Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February. — Isaac

Your theory is that whether the US funds a conflict, with no other goals in mind, comes down to how easy it is?

Ok. I think I understand you. I think you're wrong, but I guess you think the same about me. :up:

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.
— apokrisis

I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. — Xtrix

This isn't an insult you great boob. In my experience, you're often wrong. That's not an insult. It's just a fact. Everybody gets things wrong from time to time. Take it as an opportunity to learn and grow if someone points it out.

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?
— frank

Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did — Isaac

So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea.

Apparently not. Ya didn't pay attention.

Honest question: did you not realize Biden is a hawk when you voted for him? Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead?

When Biden said to the world "We're back!" after he was elected, what did you think that meant about US foreign policy during his presidency?

I guess I'm looking to get a handle on exactly how blind American voters tend to be.

The obvious reason this could be the case is that Putin has become the victim of his own information autocracy. He has narrowed his contact with the real world to the degree even his inner circle can’t be honest with him. He presides over a systemically corrupt state - one that exists by faking competence - and now that means he no longer has the good advice and information on which to base his rational calculations — apokrisis

Obama echoes that same sentiment.

The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him.

Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that.

Sure. Maybe Biden would have pushed harder. But the situations were not the same. Numerous other factors were at play, the main one being that there wasn't a war to fund. — Isaac

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument?

Sorry, I meant military aid. The arms industry sells them the government because they're donating them to Ukraine. Point is the same, that can't happen if there's no fight to start with. — Isaac

Kiev condemned the annexation. A war could have happened. Obama was criticized for failing to support an armed retake.

And somehow the US passed up an opportunity to blow some shit up. :chin:

If Ukraine don't mount an armed response we can't very well sell them weapons for it can we? — Isaac

Sell them weapons? Who sold anybody any weapons?

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then.
— frank

There was no fight back from Ukraine. We can't sell weapons to an army that isn't fighting can we? — Isaac

Oh, c'mon. Be genuine for a second.

You have to say it to the exclusion of all other speech, apparently. — Isaac

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then.

I think the primary answer is that Biden just takes a harder line on Russia to begin with. But if you listened to what he said while running for president about Russia's interference in American elections, promising retaliation when he was elected, I think that explains some of his ferocity, actually threatening other nations that if they didn't sanction Russia, the US would punish them financially. That's strong stuff.

In other words, it's Biden.

what Russia is doing is criminal. — Manuel

:up:

See. I was right about that. — Isaac

:cool:

frank

Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.

But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous. — Manuel

You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out.

That goes against my grain and the grain of my culture. Just condemn them for bombing populated areas and leave it at that.

I'm always right. You know that! — Isaac

Of course. How could I forget?

I think we've discussed this before, that backing down from aggression is not the path to a stable situation. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on. — Manuel

I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless.

If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? — Manuel

I didn't say it was my main concern (and I have researched and talked about Yemen).

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll just share that our disagreement goes all the way down to issues of character.

and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible — Manuel

If you can't allow yourself a moral perspective, why do you care about reducing Ukrainian casualties?

but we have escalations. — Manuel

Yes. And now the US will be giving Ukraine a missile defense system so they can protect their people from Russian attacks.

It's horrendous that Putin would do this. I think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it.

I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians. — Manuel

That attitude isn't in the sources I see. Don't know what to say about it.

As I said to Isaac, war profiteers are always there. They always have been, since there's been war. If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.

And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive.

I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warning by Russia. — Manuel

It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing.

The US is buying anti-radiation medicine. How's that for Disney?

You can resign a game and move on (intra-wordly affairs). You cannot resign from life and move on (inter-wordly affairs). — schopenhauer1

I just wanted to add that I think this title would look great on the NYT best seller list: Series in Pessimism, by Schopenhaur1.

But you can exit life. Just don't let the hospital get a hold of your half dead body, they'll resuscitate it.

negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works.
— frank

No they don't, and no it isn't. There aren't laws of physics about peace talks. — Isaac

You're probably right.

The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict.
— frank

What's the US's interest? — Isaac

I think it's just from previous promises to protect Ukraine along with some revenge for Russia's interference in American elections.

Exactly. As I said, the US (and UK) staying out of it would itself be a good start, since neither are interested in peace. — Xtrix

Probably. The UN Secretary General doesn't give that as the main problem, though.

"According to a May report from Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian side was ready for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but it later came to a halt after the discovery of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and the surprise visit on 9 April of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who told Zelenskyy "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with," and that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin stated publicly that talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end". Another three days later, Roman Abramovich visited Kyiv in an attempt to resume negotiations, but was rebuffed by Zelenskyy as a non-neutral party.[42] According to Fiona Hill and Angela Stent writing in Foreign Affairs in September, U.S. officials they spoke with said Russia and Ukraine "appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement", whereby the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO in exchange security guarantees from a number of countries. However, in a July interview with Russian state media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that this compromise was no longer an option, saying that even the Donbas was not enough and that the "geography had changed."[43]

"On 7 April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the peace deal Ukraine drafted and presented to the Russian government contained "unacceptable" elements. Lavrov said that the proposal diverged from the terms negotiators had agreed on. Mykhaylo Podolyak, a negotiator for Ukraine, said that the comments from Lavrov are a tactic to draw attention away from the war crime accusations against Russian forces. Lastly, Lavrov stated, "Despite all the provocations, the Russian delegation will continue with the negotiation process, pressing for our own draft agreement that clearly and fully outlines our initial and key positions and requirements."[44]

"On 11 April, the Chancellor of Austria, Karl Nehammer, visited and spoke with Putin in Moscow in 'very direct, open and hard' talks which were skeptical of the short-term peaceful resolution of the invasion.[45] By 26 April, the Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres visited Russia for the purpose of speaking with Putin and Lavrov in separate meetings, and after the meetings with them indicating skepticism as to any short term resolution of differences between Russia and Ukraine largely due to very different respective perspectives on the circumstances of the invasion presently being adopted by each of the two nations.[46]

Failed attempts at obtaining peace

The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. No more weapons drip-fed to Ukraine. Either UN/NATO on the ground or we don't take part at all. Solutions on the table should be a non-NATO Ukraine, independent Donbas, Russian Crimea as these barely change the current status quo bug might be enough to end the war. — Isaac

As I explained to Manuel, negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works.

The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict. When Putin signals that he wants to talk, a broker will emerge.

If America pulled the plug on the ammo supply Ukraine would surrender tomorrow. So to suggest they don't have any power is this is obviously bollocks. — Isaac

I don't think so. They're getting supplies from other countries, and Russia is presently losing on the battlefield.

Yep. We're talking about how to get (1) to happen. Your idea is we just wait? Shall we cross our fingers too? Meanwhile a few more hundred Ukrainians die. — Isaac

What's your suggestion?

For the war to end, one of two things has to happen.

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders.

If you want the war to end, that means you want one of the above.

Period. End of Story.

You got news the rest of the planet doesn't know about?

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.
— frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea. — Manuel

Regardless of how they divide up Ukraine after the war, ending the war requires one of two things:

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders

Those are the options, Manuel. That's it. There are no other options. None.

None.

It's not Putin alone. — Manuel

Putin is the invader. The Ukrainians are fighting for their home. There are two options: Putin signals that he wants to cease invading, or the Ukrainians surrender.

This is just how it works. It would work this way whether the US and NATO were involved or not.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.

Nada.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation. — Manuel

That would require Putin's buy-in. No sign of that.

Eh— If you need to go through exercises like these to remind yourself that people aren’t “orcs,” then there are bigger problems afoot. — Xtrix

It's really easy to forget that we're all just different leaves on the same tree.

It's good understand those you're opposed to, right? How else will you find common ground, understand what they're afraid of, what events shaped them, in short, understand that they're people like you, not orcs from some hell hole?

Thanks!

Have a link to the Watkins paper?

Nvm, searched it up — Srap Tasmaner

What's the title?

"For every event there is an explanation". — Banno

That's a cognitive imperative, isn't it? Sometimes called the law of explanation.

Yes, I know you were playing devil's advocate. Your devil should have thrown some Hayek at me.

Another good one:

The example is spot on. — Banno

I don't see that it has anything to do with QM.