The conflict is new. Started 50 days ago. — ssu

Yes, that must be it. After all we can look back at the media frenzy back when the US-backed Yemeni civil war started. Here, for example is the Atlantic's lead at the time...



...and the Washington post lead with...

You see, your average Palestinian just lacks the 'pluck' of your average Ukrainian. That's what it mainly comes down to.

The fact that the world's largest military and economic power are pro-Ukrainian and anti-Palestinian is entirely irrelevant and it's just anti-american dogmatism to even mention it.

Just wondering if you and @SophistiCat et al are willing to accept the corollary of your praise for the Ukrainians, it seems not.

You see any success you ascribe to the Ukrainian's sheer pluck, you must also then accept failures to be the result of a 'lack of pluck'. To the extent that the Ukrainian's national character is the answer to their success, the lack of such character must then explain the failure of the Chechens, or the Belorussians, or the Russians themselves to resist Putin's imperialism.

I hold to the view human beings are more or less the same across the world, regardless of race or nationality. Which means when one group succeed and another fail, it must be material circumstances that are responsible for the difference. As such, when Ukraine succeed resisting the Russian invasion, I look to see what material circumstances they have in their favour that, say Chechens, lacked (or Russians themselves, for that matter). That factor is mainly the geopolitical circumstances. You, and others seem to think that analysis grossly unfair, that it's the Ukrainian national character that's mainly responsible. So the corollary is that geopolitical circumstances were not the reason the Afghans had so much trouble, not the reason Chechenya fell, not the reason Belarus is a Russian puppet state, not the reason Russians haven't themselves overthrown Putin... It must all be character flaws inherent in those nations.

Unless, of course, you want to explain why failure can always be assigned to geopolitical circumstances, but those same factors have little to no influence on successes?

Why wouldn't Ukraine be also such an easy picking? — ssu

Go on then...

Tell us what's wrong with the Afghans.

While your at it, you can explain the flaws in the Chechen national character.

Then tell us what up with those Belorussians.

And the French... Why were that such a walkover?

It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient. — neomac

What a delightful construction. No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity). I can definitely see the attraction of erasing the distinction between the way the world seems to you and the way the world actually is.

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. — neomac

I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.

if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. — neomac

No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember? — neomac

Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? — neomac

The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac

You brought him up.

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine. — neomac

So "no idea" then?

From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it. — neomac

The power of a good story...

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless. — neomac

My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on. — neomac

One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. — neomac

Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

That's the game you're playing. We all are.

So what do you think of experiences then? Do we have them at all? — bert1

I treat 'experiences' as the packaging up and logging to memory of discrete subsections of the continuous interaction with our environment. As such they involve filtering (what bits of sensory inputs were relevant and what weren't), start and stop points (how to mark off 'the event' - I stubbed my toe), and most importantly of all, threading it into the various narratives we use to navigate the world (all the way from stories about my the body's edges, pain responses, and basic stuff like that to stories about how "the kid's need to bloody well tidy their rooms more often because that's the fifth time I've stubbed my toe on their damn toys!", or whatever). These all 'fix' the event in the memory so that it can form part of the models interpreting future events.

The doing of all this is what we call 'having an experience'. It's actually happening anything from a few milliseconds to a few minutes after the physical causes we think it's about. It's a post hoc storytelling exercise, it answers the question "what just happened there?"

No NATO membership for Ukraine (said both by NATO and Ukraine). It hasn't been an excuse for a while. — jorndoe

As I pointed out. Putin's speech clearly shows that his agenda is not limited to a simple binary promise. He associates NATO membership, EU membership and economic ties with US imperialism, interference and a sort of 'Western decadence'. It's going to take more than a casual promise. After all, NATO-Russia relations have stumbled over casual promises before ("not an inch eastwards"), no?

Russia is ramping up military "operations" (convoys, conscriptions, whatever), instead of committing more to diplomacy/negotiations/assurances. — jorndoe

But again there's this dual narrative. Is Russia losing or not? If Russia are losing, then you can hardly cite a ramping up of military commitment as an indication of their having wider objectives. If they're losing, then they'll need to ramp up military commitments just to maintain the pressure they currently have. If, on the other hand, you want to go with the idea that this additional military investment is intended to add additional pressure, for further objectives, then we can't also have the narrative that Russia are about to lose and only a little more pressure could see them off.

So, the wretched nuclear ☢ (plus perhaps ☣ ⚗) scenario... The threat has been made by Putin and taken seriously enough. I doubt anyone wants to call him out on it, yet how far can the "hostage-taking" be taken? Where's the threshold (if any)? — jorndoe

The trouble is not with the question of thresholds, the trouble is with the assumption about methods. Putin's "hostage-taking" ought not to be be taken any distance at all. It ought to be resisted from day one. But that resistance needn't be military. The lack of non-military options is not a result of there being none, it's a direct result of America and Europe simply not wanting to explore any.

Looking at the events from the agenda and objectives of one player, the West or more plainly the US and it's administrations, doesn't give you a correct view. — ssu

Looking at events from the agenda only of hairdressing doesn't give you a correct view, so that too should be avoided. Fortunately no one's doing that either.

So presumably your next query would be about the causal closure of the physical — bert1

Indeed. If there's a causal relationship that's an immutable fact about our shared reality (ie, not just a narrative we create to navigate it), then there'd be something missing in the causal explanations we have. But there's nothing missing. I can (theoretically) trace all the electrical and chemical reactions from the nerve endings of your tos through to the muscle fibres of your larynx and at no point is there a gap where I'd have to think "hey, where did that come from?". So causally, there's just no need for such an explanation.

Narratively, however, there's obviously a need for one. I too feel like I eat because I'm hungry, it's part of how we use the word 'because' in the context of human behaviour. But narratively, there are no right or wrong answers, whatever floats your boat.

So, personally, I don't have a problem with the 'story' of consciousness (as in our experiences) just being a façon de parler. A piece of magic we made up for plot reasons. As such, it can arise out of nowhere if it wants. It can supervene, it can be possessed by rock if you want. It really doesn't matter, whatever makes a good story.

even if NATO's actions were one of the more relevant factors in the decision to invade, there are obviously multiple other major factors. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Something which no one's denying. You said...

nothing you're quoting is remotely new, and so it isn't a very good explanation for the decision to invade. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...which I took issue with. The length of time some factor has been around for has no bearing at all on how important a factor it is, the 'final straw' might have been something trivial.

plenty of other nations still opposed giving membership to Ukraine, so it hardly seemed membership was immanent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did Putin share your assessment?

Russia clearly did not take Western aid to Ukraine to date to be a serious threat. They clearly thought all that aid amounted to a small speed bump on their path to a three day route and conquest of Ukraine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean the (at most) six week old analysis from leaked intelligence reports and hastily put together military analysis that indicate Russia thought this would be a walk in the park? That's your idea of 'clearly'?

So, you have a military command who clearly doesn't take aid to Ukraine seriously, but then Russia felt it had to invade because Ukrainian's military — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would you think it was Ukraine's military. Did you not read Putin's speech? He referred three times to NATO's military infrastrucure. He didn't once mention Ukraine's army.

...moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

...these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.

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.

He also mentions a lot about NATO's advancing it's member's interests (as opposed to global security).

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

First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Then he mentions the threats from political intervention (with or without military support)

We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass

in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia

This is not some obscure speech. It's the speech with with Putin declared his invasion. So if you're going to ignore it completely and then fish around for other reasons than the ones in the actual speech you'll have to provide some pretty compelling reasons to avoid seeming dogmatic. The (NATO-related) reasons given in the speech were infrastructure placement near Russia's borders, willingness to use NATO power to advance national interests, and manipulative involvement of NATO members in foreign politics. Since all three are provably the case, it seems bizarre that you'd scrabble about for other NATO-related reasons such as the size of Ukraine's army to use for your straw-man.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014? The main issue was Ukrainian ties to the EU — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed and I've consistently referred to the US, NATO and Europe in my critiques for that reason, but if you look at Putin's speech, he clearly sees the members of NATO as using the organisation for their own private ends, and the EU are mostly members of NATO. The way his speech is constructed clearly defines non-Russian entities as pretty much the same, so as far as understanding the motivations, the EU and NATO and the US are all lumped into the same basket.

one can say with good reason and confidence that 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.”

One shouldn't have delusions. — ssu

Yes, but you don't. I'm asking you why you think it so important that others don't also. What harms do you see their 'delusions' causing, such that they need so urgently to be expunged?

Because it really questions this delusional idea that war could have been avoided ...if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself. — ssu

And what do you see as the benefit of questioning that 'delusion'?

Yesterday the wheel came off my wheelbarrow. The bolt holding it on was rusted almost through, but it had been that way for months and yet the wheel remained on, so that can't possibly have been the cause. I guess it will have to remain a mystery.

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had.

Worth remembering that Ukraine isn't the only country that Russia has annexed territories or has intervened military in and created puppet states and frozen conflicts. And one of these countries, Moldova, has never applied to NATO, has had no intention join, but still has a "puppet state" and Russian "peacekeepers" on it's territory. — ssu

Why? Give me an example of the use 'remembering' these facts can be put to.

Nato will never attack Russia so any idea from them about acting to be secure from that risk is pure nonsense. — Christoffer

Fortunate then that no one has made any such claim. Again - will anyone invade America? No. Does America have security concerns? Yes. So in what world does 'Security Concerns'='Risk of being invaded'?

I'm interested to hear what you mean by that? Nato is still misunderstood, almost intentionally (so it's easier to be apologetic to Russia), and people don't understand article 5 or how the process of joining or how decisions are made within Nato. Some think Nato is being controlled by the US and when pointing out that it's a rule by the many, they still position that everyone is being controlled by the US anyway, which is batshit insane. Sweden and Finland joining Nato are being described as an act "controlled by the US" and I just think that idea is delusionally indoctrinated bullshit by people unable to hold more thoughts than their own ideological skewed ideas in mind. We want it because we have fucking lunatics in Russia sitting on military might that we need to be able to shoot down if needed. — Christoffer

This is lovely. The way you use 'understand' in place of 'agree' - as if the matter were settled already and those with a different perspective merely hadn't given it enough thought. and the genuine incredulity in "...when pointing out that it's a rule by the many, they still position that...", like "Even after I told them, they still continued to think something other than I think!". What model do you have of disagreement? Does the concept even have a place in your world view or is everything simply the way it seems to you to be and everyone else just too stubborn to see it?

There's no provocation that is reasonable as a reason for Russia's acts either in Ukraine or elsewhere. Russia is pretty much proven to be a war criminal at this point, on the brink of genocidal acts. — Christoffer

Yes, let's not worry about trivialities like the rule of law and fair trials, they're for those who are ideologically committed to an understanding they might be wrong. Better to just have a quick look on social media, see who's guilty and then put a hole in their head.

Anyone defending these acts should take a long hard look in the mirror and either reject it or accept being part of it by defending it. — Christoffer

I agree. Anyone defending these acts is clearly monstrous...Oh, sorry I see now you mean anyone you think are defending these acts ...

It was a long time since we had this clear cut good and bad dichotomy — Christoffer

Explain the 'good'. The 'bad' I get - unjustified invasion, killing civilians, denying easy humanitarian corridors... The 'bad' is super easy to see. But the 'good'? Who's 'good' here and what have they done to deserve the epithet?

I will not be part of future analyses of stupid human behavior, I will be part of the ones who stood against such bullshit. History will show who's stupid and gullible. — Christoffer

Yes, they'll probably erect a statue of you.

I'm pretty sure the experience isn't shared because when I stub my toe my friend doesn't say ouch. — bert1

Yes, but you don't say "ouch" because of the experience. You say "ouch" because of a completely physical and traceable series of neural molecular and electrical reactions. You would say "ouch" even if you were a robot programmed to say "ouch" every time you stub your toe.

The 'experience' you claim is private is not physically connected to saying "ouch" in any way (if it was, it would be a physical phenomenon). So the fact that your friend doesn't say "ouch" can't possibly stand as evidence either for or against the type of experience he's having - if experiences are private. He might have exactly the same experience as you do when you say "ouch" alongside watching someone say "ouch"... Or not...

I was trying to give a fair hearing to the idea that the Ukraine invasion was provoked or partially provoked by the US. The more I learn, the more absurd that seems. — frank

It is absurd. — ssu

It is absurd — ssu

Is it one factor? Yes, — ssu

The concept is shared, not the experience. — bert1

How do you know?

You said...

I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have — bert1

Then...

I can instinctively infer that they probably feel something roughly similar to what I felt — bert1

we have have gathered a large number of such experiences — bert1

one thing they all have in common — bert1

we can nevertheless both perform this abstraction and reasonably share the concept. — bert1

...doesn't sound very much like no one else can have it.

you have to prove that the Ukrainian ruling class’s policies cause far more deaths than the Russian soldiers as working class are causing to Ukrainian families. — neomac

I have to prove nothing of the sort because I'm not the one claiming your position is preposterous. Look back at our conversation. Who made claims and who questioned them? I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm not so deluded as to think you actually arrive at your opinion via some rational argument. I'm critiquing your claims that the alternative positions are untenable, preposterous etc. To do that, all I need to show is that your dismissal of them lacks sufficient grounds. I don't need to prove they are more plausible, or more likely to be the case because you didn't make the original claim that you merely preferred your opinion, or found it more plausible. Your claim was that the alternative was actually 'preposterous'.

according to (2), you didn’t claim that Ukrainians have no moral reason to fight the Russian armies to defend their nation — neomac

(2) doesn't even mention 'defending one's nation'. Not to mention it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself.

It’s on you to analytically clarify how your unrestricted claims should be properly understood not on me to do the job for you. — neomac

Again, I'm not putting claims out there for you to analyse. Why you'd think I'd want want some laymen off the internet to analyse my claims is beyond me.

I don’t see how one could possibly have an intellectually “honest conversation” in a philosophy forum without clarity and arguments. So until I see some effort in this direction from you, I can’t take your “honest conversation” proposal seriously. — neomac

This is not a mutual analysis of claims. As far as I'm concerned, claims are structured, cited and evidenced. Yours are none of these things. This is a social media site - you declare your allegiance to one of the available narratives and then defend that allegiance against the other side. I'm interested in the defences you use; you're, presumably, keen on having to provide those defences (otherwise you're in the wrong place) so it seems we have a mutually beneficial arrangement. But don't mistake me for someone presenting a case. If I present a case it will be at least in essay form and on a subject matter in which I have some expertise.

If Zelensky’s choice (e.g. between keep fighting or surrender) should be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation (Russian control over Crimea and some Donbas lands) as you claim, why shouldn’t your related choice (i.e. Ukrainian keep fighting or surrender to Russian demands) be morally/strategically assessed based on a de facto situation as you framed this war from a geopolitical point of view (i.e. “American expansionism vs Russian expansionism”)? — neomac

Because they are two different de facto situations. I didn't say that Zelensky's choice should be based on the de facto situation simply because it's the de facto situation. I said it should be based on the de facto situation because he has the thousands of lives to consider in trying to make improvements to that situation.

> Who said Zelensky was 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances?

I am, based on how you framed the negotiation best outcome — neomac

None of that means Zelensky is 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances as some kind of rule 'one must always be constrained by the de facto circumstances' It just so happens that the actual de facto circumstances in this case are morally relevant because lives will be expended in trying to improve on them.

Multi-causal analysis refers to the identification of a minimal set of causal factors (where the concept of “causal factor” goes beyond agency and intentionality) and each causal factor has a certain weight (statistical, i.e. depending on the stochastic correlation between causal factors and effects, or probabilistic, i.e. depending on the ratio between one factor and the total number of factors) in contributing to a certain effect. — neomac

Here, for example is a paper on the multi-causal analysis of the conflict in Algeria from Oxford University. Either point out the maths that I've clearly missed in that paper, or take up with Oxford University, their evident lack of deference to your greater knowledge in this regard.

it’s on you to clarify why Zelensky bears some responsibility along with Putin for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families, and how much Zelensky is blameful wrt to Putin for what happened. — neomac

I already have. He is partly responsible because he made a decision, knowing that would be the consequence where he could have done otherwise and the extent of his responsibility is 'some'.

What do you mean by “arbitrary”? — neomac

I mean you've not given reasons for your choice of method. You've said you take into account what others value, for example. You've not said why you do that.

Here: “It’s not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet”.
And now here:
“Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.”
This is called comparative advertising in marketing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising) and it explains how you strongly suggested your support for a puppet government over Zelensky’s patriotic government, without saying it.
So it is evidently plausible to say you are suggesting to replace Zelensky’s government with a puppet government, which is even more than what Putin asked in the scenario we discussed. — neomac

Where, in that, do I "praise" a Russian puppet government?

First of all, I see “regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor” in both options. So since it doesn’t make any difference, what was the point of putting it? — neomac

To point out that it's the same in both cases.

Second, what does support your claim “less crippled by debt” and “less in thrall to the IMF”? — neomac

War is costly, both in terms of weapons and reconstruction. The cost is being borne in loans from the US and IMF. These loans come along with stringent restrictions on the management of the debtor's economy.

For the West the chances of another war against Russia can only grow bigger if option 2 was the case, and Russia pushed further its geopolitical agenda (so again more deaths and destruction also for the Ukrainians if the war will involve again Ukraine, this is also what buffer states are for right? ). Indeed Sweden and Finland are thinking to join NATO. So provocations are not over yet right? — neomac

Remember, what I'm arguing against here is your claims that alternative positions are 'preposterous'. The fact that you can come up with scenarios which are plausible to support your position doesn't support that claim. You'd have to show that these scenarios were somehow the only plausible outcomes.

It’s a similar line of reasoning as the previous one, right? — neomac

'Similar' and 'the same' are similar, but not the same.

Why stupid? — neomac

Because assessing my alternatives is not necessary for a successful critique of your position. For your position to hold you'd have to support the claim that there literally are no alternatives. No solutions other than the one you prefer. That's ridiculous, hence a stupid line of argument. The point I'm making here only requires that other solutions exist and it's 'stupid' to deny that.

wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is — neomac

No, because the line of reasoning depends on the actual facts about the status quo. some status quos are worth fighting to change, other status quos are not.

It’s important you answer those questions because you are the one who claimed “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another” and believes it’s pertinent in the debate about the war in Ukraine. — neomac

Your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I've not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).

I provided evidences to support not the truth but the plausibility of P2 as expressly intended, so your objections either are wrong or missing the point. — neomac

The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Yes seriously. — neomac

Well no, then.

You are not saying it, yet you are suggesting it. — neomac

Yes. The point was that it's the result of the situation, not of some demand.

Let me notice first this: you talk about your personal preferences (+ some comparative criteria) in trusting some experts and yet you do not take this to be arbitrary right? But when I talked about preferences (not only mine! + some comparative criteria) in my approach to moral assessments you dismissively said “a list of arbitrary preferences”. That doesn’t sound fair, does it? — neomac

I am not claiming that your position is preposterous. You are claiming mine is. I've no need to prove that my position isn't arbitrary because I'm not claiming it to be anything other. You are claiming your position to be non-arbitrary (ie better than another in some metric) so it matters if it transpires it is founded on arbitrary assumptions.

during the covid crisis there were experts (like Luc Montagnier) with titles and no evident conflict of interests but whose reliability when talking about covid was still pretty dubious. — neomac

How so? If someone is sufficiently qualified and without any conflict of interest, you're not in a position to dismiss their conclusions as dubious simply because you don't like them or they're not what you expected. Your expectations and your preferences are not measures of what is the case.

I don’t even know how you would assess “sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest” without adequate background knowledge — neomac

Really? If you were looking for a military expert you've no idea how to tell if they're qualified? Is there some compelling reason university tenure and/or doctorate-level qualification would be insufficient for you?

it’s not like I have my moral or strategic understanding of this war and then I look whoever expert is confirming it. — neomac

Yeah, right. You just conducted a completely impartial assessment of the evidence, sure.

I can compare for example ... their arguments or how much they converge with the opinion of other experts — neomac

How? If you're a non-expert, how can you meaningfully compare their arguments? And what relevance does it have how much they converge with the opinion of other experts?

That is why you want to help Russia win against American capitalist imperialism — neomac

Who said anything about helping Russia win?

since we are in a philosophy forum, here is a thought experiment for you: if it was the American army invading and bombing some country (say Mexico) the same way Russia is doing in Ukraine, with similar results of Russia in Ukraine, with similar indirect military support from Russia as Ukraine gets from the West, and with similar negotiations conditions from America as Ukraine gets from Russia, and all else equal, then would you have more likely supported those fighting a patriotic war against the American imperialistic capitalism (as well as Russian indirect military support) or would you have more likely supported surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? — neomac

Interesting. What exactly did you expect to get from this? You fabricate a position you know full well I wouldn't admit to holding (that I support Russia) then ask a transparent 'thought experiment' the answer to which expects me to admit to the one position you already knew I wouldn't admit to. Surely you can see the flaw in that strategy?

Following your link “https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136” I couldn’t find any reference to the fact that your option 2 is the best one as you suggest. — neomac

So?

Very few died in Georgia. Chechnya is part of Russia so it was not an armed aggression of another country. — Olivier5

I'm not suggesting they were identical, I'm asking why the deaths are significant yet not the military capability when it comes to an assessment of risk?

More scared now that thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by the Russians, yes. — Olivier5

So no one died in Georgia? No one died in Chechnya?

If you had a serial killer living next door, you would be scared too, irrespective of his current strength. — Olivier5

I may well be. Fortunately for me (and the world in general) international diplomacy in foreign policy is rarely conducted on the basis of knee-jerk emotive response. We expect a little more cold rational consideration.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

Exactly. Should be all the answer needed here.

I would guess they are now more scared of a possible invasion than they were before the war in Ukraine. — Olivier5

More scared now that Putin's army has been shown to be easily defeated and half destroyed?

The wold is not static, it changes all the time. — Olivier5

The world was always that way. So why is it now sufficiently necessary to obtain the NATO deterrent where it wasn't before?

Putin can learn a lesson. — Olivier5

So he's not an egotist surrounded by yes men?

Military strength can be rebuilt; mistakes can be learnt from. — Olivier5

Rebuilt by the destroyed Russia we're assured will result from Putin's disastrous invasion? Mistakes learnt by the leader we're told listens to no one and is surrounded by yes men?

I don't know. ssu would be better placed to answer this. — Olivier5

The argument doesn't require you to know. It only requires that you accept they had a reason. Ie joining NATO is not a option with only one factor to consider.

As such (even without knowing what their reasons were) simply saying NATO acts as a deterrent is inadequate. They must act as a sufficiently necessary deterrent to outweigh the factors advising against membership.

So the question remains. Why is NATO now a sufficiently necessary deterrent, if Russia are now shown to be an easily defeated, half destroyed military force?

Joining NATO would protect them from this eventuality by deterring aggression — Olivier5

So why didn't they join NATO before now?

If there are Finns who want their people bombed by Russia just because they might have a chance to prevail in the end, they are indeed as stupid as you are. But I doubt it. — Olivier5

The bombing happens anyway, NATO don't do preemptive attacks on potential aggressors. They support those who are attacked. Support the smart Finns and Swedes clearly don't need against the dumb brute whose useless army is apparently half destroyed already.

Are you crazy? — Olivier5

Are you suggesting the Finns and Swedes are dumb?

They can outsmart it though... Look at the way they sunk two if their mighty ships with local technology and tons of smarts. — Olivier5

So the super smart Finns and Swedes have nothing to fear and no need to run to NATO then?

Those two views easily combine into the image of a brute: strong, violent, and not too bright. — Olivier5

So victory against such a brute very much an unlikely prospect for Ukraine then?

Having trouble threading together these two narratives myself. The threat of Russia driving countries into the arms of the world's largest military alliance for protection apparently comes from the same Russia whose incompetent command, out-of-date weapons, and brainless rank-and-file are being outmatched by the world's 22ndth largest military.

And with what army are they going to invade Finland or Sweden? Are we not assured that half of them are dead or captured, their hardware destroyed and military defeat is almost an inevitability.

Maybe Finland are worried about a nuclear attack...but that would be the same nuclear attack that Putin is definitely not going to launch so we're safe to pile as much weaponry into Ukraine as we like?

It seems there's two Russias to suit two purposes. The sharp-fanged attack dog reqired as blame for NATO expansion and the toothless mutt required to support dragging out the war of resistance for another week, month, year...

You asserted that a narrative accepting of the inevitability of an iron curtain emerging from this crisis was likely to cause an escalation in the conflict. — Punshhh

Where?

The alternative is for the US not to live up to its security guarantees to Ukraine, which also risks nuclear war. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A minute ago Russia were unlikely to mount any kind of response to NATO escalation, now everyone and their dog will chuck nuclear missiles around like tennis balls if the US don't step in and stop them. Which is it?

The terms of the Bucharest Memorandum do not specify any requirement for military support in the event of an invasion. They only specify respecting territorial boundaries (which Russia has broken) and refraining from economic coercion (which the US has broken). It provides that the other signatories will provide "assistance" to Ukraine (of unspecified type) in the event that it is the subject of "aggression in which nuclear weapons are used"

So I'm in the dark as to what guarantees you might be talking about.

how does everything said about reckless escalation not apply to Russia attacking a country that the US has openly promised to protect in coordination with Russia? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Who said it didn't?

Enlighten me. I really can’t see a way back from my conclusion (short of total regime change in Russia). — Punshhh

I'm not sure what more I can do about your lack of imagination. Imagine the things you think will happen... Now imagine them not happening.

You asked...

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia? — Punshhh

The answer is literally anything except a resolution with an iron curtain. It's just odd that you need me to describe one such resolution in order for you to understand the concept. The alternative is that an iron curtain is literally inevitable, the future is predetermined. You surely must realise how odd that is?

We should probably treat people who think a tiny bit of nuclear armageddon is OK the same way we treat pedophiles but also alot worse. — StreetlightX

Famously, the cockroaches aren't worried.

An assessment of Russian capabilities from last week, based on Russia's actual effectiveness in a war, seems a lot more relevant than assessments from 2016. Of course Russia experts were publishing on Russia's major efforts to modernize its armed forces after the Georgia debacle. Performance in Syria, while limited, was impressive at first (at least compared to low expectations). — Count Timothy von Icarus

We're talking about nuclear responses, not ground force invasions.

Nonetheless, it's not about the details of the assessment, it's about the scale of the risk. I expect you've done a risk assessment (most people have these days) one multiplies the risk by the harm. The harm is nuclear annihilation. The risk doesn't have to be very high for it to be a sensible policy to back out of situations where that might be the outcome, and the rewards have to be enormous. 'Sticking it' to Putin because you think it's 'quite unlikely' that he'll start world war three is adolescent angst, not grown up global diplomacy.

Vis-á-vis the nuclear threat, if you like Chatam House, look there: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again the article is interesting, but doesn't even mention the BAS risk of escalation from NATO, so I don't see how it's relevant.

its not my job to explain to you why the pain of an open wound informs you for a crisis your physical health is experiencing and how it is connected to you being "well" and being able to ...continue to be. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not asking you to explain it, I'm informing you that you're mistaken.

I trust my own assessment — Punshhh

Well, that's either insanely egotistical or just plain insane. Why would you trust your own assessment? these are matters of extremely complex military strategy, diplomacy, economics, and politics. Do you think you're qualified to make anything like a sensible assessment of the evidence?

Do you have an unbiased source that you trust? — Punshhh

No. I have a number of biased sources I trust.

My point about emigration is that it is one of the reasons an iron curtain will be introduced. Along with commercial reasons. I can’t see how this can be avoided, can you? — Punshhh

Yes easily. By the things you imagine happening, not happening. I mean when you imagine events playing out some way do you seriously think you're so infallible that you can't even imagine how they could play out any other way? That's just not normal.