Maybe, LOL. And who are the good ones?

Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Of course, if you say so and rofl about it, it MUST be certainly true then! :rofl:

As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego. — Apollodorus

Ditto, to a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things.

In any case, you obviously haven’t followed the discussion because your fabricated straw arguments are totally irrelevant and have not an ounce of merit to them. — Apollodorus

Which straw man arguments?!

It ought to be obvious that saying that Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine, does NOT make me pro-Russian. Territorial concessions have been suggested as a solution by Western analysts and even Zelensky has indicated that he is "willing to negotiate". So, I don't think it is that "deranged" at all. — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?!
First of all, I didn’t claim you look “deranged” in relation to your claim that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”. Your preposterous way of addressing my comments and related hysterical reactions are enough evidence for suspecting that there is something seriously off with you.
Second, if “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, how come that Russia “invaded” and “annexed” something that already belonged to them?! On the other side if “Crimea belongs to Russia” is a legitimacy claim to ideologically justify “invasion” and “annexation” then it ought to be obvious that this is a pro-Russian claim. And as long as you believe in it, then yes it obviously makes you obviously pro-Russian. Obviously.
Third, if that was an argument in support of your claim “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, then it is clearly a non sequitur. Making territorial concessions to Russia, doesn’t necessarily validate the pre-conception that those territories belong to Russia, it could just grant a legal status to an illegal status quo for the sake of ending a horrible war.
Not to mention that the reference to Zelensky "willing to negotiate” about territorial concessions in the links you reported doesn’t equate at all to acknowledging that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”:
Ukraine is ready to hold a dialogue with Russia on security guarantees, on the future of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, but is not ready to capitulate. This was stated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview for ABC News. […] As for the demands put forward by the Russian authorities, in particular regarding the recognition of the independence of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the Head of State noted that a compromise is possible on this point.
"It is important to me how people who want to be part of Ukraine will live there. I am interested in the opinion of those who see themselves as citizens of the Russian Federation. However, we must discuss this issue. As well as compromises on Crimea. We cannot recognize that Crimea is the territory of Russia. I think it will be difficult for Russia to recognize that this is the territory of Ukraine. I think we are smart enough to ensure that the decision on these two issues does not cause any revolutions within societies, so that people are satisfied with this decision: both those who live in those territories and those who live in Ukraine," said Volodymyr Zelenskyy and added that before the occupation these territories were part of Ukraine .
And not to mention that, during the referendum for independence, after the collapse of Soviet Union Crimea voted for their independence from Russia: “Much of the rest of the republic has ties going back three centuries to Russia. But even in the Crimea, where a strong sense of identity prevails among a sizable number of people of non-Ukrainian heritage, the result was 54 percent for independence”, so no matter if, according to your claim, Crimea belonged to Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/world/ex-communist-wins-in-ukraine-yeltsin-recognizes-independence.html

I think even the ignorant and the uneducated can see that I’m simply applying the general principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

Unfortunately educated people can also see that “ownership”, as a juridical notion, presupposes an undisputed judicial authority ruling over those territories to assess ownership claims, while if the judicial authority ruling over those territories is disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, then… they are disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, so Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia depending on which competing party one sides with, and each competing party could accuse the other of violating the “rightful ownership” over their territory.
And concerning the judicial dispute relevant in this war, take into account that there are 2 treaties between Russia and Ukraine (not “alleged” and arguably irrelevant promises made under the table) where Russia acknowledged the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine prior to the annexation of Crimea:
Belovezh Accords (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords
Budapest Memorandum (1994) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. — Apollodorus

Well it depends on what you mean by “imperialism”. For example, here is the definition from Wikipedia: Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent's foreign policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
This definition seems to apply to both Russia (for the Russian direct territorial acquisition of the Ukrainian Crimea and political control over Kiev’s government) and the US (for the American political control over the current Ukrainian government) wrt Ukraine. So, according to this definition and your claim, you should be equally against both (including the annexation of Crimea by Russia and any Russian puppet governments in Ukraine).

Plus, I’ve asked the NATO jihadis many times what they would do if they were in Russia’s shoes. I never got even one single answer. — Apollodorus

No wonder, that’s a tough question even for experts, I guess. But there are things that may come to mind for a starter. Considering the decline of NATO (given the role of Trump’s administration, who might run for a second mandate, and Macron’s ambition in accelerating this decline), the strong economic ties between Russia and European countries (especially Germany) and the economic leverage over Ukraine (thanks to the North Stream), Russia could have negotiated:

• postponing the entrance of Ukraine to NATO as far as possible (likely after the end of Putin’s government, say 2050), even make it conditional on the prior entrance of Ukraine to the EU
• stronger economic and diplomatic ties with European countries
• specific political agreements with NATO countries to ensure the autonomy of Crimea and the Donbas regions (on the ground of the ultra-nationalist propaganda and the US role in ousting a pro-Russian government in Ukraine), and the special status of Sevastopol in hosting the Black Sea Fleet, and made it conditional on specific military agreements with the US on their presence in Ukrainian territory and the Black Sea, while acknowledging some negotiation role to China and India as international mediators/guarantors.

This would have strengthen the international role of EU, China and India at the expense of NATO, let Russia gain time to become internationally stronger (by boosting their economy, modernising their arsenal, building their international alliance network), proved that Russia is not an aggressive foreign power as the US would have proved to be by rejecting those conditions, weakened the anti-Russian posture in the US establishment as well as NATO's raison d'etre (maybe with the help of Trump or the Republicans), and facilitated a shift of American rivalery from Russia to China.

As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” (↪neomac) after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (↪neomac). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl: — Apollodorus

You are conflating things I’ve said to address different points.
First of all, my Russian “direct existential threat to the West” claim was related to a list of conditions and not exclusively to Russian nuclear arsenal as your conveniently chopped quotation insinuates: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West”. The truth condition of “if a then z”, is not the same of “if a and b and c and d and e and f and g, then z”. That’s a simple logic test that you failed and keep on failing.
Second, concerning the nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats I never backpedaled, instead I later specified what I was referring to and why it is important: At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.
Meanwhile you arbitrarily chopped the following quotation of mine to fabricate yet another straw man argument: the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US)
In other words, at this point of the Ukrainian war, the risk of a Russian tactical nuclear strike has increased (as argued by too) and the West could be a likely target (in a mismanaged confrontation at the border with NATO countries) or in case of response from NATO countries to Russian first strike. And once the nukes have been unleashed things might spiral out of control.
Third, the reason for talking about a “direct” or “indirect” attack to the US is related to the claim that NATO is serving American self-interest (“NATO is an instrument of Atlanticism, i.e. primarily US self-interest”), so an attack to a NATO member is an attack to the American sphere of influence (indirect) not to American territory (direct).
Fourth, in the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed there is this clause among others: The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


Finally, concerning genesis and role of NATO, I won’t address the accuracy of your frantic historical reconstruction, but I find it clearly biased for 2 main reasons:
1. Even if one could argue that NATO guaranteed the subordination of European countries to American geopolitical interests, at the same time European countries (including the ones who lost during WW2) could enjoy economic prosperity, social-democratic institutions, and a long period of relative peace (BTW NATO expansion toward Ukraine might have as well served EU economic and energetic needs). And indeed for that reason NATO has become also a burden for the US (especially given the challenge to the Us supremacy coming from the emerging Chinese power).
2. Whatever the genesis of some institutions like NATO might be, that doesn’t preclude a possible unintended evolution that leads to its demise or radical revision from within. For example, even if United States of America were originally just a bunch of British colonies at some point they managed not only to become independent but also to supplant the British empire. By analogy, the European countries that could flourish under NATO umbrella for decades, may already nurture the seeds for a potential power competition between the US and Europe (an interesting reading about this is “A plan for a European Currency” (1969) by Robert A. Mundell, considered by many the father of the European Monetary Union) and the Ukrainian war might lead to some significant European defense awakening which the US doesn’t necessarily welcome as they officially claim to do (https://www.lawfareblog.com/german-conventional-deterrence-or-allied-integrated-deterrence-pick-one).

May I commend to you both the power of silence. This is too tedious to even try to understand. — unenlightened

All right, I see some good points in there, so I welcome your input. Yet I'm not here to entertain other people, besides this is a philosophical forum where certain peculiar intellectual exercises (like switching focus from ideological principles to meta-conversational principles) shouldn't appear as exotic or inappropriate as they could appear in more mainstream political debates. That's why I don't mind giving my contribution accordingly.

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible. — Apollodorus

As for (1) you didn’t show me that I misunderstood you before I showed you that you did misunderstand me, and repeatedly so. Therefore it’s you who needs to show me that you correctly understand me before complaining about my misunderstandings (and you didn’t show me any of my misunderstandings yet!). As for (2), I can’t make sure my statements are comprehensible to you if you conveniently chop them to build a straw man argument out of them.

From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you. — Apollodorus

To a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things, I guess.

The fact is that when I said "as far as I am concerned", I meant that it makes no difference to me personally, as it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. The conflict might put up my energy bills, but other than that, it makes no difference to me. Hence I have no personal interest in "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" as you falsely claimed. — Apollodorus

And where exactly did I make such a false claim?! As far as I remember, I never claimed anything that relates "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" with your “personal interest” or the impact of the war in Ukraine in your personal life. I was talking about your legitimacy claims (some of which I quoted) in favour of Russia and against NATO or for a more equitable world (which is again in line with what you attribute to non-Western powers’ views, including Russia, and against NATO aspirations to world hegemony), independently from your personal interest. These legitimacy claims are the only claims of yours I found pertinent to address so far, "as far as I am concerned”. These legitimacy claims show exactly that you are against NATO involvement in Ukraine, and can’t possibly square with this statement of yours “Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win” from a normative point of view exactly because if NATO with all its hypocrisy and predatory attitude - as you claim - were allowed to fight and win over Russia, destroy it and exploit whatever is left of Russia, then NATO would have deserved it as the best fighter, in spite of all your other legitimacy claims opposing this scenario.
While your dodging pertinent objections against your legitimacy claims by arbitrarily shifting focus from them to talking about your personal interest is a goofy or dishonest dialectical move that deserves to be either ignored or rebuked, "as far as I am concerned”.
In short, you provided yet again another straw man argument.

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. If you were prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, Kurdistan back to the Kurds, Germany back to the Germans, etc., then you might have some credibility. But as it is, you haven’t. IMO if you've got a rule or law, you must apply it consistently, not arbitrarily, otherwise it's just a joke. Unfortunately, there is no consistency whatsoever in the NATO position — Apollodorus

There are two reasons why I don’t find your “Western hypocrisy” kind of argument thrown at me (and others) as rationally compelling as you seem to believe:
1. Siding with NATO and against Russia wrt the war in Ukraine, doesn’t imply any (unconditional) ideological commitment to NATO expansionism and Western leaders/administrations’ choices, nor a dogmatic defence of Western foreign politics on both current and past affairs. As much as your siding with Russia and against NATO wrt the war in Ukraine doesn’t imply an (unconditional) ideological commitment to Russian imperialism, nor a dogmatic defence of Russian foreign politics on both current and past affairs. Yet I, you and other participants may have other ideological or pragmatic reasons to side either with NATO or Russia wrt the war in Ukraine. So if it’s possible for you to support Russia against NATO without being a pro-Russian troll, then it’s possible for me and others to support NATO against Russia without being a NATO jihadis.
2. Complaining about how fucked up the Western world and Western propaganda is an understandable and morally compelling reaction, yet turning that complaint into a reason for dismissing other political views just because they do not address or process Western injustice (even its impact at World scale, mind you!) in line with your general principles of democracy, equity and freedom is not only unjustified but dangerous.
It’s unjustified because as long as injustice is systemic, it is also the unintended outcome of cognitive asymmetries, moral hazards, bad habits and vicious loops embedded in complex societies. And for that reason systemic injustice can neither be entirely explained in terms of some popular “populist” narrative with agents moved by callous greediness for money or power on one side (the evil elite), and agents exploited and fooled by the former on the other side (the innocent mass), nor can be fixed at will, if only a large enough number of individuals could unite to oppose or revolt against the evil elites.
It’s dangerous because just preaching general principles and relying on the sheer force of a popular emotion (as the self-righteous’ indignation) in order to fix the World without having a fucking clue of what is feasible, sustainable, widely shareable and achievable in the medium-long term for individuals, decision makers and collectivities given all material, moral and cognitive constraining factors of our human condition might not only fail to fix the World, but it could arguably make it worse.

So, no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means), nor I have to rely on NATO position consistency (whatever the fuck that means), to side with NATO countries in support of Ukraine against Russia. And no, I don't take fixing the World as an unconditional moral imperative for my political choices, nor I see how we are closer to that objective by making concessions to Putin's aggressive expansionist ambitions.

Well, if a statement is "more articulated" that doesn't make it more logical, comprehensible, or true, does it? — Apollodorus

Yet it proves that yours was a straw man argument based on a misinterpreted bit of what I wrote.

You're claiming that my "propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism”. But you have completely failed to demonstrate (a) that my statements were "propaganda" and (b) that they have any impact on Russia's foreign policy. — Apollodorus

Completely failed?! How so? I usually don’t even try to “demonstrate” what I take to be evident or common knowledge.
But if that’s your challenge to me, ok let’s address it. Starting with (b), your accusation looks three times pointless to me: first of all, my claim that your propaganda is “instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism” is simply acknowledging its instrumental role in this war of propaganda, not assessing its specific impact. By analogy, saying that that knife is for cutting bread, doesn’t mean that knife is used or has ever been used to cut bread or is effective in cutting bread.
Second, I don’t even see the rational of requiring such an assessment in ordinary political debates like ours. Assessing the specific impact of your specific claims may be pertinent as a scientific task, I guess. But my claim is still rationally compelling despite the lack of such an assessment, or even due to the lack of such an assessment. Indeed propaganda is not only matter of sources and methods but also of content virality wrt a certain social environment. Considering that in Western democratic societies one can take part in free public debates and vote to have an impact on leaders’ policies also wrt the war in Ukraine (and indirectly wrt Russia's foreign policy), pro-NATO or anti-NATO propaganda narratives can compete in order to influence public opinion accordingly (letting aside all other more or less questionable ways available to militants to proselytise and fight the system from within, of course). Besides thanks to the internet and the social networks non-mainstream and anti-system propaganda have become more pervasive, impactful and easier to infiltrate by hostile powers too. All that considered, uncertainty about the risks of spreading propaganda about controversial issues plausibly increases a default aversion toward ideological opponents in those who are risk averse (by analogy we take default counter measures against covid-19 and expect the same from others, even if we don’t exactly know the medical condition and actual impact of spreading the virus in our and other cases).
And, third, you too must know all that already since you keep stressing the role of propaganda in this thread:
“Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.”
“The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda”.
“And let's face it, every major power wants more power. The only difference is the tools you employ to acquire power, financial, economic, political, military, or any combination of these, and the narrative you use for justification, "world peace", "economic progress", "democracy", "human rights", etc. ”


Concerning (a), besides the fact that you keep complaining about Western propaganda (e.g. “The problem with Americans and Westerners in general is that they tend to be either uneducated or miseducated. It’s hard to tell which is worse, but the result in either case is that Westerners can’t see through their own ignorance and propaganda.”, “The West is, literally, an island of ignorance and self-serving propaganda promoted by the US-controlled global media”), you do not seem to do it exclusively based on your selected repertoire of alleged “facts” at all but also because motivated by your own justificatory narrative which you have been very vocal about on several occasions in this thread: e.g. you wrote “a real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table. As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.
This attitude of yours is perfectly in line with non-Western powers’ narrative as you described them (“IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population”).
Add to this, your biased intellectual approach (just see how you grossly and conveniently misunderstood my claims about Russia being an existential threat to Europe and then tried to minimise Russian nuclear threats) and polemical rhetorical attitude (see the usage of loaded language e.g. NATO jihadis), and what you get is exactly your propaganda, actually one that’s very much in line with the claims of other participants in this thread.
Finally, it’s not uncommon among those who support certain controversial propaganda narratives to deny that even when it’s evident, and this is what makes them also intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, I never said I was "against Western involvement in Ukraine", so there really is no need for you to make things up. As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus

Yes, I am against NATO and against the EU because I am against imperialism. But I think discussion forums are for people to exchange views without resorting to ad hominems and insults. — Apollodorus

Well then I never said you said it either, nor I made anything up since that claim was logically implied by many other claims of yours: basically, you see the Western involvement in Ukraine (or as you called it “America’s economic and military jihad in the region”) as an expression of NATO imperialism and you are against NATO because you are against imperialism. Even more so because you see Western imperialism as illegitimate contrary to the Russian imperialism which you see as legitimate. You also claimed: “EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government”. And: “no, I'm not ‘pro-Russian’, just anti-NATO and anti-US hegemony. And definitely against world government”.
In other words, you are against illegitimate imperialism, even more so if it’s likely leading to world government, which Western involvement in Ukraine you claim is all about. Then yes you are against Western involvement in Ukraine. As for the social-darwinist flavour of this claim of yours “As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win”, it simply makes no sense wrt your own legitimacy claims in favour of Russia/non-Western powers and against US/NATO.

If I find it appropriate, I don’t mind resorting to “ad hominems and insults” as much as you don’t when making comments such as “It looks like some folks have their heads so deep in NATO propaganda”, “Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic”, especially against intellectual dishonest interlocutors like you are proving to be. Yet it's not what I'm here for, so as long there are more pertinent arguments to address, the exchange can continue.

Ukraine entering NATO may or may not be a nuclear threat to Russia. That's for Russia to decide, not for you or me. But the situation is much more complex than that. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it might try to push Russia out of Crimea. This would be unacceptable to Russia (a) because Crimea has never been Ukrainian, (b) because this would result in NATO control of the Black Sea which Russia needs for access to the Mediterranean, and (c) because Crimea has been the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet for centuries (from 1783, to be more precise): Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia
So, I think an objective analysis of the situation needs to consider the concerns of both sides, not just one. — “Apollodorus

I acknowledge the strategic importance of Crimea from a military and commercial point of view (actually I myself brought this issue up a while ago). Yet this is not how this war was explicitly justified by Russian propaganda in the first place (i.e. denazification of Ukraine, broken promises of NATO expansion), nor something the Westerns can now concede to Russia so easily given the confrontational attitude of Russia toward the West and its military presence in Middle East and Africa. And the claim that’s “up to Russia to decide” sounds preposterous because it conflates a trivial observation with a questionable understatement: ordinary citizens’ political contribution is obviously limited to ideological support (in debates and during elections) not in political decision making as political leaders so what’s the point of mentioning me and you?! At the same time the allusive normative force of your otherwise pointless claim is questionable on geopolitical and ideological grounds.

Anyway, if you think that "the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies", and is "not waiting", then there is nothing to worry about. — Apollodorus

Of course there is, because “wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc.” So consensus can be eroded as well as support for certain foreign policy measures.

So, I'm not sure who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. A country that has never done it, or one that has? — Apollodorus

Your way of assessing the likelihood of such an event is preposterous, given that the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US). Besides after the Cuban missile crisis, it became a political and military imperative for major nuclear powers to regulate the usage of their weapons within the boundaries of an officially declared, strictly codified, and implemented logic of deterrence. At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.

1. First you said that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is a threat. But all nuclear arsenals are a potential threat, including those of America, Britain, and France. — Apollodorus

I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. First of all, I didn’t focus on the nuclear threat per se. What I said was more articulated: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. ”
That is what makes Russia under Putin a direct existential threat to the West. Not a single condition but a set of conditions, including the nuclear threat. And it’s not only question of human lives and territorial integrity, but also of institutions and wellbeing.

2. Then you said that Russia is a threat and/or Putin invaded Ukraine because of my “propaganda”, which sounds pretty incomprehensible and irrational to me. — Apollodorus

No I didn’t say that either. You wrote “if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I’ve got nothing to do with it!”. I simply said you do have something to do with Russia invading Ukraine b/c Russia is not just conducting a war in Ukraine, but also a worldwide propaganda war to gain support and stir aversion toward Western involvement in Ukraine against Russian criminal expansionism. And your propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism.

3. The quotes you posted do not show that the US regards Russia as an imminent nuclear threat. Statements like “if someone does x, we’re going to do y”, do not support your claim. — Apollodorus

So what?! I never used the expression “imminent nuclear threat”. And even Ukraine entering NATO wasn’t an imminent nuclear threat to Russia, yet Putin waged war against Ukraine and started menacing the West with nuclear threats every other day. The risk of escalation (especially in the usage of tactical nukes by that Russians) as suggested by the Russian nuclear doctrine, Russian politicians’ declarations, and Russian performance on the battle field is what the West must deal with well before any imminent nuclear threat.

4. And now you’re saying that “Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this”. If that is the case, why are you waiting???!!! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Who is waiting?! The West is neither deterred by Russian nuclear escalation threats from supporting Ukraine given the growing military support to Ukraine (BTW the latest US security package for Ukraine, includes gear designed to protect Ukrainian forces from nuclear, biological and chemical exposure), regime of sanctions against Russia, and rearming programs against Russian military threats (while Finland and Sweden plan to join NATO). Nor refraining from developing and coordinating their deterrence strategies against Russian nuclear threats: the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies (not to mention that the current Russian nuclear posturing was practically foreshadowed since 2018). And things are on the move in terms of nuclear deterrence preparation inside many European countries (e.g. Poland announced its readiness to host US nukes).

Dude, whether Ukraine joining NATO is a security threat to Russia or not, is for Russia to decide, not for you or me. — Apollodorus

Dude, whether Russia is a security threat to Ukraine or not, is for Ukraine to decide.

In any case, if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I've got nothing to do with it! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Sure you do with your propaganda.

Dude, says WHO??? — Apollodorus

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin:
Russia’s most recent threats of escalating its attack on Ukraine into a nuclear conflict are “unhelpful” and “irresponsible,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Tuesday.  “You’ve heard us say a number of times that that kind of rhetoric is very dangerous and unhelpful,” Austin told reporters following a meeting with military leaders from more than 40 countries at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. 
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3463700-pentagon-chief-irresponsible-for-russia-to-talk-about-potential-nuclear-escalation/

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was just a month old, but Kendall noted the danger of escalation: “We’re dealing with a nuclear-armed state; you cannot ignore that as you make decisions about how to respond.” […] “World War II-style conflict that could involve nuclear weapons is not in anybody’s interest,” Kendall stressed in our interview last month. “That’s pretty obvious. But that doesn’t mean that somebody is not going to make a mistake in taking an aggressive action, thinking that the other side is not going to fight and then finds out that they do.” That, he said, “ends in a very difficult situation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/russia-ukraine-nuclear-pentagon-budget/


CIA Director William Burns:
"Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they've faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons," Burns said during a speech in Atlanta.
The Kremlin said it placed Russian nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the assault began February 24, but the United States has not seen "a lot of practical evidence" of actual deployments that would cause more worry, Burns added, speaking to students at Georgia Tech university.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220414-live-major-russian-warship-seriously-damaged-in-explosion-as-ukraine-claims-strike

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg:
underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Rival nuclear powers monitor one another as a matter of everyday routine. At the end of the day, you react to a threat if you identify a threat. And you can identify a threat only by monitoring your opponent. So, you monitor your opponent irrespective of their being or not an imminent threat. — Apollodorus

Sure, but the pressure depends on the perceived risks, indeed:

“In late February, when President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared that his country’s nuclear arms were entering “special combat readiness,” America’s surveillance gear went on high alert. Hundreds of imaging satellites, as well as other private and federal spacecraft, began looking for signs of heightened activity among Russia’s bombers, missiles, submarines and storage bunkers, which hold thousands of nuclear warheads.”
“Dr. Lowenthal, the former C.I.A. assistant director and now a senior lecturer at Johns Hopkins, said he found the personnel aspect of Moscow’s escalatory process the most troubling. We can develop a good baseline on what’s normal” and routine in the movement of Russian nuclear arms, he said. “It’s the internal stuff that’s always worrisome.” Imaging satellites, after all, cannot see what people are doing inside buildings and bunkers. He said the main uncertainty was “the level of automaticity” in Russia’s escalatory war alerts […] You’re never quite sure” how Russia goes about authorizing the use of nuclear arms, Dr. Lowenthal said. “That’s the kind of thing that makes you nervous.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/science/nuclear-weapon-russia-satellite-tracking.html

“The White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials to sketch out scenarios of how the United States and its allies should respond if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — frustrated by his lack of progress in Ukraine or determined to warn Western nations against intervening in the war — unleashes his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this.

Dude, Russia has had a nuclear arsenal for decades and I don't see Russia invading Paris, London, or New York! — Apollodorus

I didn't see Kiev, Paris, London or New York invading Russia either. Yet Russia was considering Ukraine joining NATO and EU as an existential threat to them to the point of wage war against Ukraine and threatening the West to escalate to a nuclear war every other day.

Plus, here's an official Pentagon statement:
We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory
U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric - Reuters
Maybe you live in some remote area where there is no news or they can't read? :grin: — Apollodorus

Dude, reading is not enough, one has to actually understand what one reads too.
So, first of all, there would be no pressure into monitoring “nuclear capabilities every day the best we can” despite the rhetoric if there was no threats in the first place (some listed in the very article you linked, here you find some more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/, here some others https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089533705/putin-publicly-put-russian-nuclear-forces-on-high-alert-what-should-we-make-of-t?t=1651589513787, here some more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-moscow-kyiv-626a8c5ec22217bacb24ece60fac4fe1, here some more from Russian propaganda and think thank pundits https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/05/03/russian-propaganda-escalates-laying-ground-for-nuclear-strike/, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/04/russia-cannot-afford-to-lose-so-we-need-a-kind-of-a-victory-sergey-karaganov-on-what-putin-wants). Iran for its alleged threats and without actual nuclear capabilities is subject to a total embargo from the West, antagonised through proxy wars and aborted attempts of regime change.
Second, I wasn’t exclusively referring to the current scenario but also to the risks of escalation as one of your zealous fellows has warned all of us about [1], which Westerners can’t take lightly, even more so Europeans since they are exposed to Russian nuclear threats far more than the US, while being heavily but not unconditionally dependent on the US intelligence and military capacity to contain this threat. Weren’t the case we would have seen a no fly zone declaration already. BTW, if the West was accused of ignoring Russian grievances against NATO expansion, now the West can’t ignore Russian nuclear threats, can they? Russians could take this underestimation as a provocation and escalate just to prove a point, right? Many Westerners couldn't believe Russia would have started this war despite American warnings and Russian fake assurances [2]. And given how shitty Russians seem to perform in this war there is a greater risk that with their obsolete military doctrine organisation technology they could cause troubles beyond their intention for themselves and for the Westerners.


[1]

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.
There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better. — boethius

[2]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468264
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-22-22/h_e6582bb2eb31e968a08bc25ea6e2bee3

That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced? — Benkei

Where have I suggested that you suggested it? You wrote: "So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with". Your evaluation was partial, so "in all fairness" I completed it: would we be more fortunate or equally fortunate to be aligned with Russia? Hell, no.

Your assumption Ukraine needed Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. — Benkei

My assumption is that “plenty of experts since the late 90s” weren't enough to convince many Eastern European countries about "principled neutrality", including Ukrainians b/c on 7 February 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted with a majority of 334 out of 385 to change the Ukrainian constitution to help Ukraine to join NATO and the European Union, despite all western reluctance to accept Ukraine b/c of Russia and the weakening of NATO. Maybe EU and Ukraine do not act like pawns, nor the US and Russia are acting like chess masters, as much as post-Cold War experts have figured out.

If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei

Who knows? All I know is that Ukrainians have been fighting for their independence and self-determination against Russian central governments for centuries. That they were victim of a genocide under Soviet ruling. That they preferred the Nazis to the Soviets. Now the EU and NATO to the Russians. And Russian imperialism pre-dates the American one and isn't aging well either given the delirious talks one can hear from certain prominent Russian putinists.
Besides, since "in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence" then you could claim at best if the US and Russia had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened.

Europe as its forward pawn — Tzeentch

That's the geopolitical game, dear Pollyanna. Any pawn must play its role as a pawn as best as possible to get a chance to become a queen.

So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe. — Benkei

Not as unfortunate as if we were aligned with Russia: we needed NATO to protect us from the Soviet Union as much as Ukraine needed NATO to protect themselves from Russia (Ukrainians preferred Nazism to Russian assimilation, go figure!). And there are self-aware European nuclear parties too (https://www.france24.com/en/20200207-macron-unveils-nuclear-doctrine-warns-eu-cannot-remain-spectators-in-arms-race).

And I don't see you guys campaigning for China to give back Tibet or for Turkey to return Cyprus and other territories stolen from the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and many other nations. — Apollodorus

Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. You can continue your intellectual masturbation over the hypocrisy of the West all you want, but at this point the West should not tolerate a terrorist state that big that aggressive that close. "Very simple and easy to understand".

Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. — Bartricks

As I said: "I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about 'reason'". So I dealt with claims and arguments of yours I found more philosophically pertinent.

Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win. — Bartricks

Sure, sport, don't believe all those who tell you otherwise. Do you wanna a lollipop?

If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculties of reason are so good they've entered the canon of great thinkers - represents events to have causes, that doesn't count for anything because the great neomac's reason makes no such representation. Ooo, mustn't contradict the great neomac's reason - his reason, uniquely among us, is our sole source of insight into reality. Get over yourself. — Bartricks

Dude, I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about "reason". Suck it up and move on.

Yeah, I'm not arguing anything, just blurting things.
What argument? What is your argument? Note, you seem to think the possibility that events may lack causes is some kind of evidence against simultaneous causation. How? How does that work, exactly? — Bartricks

You are confused. I argued that: “‘There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction.’ Even the notion of ‘event’ doesn't analytically imply ‘being caused’” to point out that self-creation understood as a form of self-causation is a metaphysical hypothesis (and parasitic to the notion of “causality”) one has to argue for. That’s all.

YOu don't seem to understand what my argument is. It is in the OP. I argued that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

And I claim that it is not true that is the “only reason” to think that self-creation is incoherent is that causes must precede their effects, because even if causes and effects are simultaneous we could still argue that the notion of self-creation is incoherent (see below).

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes?
What caused X to come into existence? X. — Bartricks

Here my counter arguments against this answer:

• Semantic artifice: “our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct ‘relata’ and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of ‘self-creation’ claims”. It’s “creation” as “bringing into existence at t2 from non-existence at t1” and not “causality” that requires the pre-existence of the creator wrt creature (e.g. the hen laying her eggs, the artist painting his portrait on the canvas, the blooming tree with its flowers).
• Fallacious explanation: “If ‘X creates Y and X = Y’ is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (‘Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then.’) fails. The explanation is only ‘apparent’ as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless)”.

It is self-evident to reason that events have causes. Evidence that it is self-evident to reason is the fact that throughout history it has been appealed to by those whose faculties of reason seem among the very best. The burden of proof, then, is squarely on you. — Bartricks

That’s at best evidence to you not to me, since that all “events have causes” is not self-evident to me for logic and semantic “reasons” as I clarified. And if whatever you call “reason” is in conflict with logic and semantics then “intellectual confusion” would be a more appropriate way to call it for sure.

So if you want, you can continue to insist - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that some events lack causes, but you'll just be off topic. — Bartricks

My argument is based on logic and semantics, and that’s all I need to argue about “consistency” as far as I’m concerned. Not to mention the fact that you yourself didn’t offer any evidence to support your claim that something can create itself out of nothing. You just offered an argument that “simultaneous causation” would solve the putative inconsistency of “self-creation” as you formulated it. The problem to me is that “simultaneous causation” is not enough, you would need additional metaphysical hypotheses (like “events have causes”) as well as some semantic artifice (e.g. our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct “relata” and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of “self-creation” claims). That’s why I don’t think I’m off topic as much as you didn’t seem to think you were off topic when you brought your disputable metaphysical hypothesis up in the first place.

It turns out, then, that you accept that simultaneous causation is coherent. Why, then, do you think self-creation is incoherent? Explain. — Bartricks

If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between a non-existent X and an existent Y then the claim would be incoherent because X would be existing and non-existing at the same time, since X = Y.
If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (“Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then.”) fails. The explanation is only “apparent” as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless).

Nuclear war is 'most probable outcome', viewers are told, 'but we will go to heaven while they simply croak'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10762143/Ukraine-war-Russian-state-TV-says-nuclear-strike-probable-losing.html

more and more like a jihad

Because events have causes. Odd that you think causes must precede their effects, but think effects don't have to have causes!
I think causes do not have to precede their effects. You think I'm wrong about that (or do you think I'm right, in which case you agree with me but don't realize it). Yet you think effects don't need to have causes! — Bartricks

Dude you are twice delusional. I never claimed that cause must precede its effect. Instead I explicitly argued for the simultaneous co-existence of cause and effect if cause is to be understood as a relation in metaphysical terms (which is something you didn't clarify yet). Indeed relations metaphysically depend on the existence of all the terms they relate. Besides if cause and effect were in strict temporal succession, then when the cause occurs, then the effect doesn't, and when the effect occurs, then the cause doesn't. So there would be no intelligible interaction between the causal factor and its effect.
Again, what is your argument to support the idea that all events have causes?! As I said "There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction." Even the notion of "event" doesn't analytically imply "being caused". Yours is just an additional metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for. So your claims are odd and unmotivated. And evidently so.

You're just begging the question. You keep banging on about identity — Bartricks

No I didn't, precisely because self-identity holds independently from self-creation and the latter is under question. On the other side, you begged the question by implicitly inserting a metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for "Because events have causes".

you are the one who thinks that if X simultaneously causes X to exist then X is preserving X not creating X — Bartricks

Stop strawmanning. I never made such a claim, nor implied, nor suggested. I was talking about existence preservation just as an alternative to self-creation.

You seem to think that if God created himself, then he wouldn't be God. I don't know why you think that. To be God a person simply needs to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Why do they need 'not' to have created themselves? Odd. — Bartricks

I didn't claim that, nor implied that, nor suggested that. I took into consideration the notion of "God" when talking about existence preservation, not self-creation. I just surmised you might go in that direction, that's all. Anyway "self-creation" is either an incoherent metaphysical notion or explanatorily empty.

Engage in the following thought experiment. Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then. It brought itself into being. That's perfectly coherent if simultaneous causation is coherent (which it is). — Bartricks

Why does "popping into existence" without cause is incoherent?! There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction.

You don't seem to understand what simultaneous causation involves. The cause exists as does the effect. You seem to be thinking that in a case of self-creation, the thing doing the creating does not yet exist. No, it exists simultaneous with its effect, it is just that in this case the effect is itself. — Bartricks

What?! If cause X and effect Y both simultaneously exist and X=Y, there is no creation of Y by X, precisely because the existence of Y is granted by the identity between X and Y so there is no need of whatever causal-thingy between them you are raving about. The notion of "cause" in your case makes literally no sense. Period. You made such a preposterous claim probably because you didn't clarify to yourself what "cause" means in metaphysical terms and, at the same time, you are misled by the putative explanatory power of the notion of "cause" based on some intellectual compulsion ("Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then", which looks very much like a circular argument meant to avoid an infinite regress, and both are fallacious).

Why are you saying that we have 'preserving into existence'? I don't even know what that means. — Bartricks

I already explained that: "at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation." Preserving existence from ceasing to exist. That's what I think it would make more sense for you to contend, but it's not self-creation.

Russian casualties in Ukraine. Mediazona investigation
https://zona.media/translate/2022/04/25/bodycount_eng

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them. — boethius

Why not? As you said, Putin has figured all out, already. He will win anyways. And his people will support any leader who proves how powerful Russia is. Besides the Ukrainians are Nazis, America bombed Japan with strategic nukes even if there was no existential threat to America, why shouldn’t Russia be able to justify an attack with tactical nukes against a Nazi government committing genocides against Russians, threatening to use chemical weapons against Russians, with the support of corrupt and blood thirsty capitalist imperialists?! Is Putin too stupid or too coward? Because either way the Westerners will profit from his stupidity and cowardice and continue the war precisely because Putin refuses to escalate.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies. — boethius

Oh I see, so you are saying that Kremlin is waiting for the green light from China and India to fire tactical nukes? Why? Why does Putin need to wait if he will win anyways and why would his allies not support him if his victory will definitely show to the world how US and NATO are powerless?

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective. — boethius

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. Actually it's weird that he didn't use them yet. Is Putin too stupid to realize it ? Putin can always blame the West and say that he was forced to do it despite the repeated warnings. Why didn't he do launch nuclear tactic weapons yet? Is Putin such a coward pussy? C'mon there is no serious risk for Russia: sanctions are ineffective, India and China are with Russia, Putin will still be in power, fucking capitalist imperialism has tired everybody already, the West has no courage to retaliate, and it bears exactly all the responsibility if everything goes to shit. What is Putin still waiting? He would be at worst "only" victorious in Ukraine, at best the savior of all human kind. We should be all in favour of nuclear escalation if that's the only way to end the war for good.

Er, no, they would be existent as cause and existent as effect. — Bartricks

If they simultaneously exist, there is no bringing into existence from non-existence (as creation is normally understood) but at best preserving into existence.

You've just made the 'the cause would need to precede the effect' objection — Bartricks

No, I'm talking about ontological dependency between properties/relations and the entities they are predicated of. If X is taller than Y, "taller than" as a relation is predicated of X and Y while X and Y are existing. It's possible that the relation holds simultaneously to the existence of both terms and the terms can not exist without being in such relation (this is the case for internal relations). The issue is that if one of the terms doesn't exist then relations/predicates can not be instantiated while if all terms exist there is no bringing into existence from non-existence as "creation" is normally understood.

As I said earlier, the claim is not that something can come out of nothing - it remains true that nothing causes nothing — Bartricks

Then it's not self-creation as normally understood ("the act or process of making something that is new, or of causing something to exist that did not exist before" source: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/creation?q=creation) but at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation.
Besides if you are talking about your god, why does your god need to preserve itself into existence? He is all mighty and perfect, so he would not suffer from any decaying process, nor need to preserve itself into existence.

The only reason to think self-creation is impossible is the idea that to create one's self one would have to exist 'prior' to one's own existence. And the only reason to think that is the idea that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

No, that's not true. If self-creation is understood as a form of simultaneous causation then the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

How can we see which way motion goes by looking at a point? — Haglund

Again, I would distinguish between what is the case (metaphysical question) and what we can "see" (epistemological question).

Anyway the notion of "point" is a useful abstraction, but what the spatial notion of "point" doesn't seem able to render is precisely the dynamic nature of events. Events are transitional states of things, properties and relations in their becoming. As such they are intrinsically dynamic and can't be understood without reference to the time. So the notion of "motion" itself is a dynamic concept not because it relates to space, but because it relates to time.

Because breaking implies motion. An event is a point. — Haglund

are you talking about Zeno's paradox? The impossibility of having motion on a single point of the time series?

A bit paradoxically... A breaking glas an event? — Haglund

A glass breaking is an instantaneous event. Why do you see it as paradoxical?

As far as I can tell from my philosophical readings, events are temporal phenomena that can be extended or instantaneous: parties, watching movies, playing chess, calculating an equation are considered examples of temporally extended events. Explosions, particle decays, date expiration, snapping fingers are considered examples of temporally instantaneous events. Not sure to understand the link you see between the notions of “event”, “causality”, and the question of the reversibility or the direction of motion (or time).

Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. — Haglund

We should distinguish epistemology from ontology. The incapacity of identifying cause and effect is not a reason to reject of the simultaneity of cause and effect. The metaphysical argument why cause and effect should be simultaneous goes roughly as follows. If causality is a relation, then it presupposes the existence of the related terms, because relations (at least external relations) are existence-entailing, one cannot have a relation without its relata: aRb cannot obtain unless both a and b exist. But if the existence of the cause precedes the existence of its effect, then when the cause exists the effect doesn’t, while when the effect exists the cause doesn’t exist anymore. So if there is no moment in which they co-exist then there can not be any relation between them, therefore not even a causal relation.
The problem of distinguishing cause and effect as events could be overcome if we consider that events can be temporally extended entities and that the causal relation between them requires the simultaneity of some moments: e.g. the rolling ball A hits the still ball B at t1 causing B to move. Then, the event of A ball’s rolling and the event of B ball’s moving are simultaneously and causally correlated at t1 (exactly when A hits and B starts moving, cause and effect).

cause and effect

Simultaneous causation is coherent. Simultaneous causation applied to self-creation no, because the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

No, but they'd be fighting for freedom from criminality, not for their country, which is merely an incidental grouping. — Isaac

Still, the people would be fighting for sovereignty or self-determination not for a country. — Isaac

You just conceded enough to grant moral plausibility to the Ukrainian patriotic resistance against Russian criminal invasion. And if that's all I can get from your preposterous claims, fine with me.

I've hopefully been clear that I've no interest in these games. If you we're interested you'd have found them by now (unless you're very young), so your comment is intended to show (somehow) that I can't find them. But I knew that before I started, and so did you. So I obviously can find them (otherwise I wouldn't have made the claim, I'm clearly not an idiot), you know that, but you also know anything I find will be sufficiently vague (not to mention directly critiqued, somewhere) for you to oppose it. But I know that too, and you know I must know it. So why, exactly, are we bothering? — Isaac

Enjoy your echo chamber then.

I can't account for your inability to make sense of fairly common positions. — Isaac

"Fairly common positions" among people who share your "stupid" views (according to your own definition), I could concede that to you. But there isn't much one can make sense of in self-defeating positions like yours anyways.

> If one is fighting against criminal aggression then one's country is immaterial. It's perfectly possible for both Ukrainians and Russians to fight against criminal aggression together.
The moral element is the criminality, not the countries. Anyone fighting the criminality is behaving morally, anyone supporting it is not. Regardless of the country they pledge allegiance to.

But that doesn’t exclude that Ukrainians could fight Russians because their aggression is criminal either. And there is nothing in the meaning of the word “criminality” that excludes that an act of aggression is criminal precisely because it violates one's country national sovereignty and self-determination.


> They're generally in journals, preprint servers, libraries, bookshops…

Can you literally quote and reference any of these studies?


> Someone proposes moral relativism and logical non-realism (two perfectly normal philosophical positions) and you terminate the discussion, lest you encounter views counter to your preferred world views.

No it’s simply that the word “preference” loses its contrastive meaning in the way you use it. Neither logic nor moral is matter of preference. You simply make no sense, dude.

> It's used to describe behaviours and attitudes such as avoiding thousands more innocent people dying.

Does the meaning of “moral” exclude fighting for one’s own country and identity against a criminal aggression from another nation as moral?

> Then you are a true exception to all of humanity that's ever been studied. Well done.

Really?! Where are these studies that show that all of humanity has world views and then looks for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support their pre-established world views?

> Both of these are impossible tasks. I cannot 'show you' how your reasoning goes wrong because whether an argument is reasonable or not is an opinion you hold about it, I can't show you it isn't any more than I can show you that my cup of tea is nice.
Even if I made an argument as simple as "Either A, or ~A", you could still dispute it by rejecting the LEM. What we're discussing is massively more complicated. The idea that either of us could present some 'logical' argument that somehow 'proves' one side or the other is laughable. You're either persuaded by my argument, rhetoric and all, or you're not. That's entirely your preference.

After moral also logic is matter of preference. I think we are done here.

>...and in English?

Here you go: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.



> I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable. — neomac
Well then we have no disagreement. The rest is just your misunderstanding. All I've been arguing is about the moral status of those two positions.

What?! Oh no, it's way more likely that you misunderstood what I was questioning despite the fact that I made it clear on several occasions:

“Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral”.

“Indeed, I offered reasons mainly to question your 2 moral claims:
Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West).
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.”

“when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge”

“2 preposterous moral claims of yours: one about fighting over flags and the other is about Western responsibilities in the genesis and perpetuation of this war. ”


> I would have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'moral'.

Which is?

> Bollocks. You were trying to associate my position with the victory of a probable war criminal because it makes my position look less appealing. You can save your 'oh I was just talking about logical consistency' crap for anyone still naive enough to believe it.

Yes I know. Logic hurts your rhetoric. But you didn’t offer a counter argument on logic grounds, just more rhetoric claims.


> From the person literally stringing bits of my writing together using a cryptic mangle of quoting techniques to reach the conclusion that I apparently want Russia to win!

Really?! Show me then how my reasoning goes wrong based on what you said, as I did when you misquoted me. Prove me that I misquoted you.


> Where we disagree is the ludicrous notion that the rest of you don't do exactly the same thing.
That you don't interpret every imprecise thing I say (which is virtually everything) selecting the option which most suits your narrative, that you don't choose experts whose opinions mesh best with your worldview, that you don't put more effort into critiquing opposing views than supportive ones, that you don't 'fill in the blanks' in a way that bolsters your preferred story.

No dude, it doesn’t work that way for me. First of all you can make all claims you want, but I don’t care about your claims, I care about your arguments because this is what I’m here for. Second, I care about arguments but I judge them for their logical value (logical consistency), success conditions (range of applications), and explanatory power (conceptual or empirical). I don’t care about their rhetoric value, association of ideas, ideological appealing. Third, I don’t do the same you do: I don’t have world views and then look for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support my pre-established world views.

I know the quote function. I simply find it uncomfortable for personal reasons. But I don't want to infringe any forum rule. So is that a forum rule or can my quotation style be tolerated?

> Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong.

Yet another strawman argument. Dude, you don’t get to give me homework. I know what I’m doing. One could question somebody else’s claims and arguments based on their explanatory power and/or on their internal consistency. And I did both with you. The point I made and you are addressing now was about logic consistency: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.
You were trying to evade my claim as follows:
“if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac
Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers”
When I asked you to clarify this, after some more dodging in all directions, the best you came up with is this: “There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal” which - as I argued - holds for Zelensky with his moral dilemma between continuing or ending the war, as much as for you with your moral dilemma between American (or NATO) vs Russian expansionism, in a way that is logically consistent with how you framed the war in Ukraine.
Besides I wasn’t even done yet: we could have discussed about other cases too the Palestinians wrt the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, the poor who give birth to children, the French/Russian/Iranian revolutions, the thought experiment I proposed to you.
My strong suspect is that your abstract line of reasoning applies only if e.g. it’s against the American capitalist imperialism, because if it logically goes against your preferred world views then it shouldn’t be applied. But that’s irrational and one-sided. Yet it explains why “you seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action” (namely, fighting “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)

> But since your argument was that my position is actually ‘preposterous’ rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.

I already addressed this pointless objection. I called several claims of yours “preposterous” (starting from your declared idea that fighting over a flag is always no doubt immoral) for the reasons I clarified. You can counter them if you wish so, instead of inventing strawman arguments. I took mainly issue with the way you argued to support your position. Indeed I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable.


> Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

Then it follows that other people act morally only if they act the way you want without further reasons. And if you ever wanted thousands more deaths without further reason, then it would have still been a defensible moral claim to support the continuation of this war. Is that right? It sounds like a Devine Command Theory with the only teensy negligible difference that you would be playing the role of god.
I’m not sure you fully understand how not compelling is to others what you want without further reasons. And there could be no argument to clarify that better to you, I’m afraid.

>My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac
...and that 'fairly' translates as...
you want to help Russia win — neomac
...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity…?

Yes it does “fairly” translate to “you want to help Russia win”, and I would expect you to agree with me again on logical grounds, even more so now that I clarified my point.
Here is another example to illustrate a similar usage of “want”: if a soldier was very badly shot in his left leg in some remote war front, and the doctor told him “under the given circumstances , unfortunately we can’t do much to save your leg and if we do not immediately amputate it, you would definitely risk to die from gangrene! So, what do you want to do?”. If the soldier said “I want my leg amputated, doctor”, would this mean that he would be happy of amputating his leg? Or that he wouldn’t have chosen any other option to avoid this, wouldn’t he be in danger of life? Or that he was brainwashed into wanting his leg amputated against his own interest? No of course, it simply means that he chose what he took to be the lesser evil option (so amputating his leg is instrumental in preserving his life) and communicated his choice accordingly with an “I want” sentence perfectly intelligible as it is.
The same would be with your case: “given the ‘de facto’ circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.’ That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory”. So if making “as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do” could somehow help Russian victory then you want to do it not for Russians’ sake but because it is instrumental in fighting ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing’.
Briefly, my point has to do with logic consistency not with your rhetorical quibbles.


> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.
What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself. — neomac
No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother.

No I’m not going to save you the bother to fully quote my alleged “claim of implausibility” concerning negotiation failures, because you are prone to strawmanning your interlocutor (often by conveniently chopping their quotations). And since I have no idea what you are talking about, I can’t even double check by myself. So I would like to be sure you are not making things up just on purpose to spin your idle intellectual game for another round (which would be intellectual dishonesty at its finest).

> Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with?

I opposed different kinds of claims of yours for different reasons and in different degree. The claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral is preposterous to me. The claim that it would be better for Ukrainian people option2 instead of option1 is not preposterous but disputable. Your claim that the Ukrainian war is a profitable business for American weapon industries and financial companies is clearly plausible, yet the moral implications that you may implicitly attach to such a claim could be disputable to me. Your general claim that the ruling classes oppress the poor is plausible, to what extent is disputable as well as its pertinence to the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families (in this latter case I find it rather unintelligible). The American administration support to Saudi Arabia war in Yemen is morally questionable to you: while this is plausible to me, its pertinence to the Ukrainian war is highly disputable.


> I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?

By “common background knowledge” I was referring to claims of mine such as “This is what I take to be an anthropological fact: ‘There is an anthropological fact that grounds my moral reasoning: social identities are part of our personal identities and they are rooted in our communal life with other individuals in a given environment’. All human societies (independently from geographic and historical latitudes) have ways of identifying human groups and individuals based on group membership. This is an anthropological fact. Some societies use ‘Nationality’ as a way to identify social groups and individuals as members of those groups: nation states, national languages, national flags, national passports, national money, national sport teams, national customs, national cuisine are examples of ways we identify groups and individuals within groups based on nationality.
Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly.”
So do you allow me to consider this as a piece of background knowledge that I and you have roughly in common or am I expecting too much from your educational achievements?
In any case, either overly pointless (surprise surprise) or overly poor education (which of course is not an argument against “common background knowledge”).

even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman — neomac
Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is).

In this passage, I was talking about the way you collect and process experts’ feedback, not about the experts feedback itself! And there is no need to invent examples when I provided examples “(e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out)”! Here is what I was referring to: E.g. Kissinger advises “It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. […]. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html). While Mearsheimer concludes that: “The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.” (https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf).”
Concerning your example, I addressed this already: I don’t even need to prove that a layman in psychology could “seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way” to you (even if I think I could prove that). It’s enough to remind you what you said: “you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”. From your claim logically follows that I as your interlocutor can talk about why I find some chosen expert’s view persuasive for me, which is what I indirectly and partly did when discussing about Mearsheimer’s views, and that would be perfectly fine since this is how you are “used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”.



> if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum. — neomac
I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven’t .

My impression that your 'point' could be (not ‘is’) to 'feed your little echo chamber’ (once we exclude the philosophical legitimacy) is based on what you claimed in the post I commented and previously:
- “I choose the experts whose opinion align with the narratives I prefer (1). I have world views I find satisfying (2) and if an expert opinion aligns with those I’ll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them (3). all this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest (4).”
- “If you said ‘why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism…’ then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.(5)”
That’s indeed the perfect recipe for feeding one’s own echo chamber, here is why: say part of your satisfying world views is that American capitalist imperialism is the worst evil (2), so you are going to select all the experts (with titles and no evident conflict of interest (4)) rather than others whose opinion opposes it (3), like Mearsheimer who blames NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine, feeding the narrative your prefer (1) b/c NATO is the evil projection of the American capitalist imperialism. Now, according to your example (5) I would be questioning your reasons to believe Mearsheimer in a way that is acceptable to you (!) only if I discussed about the vested interest of Mearsheimer in blaming NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine (e.g. if I provided evidences that Mearsheimer was financed by some Republicans to write a paper that could be timely exploited against pro-NATO policies by democratic administrations). Now if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be insufficient to you then you would keep Mearsheimer’s expert input as valid support to the narrative you prefer. On the other side, if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be sufficient to you, then you would simple give up on Mearsheimer’s expert input and look for another expert with titles and no evident vested interest (say Kennan or Kissinger or some CIA representative, or military expert etc.) that would support your world view. In other words, your satisfying world views will remain always unchallenged, you would just update your pool of experts. Additionally, you would always be in position to easily put the burden of proof on your interlocutor (conveniently so if he doesn’t share your world view) for - you could argue - how else e.g. could I prove to somebody that my chosen expert X has no evident conflict of interest other then by pointing at the obvious fact that hadn’t been the case I would have not chosen X? Rather it’s on others to prove to you if there are evidences of conflict of interests.
Besides all this is perfectly in line with this other piece of yours: “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” Practically the burden of proof is always on others, you do not need to argue for your case, nor even need to be capable of arguing for your case, you just rely on the expert that pleases you under some loose requirements.
Finally, if I got it all wrong, good for you, yet you should still clarify what the point of your comment actually was. Good luck with that!


> Do you want me to explain it to you?

As if I didn’t explicitly ask (“How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?!”). Good luck with that too!

> No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity).

No dude, that’s all on your reluctance to engage in an intellectually honest conversation whatever the limits of communicating over the internet with anonymous people are, precisely because that’s the kind of entertainment a philosophy forum could offer despite the limits of the medium. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it!

> I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

Unless you wanna go for something like “these are my arbitrary preferences”, then you must have some reasons to support your “simple moral statement”, and I’m challenging you to clarify them. Indeed you didn’t offer any criteria to establish what “de facto” circumstances would be relevant to consider in a choice like a negotiation deal other than the ones with moral implications that matter to you. But then you are asking people what their reasons are to take side wrt the negotiation deal (so again a case of moral choice), and you yourself brought into this exchange your own reasons: people dying, overwhelming amount of experts, American capitalist imperialism, Yemeni children, poor oppressed by the rich, etc. as if all this was relevant in justifying your position (so again moral implications that matter to you). In short, the “de facto” situation with moral implications that matter to you is a war provoked by the West against Russia, a clash between NATO and Russia. So if we should assess Zenesky’s moral choice based on a de facto situation that has moral implications that matter to you, I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”). You say they are different, but I’m asking to you why is that, so far you didn’t clarify this. And this rebuttal “I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.” is pointless precisely because I’m not talking about all people nor all de facto circumstances, but about you and your criteria to determine morally relevant “de facto” circumstances.

> No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

As much as your raving about multi-causal analysis you didn’t offer.

> Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else?

> So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

Read carefully: I’m not saying you are happy that Russia wins or that you wouldn’t prefer a third option where both America and Russia imperialism lose. That’s not my point. My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory.

> The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

Sure, as you wish. But symptomatic.

> I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
You brought him up.

Only to clarify my doubts about your criteria not to open another thread: there might be experts (like Luc Montagnier) that have titles and no evident conflict of interests, and yet I still may have good reasons to think that they said something unreliable about things they are supposed to know more than I do.

> So "no idea" then?

Dude, I’m here to entertain myself not you. Try harder.


> The power of a good story…

Whose truth you haven’t disproven yet.


> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself.


> One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we’d be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

So monumentally pointless. First of all, when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. Second, even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman (e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out). Third, and most importantly, inquiring somebody’s reasons to hold a certain view, especially with the philosophical breadth one should expect in a philosophy forum, doesn’t presuppose a specific approach to experts (were this the case it would even beg the question). And indeed you yourself made that point precisely to question the reasons of my approach to experts. So even if you prefer to interact with people who share your approach to experts and inquire your reasons accordingly, that does not delegitimize my questioning your approach to experts (as I did, and still could go on) nor my questioning your views based on some experts’ feedback independently from your own preferences and assumptions (even more so if I find your approach flawed). And you yourself didn’t seem to have problem with that (“you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”). Four, if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum.


> Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

What on earth did you just write?! You said “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” So you are not interested in supporting your case here, and yet you still want to unilaterally decide where the burden of proof lies (always on me of course) and on what consists in?! How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?! Are you out of your mind?!

>(2) doesn't even mention 'defending one's nation'. Not to mention it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself.

It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient.


> None of that means Zelensky is 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances as some kind of rule 'one must always be constrained by the de facto circumstances' It just so happens that the actual de facto circumstances in this case are morally relevant because lives will be expended in trying to improve on them.

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. And this too has moral relevance: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”.


> Here, for example is a paper on the multi-causal analysis of the conflict in Algeria from Oxford University. Either point out the maths that I've clearly missed in that paper, or take up with Oxford University, their evident lack of deference to your greater knowledge in this regard.

A part from the fact that in this paper there is a certain amount of stats from politics, demographics, economics (necessary to support related explanatory hypothesis), that the analysis is systemic (and so it goes beyond the intended or foreseeable consequences of decision makers), and that you didn’t offer any such analysis, the point is that we are talking about blame and moral responsibility of Zelensky wrt Putin, or Western administrations wrt Putin, and if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. Or else, stop talking about multi-causal analysis pointlessly (since you didn’t offer any anyways), and start reasoning in terms of moral responsibility by analogy with legal responsibility assessment, as much as a judge would do on a crime case trial (whence my problem with your blaming the victim attitude). That’s also relevant to address moral implications in terms of a criterium of proportionality.


> I mean you've not given reasons for your choice of method. You've said you take into account what others value, for example. You've not said why you do that.

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember?
On my side, I find quite preposterous to claim that somebody is making arbitrary claims only because he didn’t tell you what his reasons for his claims are yet.
Besides that’s my take about arbitrary moral claims:
“ I’m not judging based on my own preferences alone, nor am I judging without rationally processing a load of information which include people preferences among other things (for example, the feedback from different experts concerning the strategic stakes of this war). So my moral approach is the opposite of “arbitrary” as I understand the word “arbitrary”. Actually that’s the reason why I support this approach.
On the contrary, I find arbitrary your claim that fighting a war for one’s nation is no doubt always immoral, precisely because it doesn’t take into account what other people value, but only what you value (i.e. life) and prior to any rational processing of the situation at hand.”

> I don't need to prove they are more plausible, or more likely to be the case because you didn't make the original claim that you merely preferred your opinion, or found it more plausible. Your claim was that the alternative was actually 'preposterous'.

> Remember, what I'm arguing against here is your claims that alternative positions are 'preposterous'. The fact that you can come up with scenarios which are plausible to support your position doesn't support that claim. You'd have to show that these scenarios were somehow the only plausible outcomes.

> Because assessing my alternatives is not necessary for a successful critique of your position. For your position to hold you'd have to support the claim that there literally are no alternatives.
No solutions other than the one you prefer. That's ridiculous, hence a stupid line of argument. The point I'm making here only requires that other solutions exist and it's 'stupid' to deny that.

I didn’t claim nor implied anywhere that “there literally are no alternatives”, “No solutions other than the one you [referred to me] prefer”. The way you frame my position is not just a fallacious straw men argument, but probably a delusional projection of your own “stupid” views (by your own definition). Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral.
Your 2 claims looked pretty much radical, peremptory and one-sided, so incompatible with alternative or more nuanced views. That is why I didn’t hesitate in calling them preposterous and argued against them. Then you insisted on supporting your preposterous claims with further claims (some of which still sounded preposterous to me) , I counter-argued against them too. And so on. And add to that your reluctance to properly argue and clarify your own views which just reinforced my impression of your close-mindedness.
If you simply presented your position as a dilemma over option1 and option2 from the start, I would have still argued the way I did in the related comment, but I wouldn’t have called your dilemma nor your preference for option2 preposterous as I didn’t do it in the related comment.


> Yeah, right. You just conducted a completely impartial assessment of the evidence, sure.

Didn’t claim nor implied I’m impartial, I just said how it works with me. For example, I didn’t get interested in this war because triggered by strong prior biases against “Russian imperialism” (actually, before the war started, I had stronger prior biases against “American imperialism”, after seeing what they have done in the Middle East) and then looked for whatever expert (with titles and no evident conflict of interest) supported a narrative accusing “Russian imperialism” also for the war in Ukraine. I started with the war news in Ukraine and from there I did my research for expert advise (this rebalanced my attitude toward “American imperialism”)

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”

> since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? — neomac
Interesting. What exactly did you expect to get from this? You fabricate a position you know full well I wouldn't admit to holding (that I support Russia) then ask a transparent 'thought experiment' the answer to which expects me to admit to the one position you already knew I wouldn't admit to. Surely you can see the flaw in that strategy?

No idea what you are talking about. And at this point it doesn’t really matter what you are ready to admit. For me, you can remove Russia from my thought experiment and put any other you like, say Venezuela or China or India or Tibet or Malta. The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? Don’t waste your time guessing my expectations. I can’t remember a single time you succeeded.


> If someone is sufficiently qualified and without any conflict of interest, you're not in a position to dismiss their conclusions as dubious simply because you don't like them or they're not what you expected.

It’s pointless to guess things when I clarified already my position (“I can compare for example their titles or their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts, etc.”, “double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge”). Besides I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

> Really? If you were looking for a military expert you've no idea how to tell if they're qualified? Is there some compelling reason university tenure and/or doctorate-level qualification would be insufficient for you?

> How? If you're a non-expert, how can you meaningfully compare their arguments? And what relevance does it have how much they converge with the opinion of other experts?

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine.

> Where, in that, do I "praise" a Russian puppet government?

Just poor phrasing on my part due to the fact that I was thinking in terms of comparative advertising strategy: roughly, praise one option over the other to suggest the option to choose without actually saying it. The point is still that in framing the negotiation options, the option you presented in a positive light and support include the Russian puppet government, by contrast, the option you presented in a negative light and reject included Zelensky’s government. Besides the mention of the Russian puppet government in the option you support was unnecessary (for this condition was already withdrawn by the Russians and you could have simply kept Zelensky’s government) and unmotivated, therefore suspicious: as if this inclusion was implicitly motivated by whatever reason one could imagine you would plausibly support (e.g. avoiding the risk of future clashes between Zelensky and Putin, punishing Zelensky’s immoral political conduct in this war, keeping up the hostility against the American capitalist imperialism, pleasing Putin for mercy, etc.) in light of your other claims about Zelensky, the West, etc.
From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it.


> Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. — neomac
So?

Never mind. I thought you wanted to suggest experts who support option2, instead of generically pointing to the same experts' quotations we have already discussed, which would be pointless.

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless. Now for the third time. And that’s it.

> 'Similar' and 'the same' are similar, but not the same.

Impressive yet so pointless. The 2 cases were similar because they both fell under the same general principle you suggested here: “If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.” Now, if from that general principle follows that Zelensky is blameworthy, then the same holds for the poor. And that’s it.

> I have to prove nothing of the sort because I'm not the one claiming your position is preposterous. Look back at our conversation. Who made claims and who questioned them?

>Again, I'm not putting claims out there for you to analyse. Why you'd think I'd want want some laymen off the internet to analyse my claims is beyond me.

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on.

> Your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I've not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).

No dude, if you do not want to play the game, then let’s close it here, but you don’t get to decide what the rules of the game are for me. On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. Period.