It rather sounds to me like a magic book which can resolve any empirical question, and essentially give you perfect empirical knowledge. The imperfection seems to lie with the metaphysical truth of that knowledge, but that isn't particularly relevant in practice. So it just seems to much of a boon to turn down, though I wouldn't force it on everyone.

Surely, neither merely believing something is true nor believing that no arguments against one's position are convincing does anything to guarantee reliability. It's one's reasons for believing something is true that determine that truth's reliability. Reasons that are measurable, and have been repeatedly verified are reliable, aren't such factors like these determinative of reliability? — Judaka

Right, I see what you mean, but I wasn't intending to go that far yet. I was merely looking at what we wish to express when we say "X is true".

If X is true, we can use it as a premise for further argument. We can assume it for the purpose of building some machine.

We would also expect it not to change arbitrarily. That is, we expect that we can give reasons for why something is true. Hence why many people don't think tastes or preferences have a truth value.

The next question is then why we believe something is true.

Words and ideas must be redefined within the context of science, and adhere to scientific standards, that's a prerequisite for doing science. — Judaka

But I'm not doing science here.

I agree that we must be convinced that something is true to call it true. "For someone to call something true, they must believe it is", sure I agree with that. But how does that give us reliability? — Judaka

Reliability means more than simply believing it. It means you're willing to risk something. It means that if everyone in the room believes that X is true, you can safely base your argument on it.

It means that within the context of science, someone saying X is true means it has met the prerequisites of science, and within the context of something else, like art, X is beautiful because it met the prerequisites for one to find it beautiful. Those prerequisites were just that they found X beautiful, and their belief just reflects their personal interpretation and experience. It wouldn't even cross our minds to challenge the "reliability" of the truth about X's beauty as it would in the scientific context. I was just saying that we don't treat truths the same across all contexts. It's the scientific process that gives the truth its reliability in the scientific context, rather than the truth being necessarily reliable. This is what my OP is about. — Judaka

I think the art example is problematic because not everyone would agree that "this picture is beautiful" has a truth value.

I'd like to instead use a moral argument. Say: "Murder is immoral". I think most people would agree that this statement has a truth value. It's not scientific though. Or take: "The sum of the interior angle measures of a triangle always adds up to 180°."

If we take these statements and compare this to something empirical, say "the gravity on earth has an acceleration of 9,81 m/s²", what do these statements have in common?

That's how I arrived at my conclusion that there are commonalities among things we deem true.

And I would further add that another common element is that the truth can be argued for in a specific way. The argument has to take a specific form, fulfill specific criteria to result is a true statement.

It seems to me what's different among the different contexts is the prerequisites of the argument.

Reliability isn't the only relevant quality but forgetting that, conceptually, truth should be reliable, but in practice, it depends on the truth conditions. — Judaka

What do you mean by "in practice"? Truth is a concept we apply to statements.

Within your argument, you use words such as "surprise" and "convincing", which are inherently unscientific. You can't measure the "convincingness" of an argument, right? If I find your argument convincing, that's no guarantee that someone else will. You could make the same argument with "reliability" itself. — Judaka

Yes, I intentionally used "unscientific" terms because they should apply to all kinds of contexts.

Is an element of truth that people agree on it? If not I don't see how it matters that people can argue about it. But if *you* believe something is true, then there cannot be a convincing argument to the contrary for you.

The quality of truth is dependent upon the truth conditions. Truths can have various truth conditions and have various qualities, right? — Judaka

I have no idea what this would mean.

It doesn't have to be a death cult. The Regime just has to be very desperate, to the point where they start thinking, "a few tactical nukes, strategically placed..." If it looks like Ukraine starts pushing Russia back to their border, or Putin thinks he's about to be overthrown, why not roll the dice, from his point of view? If he thinks it's likely he's going to be deposed and killed, what would he have to lose? — RogueAI

AFAIK Putin doesn't have the ability to unilaterally instigate a nuclear strike, he'd need the cooperation of the army high command. Which, in a scenario where his head is on the line, he presumably doesn't have.

It's hard to see how any use of nukes doesn't make the situation simply worse for Russia. It seems almost guaranteed that, if Russia uses any nuclear weapon, they'll loose their remaining allies. China isn't going to want to be associated with it, nor will anyone else.

It's also highly questionable whether any military advantage that's even remotely commensurate could be achieved.

Bombing the direct frontline will achieve little unless you positively blanket it with bombs. Hitting any kind of strategic target like transportation, C&C or production will almost inevitably involve hitting a city.

I don't think the Russian people will accept nuking a Ukrainian city as part of the "special military operation". Given Putin's reluctance to even call a general mobilisation, I think it's safe to assume he doesn't believe the population would accept a total war against Ukraine.

So really all that seems even remotely useful is to stage some kind of nuclear demonstration to scare Ukraine's western allies. But even that might just have the opposite effect and ensure an even more unanimous front against Russia.

And that's not considering the likely NATO response, which would probably be a no fly zone over Ukraine and possibly airstrikes on russian troops in Ukraine.

Yes. That's what worries a lot of people. — RogueAI

It has always struck me as kind of a useless worry though. Noone has been able to identify a scenario where any use of nukes makes strategic sense for Russia. Indeed this conflict seems like a very good example for the argument that as military weapons in the strict sense, nukes are useless.

While the possibility remains that the Russian regime turns into some kind of death cult and tries to burn it all down, it doesn't seem to make sense to base any decisions on this possibility.

Surely, science isn't "the pursuit of truth" but "the pursuit of truth under a particular set of circumstances", and these circumstances are what we call science.

Has the view that science is "the pursuit of truth" led to a misunderstanding of truth? Particularly in contexts such as philosophy and politics, where truth may operate under very different circumstances. — Judaka

What is the relevant quality of a scientific result? I would say it's reliability. You need to be able to rely on the prediction of what will happen, so you can base your decisions/ designs on this.

Is that a fundamental attribute of truth? I would say it is. For something to be true it must be a reliable. If something is true, this excludes surprise. It excludes a convincing argument to the contrary.

It's possible the whole reason for the annexation was to pre-empt pacifists in the higher echelons by forcing them to commit to "defending Russia".

If the exact borders are unclear that gives room for political maneuvers. Seems like the kind of thing Putin, still a KGB man at heart, would do.

Oh I think it can recover. Every year brings a fresh new batch of conscripts and the Russian military industrial complex can chug out a limited number of tanks, guns and ammo. It will be likely more than the West provides Ukraine.

I think Russia could make an offensive let's say next year spring/summer. — ssu

I think the best Russia can hope for in the foreseeable future is to force Ukraine onto the defensive and continue the kind of grinding single-target assaults that so far have been the only successful strategy.

I think it's unlikely Russia can do any sweeping offensive even if western aid to Ukraine is reduced.

So far neither side in the conflict has found a way to break through prepared defenses.

The only big game changer that seems in the cards is if either side gains air superiority. The state of Ukraine's air defense seems the best kept secret of the war so far. They seem to be doing fine, but it's hard to tell whether there is a secret crisis brewing. OTOH Ukraine will likely get at least some F16, which might make a difference (probably also depending on what kind of ammunition is supplied).

In other news it looks like the more moderate Republicans in the US are not going down without a fight. Jim Jordan might need to agree to further aid on Ukraine (which is still popular even with republicans, though less of them want to ship weapons directly).

In the US, Jim Jordan seems to be inching closer to the speakership. This would seem a victory for the extreme right of the Republicans, and possibly a serious threat to Ukraine aid.

If he gets the speakership, will he try to be more inclusive or shut the US down until the demands of the small group of extremists are met?

I don't think Mearsheimer even argued that it's simply NATO expansionism driving the Russian actions. He considers the expansion reckless and wrong headed, but iirc doesn't claim that Russia would be less belingerent towards its neighbours without it.

His position seems to be that the US shouldn't get involved in the region, since it's not vital to US interests, and should just allow Russia a free reign over it's neighbours. He makes no claim on what Russia intends to do with this freedom, or that this will be better for the people involved.

Within the framing of his realpolitik approach, I think the argument works. But it's focused only on avoiding a conflict between the big powers and doesn't support the argument that Russia wouldn't wish to incorporate (in some way) Ukraine if there was no NATO

You mean people predicted Russia would invade Ukraine when Russia amassed an invasion Army at the border and started making demands?

Their foresight is amazing.

Edit: I would guess everyone here has seen at least one of Mearsheimer's talks. I don't think the disagreement is about the basic analysis of the situation so much as about what the Russian leadership actually thinks and intends.

I think one can readily accept Cohen's analysis (which tracks with what I've read about Russia post 1991) without then arriving at the conclusion that NATO expansion was a main contributing cause of the 2022 invasion.

While the resentment and sense of hypocrisy was caused by western behaviour in the 90s and early 2000s, including of course the eastern expansion of NATO, it is not today simply a reaction to NATO. I think rather that the resentment (for which the West certainly deserves blame) has combined with other currents of Russian politics to form a toxic cocktail of nationalism, chauvinism, resentment and hybris.

And to say that this cocktail, which Putin represents, is essentially a reaction to NATO expansion is such a significant simplification and distortion that it has to be labeled false.

shows that US involvement was all over this conflict, and that Putin has been a very reactive leader — Mikie

I think that's the main sticking point here: That you're willing to give Putin this huge benefit of the doubt, despite the statements he made re Ukraine (that it's not a real state and just an unnatural creation that really should be part of Russia).

You're saying we are retroactively applying intentions to Putin. That's true. But that's how assessing intentions always works.

It seems to me, and I suspect others here feel the same, that to call Putin's action "very reactive" is essentially absolving him of a significant share of blame. That, imho, is unacceptable.

Note that I didn't refuse to explain. You'll find all the explanation you need in this very thread, with links, sources and all. I've probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all. If you're unaware of US involvement in Ukraine I would suggest starting at page 1. — Tzeentch

Noo, you don't refuse, you're just requesting I read 520 pages to maybe figure out what the fuck you meant.

No, thanks. Pointing to "a books worth" of text as supposed explanation for a single sentence is a dishonest move, as you should know.

Sometimes being an asshole and simply being honest look very much alike. — Tzeentch

No, I don't think they do. I think that this is rather too convenient an explanation.

So you're either unaware of the United States' deep involvement in Ukraine, or trying to deny it.

In either case there's no point in continuing this kind of discussion.

If you're genuinely interested in learning more about this conflict, feel free to read through some of the replies I've dropped here. They'll also include links and sources. — Tzeentch

Oh Bullshit!

"Oh I'm sorry you're to ignorant for me to explain please educate yourself".

What an absolute asshole move. You don't want to continue? Fine. No-one is forcing you. But don't dress it up as an unfortunate circumstance forced onto you.

Go ahead and prove your point with argument, or graciously retreat.

Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat. — Tzeentch

Ukraine has agreed to neutrality every time it was brought up in negotiations.

The sticking point is that Russia always wanted disarmed neutrality while Ukraine has insisted on armed neutrality.

The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs. — Tzeentch

Like what? I'm not aware of any such accounts, nor how a professor of economics is supposedly privy to them.

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite? — Tzeentch

When he announced the aim to "demilitarise and denazify".

What else would that mean?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch

What? I don't understand this at all.

Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked. — Tzeentch

Remember that funny episode when a member of Putin's cabinet talked on TV about the admission of the Donbas republics as russian subjects before they had even been officially recognised and made such a request?

Forgive me my bluntness, but it is laughable to argue that Russia was unfortunately forced to annex territory by US intransigence. That's russian state TV levels of propaganda.

If we go by the peace negotiations that took place in March / April of 2022, the Russians offered peace in return for the independence of Donbas and Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

And the paratroopers at Hostomel were there for a sightseeing tour, presumably?

No that's not fair to your position. It's of course possible that Russia engaged in a major, multi-pronged offensive in order to have leverage for an independent Donbas. It's an insane amount of effort for a minor goal, but It's possible.

But where do you take that peace proposal from, exactly? AFAIK the exact proposals made were not public.

It's only when peace negotiations failed (blocked by the US) that they dug themselves in in Kherson and Zaporizhia, and started to prepare for a long war. — Tzeentch

What's the evidence for this?

There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me. — Tzeentch

You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect?

That's not nothing.

It's even unclear whether Donbas would join Russia, or whether it would remain 'independent' and serve as a buffer (though in that case, 'satellite' would probably be the correct term). — Tzeentch

How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia.

He only then would have had to face the problems in Russian economic growth... which he doesn't have an answer.

Hence a reason for the "Make Russia Great Again" campaign: wars have always worked for Putin! — ssu

I also think that the statements Putin has published - and considering influences such as Dugin - it is likely that Putin does really believe Russia needs to be a world superpower. And this, in his thinking, includes it's right to an economic zone of control and territorial buffer.

It further proves, in my view, the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine. That means even more NATO training, drills, weapons, etc. All right along the Russian border. And recommitting to Ukrainian membership — Mikie

We do agree, though, that NATO would never (outside of it already being in a hot war) admit a country that is already in an active armed conflict with Russia, right?

So this is US support that falls short of actual membership, and I think people, including Russia, understand it as such.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine. — Mikie

Probably not, but annex a substantial part of it, and probably install a satellite regime in others.

That goes a long, long way beyond preventing Ukraine's NATO membership. So this is something your theory should be able to account for. Can it?

There were warnings for months prior to the invasion. Whether it was foregone, I don’t know. But it seems interesting that nearly every time the US escalates, Russia reacts. I don’t think it’s coincidence or some cover story for Russia. I also don’t buy those who try to pretend like there was no escalation, or who dismiss Russian claims. — Mikie

You don't buy it. Alright. But since this is a forum, and a philosophy forum at that, I'd expect more of an argument than "I don't agree with your assessment".

There's been back and forth for pages upon pages on whether there actually was a US escalation, when it was etc. It doesn't seem useful to rehash them.

Hence my approach of trying to elucidate the Russian motivation, given your theory.

Russia made warnings and demands during the troop buildup, yes. But everyone seems to agree that this was an ultimatum meant to fail, since there is no way rolling NATO back to the 1990 status could succeed.

Is your argument that Putin seriously intended these demands to result in a NATO rollback?

The question remains what exactly the Russian motivation was for the invasion, assuming your theory is correct.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

I don’t think the official stamp was necessary, given that NATO was all over Ukraine anyway. I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has. — Mikie

What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong.

I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has. — Mikie

More a mess than before, you mean? But then why the full scale invasion? With vague goals and plenty of rhetoric that clearly suggests a major annexation?

For context, prior to 2022 I would have agreed with your assessment. One could even argue that Putin had played his hand quite well, given that he had gotten Crimea and neutralised both Georgia and Ukraine for a relatively small cost, especially in terms of international relations.

But after 2022 this argument is seriously weakened. Because now a different interpretation, that is consistent with the evidence, suggests itself: That rather than being a miscalculation and a weird aberration, the 2022 invasion is actually the core of Putin's strategy. That all the previous steps were merely expedient holding actions until the main event could be launched.

Without suggesting a moral equivalence, I think a comparison to Germany in 1939 is apt. Until the invasion of Poland, it was still plausible (to contemporaries, anyways) to interpret Hitler's actions as merely a revision of Versailles and attempt to join the German people. Afterward, not so much.

Yes, which it did. But it was stupid, in my view. It’s driven Finland and others right into the hands of the US, and has “lost” Western Ukraine for generations, who will obviously not forget this aggression. — Mikie

How did it do that?

Russian troops were on Ukrainian soil since 2014. AFAIK no one has ever suggested Ukraine could possibly join NATO with an active Russian army on its soil.

the USA erased the Samurai soul of Japan... — javi2541997

Ah yes, the Samurai soul of beheading prisoners, and having thousands of civilians committ suicide for no reason.

So sad that it's gone.

But people also question if it was moral for the US to abandon half of Europe to the Soviets with their mass rape, mass brutalization of subject peoples. Particularly the abandonment of Poland, the Baltics, etc., so it goes both ways, "the wars you don't fight," become an issue as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It would be an interesting question whether one could justify dropping the bombs on Japan in order to avoid a Soviet occupation, but that requires hindsight that the people making the decision did not have.

That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war.
— Jabberwock

Except that was never said. I realize that’s what your mind has created, yes. — Mikie

Well what you said was this:

No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others. — Mikie

And this:

True — they are all a result of 2008 and US influence in the region.

No, it did not start at the Bucharest summit, which you yourself have acknowledged, citing as one of the causes the Orange Revolution, which happened in 2004.
— Jabberwock

No, it did start at the Bucharest Summit. I mentioned the OR in response to your irrelevant perplexity at why claims differed in 2008 from 2002.

To be clear, by “it” I’m referring to 2022. — Mikie

So your position is that, if Ukrainian NATO membership had not been confirmed in 2008, there would have been no 2022 invasion. And I think it's reasonable to assume that you mean to say there would have been no invasion at all in a similar timeframe. Otherwise all you're saying would be that different events would be different.

My question then is: what was the goal of the 2022 invasion? To prevent NATO membership?

Then your understanding of international law is different from others. Gaza is simply territory that is military occupied by Israel. — ssu

But territory of whom? Territory cannot devolve to statelessness. It would have to be either Egypt or Israel, since a Palestinian state doesn't exist.

The Israeli gains from the Six Day war haven't been recognized. — ssu

I don't think recognition is required, what constitutes which state is at least theoretically an objective question.

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders? — schopenhauer1

The current regime in Egypt isn't interested in caring for thousands of refugees, especially not if Hamas fighters are among them, given that Hamas is an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I get those from the sidelines think they have a gentler way to secure Israel's security, but others disagree. — Hanover

This is a philosophy forum, what do you expect?

Israel isn't at war over a claim by Israel that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel. Israelis presence in Gaza is part of a military operation. I don't think Israel has any interest in occupying and policing Gaza every day. — Hanover

The way I understand the international law, Gaza is territory of Israel. Unless it's still considered Egypt, but then Egypt doesn't seem interested.

No, but it's the first question. If the Mexican government continuously lobbed bombs into El Paso and raped and butchered its citizens, it wouldn't be shocking if the US took over a chunk of Mexico. That justification comes from no one remotely questioning the US's right to its land. — Hanover

Of course it would be shocking. I'm not sure how you believe it would not be.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

But what does this mean exactly?

What lands precisely do they legitimately possess? And what about the people they inherited? Can anyone who happens to be militarily superior decide at will who has which rights?

Italy is also the legitimate possessor of it's land. Does this mean it can legally and morally put all illegal aliens into prison camps, until they are dropped off somewhere at Italy's convenience?

Clearly "legitimate possession" is not the end of the question.

The case against the US destruction of Japanese cities is even better. The US lost hardly any bombers while demolishing hundreds of thousands of buildings and killing as many people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The development of the US bombing campaign is somewhat interesting as a case study in how the wholesale destruction of cities and the burning of their inhabitats ends up justified.

The US did suffer fairly heavy losses initially. They tried high-altitude precision bombing, but just as in Europe the results were never very spectacular. The jet stream made accuracy difficult, and increased fuel consumption. High flying through the jetstream put a lot of strain on the already unreliable engines of the B29s, and they lost many planes to engine fires (yay magnesium engines).

But flying low over the target would improve both accuracy and reliability. Planes would also be able to carry more bombs. Also, Japanese short range anti-air defenses where notoriously poor. And a low approach would be perfect for incendiary bombs. Which, since your target was so large, could also be dropped at night, when japanese defenses would be even weaker. So you had political pressure to justify the enormous resource use, and lots of little practical reasons why this approach would be much easier.

And then, once firebombing had started, the evaluation quickly changed from specific military targets destroyed to acres of cities destroyed for so and so many losses. Once the machinery was unleashed, people started to perfect it.

But could it be justified by the higher cost of a ground invasion of Japan, maybe? That said, the comparable alternative would be to offer a conditional peace, and given what Japan had done and was likely to do again in the future, it's hard to make the case for this either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Though one could argue that, compared to Germany, Japan has managed to turn it's back on that part of it's historiy with remarkable alacrity and also remarkably little cultural change. While Germany did survive as a political entity, it's self-image was mostly shattered and had to be completely remade. I have very limited knowlede of Japanese culture, but it seems far more continuous with the war era, simply channeling their energy in a different direction.

But that's off-topic here.

Imho the entire framing doesn't work, because the moral subjects are individual people, not nations.

So we have to take into consideration the reasons people issued these commands / made these plans. Which includes their knowledge at the time etc.

I think people were generally justified in wanting to defeat the Nazi / Japanese state, but plenty decisions for individual parts of this were evil. Notably the strategic bombing campaigns on both sides were often characterized by wilful ignorance, revenge and cruelty.

There also seem to be a number of historians who regard the demand of "unconditional surrender" as a mistake that unnecessarily prolonged the war, especially re Japan.

On the other hand prosecuting any kind of existential conflict clearly requires some risk taking. It's implausible to ask that noone is hurt in war. And that especially goes for the underdog, since otherwise their position gets even weaker.

So I think ultimately there's nothing to be done except to evaluate ends and means, in the traditional fashion. What's your war goal? What means do you have at your disposal? Is a given operation likely to result in robust gains? What kind of collateral damage will result?

For me the core problem with the Israeli response is not too dissimilar from the problems with the Hamas attack. I don't see how it contributes to a long term solution, and it seems to be motivated by the need to be seen as strong as capable at least as much as by actual security concerns.

Of course that matters. It’s a truism.

But thanks for interjecting with claims about strawmaning and motivated reasoning while you demonstrate exactly that. — Mikie

You're clearly angry and trying to "win" the argument, and it shows. You're not convincing this way, and if you care about actually having a useful conversation - rather than a pointless shouting match, you should change that.

Except Russia’s own statements, Burns’ memo to Rice, Germany and France’s statements, etc. All of which you dismiss. So your judgment of what constitutes “evidence” is worthless to me. — Mikie

None of these prove the claim. They all just reiterate the basic fact that Russia is opposed to NATO expansion, which noone denies.

You just refuse to understand the contrary position and are engaging in a duel with a strawman, hence why the discussion is going nowhere.

Funny— I too have quotes from Putin. Several and, more relevant, from 2008. In fact I also give quotes from the US ambassador, and can provide statements from Germany and France leaders at the time as well. Yet you “insist [they] thought something else.” In fact you just ignore all of it, since it’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative of a sudden “irrational” change. — Mikie

Just like you ignore all the evidence that the Russian reaction has more to do with their internal politics and perceived strength than with the concrete state of NATO membership.

What had changed before 2008 was not Russian willingness to enforce its influence in it's former satellites, but it's ability.

You're discounting the possibility that Putin - and the elite he represents - never intended to accept the collapse of the SU as a world power and always intended to re-establish it - they just lacked the ability.

There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless. — Mikie

So is yours. You're engaging in motivated reasoning.

Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”

Your story just isn’t serious. — Mikie

Anything post 2014 cannot support your argument, because of course after the Russian invasion the situation changed.

And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation. — Mikie

That's a fully general counterargument though. If I go around claiming X is really just a Trojan horse for Y, I can support any arbitrary conclusion.

Ask the Russians what the issue was if you don’t believe me. The US was pushing for NATO forever, and Russia’s position has been the same forever— since 91. The difference, however, is that it looked like it was truly going to happen, and soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia. — Mikie

So how come that in both cases - Ukraine and Georgia - Russia opportunistically acted according to local circumstance, rather than reacting directly to Bucharest?

Seems like a lot of Israelis don't want to solve the problem - as long as they're happy, everyone else can go suck a lemon. Very disappointing mindset from them. — flannel jesus

Disappointing maybe, but also probably the mindset of most people everywhere. "I'm all for helping the poor and destitute so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle".

The Israeli government announced it's effectively taking all of Gaza hostage until it's civilians are returned, meanwhile starving the place.

I'm honestly surprised the media reaction to this, across the spectrum, is so muted. Hamas atrocities are extensively covered, but not one headline piece discussing the murderous rhetoric and actions from the Israeli government?

I guess Netanjahu will try to drown his failure to prevent the attack on blood.

So I agree with some of the sentiments that have already been shared in this thread, namely that advocating a two state solution is so unrealistic that it is basically a way politicians pretend to advocate for peace, while in fact supporting the status quo. — Tzeentch

Agreed. It's also not clear to me at all how a two state solution would function economically. How would the economic viability of a state of Palestine, alongside Israel, be ensured?

The atomic family is not natural, true. But likewise, American society, with its broad range of cultures and peoples living in it, is incompatible with a communal effort to raise children anymore. Nuclear family is the best solution for this that I can see. — ButyDude

Maybe. But maybe we also need to strengthen care providers. In any event the argument wasn't about what was currently feasible in the US specifically.

Homes were part of the ancestral environment. They weren’t always in the same place, but even a teepee is a home. They moved seasonally, not every day. — ButyDude

The point was that the main social structure was the band or village, not an individual family dwelling.

Yes, we are seeing the effects of divorce and fatherlessness on children. — ButyDude

But aren't you arguing for a form of "fatherlessness"? Two generations ago, when the "atomic family" was in full swing, many fathers were essentially absent from child rearing tasks, which were entirely optional for them. It was certainly not expected of fathers to form emotional bonds with their children.

It seems to me the specific model you have in mind is the victorian family model. But nothing particularly tells us that this was ever a great idea. So I'm wondering why you're what the cause of the problems is.

Are they operating successfully? — ButyDude

In terms of outcomes for society it seems so.

Marriage is not just efficient, although it is, but it is naturally how we are organized. It’s so fundamental I can’t even explain it with my own thoughts, though I am sure there is an argument out there. One man and one woman, across all cultures and societies. — ButyDude

Perhaps if you can not put it into words, it would be useful to think on it some more. It's certainly not true that marriage is as universal as you claim.

I guess it could be both. Good point. When i say grasping for power, I am mostly talking about the way a feminist argument would say that men are inherently oppressing women by taking positions of power in society. — ButyDude

Well not all power is necessarily oppressive, I agree. But you do need to consider that the two centuries leading up the the world wars were some of the worst times, in terms of freedom, for women in western society. We're coming out of a deep valley in that sense.

The women’s studies and historical women’s studies are mostly concerned with the idea of “power.” From the gender perspective, or basically the women’s feminist perspective, society is interpreted as a hierarchy of “power structures,” ranging from government to gender roles. I will offer a rebuttal to this interpretation of society. — ButyDude

But it doesn't claim to be the only possible way to look at society.

This is critical and absolutely key to understanding why gender roles arise in this situation naturally, and it is not some cruel exercise of male dominance over women. — ButyDude

Cruel domination can easily be natural, but that's not a moral argument.

This structure is necessary for functioning correctly, and it has been drilled into the biology of males because of the necessity of hunting, and not into females, who traditionally gathered and cared for children. — ButyDude

If there is one thing we know about human social arrangements it's that they're very flexible, often changing between different contexts.

It's not at all clear that one such arrangement is fixed biologically.

So, gender roles arise naturally from society, and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers and functionality of said society. — ButyDude

Meant by whom?

The interpretation of “power” both reduces the complex gender interactions to the “oppressor and oppressed,” and overlooks completely the fundamental reason why this gender structure has risen in every single society ever. — ButyDude

How do you know it's "every single society ever"?

Anyways overlooking it is the entire point. It's meant to strip the context so the bare power relation is visible.

Men are the ones who have to organize society. — ButyDude

Do they? Why?

The male effort to build society is not a grasp at power; it is an effort to provide. — ButyDude

Why isn't it both?

Also assuming the traditional belief that to each man is a woman, and marriage is between one man and one woman, this is clearly a collaborative effort between genders for the most efficient society possible. — ButyDude

Where did you get the idea that marriage is about efficiency? Also how would you know what the most efficient society possible even is?

Most women are simply not capable, by biology, to be the providers, builders, and organizers of society at large, because they do not fit cleanly into hierarchical structures. — ButyDude

So how do you explain all those women who operate successfully within hierarchical structures?

By having the male provide for the women, at least one parent of the child will be able to stay with the child during its most important a years of its life, in its development. — ButyDude

A single parent for a child or children is not at all what's biologically appropriate for humans.

Today in our society, we see the devastating effects of divorce, trauma, and parent neglect on our children, and it is becoming increasingly clear that young children must be protected in order to grow into capable adults. — ButyDude

Are we? Like what?

That protection can only be provided by a mother at home, and a father who protects the community at large. — ButyDude

Homes weren't part of the ancestral environment, so how could that be true?

It is the natural structure of society that allows for children to be protected, raised, and properly taught by their mothers, for mothers to be able to have children and care for them, and for fathers to be able to protect their families and provide by organizing society. — ButyDude

The natural structure of society is bands of hunter gatherers, who do some farming, living in various kinds of communities, often with vastly different structures according to season. In such a "natural" society child rearing is a communal effort that everyone takes part in. The "atomic family" is not natural, it's a product of the last 200 years.

My claim is that NATO membership, after years of training, arms supply, and drills, was the main cause of the invasion. There are others, of course. The US has many reasons for its actions in Eastern Europe, as do the Russians. — Mikie

That makes no sense though. Russia already had a perfectly good frozen conflict in the Donbas. There'd be no way for NATO membership of a country in an active (if sporadic) armed conflict with Russia.

Russia attacked in 2014 after the US-back coup, yes. NATO did not abandon its plans after 2014. In fact it increased its involvement— now under the invented “imperialist ambitions” cover. — Mikie

Obviously if you attack a country it'll look for protection. What was the Russian strategy here according to you?

Anyone saying that Trump voters just hate minorities are ill-informed. — ButyDude

Starting with a straw man is not good form.

Americans on either side of the aisle are more same than different. — ButyDude

Sure, but the problem is they're living in different and increasingly fenced worlds. They no longer have a shared reality.

Racists and other extreme groups fall on the right-side, but marxists and other extreme groups fall on the left. There are extremes on both sides. — ButyDude

But only one sided is rapidly changing the rules of the political game. The US political establishment isn't challenged from the left right now.

I will acknowledge the rise of an extreme, or alt right-wing in recent years. I would like to hear people’s thoughts for the cause of this rise. Personally, I think the political correctness and the left-lean in most educational and corporate institutions is causing the reaction from young men who do not wish to comply with their ideology. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? — ButyDude

A backlash against the new orthodoxy is certainly part of it. But that in itself is not new and doesn't explain why the shift is so extreme.

I think a major factor are new habits of media consumption, via the internet and especially social media. Several effects combine to make messages ever more extreme, thus positions that used to be on the extreme fringe now seem much more normal.

There's also the long term economic factors. Increasing anxiety and alienation from "the elite".

And finally there's the long term strategy of the GOP to focus on a narrow but highly mobilised group of voters which, in conjunction with the internet and especially social media, has resulted in extreme partisanship and estrangement.

When never knows where one stands with Perfidious Albion, it's true. But there was the Balfour Resolution, announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and I think that's when the existing mess began to take shaper. Certainly, the British shifted support between Jewish and Arab organizations as it felt was in its interests after 1917 and through WWII, but the Resolution was never revoked; it became a question of who got what, and when. — Ciceronianus

I think internal documents make clear that the British never intended to follow through with the Balfour declaration, since most of their subjects in the region were muslim and they did not want to give them any reason to revolt. Subsequent action by the British (barring immigration, refusing to sanction a jewish state) bears this out. Important context for the Balfour declaration is the "cold war" the British were fighting with the French in the region.

Yes, as indeed was most of the world. But nobody has ever claimed the creation of Israel was history's only injustice, and resulted in the only wars ever fought in the region, or anywhere else. — Ciceronianus

Fair enough.

I think my point, is that it's not really the injustice of Israels creation that has caused the conflict to stay hot for so long. Even though it was a late time for conquering a territory, it wasn't that unique.

I think much more relevant for the current conflict is the specific alignment of political, economic and military power in the region. Israel is rich (relatively), all their neighbors a poor, and the Palestinians most of all. Israel is militarily powerful. But also small, and reliant on a certain international political support to keep it's enemies at arms length. Plus the Palestinian question, as other posters have pointed out, is a useful bargaining chip for various actors.

So no party is in a position to enforce their demands, but also the huge gulf between Israel and it's neighbors is preventing the kind of rapprochement that happens when more equal powers realise that total victory is no longer feasible.

Define situation. — Benkei

Well everytime you add fear, pride and some kind of othering - be it by religion or somerthing else - morality ends up trampled in the dirt.

What makes this conflict so intransigent is not some special capacity for callousness or cruelty on either side.

A very good reply if you want to kill people. Leave morality at the door when figuring out Israeli calculus. — Benkei

Like everyone else in the same situation, right?

If you reject the views that (1) Israel has a religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue; and/or that (2) the Jewish people have a non-religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue because it is their "homeland," then the creation of Israel was an injustice. — Ciceronianus

An injustice in a long line of injustices. It's not like the British mandate that preceded it was any more just. The region was regularly engulfed by war even before there were Muslims or Christians.

I hold neither of those views, and tend to think of Israel as a creation of Western powers, primarily the U.K. — Ciceronianus

How did you arrive at this conclusion? The UK opposed the creation of Israel, and pointedly refused to implement the UN plan.

Stikes will continue even if captives are hurt. :yikes:

This is wild. — Manuel

Better to add another 100 dead to the list than give the impression you can be intimidated, I guess. Can't say I'm surprised.

So there's no sign of any deescalation in Gaza. By design or opportunity, it seems like Hamas is throwing itself fully into the war, with the border still not secured and ongoing fighting in southern Israel.

If the western media sources accurately display Israeli feeling, this is a watershed moment, and a return to the status quo ante looks less likely the longer the fighting outside of Gaza goes on.

This seems clear evidence for the failure of the "prison camp" strategy. But what could happen next? I think it's likely Israel takes direct control of Gaza, but that in and of itself is not a solution and an ongoing occupation will be costly.