It's not unable to resist. It's unable to win militarily.

It can still continue to resist militarily, unconventionally if need be, to impose a cost on Russia. This gives them leverage in negotiations. That leverage is now far lower than in March/April 2022, but it is leverage nonetheless. Furthermore, there is plenty of indication that the Kremlin would prefer a negotiated settlement over having to fight for every inch of Ukraine that they deem important. That can once again be used as a basis for talks.

However, continuing to resist without an actual strategy of what that resistance is supposed to accomplish is remarkably foolish. Imposing a cost on Russia is a sound strategy from an American point of view, not from a Ukrainian point of view, since it would incur a much larger cost on Ukraine itself - it would destroy Ukraine.

Now, that is of course the wet dream of policymakers in Washington: Ukraine fighting itself to the death against Russia, because it would impose the largest cost on Russia. Washington doesn't care at all about what happens to Ukraine in the process.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine should make themselves complicit in such a strategy.

It can still continue to resist militarily, unconventionally if need be, to impose a cost on Russia. This gives them leverage in negotiations — Tzeentch

If that's the case, why should we "pull the plug" on Ukraine support? The support improves Ukraine's ability to impose costs and thus their position in negotiations.

However, continuing to resist without an actual strategy of what that resistance is supposed to accomplish is remarkably foolish. Imposing a cost on Russia is a sound strategy from an American point of view, not from a Ukrainian point of view, since it would incur a much larger cost on Ukraine itself - it would destroy Ukraine. — Tzeentch

But you literally just wrote that imposing costs on Russia is the basis of the Ukrainian position in negotiations. So the strategic goal of imposing costs to demonstrate your ability to impose future costs seems entirely sound.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine should make themselves complicit in such a strategy. — Tzeentch

What exactly is the moral argument here?

The support increases Ukraine's ability to impose costs and thus their position in negotiations. — Echarmion

But you literally just wrote that imposing costs on Russia is the basis of the Ukrainian position in negotiations. So the strategic goal of imposing costs to demonstrate your ability to impose future costs seems entirely sound. — Echarmion

We are far past that point. Zelensky is not moving to negotiate. He even signed a decree to make negotiations with Russia impossible. The absolute fool.

Obviously the support is achieving the opposite of sound strategy, which is why Ukraine is slowly (rapidly?) approaching the edge of the cliff. Quite extraordinary you're unable to see that.

What exactly is the moral argument here? — Echarmion

It's a strategic argument. Neither Ukraine nor Europe benefits from playing into Washington's hand.

From a moral perspective it is of course repugnant too.

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. — Tzeentch

How keenly you leave out the annexations, the Russification measures done in the territories under occupation and all that Putin has himself said about Ukraine being an artificial construct.



Oh, It's just a 'neutral bufferzone' between the east and west. Ludicrous :roll:

That happened after the West blocked peace talks.

When the West clearly signals that peace is not an option, obviously the Russians are going to react accordingly. How is that in any way surprising?

A terrible strategy on the West's part, because the idea that they were winning and could thus continue to snub the Russians was based on an entirely erroneous idea of how the war was progressing. They basically started to believe their own propaganda.

Well - this is the result, which many of us have been predicting since the start of the war.

We are far past that point. Zelensky is not moving to negotiate. He even signed a decree to make negotiations with Russia impossible. The absolute fool. — Tzeentch

Well what is it? Can Ukraine negotiate or not?

Obviously the support is achieving the opposite of sound strategy, which is why Ukraine is slowly approaching the edge of the cliff. Quite extraordinary you're unable to see that. — Tzeentch

There's a difference though between claiming a strategy has failed and claiming it wasn't sound to begin with.

Your strategy seems to offer little other than the hope you are right about russian intentions.

It's a strategic argument. Neither Ukraine nor Europe benefits from playing into Washington's hand. — Tzeentch

Don't they? It seems to me the relationship has plenty of benefits for Europe, and historically alignment with the US has also been a good choice for many other countries, from South Korea to Poland.

From a moral perspective it is of course repugnant too. — Tzeentch

Why exactly though?

That happened after the West blocked peace talks. — Tzeentch

It was also very obviously signaled in advance. Once Russia had officially recognised the areas as independent states, what other route could it take?

Well what is it? Can Ukraine negotiate or not? — Echarmion

'Officially' probably not, but it should revoke Zelensky's idiotic decree and negotiate if it has any sense of self-preservation.

Your strategy seems to offer little other than the hope you are right about russian intentions. — Echarmion

Starting talks costs nothing.

Don't they? — Echarmion

No, obviously they don't. Does that really require explanation?

Ukraine is being utterly wrecked in every conceivable way. Europe threw its economy down the drain, now has a hostile great power on its doorstep while having completely stripped its military, and it has been turned into the world's laughing stock to boot.

Why exactly though? — Echarmion

I'm not going into the moral argument, because I don't think it's constructive for reasons I have already outlined.

Ukraine is being utterly wrecked in every conceivable way. — Tzeentch

Not in every conceivable way. Notably they have retained their choice of alignment - with the west. You may think they're making a mistake but polls in Ukraine seem to make pretty clear that they think it's important.

Europe threw its economy down the drain, now has a hostile great power on its doorstep while having completely stripped its military, and it has been turned into the world's laughing stock to boot. — Tzeentch

Europe's situation has not materially changed, it's merely now forced to face the truth. It's possible that this will break the EU, though perhaps then the adage that "what can be destroyed by the truth deserves to be" is true.

Europe's crisis goes much deeper and beyond Ukraine, which is merely a focal point for many of it's ills. This could be a chance as well, though arguably the leadership of the big players leaves a lot to be desired.

That happened after the West blocked peace talks. — Tzeentch

Wrong.

Putin stated quite consistently of the artificiality of Ukraine and that parts of Ukraine should be/are integral parts of Ukraine for example in July 2021. Yes, NATO-enlargement is one reason, yet to deny that the territorial annexations are also a reason that have nothing to do with NATO-enlargement is simply false. Putin has stated this clearly enough, both with his words and by his actions. Otherwise this is just the hilarious US-bashing were every problem anywhere at all times is the fault of the US and nothing else cannot matter!

Crimea in itself had been an issue between Ukraine and Russia right from the start. And that has NOTHING to do with NATO enlargement. There was both in Crimea and in Russia a strong movement that Crimea should be part of Russia starting from the 1990's. And Putin's annexations didn't stop with Crimea, as we all know.

If your argument that everything has happened because NATO and if NATO hadn't enlarged, Russia wouldn't have done anything is simply false. And it's simply illogical to assume that you would annex territories if the only issue would preventing NATO enlargement and Ukraine being a bufferzone. A show of force would already done that and countries like Germany would have prevented NATO enlargement to Ukraine, not only Hungary (as now).

FYI, interview with Sergei Ryabkov:

“I don’t think that relations between Russia and NATO will be restored” (en)
^{— Semyon Boykov · Izvestia · Nov 29, 2023}

It's worthwhile keeping notice of what's omitted (I'm not intending to propagate Kremlin propaganda).


US and Sweden sign Defence Cooperation Agreement
^{— Simon Johnson, Dan Whitcomb, Christina Fincher, Jacqueline Wong · Reuters · Dec 6, 2023}

Sweden is a strong, capable defense partner that champions NATO’s values, and will further strengthen the Alliance once its NATO accession is completed. Sweden’s membership will strengthen our collective defense and enhance our ability to respond to security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic area. Sweden will be a net security provider from its first day in NATO, and the Alliance will be stronger with Sweden as a NATO Ally. — US Department of State

The Swedes didn't do so because they're a US puppet, they did so because Russia is a Kremlin puppet and the Kremlin ain't friendly.

If your argument that everything has happened because NATO and if NATO hadn't enlarged, Russia wouldn't have done anything is simply false. — ssu

That's not my argument, though.

My argument, or at least a part of it, is that NATO enlargement worried the Russians, and they expressed that worry over the course of 15 years. They were completely ignored by the West.

Ignoring other nations' security concerns is a highway to war, and NATO (with Uncle Sam at the wheel) took that path knowingly and willingly. That's why they are primarily responsible for the conflict.

And it's simply illogical to assume that you would annex territories if the only issue would preventing NATO enlargement and Ukraine being a bufferzone. — ssu

I think it's completely logical for Russia to annex parts of Ukraine if peace between Russia and the West is made impossible. That's a situation the West knowingly and willingly brought about when they blocked peace negotiations in March/April 2022. Of course the Russians are going to react to that.

A show of force would already done that... — ssu

I disagree.

What the US tried to do was simply turn Ukraine into a de facto US ally on a bilateral basis until circumstances were such that Ukraine could be fully incorporated into NATO.

Of course, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian military was able to provide the kind of resistance that would have made a US intervention feasible, which is why the US hung them out to dry in the end.

A show of force would have done nothing to stop that underlying threat, which is the US. NATO is simply a vessel.

I guess formal law amendments can be done during wartime + martial law:

The Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Ruslan Stefanchuk reported on the results of the plenary session on 8 December 2023
^{— Government of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) · Dec 8, 2023}

[...] It contains observations aimed at bringing some provisions in line with the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, the Framework Convention for National Minorities of 1995, and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 1992. — Daria Iulia Cotiuba

Welcoming the UA amendments to legislation relevant to national minorities in Ukraine - a positive step forward. RO will continue to promote a transparent and constructive approach on this matter. (Luminita Odobescu · Dec 8, 2023)

At some point, the Russian system inheritance could be transformed to modern democracy (shedding the shackles).

[...] that underlying threat, which is the US. NATO is simply a vessel. — Tzeentch

The threat of democracy and non-oppression/freedom? :D It's a constant threat to authoritarianism (if anyone is willing to stand up), as it should be.

Of course, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian military was able to provide the kind of resistance that would have made a US intervention feasible, which is why the US hung them out to dry in the end. — Tzeentch

Intervention by the US airforce alone would have absolutely crushed the Russian invasion. With Ukraine's forces on the ground and the US airforce above, given Russia's performance so far, their operations would have been unfeasable very quickly.

It was not lack of means that prevented such a scenario, it was an unwillingness to risk a nuclear war (or, more precisely, to be seen as risking one).

, plus with some (typical) partners, the UK, France, Canada, Poland, Romania, whoever, a no-fly zone of sorts could have been imposed and maintained effectively.
Don't know if the UN would have a majority vote to impose a no-fly zone, but I suppose it's conceivable.

:D There's something funny about this:

Russia’s Latest Disinformation Tactic Exploits American Celebrities
^{— Steven Lee Myers · The New York Times · Dec 7, 2023}
Russian propagandists exploited celebrity Cameo videos to spread disinformation, Microsoft says
^{— Catherine Thorbecke · CNN · Dec 7, 2023}

Making fun using Elijah Wood, Mike Tyson, Priscilla Presley, Kate Flannery, Shavo Odadjian, John McGinley, Dean Norris, ... I'm not sure the (original) intent was comedy, though.

Russian influence and cyber operations adapt for long haul and exploit war fatigue
^{— Clint Watts · Microsoft Threat Analysis Center · Dec 7, 2023}
Russian FSB cyber actor Star Blizzard continues worldwide spear-phishing campaigns
^{— UK National Cyber Security Centre · Dec 7, 2023}

A gigantic new ICBM will take US nuclear missiles out of the Cold War-era but add 21st-century risks
^{— Tara Copp · AP · Dec 10, 2023}

So, Kremlin saber-rattling has swiftly brought on a new cold war? They've already spoken of arms race and such, plus their going-and-doings point in that direction.

Nuclear posturing of late has been Russian and North Korean. The Kremlin appears to be going for a Cold War II. Incidentally, the kind of environment Putin was trained in, grew up in, knows, where he made some buddies. — Nov 20, 2023

It's a choice they can make, it's not like others can make (or skip) it for them, though, once made, it impacts others. That is, you can't choose not to be affected, or not to play, only how to.


Since the Ukrainian skies have come up again (hi ), a fairly straightforward observation regarding do'ers and the rest:

Kyiv might have declared a no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace (apart from approved flights), and that hostilities taken against them will be taken out (regardless of location, "so please keep your distance"). Within their mandate, in part at least; might have been expected or recommended by some strategists. Others, like the USAF, JASDF, RAF, whoever, might have helped implement that. (By the way, no commercial flights since Feb 2022 thanks to the Kremlin.)

Maybe the capable should start seriously talking about implementing a no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace, iff the Ukrainian government wishes it.

Sending F-16s to Ukraine in fight against Russia would take 'months and months': Blinken
^{— Tal Axelrod · ABC · Jul 23, 2023}
A Russian fighter jet fired flares at a US drone over Syria and damaged it, the US military says
^{— Lolita C Baldor, Tara Copp · AP · Jul 25, 2023}

Then (if their government says so), any missiles violating that, warrants taking out the source of launch. Much like whatever other nation, here implemented by whatever coalition agreeing to help Ukraine. Once the Ukrainian skies are better cleared of offenders, civilians will be safer, the situation different, and more assessments warranted. That is, no tiptoeing inside Ukrainian airspace [...] — Jul 24, 2023

Didn't happen. Instead something else, analogous happened ...

• Russia threatens military strikes on Western countries if Ukraine's newly-donated F-16s are based in NATO territory
  ^{— Will Stewart · Daily Mail · Dec 8, 2023}

See that? The central difference being that we're talking Ukraine, not Russia or Malaysia or ... (There's something...ridiculous about this...)

There are some lessons learned here. Initiative and resolve, discussions debates bureaucracy slowness (some of which is merited, mind you), indecision becoming the decision, strategy, concessions, ... Meanwhile, the authoritarian Kremlin rolls on.

“Evil” in a moral sense? — neomac


No, 'evil' in a colloquial sense… — Tzeentch

“Colloquial”? Not sure to understand. Is, for example, covid evil in a colloquial sense?
How about examples of colloquially “necessary evil”? Vaccins are necessary evil for unnecessary evil covid?

...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. — Tzeentch

That’s a very problematic claim for several reasons:
1 - the United States expressed their desire also in 2008, but grievances about the US involvement in Ukraine and the Soviet Union’s ex-sphere of influence started well before 2008 and before Putin. On the other hand, in 2008 it turned out that Western countries were reluctant to let Ukraine join NATO no matter what the American desire was. Besides the conflict with Russia didn’t turn into a “real” conflict until 2014, while the Westerners were still against Ukraine joining NATO (Russia’s could enjoy the support of France, Germany, Hungary, Turkey to veto this). Not to mention that we had Trump antagonising the West more than Russia. So there seem to be many starts here, and many conflicts involving the US’s desire to expand its sphere of influence in Ukraine which anyway weren’t sufficient to let Ukraine join NATO (and that also proves that the West took Russia’s security concerns seriously to the point of refusing Ukraine within NATO). BTW why did it take Russia so long to invade Ukraine if the provocation was so obvious and intolerable for 15 years?
2 - The idea that the conflict started with the US expressing “its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO” makes likely sense in Russian strategic perspective, not in the Ukrainian, American or Western perspective, because the West and Ukraine do not share Russia's strategic perspective as much as they don’t share the Russian national interest. For Ukraine, Russia may have likely started the conflict by protesting over its sovereignty and territorial integrity. For the US, the conflict may have likely started when Russia protested against the Western-led world order since the fall of Soviet Union. You can blame it on the neocon agenda as much as I can blame it on Russian imperialism which is much older than neocon agenda. And Russia couldn’t possibly expect that the US as the hegemon would refrain from “expressing DESIRES” because Russia demanded it, especially when Russia wasn’t still that scary. ESPECIALLY if the US wasn’t hostile toward Russia, because it offered globalization in return which empowered Russia (and made it scary as it is now) way more than the threat of Ukraine joining NATO weakened Russia economically and militarily. Am I right? Russia too didn't perceive NATO as significantly hostile since there NATO there were conjoint exercises with the Russians against Islamic terrorism (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_103663.htm) as the greatest security threat for the West and Russia. Right?
3 - We have repeatedly been told that Russians’ grievances started with the broken promise over NATO expansion, so by the same logic should we expect Russia will invade the ex-Warsaw pact states and ex-Soviet Union republics? Or should we just roll back NATO as requested by Putin in his diplomatic negotiations with the West to respect Russia’s strategic concerns seriously (https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/)?
4 - I still don’t see the reason why you keep talking about “primary cause”. A possible alternative could be “primary reason“ instead of “primary cause”, couldn’t it? It would make sense to talk about primary reason if we take incorporating Ukraine into NATO as the primary security concern to Russia under certain assumptions (among which we must include Russia’s “hegemonic ambitions”). So I do wonder why you keep talking about “primary cause” instead of “primary reason”. Also a rapist “primary cause” for rape may be the raped teenager was dressed sexy. If somebody said "the teenager started her rapist’s aggression", would make this claim sense to you? What would be the point of making such claim exactly?

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. — Tzeentch

I’m not sure you understood my question: “How come that the abstractness of the notion of ‘state’ allows a state to enjoy legal rights but not moral rights?”
Given your input, I can reformulate it as follows: states as abstract entities (which I charitably understand as “legal institutions”, am I wrong?) can’t possibly sign UN charters nor recognise the legitimacy of international law by themselves, while individual agents as state representatives can and do. Who signs is a concrete individual human being or a bunch of concrete individual human beings, not an abstract legal entity, right? But individuals as state representatives can still be morally and legally accountable, even if that involves an “abstract” institutional entity, right? If so, state representatives (like Putin, Biden, Zelensky) are morally and legally accountable based on acknowledged state 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? — neomac


I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, — Tzeentch

I'm talking about this:

As you probably know, my view is that the Russians were provoked into invading Ukraine. — Tzeentch

It's clear to me that this war was purposefully provoked. — Tzeentch

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 — Tzeentch

.

I still don’t get how come you keep talking about what Europe should do, so in normative terms, over legal institutions in other terms than legal. Apparently there are “strategic” normative claims besides “moral” and “legal” (and "colloquial"?), yet it’s not clear how you assess strategic normative claims. To me strategic normative claims in politics of national states should be processed by taking into account national states’ priorities in the long term: for example, Ukraine’s priority is to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity even at the expense of Russia’s hegemonic ambitions, for Russia is to pursue hegemonic ambitions at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the US’s hegemony, for the US is to pursue hegemonic ambitions at the expense of its competitors (including Russia). Concerning Europe, AFAIU, the priority is to preserve political stability under American protection (which is why Europeans can sacrifice trade relations with Russia and China).
Besides I don’t know how you assess the chance for success in strategy (especially if military goals must be distinguished from political goals). Does Hamas have any chance of military/political success in fighting Israel’s occupation of Gaza? Is it rational for Palestinians to support Hamas? Why do many foreign states (including Western state) politically, economically and/or military support Palestinians if they have no chance of succeeding? Should Europeans stop financing Palestinians and stop acknowledging Palestine as a sovereign state?

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

How can Europe be “complicit” if European states and EU are just legal entities and Europe is not violating international laws by supporting Ukraine? Are you talking in moral terms?
If it makes sense to them, why do you call it “senseless waste of life”?
Given your military analysis, I understand why you reached your conclusion. Yet I don’t think military analysis suffices to determine political choices. I suspect that it is the other way around. For the good and for the bad. In any case, it is hard to prove that costly choices in the present would repay well in the future. This is the Russian bet anyways and the challenge to the West.

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. — Tzeentch

Is this still a strategic claim? Or a “colloquial” claim? Or a “moral” claim? Or a “legal” claim?

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. — Tzeentch

Is this some colloquial/moral/strategic/legal normative claim or a factual claim? Because if it is a factual claim, it is questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process). Besides we do not know if diplomatic efforts would work with Russia, since Russia repeatedly threatened and violated Ukrainian’s sovereignty despite all past agreements. Agreements will give Russia the chance to stabilise its conquests and keep destabilising Ukraine.
Besides this shows another difference relevant for diplomatic solutions: Russia is threatening/violating Ukrainian sovereign integrity after repeatedly acknowledging it while Israel didn’t acknowledge Palestine as a sovereign state. The diplomatic solution sought by Russia is grounded on condoning a fundamental international law violation (territorial annexations) which even the Great Satan never dared to commit so far, right?

You think playing coy is a way to be taken seriously on this forum?

Ask me three honest and straightforward questions, and I'll answer them for you. I have no patience for whatever game you're trying to play.

FYI

Fitch anticipates the war will continue throughout 2024 within its current broad parameters. In our view, Ukraine still has some strategic military advantage, underpinned by strong resolve and Western military support, but its counteroffensive has made limited gains so far, and in our central scenario there is insufficient superiority to decisively deliver objectives.

We also consider there is an absence of politically credible concessions that could result in a negotiated end to the war, potentially leading to a very protracted conflict. Over a longer horizon, we anticipate some form of settlement, but view a 'frozen conflict' as more likely than a sustainable peace deal, at least for a significant period.
— Fitch Affirms Ukraine at 'CC' · Fitch Ratings · Dec 8, 2023

Anyone interested in what Russian propaganda looks like can check Ural Daily (Dec 10, 2023). Not sure of the intended audience.

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. — Tzeentch

Really? :D The Kremlin fears a few scenarios (hence their saber-rattling), scenarios that Ukraine + allies haven't done. Taking over the Ukrainian skies is one that's come up in the thread. Unless some such move is implemented, the Kremlin likely will (and can) keep pushing it. :shrug:

↪neomac
You think playing coy is a way to be taken seriously on this forum?

Ask me three honest and straightforward questions, and I'll answer them for you. I have no patience for whatever game you're trying to play. — Tzeentch

Dude, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a philosophy forum, not a political forum, not a military forum, not a Tzeench-certified forum. So I have no idea what philosophy is to you, but to me it is at least to investigate very basic (mostly implicit) assumptions of somebody’s beliefs. That’s the game I’m trying to play with you and others for my own personal intellectual entertainment, as I repeatedly stated in this thread. And that’s the game I expect others to try to play here, especially if they want me to take them seriously. So I addressed many “honest and straightforward questions” about your assumptions to you in my last post according to the game I’m trying to play. I don’t expect you to try to answer all of them at once. But if you really have no patience to the game I’m trying to play here then my “honest and straightforward question” to you is: Why should I (colloquially, morally, strategically, legally, or politically) give a shit about it exactly?

This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss, rather than throwing up semantic smokescreens. What you're doing now smells of deflection and sophistry.

This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion. — Tzeentch

Primarily.

Yet philosphy should be welcomed and encouraged on a philosophy forum.
And accusing others of sophistry isn't the correct way.

Yet philosphy should be welcomed and encouraged on a philosophy forum. — ssu

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss [...] — Tzeentch

-

↪neomac
This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, at least be so forthright as to clearly indicate what question or topic you want to discuss, rather than throwing up semantic smokescreens. What you're doing now smells of deflection and sophistry. — Tzeentch

What I take to be a philosophical exercise is “to investigate very basic (mostly implicit) assumptions of somebody’s beliefs. ” Among such assumptions there is our basic (mostly implicit) conceptual framework. So addressing such conceptual framework and how it applies to concrete situations (like the war in Ukraine) is part of the philosophical investigation I’m engaging in. The fact that you take as “semantic smokescreens”, “deflection”, “sophistry” what I find legitimate to philosophically question in this forum proves at best how self-evident you take your conceptual framework to be. So much so that you don’t feel the need to clarify better any of your claims even when expressly and repeatedly solicited. As far as I’m concerned, you expressed beliefs about:
- When this conflict “started”
- What “primarily caused” this war
- What Europe or Ukraine “should do”
- The distinction between “colloquial” evil and “moral” evil
- The distinction between “moral” claims and “strategic” claims
- The nature of States as “abstractions and not moral actors”
- The “right to self-defence” as grounded on “international law and not morality”
- Who is to blame
Your clarifications about such claims in our recent exchange were rather poor to me: labeling your normative claims as non-moral without clarifying on what grounds you discriminate between moral and non-moral is not that helpful. Nor is it helpful to clarify it by means of other ideas that I expressly find questionable (like “primary cause”, “strategy”). Besides you continue applying them in a way that I find rather confusing if not confused, like “Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life”, as I argued. And I wasn’t even trying to put all the burden of the clarification on your shoulder, see my comments on your idea of the “primary cause” of this war , or your idea of when the conflict started, or your idea about normative claims about strategy, or your idea about what is “senseless waste of life”, etc.
Notice also that I don’t find your accusation of “semantic smokescreens”, “deflection”, “sophistry” self-evident either, so I can legitimately challenge you to clarify such ideas as well. But I’m fine to discuss the points of my previous post, for now. This is also to say, that I wasn’t deflecting (from what exactly?), I was doing what I think it’s most certainly appropriate to do in this forum, even when talking about the war in Ukraine. But you do not need to take my word for it, because my comments and questions remain philosophically legitimate EVEN IF I was deflecting. So the point is not really about my intentions in trying to play the philosophical game (as I understand it), but if you are interested or not to play it independently from my intentions.

Quickly thrown together (some of those on the left are related):


The derogatory "Putler" was allegedly coined in Russia and/or Ukraine. Might have been motivated by something like the above taken together. Anyway, evidence for the above can be found throughout the thread. Haven't compared with Imperial Japan or Fascist Italy.

In a TV Q&A (of sorts) on Dec 14, 2023 with Pukin (NBC, AP, Reuters), Mikhail Khodorkovsky noticed some unanswered Qs:

“Why does your reality differ from ours?”

“Mr President, when will real Russia stop being different from the one on TV?”
“Hello, how can I move to the Russia they talk about on Channel One?”

“For how long will you keep manipulating the percentage of inflation?”

Alternate world type stuff. Observed a few times in the thread prior. Apparently also observed by some Russians.

Putin insists that his objectives are/were denazification, demilitarization, and neutral status of Ukraine.

So no Putin's intentions weren't just annexing Donbas, Crimea and a land bridge.

Will Putin beat Stalin?



Catherine the Great ruled for 34 years.