Yet it's obvious, starting from Clausewitz, that this was one of the most important objectives: either take or surround the capital. — ssu

If taking Kiev was the principal Russian objective, how come the fighting around Kiev resembled nothing like we saw in places where actual bitter fighting took place? And how come they only deployed 20,000 troops to participate in the battle and they never made any serious effort to surround the capital let alone capture Kiev? We would expect massed firepower.

I agree with you to the extent that there was obviously a point to the attack on Kiev, but in my opinion this was a show of force meant to facilitate negotiations, and it served a double purpose in pulling troops to the north to faciliate the advance in the south.
_

I agree with you. The West (i.e. the United States) knew exactly what it was doing by arming Ukraine, and it did so specifically to flip Ukraine, as they said they would do at the 2008 Bucharest Summit.

It requires an extraordinary amount of naivety to believe western intentions were benign, and even more in the case of the Russians who clearly voiced their security concerns over the course of more than a decade.

Why would "the West" be the one negotiating in such a scenario? — Echarmion

The Russians are responding to a western action, namely the militarization of Ukraine. They probably expected 'the West' to be more reasonable.

Instead, the United States is completely content to sacrifice Ukraine, and the EU is too dimwitted to understand what is even going on.

Which is still an unsourced claim that's only repeated by people with a known pro-Russia bias. — Echarmion

Nonsense. Jeffrey Sachs gave us clear accounts of what the people involved told him happened. Are you really going to argue he is 'pro-Russian'? The guy is as genuine as they come.

Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh - all pro-Russian too?

Accusing the other side of partisanship is intellectual poverty.

Also no idea where you're getting your numbers from. Per Wikipedia Ukraine had 20.000 regulars and 18.000 irregulars across the entire northern front, while Russia had some 70.000 regular troops. — Echarmion

The Ukrainian general staff reported 31 BTGs moving on Kiev. That's roughly 21,000 soldiers. This figure never changed over the course of the month-long battle.

The Wiki article actually says ~20,000 irregulars + 'an undisclosed number of regular fighters' - Yea, I wonder why it's undisclosed? Perhaps the Battle of Kiev couldn't be spun into an 'heroic Ukrainian victory' if the Ukrainians were actually outnumbering the Russians on the defense, eh?

The 60,000 figure comes from a Seymour Hersh interview in which he suggests 40,000 regular troops + 20,000 irregulars, but even if we take your figure and suppose 40,000 defenders, that still puts the Ukrainian forces at a 2:1 advantage.

For urban fighting a city like Kiev we'd expect 3:1 in favor of the Russians as the bare minimum - we'd expect as much as 10:1 in one were planning for success.

It can't be because that would disagree with your narrative. — Echarmion

More like, it's impossible to twist the numbers to fit an 'heroic Ukrainian victory' narrative even if you wanted to.

Yes, let's ignore the entire well documented battle... — Echarmion

You mean the propaganda you've been binging on over the last year?

Yea. Let's ignore that.

Casualty figures do not suggest the type of bitter fighting we have seen elsewhere in the war. If the Russians intended to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses with massed force and firepower, we would expect an entirely different picture.

Changing the goalposts. Not a surprise. — Echarmion

It was not the point under discussion. But do keep changing the subject whenever one of your so called arguments fails. — Echarmion

Blah blah.

I hear an exhausted mind. You're just having a hard time coping.

How many US soldiers died? And how many Russians? — Echarmion

I know a few people in the Biden White House who are going to lose their jobs though. But yea, the US did a great job at making the Ukrainians do the dying for them. Good for them!

If he changed his tune that's too bad, but only illustrates he's loosing his grip on reality. — Echarmion

This is toddler level.

I figured you deserved a chance at a normal discussion, but alas, it seems I was wrong.

And they had objectives that were not met and occupying everything to the Western border wasn't that. But even those "limited" objective were not met. — ssu

Ok, so what do you believe those limited objectives were?

My guess would be something along the lines of:

- Occupy strategically vital areas, ergo landbridge to Crimea.
- Try to force the West to negotiate a quick end to the war through a show of force around the capital.

In March/April 2022 the West blocked a peace treaty that was in the final stages of being signed, signaling the end of the first 'phase' of the war. The Russians shifted gears, rearranged their lines to cover vital areas and be able to withstand a long war since they were probably overextended initially.

And that's pretty much the war in a nutshell.

The media has been propping up this war to no end, but it really isn't much more complicated than that.

Crimea became strategically vulnerable when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status. — Tzeentch

After 2014? — Echarmion

Clearly. All that connects Crimea to Russia is the Kerch bridge, which would not last a day under normal war-time conditions but was probably spared due to political reasons. (i.e. the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians not to push the Russians too far, as per arguments).

Imagine what the Russian situation would have looked like had the US been able to continue their militarization of Ukraine.

Oh really? What major maneuver forces were held back? — Echarmion

For example, only 20,000 Russian troops participated in the battle of Kiev. Woefully inadequate to effectively occupy a city of nearly 3 million inhabitants, not to mention the some 40,000 - 60,000 Ukrainian defenders. It's just not feasible by any stretch, considering a 3:1 advantage is pretty much the bare minimum for large-scale offensive operations.

There was a 3:1 advantage alright, in favor of the Ukrainians.

Of course, this was spun as a heroic defense by Ukraine. It obviously wasn't. The Russians rolled up to Kiev and then stood there for about a month to see if the negotiations would bear fruit. Skirmishes took place and of course the Russians took losses. That's what happens during war. The Russians aren't afraid to break a few eggs in order to bake an omelet.

Again you're mixing together times and places to create a lie. — Echarmion

No, I'm not.

The US was investing billions of dollars into Ukraine even before the Maidan and the 2014 Crimea invasion. That's what they're openly admitting.

Yeah "deeply involved", so what? — Echarmion

The US is admitting to giving the Ukrainians billions in military aid - a country that had a critical role of neutral buffer between East and West, and you say "so what"?

Well, so what? The Russians told us, over the course of some 20 years, that they view it as a threat to their vital security. We, the West, snubbed them at every turn because we thought they were weak.

To put it in academic terms; the US fucked around and found out.

Out of curiosity, I looked this up, but all that Mearsheimer says is that Russia would have been unable to take all of Ukraine, but he does actually say they intended to capture Kiev. — Echarmion

He does not. In his 2022 lectures he says something along the lines of 'the Russians intended to capture or threaten Kiev' (which was already a controversial statement at the time). In more recent lectures he states outright he doubts that the Russians ever intended to capture Kiev, and that's the argument I am making.

Your claim that Russia couldn't possibly have intended something that would have been a bad idea... — Echarmion

That's not my claim. I just think that's an extraordinarily weak explanation, probably borne of lazy thinking by lesser minds, and not really worth considering.

If the Russians are a bunch of dummies then why are we even discussing? Victory is surely right around the corner. I can't wait to see it.

If Russia was convinced they couldn't possibly occupy Ukraine because of US interference why did they think they could invade in the first place? — Echarmion

Ah, but here's the strategy.

The Russians bit off a strategically relevant chunk that is small enough for them to pacify.

I would not be surprised if there is going to be a second invasion of Ukraine which follows roughly the same pattern. Mearsheimer seems to believe as much. He expects the Russians to take another belt of oblasts to the west of what they have occupied now.

Personally, I have my doubts about that, as expressed in this comment.

You should tell the paratroopers at Hostomel. Or all the dead tank crews on the road to Kiev. — Echarmion

A failed raid or successful ambush tell us nothing about the actual goings-on of the war. These things are milked by the propaganda machine to no end, but you'll need to poke through that if you want to get a more accurate picture of the war.

War requires sacrifices and military friction supposes failures small and large. That's the nature of war.

Equally congruent is that Russia failed to reach it's goals. — ssu

Which would be incongruent with common military logic: why would Russia deploy a fraction of the troops required to occupy Ukraine?

And also with sensible strategic planning: why would Russia try to occupy a country which is already deeply enmeshed with the United States, with a gigantic insurgency being basically guaranteed?

Sure, one could hand-wave all of this under the idea that the Russians are simply incompetent, but that's a very weak explanation in my opinion.

Just look at how much Russia has gained more territory after the initial thrust. — ssu

The thing is, Russia not gaining more territory is entirely congruent with the view that Russia is pursuing limited goals in Ukraine,

which in turn would be much more in line with common military logic (troops counts, etc.),

which in turn would be much more in line with sensible strategic planning

which, I'll repeat it again, was likely first and foremost concerned with avoiding a repeat of the Soviet-Afghan War against a US-backed insurgency.

Let's remember that Russia has lost considerable territory as it lost the whole Kyiv front. — ssu

It's more accurate to say that the Russians left the Kiev front.

We know what bitter fighting looks like in the context of this war. It looks like Bahkmut, the Ukrainian offensive, Avdiivka, etc.

That's not what we saw in the north.

How many armored vehicles has Russia lost? How many artillery pieces? How many soldiers? — Echarmion

You can't win a war without taking casualties. Pretty obvious.

They already had Crimea. — Echarmion

Crimea became strategically vulnerable when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status.

...and also the evidence in the form of actual russian invasion routes. — Echarmion

If you're saying that, I highly doubt you actually understand the implications of the size and disposition of the initial Russian invasion force.

It's a clear indicator of the fact that they had limited objectives going in.

The evidence for this is flimsy... — Echarmion

Flimsy? It's right there on the US state department's website. :lol:

To date, we have provided approximately $44.2 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and more than $47 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. — Uncle Sam Himself

Or maybe you'd rather hear it from chief neocon Nuland in 2013. Even before the violent coup d'etat of 2014 the US was already deeply involved in Ukraine.

Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine. — Head Honcho Nuland

_

That Ukraine would fall within weeks. — Echarmion

I never said anything like that.

I've actually extensively argued the opposite. It is clear by Russian troop counts and disposition that capturing all of Ukraine (or Kiev, for that matter) was not their goal. And Mearsheimer makes that point as well.

Capturing all of Ukraine would be crazy, and would have invited an US-backed insurgency. In fact, there are good indications that is what the US was planning for.

Here is a lovely panel by CSIS in which they elaborately explain why occupying Ukraine would be a terrible idea, and how stupid the Russians are for trying it. The joke turned out to be on them, however, since the Russians never did.

They even invited Michael Vickers - the man responsible for the US-backed insurgency in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He literally states the insurgency they could create in Ukraine would be bigger than the one in Afghanistan.

They have no prospects of being able to occupy the country. Putin has said he has no intention of occupying. [...] If we support an insurgency Russian casualties will be through the roof. This will be-... This could be an insurgency that is bigger than our Afghan one in the 1980's in terms of things we could provide them that could really hurt Russians. — Michael G. Vickers

-

Plus there's the previous point about NATO membership being impossible since 2014. — Echarmion

The US was in the process of creating a fait accompli. They almost succeeded.

You make an awful lot of claims but never actually supply anything as justification. Just being able to quote Mearsheimer doesn't make you some sort of authority that merely has to share their wisdom. — Echarmion

Well, this is a discussion forum where people share and talk about their ideas. I'm more than comfortable within these topics not to have to cite sources for uncontroversial claims.

Whinging about sources only to instantly hand-wave them when they're provided is a game people here play a little too often, and nothing in your demeanor suggests it would be worth my time.

In fact, you're already hand-waving Mearsheimer. Clearly you're not interested in anything I'd have to share, so don't be so dishonest as to ask for it.

Is the war going terribly for Ukraine? By an objective standard, it's not. It went amazingly well earlier, so the current situation might look bad in comparison. But reducing Russia to fight a positional war on a peer footing isn't a small feat for a country that, in 2014, was barely able to react at all. — Echarmion

Very difficult to understand where you're coming from.

Because the Ukrainians put up a valiant fight means Ukraine is somehow not in the process of losing the war?

I'm sure this type of emotional support counts for something to some people, but it count for nothing in the world of geopolitics.

Nah. Russia had troops on Ukrainian soil since 2014 an no way in hell is anyone joining NATO that is currently fighting the russian army.

You're not getting around that simple fact. Probably you'll ignore it like the others that make this same argument. — Echarmion

Note, currently. Geopolitics is about the long-term, and the US has been arming and training the Ukrainians for an eventual war with Russia since at least 2014.

Well, they got their war.

If that was the plan then the Russian leadership must simply be stupid, since there's no way in hell these territories are worth burning through your entire stock of armaments. — Echarmion

Crimea is extremely important to the Russians, so I'd disagree.

If the Russians have burned through their entire stock of armaments, how come they are still winning in Ukraine? Are they continuing the fight with sticks and stones?

Their economy is better able to absorb this in the short term, but this will likely be cold comfort to the average russian when the state runs out of means to cushion the domestic economy. — Echarmion

Yes, and I'm sure that will happen any day now.

It's an absolute humiliation for Russia. No idea why you think the West is humiliated. — Echarmion

The US attempted to wrench Ukraine from underneath the Russians' noses, and spent some 10 years arming and training the Ukrainians for this very purpose. Financial investments go back even further. Ukraine is the US neocon project.

At every step the US doubled down and played hardball.

Then Russia drew its line and is currently winning against a combined economic bloc that has over 20 times its GDP.

Russia's economy would collapse, Putin would be overthrown, the army would rebel, etc. - the Russians would be pushed back to the border and Crimea would be liberated.

It's obviously a humiliation, given how hard they went in with the rhetoric.

You mean it's frustrating that your predictions were wrong but rather than face the facts you're just going to repeat them in the hope that they'll eventually turn out true. — Echarmion

What prediction are you even talking about?

Apparently Putin did not agree with that though. — Echarmion

You fail to understand that the creation of Ukraine was based on a mutual understanding between NATO and post-Soviet Russia that Ukraine was to be a neutral bufferzone, necessary to avoid conflict.

Given the agreement was respected, the issue of Sevastopol and Crimea was negligible and Russian security interests could be covered through the lend-lease agreement they had.

It's the Americans who in 2008 at the NATO Bucharest Summit stated that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO", thus clearly signaling they were intending to change Ukraine's neutral status. That's what the Russians are and have been reacting to.

This isn't some effort of Russia to 'add Ukraine to its sphere of influence'. What a nonsensical view.

Just read the Western press. The fact that the war is going terribly for Ukraine and that Zelensky is facing heavy pressure domestically and internationally is not controversial.

Russia invaded Ukraine over NATO membership/US influence specifically, and the strategic vulnerability of Crimea more broadly. They have successfully waylaid plans for Ukrainian NATO membership, and have taken 20% of Ukraine in the process, creating a landbridge to Crimea.

The Ukrainian military and economy are badly battered and basically on permanent life-support.

It's an absolute humiliation for the West, considering how the propaganda machine tried to spin the war and how Europe and the establishment media all, for some reason, jumped on the neocon bandwagon straight into this disaster.

That this would be the predictable outcome was clear to many when the war started back in 2022, and it has been quite frustrating to see how Western opinion got hijacked by propaganda and prolonged this copium-fueled war when it could have ended in March/April 2022. But people started to believe their own bullshit fairytales about pushing the Russians back to the border and out of Crimea.

Ukraine's bargaining position has only deteriorated since then, and it still is deteriorating further. Zelensky and the neocons will be unable to admit defeat, and prolong Ukraine's suffering at least until the 2024 elections, which in a cruel irony Biden is set to lose anyway.

The Russians with their tiny economy somehow managed to completely outfox the collective West. Again, it's the price the West pays for delusional leadership, but it's sad for the Ukrainians that they are the ones that have to pay the bill.

Right, small states should just always do what their bigger neighbours want and not try to get out of there sphere of influence. — Echarmion

Ukraine was not in Russia's sphere of influence prior to the war, and its presidents actually did a fairly decent job at balancing between western and Russian interests. That balancing act is the price to pay for a small nation to exist between two large blocs.

Letting the Americans lead them down the primrose path was foolish in the extreme.

I am completely aware that larger armies can simply tire of fighting and go home and that is one potential outcome in any war, that's why I literally say so. — boethius

Hard to see the Russians going home.

I can't really blame anyone for not looking through the constant propaganda barrage, but the Russians are on track to decisively win the war.

Pressure on Zelensky is growing to start negotiations with the Russians. He has cancelled elections because by now everybody understands Zelensky wouldn't be re-elected. People within the Ukrainian military and political establishment are starting to admit that things are much worse than the media makes them appear.

While Zelensky is still trying to sell the myth of a Ukrainian offensive, both people in Ukraine and the Western media are openly saying its a stalemate, Ukraine is running out of men, etc.

But it's not a stalemate. Ukraine is losing, and it's losing decisively. That's why the pressure is growing. Sensible people understand that the longer Ukraine waits to negotiate, the more Ukraine's negotiating position will deteriorate.

'Stalemate' is just a cope term, to save face, to avoid having to admit defeat to domestic audiences, and to not have to utter the words "the Russians won".

The bottomline now is that Ukraine is not going to join NATO, and the question is whether negotiations will be able to produce something that the West and Ukraine can prop up to their domestic populations.

EU-membership might be that thing, though it's questionable whether this is realistic considering how utterly broken Ukraine is, and the fact that the EU has some pretty strict criteria on whether a country can join. It might simply be a carrot to dangle infront of Zelensky's face to get him to negotiate, or to give Zelensky something to sell to Ukrainians as a 'victory'.


I think this is all quite bleak and tragic, especially for Ukraine itself. I can't imagine having to make such sacrifices only for it to be in vain. But that's the price to pay for politicians who deal in delusions and fairy tales.

There are winners of conflicts and wars. Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose? — ssu

Profound ignorance, mostly.

Nonsense.

Moderates can perfectly fight wars. It's the "bitter enders" that simply lose everything. — ssu

Everybody loses.

That is to say, I think it rather fantastical as a solution. — schopenhauer1

I'll readily admit it is very idealistic. But it is not fantastical. History has known individiuals who were able to bridge large gaps between peoples.

But I think you know my views of what the realist/probable outcome is, which is why I believe the idealist option is worth investigating.

Well, expelling more people from their decades-long homes is not the way forward.

One would have to start somewhere, and the idea that every Israeli owes every Palestinian their home and reparations is obviously not a viable starting point.

There'd have to be an acceptance of the state of things in the present day, though that doesn't mean past grievances shouldn't be addressed. Indeed that is a fundamental part of reconciliation.

Assuming goodwill on both sides, I'm sure some proper substance can be given to the right of return, like housing projects or priority when houses become vacant.

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War. — schopenhauer1

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available.

But also, let's say Israel deems that there are parts of the West Bank that are strategically very hard for Israel to maintain security and have to have some Israeli oversight, those kind of things as well. — schopenhauer1

The Israeli army would remain the Israeli army, but would be ran by both Israelis and Palestinians. So theoretically it would double the manpower pool from which the Israeli army can tap.

Further, I think the single greatest contribution to Israeli security would be solving the issue of millions of angry Palestinians that are sitting within its de facto borders.

To be clear, I don't think it would be easy to arrive at a secular state. But necessary, perhaps.

So this is where I keep railing against the idea of "I want my OLIVE GROVES". In other words, just as Israeli extremists who want to settle "Samaria and Judea" is wrong, so is this idea that every past event has to be relived and violently opposed by generations that follow. Palestinians have to want to live in peace and probably be okay with some sort of monetary compensation rather than land. Land is such an OVERRATED value. It's a fetish even. Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. It doesn't need to be THAT land. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we assume for a moment a new secular state is created, then no one would be forced to move. Everybody could live where they currently do, or move to other places within Israel voluntarily. Of course some sort of reconciliation would have to have taken place.

Are you suggesting paying Palestinians money to leave voluntarily, or letting them settle some new land?

It seems we are mostly in agreement then, but on the most important point we diverge:

1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state. — Tzeentch

Ok so that's unrealistic. Israel's whole existence is to have a place in the world where there can't be more pogroms and holocausts (which makes this of course all the more traumatic). — schopenhauer1

Yes. Israel was created with the idea of providing Jews with a safe haven. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea, except for the fact that Britain and France chose to worst possible way to go about it and now we have to deal with the imperfect situation they created.

Lets also acknowledge that Israel is a far cry from the safe haven that it was supposed to be, and unless a different path is chosen this is unlikely to change.


Now we have the problem that on the territory of Israel + the occupied territories, there live roughly as many Jews as Muslims. This is the fundamental issue.

I'm assuming everybody in this thread agrees that:
1. Apartheid is unacceptable. That means equal rights for Jews and Muslims.
2. Ethnic cleansing / forced displacement is unacceptable.

That means that the demographics as they are now are basically what we have to work with. This means that Israel cannot be a Jewish nation state, since half its population is Muslim.


A two-state solution is, in my opinion, unworkable from literally every perspective. You'd simply end up with two extremely vulnerable states, likely with plenty of animosity and territorial disputes between them. I would predict within ten or twenty years there'd be a conflict that wipes one or both states off the map. Not to mention the settlers on the West Bank are never going to leave peacefully.


What other options are there?

Resigning seems like a shortcut, a way to answer the question without answering the question. — flannel jesus

There is no other way to answer the question. Any solution I could propose would require the Netanyahu regime to leave first.

After that it's pretty straight-forward:
1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state.
2. Immediately stop settling the West Bank.
3. Give Palestinians equal rights and stop mass human rights abuses in the occupied territories.
4. Garner help and support from the international community (including Arab states) to integrate Israel and Palestine into a state where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully.
5. If successful steps are taken towards these goals, start removal of the West Bank barrier and lift the siege/embargo on Gaza.

Of course, this could take a long time and appropriate caution must be applied. If Hamas continues terrorist strikes, retaliate accurately and proportionately. Hamas will completely isolate itself over time, since everyone will recognize that it is standing in the way of a genuine solution.

Further, no longer committing mass human rights abuses on the Palestinian people will drastically reduce if not outright remove the motivation to join terrorist organisations.


Any of this would be anathema to the Netanyahu regime, who will not be able to get past the first point. They are essentially ultranationalists, and no real solution exists within that paradigm.

How should they have handled 10-7 as prime minister? Your citizens were raped, you had babies burned, people shot in cars and their bodies paraded around and shot in real time, you had 250 people kidnapped, and you had hundreds (1400+ people) killed in a one day operation. Okay, well, we already know that you failed in terms of intelligence... What would you do? This group is also responsible for helping screw up the Oslo Accords in the 90s with suicide bombers, and has been sending rockets to Israel, trying to provoke war for years. Also, let's factor out prior politics. Let's just say this is the situation you are given. What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

I would have secured the border and subsequently resigned. Getting the Netanyahu regime out of power is the first step to creating any sort of workable future for Israel.

Well, around 1991 it started the Oslo Accords peace process, which failed... — schopenhauer1

Where were the UN / international / US-led efforts to enforce them?

As I noted in an earlier post, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can be expected to drag this cart along - at least not over the initial bump. The US being the global hegemon after 1991 was in a prime position to do just that.

Did any party to the Oslo Accords show any true dedication to implementing it?

Personally, I think not. And of course all parties deserve blame for that, but it is primarily the US that was in a position to push for it.

Again, why does this always go back to the US' fault. — schopenhauer1

1. Because the US after 1991 to a large extent dominated the world, and certainly the Middle-East.
2. Because it's US 'divide & conquer' policy that has perpetuated chaos and conflict in the Middle-East.

Do you know why the Netherlands doesn't have to spend gross amounts of money on its military? — schopenhauer1

I do, and personally I am opposed to the Netherlands forfeiting its sovereignty that way.

The world we live in is US backed, but European created my friend. — schopenhauer1

In 1945 you would have a point. We are now 75 years on during all of which the US has been the most powerful nation on the planet, and during 30 years of which the US was the global unipole. Europeans on their end acted as obedient vassals.

So no. The world we live in is US-created, just like the world in 1945 was European-created.

What should their tactic be when opposing forces of Islamic Jihad (that is Hamas Hezbollah Iran, and the like)? — schopenhauer1

Moderates cannot fight extremists almost by definition, because moderates tend to be reasonable human beings who aren't willing to resort to any means necessary to get what they want.

We see this everywhere, even in 'civilized' countries: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, etc.

It also doesn't help when certain hegemonic unipoles go around sowing chaos and death, purposefully putting radicals in power and killing off moderates to avoid "regional rivals" from getting too prosperous (aka, US Middle-East policy).

We know what happens to moderates in places like this - they get strung up from the nearest tree. The extremists rule through terror and an iron fist. Opposing them is signing oneself up for death and torture.

But extremism is often reactionary, and in the Middle-East it is very obvious what it is reacting to - constant Western meddling, divide & conquer, etc.

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? — schopenhauer1

The obvious answer is because after 1945 the United States became the world's most powerful nation and its 'special relationship' with Israel disallowed any other power to interfere with its foreign politics.

After 1991 the US became the global unipole and dominated the world for some 30 years.

What did it do in those 30 years? Did it seek to take away the root causes of extremism in the Middle-East?

No, to the contrary - the destabilization of the Middle-East runs like a red line through the American 'unipolar moment'.

In fact, the situation in the Middle-East has probably never been worse.

When people are calling the actions of the Israeli government genocide, they are not just referring to the indiscriminate bombing and collective punishment that is going on in Gaza right now.

They are referring to decades of Israeli policy which has already termed been by human rights organisations, UN legal bodies and even the Israelis themselves (Haaretz and B'Tselem, for example) to be ethnic cleansing and apartheid, among a whole slew of other human rights violations.

When Israeli politicians today are stating outright that they wish to raze Gaza to the ground together with all its inhabitants, it appears they have started to 'say the quiet part out loud'.

There is something rotten in the state of Israel. It's clear for all to see, except for people who cling to the delusion that Israel is a normal state and hand-wave dozens, probably hundreds of UN resolutions and human rights reports.

Even the Israelis themselves see it. They are protesting for Netanyahu to step down as we speak. Many of them have long understood that staying on this path will not provide Israel with security, and will instead facilitate its demise. They want Israel to be on the right side of history.

A lot of talk on the side of the West about the war in Ukraine having reached a stalemate, and Zelensky being pressured into talks with the Russians.

Somewhat odd that considering the deteriorating situation for Ukraine it still seems to be Zelensky that is the obstacle for negotiations.

Though, in some sense I cannot blame him. He was after all promised Western support to fight the Russians, and that support has clearly come up short to achieve what was promised, or at least what was suggested as the goal: Ukraine regaining the territory it has lost during the 2022 invasion, and even retaking Crimea.

Or perhaps Zelensky is foreseeing that negotiations will not go anywhere, since interests on both sides are diametrically opposed.

Russia will not accept any agreement in which Ukraine enters NATO, and the West/Ukraine is unlikely to accept any agreement in which Ukraine doesn't enter NATO.

The same is roughly true for the issue of territory, though I think in the case of a Western concession vis-á-vis NATO membership, there's some chance that Russia will return territory to Ukraine.

But if negotiations indeed turn out to be impossible, I wonder how the war will proceed. Perhaps it will turn into a frozen conflict. While Mearsheimer has in the past suggested that he believes Russia may make at least one more push for a substantial amount of territory, in my eyes Russia does not look particularly interested in launching any real offensives.

The United States' international credibility is rapidly tanking due to its stance in the Israel-Gaza war, while the BRICS (with Russia taking a leading role) are looking to present themselves as the reasonable, mediating party.

With the Middle-East conflict looking to take up more of the West's (and especially the United States') military capacity, there is less pressure on Russia in the Ukraine war.

In other words, while the Middle-East conflict might present an opportunity for Russia to tighten the screws and press the issue in Ukraine, this does not seem to be in line with the image they are presenting of themselves in the wider international context, and this might be enough for the former not to take place.

I have heard of them, and I know a little bit about the US Israel lobby, but it has never been entirely clear to me what the United States gets in return for billions of dollars in yearly 'financial aid' and unconditional military support.

Election politics would be a decent explanation, were it not for the fact that this policy is basically bipartisan and criticism by politicians from either side never amounts to any action.

Nothing says "moral high ground" like weeks of indiscriminate bombing, targetting civilians, wounded and medical personnel alike.

Al-Shifa: Israel admits airstrike on ambulance near hospital

The blatant disregard for humanity is appalling.

What's perhaps worse is the complete inability of the Biden White House to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to stop its abhorrent practice. It seems content with virtue-signaling rhetoric while in fact doing absolutely nothing.

One cannot help but wonder what kind of leverage the Israel lobby has for this to be the case.

Or is it simply election politics?

This is a pointless way of discussing the issue.

Moral acts are done by moral actors. Abstractions like Allies / Axis are not moral actors.

But if we ignore that, looking for a moral high ground in something as awful as war is pointless too. Both sides participated in war crimes and the industrialized killing of millions. Both sides were irredeemable from any moral point of view.

Ok, if that is the case, then both sides can be considered "genocidal" in their intentions. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but I'm not sure if being equated to a terrorist organisation is going to help the Israeli government's case.

But if we start throwing around terms that matter because of their intent, ... — schopenhauer1

Israel has a history of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and other human rights violations that skirt the lines of genocide. We see the intent put into practice on a large scale.

it makes a huge difference, because it's evidence of the claim. — flannel jesus

Evidence? You mean like Israeli politicians admitting intent, and decades of Israeli policy we can fall back on?

It's an open and shut case.

You now don't know what a lie is. Super. I can't be sure there are other minds than mine either. This isn't a profound observation. It's just nonsense. — Hanover

If you're going to argue a moral obligation exists to tell the truth, you had better be able to delineate exactly what truth is. And obviously you can't - no one can.

That's not nonsense. That's a massive hole in your argument which you're trying to disguise by posturing and indignation. Seen it all before.

Your sentence could end with the words "to others," meaning how you treat others matters for ethical analysis, including whether you watch them suffer while you stand idly by. — Hanover

This is an inaccurate representation of cause and effect.

When a man drowns, it is not the uninvolved person who remains uninvolved that made him drown.

You said there is no ethical problem with watching a child get raped while eating a bowl of popcorn. If you do that from time to time, you would only be ethically bankrupt if that was unethical, but you've told me it's not. — Hanover

Yet here you are, doing the equivalent of eating popcorn while people are starving.

You've yet to give me any reasoning for why that would be ok, other than alluding to there being some fundamental difference which you have yet to present.

Also, what is with the preoccupation with children being harmed? Having to resort to extremes doesn't speak in favor of your argument, and it's unsavory.

Like I said, maintain some class. It's possible for people to disagree and remain civil.

It has to do with providing public safety. — Hanover

Oh?

The truth is I don't think you think that, which means I don't take your position seriously. It's nonsense. — Hanover

I also don't believe you don't care if your community has law enforcement. — Hanover

Your arguments aren't persuasive, believable, or even intriguing. — Hanover

Yet here you are.

The truth is, I think you're trying to find excuses not to deal with the problems in your reasoning as I have pointed them out, and you are now clutching at straws.

Customs arise from what works in a society. — Vera Mont

Sure. I don't see how that is remotely connected to questions about morality, though.

People have silly ideas about what makes their society 'work' all the time.

Obligation can never extend beyond ability. — Vera Mont

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I think people take up responsibilities that they cannot fulfill all the time. Taking up responsibilities (and thus moral obligations) that exceed one's ability is just a terribly unwise thing to do.

Imagine I were to find a job as a lifeguard, but I myself am unable to swim. Obviously I have taken upon myself a moral obligation to save people from drowning, yet fulfilling it is something I can never do.

Expressing any opinion about right and good is automatically bad and dishonest. — Vera Mont

Well no, that's obviously not what I meant.

My problem is when people put forward standards for moral behavior with which they judge others, while simultaneously refusing to walk the talk themselves. That's hypocritical, and usually little more than empty virtue-signaling, ergo stroking of the ego.

What a complete stinker Plato must have been! — Vera Mont

I like Plato. :blush:

Yet they have (large) increase in population, so it’s a highly unnsuccessful one? — schopenhauer1

I don't see how that makes any difference.

'Ethnic cleansing' seems more apt than genocide. — bert1

It is probably both.

Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately put in place to make life impossible for the Palestinians living there.

It's not hard to see how purposefully creating terrible living conditions can be seen as an active attempt to destroy a population, prevent births and be a form of physical and psychological torture.

It also doesn't help that there are plenty of Israeli politicians blatantly stating that destroying the Palestinians is what they intend to do.

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Netanyahu called the Palestinians 'Amalekites' in a speech some days ago.

A quick reminder of who the Amalekites were:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. — 1 Samuel 15:3

And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. — 1 Samuel 15:8

Biden administration thinks Netanyahu may not last politically

More news articles are appearing about the relationship between Netanyahu and the Biden administration.

If the administration can put its foot down and pressure Netanyahu into resiging, that would be a big step in the right direction - probably enough to prevent an escalation of the conflict. Perhaps it would be enough to cause a shift in Israeli politics.

Netanyahu is politically finished anyway, and the question is whether he leaves now or after the conflict escalates and the massive war that would ensue.

A US administration pressuring what is essentially regime change in Israel is unheard of though (is it?), and the domestic pressure on the administration will be enormous. But we're living in unprecedented times so who knows?

You have no moral obligation to me to tell the truth? — Hanover

Given the limited access people have to 'the truth', what would such a moral obligation even look like? Does answering "I don't know" to every question fulfill the obligation? It would be truthful.

But keep in mind that 'telling the truth' is an action one undertakes, and as I said one bears responsibility for their own actions.

If you see no difference between me sitting on a chair eating popcorn while watching a child slowly die from a fall off a swing and me not flying to Ethiopia to make a meal for a starving child in terms of ethical analysis, then I can't help you. — Hanover

There's a difference. It's just not a relevant one.

I also don't think anyone within your community will find your response to watching the baby slowly die very persusive when you tell them they are just as bad as you are because they haven't solved the world hunger problem. The reason they will think you are an unethical person is because you would be, [...] — Hanover

I don't see how people's opinions are all that relevant to a discussion about morality. People used to believe witch hunts were moral.

I'm also not sure why you are so keen on making this personal. The question isn't about what I would do, but about how I would judge someone who chooses not to get involved.

Unless the moral obligation is does not include the requirement we must "make every effort to fulfill them." — Hanover

Sure. That's the point of a moral obligation. Shouldn't I make every effort to fulfill your supposed moral obligation of having to save the drowning man?

Or do I get to choose how much effort I put in, and am I free to choose no effort at all?

The rule that I must give to charity can be qualified howerver we determine that moral rule to be, which might be 10%, it might be a certain percentage of discretionary income, it might be limited to helping others after other duties (including those to one's self) are fulfilled. — Hanover

"Morality is whatever we want it to be." - I'm not convinced.

Your approach to append an impossible standard on the rule is what makes it impossible, ... — Hanover

The impossible standard is inherent to the moral obligation(s) you're proposing. That's what I am objecting to.

Your proposed solution is cherry-picking. Not very convincing either.

Your system does provide you a convenient way to absolve yourself of all societal responsiblity and to live as selfishly as possible, so it does have that advantage, ... — Hanover

Why would that be an advantage?

It's rather typical that you've been trying to frame me as being selfish when nothing we've discussed has anything to do with how I conduct myself.

Maintain a bit of class. Assuming the other side is morally bankrupt is intellectual poverty.

Since you don't think you have a duty to interfere in a child rapist's activities in the bathroom stall next to you, does anyone other than that child's parents have that right? I mean, why should society provide police and prosecutors to interfere in such conduct and impose upon themselves the rights and duties associated with that? — Hanover

Individuals who join the police force accept the responsibility that comes with that. So I'd say they can no longer choose not to get involved.

Why society should provide police forces and prosecutors? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't really care either way.

What is your basis for this rule you just made up? — Hanover

People are responsible for their actions, so they are responsible for their children, so they have moral obligations towards their children.

No you didn't. You just stated people don't have duties outside their own children, which is just a restatement of your thesis, not a basis for your position. — Hanover

I believe people have a right not to get involved, because without such a right a system of morality simply cannot make sense.

That I can't do everything doesn't mean I am free to do nothing. — Hanover

The ethic you're advancing, which is that we must do everything we can to eliminate all suffering to the greatest extent humanely possible, is not an ethic I subscribe to, nor one that anyone I know does. That is to say, you're presenting a strawman. — Hanover

You believe it is unacceptable to let a drowning man drown. Why do you believe it is acceptable to let people in the third world starve?

This cherry-picking is inherent to your view. You find inaction in one instance abhorrent, and don't bat an eye at the second. It's inconsistent, and your indignation hypocritical.

My view accounts for this, by allowing one to freely choose what acts of charity one does and doesn't get involved in.

Charity is a free and selfless act. A moral obligation is not.

If I am coerced to tell the truth, I am not ethical, even though it was my obligation. — Hanover

I'm assuming you meant 'unethical'?

The difference between moral obligation and legal obligation is precisely that the former is not coerced and the latter is. — Vera Mont

I disagree.

As I said to Hanover, there is something at stake when we speak of moral obligations: one's moral integrity. To many people that matters a great deal, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The threat is clearly there - the threat of being judged an immoral person.

In case one's moral system is derived from religion, the threat is even more overt - the threat of divine punishment.

Moral obligation is part of the unwritten social contract, ... — Vera Mont

In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative.

Personally, I think social customs tell us very little about morality.

As to whether that obligation extends to people other than one's own family, community or nation, that is a matter of individual world-view. — Vera Mont

Well, no.

One may believe they have all sorts of moral obligations to their nation, or even the entire world. But this is nonsensical, because such obligations one cannot fulfill.

People who claim they have moral obligations and subsequently are not making every effort to fulfill them are just fooling themselves, in my opinion.

Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves to claim they have such lofty ambitions towards the Good, but I view it as empty virtue-signaling. Even worse when they use such so-called "obligations" to judge others.

If the logic in that sentence sounds threatening to you, then draw your conclusions, I suppose. It's the logic being forwarded by the Israeli government and its supporters.

I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that such rhetoric can easily be turned around to justify the killing of Israeli civilians.

What is it about parental duty that makes it subject to a differing sort of analysis than neighborly duty? — Hanover

One carries responsibility for their child. Not for their neighbor, at least not by default.

And the same towards one's duties towards other children. — Hanover

Other children are not one's responsibility, unless one has voluntarily taken up responsibility to care for them.

In other words, voluntarily taking up responsibilities might incur moral obligations.

My question is whether you have a moral duty to do anything at all when you hear a child being raped in the bathroom stall next to you. Yes or no? — Hanover

No. It might be a moral good, but it is not a moral obligation. I have already given my objections for why I believe that is.

You are currently aware that many people are suffering in the world, yet you choose inaction towards the vast majority of them. Now you point at a specific instance of suffering and claim that inaction is impermissible. I don't see the basis for it. It seems hypocritical.

This does not draw a distinction between charity and moral obligation. This draws a distinction between voluntary and coerced.

If I perform an ethical act, like telling the truth, that act is ethical if it is "voluntary," but the opposite of voluntary is "coerced." The opposite of coerced is discretionary. So, if I tell the truth with a gun to my head and under such duress that it can be said that I have been relinquished of my free will, so much so that the act is no longer something you will judge me moral or not, then I cannot be said to be moral when I told the truth. The opposite holds true as well, meaning if I lie under the same sort of duress, I would be morally excused from that conduct because it was not the result of my free will.

That I am "obligated" to do something does not mean I have been coerced into doing it. I am obligated to stop at stop signs, but maybe sometimes I don't. When I don't, it has nothing to do with my being coerced to run the stop sign. It might just be that sometimes I choose to be disobedient. The point being, I have the discretion to run the stop sign or not, but I am obligated to stop there, but when I do stop, it is not the result from a loss of free will coercing me to do as I must.

As it pertains to morality, I am morally obligated to tell the truth. That is what I must do to be a moral person. It is no coincidence that the ten commandments are commandments, meaning they are obligatory. They are not general guidelines to think about. Kant refers to his standard as the catagorical imparitive. That is, it is what must be done. This is not to say you lack the ability and discretion to do otherwise. In fact, the ability to do otherwise is what makes matters subject to ethical evaluation. If I had no ability but to tell the truth, then I would not be ethical when I told the truth. I'd just be a machine. — Hanover

Obligation clearly implies coercion - the threat is that of not being an ethical person, which to a lot of people matters a great deal.

A lot of people busying this type of rhetoric now. Making comparisons to WW2, stating that there is no limit to the amount of civilian deaths that should be accepted, etc.

What this implies is that the conflict in Gaza should be fought according to the same principles WW2 was fought: total war.

I'm sure these lowbrow demagogues think that sounds like an awful 'cool' thing to say - at least while they feel like they're in control.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles.

Your objection was that there was no obligation to help others because I couldn't quantify the extent of that obligation. — Hanover

I simply asked you to quantify the obligation, which you couldn't. Your defense was, 'just because I cannot quantify it, doesn't mean it's not a moral obligation'. Well, if you cannot quantify what you consider to be moral obligations, then I cannot take them seriously.

You now claim there will be no difficulty in quantifying one's obligations to one's own children because, well, that's just easily done. — Hanover

I never said it was easily done, but in the case of parenthood I think it's quite realistic.

My response is that it is no harder or easier to quantify one's obligations to one's own children as it is to others. — Hanover

I disagree. Since one's children are born of one's own actions, one is responsible for them. Responsibility, in my view, is a critical component for moral obligations, I'd say almost obviously so.

Since you've now said I do have an obligation to my own children, I suppose I'm immoral because right this second, I'm doing nothing for them. — Hanover

I wouldn't suppose that. It's quite possible for one to do their moral duties in regards to their children without being occupied 100% of the time.

I highly doubt it would be possible for one to fulfill their moral duties to all children without being occupied 100% of the time. In fact, it's clearly impossible to fulfill such a supposed moral duty.

I simply come up with what I think is reasonable for the respective children. — Hanover

Yes, as does everyone. But what you think is reasonable is not a basis for a moral obligation, assuming you mean with moral obligation something along the lines of 'something everybody should always adhere to'.

You may wish to say that the person who passes by the drowning child without simply bending down to lift him up is ethically neutral, but I don't. I think that person sucks as a human being and is unethical. I recall a case where a man heard a child being raped in the bathroom stall next to him and insisted he was under no duty to do anything at all. Maybe you would see a horrible wreck on an otherwise deserted road and feel no obligation to make an emergency call and then drive home and snuggle up in your bed without any worry about your ethical decision. If that is you, and I really doubt it is, then you are an unethical person. — Hanover

What this seems to imply is that awareness of some perceived harm produces a moral duty to alleviate said harm. This produces once again a supposed moral duty that's impossible to fulfill.

You are aware of a lot of harm being done right now, so why aren't you doing your moral duty? Every moment that goes by, you are the person who is passing the drowning child and refusing to undertake the actions required to stop them from drowning.

All you're doing is pointing at a specific instance of refusing to get involved and calling it unethical, when in fact one is doing the exact same thing in less obvious ways.

Perhaps a fair question one could ask the person who refuses to do good when it seems 'easy' is why one would pass up on such a great opportunity to do a good deed.

The best I can discern from what you've written is that you want to limit communal concern to the greatest extent possible and insist that each family unit is entirely responsible for their existence without any expectation from anyone not within their direct blood line. It has this hyper-tribal Randian feel to it, but it's too unworkable to be taken seriously. — Hanover

I guess you'll have to try harder then, because I see nothing in this paragraph that remotely connects to my views.


Lastly, I'd like to mention a comment made earlier, which I believe gets at a crucial difference between charity and moral obligation:

Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax. — LuckyR

When I undertake an act of charity, I do so out of a desire to do good. Not out of fear of being unethical.

They started to use their propaganda to brainwash the people. — javi2541997

This propaganda is age-old. The problem for Israel is that no one is believing their bullshit anymore, and the world is now rallying against it and the United States.

I've heard several analysts claim that unless a cease-fire is put into action, multiple actors are gearing up to join the war on Friday (a prayer day for Muslims). Among them Iran.

Wearing the symbol of victims of the holocaust while engaging in genocidal crimes against civilians in Gaza. Shameless and vomit-inducing.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that Hamas is directly funded and operated by a secret branch of the Israeli government for obvious reasons. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's pretty much an accepted fact that the Netanyahu government at various points in time supported Hamas in order to disenfranchise the more moderate elements within Palestine.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz even calls it the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance'.

But I think this is a classic example of 'feeding the beast', only for it to turn on you. US and Israeli Middle-East policy is rampacked with examples like this.

Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda - I could go on. There's scarcely an extremist group in the Middle-East that doesn't have Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints all over it. Even modern-day Iran is a direct result of continuous divide & conquer strategy to keep the Persian Gulf weak (and thus easily influenced by the US for oil).

The problem for Israel now is that much of the Middle-East seems to have caught on to this pattern. In fact, one could argue the whole world is catching on to this.

You seem to believe you have a moral obligation to save children. Well, there is no shortage of children in need. Why aren't you saving them right now? It seems to me you're neglecting your moral obligation/duty.

Unless you're able to detail said obligations and duties, it follows that every moment you spend doing something else, you're neglecting them. I'm open to hearing why charity should be a moral obligation. By asking for details I'm trying to coax this thread into producing something worthy of discussion.

Personally, I don't believe a moral obligation for charity exists. Pursuing charity as an obligation simply encourages behavior that I would call 'naive do-goodery' - actions with the right intention but lacking wisdom.

That is, I have a moral obligation to care for the children I bring into this world, but because that obligation lacks a specific checklist doesn't allow me to walk away without effort. — Hanover

I'd agree with that, but the key word here is responsibility. One is responsible for bringing a child into this world, therefore moral obligations may follow from that, and I do believe we could come up with a pretty exhaustive checklist of what that obligation (parenthood) entails.

To loop it back to my first point, we have limited the moral obligation of 'saving children' to 'saving one's own children' - already a lot more reasonable.

None of this is to say that it cannot be moral to save children. If one is successful, then one has obviously done a good deed. It's the obligatory part that I take issue with.

And I also believe people have a right to remain uninvolved, which ultimately means that there is no obligation to save a stranger from drowning, but why one would do that is another question.

That you can't pinpoint the precise amount you might be required to love your neighbor as yourself doesn't mean you are fine to avoid it. — Hanover

If one cannot pinpoint it (or at least give an exhaustive explanation), they have no business calling it a moral obligation. That was my point.

A common idea running throughout this thread is that charity doesn't work, so why give it at all if all you're doing is temporarily postponing the inevitable. I'd just say that because we can't cure the problem is not a reason not to reduce the problem. If we can reduce a person's suffering on Monday only for him to die on Tuesday, I'd think we would be obligated to do that, especially considering how precious and sacred that Monday was, it being his last day. — Hanover

I would fundamentally disagree with calling that an obligation.

A person has a right to remain uninvolved.

If not, how come you are here writing posts on a philosophy forum rather than fulfilling your moral obligation of helping people who are suffering? There's no shortage of the latter.