OK. — Isaac

Did they deliberately violate borders with these nukes? Did the president threaten by heightening nuclear readiness without anyone threatening them with the same?

The comment I made that you quoted was sarcasm of the inability to grasp things in context, and you followed accordingly.

Stop quoting my posts please, I'm not talking to you so keep to yourself ok?

Russia has violated other nations' airspaces on several occasions, and when their warplanes fly with transponders off they might jeopardize civilian traffic. — jorndoe

The recent violation of Swedish airspace was a deliberate act... and the planes had nuclear missiles on board. But let's talk about how bad the US is :shade:

I am not complaining, for one, a real-world solution is an evolutionary solution where each sovereign nation, for example Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, the United States all have to work out their progression without foreign interference, for example, Russian meddling in elections. That was a bad idea, even if it was just an idea in someones head. We have to work with a world we may not like. — FreeEmotion

Of course all nations should evolve by without meddling of others. However, if the progression leads to dangerous risks of other nations they are the first to break that respect and should not be treated with that same respect. Russia has shown too much meddling in other nations to the extent of threats and actual war with killing civilians so they've lost their right to exist independently without the rest of the world meddling in their progression. This is perfectly logical. So far, no one is really interfering with North Korea, they do what they want, but if they were to attack others without defensive cause, then that right to make choices for themselves get revoked since it's a security risk for other nations.

But outside of that, this leads to a proper philosophical topic. What type of society should these nations progress towards?

If we can agree on Russia being an authoritarian nightmare, a proper fascist regime that kill or imprison state critics, silence free media and free speech, invade others and spread lies about their own nation while the rich elite is the corrupt top politicians with a dictator calling the shots and everyone looking at him wrong gets shut down in one way or another.

Then what should they progress towards? What type of society do we have that functions in a way such as to improve the lives of the Russian people from this authoritarian nightmare?

My argument is that we can look at societies with the highest index for quality of life, indexes showing what fundamental rights in society that enables the most well being for the citizens, and then that should inform what these nations should progress towards.

That they have the right as sovereign nations to evolve themselves without interference is correct. It's their right. But since we have numerous types of societies throughout history we should be able to reach a conclusion of the best course of action, the best type as a recommendation for these nations.

If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards?

No. You want Russia to be Western. To be yet another consumerist hellhole. — baker

So there are no other roads to take? It's either the authoritarian regime imprisoning or poisoning critics of the state, propaganda to the point of total denying reality... or a consumerist hellhole?

Because that is the dichotomy you are presenting here. If giving the population the individual freedom to choose their own path in life, to give them security in freedom of speech, to have real democratic elections (a democracy with low corruption is still the best system in existence, and if you don't agree then provide an example of a functioning alternative system), is the same as a consumerist hellhole, you might need to elaborate how you reach that conclusion.

Just because western culture has a lot of problems that a lot of modern philosophy is examining and dissecting, that doesn't mean Russia is better. It's not, it's an authoritarian state with state violence against anyone who doesn't follow the rule of the "king". It is entirely possible to say that we want Russia to be free without it meaning some "consumerist hellhole".

Maybe first get Russia to a place where people don't get poisoned, imprisoned, and don't have an authoritarian leader who plays around with his rich friends while a large part of Russia lives on almost nothing. If that means more western standards, so be it. If not western standards, then feel free to present a system of state that frees Russia while keeping western standards of living out of there.

It's tiresome to hear people complain about a solution when there's no alternative solution presented that is better. If you want real-world solutions you might need to be a bit more pragmatic. Idealism is good for changing a system that is already somewhat functioning, pragmatism is needed when a system is fundamentally broken.

Unlike you I don't think the world boils down to a popularity contest. "But who do you trust more?!" — Benkei

Unlike you, I make an effort to understand my interlocutor instead of picking stuff out of context to make some smug response. I still don't understand how you became a moderator on this board, the posts you've written in this thread don't even try to follow forum guidelines. I may not be a master philosopher, but I know I have more quality in my posts than you. And this is what Oliver is talking about.

And I don't agree that the bar should be lower in a forum thread about politics. Setting the bar low for people venting their frustrations is one thing, but that's not the same as setting the bar low for quality of arguments.

I've tried to ask for clarifications of others' arguments over and over and there's not even an effort. Every time I've asked for better logic, better induction and deduction it's met with "oh the bar is lower in this thread for quality posting", as if quality arguments don't matter when talking about ongoing wars.

Lost interest in actually discussing this topic for real in here, it's too much of a Reddit shitstorm than anything of value.

It looks like your average reddit thread because it is insufficiently moderated. — Olivier5

And one of the moderators is one of the worst offenders of this thread's behavior. :shade:

Outside of that, we've got reports that the planes that broke into Swedish airspace had nuclear weapons on board. But people can please continue to say that Russia is no worse than the US when it comes to nuclear weapon threats since the argument seems to be that because they used them in 1945, Russia is no nuclear threat because the US already used them. Fuck there's a lot of stupidity in this thread :shade:

His mental issues were not due to his thinking. It could catalyst, probably due to social alienation, but that his philosophy drove him to it is just myth-making.

But he's not alone, there are plenty who lives by the same method. Nietzsche just got much attention due to his way of dismantling the power of religion and enhancing the power of the human being. Existentialists further explored this and most of how this philosophy has been put into practice today has more to do with the refinement the existentialists made rather than what he concluded.

The thing is that free minds weren't accepted much before the end of the 19th century. You could only have a free mind if you first had freedom in society, meaning, you had the means of putting time into thought and then creating methods out of those thoughts. Before the enlightenment era, it was rare that radical thoughts could live and prosper, but after it, the entire world was built upon such radical thinking. The enlightenment era opened the door and enabled people like Nietzche to put to paper what they were thinking and without him, it would have eventually led someone to similar conclusions as Nietzche. Probably one of the philosophers who built on top of his ideas would have been the one who arrived at those ideas, had he not been first.

Today, the world is almost on life support with "radical thoughts". It's easy to be blind to thinkers in modern times because history has not made them into myth yet, but we live in a world that craves "radical thoughts", so we do not see new ideas very much since they might not be radical enough. We turn to science more, since the methods are calmer, more refined. Philosophy today looks like this forum board, people trying to show how radical they are in thinking, but most do not have much to say at all.

Nietzsche would have been nothing without all that came before as well as all that came after who built upon his philosophy. The actual existence of his work today is not from him but from everyone interpreting and refining his work.

It's like saying that every physicist today is just using Einstein's findings. But that is not true. Every one of them does their own work by utilizing Einstein's findings and building on top of it. All while Einstein couldn't have concluded anything without everyone who came before him.

Even downright false ideas in philosophy trigger someone to think in a new way, to look at something from another angle, and in the end arrive at a true conclusion.

Someone being good at consolidating earlier ideas and refining them into a new context is just as good as someone who comes up with an original idea because they're essentially the same concept.

Nietzsche is one of the best consolidators of past ideas, putting them into a context of examination that was rarely done before him. That is his biggest contribution. But almost any era of enlightenment or change has had one or a few people who backed up and looked at the mess of ideas that came before them in order to cut away the fat and examine them without bias.

This is why I always talk about the necessary ability to fight back one's own biases and fallacies because the only way to get rid of what makes us stuck in old ideas that we never fully examine and re-evaluate, is if we are stuck with our biases and cannot create arguments for ourselves to question them. The inability to think beyond ourselves and the inability to create arguments that bypass our lacking capability for internal logic is what makes us slaves to concepts we prefer, not to concepts of truth.

Nietzsche was someone with a tremendous ability to question himself and everything around him. An outsider who wasn't afraid to question the status quo of ideas, because it was who he was to do so. But he also had the intellect to do so without falling into the temptation of biases and fallacies. This combination of being critical as well as dedicated to a method in thought is something almost everyone lacks and therefore such philosophers are rare occations. They would, however, not be able to exist without everyone else's ideas floating around to be examined.

No philosopher exists in a vacuum. They all build upon the old, reshape and refine while laying the ground for future philosophers.

Philosophy is essentially like science, a process. To see only one philosopher is to see only one study, ignore citations and still define the whole of science.

We can say one of the most influential, one of the most prominent, but without everyone else, their work have no context and becomes essentially meaningless.

Russia's propaganda-stated intentions of rescuing Ukrainians took a really big hit today

And I said this is irrelevant. — StreetlightX

You just don't seem to actually care to read what is being written, just puke out your kneejerk answers without even an inch of engagement. May I predict a similar answer as before? I don't have any proof you will, I'm just inducing the possibility based on analyzing behavior and previous events. — Christoffer

Oh the irony

This is dumb. Just pulling a counterfactual out of thin air then saying ha ha you can't prove it wouldn't have happened is stupid and meaningless and trivial. — StreetlightX

What is stupid are your kneejerk responses. I asked you for yes and no answers. I asked if there's enough evidence to draw a conclusion of a possible other outcome. Which if true, would have poked holes in the argument for Nato to be blamed, not to prove some conclusions about the possible other outcome being true. You just don't seem to understand the difference between the two or just keep intentionally misunderstanding in order to bully your way forward, ugh. Fucking waste of time you are.

The existence of a possible other outcome means there can't be a true conclusion to arguments just pointing the blame at Nato. Would you say that through all the Russian empire loving delusions dug up around Putin and his strong men, such a possible outcome of an invasion anyway is off the table? Out of thin air? Or just conveniently ignored?

And if you agree with yes on point 2, then how can Nato be blamed anyway if the provocation began with Russia provoking neighboring nations and not Nato provoking Russia? Are you saying that Russia hasn't provoked other nations? Are you saying that Russia hasn't broken air space intentionally as they recently did in Sweden? If we in Sweden see this as a provocation by Russia and therefore we join Nato to secure ourselves from the Russian provocations, does that mean that Nato is provoking Russia by expanding east through Sweden joining? What's "out of thin air" here?

You just don't seem to actually care to read what is being written, just puke out your kneejerk answers without even an inch of engagement. May I predict a similar answer as before? I don't have any proof you will, I'm just inducing the possibility based on analyzing behavior and previous events.

(1) Unicorn monkeys have inflected Putin's brain with rainbows (which have made him mad).
(2) No one has yet precluded the possibility of unicorn monkeys infecting Putin's brain with rainbows.
(3) You can't draw a definitive conclusion that unicorn monkeys have not infected Putin's brains with rainbows (which have made him mad).

QED. — StreetlightX

Are you unable to do anything but kneejerk posts?

1.
Is there enough evidence to conclude the possibility that Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyway?
Yes or no?

If yes, how can Nato be blamed for the invasion of Ukraine?

2.
Is there enough evidence to conclude that neighboring nations have felt threatened by Russia over the years since the Soviet Union fell?
Yes or no?

If yes, how does them joining Nato be the provocation to blame for the invasion and not the initial provocation by Russia?

3.
"Nato expanding east could lead to actions by Russia" is a fact that's been used as a premise over and over in here.

How does this fact lead to "Nato is to blame for the invasion of Ukraine" when taking into consideration points 1 and 2.

My worry is that we don't agree here even on what constitutes provocation. — FreeEmotion

1. Soviet Union falls.
2. Neighboring nations seek independence.
3. Russia acts aggressively against these nations, claiming they should be part of Russia or exist under Russia's regime. (aiming to invade or gain control in some way)
4. Neighboring nations seek security from these aggressions by joining Nato or asking to join Nato.
5. Neighboring nations joining Nato provokes Russia.
6. Russia invades. — Christoffer

Most seem to just focus on point 5 and the result in point 6. What about Russia provoking neighboring nations into wanting to join or joining Nato, indirectly expanding Nato east? So if we're talking about provocations here, who actually provoked who here?

Lol.

"If I disregard everything and assume my conclusion from the beginning, then I am correct".

Saved everyone from reading the ramble above. — StreetlightX

Except it was just part of my argument. As well as you totally not fucking understanding what I write as usual. If I point out a hole in the logic of someone's argument, that isn't me saying "my conclusion is right", it's me saying "your conclusion is not solid enough to be right". If all you are doing is to make these kinds of low-quality posts in response to what I write, then do me a favor and just stop, just ignore what I write, ok?

So George Kenan, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Vladimir Pozner,Jeffrey Sachs, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General Pino Arlacchi, former CIA director Bill Burns, former US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates...

These are all what now? Non-experts on Russia? — Isaac

Can you read what I wrote? And then understand what I wrote?

It's this inability to actually make coherent arguments where premises (facts) actually relate to the conclusion that creates a mess of a discussion where people just cite historical facts as premises for conclusions of their own opinion. — Christoffer

Fact: Nato is expanding.
Fact: Russia doesn't like it.
Fact (based on these experts): Nato expansion could lead to a response by Russia.

Conclusion (yours and others): Nato is partly responsible for the invasion.

Counter-argument (mine): No premise denies the possibility that an invasion would have happened anyway (logic). If an invasion would have happened anyway, there's no responsibility for Nato in this invasion (logic).

This creates a hole in the argument people make about Nato's blame, a hole that needs to be plugged before continuing any other argument using Nato's responsibility as a factual conclusion (which is done over and over, using that conclusion as a premise for everything else being said).

I then ask for further premises to back up that the expansion of Nato, led to the invasion of Ukraine. So far, such premises haven't been presented. This means you can't draw a definitive conclusion of Nato's responsibility. The fact that the expansion of Nato provokes Russia, does not equal Russia's motivations and plans for invasions to be because of Nato's expansion. It can, as I've said numerous times, be the logical outcome that a nation Russia wants to invade and overtake becomes blocked by becoming a Nato member and therefore Russia invades sooner rather than later.

What this means is that Nato might unintentionally provoke an earlier reaction, but the act could most likely happen anyway. This possible conclusion makes it impossible to establish that Nato is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. Even outside of the fact that Russia's act is still made by them and cannot be blamed on provocation when no military provocation has been done. And since many of the surrounding nations have been fearing a future invasion of their nation, they have been seeking security through Nato, which means that the aggression and the motivations and fears all originate from Russia's acts and behaviors, not Nato.

Every single one on this list and the previous one has implicated NATO expansion as the main provocation for war in Ukraine. — Isaac

Yes, but can you conclude that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway? Would aggressions and previous provocation of Russia over the years against their neighboring nations that led to them seeking security with Nato be another causality factor? So:

1. Soviet Union falls.
2. Neighboring nations seek independence.
3. Russia acts aggressively against these nations, claiming they should be part of Russia or exist under Russia's regime. (aiming to invade or gain control in some way)
4. Neighboring nations seek security from these aggressions by joining Nato or asking to join Nato.
5. Neighboring nations joining Nato provokes Russia.
6. Russia invades.

So far, the causality you propose starts with point 5, not point 2. How then, does Nato become the one provoking? The fact that Russia "feels provoked" and that these experts state that fact, does not equal Nato being to blame for the invasion. There has to be a definitive conclusion that an invasion would not have happened without Russia "feeling provoked", which isn't established and also ignoring a causality of provocations that first starts with Russia provoking neighboring nations.

The problem isn't the experts, the individual facts, it's how those facts are put into a deduction by you and others who ignore logical gaps and other factors to the extent that you continue to build arguments that use your previous faulty deduction as a matter of fact.

You can't list experts' facts when the problem I point to has to do with the deduction you're doing using those facts. Gaps in logic don't fill up by just reciting facts you used wrongly in the first place.

So what Putin says and what Putin does are consigned to the wastebasket as far as evidence is concerned. What's far more compelling is what you think he thinks. — Isaac

You can induce a lot by looking at what someone says in contrast to what he does. Combining that with the research into his regime, there are a lot of puzzle pieces fitting together far better than much of the logical gap crap some people spew out over hundreds of pages in this thread. It at least pokes holes in the logic of your conclusions.

It uses this expectation as evidence for the analysis of interlocutors you, quite rightly, allow for. — Isaac

I analyzed the possible obsession with Nato in terms of how debates and discussions has been going on for 30 years now. To the extent of leading to bias dismissing the more logical motivations Putin and Russia have.

So far, all who argue for blaming Nato for Putin's invasion are the ones inventing facts or taking one unrelated fact and making false connections to motive. All while people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion.

It's this Nato bias in the rhetoric so many have that makes them pick facts that do not actually logically glue to an actual conclusion for such external motivations of Putin. The "facts" are either what Putin says directly, which is undoubtedly the most unreliable source for any kind of fact, or a historic fact with the rhetorical suffix that it somehow connects to such motivations without any real connection established.

It's this inability to actually make coherent arguments where premises (facts) actually relate to the conclusion that creates a mess of a discussion where people just cite historical facts as premises for conclusions of their own opinion. Instead of looking at what people who research Putin actually says, use that for interpreting the behavior through this conflict and make logical and rational inductive conclusions based on it.

Presenting your opinion about what Putin would and would not do, how the US might or might not have responded, what influence they may or may not now have...is the whole point of a discussion forum.

Being baffled that anyone would disagree with you renders the medium pointless. I suggest you take up blogging instead. — Isaac

What are you even talking about now? If you mean that there's no point to analyze interlocutors as part of the analysis of global events you've missed almost the entirety of 20th-century philosophy.

My hypothesis is that the point is to deflect blame from Mr Putin, which is why the guilt of NATO has to be mentioned constantly, and not just occasionally. — Olivier5

Going back to my previous argument that because we haven't really had any superpower dictators since the soviet era ended, intellectuals have generally shifted focus to a more globalized critique of how all nations handle economy, ideology, war and geopolitics. The main focus of the last 30 years has been on criticizing the US, and rightfully so, since it's been the biggest player on the world stage during this time. So when Putin almost overnight becomes a despot dictator and the world once again has a "bad man", then all the intellectuals who's been painting the picture of the US as a nation being the "bad man" over the last 30 years can't really compute this change and need to turn everything back against the US. Regardless of how Nato operates, regardless of the US not being in direct control of Nato, any type of action by Putin can, according to them, be led back to Nato, and by association, the US in some form or another. Regardless of how much points to Putin's true motivations for this invasion, it doesn't matter because we can't move away from the narrative that the US has been the "bad man" for the last 30 years. Putin knows this, he knows how to spin the narrative about Nato and he's playing these "intellectuals" like good little puppets. The only rational connection to Nato is the fact that they can block any expansion of Russia as an empire and that's why we see this desperate invasion of Ukraine. Does that mean that if Nato had held off accepting new nations towards the east, Russia would have played things cool and not invaded? No, it might have been even worse. They've might have had almost free reign of military actions without much interference from the west. Or they could have killed anti-russian politicians and installed puppets over many years to reclaim these nations. Regardless, they would have kept pushing to build up the empire again, by any means necessary. And with Putin at the helm, it seems that he doesn't want to go out of this world without getting that "Tsar status" solidified in history. This invasion has clearly been an act of desperation. Do it now or lose Ukraine forever. It's either do it now or fail for Putin, that's why he doesn't back down, why he won't peace talk with Ukraine and why the demands are plain and simple "surrender into part of our empire or die".

Putin is simply a regular 20th-century despot dictator coming back to haunt us for thinking the world got rid of them.

Russia isn't the US. Putin doesn't need any backers for elections. He needs the support of the army and the intelligence services. When the head of the SVR is so frightened of Putin that he confusis his choreographed words, then some oligarch isn't a problem. — ssu

As long as Putin isn't hiding his wealth inside the oligarch's accounts, which some speculate he does. And when the war chest is empty, where does he get the money to fund his war and Russia's society? People downplay the sanctions, but they're really hitting hard on the economy and it's fine for now in terms of the war chest and funding the war, but if it goes on for months, that will not be the case. He's literally burning billions on a daily basis.

Does anyone live under the illusion that Russia was not going to eventually invade Ukraine regardless of NATO expansion into other nations? Are we to believe that Russia really thought a NATO protected Ukraine might one day invade Russia despite the Russian nuclear arsenal and so this defensive move became necessary now?

If the driver for the war is the reestablishment of a Russian empire of the likes of the former USSR (which i think it is), then the war had to be fought not just prior to Ukraine entering NATO, but prior to Ukraine breaking all ideological ties to Russia.

The window to seize Ukraine was closing through a potential NATO alliance, an EU entry, or just through continued liberalized democratization of Ukraine. If Russia wished to reestablish its past glory, it had to act before it lost all its potential prey to the protection of the West.

The problem is that Putin is learning is that the window was more shut that he thought it was. The fierce Ukraine resistance is based upon its belief that it is truly autonomous and not, as Putin would suggest, a group a Russians stranded in a Westernized state. Ukrainians stand with the full belief Russia is an invader and the West is a protector, indicating Russia is in a weaker position than maybe Putin appreciated.

This is just to say that whether NATO signaled it was expanding, or even if it signaled it was contacting (as Trump would have had it in his America first protectionism), Putin had to act now or forever lose Ukraine to the West.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

Agree with all this. It's what I've been saying many times in here. Everything we know from the inside of Russia, past its propaganda machine (like ex-KGB, ex-Kremlin people, leaked documents and so on), points to Putin's ambitions of restoring the old Russian empire as being the great motivator. The fear of Nato invading Russia has never been viewed as anything but false flag tactics because the idea of Nato invading Russia is just plain stupid. If Putin and his people think that is a genuine threat, then they are the most stupid people in power on the planet, which I doubt they are. The absolute most logical interpretation of all of this is that Russia doesn't fear Nato invading because they know that won't happen, but they also know that THEY won't invade a Nato nation as well. So when Nato is expanding, it starts to take large literal bites out of the dream of restoring the Russian empire. Bites that will never be recovered once they've been assimilated into Nato. But Putin can't have that as an official thing to say to the world. It would be utter stupidity to sit on state TV and say that "we don't want these nations to join Nato because we plan to assimilate them into our coming empire, and if they join Nato our plans of taking them by force will fail". But all behaviors point to this. Why would Putin invade Ukraine this recklessly? Why risk this much for Ukraine? Because, as you said, the clock is ticking. It's either now or risk losing the most important part of the old Russian empire to be lost to the West forever.

If we were to play devil's advocate with Russia: it doesn't make much sense to believe the propaganda narrative that they keep pushing. It also doesn't make sense to think they are stupid enough to believe Nato would invade them. It's easier to see why they talk like they do about Nato, about Ukraine, about everything if we have the context of actual logical motivations. Puzzle pieces fit more logically with this than any of the false flag tactical bs that comes out of Kremlin.

And this is why Russia risks becoming a failed state, because the rich want more, they can't be content with the current Russian border, they can't accept the status quo of modern Russia. They want to be big boys again, or the biggest boys. While I think they are smart enough not to have stupid tactics on the global diplomatic stage, they are just basically boys with toys. Toxic masculinity on a geopolitical scale, and that has already gone out of fashion. Russia just didn't get the memo.

Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.

This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others. — baker

It's kind of natural that people are skeptical towards populations in nations that have consistently shown questionable national behavior, the same way everyone viewed Germany after WWII. But plenty did in fact have bright thoughts of the future for Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. After a brief fear of a new world war at the time, things were looking better. As the economy recovered in Russia there were plenty of open arms between the West and Russia.

But then Putin began to bring back that distrust through his behavior. And while silencing all people in Russia who really wanted Russia to be a modern nation with good relations to other nations all around the world, it brought back all that distrust in the West. It's important to remember that the Russian fear of being invaded is just a delusion and that delusion pushing the hands of Russia to isolate from the West is still on them, it's not our fault. If the entire culture is built around state media propaganda, silencing critics, pushing down on free speech and so on, that will bleed into a national image others have of them.

It's like that feedback loop that happens with segregated people concentrated in a neighborhood leading to higher crime rates. If the city and politics built into this pressure cooker, if lots of bad policies and systemic racism brought forth this concentration of segregated people in a poor neighborhood that then led to crime, it then feeds into the culture of that neighborhood so that people then start living within the racist concepts other people have of them. At some point, it just becomes a never-ending cycle where politicians and other citizens do nothing to help the neighborhood and the people of the hood isolating themselves and creating a culture around the negative image people have of them. At some point, things need to stop, on both sides.

The West hasn't really done Russia anything wrong since the Soviet Union fell and so many new collaborations with the rest of the world, so many open arms to create something new, but Russia just couldn't let go of the Soviet mentality. The distrust of the West is understandable, but when the West opened arms to Russia while being criticized by experts who said "don't trust Russia", it actually was that kind of one-sided stop to the cycle that was needed. But Russia just couldn't get with that program and fell into its old habit. And now we're back into Cold War territory again.

This is why I say that the only way for Russia to quickly come into the warmth again would be by revolution, french style. There needs to be a great flush to rid Russia of old farts who keep living in old early 20th century ideals. Russia needs younger, modern Russians to take over.

Why can't the Soviet Union just... die already? It's like the old relative that gets all diseases possible but still just stands up and continues screaming at younger generations.

My point is that many did actually, pretty fast as well, embrace the concept of a new Russia and let go of the distrust, but Putin kind of fucked that up royally over the years, especially with the crown jewel of shit that is this invasion.

How can we guard against sophistry? — Average

I tend to demand fewer fallacies and biases from the ones I debate against. More careful attention to how facts stick together with the premises and conclusions. The more we challenge our own arguments with the same scrutiny as our "opponents" do, the more we reach the truth we are trying to reach for ourselves. To demand that others review their own logic and force them to make their argument airtight before continuing the discussion, the less the discussion becomes a battle of emotionally argued opinions.

Be early in these demands of the other interlocutor, otherwise, the discussion will derail quickly.

On this forum, this is happening a lot. And I find it interesting that when I bring up fallacies and biases that other people are making, that becomes an unwelcome addition to the discussion. This has always puzzled me and feels more like an unwillingness to actually review their own argument, holding onto the opinion, the ideology or faith as if their life depended on it. People generally don't want to change, and even in a place like this forum, people tend to be bad at actually seeking truth past their own beliefs, ideologies and opinions.

Defending against an invasion is just as long as the invader isn't just in their invasion.
An invasion that is just needs to have a just cause.
A just cause for invading requires the invaded to conduct human rights violations, genocide, global threat or war crimes.

Those are absolutes that need to be existing. Some nations (cough Russia cough), use invented reasons, i.e false flag operations, to create the illusion of a just cause. But for a war to be truly just there needs to be no question as to the reasons being just, they need to essentially exist.

To just boil down war into only just or unjust and there can only be one answer is essentially making an enormous simplification of what "war" is.

For example, a war to stop Hitler is considered by most to be just. The lives saved by taking down his delusional empire were worth the lives lost. If we were to speculate just giving Hitler what he wanted just to save lives for the moment would have led to massive deaths at the hands of that empire, maybe even prolonging that regime for decades.

To blindly look at war as a spreadsheet of death and suffering statistics doesn't lead anywhere. It's as empty as high hippies dancing around singing about love peace and understanding. While all would agree with the will for peace, they have a naive perspective that just because they live and breathe love, everyone else is the same. This bias creates ideas and idealisms around peace that ignore those who lust for blood. Just as we have people in society that are broken, like for example serial killers, similar people are not unable to exist in positions of power. And through countless psychological experiments, it's been proven how bad people are at being genuinely good all the time.

There will therefore always exist people in power that go too far. Who start wars, who kill, who conduct genocide for no other reason than their own broken selves.

To initiate warfare to stop such people is always just. As long as the intention is to stop them and not be like them when doing so.

Just as we can discuss the negatives of a police force, the state having that monopoly of violence, it's not black and white, police always bad or always good. But no one would argue that when bad things happen and police stop it with violence, it saves lives, it fixes the situation for the moment. The same goes for war, it's a way to halt a progression out of control, to stop something bad to become worse. When all peaceful means to stop something bad fails, there has to be an act of violence that becomes required.

So it's rather not a question of unjust or just war, it's about morality. When is a nation, a leader or someone else in power, immoral? And when is that person or group so immoral that it justifies killing them to stop them? If that moral question is solved, it becomes a blueprint for a just or unjust war.

Any fact in this sea of confusion? Any salient idea, even? It reads like a long, clumsy propaganda piece, honestly. Your rhetoric is as empty as the Kremlin's. — Olivier5

Don't bother with him. I'm beginning to think there are people in here that are truly part of the Russian propaganda machine, apologists for Russia and this war. It's disgusting really. It's one thing to try and be unbiased, but I think that people have lived far too long in a world that's super-grey, with extremely complex variables making everything hard to figure out. And then something like this hits the world and people can't seem to think within something pretty crystal clear. It was long ago since we had someone so clearly the bad guy as Putin and people have such a hard time grasping that idea that they can only compare it to some Hollywood simplification. Well, it really isn't. The whole thing is complex as a piece of causality, but the players on the board right now aren't. I guess it was the same around Germany in the 30s, lots of people trying to point out the pretty clear reality of what is going on while some people just couldn't accept it. Especially after WWI and everyone trying to intellectually cope with the fallout of all empires collapsing and who to blame in that mess. So now people try to understand something without looking at what is going on right in front of their eyes.

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO and some of the thinking behind Putin — dclements

Yeah, that video pretty much sums up most of it. The main part is that people genuinely seem to be unable to understand that reasons don't equal justification. Putin can delude himself and his minions all he wants with his reasons, but there's nothing about Nato expansion nor his dreams of the old Russian empire that justifies any kind of invasion or war of any kind.

It all boils down to a simple question of national freedom: does an independent nation have the freedom to build its own security, including joining a security alliance? If the answer is no, then people can argue for Putin's justifications. If the answer is yes, then the debate is over and Putin is essentially the bad guy here. If no, then that leads to a whole bunch of follow-up questions that need to be addressed. What Russia wants, what it fears, how delusional it is about Nato or whatever argument there is for Putin's justification, it doesn't matter because, as the video ends with, Putin proved the justification for Nato's existence. It even forced Sweden and Finland to radically change opinions 180 about their will to join Nato. If Russia could just, like, fucking stay within their borders and do whatever they want in there, that's totally fine, then Sweden and Finland wouldn't have to think about Nato like this. But since Putin threatens the world as he does, even if that is just his Russian bullying bullshit methods, it really justifies having an alliance of security against such lunacy. There's no justification that can be done on Russia's or Putin's part, none.

If Russia wants to be alone, they can be alone, no one really cares about them as a nation, especially not now. If Russia wants to be cared about, if they want to be a global player, then no one is actually stopping them from it. It's just that they have to be involved with lots of globalization things that they just didn't like. And they can't have the cake and eat it too. They either join the rest of the globalized world, be a true partner, someone people likes, not someone they fear. Or they go down the route they've gone down now, to be someone to fear, to gain "respect" through that. It's bullying mentality really, the gangster/mafia method of gaining respect. It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. If someone is consistently acting like a criminal, bullying, beating people up, and never stops even when everyone tells them to chill, then in the end people will turn their backs. To then be pissed because people don't trust them, to be pissed that people want security from them, so pissed that they attack in full force... that isn't in any shape or form justified. It only justifies their own demise and gives every justification for an alliance of security.

I find it remarkable the amount of defense Russia and Putin get on this forum. From the uneducated, the illogical apologists and the confused irrationals, not seeing how actually non-complicated things have become by the acts of Putin and Russia. We now have much more insight into Russia and Putin than ever, fully seeing what he has built up towards. Over the years there's been lots of apologists as well as fear-mongers and the discussions and debates have been raging without any real conclusions being able to be drawn since neither side had much to back anything up. This war really sided with the fear mongers, there's no question Putin lived up to their arguments and ideas. But still, the debate is ongoing for some reason. It's hard to look at bombed children and think there's any grey area to the justification Putin had for this invasion. It's crystal clear he's become the first superpower dictator since the cold war or even WWII. And there's no defending that, however people think they're clever arguing for it.

Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! — Apollodorus

A usual response when someone doesn't understand simple fallacies.

I never said "Nato and EU has been expanding for years. Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful." — Apollodorus

So what is your premise then? I asked for a premise in support of the statement you made, what other premise can be drawn from what you wrote? Or did you evade providing a correct premise once again?

From what I see you're drawing your own conclusions and then attribute them to others. And you call others "delusional"? Maybe you're from the Finnish outback after all: — Apollodorus

No, I'm asking you for valid premises to your conclusion, so far you haven't. And I still don't know why you're so focused on the Finnish outback when I'm Swedish, maybe you don't pay much attention, which might explain a lot of things actually.

Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT: — Apollodorus

And still not a valid premise for your conclusion. Do you have problems actually understanding what you read? Since you don't seem to understand why they don't glue together? Your conclusion was about evaluating the level of truth in Putin's speeches about not invading. It has nothing to do with the fact that Nato has been expanding. You seem very confused as to what is actually being asked of you, instead answer with all sorts of answers thinking they can produce a valid outcome. Maybe pay a bit more attention and read more carefully.

So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time .... — Apollodorus

No, you are wasting everyone's time with not just answering a simple request to provide more support for what you say. Instead, you whataboutism around it, provide facts that don't support the conclusion I asked you to provide support for, and continue to talk about some Finnish outback in order to try and ad hominem your way out of it. Answer the simple request and stop wasting everyone's time with post after post that doesn't even connect to it.

Here's your conclusion again, since you seem to not even understand what conclusion you're supposed to provide support for:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

Why is it so hard to create a proper argument for this? Is it because you can't? Because you don't have anything that actually provides support to this being actually truthful? That it's basically just an opinion, an unsupported belief without even much of a probability assessment behind it?

There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War. — ssu

Yes, and it might be that they had the plan to invade, but it might be that the result of Ukraine will dictate whether they will do it or not. If Ukraine is an utter failure for Russia, both Russia not getting Ukraine and also screwing up their own country down into third world standards, then I'm not so sure they will feel any urge to invade Taiwan.

Delusional dictators pop up now and then, but that would be what is required. Any balanced politician, even in nations like China will, I think, try to play the geopolitics a bit different today compared to the old empire war days.

So I think it all comes down to "the Putin disease" as you put it. Some delusional leaders or leader who just does something without any regard for the consequences.

By trade, I also mean how influential China has become world wide. They have a lot of influence in corporations around the globe that's about more than just transactional trade. They've conducted the power play of the modern globalized world by instead of waging war, they've put themselves in power by investing abroad as well as making the west dependent on their exports. Cutting off all of that is a much greater loss for China than how Russia deals with the cut off the world. Russia hasn't been involved in the world economy to the same extent. And this is what I mean with China losing far more than what Russia has done.

Of course they will survive, but I'm not sure they want to sink that low, I don't think they see any benefits to risking what they've built up. In essence I don't think there are many "Putins" among the top leaders in China, and instead there are people who we might disagree with politically and ideologically, but who are still more balanced diplomats than how Putin behaves.

I just find it hard to see China justify something in the way Russia has done. I think they know the power they have globally and don't want to risk any of that. China seems to be interested in being a superpower, not being an empire, as those are two different things.

I think China is too dependent on trade to easily just join up with Russia. China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. Russia could basically just cut ties to the west and still work with low living standards but still survive. China however has much more to lose if they would ever end up with similar sanctions.

If all goes to shit for Russia, I'm not sure China wants to be part of such a downfall. They are "idealogy-allies" in terms of being against western culture, but I think China just wants to "be themselves" while still trading with the rest of the world. Russia doesn't seem to give a fuck if they become totally isolated, at least Putin doesn't and I think it's this difference that puts China in a difficult position. Either ally fully with Russia and risk their entire economy as well as trade, but be cut off from western culture, or let western culture in, but try and influence the world to stay somewhat themselves.

I'm not so sure that it's possible to become a superpower today without being part of globalization. It's risky trying to be alone and still make it. Like how North Korea is; alone, isolated, not part of the west and I wouldn't say they're having any kind of life quality living standards worth it. Most of the population is starving and it's quite a mess for everyone but the top leaders. Compare that to South Korea.

People say that all of this is a kind of end of globalization, but it could also be that globalization is the only way forward for the kind of world we have today and everyone who dislocates themselves from it will suffer from it. It's entirely possible that there's no way back from it, it's locked into the economy, into the living standards.

This dynamic is also breaking up in modern culture, hence we see the reaction of both women and men on the extreme ends aggressively enforcing against or for the dynamic.

It's the reason we have this toxic male incel culture of dividing up men in Chads, Sigmas Alphas etc. It's a way for them to cope with the reality that the traditional dynamic has broken down and it doesn't work to "just be a man" anymore, you have to naturally fit the narrative of the dynamic, otherwise, you're an outsider and women will see you as an outsider, excluding you from this dynamic.

Basically, people have realized that this dynamic is bullshit (outdated) and doesn't include the complexity of gender relations as it exists today. So people who aren't capable of accepting (either mentally or unwillingly) this new status quo, rebel against it and tries to build a new narrative that incorporates new simplified explanations for this complexity.

In doing so, the exclusion from this complexity means they are also excluding themselves since they gravitate towards the old dynamic more and therefore men more openly show hate towards women today.

This also generates a counter-act from women, who has found liberation in this new complexity and want to defend it. Some so extreme that it becomes a counter-culture towards that incel culture. They start to hate men because they view everyone man as promoting the old dynamic.

In some Hegelian manner, all of this will synthesize through generations. We have two extreme thesis and antithesis sides that will eventually synthesize into the complexity they are pro or opposed to. We're almost seeing it in new generations of kids growing up, gender relations aren't as toxic outside those outliers growing up with older men and women who are teaching them to be toxic.

Very interesting. However, not particularly coherent or convincing, to be honest.

The way I see it, it is imperative to understand that this isn’t about your opinion but about facts. And the crucial fact is that NATO and the EU have been expanding for decades, not Russia. — Apollodorus

It's also interesting that you think it's about facts when your conclusion looks like this:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

I see no facts here. Nothing about the Nato expansion is in direct relation to evaluating if Putin is being truthful or not. Something that is a fact in itself does not mean it becomes a valid premise just because you think it does. This is called "false cause" fallacy.

Basically you get this:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:

From a Russian military perspective, I can understand that they were worried when Nato was enlarged … It’s an awkward position for the West. It is true that the US and Nato have used force when they felt they needed to. Sometimes it was justified, as in the Balkans in 1995, but sometimes it was very dodgy like in Iraq. From the Russian perspective, I can see how they can make that argument. — Apollodorus

The conclusion you made is that you argued that they wouldn't have invaded if their demands had been met. But nothing of what has been said about Ukraine and surrounding the invasion has any real support in such a conclusion. All the movement of the military, all the intel that proved to be true, the video metadata showing how Putin recorded both his statements of not invading and the post-invasion speech at the same time etc. points to this invasion being planned for months. There's really not that much more than you "believing that Putin was truthful". This is the problem with your conclusion, you state that he is truthful contrary to everything that has happened, everything discovered. And if he was truthful with that, why not also with his fascination with history, his distortion of it? That would make him a delusional despot anyway, regardless of interpretation of intention. What about the leaked "manifesto"? There's too much working against the conclusion you've made for you to be certain that it is the truth other than you just believing in it to be the truth.

So, now your argument is this:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

In contrast, from what I see, you expect us to assume that everything that Russia says is “propaganda” and everything that America says is the pure and unalloyed gospel truth. But the fact is that America does use propaganda on a regular basis: — Apollodorus

So? We're talking about Russia and Putin's propaganda here. This is blatant whataboutism. But to play along for now: when it comes to this conflict, it's not even a balance between them in how it's being done. Russia is actively doing propaganda as the Soviet Union did, they're nowhere close to each other in magnitude. Russia is actively hammering down on free speech, free media, silencing anyone who criticizes them. This kind of information control coupled with state media that is impossible to criticize creates a totalitarian society where propaganda is the ONLY information flowing around. It's not even remotely close to how the US operates its propaganda. The US's propaganda has more to do with building an image of US exceptionalism around the world and nationally. It's about building up justifying reasons for their presence globally. It's propaganda, but compared to Russia it's "harmless" and totally open to criticism. You can speak out as much as you want in the US about this and there won't be a boot pressing you down. There might be some MAGA morons doing it, but that is not the same as a state doing it. The problem with propaganda is that when it becomes the only narrative allowed and when there's no way of criticizing it or bringing other perspectives to it, then it becomes utterly destructive.

Russian propaganda is the main engine in how Russia operates, just like it was during the Soviet Union. And it has now become even worse, basically a totalitarian nation where even your relatives get visits from the police if you speak up against Putin and Russia. The US and every other nation in the world basically use propaganda in some form or another. But it's very important to understand when propaganda is destructive and used as a form of control and when it's used as basically just a kind of national interest marketing. Those two are very different.

So propaganda in Russia is an important part to include and deconstruct if there's ever gonna be any truthful conclusions about Putin, Russia and this invasion. If you can't do that, if you can't use information and facts as a foundation for deciphering their propaganda in order to conclude what is likely going on, and instead just pick and choose from what Putin says to support your own pre-determined belief, then you're not really doing much more than stating your beliefs as "the truth" and using what fits that belief as premises for your argument. So now your argument is:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Not getting better here.

an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situationwould be to acknowledge that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism, the former being a mere reaction to the latter. — Apollodorus

This is not an argument, this is you saying that "you are wrong because you don't agree with my argument". I don't agree with your argument because there's enough pointing towards Russia and Putin's intention of expanding Russia into the old Russian empire, with those borders and playing a part of being one major superpower, disconnected from "the west". That the invasion is a reaction to take over nations included in that old geography before it's impossible to do so.

The problem with your argument is that you conclude it true by just disregarding any other interpretation. You disregard Putin's actions as just a reaction, because that fits your anti-west imperialist narrative. So for you, it needs to be true, there has to be validity to Putin's actions, otherwise many of your other values and ideological ideas fail. Putin and Russia can't have other intentions, and people not acknowledging your own perspective are wrong.

So, that is not an argument. You conclude something by saying "if you don't think like me you are wrong". There's no actual link between western imperialism and Putin's reason to invade that you have established as a connection. You just say, "it is about western imperialism" and expect this to be enough. No premises, no argument, just you saying so, therefore true. This is your problem.

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Just getting worse.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that Russia should not be allowed to react but must always allow itself to be acted on by America and its instruments of foreign policy like NATO and the EU, in any way or ways that Washington or Wall Street fancy .... — Apollodorus

And this is just what happens when you delude yourself that your conclusion is correct. You first conclude something based on nothing more than your belief, then you continue with your argument like this as if your earlier conclusion was true.

This is why I continue to return to your conclusion and demand true premises as a support for it. Because you don't do actual philosophy here. You don't use rational deduction or induction.

You state what you believe as being true, then you continue further arguments that require that truth as its premise foundation, meaning that it becomes circular reasoning. You think you are rational, but all you do is to use your own beliefs as premises thinking they are facts.

It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who's so delusional about his own conclusions and who are unable to see past his own biases and fallacies.

So once again I return to your original statement because you still haven't given rational and logical support for it. Nato's expansion does not explain how in your conclusion, Putin is being truthful. It ignores the evidence we have against it (video metadata) and it comes into contradiction with Putin's other speeches about aspirations for the Russian empire based on Russian history (why is he truthful about what you want him to be truthful of, but not about everything else he says?).

Again, I want true premises that logically connect towards your conclusion here:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

There's no point in debating further if this hasn't been established as true or false first. I'm asking you to support THIS statement, THIS conclusion. Clean off all whataboutisms and irrelevant noise and give me an argument that's about supporting THIS conclusion, that's all I ask. Is it hard? Is it not possible? Because it seems you aren't able to actually do this. Stop trying to side-step this issue, because this issue is at the core of your arguments and there's no point in going further before this statement has been proven true or false first.

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years. (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p3 The US also conducts propaganda (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.

Try again

I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. — ssu

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse. — ssu

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. Times have changed and we have to act with more dedication of defense than before. I mean, it doesn't matter if we're in Nato or not if there's a nuclear war. It's not like bombs all around us won't destroy us anyway. So any defense against traditional warfare is better than risking us being the next "proxy nation in order to keep Nato away".

You''re just playing with words, and the global "capitalism" that Scandinavia is still a part of is destroying the entire planet, so doesn't actually contribute to quality of life in Scandinavia. — boethius

I'm still not talking about capitalism, that's what you brought up. I agree with you on the point of it destroying the planet, but that has little to do with my point on true democracy being the superior form of government in terms of peace and quality of life for the people.

The criticism of US, NATO and EU policies in the current war in Ukraine is not some vague criticism of "capitalism" it's a criticism of their actions right now. — boethius

US, NATO and EU don't do anything with Ukraine right now. Everyone tries to help Ukraine in any form that isn't military. What are the actions by them right now you are criticizing? That they don't do enough or that they help Ukraine with material and the refugees?

That "someone is worse" doesn't matter. Can I kill 100 people just because someone has killed 101 people? Or let people starve even if I have the means to do something easily ... because, technically, other people created that starvation situation? — boethius

That wasn't what I said now was it? I objected to the simplistic conclusion that capitalism leads to corruption. I objected to it because corruption needs other failures of government before capitalism can corrupt it. My argument was that a state with strong constitutional power of democracy, with free speech, free press and elections that aren't manipulated by the parties involved can have a capitalistic system and still not become corrupt. That capitalism alone doesn't corrupt.

But you seem to confuse what I say with it being some defense of capitalism. It's entirely possible to point to grey areas of a matter without going into a black and white fallacy. I can dislike capitalism and still point out a faulty causality in an argument about it.

I live in the EU, I can affect EU policy, and if it's just letting Ukrainians die for politicians to masturbate each other on television and advertise the effectiveness of their arms industry, I'm going to complain about the actions and decisions of my "leaders" because there's a point to doing that. — boethius

What has this to do with what I said? And what is it that you want them to do exactly?

Hating on Putin accomplishes nothing and, the whole Western media doing that for 2 decades, is what leads to a situation where Western leaders don't care about any sort of diplomatic process with Russia to avoid human suffering, — boethius

They've been "hating" on Putin because he has created a corrupt government and limits people's free speech. He imprisons opposers, poisons others, shuts down state critics. There are tons of reasons why he deserves criticism, just as we've been criticizing Trump and other bad politicians and governments. That this is some unjustified "hate" is bullshit. Of course people in power who misuse and abuse should be criticized. Appeasement mentality leads to things like Nazi Germany.

You cannot be diplomatic with someone who acts under other ideals than diplomacy. There have been plenty of peace talks now, plenty of diplomatic hands reaching out, but he and Russia don't care.
What exactly do you think leaders of the world have been doing when talking to Putin? Nothing works, he repeats himself over and over with no diplomatic balance other than "give me what I want and I'll back down".

That's not diplomacy, that's an ultimatum. If you want diplomacy, tell me how to be diplomatic with someone who's not diplomatic during those talks. You ask for the west to be diplomatic, but when Russia isn't acting according to diplomacy, what are you going to do?

It becomes the equivalent of a crowd shouting"What do we want? WE WANT PEACE! How do we do it? WE DON'T KNOW!"

You may not be aware of it, but doing philosophy is precisely what I'm trying to do. — Apollodorus

:rofl:

Problem, you see, is that in order to philosophize you need to have the facts first, otherwise it's all just empty speculation. — Apollodorus

So when I ask for that, for your initial conclusion, it doesn't apply?

You do know that philosophy also requires logic, rational deduction and induction? As well as having as little bias and fewer fallacies as possible when providing an argument?

If you ignore the facts and dictate to others what they should think, that's an approach that isn't going to get you very far. — Apollodorus

So what are you doing then? You start out with a conclusion and I ask you for evidence or rational support to back that conclusion up, then your answer is that I shouldn't dictate anything?
Are you fucking serious? :rofl:

My advice would be to acquaint yourself with the facts, especially established and well-known historical facts, first, and then attempt to philosophize. — Apollodorus

What facts? I asked for facts and support for your conclusion, you provide jack shit of anything. The only thing your doing is trying to talk around failing to provide a proper argument for your conclusion.

I'm still waiting.

If you knew the facts, then I'm sure you'd agree with me that Putin has got a point. To take the example of a trial in a court of law, you'd need to take into consideration both sides, not just one. Very simple and easy to understand, really. — Apollodorus

That's not what you said though. You are not considering both sides:

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

If that's the only thing you had to say in court, the judges, jury and people would laugh you out of the legal system. Then saying "if you all knew the facts, then you would view what I say as true".

You're like,"If you all knew the facts, you'd know that the killer had a point and when he says that he wasn't going to kill the victim, then he was truthful, I promise, I know this because I know the facts"
Then we ask "What facts? Make a proper argument for your conclusion and we can continue" and you reply, "If you all knew the facts as I do, you would agree with me that the killer has got a point. We have to consider both the killer and the victims side in this, it's very easy to understand really".

Give me a fucking break. This is just stupid. :rofl:

So, demonstrate (a) that you have knowledge of the relevant historical facts and (b) that you are willing to engage in an objective and balanced conversation. If not, then there is nothing I can do for you .... — Apollodorus

Give me a proper argument for the conclusion you've made. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of normal philosophical practice when asked to provide it.

I'm open for discussion, but if you start with a conclusion and I ask for clarification and support for that conclusion, whatever my stance in the discussion is irrelevant if you can't support your own initial conclusion first, then we can go into my counter-argument to your argument.

Demanding me to do anything and trying to ignore your own responsibility as an interlocutor, just means you won't take responsibility for your part in a philosophical discussion while demanding that others should take more responsibility than you. This is how a child rationalizes their status.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Scandinavia is not an example of how "capitalism works", it's an example of how socialism works and a free market can add some value to a largely socialist state. — boethius

Yet, Scandinavia's free market system is still capitalism. Your argument was that capitalism corrupts democracies, then it should corrupt Scandinavia as well since we still have a free market and live under capitalism. Neoliberal ideologies of capitalism corrupts, but we don't have that, not in the sense that the US has. So it's not this black and white thing, capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is first and foremost that nations who reject true democracy are worse societies and it has been proven over and over again in the world. There might be a better system of government, but so far we haven't been able to invent one or tested one. So until that happens, true democracies will be better and more peaceful than other forms of government.

It's not enough for you to simply say that life in Ukraine would be better than life under Russian puppet governance. — Isaac

They don't want to live under the boot of Russia and Putin. They fight for their right to be free, they fight for their will to live in their country under their own free will. They don't agree with you, even if they're getting killed, they don't want Ukraine to be part of Russia and it's Russia who's killing them.

If a killer killed half your family and then said to you that you all need to live under his rule or else he kills everyone. With a chance to fight back and regain freedom, would you either accept his rule or would you try to fight back? You might accept living under his rule, you might dance around as his puppet, but people with experience of that, with a history of that, might just want to fight back in order not to erase all progress they've made so far to be where they are today.

The question at the core of your argument is really if it's worth fighting for freedom or not. You conclude that no, it's not worth it. With the risk of going into a life of totalitarian repression, this is more favorable to you than risking your life for freedom.

Ukrainians, however, seem to disagree with you. And I disagree with you. The reason is that the rise of a totalitarian power has over the long term in history led to more bloodshed than the concentrated bloodshed during a war. There's a reason people fight for their freedom, there's a reason people stand up against people like Putin. And it's my moral conviction that fighting totalitarian powers is always the right thing to do. For others and yourself. In my perspective, setting such powers lose by not standing up against them will never lead to freedom for anyone, it would lead to a worse state of the world.

That's why I live in Scandinavia. — boethius

Then you know what I mean.

The whole criticism about capitalism is that it leads to corruption of the democratic process. That's the whole point. — boethius

And yet, it can work well in a society like in Scandinavia. I'm guessing that you only focus on the US now, but that's just one of many democracies. If there are laws and constitutional articles that focus on lowering corruption, it also protects democracies from growing corruption. Yet, corruption is still greater in nations without a free market and free press. Part of democracy is to have free speech and free press, those aren't disconnected from the government system. Even in a nation with high corruption like the US, the press and free speech can take down corrupted officials. That cannot happen in nations without it. A democracy without free speech and free press is a sham democracy, which is how Russia's "democracy" has been viewed over the course of the entire post-Soviet era.

That capitalism could lead to corruption of the democratic process is not an argument against democracy being the best form of government we have in the world to date. Comparing a completely mud-dirty shirt to a fresh clean one and then saying "you can't say one is cleaner than the other" based on the fact that you found one small dirty spot on the clean shirt just makes everything into a "black and white" fallacy.