What are in your eyes some clear indications of China's power in the Ukraine conflict? And in a similar vein, what are in your view some clear indications of Russia's "future submission" to China?

Any specific events in which the Chinese influenced the war in Ukraine to their benefit? Or events in which Russia was made to serve Chinese interests as an indicator of China's influence over Russia?

I think the most significant player on the scene now is neither the US nor Russia. It's China. — frank

I disagree, but I would like to hear what you believe China's contribution to this conflict is, that warrants being called the most significant player on the scene.

What I think is important for Europeans and Ukrainians to consider, is that the more adversarial our stance towards Russia becomes, the greater their territorial ambitions will become.

A lot of the political situation we see in Eastern Europe today is a result of a past mutual understanding between NATO and Russia. This included Ukraine's independence, and for example political anomalies like Kaliningrad and Transnistria.

If these mutual understandings disintegrate further, these situations will become new hotbeds for conflict.

I'm quite convinced that Russia will seek to connect to Transnistria if some form of agreement cannot be reached in Ukraine.

A future invasion of Lithuania to connect to Kaliningrad is also not unthinkable.

I doubt the Russians would voluntarily initiate such hostilities, but if relations with the West become highly adversarial they will likely feel like they have no other options, which is essentially what happened in Ukraine.

The idea that if we just push hard enough the Russians will back down is in my opinion a foolish and very dangerous misunderstanding.

However, this contradicts the apparent policy to prop up Ukraine as long as possible without ever negotiating. — boethius

Well, the people in the Pentagon aren't dummies either. My guess is by now they have fully realized Russia's plans to take it as slowly as it needs to in order to avoid an insurgency. Perhaps the Pentagon even understood this before the war fully got underway. If we can conceive of these ideas, so can they.

If they knew Russia was going for a 'bite-sized chunks' approach, then they don't have to do much in order for Ukraine to hold out for a long time, since it's already baked into the Russian strategy. I imagine the pacification of the occupied areas may take months, perhaps even years.

Additionally, for all we know the Russians may not desire any more land beyond what they have occupied now, at which point any further support for Ukraine would be pointless.


So I think the view I've shared fits very neatly into this picture of the Pentagon not seemingly overly fussed about supporting Ukraine, even in terms of bare necessities like ammunition.

The western strategy so far seems more preoccupied with public opinion and appearances than it is with the actual situation on the battlefield.

I agree that there was never a plan to occupy more territory than the Russian speaking regions they currently have, but I'd also agree with ssu that plan A was a negotiated resolution with Kiev. The purpose of encircling Kiev to bring the war to the capital and put the diplomatic pressure for a negotiation, and if not, then it occupies the large majority of Ukrainian forces (i.e. is also a giant fixing operation, as the capital is always the priority) while the Southern regions are occupied and pacified. — boethius

I don't want to toot my own horn, but the advance on Kiev having been a dual-purpose operation is a theory I've been sharing here for close to a year now. (And I still believe it is true, so we're in agreement there).

I'm glad more people are starting to see it that way, since initially it was met with a lot of skepticism.

While it seems clear the goal is to prop up Ukraine and never negotiate, the commitment to that long term seems low, as ramping up production of munitions doesn't happen and sooner the better and simply maintaining the status quo on the front requires constant supply of munitions.

There's report now of batteries simply running out of shells and having no resupply for days, and very little when it comes in. One counter narrative is the shells are being saved for the big counter offensive, which I guess is possible but is still not a good position to be in.

It seems to just be taken for granted by Western powers that they can't produce all that many shells.

This whole running low of ammunition is honestly a confusing part of the situation. It doesn't seem possible as an oversight, and that it's industrially impossible for the entire West to produce more shells seems implausible, and if it's a deliberate decision then it's difficult to make sense of. If it's policy, then my best guess is that it was calculated that Ukraine simply cannot sustain their operation beyond a certain date (in terms of casualties and all sorts of other supplies such as AA missiles) and there was therefore no use in increasing production of shells. Or then maybe it's all a ruse. — boethius

My guess is that the situation is a lot more dire than western sources are letting on, and that even copious amounts of ammunition would not make any significant difference on the battlefield.

A lot of folks seem to believe the Ukrainian forces have "ground the Russians to a halt", but I think that's wrong.

I think the Russians have for the most part stopped pushing for territory, and are now consolidating what they have taken.

This was likely their plan from the start, since the threat of a Ukrainian insurgency was ever-present, and taking too much territory that they couldn't effectively control and pacify would be a guarantee for such an insurgency to materialize. A while back I shared a CSIS panel discussion in which the panelists outright stated that is what they (the Americans) could and would do. The person from the panel who claimed this apparently played a major role in the American-led insurgency against the Russians in Afghanistan.

When/if the Russians will at some point in the future seek to take more territory from Ukraine probably depends on multiple factors, the most important of which is whether the West can be made to acknowledge Russian security concerns vis-à-vis Ukraine.

If the West refuses, either because the US strongarms the EU, or because the EU remains ignorant, likely more Russian aggression will follow. Though even then it remains to be seen whether their aim is to take all of Ukraine, or only those areas which are strategically relevant - it's even possible that what they hold now is all they intend to take.

Note that the US doesn't care about instability in Eastern Europe - it in fact believes it to be instrumental to their goals among which are unity and remilitarization of Europe. Ironically, Europe seems to be the key to peace.

If you're interested in this kind of thing - human peak experiences and how they relate to reality, metaphysics, etc., I would highly suggest getting into Plato and the Neoplatonists.

They essentially sought to explore and understand the peak experience without the religious hooey.

Macron on Taiwan: 'An ally not a vassal', says France leader

Not directly linked to the Ukraine war, but since Europe's position of subservience towards the US has been discussed here many times, I thought I'd share it anyway.

Can we finally expect to see Europe steer a more independent course? What possible consequences could that have for Europe's involvement in Ukraine?

For anything substantial to happen, Germany would also need to be on board, and it still suffers under a weak leader.

My guess is that the "fake reality" dimension of AI will result in people no longer trusting anything they see or hear in media, which I would say is already increasingly the case anyway.

What I find more worrying is the mass surveillance aspect, which, if we are to believe the video, will be able to monitor every aspect of our being and process and use that information, likely for goals which aren't in the common man's best interest.

That power will then inevitably end up in the hands of the Trumps, the Putins, the Xi Jinpings, the BlackRocks, the Vanguards, (etc.) of this world, who have already shown to possess no moral compass to counterbalance their allotted power.

That's why I called it a human problem (and not a technological one, or even one unique to AI). The main danger of AI is the prospect of its potential falling in the hands of the wrong people. And given the fact that the entire world is ruled by "the wrong people", it's basically guaranteed that it will.

Interesting video.

The one thing that always comes up to me with these sorts of videos, is that we're fundamentally looking at a human problem.

As always, the driving force behind the malignant effects of this is human competition, and human competition tends to work in such a way that whoever throws overboard the most moral boundaries will come out "on top". (In Hades, at least)

That's why when "civilized" nations go to war, their behavior will rapidly deteriorate into brutish savagery, regardless of whether they intended to. It's a natural tendency.

And for AI to become extremely problematic will be just as unavoidable, as long as there are individuals interested to exploit it in order to make their way up the dung pile.

Unless mom decides she's willing to lay down her life for the 20 yo, it's going to be mom.

Upon deliberation I don't think it's much of an ethical dilemma, though.

Saving someone's life is a good thing, regardless of whose life you save. You're not responsible for the death of the person who dies, so it's hard to imagine how the chooser's moral fibre is at stake in any way.

With that ↑ out of the way, what's an appropriate response to something like the Halabja massacre? — jorndoe

If the US government or the West in general truly cared about human rights violations and war crimes they wouldn't have to look very far.

What's the appropriate response to the United States' elaborate torture programs ala Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib? Or the indiscriminate killings that have been constant in every American war against third-world countries? What about chemical warfare against the Vietnamese people, where to this day deformed babies are born as a result of the attacks?


The appropriate response certainly isn't sheepish silence, or to look the other way and only address these issues when they suit one's agenda.

Trying to sweep fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships under the carpet by labeling them as part of "hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead" is beyond disgusting. — neomac

What a joke.

:vomit:

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans). — neomac

People always seem to miss this. — RogueAI

Trying to sweep hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead under the carpet by labeling them as part of "regimes and dictatorships" is beyond disgusting.

Hard to believe people on a philosophy forum would take such a stance.

1) Will the governments be responsible for this negligence?
2) Will AstraZeneca pay the price for these issues? — javi2541997

I suspect that the producers of the vaccines have signed agreements that make them non-liable in case the risks they knew might be present turned out to be significant.

As for the governments themselves being held responsible - a part of me doubts it, because the people responsible are in many places still in power today. Things like these have a tendency to only be resolved years, even decades after the fact.

AstraZeneca has been banned in Australia due to causing severe, sometimes deadly, side-effects.

Considering a lot of people were misinformed about the risks of vaccination, and in some countries people were put under heavy societal pressure to take the vaccine against their will, at what point are we going to start calling this for what it is: murder.

Well, what had you expected the Russian reaction would be to a hostile military alliance marching up to their border?

We in the West might have a view of NATO and the US as benign powers, but the rest of the world doesn't share that view.

The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries.

It seems to me for a lot of people this war has become about Putin. It has become about a person, therefore personal, and therefore emotional. My impression is that this "personalization" happened intentionally by Western media to whip up enthousiasm for support of the war.

The idea of "Putin winning" is something that's hard to stomach, which is why people have become invested in a Ukrainian victory to a degree that is no longer rational, and, in my opinion, cannot be morally defended by people who do not bear the cost of war.

The West needs to make up its mind. Either we are committed to a Ukrainian victory and we send our own troops to fight, or we make efforts towards a cease fire and peace negotiations as soon as possible. We shouldn't be in this questionable situation in which we cheer on the Ukrainians to sacrifice more lives for a lost cause.

“Just asked a question.” Yes, the question every NRA member, bought politician, and gun not happen to raise every time gun control is brought up. If that’s “conspicuously absent,” you’re living in complete ignorance. — Mikie

You're unhinged.

If you have been paying attention to what he has actually said I find this accusation incomprehensible. — Fooloso4

I think if you had paid attention then the thin-veiled contempt wouldn't have gone over your head.

This is essentially the problem with modern politics in a nutshell. the only reason you don't want to talk about mental health is because that what the NRA (the baddies) talk about so that means you mustn't. — Isaac

This hits the nail on the head, really.

But you have an interest in American mental health huh? — Mikie

Sure. Psychology has always been an interest of mine.

Given this, a truly impartial observer’s first question would be, “Why does America have so many mass shootings?” — Mikie

Well, I never claimed I was a "truly impartial observer" - I just asked a question about mental health and why the subject seemed always conspicuously absent from these discussions, and was treated to your tirades.

Besides, why are you concerning yourself with what kind of questions I "should" be asking?

If you're not interested in what I bring to the discussion, no one is forcing you to reply.

It's a bit ironic you aim your accusations of insincerity at me.

You’re right, it’s just a complete coincidence that someone who continuously spews libertarian ideology just happens to want to talk about the “mental health” factor on a thread about gun control. — Mikie

I don't have particularly strong opinions on gun control in America, since I don't live in America.

How exactly are concerns over mental health incompatible with libertarianism again?

Given what I know about Tzeentch, it’s no coincidence that this is the angle he wants to emphasize. — Mikie

Go on then, what do you believe that you know about me? :chin:

If you have no ideas on this issue, then stop with the NRA diversions. Not interested. — Mikie

It's funny you're reacting with such hostility to the suggestion that mental health is an important aspect to this problem.

Top-notch tribalism.

Carry on.

But “illegalizing” drugs does work in some cases. I don’t hear about many Quaalude addictions anymore… — Mikie

It works against specific drugs, but because the root causes aren't addressed it's a matter of time before the next one comes along. The problem never truly gets solved.

A flawed example, of course, because it's harder to get fentanyl than it is to buy an assault weapon. — Mikie

It's a flawed example because illegalizing drugs has not led to a decrease in drug use, and it can even be argued it led to the creation of ever more deadly drugs.

(If you meant literally fentanyl, which was only an example, it's still being smuggled in illegally to the US from China through Mexico, so the amount is still quite abundant in the US.) — Mikie

A pretty poor example, then.

Especially, since the "war on drugs" is a great example of how ignoring root causes impedes the solving of the problem.

If fentanyl deaths skyrocketed in country Z, and it turned out country Z was an outlier not in drug use but in the amount of, and ease of access to, fentanyl -- then call me crazy, but my first priority would not be to discuss the prevalence of substance abuse. It would be to restrict the amount of, and ease of access to, fentanyl. — Mikie

How has that approach been working out?

The same people who argue for more guns also argue against medicare-for-all and other programs that would help people, so pretending to care about "mental health" is laughable coming from them. — Mikie

Well, so far you haven't shown a great deal of interest in the iceberg of suffering that underlies these killings either.

Carry on.

You may take the guns away, but the mental health problems will remain.

But I guess that's just a "NRA talking point".

Perhaps if guns were banned and a sharp rise in school stabbings was observed, it would get people's heads out of the sand, hm?

Because mental illness implies a lack of agency, that the shooter doesn’t know what s/he is doing. Most of these acts, the shooter knows damn well what they’re doing. — Wayfarer

Suppose a child is neglected or abused at home, bullied at school and implicitly told by society that this makes them worthless. That child (or young adult) then goes to commit a mass shooting.

No mental illness, but full agency and "just evil"?

To argue it’s because we have a greater rate of mental health issues is factually incorrect. — Mikie

I never argued it was about the rates. Different types of mental illness manifest in different parts of the world, often relating to their culture. Think for example of Japanese "honor culture" and the effect it has had on mental health there.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun. — Mikie

Sounds like there's something "under the skin" in China, doesn't it?

And as an outsider looking in, it seems like there's something "under the skin" in America too.

It’s certainly important to consider why people do what they do, but it’s also important to consider what enables them to do what they do. — Michael

Guns certainly don't help in making these tragedies less deadly. That's for sure.

But is there more resentment and hatred in Americans than in, say, Brits? — Michael

That's the question, isn't it?

If the answer were no, wouldn't we expect to see similar events carried out with other weapons happening in the UK? People have committed massacres with common household objects like kitchen knives. Stomach churning to think about it, but alas there it is...

The Nashville shooter is 28. "Kids" aren't committing the vast majority of these mass murders. Adults are. Stop making stuff up. — Baden

Had you made the minimal effort to read the discussion you were interjecting yourself into, you would have seen what I had said about it earlier:

I don't live in America, but is the question as to why children (or in this case a young adult) are committing mass murders ever raised? Because I always find that conspicuously absent from any discussion. — Tzeentch

got it right. I was talking primarily about school shootings, but obviously similarly motivated mass murders can be viewed through the mental health lens as well.

The thing with children committing these acts is that it shows how early the cart has gone completely off the rails. When it's an adult we can easily attribute it to their individual "messed up nature", while with kids it's a lot more complicated. They aren't fully responsible for their actions.

Another is that there is something almost unique about US culture and upbringing that people are “naturally” more violent than in more civilised countries. — Michael

An option worth investigating, don't you think?

And I don't think the keyword is "violence" here.

I believe what drives actions like these is an incredible resentment, hatred, a desire for revenge, etc.

Is no one but me interested in what exactly causes such an amount of hate to manifest in relatively young children?

That's not normal where I'm from.

Plenty to say about mental health, but this is not a mental health issue, ... — Mikie

You don't think kids committing mass murders is a mental health issue?

Ok then.

I don't live in America, but is the question as to why children (or in this case a young adult) are committing mass murders ever raised? Because I always find that conspicuously absent from any discussion.

Or is the idea that children want to commit mass murders becoming as commonly accepted as the idea that school shootings "sometimes happen"?

I'm just saying, if your young'uns are massacring each other with assault rifles, your gun legislation is not the only thing that's rotten.

There really is a sickness deep in the soul of America. Actually, no, 'sickness' is the wrong word. I guess the right word is 'evil'. — Wayfarer

Why evil, and not mental sickness?

No one will agree on any form. — schopenhauer1

Why not? Don't people voluntarily agree on ways to coexist all the time?

States just aren't a useful way of reaching such voluntarily agreements, because they're inherently predicated on coercion. This is also why I believe attempts to instrumentalize the state for ethical ends is a flawed endeavor.

What about the people who do not have children, though? Perhaps I should have specified better, but this is the group that in my view is subjected to collective punishment, because they haven't done anything wrong and yet are forced to pay.

I posit that an individual forcing someone into existence, while a personal ethic, is also committing a political action because they are force "endorsing" the child to become part of a larger social contract of the society simultaneously. — schopenhauer1

Definitely agree there.

It's hard to view retributive justice as something ethical. Retributive justice serves in the first place a pratical purpose: if victims is not satisfied with the verdict, they will be more likely to circumvent the justice system and take matters into their own hands. There is also a deterring element to it.

The way you're framing it, it also sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, in which people are punished for crimes (or moral slights) they did not commit.