Russia's economic situation would be difficult if it was in or we had reason to believe it was heading towards recession, that's what all these various macro economic variables synthesise to.

If all the things you point to were a "difficult situation" then why isn't there a recession or analysts predicting a recession? — boethius

Because the economy is in war mode. Russia is spending a lot of money to make new weapons, ammunition etc. Therefore its industrial output is steady, there is no unemployment (in fact, there are drastic labor shortages), wages in some sectors are steadily increasing etc. So on paper there is no recession. The catch is that this industrial output mostly goes up in smoke - it does not contribute to the development of the economy as a whole, in fact it drains other sectors of labor force and support, so it is not prime pumping, just the opposite.

You're literally repeating my arguments to me.

You point to sectors reliant on exports as some sort of economic problem, I explain that (in the context of there being no recession) it would be only a problem if there's some strategic consideration; you then cite someone explaining the same thing, I point that out and then you re-explain this argument that reliance on imports is not a economic problem in itself (if there's no recession caused by said reliance, just normal economic phenomena of specialising in some things and importing others) but would be a strategic problem.

I.e. we both agree these imports do not represent some structural economic problem which was and is your argument.

Whether there's some strategic vulnerability, such as over-reliance on China, these imports represent is a different question, but you'd need to elaborate an actual argument of how China both intends and is going to actually exploit such reliance. For, China is also reliant on Russia for a significant amount of the commodities it needs.

And again, I don't claim Russia's economy is or will be booming. — boethius

No, we do not agree that the problem is limited to some sectors, you just assert that contradicting the sources I have provided.

Overreliance of Russia's industry on imports due to its underdevelopment was a serious problem even before the war. A majority of the Russian industry run mostly on Western technology. Those inputs now, due to sanctions, are seriously limited. While the industry can run without that input for some time, it has no potential to grow, simply because Russia does not have an extended technological base. China will not be willing to commit to develop it, of course, as it would be against its interests. And it will demand premium on whatever it decides to supply, given that Russia has very limited options. In the foreseeable future Russia will not have any significant exports beyond resources and its other sectors will likely stagnate or shrink. For the same reasons its imports will grow. That is why its trade surplus is quickly shrinking.

You literally use the word "devastating".

Devastating for what? "for the Russian war effort".

Which is relevant to this conversation of the war in Ukraine.

You've now moved the goal posts to Russian economy is not "booming" after accepting all my arguments.

The key one is that Russia can effectively pay for whatever imports it needs for it's war effort with commodities: Russia sells commodities relative the international price (that has nothing to do with the value of the Rouble) and brings in foreign exchange which Russia can then use to buy imports it requires for military equipment.

At no point is Russia forced to try to buy foreign exchange with Roubles to then buy imports for military equipment.

You have zero clue what you're talking about and now just flailing around strawmen and throwing the goal posts off the field entirely.

If you're now no longer arguing that the currency devaluation is "devastating for the Russian war effort", then not being clear that you've retracted and reformulated your position to "not booming" and "weak in some strategic sectors" is tiresome, bad faith, and the sign of a weak mind that is not even aware of what it has said in the past, or then you're just a no-good, damn dirty liar. — boethius

Yes, I retract the inital argument, it was based on the data (supposedly from the Bank of Russia, shown in the chart before) that half of Russian exports are denominated in ruble, which seemingly was incorrect.

on the Russian foreign currency stash: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/russia-s-rupee-trap-is-adding-to-147-billion-hoard-stuck-abroad#xj4y7vzkg

Lol.

Just as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso were allies with France ...until a change in leadership! And the huge protests against Lukashenko earlier (until Russia sent help) and that some Belarussians are fighting for Ukraine show that all is not fine and dandy in Belarus. Many Belarussian commentators have been worried that Russia will take over their country for a long time. — ssu

LOL...Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were colonies (not allies) of France---and France clearly thinks Niger still is. You must think Haiti and Algeria were France's allies and India was Britain's...:) And Belarusians not liking Russia doesn't keep them from being their ally. Many europeans hate America; that doesn't mean their countries aren't America's allies

What is naive is totally dismissing how the organization actually works. — ssu

And I didn't do so...you and others should stop doing so, though

Again, you should give reasons just why you ignore the reasons Putin has given for his annexations of territory. I don't get that. — ssu

I didn't ignore those reasons. I correctly said they alone don't constitute his motivations. You should stop ignoring that

I wonder if Russia making a large scale attack on Ukraine has had an effect on just why Ukraine has it so bad now... — ssu

Ukraine's corruption level was terrible way before the invasion

Glorious Russia going from triumph to triumph!!! Hail Putin!!! — ssu

You said it, not me

If you accuse others
you think you know Putin's motivations
— Jack Rogozhin — neomac

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand

why are you so confidently expressing the following?
This isn't an issue of imperialism at this point. It is a security and territorial dispute. You can argue its a wrong one on Russia's part, but this isn't--at least not yet--an act of imperialism. — neomac

Because I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things

why are you so confidently expressing the following?

I would say every leader's--including Biden's, Zelensky's, Macron's, and Xi's--are primarily selfish and self-centered. I do, however, think sometimes a leader's self-interest can alighn with his country's. I don't think Putin was primarily acting out of his country's interests, but Ukraine and NATO created a legitmate threat against his country and himself when Ukraine refused to remain neutral and NATO refused to not put missiles in Ukraine. — neomac

I'm not addressing motivations or psychologies here. I'm addressing general characteristics...and most leaders' today, particualry the ones Ilisted, are greatly driven by self interest....as many firemen/women are greatly driven by wanting to help people. You think otherwise?

OK let's not talk about Putin's, Biden's, Zelensky's, Macron's, and Xi's motivations, or simply assume they are selfish and self-centered. Let's talk about "legitimate threat against the country and himself", what makes a threat perception (NOT based on leaders' actual motivations because we do not know that other than assuming they are selfish) but on potential and precedent (like placing NATO missiles on the border between Ukraine and Russia that could kill Russian people and trigger a regime change in Russia) "legitimate"? And what would need to happen for you to believe that is an act of imperialism yet? — neomac

A legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat. What do you think a legitimate threat is? And when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand — Jack Rogozhin

Where did he say it? Can you quote him saying this verbatim?

Because I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things — Jack Rogozhin

By distinguishing imperialist acts and imperialist motivations, are you suggesting that non-imperialist acts can have imperialist motivations and that imperialist acts have no imperialist motivations? If so, do you have historical examples to illustrate your point?
BTW psychologists typically talk about motivations based on people's behavior (words and acts), right?

I'm not addressing motivations or psychologies here. I'm addressing general characteristics...and most leaders' today, particualry the ones Ilisted, are greatly driven by self interest....as many firemen/women are greatly driven by wanting to help people. You think otherwise? — Jack Rogozhin

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. Talking generally about motivations and psychologies , I suspect that the difference between politicians and ordinary people in terms of "selfishness" may be biased in favor ordinary people when the judgement comes from ordinary people.

A legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat. — Jack Rogozhin

Was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? If so when did it start to become a legitimate threat to Ukraine? If not, was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea?

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand
— Jack Rogozhin

Where did he say it? Can you quote him saying this verbatim? — neomac

Here you go:

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given."

By distinguishing imperialist acts and imperialist motivations, are you suggesting that non-imperialist acts can have imperialist motivations and that imperialist acts have no imperialist motivations? If so, do you have historical examples to illustrate your point? — neomac

Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac

No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions

Talking generally about motivations and psychologies , I suspect that the difference between politicians and ordinary people in terms of "selfishness" may be biased in favor ordinary people when the judgement comes from ordinary people. — neomac

If ordinary peoples' judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person's judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that

Was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? If so when did it start to become a legitimate threat to Ukraine? If not, was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? — neomac

You ask the same question twice here and you make the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that, so the question is a loaded one. Also, if by threat, you mean actually threatening Ukraine,I would say no

Because the economy is in war mode. Russia is spending a lot of money to make new weapons, ammunition etc. Therefore its industrial output is steady, there is no unemployment (in fact, there are drastic labor shortages), wages in some sectors are steadily increasing etc. So on paper there is no recession. The catch is that this industrial output mostly goes up in smoke - it does not contribute to the development of the economy as a whole, in fact it drains other sectors of labor force and support, so it is not prime pumping, just the opposite. — Jabberwock

This is a very good point to make. Economists rarely want to take into consideration of their models when countries are in wartime economy: the statistics just look so great. Never mind that people are worse off, production figures are usually off the charts. Conscription of hundreds of thousands do have an effect on labour. The only negative aspect is if your enemy is destroying your factories and infrastructure and you have millions of refugees ...like Ukraine is experiencing now.

Russia and Ukraine trade aerial attacks as Zelenskyy makes another move against corruption
^{— Samya Kullab, Illia Novikov, Emma Burrows · AP · Aug 11, 2023}

I'm not sure "trade" expresses how generous Russia has been. At least Ukraine has received some good air defense from others, though "sitting ducks with some repellent" is a precarious situation.


^{↑ Svitlana volunteers (Efrem Lukatsky · AP · Aug 11, 2023); is that an AK-47?}

LOL...Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were colonies (not allies) of France — Jack Rogozhin

The African countries have been allies in the War on Terror (that curious war that started with 9/11, you remember). Operation Serval was widely appraised... and then things turned south (as usual they do). But back in 2013:

Operation Serval received a great deal of support, both nationally – even Captain Sanogo immediately approved it – and internationally. Mahamadou Issoufou, President of Niger, argued that the operation in Mali was “the most popular of all French interventions in Africa”.

With Operation Barkhane things went something like in Afghanistan and France ended the operation last year. In the vacuum, the countries seem to hope for Russia to be solution.

And Belarussia was a part of the Russian Empire and then part of the Soviet Union. Just like Kazakhstan etc. Heck, my country was a colony of Russia for a brief time.

Ukraine's corruption level was terrible way before the invasion — Jack Rogozhin

And corruption was worse in Russia, yet I think the damage the war has done to the economy is worse.

You said it, not me — Jack Rogozhin

Really? :smirk:

The fact you are still denying they were coloinies of France, and are still being treated as such by France is bizarre. It goes against the facts. Feel free to show how they have not been colonies. You haven't yet
The fact France worked with friendly governments--like the recently overthrown one-- at times doesn't change that, particularly since France has, along with the US, worked with those same jihadists who have terrorized Niger

And no, Russia's corruption wasn't worse, but at least we both agree Ukraine and Russia have been corrupt way before the invasion

And yeah, you said it, not me. Really :grin:

The missiles NATO regularly puts in their NATO countries, many of them pointing to Russia. If you think the US has made public what exact missiles they put in, that would be naive, no? — Jack Rogozhin

It seems you are both saying that NATO is putting nuclear missiles in countries bordering Russia and this is not public knowledge. That seems to be rather self-contradictory? Given that you say that NATO does that 'regularly', where exactly it did that and when?

I never said that and what I DID say is not self-contradictory; you have to back that unfounded claim up. And do you not think America puts missiles in its NATO bases? Really?

Here is some info for you if you don't

https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NATO_NSNW_factsheet.pdf#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20it%20is%20estimated%20that%20there%20are,Base%20in%20the%20Netherlands%2C%20and%20Incirlik%20in%20Turkey.

And, as to my knowing NATO keeps missiles in NATO countries without knowing the exact amount, here's an excerpt from that piece, supporting my claim:

"The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose exact figures for its European-deployed stockpiles."

Well, in your quote you say that NATO puts missiles in NATO countries 'regularly'. The last country that NATO put missiles in was Turkey in 1954. Of course, since then the missiles have been replaced, but in general their number was reduced significantly. As you might notice from your own source, no nuclear missiles are deployed in the countries that joined NATO since 1991. Why think it would be different for Ukraine?

I didn't mean they do it on a regular basis. I meant it's what they do with their NATO partners and my link I posted backs that up

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member?

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand
— Jack Rogozhin

Where did he say it? Can you quote him saying this verbatim? — neomac

Here you go:

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given." — Jack Rogozhin

The reason why I talked about “accusation” is that in the passage you just quoted ssu is arguing about a link between Putin’s motivations and what he said. So if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts (like invading and annexing Donbas and Crimea) others can ground their claims about Russian imperialism on speech acts (like denying Ukrainian identity as distinct from the Russian, talking about denazifying Ukraine) made to legitimate certain non-speech acts.

By distinguishing imperialist acts and imperialist motivations, are you suggesting that non-imperialist acts can have imperialist motivations and that imperialist acts have no imperialist motivations? If so, do you have historical examples to illustrate your point? — neomac


Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here — Jack Rogozhin

Dude, chill down, I’m still exploring your assumptions with some questions. You distinguish acts from motivations (“I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things”). And then you distinguish imperialist acts from non-imperialist acts (“when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism”). And you also seem to acknowledge that imperialist motivations can exist in political leaders, but you don't know if Putin's motivations are imperialist, that's why you focus on acts. Therefore you must distinguish imperialist motivations from imperialist actions too, that’s logic.
I didn’t say nor implied that you said “the invasion was an imperialist act”. I’m aware you are trying to argue against it.

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac


No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions. — Jack Rogozhin

I didn’t mean that selfishness is a motivation, but that when you talk about leaders’ selfishness you are talking about psychology and motivations of such leaders. Indeed, it’s hard for me to even understand what you mean by “selfishness” without referring to people’s motivations.

Talking generally about motivations and psychologies , I suspect that the difference between politicians and ordinary people in terms of "selfishness" may be biased in favor ordinary people when the judgement comes from ordinary people. — neomac


If ordinary peoples’ judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person’s judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that — Jack Rogozhin

First, my claim was generic about ordinary people’s bias, I didn’t say every ordinary person is biased about politicians’ selfishness. Generic generalisations should not be conflated with universal generalisations. The bias I’m referring to can be read in different ways: e.g. avg politicians may be prone to selfish reasoning no more than avg ordinary people, “selfish” reasoning may not always be as bad as ordinary people would often assume.
Second, concerning Putin, he may hold some nationalist motivations (and I don’t take nationalism to be a form a selfishness) besides worrying about his own political or material survival (which would be a more selfish motivation).

Was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? If so when did it start to become a legitimate threat to Ukraine? If not, was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? — neomac


You ask the same question twice here and you make the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that, so the question is a loaded one. Also, if by threat, you mean actually threatening Ukraine,I would say no — Jack Rogozhin

I asked you the same question by mistake. Indeed my second question should have been “was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before after the invasion of Crimea?”. I’m not making “the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that” (assumed it makes sense). On the contrary I’m reasoning from your own assumptions. You yourself claimed “histories are important, but we still have to evaluate acts on their own to a great degree” (like all the declarations against Ukraine joining NATO) and “a legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat”. So If NATO could be perceived as a legitimate threat by Russia, why couldn’t Russia be perceived as a legitimate threat by Ukraine prior to the invasion of Crimea and/or after?

6 Western nations demand Russia return two regions it took from neighboring Georgia 15 years ago
^{— Edith M Lederer · AP · Aug 10, 2023}

A fifth of Georgia, a fifth of Ukraine (at the moment), ..., enlarging the world's largest country.

Dmitry Polyanskiy · Aug 10, 2023 (notice the X :grin:)

A couple or so continents Russophobic? :brow: Putinistaphobic, maybe, and not democracyphobic. Putin has managed to create much hate ^{(May 26, 2023; Aug 1, 2023)}, not the least in Ukraine. Sacrificed? The Ukrainians want to join the EU, were and are asking for help in repelling the invaders, etc. They said "No", and the UN concurs. Polyansky is repeating the scripted partyline, give it up already, "alternate world" type bullshit ^{(Mar 4, 2023; Jun 16, 2023; Jul 11, 2023; Jul 28, 2023)}.

FYI, old interview, journalist on the ground, diplomat in New York:

There is no ‘war’ in Ukraine, claims Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN
^{— Krishnan Guru-Murthy · Channel 4 · Mar 29, 2022 · 13m:20s}



Re nukery: Oct 16, 2022 (e.g. @Jack Rogozhin)

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given."
— Jack Rogozhin

The reason why I talked about “accusation” is that in the passage you just quoted ssu is arguing about a link between Putin’s motivations and what he said. So if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts (like invading and annexing Donbas and Crimea) others can ground their claims about Russian imperialism on speech acts (like denying Ukrainian identity as distinct from the Russian, talking about denazifying Ukraine) made to legitimate certain non-speech acts. — neomac

That second quote isnt mine (it's SSU's). So, I still made no accusation and you haven't shown I have. I also made no speech acts and you haven't shown I have. Also, you don't get to tell me how I make my arguments, just as I don't get to tell you how you make yours. Let's actually discuss the issue

Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here
— Jack Rogozhin

Dude, chill down, I’m still exploring your assumptions with some questions. You distinguish acts from motivations (“I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things”). And then you distinguish imperialist acts from non-imperialist acts (“when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism”). Therefore you must distinguish imperialist motivations (if also some motivations can be qualified as imperialist) from imperialist actions too, that’s logic.
I didn’t say nor implied that you said “the invasion was an imperialist act”. I’m aware you are trying to argue against it. — neomac

I am and was chill, and my quote you posted shows that. So, you need to chill a bit yourself. I made no assumptions. As I showed, you have and did. And no, one does not have to distinguish imperialism motivations from non-materialist motivations when one does so with imperialist and non-materialist acts, and I already showed that. Your saying otherwise is just an assumption, not logic. Show otherwise if you can

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac


No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions.
— Jack Rogozhin

I didn’t mean that selfishness is a motivation, but that when you talk about leaders’ selfishness you are talking about psychology and motivations of such leaders. Indeed, it’s hard for me to even understand what you mean by “selfishness” without referring to people’s motivations. — neomac

I showed why this you're wrong here in the quote you quoted of mine above. I'm sorry your understanding of "selfishness" is limited as such

If ordinary peoples’ judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person’s judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that
— Jack Rogozhin

First, my claim was generic about ordinary people’s bias, I didn’t say every ordinary person is biased about politicians’ selfishness. Generic generalisations should not be conflated with universal generalisations. The bias I’m referring to can be read in different ways: e.g. avg politicians may be prone to selfish reasoning no more than avg ordinary people, “selfish” reasoning may not always be a bad thing as much as ordinary people would assume.
Second, concerning Putin, he may hold some nationalist motivations (and I don’t take nationalism to be a form a selfishness) besides worrying about his own political or material survival (which would be a more selfish motivation). — neomac

Generic and universal work the same here; universal is just more extreme. You made a claim about how ordinary people are biased towards politicians, and I correctly showed how that would apply to their (including your) view of Putin as well

I asked you the same question by mistake. Indeed my second question should have been “was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before after the invasion of Crimea?”. I’m not making “the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that” (assumed it makes sense). On the contrary I’m reasoning from your own assumptions. You yourself claimed “histories are important, but we still have to evaluate acts on their own to a great degree” (like all the declarations against Ukraine joining NATO) and “a legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat”. So If NATO could be perceived as a legitimate threat by Russia, why couldn’t Russia be perceived as a legitimate threat by Ukraine prior the invasion of Crimea and/or after? — neomac

Yes, and evaluating acts on their own to a great degree includes immediate and primary causes, with less (but not no) attention given to older history. That would include the Maidan coup, the burning alive of the Crimean anti-coup protesters in the trade house building, Kiev's shelling of the Donbass Ukrainians, and Kiev's admitted (Merkle admits this too) breaking of the Minsk Accords

I answered your final question in my last post. You're repeating your questions again

US government sanctions Russians on the board of Alfa Group in response to war in Ukraine
^{— AP · Aug 11, 2023}

Wealthy Russian elites should disabuse themselves of the notion that they can operate business as usual while the Kremlin wages war against the Ukrainian people. Our international coalition will continue to hold accountable those enabling the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. — Wally Adeyemo

4 billionaires (Aven, Fridman, Khan, Kuzmichev) further restricted. Businesses of Putinistas curtailed. Un/fair?

I didn't mean they do it on a regular basis. I meant it's what they do with their NATO partners and my link I posted backs that up

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member? — Jack Rogozhin

Well, you did write 'regularly'.

And no, your link does not back that up. NATO stopped doing that in the 1950s, that is BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis. Since then no new countries received nuclear weapons. So there are no reasons to believe that NATO would deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine, if it did not deploy them in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

And I just said what I meant by "regularly" is they regularly do it, not do it on a regular basis. You need to read better

And yes my link backed it up as it did not show they stopped doing that in the 1950s. So, you're just wrong or lying. I'll give you the credit for the former

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member? — Jack Rogozhin

And you never answered the question above. Do you really think NATO just sends money to its member countries? :grin:

And I just said what I meant by "regularly" is they regularly do it, not do it on a regular basis. You need to read better

And yes my link backed it up as it did not show they stopped doing that in the 1950s. So, you're just wrong or lying. I'll give you the credit for the former — Jack Rogozhin

Your link shows that they introduced nuclear weapons to new countries after 1950s? Which countries exactly?

And you never answered the question above. Do you really think NATO just sends money to its member countries? :grin: — Jack Rogozhin

Your claim was that NATO regularly puts missiles into NATO countries, I wanted to clear up what exactly you meant by that. For now all I know is that 'regularly does not mean on a regular basis'. So what missiles did you have in mind, what countries and when?

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member? — Jack Rogozhin

I have answered all of your questions...and shown you to be wrong. You have still not answered my one question above. It is time for you to start answering my questions, starting with this one

I have answered all of your questions...and shown you to be wrong. You have still not answered my one question above. It is time for you to start answering my questions, starting with this one — Jack Rogozhin

If your answer to 'what missiles does NATO deploy regularly to NATO countries' are the missiles deployed lastly in the 1950s, then it clearly contradicts your claim that Russia could be threatened by NATO missiles deployed in Ukraine, given that NATO does not deploy nuclear missiles in any new NATO countries.

I will answer your questions not related to missiles after we settle your claims about missiles.

It does not contradict my claim; you've confused my use of "regularly" again

And you don't get to decide what questions are asked and answered, and you don't get to be the only one who asks questions and have them answered

I will continue discussing this subject with others whom--while we disagree--do not engage in such bad faith. Have a good weekend

It does not contradict my claim; you've confused my use of "regularly" again

And you don't get to decide what questions are asked and answered, and you don't get to be the only one who asks questions and have them answered

I will continue discussing this subject with others whom--while we disagree--do not engage in such bad faith. Have a good weekend — Jack Rogozhin

You have claimed that Russia could be threatened by missiles deployed in Ukraine and pointing at Russia. However, NATO has not deployed such missiles in any new country since 1950s, so we have absolutely no reason to believe that it would start doing that in Ukraine. Thus your claim is completely unfounded. instead of admitting that you were uninformed on this issue, you engage in bad rhetoric.

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given."
— Jack Rogozhin

The reason why I talked about “accusation” is that in the passage you just quoted ssu is arguing about a link between Putin’s motivations and what he said. So if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts (like invading and annexing Donbas and Crimea) others can ground their claims about Russian imperialism on speech acts (like denying Ukrainian identity as distinct from the Russian, talking about denazifying Ukraine) made to legitimate certain non-speech acts. — neomac


That second quote isnt mine (it's SSU's). So, I still made no accusation and you haven't shown I have. I also made no speech acts and you haven't shown I have. Also, you don't get to tell me how I make my arguments, just as I don't get to tell you how you make yours. Let's actually discuss the issue — Jack Rogozhin

First, your name in the quotation came from the quotation function not from me.
Second, you are right. I didn’t formulate my question appropriately. I was wrong in using the word “accusation” there. Mea culpa. What however I noticed is that ssu didn’t make any explicit knowledge claim first, it was you to introduce it while commenting his claims, to question ssu implicit knowledge claim. I didn’t find it fair because “if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts (like invading and annexing Donbas and Crimea) others can ground their claims about Russian imperialism on speech acts (like denying Ukrainian identity as distinct from the Russian, talking about denazifying Ukraine) made to legitimate certain non-speech acts.”
Third, when I talked about “speech acts” I was referring to the acts committed by Russia, not you. You based your arguments on Russian invasion and annexation, ssu based his arguments based on what Putin said and wrote to legitimate Russian invasion and annexation.
Forth, to be clear, if I don’t understand your reasoning or your assumptions, and I feel like questioning them, then I’ll question them. I've been doing this for several hundred pages before you joined the thread and nothing could change it. That’s a philosophy forum after all.

Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here
— Jack Rogozhin

Dude, chill down, I’m still exploring your assumptions with some questions. You distinguish acts from motivations (“I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things”). And then you distinguish imperialist acts from non-imperialist acts (“when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism”). Therefore you must distinguish imperialist motivations (if also some motivations can be qualified as imperialist) from imperialist actions too, that’s logic.
I didn’t say nor implied that you said “the invasion was an imperialist act”. I’m aware you are trying to argue against it. — neomac


I am and was chill, and my quote you posted shows that. So, you need to chill a bit yourself. I made no assumptions. As I showed, you have and did. And no, one does not have to distinguish imperialism motivations from non-materialist motivations when one does so with imperialist and non-materialist acts, and I already showed that. Your saying otherwise is just an assumption, not logic. Show otherwise if you can — Jack Rogozhin

Unless your glibly usage of the verb “to show” shows otherwise.
I didn’t say that one has “to distinguish imperialism motivations from non-materialist motivations when one does so with imperialist and non-materialist acts”. I took as premises your distinctions between motivations and acts, between imperialist acts and non-imperialist acts, and between imperialist motivations and non-imperialist motivations, and then concluded that also imperialist motivations and imperialist acts are distinct. If set M (set of motivations) is distinct from set A (set of actions), M is constituted by subsets M1 and M2 (e.g. imperialist and non-imperialist motivations), and A is constituted by subsets A1 and A2 (e.g. imperialist and non-imperialist acts), then M is distinct from A subsets as much as A is distinct from M subsets as much as M subsets are distinct from A subsets. This conditional must be logically true if we understand the notion of “distinction” in the same way. If not, I literally do not understand what you are claiming.
So either those premises are wrong or we do not share the same notion of “distinction”. That’s all there is to clarify to me at this point.
Again, I’m simply asking questions to understand your assumptions (for example on what you take to be imperialist or a legitimate threat). And for that reason I do not want my non-shared implicit assumptions nor misreadings nor my slips of the tongue get in the way of your attempts to clarify yourself. What I can’t avoid however is to question your views on things I find unclear or unconvincing about your claims. Your final balance sheet of what you succeeded in showing and I failed at every round doesn't impress me and, worse, it shows nothing more than your lack of self-confidence to me.

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac


No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions.
— Jack Rogozhin

I didn’t mean that selfishness is a motivation, but that when you talk about leaders’ selfishness you are talking about psychology and motivations of such leaders. Indeed, it’s hard for me to even understand what you mean by “selfishness” without referring to people’s motivations. — neomac


I showed why this you're wrong here in the quote you quoted of mine above. I'm sorry your understanding of "selfishness" is limited as such — Jack Rogozhin

All right, can you give me your definition of “selfishness” as a general characteristic that is not about motivations and psychologies? Because after a quick check on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism) I find statements like this: Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from so doing. And this is also what I mean when I claim that “selfishness” even as a general characteristic is still about psychology and motivations.

If ordinary peoples’ judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person’s judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that
— Jack Rogozhin

First, my claim was generic about ordinary people’s bias, I didn’t say every ordinary person is biased about politicians’ selfishness. Generic generalisations should not be conflated with universal generalisations. The bias I’m referring to can be read in different ways: e.g. avg politicians may be prone to selfish reasoning no more than avg ordinary people, “selfish” reasoning may not always be a bad thing as much as ordinary people would assume.
Second, concerning Putin, he may hold some nationalist motivations (and I don’t take nationalism to be a form a selfishness) besides worrying about his own political or material survival (which would be a more selfish motivation). — neomac


Generic and universal work the same here; universal is just more extreme. You made a claim about how ordinary people are biased towards politicians, and I correctly showed how that would apply to their (including your) view of Putin as well — Jack Rogozhin

First, if you intend to question my assumptions appropriately, fine but you have to understand them as close as possible to how I understand them. I didn’t make a particularly strong claim, I just made a cautious conjecture. Concerning the distinction of generic generalisations and universal generalisations, they are not the same as far as my claims are concerned, I clarified what I meant, plus there is a whole entry in SEP (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/), if you are unfamiliar with it.
Second, I also answered positively about Putin to the extent that ordinary people’s may be biased about Putin’s selfishness too. I don’t find it implausible that Putin could be motivated to some extent by genuine nationalist reasons as his rhetoric of the great patriotic war, the Russian minority genocide in Ukraine and Russian Crimea suggests, and I don’t take Putin’s nationalist motives to be selfish motives as such. That is perfectly compatible with Putin also having more selfish motives like his political survival.

I asked you the same question by mistake. Indeed my second question should have been “was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before after the invasion of Crimea?”. I’m not making “the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that” (assumed it makes sense). On the contrary I’m reasoning from your own assumptions. You yourself claimed “histories are important, but we still have to evaluate acts on their own to a great degree” (like all the declarations against Ukraine joining NATO) and “a legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat”. So If NATO could be perceived as a legitimate threat by Russia, why couldn’t Russia be perceived as a legitimate threat by Ukraine prior the invasion of Crimea and/or after? — neomac


Yes, and evaluating acts on their own to a great degree includes immediate and primary causes, with less (but not no) attention given to older history. That would include the Maidan coup, the burning alive of the Crimean anti-coup protesters in the trade house building, Kiev's shelling of the Donbass Ukrainians, and Kiev's admitted (Merkle admits this too) breaking of the Minsk Accords

I answered your final question in my last post. You're repeating your questions again — Jack Rogozhin

You see, there is a lot more to unpack in your “evaluating acts on their own to a great degree”. Each example of “immediate and primary causes” you listed is controversial and can be used to argue the opposite, namely that the alleged coups and their consequences were “immediate and primary causes” for Ukraine to look for Western support against a foreign power messing up within its territory, and discounting the fact that Ukrainian ethnic Russians and Russophone are still Ukrainians and must abide by Ukrainians rules. But I’m not interested to investigate them further at this point. What I would say though is that none of them SHOWS “a legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat” AGAINST Russia to me, does it to you? The torture, imprisonment, and persecution of (more than a million?) muslim Uyghurs by China doesn’t count as a legitimate threat to muslim states from China, or does it to you?

The fact you are still denying they were coloinies of France, and are still being treated as such by France is bizarre. — Jack Rogozhin

I absolutely didn't say that. Actually, the Sahel is worth a thread of it's own so I started one here. Especially what is happening with Niger.

I think I've made my point there.

And no, Russia's corruption wasn't worse — Jack Rogozhin

By that list I quoted it is.

Poland putting 10 000 troops on it's border.

The Polish Defense Minister, Mariusz Blaszczak, told public radio that while 10,000 soldiers will be on the border, 4,000 will directly support the border guard and the remaining 6,000 will be in reserve.

Lukashenko joking about Wagner troops on the Polish border.

Earlier on Tuesday, Lukashenko mockingly told Poland it should thank him for keeping in check Wagner mercenaries now stationed in Belarus after an abortive mutiny against the Kremlin last month.

Sabre rattling...