirectly fighting.
So the problem is not explicit or implicit acknowledging or regarding/disregarding innocent victims and stress the fact that they are “innocent” and not simply “not enemies”. But what one wants to infer from such facts. For example, one common argument (however poorly formulated) is “Stop fucking interfering in the rest of the world simply to make profits for the powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries.”
Is it reasonable to think that if the US didn’t interfere in the rest of the world, there would be no millions of innocent victims due to wars? Is it reasonable to think that the US is interfering in the rest of the world simply for the profit of powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries? Hell no.
To me under the surface of actual ideological/political/economic reasons specific to the US there are deep security concerns that are independent from ideological/political/economic reasons specific to the US, and therefore such security concerns are transversal to any political regime (democratic or not democratic). They are deep to the extent they are felt as existential by entire territorially limited collectivities. Such security concerns fuel power struggles.
Wars and millions of innocent victims are the dramatic expression of such power struggles. The end of the American empire (as in the case of the end of Persian, Roman, Han, Umayyad, Mongol, Ottoman, Spanish, Russian, or British empire, etc.) doesn’t imply by any means the end of power struggles and its most horrific consequences. Nor an improvement for the world. Authoritarian regimes (Russia, China, Iran) competing against the US will fill the vacuum created by the collapse of the American empire and impose their will on the West, Europeans including, as hardly as they can because they are emboldened by their victory, because authoritarian regimes have no problems to sacrifice their own people, why should they give a shit about the Westerners?, because there is a history of grievances against the West, confirmed by many Westerners who so passionately self-confessed their own guilt for millions of innocent deaths, exploitation and colonization, to the point that the Rest feels fully entitled for a fair pay back with interests. And because they have their security concerns to deal with.
Powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries are instruments of hegemonic projection as much as the Russian and Chinese army, oil, financial, high-tech industries to eliminate competitors. And no power will handicap itself to benefit a competitor.

that's your response to the massacre? — jorndoe

Yep.

Whether the EU is safe, or whether you're happy are not the question. You claimed soft imperialism was 'better'. — Isaac

With the meaning by "soft imperialism" I referred to a situation where countries have the influence over others (political and economic) without territorial annexations or war. It is possible, but far more difficult. Hence US actions in the Middle East or Central Asia (Afghanistan) aren't examples of this.

You support the US and Europe involving itself in this dispute in the way it has because that benefits you, and yours, and it's harming others is not your concern. — Isaac

Lol.

Of course! Assisting the one side that has been attacked and was no threat to the attacker hell bent on regaining it's former empire is shameful and "harming others".

Your concern over Putin is well noted.

Just for your entertainment, an assessed ranking of the wealth of world leaders translated to US$s:


Note though, some wealth is by inheritance (all kinds of details).
Both leaders in the Russia → Ukraine war are among the top 15.

No it isn't, because your 'pointing out' was in direct response to an attempt to take those victims' lives into account in determining if such strategies are worth it.
As such, you need to justify the relevance of your 'pointed-out' fact to that argument. — Isaac

A part from the fact that such an objection would be excusable if it came from somebody I didn't exchange with as regularly as I did with you, but I just see more hand-weaving in there. Here is part of the targeted post: We in the West might have a view of NATO and the US as benign powers, but the rest of the world doesn't share that view. The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries. Why should we care if the rest of the world doesn’t share our view? Does the rest of the world care to share our views? Why is “the most destructive force” supposed to mean? What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean? It’s left to people to guess.
So I’ll kindly hand-weave back: unless the argument is that "the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII, having positively ruined dozens of countries“ (and that’s just a catchy claim not an accounting spreadsheet) for the fun of killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent victims, it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies and the death of innocent civilians resulted from such fights AS MUCH AS the hundreds of thousands of death of innocent civilians resulted from bombing Nazi Germany by the Allies (I bet those German civilians didn’t see the Allies as a benign power either) since Nazi Germany was their perceived enemy. But then, a part from specific military responsibilities (whose assessment still presupposes Western supported standards, institutions, and culture, not Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean’s), one can question both threat perception and threat management from a geo-strategic point of view, e.g. in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria (which might end up showing that the war in Ukraine is NOT like the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria in a relevant sense). Or go for a moral argument about that predicament. Yet Tzeench’s claim didn’t offer any such arguments, just hand-waved at them. And he could get away with it easily, because certain past American foreign policies look already highly controversial also to many Westerners who still find the American leadership irreplaceable or approve the American intervention in Ukraine. Indeed, things might have sounded very different if the claim was something like “The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of Nazi countries”. (BTW isn’t Russia selling this special military operation as a war against a Nazi regime?!)

With the meaning by "soft imperialism" I referred to a situation where countries have the influence over others (political and economic) without territorial annexations or war. — ssu

Yep. Me too. Still the total toll of death and misery is higher.

US actions in the Middle East or Central Asia (Afghanistan) aren't examples of this. — ssu

So you're talking about an entirely hypothetical approach to foreign policy not shown by any nation on earth? Fine. Then I agree. Some hypothetically less destructive approach would have been...less destructive.

Lol.

...

Your concern over Putin is well noted. — ssu

If in doubt, stick a 'lol' in and randomly accuse your opponent of supporting Putin. Pretty much the standard MO round here in the absence of any ability to actually address the argument.

Why should we care if the rest of the world doesn’t share our view? — neomac

Because unless you're wildly hubristic, it might just indicate that you're wrong. I realise for someone with your who that would be difficult to comprehend, but for the rest of us, a mass of peers disagreeing is at least cause for consideration.

If you can give some plausible account of why the rest of the world light disagree with the west about the lost appropriate course of action, then by all means provide it. But absent of such an account the mere fact alone is worthy of comment. Its cause for concern.

Why is “the most destructive force” supposed to mean? — neomac

The one that causes most death and misery. It's not complicated.

What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean? — neomac

Including them in the calculation about what course of action we ought.morally support.

It’s left to people to guess. — neomac

It really isn't. To most normal people the terms were sufficiently clear to carry a message.

it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies — neomac

Again, your lack of imagination is not our problem. If seriously the only two alternatives you van think of are than the us was killing people for.fun, or that it.must believe they're genuine collateral damage in an existential fight against 'enemies', then I don't know what to say. Try a little harder, perhaps?

One of the awful things I've encountered personally, sort of, while chatting with a nurse originally from Russia:

Russian travelers say they fear one question: ‘Where are you from?’
^{— Monica Pitrelli · CNBC · Apr 9, 2023}

Back then, when you say “I’m from Russia,” the first thing people say is vodka, bears, Matryoshka [dolls], and all that innocent stuff. You kind of feel like yeah, I’m from Russia — it’s cool. — Lana

The Kremlin isn't just generating distrust and hate among the defenders. Expected but awful.

On a lighter note, ♫ cue theme from The Twilight Zone ♬, ...

Putin 'body double' prompts incredible claim from Ukraine spy
^{— Tara Meakins · Yahoo · Oct 31, 2022}
Which one do you think is the real one? (Anton Gerashchenko · Mar 20, 2023)

The conspiracy theory that a fake Vladimir Putin visited Ukraine is more proof we are at war with reality
^{— Vinay Menon · Toronto Star · Mar 21, 2023}

:D

So you're talking about an entirely hypothetical approach to foreign policy not shown by any nation on earth? — Isaac

No.

Just to give one example, actually this "soft power" is something that Russia has used successfully in Central Asia. Remember that the US after it's invasion to Afghanistan had many bases there... including one in Tajikistan where Russia had a base. Now there's nothing. And Russia quickly dismissed any US proposals to have any there. The US was of, the former Soviet republics now held military exercises with Russia and one nation even using Russian help to quell protests.

That isn't anything hypothetical, that is the fact how "soft" imperialism is used: without territorial annexations. Influencing others without open war. But when your objective is to regain your former Empire as in the case of the war in Ukraine, it's a bit different.

Policies don't happen in isolation. They're part of a national strategy. Of course you can pick one single policy and show it was not particularly harmful on its own, it would be patently absurd to suggest that every single policy of every country maximises harm.

What I'm talking about is the overall approach. The overall approach of Russia is belligerence at the border and territorial acquisition, by war if necessary. The overall approach of the Us and Europe is economic dominance with control over friendly foreign governments, again with wars to change regimes if necessary. Russia made the Crimean territorial acquisition with very little bloodshed. Grabbing territory is not always as massively destructive as the Ukraine campaign is.

Of these to overall approaches, the Russian one has caused less overall harm. Obviously it would be much better if neither bloc pursued either policy and just focussed on the sort of positive humanitarian goals that our most progressive politicians are talking about. But that's not the choice we have in front of us. The choice we have to to invoke the US's version of power to fight of Russia's version of power and the US's version is demonstrably the worse. One of the main reasons why absolutely none of the African nations support them (with some even openly supporting Russia), why so few Latin American nations support the US, why so little support from Asia. These are the countries which have suffered the most from the US's methods and have no reason to think it a good idea to give them more power here.

Why should we care if the rest of the world doesn’t share our view? — neomac


Because unless you're wildly hubristic, it might just indicate that you're wrong. I realise for someone with your who that would be difficult to comprehend, but for the rest of us, a mass of peers disagreeing is at least cause for consideration. If you can give some plausible account of why the rest of the world light disagree with the west about the lost appropriate course of action, then by all means provide it. But absent of such an account the mere fact alone is worthy of comment. Its cause for concern — Isaac

.

Maybe you should rephrase it but from somebody accusing me of handwaving I’m expecting substantial claims that are sharply formulated and accompanied with required evidences. Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities. Namely, more hand-waving.

Why is “the most destructive force” supposed to mean? — neomac

The one that causes most death and misery. It's not complicated — Isaac

.

And that’s the problem. What do you mean by “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself.

What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean? — neomac

Including them in the calculation about what course of action we ought.morally support — Isaac

.

Again more hand-waving. A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications, anyways, if you feel so confident in your understanding of Tzeench’s claims and so eager to provide arguments at his place 
(as it happened with Baden, and Boethious), then give a concrete example of what such calculation looks like. Here is an example: ”Civilian deaths during the war include air raid deaths, estimates of German civilians killed only by Allied strategic bombing have ranged from around 350,000 to 500,000.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II). By taking into account that the civilian deaths were estimated in the range of 350,000-500,000, would Tzeench calculate that it was morally worth bombing Nazi Germany or not? Show me the math Tzeench would do.

It’s left to people to guess. — neomac

It really isn't. To most normal people the terms were sufficiently clear to carry a message — Isaac

.

Like any handwaving claims by self-handwaved “most normal people”. BTW are you suggesting I don't belong to the “most normal people” and not simply someone disagreeing with you? And what would the problem be with being not part of the “most normal people”? Does that mean that your "most normal people"'s narrative frame is more real/true or better than mine?

it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies — neomac

Again, your lack of imagination is not our problem. If seriously the only two alternatives you van think of are than the us was killing people for.fun, or that it.must believe they're genuine collateral damage in an existential fight against 'enemies', then I don't know what to say. Try a little harder, perhaps? — Isaac

Maybe you should rephrase it, but if you accuse your opponents to claim a false couple of alternatives (no matter if accurate), then you should show at least a third alternative clearly distinct from the other two, not just hand-wave at it. Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, the present post (as the previous one) is about accusing opponents of “handwaving” not about encouraging your clumsy attempts of shifting goalposts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-great-man-in-the-clutches-of-an-evil-regime/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=first

"In their last statements to the court, defendants usually ask for an acquittal. For a person who has not committed any crimes, acquittal would be the only fair verdict. But I do not ask this court for anything. I know the verdict. I knew it a year ago when I saw people in black uniforms and black masks running after my car in the rearview mirror. Such is the price for speaking up in Russia today.

But I also know that the day will come when the darkness over our country will dissipate. When black will be called black and white will be called white; when at the official level it will be recognized that two times two is still four; when a war will be called a war, and a usurper a usurper; and when those who kindled and unleashed this war, rather than those who tried to stop it, will be recognized as criminals.

This day will come as inevitably as spring follows even the coldest winter. And then our society will open its eyes and be horrified by what terrible crimes were committed on its behalf. From this realization, from this reflection, the long, difficult but vital path toward the recovery and restoration of Russia, its return to the community of civilized countries, will begin.

Even today, even in the darkness surrounding us, even sitting in this cage, I love my country and believe in our people. I believe that we can walk this path."

I’m expecting substantial claims that are sharply formulated and accompanied with required evidences. Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities. Namely, more hand-waving. — neomac

Is the latter claim supposed to be an example of this sharply formed, evidence-accompanied type of claim you're wanting to advocate? "Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities" I'm not sure I can live up those standards.

What do you mean by “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself. — neomac

It's already been cited several times over. I'm not playing this stupid game where every few pages you all pretend that there's been no evidence presented in the hope that no one will bother to go back and look. I've already discussed the papers showing the deaths from the US's 'war on terror', the deaths and near starvation condition of nations in the developing world, the links between those conditions and US/European trade policy, IMF loan terms, colonial history... There's plenty of scope for disagreement, but don't sink to this childish level. The evidence is there. If you disagree with it, that's fine, it's underdetermined enough for you to do so, but then I'd ask why.

A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications — neomac

It's not 'apart from the fact...'. I know this will be a difficult concept to get into your messianic brain, but I disagreed with your argument. I did not find it persuasive. Strangely, you merely writing it down did not have the magical effect you might have expected.

give a concrete example of what such calculation looks like — neomac

Again, I already have. A concrete example looks exactly like the arguments I've already given. If a policy leads to over 300,000 civilian deaths and has no demonstrable effect, I don't need to do any "maths" to derive a sound opinion that the policy is flawed. If a country bathes in opulence whilst one it is trading with, has investments in, has a colonial history of abuse with... has 50 million starving children in it, I don't have to do any "Maths" to hold the sound opinion that one country is probably exploiting the other.

Maybe you should rephrase it, but if you accuse your opponents to claim a false couple of alternatives (no matter if accurate), then you should show at least a third alternative clearly distinct from the other two, not just hand-wave at it. — neomac

again, this has already been asked and already answered. Diplomacy, sustainable development, fair trade, disarmament, international law, human rights courts, democratic reform, dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)... I'm not about to list the entire agenda of the various progressive, socialist, or human rights groups in the world. That's why I talk about it in terms of your imagination. It is utterly ridiculous to paint only two alternatives as if we lived in a world where no one was presenting any other. It's an absurd tactic to suggest that the third (or fourth, or fifth) options are somehow these mysterious options barely mentioned. There's entire global movements advocating for them.

For your entertainment. :)

Atlas of Prejudice
^{— Yanko Tsvetkov · atlasofprejudice · May 4, 2014}

Russia made the Crimean territorial acquisition with very little bloodshed. Grabbing territory is not always as massively destructive as the Ukraine campaign is. — Isaac

And women can be more easily raped when they are passed out.

Now the situation in Ukraine was different, which was rather unnoticed before by the attackers.

The choice we have to to invoke the US's version of power to fight of Russia's version of power and the US's version is demonstrably the worse. — Isaac

I think people would opt to live in your country than in Belarus, Isaac.

Note though, some wealth is by inheritance (all kinds of details).
Both leaders in the Russia → Ukraine war are among the top 15. — jorndoe

Umm.. I think that is more of selected countries, not the top ranking. Such countries like Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States are missing from that list, which would change it.

Now the situation in Ukraine was different, — ssu

So? You haven't countered the point that some land grabs are relatively harmless. some economic power grabs are devastating. there's nothing about territorial acquisition which makes it somehow automatically worse than economic power grabbing.

The choice we have to to invoke the US's version of power to fight of Russia's version of power and the US's version is demonstrably the worse. — Isaac

I think people would opt to live in your country than in Belarus, Isaac. — ssu

Non-sequitur. It's not about living in the UK/US or Russia. The choice is to live in a Ukraine under US monetary influence, flooded with weapons, still fighting Russia (because no-one has come up with a plan for actually defeating them), or one under Russian oligarchy/puppetry. Just because on option is shit, doesn't mean the other is automatically better.

The US is 'helping' in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq... Are those utopias compared to Crimea? would people rather live in those places than in Crimea? Or Belarus?

No. We know this because of the migration figures.

Macron on Taiwan: 'An ally not a vassal', says France leader

Not directly linked to the Ukraine war, but since Europe's position of subservience towards the US has been discussed here many times, I thought I'd share it anyway.

Can we finally expect to see Europe steer a more independent course? What possible consequences could that have for Europe's involvement in Ukraine?

For anything substantial to happen, Germany would also need to be on board, and it still suffers under a weak leader.

Can we finally expect to see Europe steer a more independent course? — Tzeentch

No. I'd interpret Macron's posturing as trying to shore up support domestically where he's in deep trouble. And wouldn't be surprised if he signalled all this to the U.S. privately in advance.

Non-sequitur. It's not about living in the UK/US or Russia. — Isaac

Lol.

I think for Ukrainians it genuinely is about living in Putin's Russia or not.

Something a person like you living in the UK can obviously easily dismiss.

The US is 'helping' in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq... Are those utopias compared to Crimea? would people rather live in those places than in Crimea? Or Belarus? — Isaac

The "help" that Russia gave to Ukraine last year February 24th is something comparable only to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And even so, Ukraine differs from both that there wasn't an internal insurgency being fought before Russia intervened in 2014. For all it's problems, it had far less than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read what's written, then reply.

Again the similar ludicrous (and apologist) view that if Ukraine is under Russian control or independent, part of the West (and hence under the oppression of the US), is actually similar.

Or then let's talk about how some land grabs are relatively harmless. :roll:

Your personal incredulity doesn't constitute an argument.

The land grab of Crimea was relatively harmless (relative the Ukraine's governance of the region), and the US-aided countries across the world are mainly devastated.

Those are the facts. If you have an argument against them, then make it. Eye-rolling isn't one.

And when making it, explain how you morally justify such confidence in your argument that you think it worth the utter devastation of war with a nuclear armed and utterly ruthless opponent. Explain how you so readily dismiss the alternative despite the stakes.

Anyone know what the leaked info contained ? Some jackass shared sensitive info about the war apparently…what was in it ?

It's first of all important to remind ourselves of how exactly these leaks happened:

The documents were initially posted on a small private chat group of the Discord social media platform called Thug Shaker Central, with around two dozen members.

Some of these files were then shared on a public chat group, the earliest of these we've been able to identify appeared on 1 March.

More were placed there over the following days, and later shared more widely on other channels.

These channels aren't about politics or military intelligence, they're for players of the computer game Minecraft and another for fans of a Filipino YouTube celebrity.

In one of the channels, after a brief argument about Minecraft and the war in Ukraine, a user says "here, have some leaked documents" and posts several screenshots. — BBC

You see, when you join Thug Shaker Central you're not just joining any ol' sleeze den internet forum: You enter into a sacred pact with your fellow Thug Shakers to step up or shut up and if a fellow Thug throws down some jive turkey Minecraft nonsense like the crass newb that he is you don't hesitate one single fraction of a second to uno reverse that shit with some highly classified information that would embarrass your entire country and risk decades in prison if it got randomly spammed on the internet. But when your this deep in shaking the thug out of life that you're literally in the centre of it, you don't look back, you not only double down with your classified information to win the debate on the nuances of Minecraft mechanics but you do it like it ain't even nothing to you breaking the Espionage act. Just a Tuesday.

Absolute fucking legend.

As for the leaks themselves, what's gotten most of the attention has been transcripts of South Korean and Israeli officials discussing sensitive topics, presumably not knowing the NSA's in the room with them writing down everything they say, and also a bunch of information about Ukrainian force strength, equipment, casualties etc.

The CIA quickly came out and with their own uno reverse of all that shit, showed everyone who's the master, saying the docs were altered and the Russian casualty figures were actually the Ukrainian casualties and vice-versa. Basically a 10 to 1 ratio, so big if true either way (but since Russia fires about 7-10 times more shells and has all sorts of capabilities Ukraine doesn't have at all, and most casualties in this sort of warfare are due to artillery it's, at the very least, really difficult to imagine Russia suffering 10x casualties ... and a lot more plausible Ukraine is, though who knows and who knows what the methodology of these US intelligence estimates even was, without which estimates don't mean all that much).

But I don't know, for my part I'm not one to question Thug Shaker Central. Their word is their bond. No cap.

And to be honest, if you're leaking secret military intelligence information to win a Minecraft debate I'm pretty sure you have no time to alter the documents, you're in a situation that requires cat like reflexes.

And notice how the BBC doesn't tell us which Filipino YouTube celebrity was running the show.

What are they hiding?

I’m expecting substantial claims that are sharply formulated and accompanied with required evidences. Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities. Namely, more hand-waving. — neomac


Is the latter claim supposed to be an example of this sharply formed, evidence-accompanied type of claim you're wanting to advocate? "Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities" I'm not sure I can live up those standards. — Isaac

You dishonestly chopped out “from somebody accusing me of handwaving”. Baden accused me of erasing “the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability that comes with it with vacuous handwaving”. And you tried to back him up with more handwaving. One can't fairly accuse others of "vacuous handwaving" while indulging on his own vacuous handwaving. That was the whole point of the two previous posts and I clearly stated so. Your clumsy attempt to retort the burden of proof for the second time is still failing.

What do you mean by “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself. — neomac


It's already been cited several times over. I'm not playing this stupid game where every few pages you all pretend that there's been no evidence presented in the hope that no one will bother to go back and look. I've already discussed the papers showing the deaths from the US's 'war on terror', the deaths and near starvation condition of nations in the developing world, the links between those conditions and US/European trade policy, IMF loan terms, colonial history... There's plenty of scope for disagreement, but don't sink to this childish level. The evidence is there. If you disagree with it, that's fine, it's underdetermined enough for you to do so, but then I'd ask why. — Isaac

I’ll repeat once more: “Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself”. That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. Suggesting a vague relation between what I’m asking now and what you reported in the past, doesn’t prove that you already offered evidences to answer my question.
Providing evidences to support the claim “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of ‘the western world under US leadership’’s policies” is not the same as providing evidences to show “the deaths from the US's 'war on terror', the deaths and near starvation condition of nations in the developing world, the links between those conditions and US/European trade policy, IMF loan terms, colonial history”. And since the previous 2 posts were about accusing people of handwaving by Baden and you, you are still handwaving.

A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications — neomac


It's not 'apart from the fact...'. I know this will be a difficult concept to get into your messianic brain, but I disagreed with your argument. I did not find it persuasive. Strangely, you merely writing it down did not have the magical effect you might have expected. — Isaac

I’ll repeat it once again: A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications. I claimed “I abundantly argued” and that’s a fact. I didn’t claim you agreed or you found my arguments persuasive or that the magical expected effect was changing your mind. Indeed, I can’t care less if my arguments do not sound persuasive to you, that’s the magic effect of not caring about convincing people. I’m arguing as if you will NEVER change your mind. I’m arguing as if you are and will always be like the ugly Donkey Kong in a Super Mario video game. If you have counterarguments the game continues, otherwise it stops. That’s all. So keep throwing your barrels, dude.

give a concrete example of what such calculation looks like — neomac


Again, I already have. A concrete example looks exactly like the arguments I've already given. If a policy leads to over 300,000 civilian deaths and has no demonstrable effect, I don't need to do any "maths" to derive a sound opinion that the policy is flawed. If a country bathes in opulence whilst one it is trading with, has investments in, has a colonial history of abuse with... has 50 million starving children in it, I don't have to do any "Maths" to hold the sound opinion that one country is probably exploiting the other. — Isaac

A part from the fact that you were talking about calculations not me and that your defence of Baden’s accusations of “handwaving” against me is handwaving in all sorts of directions, but the point is that there is no way to get rid of the speculative and approximative dimension of geopolitical and moral considerations. That’s why a pretentious accusation of “vacuous handwaving” (or “give me the metrics“ or “no shred of evidence”) which you tried so clumsily to defend, is doomed to be self-defeating.
Of course you don’t need to do the math when you can conceal possible reasons for disagreement behind childish hyperboles. In this thread, we have abundantly seen how problematic is to talk about “demonstrable effect” depending on the nature of the facts (e.g. an accounting of the victims of an ongoing war), the reliability of the source of information (e.g. if it’s mainstream or not mainstream, if it comes from Russia or Western sources of information etc.), the time range in which one wants to see the effects (the chain of effects is in principle endless which can cumulate and clash in unpredictable ways), the relevance of such effects (there might be all sorts of effects not all equally relevant for all interested parties, e.g. not all Ukrainians and Russians think that nationalities are just flags), the explanatory power presupposed by “effects” and “policies” (depending on the estimated counterfactuals, and implied responsibilities), and so on.
Of course you don’t need to do any math to denounce the link between the “opulence” of certain countries and the “starving children” in other countries when it’s enough to vaguely hand wave at the trite arguments by populist propaganda one can easily find on facebook too. And the problem is not simply that such emotional appeal looks so “powerful” because it’s oblivious about the pervasive and rational nature of power relations, but also that it can be very much instrumental to surreptitiously advance the agenda of interested parties as any emotional blackmailing. In other words the argument itself is liable of being accused of exploiting “starving children” to advance agendas that do not give a shit about “starving children”. Russia and China sell themselves as “benign” powers for the Rest of the World because either the Rest of the world is too ignorant/corrupted to believe them OR simply because even CYNICAL & GREEDY & ELITIST & UNFAIR & AUTHORITARIAN & EXPLOITATIVE & IMPERIALIST & WARMONGERER agents are perceived to be USEFUL BY the exploited countries/people (as well as to jacobins, apparently), if they look the lesser evil!

Maybe you should rephrase it, but if you accuse your opponents to claim a false couple of alternatives (no matter if accurate), then you should show at least a third alternative clearly distinct from the other two, not just hand-wave at it. — neomac


again, this has already been asked and already answered. Diplomacy, sustainable development, fair trade, disarmament, international law, human rights courts, democratic reform, dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)... I'm not about to list the entire agenda of the various progressive, socialist, or human rights groups in the world. That's why I talk about it in terms of your imagination. It is utterly ridiculous to paint only two alternatives as if we lived in a world where no one was presenting any other. It's an absurd tactic to suggest that the third (or fourth, or fifth) options are somehow these mysterious options barely mentioned. There's entire global movements advocating for them. — Isaac

A part from the fact the alternatives I was talking about were obviously related to what I was arguing (i.e. “it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies”) not to whatever you think it’s worth discussing. But if you want to hand wave in that direction, I’ll hand wave back.
“Diplomacy” requires leverage namely exploiting or exploitable dependencies over often unfairly distributed scarce resources (related to market opportunities, commodities at a cheaper price, or economic retaliation, military deterrence/escalation, territorial concessions, etc.)
“Sustainable development” and “fair trade“ presuppose public infrastructures, compliance to contracts, a financing flow efficiently allocated to say the least which all require a massive concentration of economic and coercive power.
“International law” and “human rights courts” presuppose the monopoly of a coercive power (the opposite of disarmement) to be enforced or powerful economic leverage (whose effectiveness depends on how unfairly economic resources are distributed)
“Democratic reforms” can happen only if there is democracy (and assumed we share the notion of “democracy”), so how can democratic reforms happen when one has to deal with non-democratic regimes in building institutions like “International law” and “human rights courts” that should support and protect democratic institutions?
“Dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)” like in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran you mean? Like in the Roman, Mongol, Islamic, Carolingian Empire you mean? Like in some Taliban village or in some aboriginal tribe in the Amazon forest?
Concerning the “entire global movements advocating for them” (assumed they are immune from criticism and they are not promoted by the West), people can “advocate” all they want (even Khomeini was advocating for more democracy before establishing his Islamic theocracy), the problem is that to ensure policies over time one advocates one needs to rely on massive, stable and unequal concentration of power in the hands of few with all related risks in terms of lack of transparency, lack of accountability, exploitation or abuses (as the Jacobin dictatorship has proven). That is why there are exactly ZERO democratic & humanitarian & disarmed & pro-international law & pro-human rights courts & immune from industrial influence governments in the entire known human history. The closest to such ideal society the entire human history could ever get was within the most developed Western-like societies but for Isaacs that is still not good enough on the contrary they are labelled as "the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin". Isaacs think that with old fashion imperialism which means land grabbing through wars, overexploitation (see forced labor in Russia and the nightmare of Chinese factories) and genocide humanitarian goals are better served. Power to the imagination.

you tried to back him up with more handwaving. One can't fairly accuse others of "vacuous handwaving" while indulging on his own vacuous handwaving. That was the whole point of the two previous posts and I clearly stated so. — neomac

Yes. And I'm clearly stating that your claim of 'handwaiving' is not a "sharply formed, evidence-accompanied type of claim" and so fails your own requirements. You simply declared it to be so. You require of others what you fail to supply yourself.

Suggesting a vague relation between what I’m asking now and what you reported in the past, doesn’t prove that you already offered evidences to answer my question. — neomac

No. You actually taking the bare minimum of effort to look back (or even remember) what has been offered already is what would prove that. The evidence has been given. I'm not going to re-supply it every time it's asked for because the asking is itself just a rhetorical trick to make your opponent's positions sound un-evidenced. If you genuinely have just forgotten or didn't noticed you would be making a polite request for a repeat. You're not.

I claimed “I abundantly argued” and that’s a fact. I didn’t claim you agreed or you found my arguments persuasive or that the magical expected effect was changing your mind. — neomac

Then why "apart from the fact..."? If 'the fact' consists of nothing but your having written what you consider to be an argument, then my response doesn't stand "apart from" that fact, it stands alongside it. I've not disputed the mere fact that you've written copious words. I've, in fact commented several times on the inordinate length of your posts.

A part from the fact that you were talking about calculations not me and that your defence of Baden’s accusations of “handwaving” against me is handwaving in all sorts of directions, but the point is that there is no way to get rid of the speculative and approximative dimension of geopolitical and moral considerations. That’s why a pretentious accusation of “vacuous handwaving” (or “give me the metrics“ or “no shred of evidence”) which you tried so clumsily to defend, is doomed to be self-defeating. — neomac

Bollocks. It's an absurd argument to say that if one cannot provide the actual mathematical calculations we are therefore in some hyper-relativistic world of speculation and hand-waiving. A bomb is more destructive than a stick. I don't need to do the maths, but nor is it mere speculation.

In this thread, we have abundantly seen how problematic is to talk about “demonstrable effect” depending on the nature of the facts (e.g. an accounting of the victims of an ongoing war), the reliability of the source of information (e.g. if it’s mainstream or not mainstream, if it comes from Russia or Western sources of information etc.), the time range in which one wants to see the effects (the chain of effects is in principle endless which can cumulate and clash in unpredictable ways), the relevance of such effects (there might be all sorts of effects not all equally relevant for all interested parties, e.g. not all Ukrainians and Russians think that nationalities are just flags), the explanatory power presupposed by “effects” and “policies” (depending on the estimated counterfactuals, and implied responsibilities), and so on. — neomac

I don't know why you keep thinking this is a remotely interesting line of argument. Yes, different ways of working things out yield different answers. The same is true of your arguments (despite your pretence to some AI-like hyper-rationalism). So what? That just means that the matter is underdetermined - which is the argument I've been making all along. we choose which argument to believe.

“Diplomacy” requires leverage namely exploiting or exploitable dependencies over often unfairly distributed scarce resources (related to market opportunities, commodities at a cheaper price, or economic retaliation, military deterrence/escalation, territorial concessions, etc.) — neomac

Not at all. It can appeal to humanity, to popular opinion. It can appeal to public image, future stakes, the willingness to avoid mutual destruction. there's all sorts of levers for diplomacy that are not traditional forms of power.

“Sustainable development” and “fair trade“ presuppose public infrastructures, compliance to contracts, a financing flow efficiently allocated to say the least which all require a massive concentration of economic and coercive power. — neomac

No they don't. Things can be fairly traded on trust. and there's absolutely no requirement for "massive coercive power" to simply grow sustainably. what's more, the largest and most powerful force is, as history has repeated shown us, the populace. People strive for their well-being and will strive against authorities which seek to suppress it. It's people who represent the greatest coercive force. Mobilising those people is what drives progress.

“International law” and “human rights courts” presuppose the monopoly of a coercive power (the opposite of disarmement) to be enforced or powerful economic leverage (whose effectiveness depends on how unfairly economic resources are distributed) — neomac

again, it does no such thing. Human rights laws were instigated against the will of those in power by force of will from those subject to that power. they are a restraint on power that was opposed at every step. People in power are (or should be) afraid of those over whom they have power. Governments are afraid of revolution. Company boards are afraid of strikes. Leaders are afraid of non-compliance. The moment they're not we get no progress at all. Human Rights are the result of that fear, not the exercise of their power.

“Democratic reforms” can happen only if there is democracy (and assumed we share the notion of “democracy”), so how can democratic reforms happen when one has to deal with non-democratic regimes in building institutions like “International law” and “human rights courts” that should support and protect democratic institutions? — neomac

People. It was the people who brought down the Ceaușescu regime, not armies or international law. Workers.

“Dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)” like in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran you mean? Like in the Roman, Mongol, Islamic, Carolingian Empire you mean? Like in some Taliban village or in some aboriginal tribe in the Amazon forest? — neomac

The latter. If something's not having been done in recent history is your only argument against it being possible then I can see why our politics are at such odds. Had homosexuals ever been allowed to marry in law before this millennia? Good job you weren't involved in that campaign. Had slavery ever been outlawed before the eighteenth century? Did women previously have the vote and merely had it returned to them in 1928?

The idea that if a thing doesn't have precedent it can't happen is utterly absurd.

to ensure policies over time one advocates one needs to rely on massive, stable and unequal concentration of power in the hands of few with all related risks in terms of lack of transparency, lack of accountability, exploitation or abuses — neomac

No one doesn't. Progress has been a matter of resisting that power with an equal and opposite power afforded to the masses.

That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. — neomac

@Tzeentch's claim here is pretty easy to support.

We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism (however "soft" you want to call it -- being smothered by a pillow can have the exact same end result as being stabbed in the chest).

Now, if you want to argue that the Soviet Union, China and India weren't and aren't any better and would have done equally bad or worse things (and did and do their best to help destroy the planet as second and third fiddles) had they been the dominant super power and setting the terms of world trade, I'd have no problem agreeing to that.

But the reality is that the dominant power since WWII setting most economic policies on the planet (what and how things are produced) has been the US, and the consequence has been destruction on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

Unsustainability literally equates to destruction, that's what it means: destroying the ecosystems we require for survival, not to mention a host of other species.

And global unsustainability has been a Western choice, championed by the US and supported by their vassals. The policies for sustainability are pretty easy and known since the 60s (public transport, renewable energy, less meat eating, sustainable fishing, strict care what chemicals are allowed in the environment and how much, and farming in ways compatible with biodiversity and soil protection) and since the 60s the policies critical to sustainability could have been easily implemented to create a smooth transition.

The War on Terror, and now this conflict with Russia and China, are sideshows to the main event.

Which, as I've mentioned before, is the counter argument to your actual position:

Sure, here I restate it again and bolden it: The end game for NATO/US involvement in this war doesn’t need to be to stop Russia or overturn its regime. But to inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power (in terms of its economic system, its system of alliance, its capacity of military projection outside its borders, its its technology supply, its military and geopolitical status) to the point it is not longer perceived as a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West. Outrageous right?! — neomac

The West has no moral high ground. I wish it did, but it doesn't and so there is no justification to "inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power" because there is no moral superiority. Our system is no better than the Russian system and arguably far worse (if only due to scale). Russian imperialism is a pretty banal reflection of our own imperialism, far from being in some different and worse category, and is far less destructive for the reasons @Isaac has outlined in some detail (mainly as it's regional and not global).

The West is not a responsible steward of global affairs and so there is simply not much moral differentiation that justifies sacrificing so many Ukrainians for the US policy of inflicting enduring damage on Russia, as you eloquently put it, which is debatable if that's even happening.

Unfortunately, the time of a diplomatic resolution that could have been easily negotiated is now long past and the conflict will likely continue until either the collapse of the Ukrainian military or then the conflict slowly freezing, neither side having the appetite or even capability for a major offensive.

My guess is that the conflict will slowly freeze, with lines not only far worse for Ukraine than Russia's offer at the start of the war but also without any actual end to the war there will be little repatriation of Ukrainians that left and likewise little reconstruction.