Exactly. Hence, the Kremlin circle = serial liars (+ hypocrites). Dis/agree? — jorndoe

You can't just throw in a "hence" to construct an argument.

What's your actual argument here, then I'll answer your question.

Whether you do or not, the Kremlin circle does, and employs that as a rationale for their wretched warring, which hence falls flat. Yes? No? — jorndoe

I've explained several times now that the best propaganda with the longest shelf life is based on truth.

So no, it doesn't fall flat. Whether it was the "main thing" or something else that have motivated the Russians to see the war through this far, certainly the denazification rationale was a contributing factor.

Ukraine has made some progress, where Russia has regressed. Agree or not? — jorndoe

I do not think Ukraine has made more progress than Russia on the freedom and equality scale. Before the war there were arguments for and against "who's more free" that has already been addressed (in the context of how many lives are worth sacrificing to "free" occupied Ukraine).

However, now Ukraine seems to be essentially a police state, political parties banned, critical media banned, lot's of disappearing and murdering by the police state. I wouldn't say Russia is doing much better, but my guess is that Russia is still "more free" than wartime Ukraine. For example, Russians were not barred from leaving the country, so that is a significant freedom. You, to contrast, are free to argue or just randomly say that the "true freedom" will arrive when the war is over, all those forced into the draft and sacrificed will be vindicated in some strange sense.

Especially with long weaving comments, eh? — jorndoe

You mainly micro-blog, call everything you don't like propaganda, provide no commentary or analysis of what you're micro-blogging about, and don't engage in any debate for the most part.

The little argument you do is simply a series of moving the goal-posts. You go from claiming the Nazi problem in Ukraine is "alternative world type stuff" in response to my analysis of the Nazi problem the tis backed up by evidence, to Nazi's are literally "everywhere" and no more a problem in Ukraine, to admitting it's a problem in Ukraine but then just provide links of extremists elsewhere ... where they too are a problem such as jihadi terrorism (the difference being it's tolerated in Ukraine but the French, to take one of your examples, are not tolerating it and trying to keep it in check if not reduce it), and now it's "Russia is just as bad", maybe so, maybe Russia is just as bad ... why would I pick Ukraine in a context of equally bad states?

By the way,

↪boethius, the Kremlin gets their way, or it's the nuclear way...?
— Nov 9, 2023 — jorndoe

I've explained several times that nuclear blackmail obviously works.

What's your solution to nuclear blackmail?

What is your alternative analysis to mine that the principle factor determining the outcome in the war in Ukraine is NATO's desire to avoid nuclear escalation, what could potentially cause nuclear escalation? Ukraine winning obviously. So, how is nuclear escalation avoided? Propping Ukraine up just enough to be able to fight but not enough to be able to win.

NATO associated analysts, mainly the neocons, discussed at length what the US could do in response to Russian nuclear use in Ukraine and didn't come up with any good options.

So yes, the Kremlin will get its way in Ukraine because people genuinely believe the alternative is the nuclear way, which no one wants to risk for Ukraine.

Why? Because Ukraine isn't important to the US, NATO, and the EU, not important to risk nuclear escalation.

I explained over several comments how exactly boots on the ground could have worked to prevent the war, of course at the risk of nuclear escalation, a bold move I'd be completely content with if it worked at preventing a giant war.

Of course, it was never even an option under consideration, because Ukraine or Ukrainian lives is not some sort of priority and the games the US and NATO have been playing in Ukraine are for evil ends that do not benefit Ukraine nor Europe more generally (the EU goes along with it because European leaders have decided to just accept being subordinate tools to the US after all, and the EU institutions used to keep rascal nations in check rather than coordinate any sort of independent European foreign policy; the EU has essentially been transformed into the underwriter of the Ukrainian government and a whip that can be cracked at any politician that dares criticize US foreign policy).

So, if you want to live in the real world, the problem of Nazis in Ukraine was never "an actual problem" for the US and NATO because they served the purpose of provoking the war, and likewise, in the real world, no one's so foolish enough as to provoke nuclear war on behalf of Ukraine.

Which leaves us where? Ukraine is stuck in a war its backers want Ukraine to fight but not win.

FYI, reportedly, Ukraine has become the most littered area on the planet — littered with Russian mines, bombs, trip wires and traps, grenades, explosives in kitchen gear and toys, ... — jorndoe

That's what choosing to "win", which I believe is your position, means.

You're genuinely surprised by the result?

Has the cost been worth a small sliver of a chance to retake the Donbas without needing to negotiate any sort of increased autonomy of any kind ... or the even smaller change of retaking Crimea?

So, if you want to live in the real world — boethius

If one wants to live in the real world, the last thing they should do is believe anything you write.

However, now Ukraine seems to be essentially a police state, political parties banned, critical media banned, lot's of disappearing and murdering by the police state. — boethius

More lies piled on.

Really, you expect anyone to believe that you care one whit about peace, or lives?

If one wants to live in the real world, the last thing they should do is believe anything you write. — Echarmion

Really? You go from stating my predictions, such as Ukraine could not possibly retake significant territory without heavy weapons (that Javelins, NLAWS and Stingers aren't going to cut) are the most obvious thing ever that everyone who had a clue knew basically ... to now claiming literally nothing I say is true.

Now I get it, Ukraine isn't in a good position, before nor during the war, and NATO could do more (such as just let Ukraine in and then send in ground troops to teach Putin who's the real tough guys with the real toughest tats) but NATO doesn't.

I also get it, if you aren't a Nazi sympathizer it's difficult to process the level of Naziism in Ukraine, but it's there and it's an important part of any credible analysis.

As NBC puts it:

My own grandparents themselves had to flee western Ukraine to escape persecution, and it is tragic to see this cycle continue. If the country devolves into chaos and insurgency, Jews could once again be at risk from some of their fellow citizens. Not acknowledging this threat means that little is being done to guard against it. — Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, NBC

Now, I'd also be worried about hundreds of thousands dead in a war and everyone else that would be purged in a Nazi takeover as well.

However, the evidence behind the above warning is strong enough for NBC to publish the story even in an environment of general denialism and white washing of the issue.

Really, you expect anyone to believe that you care one whit about peace, or lives? — Echarmion

Where were you at the start of the conflict in spring 2022 when peace was most easily achieved?

I was here.

Arguing for peace.

I even wrote to my country's leadership 3 years before the war started explaining that a lack of international leadership (for example rich countries narcissistically only focusing on themselves, and not creating a mobile medical battalion to bring relief to areas experiencing overcapacity) would lead directly to chaos and conflict, most notably in Eastern Europe.

Now imagine if the West also put resources into mobile hospitals during the pandemic to at least be sure to bring basic medical supplies to areas experience a peak.

Even if it wouldn't be all that successful, it's the kind of thing that would bring people together, symbolize our caring for each other. Of course, the danger of this concept is that it may have worked too well and there'd be no need to wait for vaccines.

My proposal was rejected and I was informed the pandemic was in the hands of the experts, not to worry my pretty little head basically.

Exactly the process I described took place.

Now you may argue my mobile hospital concept would not have prevented the war in Ukraine, but I also explained in my letter that the insular attitude, essentially ignoring international diplomacy, would also contribute to the same.

Again, experts are handling it.

But are they? Are they really?

From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset. — Tzeentch

Meaning?

But my engagement in the discussion about the Ukraine war has never been moral in nature. Morality isn't even a useful lens through which to view the conduct of states, since they are not moral actors — Tzeentch

.

Do you mean that “those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego” and “how many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?” do not express moral evaluations? Neither “my perspective presupposes peaceful coexistence is (or "should be") the goal of nations. Sadly, many nations and certainly the U.S. are not driven by that goal”?

How about the conduct of Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Macron, Scholz, Boris Johnson? Can we assess their political choices morally since they are moral actors? How about “These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?” ? Does it express a moral evaluation?

Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law, which is something I would never deny.

You have to pay attention to what is said, not fill in the blanks with what you would like to believe "I meant". — Tzeentch

If you do not want me to fill in the blanks, as you claim, you should try to be more clear next time. Here is what I got so far, about your beliefs: Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law. But not right to defend itself from a standpoint of morality because… it is not a moral actor?
Now the question: Putin who is a moral actor (right?) can invade Ukraine and violate its right from a standpoint of international law because from a moral point of view Ukraine has no right to self-defence?

As for the rest, I believe Ukraine will achieve nothing by continuing to fight, except for a worse bargaining position and further destruction of Ukraine.

There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that, even if it's not what cheerleaders want to hear.

Yes, I believe Russia most-likely achieved its primary objectives. Yes, I believe the Ukrainiain bargaining position has only deteriorated since the negotiations of March/April 2022.

And on the topic of trust; it's Ukraine who stands to lose most in this war, so trust or no trust, refusing negotiations will only deteriorate its position further. — Tzeentch

What you have conveniently removed from this presentation of your views is all your normative claims about what Ukrainian should have done, what the US/Europeans should do, and who is to blame. Besides pro-Russian propaganda could make the same arguments, even if that’s what you do not want to hear. Indeed, you are still arguing based on factual claims that you believe compelling in their accuracy and sufficient to support surrender.
Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that?

However, the evidence behind the above warning is strong enough for NBC to publish the story even in an environment of general denialism and white washing of the issue. — boethius

I love the logic of invoking denialism while posting a bunch of articles to then turn around and claim the articles are thus evidence of a much worse problem. It's the kind of backwards logic common to self-professed "free thinkers".

Also it should be noted that in context, the "chaos and insurgency" the article talks about is referring to the result of a russian takeover.

I even wrote to my country's leadership 3 years before the war started explaining that a lack of international leadership (for example rich countries narcissistically only focusing on themselves, and not creating a mobile medical battalion to bring relief to areas experiencing overcapacity) would lead directly to chaos and conflict, most notably in Eastern Europe.

Now imagine if the West also put resources into mobile hospitals during the pandemic to at least be sure to bring basic medical supplies to areas experience a peak.

Even if it wouldn't be all that successful, it's the kind of thing that would bring people together, symbolize our caring for each other. Of course, the danger of this concept is that it may have worked too well and there'd be no need to wait for vaccines.

My proposal was rejected and I was informed the pandemic was in the hands of the experts, not to worry my pretty little head basically.

Exactly the process I described took place.

Now you may argue my mobile hospital concept would not have prevented the war in Ukraine, but I also explained in my letter that the insular attitude, essentially ignoring international diplomacy, would also contribute to the same.

Again, experts are handling it.

But are they? Are they really? — boethius

This really just seems like more evidence that you are conceited about your own abilities, and that your incessant distortion and outright lies merely serve to protect your ego.

From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset. — Tzeentch

Meaning? — neomac

For the sake of not derailing the thread I'm not going to go into detail. I'm a classic liberal in the practical sense, and an anarchist in an idealist sense. For me, states are a 'necessary evil' at their very best, and more often than not just 'evil'.

Do you mean that “those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego” and “how many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?” do not express moral evaluations? Neither “my perspective presupposes peaceful coexistence is (or "should be") the goal of nations. Sadly, many nations and certainly the U.S. are not driven by that goal”?

How about the conduct of Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Macron, Scholz, Boris Johnson? Can we assess their political choices morally since they are moral actors? How about “These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?” ? Does it express a moral evaluation? — neomac

We've already had this discussion before.

Picking out a handful of emotionally loaded comments is not very impressive considering this discussion has been going for years.

My arguments vis-á-vis Ukraine are not moral in nature, and the idea that this war is primarily caused by neocon foreign policy is not moral either.

Sometimes the sheer disgust I feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics shines through. Sue me.

Here is what I got so far, about your beliefs: Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law. But not right to defend itself from a standpoint of morality because… it is not a moral actor? — neomac

Now the question: Putin who is a moral actor (right?) can invade Ukraine and violate its right from a standpoint of international law because from a moral point of view Ukraine has no right to self-defence? — neomac

States are abstractions and not moral actors, so they have no moral rights.

As I said, morality is simply not a useful lens through which to evaluate the behavior of states.

Note that in the case of the Israel discussion, Israel has no legal right to self-defense, which is why the discussion shifted to the question of whether it had a moral right.

And no, of course my belief is not that Putin has a moral right to invade Ukraine.

For the purpose of this discussion I've always supposed Ukraine had a legal right to self-defense and that Russia's invasion is illegal, and never claimed otherwise. The basis for that is international law, and not morality.

What you have conveniently removed from this presentation of your views is all your normative claims about what Ukrainian should have done, what the US/Europeans should do, and who is to blame. — neomac

Those aren't moral 'shoulds' though, and attributing blame isn't necessarily moral in nature either. These are questions of cause & effect, strategy, etc.

Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that? — neomac

No, I don't believe Russia is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine in the same way that Israel is responsible for the war in Gaza.

Russia is part of the problem, and its invasion and occupation are illegal. I can agree to that much.

I love the logic of invoking denialism while posting a bunch of articles to then turn around and claim the articles are thus evidence of a much worse problem. It's the kind of backwards logic common to self-professed "free thinkers". — Echarmion

The articles are written at different times and represent a trend, going from a "danger to democracy" and acting (violently, including murder) with impunity and are totally unaccountable by law enforcement (already before the war, either because they've captured law enforcement or then can already intimidate police and prosecutors into doing nothing) to chaos and insurgency could put jews at risk of their fellow citizens (i.e. the problem is already bad enough that Nazis would have time to kill jews as a side hustle to fighting Russian occupiers).

First, you throw up some plausible deniability bullshit arguing that there's no proof these acts of terrorism actually intimidate people into making different choices, and now you move the goal posts to "it's not that bad".

If the state of things before the war was already unaccountable terrorism, only a fool would believe 2 years of war has been bad for these Nazi and other white supremacy factions. There's plenty of evidence of the Nazis taking advantage of the war to grow their power further.

Now, as I say, there is not evidence they are some significant majority in Ukraine, but if their power grows and the power of non-Nazi regular forces is weakened (for example by fighting a war), then a coup or a credible threat of a coup to extort concessions from the state, is possible.

Likewise, simply the threat of Nazis doing crazy violent things can tip decisions in their favour; even if they don't have enough power for a coup, they clearly have enough power that what they may do if displeased requires mindful consideration.

Of course, they aren't the only power block involved; obviously the West wouldn't want to see a literal Nazi coup in Ukraine, and the West has plenty of leverage (money, arms, prestige, normalizing Nazism as much as possible).

If you look at all the evidence, the videos and the article, and conclude "nothing to see here", I can only categorize that as willful blindness.

The problem of Nazis in Ukraine is and will remain a big problem (in and outside Ukraine), the only thing left to be seen is how big.

This really just seems like more evidence that you are conceited about your own abilities, and that your incessant distortion and outright lies merely serve to protect your ego. — Echarmion

So your problem with correct prediction and warning people in power they should pay special attention, using what leverage I have as a corporate board member (with CEO, managing director and chair experience for oner decade; for whatever it's worth) ... is that being right is wrong because it fuels conceit?

I should try to be more wrong in the future so as to learn humbleness?

Now, personally, I would love humble stupidity ("oh! no! no one could have seen this coming!!") to be rewarded in corporate life as it is in political life, but that's just not the world I live in anyhow. First rule of business is if you don't believe in yourself, no one else will even consider it on your behalf.

The second rule of business is being wrong has terrible consequences.

So maybe we just live in different worlds. In my world there is strong incentive to be right, that is achieved by a sober analysis of all the factors while trying to purge oneself of wishful thinking and emotional immaturity. In your world as long as you have some plausible deniability bullshit you can throw around, no matter how thin a covering of shit it can smear on the truth, all is well ... you work in marketing, per chance?

So what's new?

^{(rferl 2023Feb9, voanews 2023Feb13, wsj 2023Feb22, reuters 2023Mar10, wionews 2023Mar17, yahoo 2023Mar17, cnn 2023Mar18, metro 2023Apr15, metro 2023Dec1, twitter 2023Dec3 ↓)}

Russia Issues Ominous Warning About 'Next Victim'
^{— Nick Mordowanec · Newsweek · Nov 30, 2023}

Lavrov said on Thursday that Moldova, an Eastern European country and former Soviet republic, is putting itself in harm's way in its desire to join the European Union.

Because Moldova isn't allowed to join the EU by the Kremlin. :D Right.
What next? Outlawing homosexuality? Oh wait...

^{(2012Jul18 → 2023Aug18 → 2023Nov24 → 2023Dec2 ...)}

Anyway, what's glaringly objectionable here, is the proliferation of that system, like the authoritarianism regress oppression with free reins to gobble up and roll over others (to the cheers of mobs, and others, and objections being blackwashed). Seen before, seeing it again, oh well, tomorrow be damned (or not).

You can't just throw in a "hence" to construct an argument. — boethius

:D Ukraine still isn't ruled by a Nazi regime, those claims are straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine (don't echo them), the Kremlin circle = serial liars (+ hypocrites), dis/agree? They're doing too much of what they're accusing others of (regress), might not be a coincidence.

it doesn't fall flat — boethius

If the Kremlin's propaganda is right, then Ukraine is ruled by a Nazi government.

I do not think Ukraine has made more progress than Russia on the freedom and equality scale — boethius

Links and examples have been given throughout (including 2023Nov30). I guess some would call it a bit unusual that Ukraine managed to progress in the wartime situation. The Russian regress has perhaps been more predictable. The (past) Ukrainian system is hardly a surprise, they're attempting to shed the shackles of their dominant neighbor to the north, much to Putin's dismay.

mainly micro-blog — boethius

It's called evidence (exemplifications, observations + occasional reasoning about it), as opposed to narrative story-telling (with interspersed mind-reading and unevidenced jumping).

nuclear blackmail obviously works — boethius

Obviously. So, the Kremlin gets their way, or it's the nuclear way? Was that what you were claiming?

You're genuinely surprised by the result? — boethius

There was a time when I would have been. It's another (cumulative) reason for, say, India and China to part ways with the Kremlin. As an aside, I suspect (pure conjecture on my part) that Jinping has different plans anyway, that cooperation with Putin is more of a useful intermission as it were, but who knows.

Can anyone semi-informed imagine who might replace Putin, and what policy changes would result? Or am I only dreaming? — unenlightened

As far as politics go, Yekaterina Duntsova seems a good candidate.

In Russia, war and fear trouble one presidential hopeful
^{— Guy Faulconbridge, Ed Osmond · Reuters · Nov 27, 2023}

In the present Russia, her chances are slim, though. For that matter, she could be "put away" for having political (or any) gatherings, be deemed a "foreign agent" or "extremist", or, in case she manages to become popular, she could find herself "falling off a balcony". Putinistan abuse (of laws) isn't hard to come by and could hit whoever.

More and more voices are starting to call out the supporters of Ukraine for not preparing properly for a long war and dragging their feet on supplying equipment.

Is "the West" dropping the ball, geopolitically? At the beginning of the war there was surprising unity and a lot of strong declarations, perhaps most exemplified by the German chancellor declaring a new era in defense posture ("Zeitenwende"). Almost two years later, there seems little sign of such an epochal change.

It is not surprising that initial unity does not hold for two years of warfare. What is surprising is the appearance that many western nations are now standing here with mostly empty hands.

Should the West be unable to deal with even one major military challenge, this will no doubt embolden other actors, and reduce sharply the ability of western, primarily the European, nations to affect international trends.

Zelensky is under pressure internally:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/12/4/7431535/
https://www.20min.ch/story/interview-vitali-klitschko-ueber-selenski-sprichwoerter-korruption-und-neid-263819931851

Should the West be unable to deal with even one major military challenge, this will no doubt embolden other actors, and reduce sharply the ability of western, primarily the European, nations to affect international trends. — Echarmion

Venezuelans have just voted that half of their neighbor belongs to them... If others can annex their neighbors, why not them?

Also it poses serious questions. The general assumption is that with NATO members it would be different... But can all of them be really sure of that? Poles and others remember the Phoney War. If the Western countries are reluctant even to spare weapons and funds for a victim of an obvious transgression, can anyone be sure they will die for Tallin?

What is astounding to me is the apparent lack of awareness of the overall situation. This was visible early on with the failure to make a convincing case to India, apparently forgetting that India is on the verge of becoming a major power and would have to be treated as an equal partner.

Is this simply the primacy of economics having become to ingrained, so European leaders have trouble actively shaping a geopolitical policy?

What is astounding to me is the apparent lack of awareness of the overall situation. This was visible early on with the failure to make a convincing case to India, apparently forgetting that India is on the verge of becoming a major power and would have to be treated as an equal partner.

Is this simply the primacy of economics having become to ingrained, so European leaders have trouble actively shaping a geopolitical policy? — Echarmion

Why would democratic politicians have long-term goals? They will out of office in a few years and for now they have to win the popularity contest... The irony is that dictators and authoritarians have a much bigger stake in the future – for them long-term failure means prison, exile or death.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/04/white-house-ukraine-military-aid-warning

Is this simply the primacy of economics having become to ingrained, so European leaders have trouble actively shaping a geopolitical policy? — Echarmion

The war in Ukraine was a wake up call for Europeans:
Europe is not prepared for a war with Russia and is in danger of being “washed away” in a conflict, much as the Holy Roman Empire was broken up by Napoleon, Germany’s pre-eminent military historian has warned.

At a high-level defence conference in Berlin, several German generals also suggested that Nato might be unable to win the “first battle” in a defensive war on its eastern flank, because it would struggle to ship sufficient numbers of troops and equipment to the front line quickly enough.

Sönke Neitzel, professor of military history at Potsdam University and the leading academic authority on the modern German armed forces, described the logistics as a “nightmare” and said it could take at least 15 years before Germany was ready for
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/europes-weak-armed-forces-could-be-washed-away-by-russia-bmxbc22gc

:D I'm pretty sure there are radicals shooting at Biden in the US as well. (They probably don't know (or care about) those others.)

In Russia, children "learn patriotism" while shooting at Biden, Zelenskyy and Stoltenberg. (Anton Gerashchenko · Dec 5, 2023)

Isn't "Peaceful Warrior" a bit like "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."?

Hadn't come across NAFO before. Apparently, they make fun of US senators, well, whoever.

Via Die Welt and Passauer Neue Presse on Dec 7, 2023:

There will be no diplomatic solution with Putin. He may not be irrational, as some claim, but he is obsessed. At the beginning of the offensive, we were quick to supply anti-tank missiles and air defense equipment, and today we are doing a lot for air defense. But there were also unfortunate delays. If we now stand on the sidelines and criticize the fact that Ukraine is not making enough progress, we have to keep in mind that we have our share in this. — Klaus Wittmann

I'm guessing a few echo Wittmann.

^{(you can translate the German via google translate or similar as needed)}

Indeed.

I think Putin is quite confident that he will win this war, likely thinking that in the end Americans will be feeble and will leave some Poland and Baltics to support Ukraine on their own as Americans see everything just as "forever wars" and doesn't believe in victory, then he will prevail. And that his friend Trump will get him the lands that he is now occupying.

Ukraine will hold itself, but Putin has the ability to control his nation too and keep it in the fight.

German land forces are indeed very anemic. Their ground forces are below 63,000 and their reserves are not large.

In general, if you're going to rely on a very small standing army then you need to maintain conscription and a large reserve to quickly mobilize a larger force if needed. Poland, with less than half the populace, maintains 100,000 soldiers in its ground forces and has significantly larger reserves.

Germany is sort of the paradigmatic example of the free rider problem in alliances.

The problem is Europeans' free riding can also weaken NATO deterrence power (given Russia, given China, given Trump). In the end, only wars can prove the reliability and efficacy of a military alliance.

Things are looking grim for Europeans. Despite the Western propaganda and the US hegemony, the compelling point of the "Western world order" was/is not much "the Rest of the world must be like us because we are awesome" but more "either the Rest becomes more like us or we will (need to) become more like them". The European populist and nationalist movements are already on the rise.

I'm a classic liberal in the practical sense, and an anarchist in an idealist sense.
For me, states are a 'necessary evil' at their very best, and more often than not just 'evil’. — Tzeentch

“Evil” in a moral sense? But if states are not moral agent, why do you call them “evil” or “necessarily evil”?
Are they evil in the same sense the covid pandemic is?

My arguments vis-á-vis Ukraine are not moral in nature, and the idea that this war is primarily caused by neocon foreign policy is not moral either.

Sometimes the sheer disgust I feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics shines through. Sue me. — Tzeentch

Those aren't moral 'shoulds' though, and attributing blame isn't necessarily moral in nature either. These are questions of cause & effect, strategy, etc. — Tzeentch

You mean the same disgust you would certainly feel toward the corona virus that has killed almost 7 million deaths (since Jan ’22) according to some estimates?
As far as I’m concerned, I find causal links very misleading in attributing responsibilities if we do not assume moral agency.
Indeed, how can you even determine that the war was primarily caused by neocon foreign policy instead of being primarily cause by what caused neocon foreign policy ? Or by what caused the cause of neocon foreign policy? O by what caused the cause of the cause of the neocon foreign policy?
In a pool of concurrent causes for this war haw do you determine what is primary and what is non-primary?
Wars are a very common pattern in the entire human history and most certainly well prior than the diffusion of “neocon foreign policy”, and we can find reasons for war across a wide range of incompatible regime driving ideologies, so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war?

States are abstractions and not moral actors, so they have no moral rights.

As I said, morality is simply not a useful lens through which to evaluate the behavior of states.

Note that in the case of the Israel discussion, Israel has no legal right to self-defense, which is why the discussion shifted to the question of whether it had a moral right.

And no, of course my belief is not that Putin has a moral right to invade Ukraine.

For the purpose of this discussion I've always supposed Ukraine had a legal right to self-defense and that Russia's invasion is illegal, and never claimed otherwise. The basis for that is international law, and not morality. — Tzeentch

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so?
How come that the abstractness of the notion of “state” allows a state to enjoy legal rights but not moral rights?
Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine,
what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”?

Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that? — neomac


No, I don't believe Russia is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine in the same way that Israel is responsible for the war in Gaza.

Russia is part of the problem, and its invasion and occupation are illegal. I can agree to that much. — Tzeentch

Why not in the same way? What is the difference?

I guess people are used to Medvedev's ramblings by now...

3. Never since the Cuban Missile Crisis has the threat of a direct clash between Russia and NATO leading to the Third World War been so real.
[...]
And for this loot new rivers of blood will flow, for which the Biden family and all their Bandera bastard are responsible. — Dmitry Medvedev · Dec 8, 2023

Oddly enough, (threats of) nuclear world war by and large only come out of the Kremlin circle (and North Korea) these days. Or maybe it's not that odd, just more of the planned posturing.

Ex-president clowns: Do Trump or Medvedev ramble the most? :D

The Kremlin has deployed convicted cannibal Denis Gorin, serial killer Nikolai Ogolobyak, and other suchlike to Ukraine. "Watch out, Ukrainians!" (Not "shoe found in tiger's mouth", but in cannibal's mouth.) Seems odd if those convicts were to walk the streets of Moscow once/if released from military duty.

“Evil” in a moral sense? — neomac

No, 'evil' in a colloquial sense...

...so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war? — neomac

Because this conflict started when the United States (led by the neocon foreign policy establishment) expressed its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and they never over the course of some 15 years took Russia's objections seriously.

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so? — neomac

States are not moral actors, so they have no moral rights. Individuals have moral rights.

And states obviously have legal rights because virtually all states on the world have signed the UN charter and thus recognize the legitimacy of international law, which includes a right to national self-defense.

Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine, what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? — neomac

I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later.

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life.

Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”? — neomac

The war in Ukraine is completely pointless and a shining example of the unnecessary evil of states - all states involved, including the state of Ukraine itself.

Why not in the same way? What is the difference? — neomac

The difference is that Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution, but was snubbed by the Americans on every occasion.

Israel on the other hand did everything it could to prevent a diplomatic solution.

Germany is sort of the paradigmatic example of the free rider problem in alliances. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well Germany had a key role in NATO defense until the collapse of the SU and had significant forces. The domestic political opinion of Germany's armed forces has always been conflicted, and I think after the end of the (first?) cold war this created a situation of one-sided pressure to diminish the role of the armed forces. Generally none of the western European states has the capacity to maintain more than an expeditionary force on their own, so that's not necessarily unique to Germany.

I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later.

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life. — Tzeentch

And if Russia then let's the tanks roll west across Ukraine, should Europe then restart their aid? Or are we giving the entirety of Ukraine to Russia (at least we're prepared to) because Ukraine is currently unable to retake the missing 20%?

Isn't the self defense of the remaining 80% of the territory succesful?

The Russians aren't interested in taking all of Ukraine. They prefer a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukraine filling its role as neutral bufferzone between east and west. First it was the US that blocked such negotiations, now it's Zelensky.

If Russia wants to take all of Ukraine, it can. And neither Europe nor the US would be prepared to do what it takes to stop them, so they should stop pretending towards the Ukrainians.

Ukraine and its military is a shell on life-support. Europe and the US can either wait for a total collapse, or they can pull the plug now while Ukraine still has a chance at negotiations.

How would Ukraine negotiate if it's entirely unable to resist anyways? What's there to negotiate over?