Great, so you finally did some reading. — Jabberwock
is using a single outlier to support your argument is a fallacy or not? — Jabberwock
If the accusation is "there's no evidence for X" then cherry-picked evidence disproves that claim. There has to exist evidence for X in order that I can cherry pick it, it therefore disproves the claim that there is no evidence in favour of X. — Isaac
it is easier to overcome one's confirmation bias by seeking many sources, both confirming and countering his thesis. — Jabberwock
I have proposed to review as many indices as possible, including yours, with no particular weights attached to any of them, so there would be no anchoring and no preferential treatment whatsoever. You object to that because you realize that putting them all together would indicate your source is an outlier. How exactly is that framing? — Jabberwock
that is not what is generally meant by the term — Jabberwock
Meaning of tyranny in English
tyranny
noun [ U ]
uk
/ˈtɪr.ən.i/ us
/ˈtɪr.ən.i/
Add to word list
government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly:
This, the president promised us, was a war against tyranny.
a situation in which someone or something controls how you are able to live, in an unfair way: — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tyranny
If you reject historical probabilism, then you cannot argue that the US provoked the war: if history is wholly undetermined and future inscrutable, then nobody could predict any course of events, therefore they are blameless. — Jabberwock
Maybe you have read many sources, but you engage with only one. — Jabberwock
Was there something there you didn't understand? — Isaac
Is it? How? — Isaac
The hardest thing about defeating confirmation bias is that it requires someone to challenge their own logic, which is easier said than done. The simplest way to avoid confirmation bias is to look at a belief you hold, and search out ways in which you’re wrong, rather than the ways in which you’re right. It’s of paramount importance to listen to all sides and carefully consider them before coming to a conclusion. And, having reached a conclusion, we need to continue reassessing whether our conclusion is correct as new information becomes available. You don’t need to compromise your values and beliefs to open your mind to other ideas. Entertaining another idea doesn’t mean accepting it. Just try to look at the alternative to a belief you hold and see the viewpoint of the other side. It’s here that you can begin the fight against confirmation bias. — What is Confirmation Bias and How to Reduce it?
You can overcome confirmation bias by getting out of your echo chamber to challenge your preexisting beliefs.
Here are some quick tips for getting started.
Search for accurate information, not easy-access information
Before making up your mind, spend a little more time seeking out evidence that disproves your point.
[...]
"Question your sources. Make sure you're getting your information from reliable sources and that you're not just seeking out information that confirms your existing beliefs," Dragomir says. — How to spot confirmation bias and keep it from fueling snap judgments and limiting your worldview
For a start we've looked only at two indices in detail, that's not 'as many as possible', not even close, but putting that aside, the anchoring is implied in what you expect to see. You already have Russia as descending into something, your frame of reference, so the quality of any assessment in anchored to that metric, things either deviate from it (and so require justification), or they do not (and therefore require no justification). Likewise your 'framing' of human freedom means that deviations are what require justification, but adherences do not. — Isaac
So 'framing' this as a misuse of 'tranny' (notwithstanding the fact that I only mentioned tyranny a few times), is a straw man. There are two definitions given by the dictionary, you have chosen the one which provides you with a means to an easy counter argument rather than use the one that was intended. It's literally the definition of straw-manning. — Isaac
Firstly, blame is about mens rea, not actus reus, so predictability isn't important. But I'm quite content with probabilism. You've not given any probabilities, you've just slung together a load of facts and said "see, these make it more probable". I don't see. I'm unconvinced that those facts lead to the probabilities you suggest and you've not presented anything at all to argue that they do. Their mere existence as facts is not sufficient. — Isaac
joyously acknowledging that yes, your data is cherry-picked, does not address the fallacy in any way. — Jabberwock
I have already wrote that: by challenging your view by reflecting on it from a different point of view. — Jabberwock
You have flatly refused to look at other evidence. Could that be the reason for why we were looking just at one? — Jabberwock
Anchoring cannot be 'implied', if we are looking at several indices without rejecting any of them beforehand. 'Let us look at all the indices and average them' is not 'anchoring'. — Jabberwock
If someone objects to slavery and someone proposes to significantly increase religious freedom of the slaves then yes, it would be a nice improvement of their index, but it would still not address the problem, i.e. slavery. — Jabberwock
Your claim that the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine requires overthrowing of tyranny — Jabberwock
The question is not 'Can we make Russians happier?' but 'Can we make Russians stop subjugating other countries?' — Jabberwock
I have given you the facts, how you assess their influence on the probability is up to you. — Jabberwock
What fallacy? You've still not explained how my data selection in this instance is a fallacy. Throwing a Wikipedia article at it isn't an argument. How has my data selection process lead to my conclusion being less sound in a way that yours isn't? You've not given me any mechanism connecting these data selection processes with the truth. — Isaac
'Challenging' it? 'Reflecting' on it? These are just amorphous terms that don't have any distinct meaning. What exactly is the nature of Freedom House's 'challenge'? What exactly am I supposed to show to demonstrate having 'reflected' on it? — Isaac
You have no reason at all to believe I've not looked at any other evidence, and in fact the most cursory glance back through this very thread would have shown that assumption to be wrong, but it's not your interest to actually get that assessment right, is it? — Isaac
And I made such a ridiculous claim where, exactly? — Isaac
For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions. — Isaac
Have you ever written an argument? Have any of your teachers ever given you high grades for your 'list of facts' with the conclusion 'put them together however you want, that's up to you'? I presume you've at least had education past the level at which you're taught how to construct arguments. If you want to present an argument that your facts lead to a high probability, you must make that case (and do so persuasively). It's not 'list the facts and then roll your eyes if others don't reach the same conclusion you did' That's what persuasive arguments are for - to get others to see what you see connecting the facts to the conclusion. — Isaac
I have given your four articles about the fallacy you commit. You either understand them or not. — Jabberwock
Yes, it seems all terms are amorphous to you. — Jabberwock
Well, even if you had a glance, you have refused to talk about it, which is about the same. — Jabberwock
Here you go: — Jabberwock
For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions. — Isaac
the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine requires overthrowing of tyranny — Jabberwock
I counted on your intelligence, did not expect that I have to spell it all out for you. — Jabberwock
Odd then that none of your other arguments have simply been conducted by vague reference to Wikipedia articles. I gave you 15 articles about the fallacies and bias you committed. Was that sufficient for you to be persuaded? Or did you feel there was some room for me to have been wrong about the application of any of those to your case? — Isaac
Many are, yes. that's why I ask for clarity. Is that odd behaviour to you? To ask for clarity when faced with ambiguous terms. — Isaac
I really don't see how. Did you talk about all the evidence opposing your theories? If I look back over the thread, will I find all the theories you've proposed about the war accompanied by a short statement about all the counter-evidence that there is on the matter and how you rejected it? — Isaac
...? The first gives two choices, the second asserts that there's only one. — Isaac
leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny — Isaac
So your measure of intelligence is the degree to which people agree with you? Sling a load of facts together which seem to you to reach a particular conclusion and then if other people see it, they must be intelligent too. If they don't, then the only option is that they must not be very intelligent. After all, it couldn't possibly be because you're wrong, could it now? It couldn't possibly be that the way things seem to you to be is not necessarily the way things actually are? — Isaac
You have just asserted that your cherry picking does not constitute fallacy, without explaining why it would not. That is the difference. — Jabberwock
you do not ask for clarity, you dismiss terms — Jabberwock
I'm asking how. What is this 'taking together' you think you're doing? Half way between the two? Biggest wins? What are you actually doing when you're 'taking together'? — Isaac
How? Explain what you think happens. Cato make mistakes. Freedom House make mistakes. You put them together, then what? The mistakes magically pop out? What happens to the mistakes when you look at both reports? You see the differences. How do you know which ones are mistakes/biases? Majority rules? Magic bias detector? — Isaac
...? Most likely? Where are you getting your probabilities from? — Isaac
'Likely', 'most likely'. Any idea as to the difference? — Isaac
What would constitute 'engaging' with them? — Isaac
The HFI is as good a measure of 'tyranny' as any. Short of you getting out your tyranny-o-meter, what could you possibly bring to bear to dispute that? — Isaac
Is it? How? — Isaac
And yet you still cannot tell me what 'engaging' is... — Isaac
What fallacy? You've still not explained how my data selection in this instance is a fallacy — Isaac
What exactly is the nature of Freedom House's 'challenge'? What exactly am I supposed to show to demonstrate having 'reflected' on it? — Isaac
I have talked extensively about the only piece of evidence presented by you and I am ready to talk about any other you would be willing to present (but you are not willing). You refuse to talk about evidence presented by me. That is the difference. — Jabberwock
Given that you explicitly reject the second choice (i.e. continuing the war), then you are committed to the first one — Jabberwock
Improving the HFI (even if likely, which your evidence does not show, because it can move both ways) does nothing to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. — Jabberwock
I believe that having a tight state control over protests, social gathering and social organization in general has a negative effect on probability of regime overthrow by peaceful protests, because all budding protests are dispersed immediately, often brutally, and their leaders are quickly taken out by the unfair judicial process, so the protests cannot gain momentum. Do you disagree? — Jabberwock
That you think it acceptable practice to just throw out accusations without any basis given and then expect them to stand unless sufficiently rebutted is not something I'd be particularly advertising, if I were in your shoes, but... — Isaac
My use of the HFI is not cherry-picking because, as I have pointed out, the decision about which factors to include and which to weigh is a political one, not a scientific one. There's no 'right' answer, there's no rational calculation we can apply to determine which are the 'right' data points to pick and which ought to have what weight. We make a political choice as to what kind of thing we think constitutes human freedom. Cherry-picking does not apply to making political choices about value judgements, it applies to the selection of a subset of data from a wider pool of data of the same type. It applies to picking a subset from a wider set which ought to be included, not from a wider set for which there are reasons for exclusion. — Isaac
If I were to pick temperature records (as your article uses) from a wider pool of temperature records, that would be cherry-picking seeing as my decision to correlate temperature already implies that any measure of temperature ought be included. If I, on the other hand, decide to use income-equality as a measure of development rather than GDP, that is not cherry-picking, it is making a value judgement as to what best indicates 'development'. — Isaac
The point of all this is that your application of rational deductive practices to these historical, political and social facts is inappropriate, they are not data points on a graph to which we can apply some statistical analyses. Trust me, I've spent 20 years in research in social science, it can't be done. — Isaac
That wasn't the accusation though was it? It's not about 'willingness' You accused me of not engaging with the counter-evidence on the basis that I hadn't spoken about it. Have you spoken about the counter-evidence to all your theories here? No. So your accusation is unfounded. We do not typically present all the counter-evidence for our theories, we support them, and expect others to counter them. — Isaac
I've supported my theory about Russian-occupied Donbas's ability to achieve Ukraine-like levels of freedom within eight years, using an index which I believe shows that.
You've countered by presenting other indices which use other measures of freedom and place different weightings on those which crossover. — Isaac
I am. Which is very much not the same as declaring it to be a requirement. Thinking that we ought to go to the Italian restaurant for dinner is not the same as declaring it to be a requirement that we go to the Italian restaurant for dinner. — Isaac
Who said it would? Again, you're 're-framing' the argument. The argument was subsequent to negotiation, and territorial ceding (which are the means by which the conflict might end). The counter to that is usually that it would cause more harm than good. I countered that by pointing to the relative harms in occupied Crimea and the possibilities of reaching Ukraine-like levels of freedom in Russia-occupied Donbas over that period by means other than invading it. I didn't think it was that complicated an argument, but it's clearly been caught up in the "every argument that's not 'MORE WAR!' must be wrong" trope that seems to apply to the Ukraine situation. — Isaac
I have described very specifically why your support is inappropriate — Jabberwock
There is nothing political about including several indices as opposed to one. — Jabberwock
the single one given is an outlier. — Jabberwock
You have switch talk about changing regime (which is specifically required for the improvement of the situation, as you have yourself admitted) to talk about nebulous freedoms and insisted that improvement in the latter somehow impact the probability of the former. — Jabberwock
argued that it is sufficient to support your very specific argument about probability of peaceful regime change in Russia — Jabberwock
People in Crimea reaching higher HFI did not stop Putin from starting the other war, therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that leaving people in Donbas to reach higher HFI will not stop Putin from starting another war for Kharkiv, Odessa or Kiev itself. — Jabberwock
i have accussed you of not engaging with counterevidence I have spoken about. — Jabberwock
If you are content with a solution that does absolutely nothing to resolve the conflict, so be it, but then it means (given your alternative) that the only other option to actually end the conflict is war — Jabberwock
you have failed to propose a peaceful path for resolving the conflict. — Jabberwock
If we have two choices: to go to the Italian restaurant for dinner or starve, and we reject starving, then there is no other option but to go to the Italian restaurant. — Jabberwock
So your solution is to cede territory and hope that the conflict MIGHT end. — Jabberwock
Putin was peacefully given Crimea and it did not stop the conflict — Jabberwock
Why think ceding Donbas would be different? — Jabberwock
You said it was cherry-picking and fleeced a quote from Wikipedia. That's not 'describing specifically'. — Isaac
You haven't 'included' several indices any more than I have. You've decided that you agree with the weightings in one and disagree with those in another. — Isaac
The Economist Democracy Index in 2008 for Russia was 4.48, while compared to 6.94 for Ukraine, with full democracies starting at about 8. RSF Freedom of Press - Ukraine 19.25, Russia - 47 (the lower score, the greater freedom). Human Freedom index for 2008 - Ukraine 76, Russia 111 (less is better). Freedom in the World 2013 (no earlier issues) - Ukraine 4, Russia 6 (1 - best, 7 - worst). Polity IV State Fragility 2009 - Ukraine 6, Russia 8. They only indices they were comparable in was corruption. So what you wrote is simply false. — Jabberwock
It isn't, and repeatedly saying it is is an argument from assertion (seeing as you're so keen on your fallacies). There are only two indices in the world which make a claim to cover human freedom as a whole (rather than specific elements like economy, press, or democracy). Those are Freedom House and Cato. That does not make Cato's an 'outlier'. — Isaac
And I've asked you what 'engaging' would constitute in, but since you refuse to answer I can't see how I can defend that particular accusation. — Isaac
I mean... Just read that again and if it still makes any kind of sense on a second read, I don't know if I can help...
"If a strategy I advocate doesn't prevent the conflict, then that proves the only thing that will is war"? Seriously? — Isaac
Negotiations. Compromise. — Isaac
So? What has that bizarre invented counterfactual have to do with your claim that I claimed any course of action was a requirement? — Isaac
Yes, in part. As I've said, your incredulity isn't an argument. — Isaac
I don't. Have I anywhere made the argument "just cede Donbas, do nothing else, and that'll work"? — Isaac
The argument was subsequent to negotiation, and territorial ceding (which are the means by which the conflict might end). — Isaac
No, I don't disagree. There's a difference between a negative effect and a sufficient negative effect. Political oppression is not the only factor to consider. To dispute the case (that Ukraine-like levels of freedom are possible to achieve in eight years), you need to show why you believe that these negative factors are sufficient to make that unlikely, not merely that they work in that direction. — Isaac
No, I have explained for many posts before that relying on a single datapoint out of many is incorrect. I have talked about it over and over. — Jabberwock
Have you read it? — Jabberwock
The Economist Democracy Index — Jabberwock
RSF Freedom of Press — Jabberwock
Human Freedom index for 2008 — Jabberwock
Polity IV State Fragility 2009 — Jabberwock
Freedom in the World 2013 — Jabberwock
They all show that the situation in Russia and Ukraine is not nearly as comparable as HFI would have us believe. — Jabberwock
you switched from 'we have two options, peaceful regime change in the WHOLE OF RUSSIA and war' to 'freedom in Donbass can improve'. — Jabberwock
I have already responded: it would require to discuss it and reexamine your argument in view of it, just like i did with your evidence. — Jabberwock
it just means that the strategy you advocate likely does not prevent the war, just delays it. That is, the strategy you advocate likely leads to war — Jabberwock
That is a method toward solution, not a solution. It tells me nothing about how the conflict would be resolved. — Jabberwock
If you write 'there are two options', you typically mean that the options are reasonably exhaustive and exclusive. If there are more options to avoid the war, why not mention them? — Jabberwock
The idea that the only way to promote the freedom of the people of Donbas is to fight a bloody and destructive war to keep them under Ukrainian rule is ridiculous and ahistorical. Extraction from the yoke of tyranny has almost universally been won by the people, not governments invading each other.
For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions. — Isaac
we have a strong reason - i.e. previous Putin's conduct - to believe it is unlikely. — Jabberwock
I don't. Have I anywhere made the argument "just cede Donbas, do nothing else, and that'll work"? — Isaac
You wrote specifically:
The argument was subsequent to negotiation, and territorial ceding (which are the means by which the conflict might end). — Isaac
So that is what I go by. — Jabberwock
this evidence was used to argue that a peaceful regime change in Russia is likely, which was your argument (once) — Jabberwock
And I've explained that how it isn't always the case, which is how we have a discussion because you're not the fucking teacher, and though this will blow your mind, it is actually possible that you're wrong. — Isaac
So. The argument you were supposed to be countering was about how far Ukraine might be from Russian-style authoritarianism. The answer is, not far. The question wasn't about recent direction of travel. — Isaac
tyranny in lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. — Wikipedia
My argument is that Ukraine moved, in the last eight years, in terms of tyranny (as defined by the dictionary definition I gave before), the same distance as it would take to get from where Russia is now to where Ukraine is now. — Isaac
Then provide me with the quotes where I have made such claims. I'm not going to argue for claims you'd like me to have made. I will defend claims I've actually made. — Isaac
Nonsense. Just because a strategy doesn't address the mechanism by which conflict is ended it doesn't mean it leads to war. And besides, we're comparing it to your strategy which actually is war, so what does it not ending war have to do with any meaningful comparison. your strategy doesn't end war, nor prevent future wars either. — Isaac
Neither does "keep chucking arms at it". — Isaac
I've bolded the relevant context to assist your reading comprehension. — Isaac
That's not a reason, it's throwing a loose and undefined general comment at it in lieu of any real argument. — Isaac
Except that you skipped over the words 'negotiaion, and...' to create a ridiculous straw man. — Isaac
On the other hand, 'authoritarianism' as you define it now — Jabberwock
you can have a nice HFI in Crimea and still attack your neighbors — Jabberwock
no matter where the frontline is, Russia and Ukraine will have the capabilities to pose a permanent threat to each other
your argument stops being relevant to the resolution of conflict in Ukraine. — Jabberwock
Mine has the advantage of accepting the war on more advantageous terms, yours does not (because it involves ceding territories, which can be used as a staging ground for future wars, exactly as Crimea and Donbas were used). — Jabberwock
Are you saying that wars do not resolve conflicts? — Jabberwock
Do you believe those are the only two possible or the two most possible options? — Jabberwock
leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions. — Isaac
the fact that Putin has already attacked Ukraine and annexed its territory, then threatened it with a war and started it does not give us any indication to what his possible decisions might be? — Jabberwock
what is your proposed peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine? — Jabberwock
I'm not defining it any differently. Read the quotes I provided earlier, they explain how the "strong central power" your Wikipedia article names need not be a government. The World Bank, the IMF, Black Rock... these all act as "strong central powers" which is why economic freedom is equally important when considering freedom for authoritarianism. — Isaac
Yes. You can be defeated in a land war na d still attack your neighbours. Being able to attack neighbours is not a factor which differentiates our two approaches. — Isaac
Pushing Russia back does not end war, it changes the location of the front line. — Isaac
I disagree. As above, if one is merely moving a front line then it is of crucial importance to the advisability of that strategy that one can be sure of making improvements to the lives of those on your side of that line which are commensurate with the cost to them of that action. — Isaac
Russia is staging ground for future wars. In this current war, forces entered from Russia and Belarus. They did not need Crimea. — Isaac
Notwithstanding that, the whole argument I'm making is that ceding territories is not that much of a disadvantage. Ukraine was no picnic before the war, especially in Donbas. Ukrainian national pride might be damaged by ceding territory, but I don't give a fuck about Ukrainian national pride. — Isaac
No, I'm saying wars don't avoid war.
Are you saying negotiations don't resolve conflicts? — Isaac
...? Yes. I'd say either leave them there or don't leave them there pretty much exhausts the options. — Isaac
Again, you keep dialing back from 'most likely', or 'likely' to just 'any indication' (the Motte-and-bailey fallacy - for your collection). Yes, Putin's past decisions give us information about his future ones. No, citing a single past decision is not sufficient to support an argument that a future one is likely. Not without acknowledging and ruling out competing factors. — Isaac
Personally I think negotiations over independence for Donbas and an unallied Ukraine might have done it last year. — Isaac
Now I think the best we can hope for is an armistice based on the current front line, some assurances of Ukraine's security (perhaps from Europe), maybe reparation payments from Russia, lifting of sanctions, perhaps trade deals to assist Ukraine in lost output from Russian occupied territory... — Isaac
What's yours? — Isaac
Having the conflict and the killing halt somehow obviously would be a good thing. And it's now obvious that Russia doesn't have the ability to destroy the Ukrainian military, hence some kind of settlement between both sides has to be reached by both sides. Yet this depends on the military situation. If war is a continuation of politics by other means, then surely a political settlement of a war depends on the military situation on the ground.I get your point. It's a valid one. Holding a different one doesn't make one uniformed, biased, nor a putin-supporter. We all want an end to this war we just have a difference of opinion as to how.
what was the likelyhood of Russia to negotiate a peace when it was still wanting to denazify Ukraine, when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv and war enthusiasm was very high?
— ssu
I don't know, it's not my area of expertise. Obviously people better informed than me thought it possible so that's good enough for me to consider it a reasonable option. Obviously, if possible, its the better one. — Isaac
Please give a reference to this or the source. What does neutral Donbas mean? Luhansk and Donetsk Republics in what kind of state towards Russia and Ukraine?On the table, I believe, was a neutral Donbas, and, non-NATO Ukraine. Russia believes it has a right to a 'sphere of influence' in the region. — Isaac
If the term "coup" is too much, then use the word mutiny. Yet I'm not so convinced about the disbandment of the Wagner group as you are. Just yesterday Prigozhin met a representative from the Central African Republic in St. Petersbugh at the Russia-Africa summit. Wagner provides the regime of CAR crucial support and has I think gold mines there, which brings a lot of income to Prigozhin/Wagner.Considering Prigozhin seems still alive and seems to have even met with Putin in person, I find it really difficult to believe this was a genuine coup attempt.
Has it disbanded?
— ssu
It's effectively disbanded, ordered to either join the regular military, go to Belarus or go home. — boethius
building Russia into something better so that it's less likely to break the armistice over time — Isaac
The irony here is that the thing Mearsheimer got right (in the 1990's) was that Russia would attack Ukraine if Ukraine would give up it's nuclear deterrence. :smirk:Mearsheimer is good when he sticks to a small scale. It's his attempts at big picture theorizing that really go off the rails. I appreciate that you have to "go big" to move the ball along on theory, even if it means getting a lot wrong, but the problems in "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics'" Offensive Realism are such that I think it's worth questioning if it was worth publishing. It makes the realist camp in IR look like a caricature, and got basically every prediction about the post-Cold War era wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think of this whole thing as giving the lie to the libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist) worldview that trade and commerce and markets are natural and self-sustaining. They're not. They must be enabled by institutions that keep the peace and enforce property rights. If they are not, some warlord will just take your grain and sell it as his own, or just blockade your ports so you can't sell it, or bomb them into rubble. — Srap Tasmaner
This redefinition has even less to do with the conflict in Ukraine. — Jabberwock
Sure, if the war is short and indecisive. Then the conflict will still not be resolved. — Jabberwock
Destroying Russian's potential to wage war prevents it from further attacks for a longer time. If Russia is too weak to attack again, then Ukraine may join NATO which will prevent Russia's attack for much longer. The conflict is still unresolved, but Russia is unable to resolve it militarily. — Jabberwock
Although its armed forces have suffered significant casualties and equipment losses that will take years to recover from, they are still formidable. And as they demonstrate daily, even in their current sorry state, they can cause significant death and destruction for Ukrainian military forces and civilians alike. The campaign to destroy Ukraine’s power grid might have fizzled, but Moscow will maintain the ability to hit Ukraine’s cities at any time using airpower, land-based assets, and sea-launched weapons...In other words, no matter where the frontline is, Russia and Ukraine will have the capabilities to pose a permanent threat to each other. But the evidence of the past year suggests that neither has or will have the capacity to achieve a decisive victory—assuming, of course, that Russia does not resort to weapons of mass destruction
this is not about moving a front line, but joining by Ukraine the economic and military community which will put it outside of Russia's reach for a long time. — Jabberwock
That is absurdly false. Taking the southern coast would not be possible, if Ukrainians held Crimea and Donbas. — Jabberwock
But this is still irrelevant to the resolution of the conflict. — Jabberwock
The issue is that just 'leaving them there', unlike 'leaving them there and causing a regime change', does not resolve anything, and in particular, it does not stop the war. — Jabberwock
I am waiting for the competing factors. What are they? — Jabberwock
That is it? — Jabberwock
Lol. — Jabberwock
I have described it above: decreasing Russia's military potential to the degree where it is no longer capable of preventing Ukraine's accession to NATO and EU, which is the only 'assurance' it can get. Hopefully this results in Ukraine getting back its lands, but it is far from certain. — Jabberwock
The longer Ukraine continue their attempt to regain the lost territories, the more in debt they get to those institutions, the less sovereignty they have. Having pecuniary free market restrictions on your economy limits economic freedom and is directed by a central power. It's definitionally authoritarianism. So if Ukraine are avoiding Russian authoritarianism, it's extremely relevant that their method could lead to an equal authoritarianism from a different source. — Isaac
Nor will it if the war is long...
A study from the CSIS, using data from 1946 to 2021 found that “when interstate wars last longer than a year, they extend to over a decade on average.”
Your notion that there might now be a short decisive war is... what's your term... ahistorical.
But no doubt history now suddenly loses it's relevance. No doubt this war becomes the special case. — Isaac
From where are you getting this idea that Ukraine could somehow wipe out Russia's military capability? — Isaac
What makes you think Ukraine will be allowed into NATO with the war still simmering? If NATO countries were willing to go to war with Russia, why not now? — Isaac
It's highly relevant, as I've explained dozens of times now. War is devastating, it needs to win very high gains to be worth it. Measuring the likely gains is absolutely crucial. It's practically psychopathic to suggest that war is a good option regardless of the gains. — Isaac
It resolves a lot for the people currently being shot at and shelled which will no longer be. It literally stops the war, Ukraine are currently on the offensive. It might not, of course, resolve the conflict, but it will, right now, stop the war. — Isaac
You're seriously assuming that there are no other factors that Putin would take into account in determining future military action other than whether Ukraine is free and democratic? If not, then why are you asking me for them? Explain why you've discarded them, your argument is incomplete otherwise. — Isaac
I'm not interested in discussing the details of this. The suggestions I've made are those that have been made by experts in the field with far more knowledge and experience than I have, or you. Unlike a truly remarkable number of people here, I don't see myself as qualified to make these kinds of judgements because I don't have sufficient expertise in the area. I choose those theories which seem to best fit my world-view. What I'm interested in here is why you are so certain of your beliefs here that you're so casually willing to assume all other theories are nonsense, to be laughed off. It just makes you look stupid, I can't think why so many seem to think it a good play. — Isaac
Lol! That's it! How's that gonna work? Ukraine gonna take all of Russia's nuclear warheads! Ha! What a stupid idea! Rotfl! — Isaac
Sorry, been a bit sick, so I respond only now, well later of the discussion: — ssu
it's now obvious that Russia doesn't have the ability to destroy the Ukrainian military, hence some kind of settlement between both sides has to be reached by both sides. Yet this depends on the military situation. If war is a continuation of politics by other means, then surely a political settlement of a war depends on the military situation on the ground. — ssu
In these kind of situation it's difficult to see the reasons just why a settled peace would have been possible. — ssu
Obviously people better informed than me thought it possible so that's good enough for me to consider it a reasonable option. — Isaac
Please give a reference to this or the source. — ssu
And do notice that both Republics are now part of Russia and Russia has annexed even more oblasts from Ukraine. — ssu
The real possible interlocutor would be China in this case, but it doesn't feel the urge to commit everything to find a solution. — ssu
I think of this whole thing as giving the lie to the libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist) worldview that trade and commerce and markets are natural and self-sustaining. They're not — Srap Tasmaner
Let us check then the one sufficient indicator of human freedom there is: the Human Freedom Index. How those poor Eastern European countries opressed by the IMF (which practically financed their transition) and the free market practices of the EU are faring? — Jabberwock
I did not say it will be short and decisive. — Jabberwock
Rocket attacks on the cities are nasty, but they have little to no military significance. They might hinder formal acceptance into NATO, but they will not be able to stop Ukraine's militarization and informal integration. — Jabberwock
While the war is simmering, it will not be formally accepted, it will just be armed and informally integrated, like Sweden. There will be no security guarantees, just military assistance. The point is that Russia must be too weak to stop it. — Jabberwock
That is not 'just leaving them there', that already assumes successful negotiation of ceasefire with Putin on unknown terms. And not resolving the conflict at this point leaves him with enough potential to start trouble again soon. — Jabberwock
I assume that there are exactly as many factors that Putin would take into account in determining future military action that would prevent it as there are factors that would convince him to do it. — Jabberwock
If you are not interested in discussing support for your theory, why are you interested in discussing it at all? — Jabberwock
Link didn't work, but I guess I found what four terms were talked about.I'm not sure what that's supposed to indicate. — Isaac
Yes, China's involvement I think would be incredibly useful. — Isaac
the situation had changed quite much from what Peskov had suggested. — ssu
The only thing actually that China has done is that it has declared it won't tolerate the use of nuclear weapons. At least that's positive. — ssu
Can anyone semi-informed imagine who might replace Putin, and what policy changes would result? Or am I only dreaming? — unenlightened
I'm darkly fascinated by this new trend for absolute certainty in the mainstream opinion. Ukraine, Covid, ... both shared this odd feature that even though solidly qualified experts in the respective fields disagreed, the lay populace were utterly convinced that only one side were right and the other were little short of murderers. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.