You mean, like in a beauty contest? — Olivier5

Obviously not. I can't see an overwhelming majority of my epistemic peers agreeing on what is literally the most famous example of subjective judgement there is. Did the expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" not make it into French?

Besides, who would be my epistemic peers in judging a beauty contest? What body of knowledge is there in that regard?

Do you even think before you write?

I need you to explain how Russia’s legitimate security concerns is at the same time actually related to Russian security and to a flag on top of the parliament building in Ukraine based on your “parenthesised part”. — neomac

The part in parentheses was "even if sometimes only figuratively", Ie not necessarily referring to an actual flag. The flag represents control by the government of that country. Control over some aspect of Ukraine's government (either by having them sign a binding agreement, or by installing a friendly 'puppet' governor in some region) would reduce their risk from foreign influence.

You not only misunderstood what I said but also missed to fully quote me, as I explicitly asked. So here is the full quotation: “I 100% agree with you, if the independence war Ukraine is fighting against Russian military oppression, can be reasonably rendered as a fight over an ornament of a Parliament building. ”
My agreement was conditional. — neomac

Well then your agreement is nonsensical. I don't know what more to say. Either fighting over national identity is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't become wrong or right based on the interpretation of some specific historical event. If your agreement that "fighting over a flag is always wrong" is dependant on how the Ukraine war is interpreted, then how did you decide before Russia invaded Ukraine?

“For me it’s matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism”, so the issue has nothing to do with a flag as piece of colored fabric decorating a building — neomac

Right. So you'd have to forward some argument to that effect. It's no good just saying 'for me' at the beginning and expecting that to act as an excuse not to supply any reasoning at all. Why do you see it as a matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. Why not, for example, a matter of American expansionism vs Russian expansionism? To quote from the article @StreetlightX posted earlier...

This definition, which requires an inter-imperialist war to be one where both sides are seeking to conquer each other’s territory, doesn’t even fit the Second World War. British and French imperialism weren’t interested in seizing German territory, but in hanging onto their already overstretched empires. And Hitler wasn’t particularly interested in these. It was eastern Europe and the Soviet Union he was after. — Alex Callinicos

...expansionism isn't always about territory.

if “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” expresses a logic claim — neomac

It doesn't.

if diplomats lie all the time (which already sounds as an exaggeration) they lie also when they claim to have found an agreement at the end of their negotiation sessions, so no negotiation agreements would be reliable and the practice itself would be pointless. — neomac

Not at all. Diplomats are not the arbiters of whether a negotiation has worked. If a process stops the war, everyone can see that it has worked, we don't rely on diplomats to tell us this.

If “it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works” is an empirical inductive generalisation and “diplomats lie all the time” just a gross exaggeration, it can be statistically true, and yet lead to fallible predictions in the given circumstances — neomac

Of course. But I'm not the one claiming that it will not work. I'm only claiming that it might. I only need to demonstrate that it is possible in order to substantiate that claim. Those who argue that Ukraine shouldn't negotiate because Putin lies, have the much harder task of demonstrating that such a process never works, otherwise it'd still be advisable to try.

What is morally/strategically interesting is precisely to understand how geopolitical agents come to think “they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them — neomac

That matter is undeniably secondary to actually partaking in negotiations. The parties involved must actually be negotiating in order for it to even be a question.

I’m not relying on any specific expert’s views, and more importantly I already provided to you some of the main arguments I find persuasive. — neomac

That wasn't the point against which I argued. I don't have a problem with the fact that there are arguments exculpating America which are persuasive. I was arguing against...

the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications. — neomac

...that you find some arguments persuasive is irrelevant to this claim. Your claim is that arguments of America's culpability are not supported by an objective analysis of the facts. I asked how you justify that claim when so many experts, after having made an objective analysis of the facts, reach a different conclusion.

1. Ukraine is the oppressed and not Russia, and the West is helping the oppressed not the oppressor — neomac

The west is delivering weapons to the oppressed. Whether that's 'helping' them depends entirely on your analysis of their options.

2. Ukraine & the West adopted a more “stick & carrot” containment strategy while Russia opted for an invade and wreck aggressive strategy — neomac

So? How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.

3. Whatever action is taken by the West is not coming from the decisions of a single dictatorial leader but of a bunch of democratic leaders with problematic coordination, we can not say the same of Putin — neomac

I don't see what difference this makes if those decisions all tended in much the same direction.

4. Ukraine seems more open to share our views on standard of life and freedoms than Russia. — neomac

What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have? As I've posted many times (to no effect whatsoever), every single metric that humanity has seen fit to produce shows Ukraine and Russia at much the same level in every measure of human well-being. So what makes you think they're 'more like us' than Russia?

it’s enough to give me links to your posts where you mention and/or argue the views of the experts you rely on. — neomac

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/671136, for example.

So you are for pushing Ukraine to concede to Russia all they have demanded (no NATO membership, acknowledgement of Crimean annexation, independence of a couple of Donbas provinces) in exchange to stopping the war. I fail to see how this is a third strategy as you have claimed (“It’s clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both”): in what sense is this strategy opposing Russian expansionism? — neomac

1. This gives Russia no more than is de facto the case already, so it doesn't give an inch on Russian expansionism, it just admits that we've failed to contain it peacefully as we should have. Russia already run Crimea, Donbas already has independent parliaments and make independent decisions, NATO have already pretty much ruled out membership for Ukraine, as have Ukraine.

2. I care very little about Russian expansionism when compared to the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainians. If you want to throw them in front of the tanks to prevent it, that's on you, but I'm not going to support that.

Crimea is a hub of utmost strategic importance in the Black sea for commercial, energetic and military reasons, while the Donbass region is vital for industrial and energetic reasons. So this concession would not only empower Putin to further his expansionist ambitions (e.g. against other European countries), but it will threaten the EU economic security (due to the energetic and alimentary dependency on Ukraine and Russia as Putin’s blackmailing is proving). Not to mention that it will prove the weakness of the West to the world, from its enemies (starting from Russia and China) to its allies (the eastern and central European states).
So such concessions are not only the opposite of containment strategy. But likely a major breaking point for the entire World Order as we know it. In other words, the West and Ukraine have plenty of strategic reasons to keep fighting Russian oppression as long as they can and as best as they can. — neomac

A perfect summary of the West's interests in this war, well done.

Now explain how it's morally acceptable for us to throw Ukrainian civilians in front of Russian tanks to help us achieve these goals.

Even if the concerns are exactly the same, which I questioned because NATO in this case didn’t expand through forceful annexations of other sovereign nation’s territory and this is a crucial point which you should address before anything else when you talk about Russian security concerns, then we should support NATO against Russian expansionism also for moral reasons in addition to the strategic ones — neomac

What 'moral reasons'? (I've addressed the significance of tactics already. There's no inherent moral preference for one tactic over another if both cause the same level of misery)

from a more concrete and personal point of view there is a big difference in how this influence is deployed: e.g. Isis might want to put their flag in our decapitated head, while the US might want to put their flag on the sandwich we are eating. Do you see the difference? Because if you don’t, I do and I value it. — neomac

We're talking about the US and Russia here, not Isis. The US 'method' is causing more deaths in Yemen right now than are being caused in Ukraine by the Russian 'method'. And Yemen isn't even the US's only theatre of war as Ukraine is Russia's.

geopolitics is not all what counts to me.
Russia can try to influence whoever they want the way they see fit to their geopolitical goals, yet I will react differently depending on moral implications and personal preferences. — neomac

Care to expand on these clandestine 'personal preferences'?

I find this line of reasoning analytically too poor and misleading to support such claim about the West: “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. I explained that to some extent here — neomac

Right. That just goes back to your disagreement that Russia had any reason at all to see NATO's actions as a threat (ie arguing that NATO weren't even shaking the table at all). The problem is, an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts disagree with you and you've not provided a single reason why anyone would take your view over theirs.

So what qualifies as 'an established fact', according to you? — Olivier5

One which the overwhelming majority of my epistemic peers agree on. Like "the earth is round". Something which I would simply assume someone knowledgeable in the subject believed without feeling the need to ask.

It is not clear to me, in particular, which media you trust and which you don't trust. — Olivier5

I don't trust entire media sources. As put it...

I think both sides here (the West, Russia) stick to the truth when the truth is beneficial to them. Then it's about noticing what is left out. Hence years ago Russia Today could do a great job in objectively covering the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations, because why not? — ssu

Sometimes I see no reason to doubt Reuters, sometimes I do. Depends on the story.

In this specific case, I've neither the reason, nor the necessity, to trust anyone. I believe that war should be avoided by exhaustive use of diplomacy. That view is not affected by the facts of how well, or badly, each side is doing militarily, nor is it affected by whatever each side's 'real' reasons are.

I tend to trust claims which no side are denying, so I trust that America are sending weapons to Ukraine and that they're not negotiating with their Russian counterparts (though I can see some reason why both sides might deny that). That's wrong, as per the principle above, and no facts about military positions changes that.

What I don't like is people advocating strategies based on facts which are clearly very difficult, if not impossible, to establish. For example, holding off on peace talks because Russia are 'losing'. I don't need to know if Russia are 'winning' to advocate for negotiation because I think it is always the best policy regardless, but unless people are advocating 'never negotiate', then they must base their advocacy against negotiation on some facts of the case.

So I don't see sources as being particularly relevant here. My counterarguments don't rely on some fact being the case (of the sort one might source), but rather are moral judgments based on widely agreed upon facts (such as - it's difficult to obtain accurate information in a war, diplomats lie sometimes, arms dealers profit from war, politicians are sometimes influenced by lobbying...).

If I need a source for any of my arguments (ie the facts are not largely undisputed), then I'll usually cite that source and have done so frequently throughout this thread. If you have an issue with any of those sources, feel free to raise it.

Our protectors just discovered a few weeks ago "intelligence" could be "weaponised". — boethius

Or did they...?

God they're good at this. Next they'll be cutting eye holes out of newspapers to observe other spies*. The cunning devils.


*if you're a Russian reading this, we don't do that, they're just ordinary newspapers. No need to look very hard at them.

just a slowed down enemy. — Olivier5

Can you not read, or do you not care? Hard to see another option.

Alleged strike on Russian fuel depot hurts peace talks — BBC

the CIA is giving Putin a taste of his own medicine ... which, according to the CIA, Putin's medicine is lying about everything? — boethius

"We're playing Putin at his own game (but everything we say to the global media is, of course, absolutely true). Shh! Don't tell Putin - you're all spies now..."

Is that your passive aggressive way of saying you agree with me? — Olivier5

No, it's my 'normal aggressive' way of undermining your attempt to imply people have said as much by writing as if you were responding to them.

I do the same, just better. — Olivier5

Cool. We'll learn from the master then. Your sources, background checks and conflict of interest assessments for the claim please...

the case of this thread (and with subjects that are targets of active information warfare) it might be useful to occasionally say this. Just for clarity.. — ssu

True. Does that apply to occasionally reminding everyone what imperialist warmongering bastards America are too!

Just for clarity...

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here: — ssu

If @Apollodorus is such a troll (not necessarily disagreeing) then their arguments can be safely ignored, no? If we're having a grown up discussion, one does not occasionally interject to say "of course, Santa Claus doesn't really exist".

I said it was next to impossible. — Olivier5

Yes, I read that. I was wondering why (since no one had argued the contrary and it's blinding obvious) you felt the need to say such a thing.

So whom do you trust, if you don't trust 'the media'? — Olivier5

There's a variety box media sources I trust. Generally, I check that they have some accepted qualification in the field they're talking on, check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest, then I see if their overall narrative is similar to mine and trust them, or not, on that basis.

But trust isn't relevant here. You said...

It is an established fact — Olivier5

...not "this is who I trust", or "this is what X reports". Your claim was that it is an actual established fact.

Really, learn your history first. — ssu

Don't patronise me. Read what I've written. Did I at any point say that the US were either a sole or major factor in the downfall of the US? Did I make any claim whatsoever about the scale of the effect?

You, however, claimed...

I'd call that genuine Western hubris, if Americans or others think that the Soviet Union collapsed because of them. The Soviet Union collapsed on itself. — ssu

Really, learn your history first. The US played a role too.

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who ever debated a holocaust or climate change denier: — Olivier5

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who wants to dismiss and argument without having to actually address it.

Why do people trust other people? Perhaps because life would be next to impossible if one trusted no one. — Olivier5

Who said anything about trusting no one?

And this just shows how illogical and wrong it is to believe the fig-leaf of NATO expansion being the reason for this invasion. — ssu

If anyone were arguing that NATO expansion were the reason for the war then you could reasonably point to the inefficiency of the technique as a counterargument.

But since the only arguments being put forward are that it is a reason, the inefficiency of the method is not relevant. The method may have been chosen for one of the many other reasons.

Attacking Ukraine just transformed NATO back to it's original form and increased the military spending and made both Sweden and Finland to start the process of joining NATO. Russian aggression is the sole reason why they are changing their security stance. — ssu

But you'd argued previously that Russia are not going to succeed at their territorial aims either. So if failure to succeed is being used as an indicator for what an aim might have been, then Russia (according to you) had no aims at all, because it's going to fail at everything. The fact that this approach failed to secure a weaker NATO doesn't prove that it was never intended to achieve a weaker NATO.

As @Benkei said...

I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. — Benkei

...or did you go to Ukraine yourself, talk to the soldiers there, gather that intelligence directly... You must get up very early in the morning to get all that done.

Concerning for sure, but not as concerning as Russia having amassed up close to half the world's nuclear ☢ weaponry all by themselves (and threatened to use them), making Russia the top ☢-dog in the world. Plus violating other nations' airspaces + whatever. — jorndoe

That's true. I'm not (never have been ) arguing against claims of scale (Russia are worse in this or that case). I'm arguing against claims of kind ("Russia are provoking - US are defending", or "Russia are aggressive - US defensive" - that sort of thing). Those kind of arguments are clearly false. Both parties are aggressive, both seek influence outside of their borders, both kill and immiserate thousands of innocent people in the pursuit of that influence.

So no intention of answering the question then? I didn't ask "What other reasons were there for the decline of the USSR?" I asked what mechanism prevented the enormous efforts of America to crush Communism from working.

Did they all fail by chance (but by sheer luck their exact objectives happen to have been achieved anyway - phew!). Were all the US presidents secretly Russian spies, instigating scheme after scheme to crush the USSR (all of which they knew wouldn't work)?

The US and Europe spent billions on undermining communism, fought proxy wars, instigated covert regime changes, created the largest spying rings ever seen... Your argument is that none of that had any effect whatsoever. It all just failed for some reason. But completely co-incidentally, the one objective of all those schemes just happened to have come about anyway by chance.

Do you seriously not see how absurd that is?

So the Russian legitimate security concerns triggered by the West that led to this war ultimately consisted in whose flag is decorating the Ukrainian parliament building. Is this consistent with your claim that a legitimate security interest is an “interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric)”? It doesn’t seem to me so because a decorative component of a Parliament building has literally nothing to do with national security — neomac

Did you miss the parenthesised part or do you need me to explain it?

> You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral

Did I? Can you fully quote where I agreed with that? — neomac

IT was the bit where you said...

I 100% agree with you — neomac

...just after I'd been talking about fighting over nothing but national identity. Is it that you misunderstood what I was saying, or have you changed your mind?

if all diplomats lie then there might be concrete situations in which one party believes to be more trustworthy than the other during a negotiation. For example, the Ukrainians can reasonably suspect that a call for negotiation from the Russians is to allow Russians to re-supply their war machine and continue the war. And the Russians can reasonably suspect the same of the Ukrainians. And one of them may be right. So my question is, in this hypothetical situation, are there any alternative moral principles that could tell us how the hypothetical party in “good faith” should proceed, when the other doesn’t seem to be? — neomac

My point is that it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works. All that's necessary is for each side to think they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them. That can be achieved through lies, bribery, honesty, threats, concessions...it doesn't matter. That's what statecraft is.

As far as I can recall, you didn’t tell me which experts you chose, even less why you found their arguments more persuasive. — neomac

I assumed you were following the thread. I haven't time to have the same conversation separately with every interlocutor I'm afraid. If you also haven't time to keep up with the whole thread then then we're stuck. Why don't we compromise and you tell me which experts are saying that the US is blameless and why you find their arguments persuasive. That's something you've not yet done so you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

but you didn't formulate any alternative strategy to me to prove that it doesn't apply to you, — neomac

Still I’m explicitly asking you to specify these legitimate security concerns — neomac

It's odd how, when I raise a specific issue about negotiation (Ukraine have lied too, so can't fairly expect Russia to be an honest negotiation partner), you switch to "hypothetical" mode to make your arguments, but when I make hypothetical arguments you won't accept them without specifics...

Still. The alternative strategy to arming Ukraine and fighting to the last man is negotiations. Ones involving not only Ukraine and Russia, but America (or NATO) and Europe (EU, or representatives) since the situation involves them too. Russia's existing demands are de facto the case anyway, so they would be a perfectly good starting concession for negotiations.

The 'legitimate security concerns' I believe I've already mentioned. Closer alliances with NATO could allow US or EU military installations in Ukraine. Such installations give Ukraine an advantage in any future negotiations (their meaningful threat level is higher), they act as levers to push Ukraine into further economic union with the EU (harming Russian efforts), and they make Ukraine the stronger opposition in any territorial dispute (such as Crimea) which may hamper further military strength in other areas (as it's a crucial port), finally, actors within Ukraine (such as anti-Russian paramilitaries) are given more strength by being able to shelter under the wing of the stronger Ukraine. It's not rocket science, it's exactly the same concerns NATO have.

China has territorial claims over Taiwan. — neomac

I thought we'd just done talking about the insignificance of flags? China want influence in Taiwan. Their method might be to put their flag over the parliament. The US want influence in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen... Their method is to fight a war to install a US-friendly government under such crippling loan terms that they've little choice to accept US influence. The methods are immaterial here. Both cause massive destruction and loss of innocent life. Both lead their instigators to positions of power.

Taiwan is a partner of the US so if the US wants to protect Taiwan then the US should get prepared to counter Chinese aggression — neomac

Likewise, Russia could claim that about Syria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia or the Donbas regions.

for me the West is like the mob that is helping the victim (Ukraine) against the bully (Russia), it’s not the mob who is encouraging the bully (Russia) to abuse the victim. Isn’t the same for you? If not why not? What else should the West do to help Ukraine against the Russian bully. — neomac

I see I've confused you by using a 'bully' in my example. I'll try again. Imagine five people are shaking a table and the vase on it breaks. All five are collectively responsible. If later, one person shakes the same table and the same vase breaks, does that mean that four of the five people in the previous example are now exonerated, we've just shown that the vase would have broken anyway with only one person's shaking. So which of the five should we exculpate? It's obviously nonsense. If five people collectively cause something they are all collectively responsible. It doesn't change that responsibility to argue that their effect could have been achieved with fewer people.

If there are, say, ten reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, all ten are collectively responsible. It doesn't change that to say "he would have attacked anyway with only five".

Then how come that Ukraine didn’t threaten Russian national security and yet Russia is invading Ukraine? — neomac

I've already explained this. The security reason (neither the sole, nor the most important reason) for the invasion would be to secure a more independent Ukraine to prevent the issues of an allied Ukraine I mentioned above.

The Soviet Union c ollapsed on itself. — ssu

So by what mechanism did all their enormous efforts manage to miraculously have no effect whatsoever?

Then we simply would have to talk about the real reasons for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. — ssu

'Real' according to whom?

I don't agree with your assessment of those reasons. That's the matter we're discussing. Just circling back round to your starting position without any further evidence is pointless.

I'm saying that Western provocation was one of Putin's reasons for invading. You haven't provided any counterargument at all. You just said it didn't justify his invasion (I agree, nothing does), but you've offered no counter to the argument that it was a contributory cause.

If it was a contributory cause, then the US and Europe could plausibly have prevented this war by acting to diffuse the security concerns.

To be abundantly clear - the fact that security interests don't justify war has no bearing whatsoever on whether they contribute to the causes of it.

Destroy? Or contain? — frank

Wow, so you really are pushing the 'live and let live' narrative. See this is why its so hard tk remain civil. What was McCarthy? A little overenthusiastic? The CIA support for regime changes in South America? Just high spirits? The west wanted to wipe Communism of the face of the earth. If you can't see that then I've run our of polite responses.

What this tells you is that capitalism doesn't require competition. In fact, the worst episodes in the history of capitalism were when monopolies ruled overtly. — frank

I see. Not sure how that relates to the argument.

I'm saying the USSR became, as Gorbachev put it, "a mountain of lies." — frank

Again, not sure how that relates to the argument. That the USSR collapsed isn't really in question. The question was the extent to which 'the west' were instrumental in making that happen. The west clearly put huge efforts into destroying them.

Linux is Unix based. C language comes from Bell Labs. — frank

Again, the point is not the actual story, that's just historicism. The point is whether it could have been different. The point I'm making is that saying "that's how it was" is not support for the argument "that's how it must be". The development of Linux at least implies that it's possible to develop such systems collaboratively. Despite what just happened to have transpired, it's perfectly plausible that C could have been developed in exactly the same way.

The USSR collapsed. That wasn't because of the West. — frank

Are you suggesting all the West's efforts to destroy the USSR were irrelevant? Or are you suggesting they took a 'live and let live' attitude toward communism?

It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins. — Christoffer

You've not answered the question of why Russia must choose from one of the already existing options. It just doesn't make sense as a premise, there's no reason they would be thus constrained.

That came from a government regulated monopoly. — frank

From wiki

Linux began in 1991 as a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds: to create a new free operating system kernel.

Open source isn't in opposition to monopoly.

I think you missed my point. — frank

OK. Have another go.

To try and wrest this back to the topic... The argument was that Russia had better follow western societies (even at the risk of commercialisation) since there were no viable alternatives. I pointed out that the lack of viable alternatives was a deliberate result of the system itself and so couldn't be used as evidence (it didn't win in a fair competition). You said that ruthless competition was sometimes good, and referenced my phone. I said that my phone could be better and it's origin in ruthless competition was no argument in its favour for the same reason (suppression of alternatives).

I'm raising open source software as an example of a product which is absolutely integral to the modern world which arose, not from ruthless competition but from entirely free, voluntary collaboration with no renumeration whatsoever. I could further point to Microsoft's deliberate (and illegal) attempts to suppress that alternative.


So your point fits where?

That came from a government regulated monopoly. — frank

Did it? I know nothing of the history. My point was that it's open source, ie not a monopoly.

You need one common OS to allow the fruition of the technology's potential. — frank

My PC runs on Linux.

they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures. — Christoffer

They don't 'tend' that way, they are forced to move that way.

Most developing nations have had their resources stolen from them at gunpoint (by the very western societies you're lauding), then when on their knees, they're given loans the terms of which involve the very market changes you're trying to imply just 'happened'. Look up India's debt history and explain how that's just India 'tending' toward free-market economics.

That's not even getting into the pecuniary terms of international trade deals, things like the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the bias in the UN security council, the imbalance in subsidised TNCs...

In new polite terminology, the idea that developing countries just naturally tend toward free-market economics is... implausible.

leftists would do well to spend a little time in silence reflecting on how much power they once had and how that was squandered. — frank

I suspect they have, but we'll let that lie then.

Ruthless competition is good is some cases. Monopoly works well in others. There are a number of aspects of your environment that originated in Western monopolies. Your phone is one of them. — frank

Again, the problem is that destruction of alternatives is part of the system. It makes it very difficult to support these arguments. Ruthless competition certainly lead to the development of my phone, but seeing as 'ruthless competition' was, by design, the only game in town, we can't really say whether it was a necessary, or merely sufficient condition.

My phone also breaks more frequently that it could, it makes it deliberately difficult for me to fix, has built in mechanisms to benefit the corporation which made it (at my expense), pollutes the environment, and exploits child labour. It certainly could be better.

So is capitalism responsible for the good bits, the bad bits, both...? We can't possibly know without the freedom to try alternatives.

All leftists everywhere need to shut up and think about that. — frank

I thought we were all trying to be more civil...

If your opponent crashes your head into a brick wall, you might stop and wonder if you could have represented yourself a little better. — frank

I agree entirely, but it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the absence of a viable alternative cannot be used as evidence in a system which deliberately destroys alternatives.

Unless, of course, you agree with ruthless competition, in which case, yes, Western capitalism seems currently to be the winner. Not sure that's anything to crow about, but it might just be an uncomfortable fact. For now...

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms? — Christoffer

1. Create a system which exploits workers to put enormous economic and militarily power in the hands of a narrow elite.

2. Use this power to ruthlessly destroy any alternative systems.

3. Point to the absence/destruction of alternative systems as evidence that no other system works.

I'm measuring by the quality of life indexes, of societies in the world where as many as possible within those societies have basic individual and humanitarian protections so that basic human acts like having an opinion aren't shut down with violence or the ability to have a meaningful impact on the collective through politics isn't as well shut down with violence or censorship. — Christoffer

I've just pointed out that the quality of life indices don't support your assertions so this seems an untenable position. If you were using quality of life indices you would not be able to support the argument that Russia's current negotiation position would be worse for Ukraine than continued fighting. By the very indices you claim to be using, Ukraine is either a worse place or roughly equal place to live than Russia, so it would matter very little for the objective you claim here to be pursuing which government they were under control of.

If you want to use a different measure of what sort of society we should be aiming for, one where Ukraine clearly beats Russia, then you should make that clear, otherwise you're just going to cause more confusion. You appear to be using electoral systems and methods of press control, but I've not read any justification for your choice here, it's not what most indices of human well-being limit themselves to.

@jamalrob ^ That better?

So yes, these people who start wars have their lies. There's nothing legitimate for a justification in made up lies. — ssu

Why are you still talking about justifications for war when I expressly said in my last post that this was not about justification for war?

Why bring up the idea of Russia having legitimate security concerns when it didn't have them? — ssu

They did have them. They didn't justify invasion. Why is that so hard to understand?

And as to why I brought them up (since you've clearly lost the thread), they were in connection to the accusation of provocation by NATO. IF Russia has legitimate security concerns (just as the US does with regards to China) then tensions can be diffused diplomatically by addressing those concerns. Failure to do so (in fact deliberate attempts to exacerbate them) are acts of reckless provocation, in the full knowledge that war is thereby made more likely. none of this either requires nor even mentions, whether such concerns justified Russia's invasion.

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

The method used is immaterial, they heightened nuclear tension.

I'm not talking to you so keep to yourself ok? — Christoffer

Something of a performative contradiction, no?

Stop quoting my posts please — Christoffer

No. If you say something which is erroneous, or egregious, I'll correct it, or point that out. If you want to have your posts go uncontested write a fucking blog, this is a discussion forum, expect to have your comments challenged.

Russia has no legitimate security reasons to invade a country that wasn't planning to attack it, — ssu

True. Now what's that got to do with the point being argued? Need I remind you of it?

If you're looking for a reason why this thread descends so readily, you need look no further than this. One cannot even mention the topic of Russia's security concerns without it being immediately assumed (without the slightest reason) that the argument is to legitimise the Russian invasion.

Where have I written anything to the effect that having legitimate security concerns justifies invasion?

But let's talk about how bad the US is — Christoffer

OK.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/russia-says-alarmed-by-us-deployment-of-low-yield-nuclear-missiles/

The appearance on strategic carriers of low-power warheads means arguments previously voiced by the American side about the possible use of such a device are now being realized in metal form, as products.

This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming.

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

What indices would you use?

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-benevolence-and-trust-during-covid-19-and-beyond/#ranking-of-happiness-2019-2021

For example?


Russia ranked 80, Ukraine ranked 98. You should be cheering on the invasion.

Is this the Russian legitimate security concerns you were talking about: a flag decorating a parliament building? — neomac

Yes, something like. Mostly 'security concerns' in terms of international politics come down to whose flag is over the parliament (even if sometimes only figuratively).

I’m talking about the morality and related civic duty to fight against the Russian oppressors by the Ukrainians as long as it makes sense to them to fight for their own national identity and security. — neomac

You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral, now you're saying it's a duty?

if the West thinks that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the Russians — neomac

...then that's not 'good faith', is it? Simply assuming your opposite number is going to lie (whilst scrubbing the blood off your own hands) and refusing negotiation on those grounds is about as good a definition of 'bad faith' in the context as it gets. All diplomats lie, it's part of the job. There's no justifiable ground for one side to pull out of negotiations on te grounds that the other side lie. It's rank hypocrisy.

what if I found experts that would disagree with the conclusions of your experts? Still we would need reasons to rely on the opinion of one expert instead of the other, when they disagree with their analysis or conclusions. — neomac

Exactly. And that's what high quality discussion consists of among amateurs. All we have is our reasons for believing one expert over another. assuming we ourselves know enough about the military or economic situation to actually make our own assessments is outrageous hubris, but when experts disagree, that task of choosing between them is not itself one that is amenable to further expertise, it is one that laymen such as ourselves can profitably discuss. Thus, you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That's how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact.

My claim is grounded on a simple & logic assumption: in a competitive game between N geopolitical actors with incompatible interests, if you act against (or more against) the strategy of only 1 of them, you are indirectly helping (or more helping) the remaining N-1 geopolitical actors. And this is the case, no matter if you do it knowingly/intentionally or not (yet I recon that it could be more problematic if you do it knowingly and intentionally). — neomac

Yes, I understood that. It's erroneous in this situation because there are clearly not only two strategies. It's clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both.

You keep repeating that Russia has legitimate security concerns without explaining what they consist in. — neomac

I didn't feel they needed explaining. Do you have trouble with the idea that the US has legitimate security concerns? if not, then you already have your answer. In fact, see my post above. The US considers it has a legitimate security concern from China. China has never attacked the US. It hasn't attacked anywhere at all for decades and the last war it fought in was on the same side as the US. So why has the US got security concerns? Because China could attack the US, or it's interests (in some capacity) and an increase in its ability to do so is a threat. Likewise for NATO and Russia.

Even if I read it, as you suggest, we could still disagree on how I and you would apply that concept to the case at hand. So if you really want to prove a point, you should actually argue for it. — neomac

It was rhetorical. Things have more than one cause, not all of them necessary causes. IF I form part of a mob encouraging a bully, it is immoral of me to do so on the grounds that I have become part of the causes of his bullying. Had I left that mob, the remaining agitators may still have been enough to lead to violence. Had we all left, the bully may well have committed some violent act anyway. Neither of these contingencies excuse me from being part of the mob encouraging violence.

if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations. — neomac

I made no such claim.

The US released details of it's National Defense Strategy this week.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/28/2002964702/-1/-1/1/NDS-FACT-SHEET.PDF

To those like@ssu and @Christoffer arguing that Russia has no legitimate security concerns because "it's a nuclear superpower", I wonder if you can explain why the US feels so differently about its strategic interests.

Defending the homeland, paced to the growing multi-domain threat posed by the PRC
Deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners — NDS

Defending the homeland from what? I thought nobody attacked nuclear superpowers? What 'strategic attacks'? We are assured by the posters here that NATO posed no legitimate strategic 'threat' to Russia. Since China has no made any direct military overtures toward the US (in fact, the last war they fought was on the same side), I wonder how the US can now claim them as posing a 'threat'.

Does 'threat' mean something different in the US?