Then why are so many try to emigrate there, or in Europe? — Olivier5

Because America itself is the place least under America's boot, obviously.

Fuck up everywhere else on the planet, then when those populations come fleeing to the one place you haven't completely fucked you say "why would they all come here if we're so bad?"

An argument that would be laughed off the page if it wasn't for people willing to repeat it.

why do you think Algeria was in such a shitty position to begin with? Well, because it had been plundered and turned to shit by the countrymen of a certain poster here. Everything follows from that. — Streetlight

I think this idea is central to the way this topic is being discussed. Western powers have so much blood on their hands from colonialism onward that they are permanently stained by it. If they were now some third world states with an unfortunate past, we might live and let live - mistakes were made but everybody who made them is dead now. But they're not. They're the wealthiest, most powerful nations on earth - an earth containing 800 million starving people. It's not complicated morality to say that if you've benefited from the impoverishment of other countries you owe them a debt until the field is levelled again.

The unwillingness to look into the historical causes of any situation, like Ukraine, was, of course, always solely to do with this unwillingness to confront the extent to which the wealth and power of today were built on the flagrant abuse of the past. What's particularly insidious this time is the effort to literally wipe that history from the debate. I think the combination of an easy cartoon villain, an oven-ready non-American hero, and the new language of dis- and mis- information have presented an opportunity to create a dangerous new narrative which says "all that's in the past now, the reality is a new fight of good vs evil and you must pick a side" where 'picking a side' involves absolving the 'goodies' of all their past wrongs (and letting them keep all the wealth and power they thereby gained in the process).

It's insidious because the framing of good vs evil attaches atonement for the past crimes of imperialism (even up to crimes of last week, yesterday, just now...) to one of only two mutually exclusive positions, the other of which is 'evil'. We can see that framing all over the rhetoric used here.

Yet the only reasonable answer to the complaint that "Oh it's always about the US, the west, capitalism..." is "Yes". It is always about the US, the West and capitalism.

It's just usually that when you don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments, some people then resort to ad hominems. — ssu

Take a look back at the posts of @Olivier5 (the person to whom you are replying here) and @Christoffer, and no few of your own, and tell me seriously if you still want to stand by the whole 'ad hominem=nothing to say' theory. Shall I quote them for you?

They made it clear from the start that they are not interested in the actual topic, and instead want continue to talk about what they talk about in every other political thread: the villainy of US, the evils of capitalism, etc. — SophistiCat

The 'topic' is the Ukraine crisis. Says it right at the top of the page. It's not 'how bad do we think Putin is', nor is it 'who's winning right now'.

The Ukraine crisis is a complex geopolitical situation involving more than two parties. Even at the most superficial level possible the US are involved in arming Ukraine. At the level of basic adult conversation we'd accept that Ukraine's propaganda war is being fought substantially in Western countries, largely for the purposes of securing military aid...

Then there's the terms of the American and European loans, the extent to which NATO figures in Putin's address, the fact the the whole war started (back in 2014) as a conflict in Ukraine between support for Russia and support for Europe, the fact that the US were involved in that initiating event, and the degree to which that figures in Putin's propaganda.

All this is simply the facts of the case prior to any opinion about it.

To say that America and Europe are not part of the "actual topic" is itself a political opinion within the topic. All you're trying to do here is make political opinions you personally don't like seem as if they don't deserve to be discussed. It's a pathetic ruse which undermines the power of this exact tool for political opinions which do, in fact, not deserve to be discussed (like Nazism).

The vast majority of people would never have heard of Ukraine if all that happened was what's happening in Somalia. — Baden

That's kind of the point. 4,000 Ukrainians killed since the war began (UN figures). 350,000 children on the point of starvation in Somalia (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs figures) - 258,000 died in the same conditions in 2011, so it's no exaggeration. They're asking for $1.42 billion, a fraction of what the US alone has spent on Ukraine.

And America sends soldiers...

But it's not really about America, it's about the mindless jingoistic faddishness of the media-glamour vomited up time and again, on demand whenever Western powers need an excuse, distraction, new yachts... whatever.

So yeah, the Somali flag is symbolic (I said as much in response to @Streetlight's post which started the whole thing), but it's got nothing to do with the actual specific details of the military action.

Nothing I said involved taking a position on U.S. troops in Somalia. It's consistent to be absolutely against that move — Baden

And yet people aren't. That's it. That's literally all there is to the use of the Somali flag here.

People were openly and vociferously against Putin's invasion of Ukraine - even before the death toll mounted - and they enthusiastically waived their little flags to show it.

No one. No one waives little flags for the countries the US wrecks. Not Somalia, not Yemen, not Iraq...

That's the point. Nothing more.

Wow. Your tiny mind must have been blown apart by what was happening here then.



Were they protesting against the government? But how? They were waiving the government's flag.

You still have your pro-American flag waving. I don't know what to say about that. — frank

And yet here you are, saying something about that.

Perhaps there's a lesson there for future post quality.

You're outraged anew every time you learn this stuff. — frank

Yeah, because a much more appropriate reaction to America running an actual insurance racket is to tut quietly and move on to the sports section. Pathetic.

Somalis that I've talked to long for the times of Siad Barre. Again someone you wouldn't be in favour. — ssu

The relevance being...?

As I said, the internal politics of Somalia are completely irrelevant to the point.

US military involvement will cause casualties (it always does).

People fly flags of a country to virtue signal their concern for the population of that country (regardless of their vexillological knowledge).

No one is doing so in response to this immanent threat to Somali lives because Somalis are non-european and the threat comes from American recklessness.

That is the entire sum total of the point being made. It's the same point being made throughout this thread.

People aren't less dead when they're victims of callous disregard than they are when they're victims of brutal aggression.

People aren't less poor when they've had their livelihoods wrecked by complex financial instruments than they are when they've had their livelihoods wrecked by tyrannical government.

People aren't less in jail when they've been jailed because systematic racism constrains their life choices than they are jailed because an oppressive regime bans their newspaper.

...and so on.

All the while our concern for others is guided by some Hollywood concept of good guys and bad guys, life will not improve for those on the lowest rungs, we merely swap the cause of their oppression.

But clearly this is the wrong place for any such complexity, being reserved for schoolchildren gloating over the sight of a bully being told off.

A national flag is usually the government of the country. It's used by the government in charge. The Somali government is happy to see American troops in Somalia. — ssu

Gods! People fly little Ukrainian flags because the media told them it would make a good virtue signal to cover up their otherwise moral degeneracy whilst they sit back in their armchairs and do fuck all else to help. The US have just launched a 'Special Operation' in Somalia which will, without doubt - based on past record - kill hundreds of innocent Somalis. No one is flying a Somali flag. That's the issue we're talking about. I very much doubt the reason for that is that the population as a whole has a better grasp of vexillology than I do.

"Stand with Somalia" with the Somali flag in the background isn't interpreted the way you think. At least the twitter handle StandWSomalia is pro-Goverment — ssu

Hang on, let me get this straight. (Ignoring the fact that the whole issue of flags came up as a reaction to their facile use...but that's clearly beyond you) You're saying that using a Somali flag doesn't actually show solidarity for the Somali people (likely now to be murdered in their hundreds as 'collateral damage')...because of a Twitter handle...?

No...correction...because of a Twitter handle and the fact that you found a picture on the internet of some badges?

Except I've said about the mistakes like the Kosovo war and of course leaving Ukraine hanging dry with promises of NATO membership in the distant future. Or how stupid the post-Cold War era "New NATO" thinking was and how only now, after 2014 and 24th of February this year NATO has found itself again. — ssu

Uh huh. And I've said Russia's invasion is brutal, unjustified and criminal. That didn't seem to be enough either.

The mere mention that when a country annexes parts of another, it's main objective isn't to stop the enlargement of a third party international organization seems to be blasphemy for some. — ssu

Again, as the record of this thread shows, it's not "the mere mention" at all, it's the relentless suffocation of absolutely every single mention of NATO, America, Nazis, literally anything that isn't an unending stream of righteous condemnation.

No one is objecting to 'the mere mention' of Russia's culpability. Its taken for granted. What's being objected to is the facile denial of any other angle whatsoever.

Ukraine faces a choice, has done since the war started, between submitting to some form of Russian demands or getting the aid it needs to repel Russia and thereby submit to American/European economic demands down the line. There's simply no argument about the fact of that choice. So when discussing what Ukraine might, or ought to, do, ignoring the consequences of one of the options is puerile

Moral responsibility rests not with the every actor along the causal chain, but upon the actor who interrupts that causal chain with a specific intentional act resulting in the specific bad act. — Hanover

And why on earth, after 246 pages, would we still be discussing moral responsibility? Is anyone still having trouble working out the morality here? If America's foreign policy approach was instrumental in making a brutal war more likely than it otherwise would have been, then we need to shout that from the rooftops, because it needs to stop such an approach immediately, lest it make conditions for another brutal war more likely. We don't, as seems to be happening here, want to hush it up lest it seem as if we're not apportioning the correct amount of moral condemnation. I realise coming from an Englishman of a certain generation, this is clichéd, but we needn't all wear our heart on our sleeve all the time.

That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism. — Xtrix

I see what you mean, though what you'd need here is stakeholder ownership, rather than just worker ownership... but I suppose if you define capitalism that way, then yes, eliminating the owning class would eliminate capitalism. I'm just not sure capitalism is sensibly defined that way.

private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making. — Xtrix

Well... with limits. It's not the mere existence of private property that's a problem, but the effect of private property in constraining the decisions people make to those dictated by a market. One only need remove that private property which is effecting that constraint.

while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction. — Xtrix

Interesting. I kind of see the two as quite separate (although I agree that worker control is a great thing). How do you see them as linked?

China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). — Xtrix

Well, yeah. The question is to what extent the state acts as a private property owner there. The possibility of state control over private property is largely why I phrased my answer in terms of constraints, rather than actual possession.

extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. — ssu

Let's be absolutely clear, because the entire thread is on record. The issue has been entirely with your 'side' complaining about any and all mention of anywhere except Russia.

Literally your second post

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/648631

...complaining about mention of US culpability.

But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix

I think one of the problems here is that the issue is with the material constraints certain systems impose on decisions. Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them.

All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints.

I don't think anything was going to deter Putin from invading Ukraine except its membership in NATO. He thought he could just waltz in and take over the country. — RogueAI

Funny, that's almost exactly the view that the US government and arms industry needs you to hold in order to justify it foreign policy.

But that would only be a problem if you'd formed that view entirely based on intelligence reports from the US government and opinion pieces in the media from experts with ties to the arms industry... and no one would be that daft...

And same stupid arguments are given on page 245 as in the early 10's and 20's. — ssu

Yes, but no one's forcing you to keep posting them.



I was wondering if any of the great humanitarians here could direct me to the UK's 'Homes for Somalis' scheme. They set up the excellent, and not at all useless, Homes for Ukraine scheme, almost immediately as war broke out, so I assume a similar scheme for Somalis has been up and running for years, but I seem to be having trouble finding it.

Ah! Is this it...?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/100m-uk-aid-budget-returning-north-african-refugees

...oh no, that must be a different scheme...

Maybe this one...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jun/22/betrayed-somali-refugees-kenya-dadaab-camp-sent-from-safety-into-war-zone

...no, that's the UN's excellent scheme to kill repatriate them.

They really need to improve their advertising for it, because at the moment it almost looks as if no one gives a shit because they're black.

It really wasn't about Minsk protocols or NATO enlargement. That should be obvious when the leader starts to talk about denazification. — ssu

Uh huh, obvious from Putin's speech it wasn't about NATO...

the eastward expansion of NATO

the leading NATO countries

security in Europe

the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand

a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade

No Nazis yet...

The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya

10th paragraph, still no Nazis...Quite a lot about NATO though...

The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds

in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism.

Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within

He just can't stop with the Nazi routine can he? Who does he think he's kidding?

in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain.

Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy.

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us.

the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy.

It's sooo obvious this isn't about Nato...He's barely mentioned them in amongst all that talk about Nazis...

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death

the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement.

...

Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Finally. Told you it was all about the Nazis! What a douche! You'd think he'd have at least bothered to come up with some other reasons...

It's a common misconception to think that others are as ignorant as you are and just follow what is on the mainstream evening news. — ssu

Then why do you keep making it? Your argument is so obviously circular it's a joke. You think A, I think B you assume I don't have the data to inform my conclusion on no other grounds than that I disagree with you. Neither you, nor @Christoffer have yet been able to answer my very simple question -

What source of information about the global sense and consequences of Finland's and Sweden's decision to join NATO is only available to Swedes and Finns?

it was simply obvious. If you had followed anything about security policy in both countries. — ssu

What was obvious? That they would want to? No one is disputing that. That it's a good idea? Well, many analysts still think it isn't, so I can't be that obvious can it?

Again, you're stuck in this crazy echo chamber where every opinion that disagrees with yours must be somehow uninformed, as if the world suddenly became crystal clear overnight - no grey, no nuance, no complexity giving rise to a range of well-informed, but different opinions. Just two mutually exclusive categories {what ssu believes} and {lies}.

Significance is highly subjective. Some people like slavery, others don't. — Olivier5

Russia has about 1 million slaves according to the definition of Modern Slavery, Ukraine has about 0.2 million. Per capita, one is about as likely to be slave in Ukraine than in Russia.

But don't let actual facts get in the way of your budding fiction writing career.

This assumes that a victorious Russia would not have jailed, tortured, rapped and assassinated the civilians under their control. — Olivier5

The alternative assumes a war wouldn't have lead to worse.

The Ukrainian people were given a shit choice - lose part of your country to Russian rule (and all that entails), or keep things as they are territorially, a barely significant improvement in government, but lose thousands of civilians and soldiers and hand over your economy to foreign power to be asset stripped and enslaved.

Anyone who genuinely gives a shit about Ukrainians would bemoan the injustice of that choice. Those who are nothing but stooges for US foreign policy bemoan only the side which suits their narrative.

I'm just calling out your bullshit thinking you know even surface-level stuff of what is going on in Sweden and Finland. — Christoffer

I haven't even mentioned anything going on in Sweden and Finland. I've been talking about the sense and consequence of their actions in joining NATO. Something that's going on in the global political sphere at large. Something which global political analysts do look at and write about, despite (I realise this will be difficult for you)...despite, not being from Sweden.

Now, obviously they don't discuss any of this without passing it by you and @ssu first, that goes without saying, and we're ever so grateful that you've decided to tell us here on this obscure philosophy forum before, say, briefing cabinet, or the UN, but once you've made your secret intel public, is it too much to ask that us mere mortals can have an opinion about it?

And you are a professor who fights against the norms by stating education isn't needed, so how on earth can we take you seriously. — Christoffer

I don't see what my views on education have to do with this. Non-pedagogic learning systems are not, perhaps mainstream, but those who espouse them don't seem to have any trouble securing research posts, teaching positions and consultancy. The world at large doesn't have any problem taking them seriously, so if you do, it suggests a more noetic problem...?

So glad the epicentre of neo fucking Nazism in Europe is getting flooded with weapons after being destabalized to shit hey? — Streetlight

It'll probably be totally fine. After all, it's not as if Ukraine is also one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe!

Ukraine is believed to have one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe. — Global Organised Crime Index

Oh fuck!

Still... the look on Putin's face when they win, eh...Priceless...gotta be worth an international resurgence of armed Neo-Nazis committing hate crimes...

Will have to change my social media profile to a little Somalian flag in solidarity in the meantime. — Streetlight

Who'd be so facile?

The combined flow of information depends on who you know and what the official discussion is in media and online. Just because you're in a bubble of guesswork does not mean everyone is. — Christoffer

Brilliant stuff! Look, for you personally, we're all well aware that you're basically Jack Ryan, but surely the rest of Sweden aren't all crack secret agents like you? How are they getting their unfiltered information?

On top of that, you don't have the information flow that exists here, you do not watch Swedish news, media, or discussions that we have, all you have are from anyone sharing that information, with their interpretation filter and media reporting with the perspective of your nations — Christoffer

So how do Swedish media not present the news from the perspective of their nation? Is the Swedish perspective magically more likely to be accurate than the rest of the world?

Sweden and the nordic nations, in general, have one of the lowest biases in media in the world. So it's easier to sift through the information flow — Christoffer

Ha! Called it.

Bottom line is that if the information sources you describe are your only sources, then you definitely don't have enough insight to question what I present about our situation in Sweden. — Christoffer

Wtf? You're serious aren't you? You're actually going through with the idea that you've got some special insight which us mere mortals can't even question. This is fantastic stuff, do go on about how unique you are, we'll see if we can't get you elevated to demi-god by the end of the thread.

When it comes to discussions about our military, security and identity as nations, I know more than you since I live within this information 24/7, while you have to filter it through outside reports, translations, cultural interpretations, media etc. — Christoffer

How do you get 24/7 information unfiltered, just by being in Sweden/Finland? I'm in England, I don't get information about English military security, unfiltered. I still get it though the press, open source intelligence, and commentators I read - same as everyone else. I can't just walk up to MI5 and ask, just because I'm a local. Yet all these sources are online, for anyone in the world to access.

What sources of military and security information do Swedes and Finns have unfiltered access to which are not on the internet?

Fortunately for world peace, Russia conveniently alternates between brutally masterminding existential threats to the whole of Europe and acting out Dad's Army in futile attempts to gadfly the world's 22nd largest army who'll easily defeat them any minute.

Phew!

Are they secret? — Isaac


Yes — Christoffer

Cool, so you are a spy! I knew it, how exciting! I won't tell anyone, promise.

We weren't talking about the geopolitical implications in the sense you mean. I was talking about the Swedish and Finnish situation of joining Nato, how our perspective is on the matter and what our security would be against Russian aggression. — Christoffer

That's the geopolitical implications in the sense I mean. What your security would be against Russian aggression. Are you suggesting that's something Swedes somehow know more about by virtue of their place of birth? How does this work exactly. If I'm born in Sweden but move away do I still have the magic?

Maybe my social circle is just more educated than that and has more insight into things. — Christoffer

Well, yeah, I should imagine you have James fucking Bond round to dinner and everything...

Eh? Which position is this making the case against?

America keeps or reneges on its agreements according to its own political expediency, right? So Sweden and Finland's membership of NATO isn't worth the paper it's written on in terms of military aid against a nuclear threat (of questionable value against a conventional threat even, as Beckley's examples show)

So...therefore it's a good time for Finland and Sweden to join NATO? I don't follow...

precisely the right time for Sweden and Finland to affirm their European identity. — magritte

And NATO does that how?



You see that massive blue block on the left? That's not Europe.

Or just have other sources for the information than online ideological bloggers. — Christoffer

Are they secret? Would you have to kill us if you told us - so exciting!

has constant social interactions with people living and working — Christoffer

Again, why would people living and working in Sweden have any more idea than us about the geopolitical implications of NATO membership? Are you all secretly told about it via some complex system of Chinese whispers and knowing glances?

Geopolitical implications are usually discussed by...you know, geopolitical strategists. I don't know about the quality of your pubs over there, but here its mostly farmers and fishermen, it's an odd day on which an international foreign policy scholar turns up to regale us firsthand with his hot-off-the-press analysis of the situation.

Oh, you hadn't heard that arguments are geolocked? — Streetlight

Bugger, I didn't know. Well, you can all look forward to my thrilling forthcoming thread on the curfuffle about parking for the fishing boats down at the local harbour.

Of course none of you will be able to comment... Shame, its quite the scandal.

if Russia dropped nuclear weapons on Finland and Sweden today or even the day after they join NATO, it still remains completely rational for the US, UK and France to not attack Russia with nuclear weapons, fearing a nuclear counter attack. — boethius

Yeah, I think this is one of the major flaws in the whole "we're safe now we're in NATO" argument. As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. As if countries don't renege on agreements all the time.

Here's Michael Beckley, for example, on America's record of alliance fidelity

I find many cases in which alliances restrained the United States, or in which the United States restrained its allies or sidestepped costly commitments. I only examine U.S. military conflicts and therefore cannot evaluate fully the prevalence of such cases of peace, but even within my biased sample, there are at least four cases in which alliances prevented U.S. escalation, and another seven cases in which the United States reneged on security commitments and/or restrained an ally from attacking a third party.

If they're prepared to tear up commitments for trivial political expediency, I don't see how NATO membership is going to mean anything if nuclear war is threatened.

I think you should shut the fuck up. You're not even on the same side of the globe so you have no idea what you're talking about. — Christoffer

This makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you're literally walking to these sites in person you're getting your information from the same internet we all have access to. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the internet does stretch all the way to Australia.

looks like a sure win for Ukraine now.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far — Benkei

I'm confused here. You say 'win' and then ask if they ought push for Donbass and Crimea. How's that a win? Russia comes in wanting control over Donbass and Crimea, it gets control over Donbass and Crimea. That doesn't sound like a win. What am I missing?

So it's not so okay to condemn a defender. Maybe the distinction is not clear enough for you? — Olivier5

So, if a defender commits genocide, its not OK to condemn them? Besides which, who mentioned condemnation? We were just talking about what they ought to do. I ought to pay my butcher's bill, that's hardly the same as condemnation if I don't.

Because they didn't start the war and are already in the right frame of mind. They don't want an endless war. They want peace. — Olivier5

Barely a page or two back you said...

The problem then becomes the security and stability of Russia itself. This is why Macron and others are reminding us all that we need to keep channels of communication open with Russia, and to make sure Ukraine doesn't push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine. A victorious Ukraine, armed to the teeth, could also become a destabilizing factor in the future. Zelenskyy won't be here forever. Wars often stroke extreme nationalism. — Olivier5

...so which is it? A Ukraine that's in the right frame of mind for peace, or one which might "push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine"?

That is ridiculous. — Olivier5

It's your principle, not mine. Personally, I think governments ought to assess whether they ought to support some course of action for themselves, rather than just blindly doing whatever the defending nation ask for, but your counter argument was that it's not our business to judge what the best strategy is, so presumably, if Ukraine ask us to nuke Moscow, we nuke Moscow.

Alternatively, you could just realise you're talking shite, and actually it is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss whether Ukraine's strategy is a sound one since we're the ones supporting it with arms and loans...

...but that would mean you'd have to actually come to terms with the existence of a narrative other than the one your TV delivers you. I won't hold my breath.

The Russians are not defending themselves. They are attacking. There is no comparison. Ethically we must condemn such an aggression. — Olivier5

That's begging the question. You first decide if an action is right or wrong, then if its right you say "it's not our business to judge", but you just judged.

It would even out the negotiating positions of each, and ensure that the Russians get interested in making real concessions to secure peace. It'd put them in the right frame of mind. — Olivier5

That may be, but your criteria was not 'evening out'. Your criteria was that each party had a "genuine desire" for peace. If it's our business to put Russia in "the right frame of mind" then why is it disallowed for us to encourage Ukraine into any particular frame of mind?

I support the line of my own government so far. I have no major disagreement with the 'Macron doctrine'. — Olivier5

I thought it wasn't about you.

Your argument is that governments ought to help Ukraine in whatever way they ask, it's not our business to judge the rights or wrongs of that request. I'm asking if you're prepared to follow through. If Ukraine asked us to drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow should we do so on the grounds that it's not our business to judge what Ukraine thinks is best for its defense?

It is has to do with the Ukrainians being in a better position to judge what they ought to do than us. — Olivier5

So we shouldn't be discussing what the Russians ought to do either then? If they see fit to flatten Bucha, that's not for us to judge, they know best?

durable peace cannot be created by fiat, and that the genuine desire of the belligerents is key. — Olivier5

...and yet you advocate the wholesale destruction of the Russian attack. In what way is that ensuring the genuine desire of the belligerents? Sounds like you very much want to force one of the belligerents into a corner where they have no leeway to express any desires at all.

See, you seem to be think that military pressure is the only force in the world. That if they're winning, Ukraine are somehow miraculously 'free', ignoring the billions of dollars of debt attached to the virtually total control of their economy by foreign powers.

It's not our place to tell the Ukrainians what they should do. — Olivier5

We're not. We (Europe, America) are working out what we think they ought to do so that we can decide what options to support and what options to not support. Or do we have no agency here? The alternative is just to blindly support whatever any nation asking for help asks us to do. Do you think that wise?

So what? — Olivier5

I don't see why you keep just saying obvious statements about the news. I have a newspaper.

What has Ukraine's rejection of the offer got to do with a discussion about whether they ought to take the offer?

So? — Isaac


The offer has been rejected by Ukraine. — Olivier5

So?