↪boethius You are still on mute — SophistiCat

Again, if this is true, how are we talking.

Furthermore, my last post was simply quoting a literal "authoritative biographer of Putin" explaining basically the same thing.

So, please, explain how this biographer's article in The Guardian is propaganda and demagoguery.

LOL. Just watch.... — Olivier5

Watch Ukraine retake all the Donbas and Crimea?

Watch Ukraine march on Moscow?

Watch what?

That's a fresh perspective - I don't recall coming across it till date. Awesome! — Agent Smith

To be clear, it's not my perspective but the pretty standard view among professional physicists (that I have talked to or have heard lecture).

The Feynman lectures are the total classic:

This 5 minutes excerpt explains incredibly well how the different interpretations of a theory on one level don't matter, but to find new ideas for a new theory matter very much:



And if you really want to understand straight from the great genius (that we really don't understand what's really going on), the following lecture is "the classic":



Throughout the lecture, he returns to the analogy of Mayan priests who know how to calculate and predict a lot of celestial phenomena, by just continuing the numerical pattern they've inferred from observational logs. They could do it, make predictions that came true, but (presumably) at that time would have zero idea what's really happening in the sky, and one speculation is as good as another, as much from the expert priest as from the laymen.

↪ssu This is a common tack among demagogues and propagandists: emphasize (or fabricate) uncertainty, throw up not one but many alternative narratives. Anything is possible, there's too much propaganda on both sides, we will never know the truth, it's all so confusing... When your position is weak, just upset the board. — SophistiCat

By confidence the following was published today in The Guardian:

Nearly six months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is still widespread disagreement in the west on Vladimir Putin’s motives.

This is of more than academic interest. If we do not agree why Putin decided to invade Ukraine and what he wants to achieve, we cannot define what would constitute victory or defeat for either of the warring sides and the contours of a possible endgame. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Why, then, did Putin stake so much on a high-risk enterprise that will at best bring him a tenuous grip on a ruined land?

At first it was said that he was unhinged – “a lunatic”, in the words of the defence secretary, Ben Wallace. Putin was pictured lecturing his defence chiefs, cowering at the other end of a 6-metre long table. But not long afterwards, the same officials were shown sitting at his side. The long table turned out to be theatrics – Putin’s version of Nixon’s “madman” theory, to make him appear so irrational that anything was possible, even nuclear war. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Then western officials argued that Putin was terrified at the prospect of a democratic Ukraine on Russia’s border [...]

The invasion has also been portrayed as a straightforward imperialist land grab. [...]

In fact, Putin’s invasion is being driven by other considerations. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Bill Burns, now the head of the CIA, who was then the US ambassador to Moscow, wrote at the time in a secret cable to the White House: “Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

All just "propaganda" a literal biographer of Putin pointing out we don't know Putin's objectives?

Casually mentioning successful "'madman' theory" a la Nixon:

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with US President Richard Nixon's foreign policy. Nixon and his administration tried to make the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations think he was irrational and volatile. According to the theory, those leaders would then avoid provoking the United States, fearing an unpredictable American response.

Some international relations scholars have been skeptical of madman theory as a strategy for success in bargaining.[1][2] One study found that madman theory is frequently counterproductive, but that it can be an asset under certain conditions.[3] — Madman Theory - Wikipedia

Though, of note, I like how some experts are "skeptical" about appearing insane and doing so is perhaps counter productive ... sometimes.

But they have not. And that's the important issue here. — ssu

I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to assume it's some miscalculation or mistake. There's negative consequences to conscripting people into an offensive war, especially with the economic pressure of the sanctions.

Furthermore, it's part of the Kremlin's narrative to the domestic audience that they are not trying to "conquer" Ukraine, just dealing with neo-Nazis and protecting ethnic Russians.

With the information we have, we can at least quite confidently say that Russian morale isn't high and Ukrainian moral isn't on the verge of collapse. — ssu

Sure, but there's nothing to indicate Russian morale is on the verge of collapse or affecting the war outcome in any significant way. Battle is still raging and Russia is still taking new territory. Russians are obviously presented with a very different version of the war as well, with major recent victories.

Even if it is anecdotal and perhaps some reporting is biased, there's enough to understand that there are moral (and other) problems in the Russian side. — ssu

There have been reports of Ukrainian units refusing to fight, even posting videos saying so, as well as recent interviews with foreign fighters talking of major corruption, weapons disappearing, pointless suicide missions, etc.

But anecdotes really don't say much about the current war situation.

For sure there will be units with low morale in any military nearly anytime, even in peace time. But there's so far no evidence of Russian morale affecting battle outcomes in any significant way.

I'm not so sure about that. We do know something about how Russia works. Don't think it's all speculation. Starting with the US knowing that Russia would invade, there are things that are known. What Putin thinks inside his head we naturally have no idea. — ssu

But that's what speculation is, saying "we know something about how Russia works" and therefore such and such events must be explained by what we already "know".

Evidence, hard evidence, is required to actually know something about anything, and even moreso when it comes to spooks who are constantly trying to deceive each other and certainly us.

I have so far encountered no evidence that Putin, the Kremlin, the FSB, believe the current state of sanctions and the war is a bad thing compared to the pre-2022 status quo (the basis of comparison). Certainly things can always be better, but it seems to me Putin and the Kremlin and FSB committed to this schism with the West by preparing for it for 8 years.

Why that's relevant is that decisions and diplomacy depend on a model of the counter-parties decision making. If the West assumes "sanctions are bad" and Putin and the Kremlin are squirming under them ... when they aren't, even exactly what they want (as kicking the West out unilaterally would not be an easy sell domestically), then it produces bad strategy. Or, likewise, if the West assumes the war is a net-negative (a miscalculation) for the Kremlin but they see it as a net positive, again results in bad strategy.

Of course, could be a giant miscalculation and they are in a panic, sweating bullets, sanctions about to destabilise the entire economy as army morale collapses, and wanting to find a way to end the war, save face and all that. I've just encountered no actual evidence for any of that.

It is speculative what is the current mental state of Russian decision makers. Nothing wrong with speculation of course, but it is dangerous to assume speculations are facts simply because they are convenient to believe, leads to terrible decision making.

↪SophistiCat Yes, this came first apparent when Putin's own intelligence service raided the FSB headquarters responsible for Ukraine after the war had started. Likely they had told simply what Putin wanted to hear (a trap in that intelligence services can fall into). — ssu

Again, wild speculations by Western media.

The raid could be that someone sold information to the Americans (they did "know about" the invasion), or were anyways spied on, or then not but how to know without an investigation?

Or, throwing shade on the FSB perhaps suits the Kremlin as a scapegoat for a bloody war that FSB told them was likely, but that's what the Kremlin wants.

Or then simple intelligence failures having nothing to do with a supposed assessment of Ukraine likelihood of fighting.

There can be a long list of reasons on the jump to conclusions mat.

I think we'll know the details later even better, but likely the intelligence service painted a rosy picture of this invasion just going so well as the occupation (and annexation) of Crimea. We have to remember that the most successful military operations that the Soviet Union and Russia have pulled off were so successful that they aren't called wars: The occupation of Czechoslovakia 1968 and the occupation of Crimea 2014. Hence the Russia have this urge for these armour attacks going straight to the Capital and simply eliminate the enemy leadership. — ssu

Certainly that is the preferred outcome, but we have no knowledge of how likely they thought this outcome would be, but we can be pretty sure they did not think it 100% as otherwise they would have only gone for the capital and not bothered taking Kershon (and the critical waterway to Crimea) and surrounding Mariupol, all in a few days.

A bloody war, with extreme sanctions and nearly total cut with the West may suit Russian and Chinese leadership interests, or then at the least an acceptable outcome and clearly preferred over the pre-2022 status quo.

Obviously just rolling into the capital and the war over in a couple of days, is preference number one for any military (as you point out for the US in Iraq). However, there is zero indications that the invasion was premised on such an eventuality and plenty of indications the Kremlin was committed to intense warfare if need be.

It also simply doesn't seem plausible that the Kremlin would assume taking Kiev in a day or two a slam dunk, as the Ukrainians are already supported by NATO powers and the CIA is advising at various levels, Ukraine has been fighting since 2014, political class as well as many regular people has been very radicalised to want a war with Russia, and therefore there maybe both intelligence and military surprises.

The war is always mythologized as Ukraine "standing alone" against a larger power. But that is obviously untrue, US and NATO made many commitments to Ukraine, already supplying arms and training and intelligence, so there's zero reason to assume the scenario presented itself to the Russians as simply a smaller country totally alone and should be foregone conclusion to just "knock out" with a column of tanks to the capital (which was not their strategy, they also took critical strategic positions in the South).

I can tell you this though, quantum physics to my reckoning is in dire need of philosophical nuance; something like that. Warning; pure speculation on my part. — Agent Smith

I think it's more how quantum mechanics is usually presented to a general audience, there is usually a "philosophical agenda", such as multi-world's theory, or new age-spiritualism, or proving or disproving God and so on.

The problem is more that quantum physics has essentially zero philosophical content: as much compatible with free will as determinism, miracles "can happen" as much as they are extremely unlikely to happen, could be all a simulation and a way to simply compress the data of the simulation and so on and so on.

Since quantum physics does not "reveal" real reality, just keeps tabs on observations, one can project anything one likes to imagine onto what is "really happening", which quantum physics does not actually comment on.

Probably the most knowledgeable and the best lecturer (that we can observe on film), trying to connect with a general audience today on modern physics is Professor Suskind.

Additionally, if we were pure intellects discussing the equations of quantum physics, it would be unlikely that we'd posit the existence of a macro world that can be experienced in a pleasant way at all.

We do not assume experience because our physical theories predict it, but because we experience.

While it seems hard to determine whether measurement (the first sense, vide supra) alone causes the so-called collapse of the wave function, it doesn't seem impossible to do so. Oui? — Agent Smith

There may not even be a wave function to collapse. Pilot wave theory, for example, is fully deterministic formulation of Quantum mechanics.

Deterministic theories have hidden variables we can't see ... so how do we know they are there? We don't.

Likewise, maybe a measuring device causes collapse even when we're not looking ... but how would we know without looking? We can't.

If one simply takes the basic equations of quantum physics, one can simulate them forward indefinitely, there's zero reason to assume measurements have to happen at any time or anywhere.

Indeed, there's no reason to assume the variables that evolve in super positions and entanglements are in some way strange at all. If we ignore our experience: it's just math and numbers that go from one state to another. Nothing more strange than solving any equations whatsoever.

The only reason we assume there's some "definite" reality is because we are only aware of one definite reality, and therefore the other possibilities determined by the equations and some initial conditions, have to "go away".

However, if for some reason we weren't aware of reality, just pure intellects considering the mathematics of quantum physics, we would not likely postulate measurements needs to happen at all.

The whole troubling thing to the discoverers / inventors of quantum mechanics is that the state of knowledge of the system and absurd logical consequences of assuming our state of knowledge was how reality worked ... was how reality worked.

For these purposes of understanding how strange this is, it's good to visit the first and simplest examples, such as quantum tunnelling. Our state of knowledge could be that the electron could be in region A or region B, but zero probability of being in region C that connects A and B. Naive realism would conclude that our theory is obviously wrong, and there must be some chance, even small, of finding the electron in region C as it quickly passes from A to B. This was the expectation, and people spent a lot of effort expecting to prove that "yes, yes, electron can be found in the space in between", but this test and all tests pitting naive realism against quantum mechanics failed.

For, the first interpretation of the electron being in a probability distribution of locations was simply that it's somewhere flying around ... just we don't know until we look, is fundamentally disturbed if the electron can be in separate regions, since it cannot fly (at least in a continuous sense) between disconnected regions.

In short, there's been a long series of unintuitive conclusions ... that even the discoverers thought must be wrong! Starting with Plank, who believed his quantising black body radiation was just a clever hack to be able to solve the equations in a way that matched up with reality. Which is not an unreasonable expectation as we use mathematical hacks all the time that clearly have nothing physical about them.

To discover energy states really are quantised was truly shocking.

Point is, whenever naive realism is "versus" quantum state of knowledge arguments, the latter has always won in the past. So, the measurement in the detector, in the wires, in the ram and on the screen is not determined until we look ... who knows, but the history of quantum physics does not support the habit of any fast and easy conclusions that are simple to "see".

The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. — Xtrix

Indeed a graph is indeed helpful.

For people that are unsure what to make of it:

We breaking out of an over 2 million year pattern that nearly all complex species and ecosystems are currently adapted too, the pace of change is also unprecedented, going into the complete climate unknown.

But to make matters worse, even though there are large up's and downs with glaciation and inter-glacial periods (within a long term pattern ecosystems are adapted to), the pace of change of these glaciations and inter-glacials is about 1 degree per 1000 years at the fastest, resulting in steep but still noticeable slopes on 800 000 year time line ... whereas today it is vertical line.

So, not only are we going somewhere we really don't want to go, we're going there faster than the climate has ever shifted in millions of years.

To make matters worse, in the previous glacial-interglacial shifts, nothing came along and "softened up" the ecosystems causing wide spread damage before and during the relatively gentle temperature rise or decrease, so ecosystems were at their full capacity to deal with the (extremely slow, relative to today) change.

We are running 2 global climate experiments while at the same time just straight up destroying ecosystems directly with logging, fishing, agriculture, urban sprawl, damning, pollution of all sorts.

↪boethius You're on mute. — SophistiCat

Ok, great, but how are we talking if I'm on mute?

The collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics is sometimes loosely described as caused by “observation,” which implies consciousness can physically affect the universe by causing the collapse. However, “measurement” is more accurate that “observation” because measurement apparatus itself rather than consciousness causes wave function collapse. — Art48

It's now in vogue to say "measurement" than "observation", but that seems more to do with new age spiritualists wildly speculating in a word salad of quantum and consciousness and universe and so on.

However, it is not accurate.

The whole point of Schroedinger's cat in the box, is that we don't know the state of the cat until we look. If we put some measuring device inside the box, to measure the cat's breathing for example, then we don't know the state of the measuring device until we look.

Indeed, the whole point of the cat in the thought experiment, is to measure the state of the poison, which measures the state of a geiger counter, which measures the state of radioactive decay.

"What's actually in the box when we don't look" is not answerable, and our state of knowledge will be a probability distribution of the possible states ... until we look.

If you say "no, no, no, the box has a definite state because of this measuring device; look, we can open the box and read out the measurements" the whole point is that doesn't prove what the state of the measuring device was before looking.

There's many interpretations available, including fully deterministic formulations of quantum mechanics, but wave collapse isn't excluded either.

However, the "local collapse" proponents just don't seem to get the whole point of Schroedinger's cat thought experiment, which is that we don't know until we look. If we don't look at a measuring device, we don't know what it's measured and we don't know if it's in a superimposition of having measured different things. The only way to verify it's in a definite state is to go look ... which of course doesn't prove what state it was in before looking.

Although it seems incredibly bizarre that consciousness is the only real "measurement" standard (the only one we can consciously verify anyways), and the implications would be even more bizarre, naive realism has always failed in quantum mechanics.

Not to say that local collapse isn't a candidate for how the "world really works", but my feeling is that it's mostly used as a naive realist crutch, whereas the history of quantum mechanics is the systematic removal of all such crutches; so, mostly obstructs people's understanding of quantum mechanics by providing something easier to visualise (that there is a "definitely real" measuring apparatus and all the weirdness of quantum mechanics is confined to small systems being measured).

For all these reasons, one of the most popular interpretations of quantum mechanics among working physicists is "shut up and calculate".

I really don't know why you bother — SophistiCat

You bother to posit some factoid as "real truth", or such is the implication, completely ignoring the issue has already been discussed.

I bother to point out your factoid is based on nothing; the whole "someone close to the Kremlin" or "anonymous CIA officials", or "FSB told me so" etc. are a confidence level of information of precisely zero.

What we learn from de-classified intelligence is that things are completely fucked up and almost nothing could have been deduced from public information at the time. What people in the FSB really thought, Putin thought, what they think now; we really don't know.

Reddit believing as a collective whole they can psychoanalyse all these people ... not a substitute for real knowledge.

And you're bothered that I bother to point it out?

As for updating my analysis of the situation:

It seems Russia is slowly taking all of the Donbas region, and the much talked about Ukrainian counter offensive against Kershon did not move the Russian lines much at all.

We've seen some "high value" targets been damaged or destroyed, such as the bridge to Kershon and then the recent ammo depots in Crimea, but these have very little affect on the actual war.

Main purpose of these attacks seems mostly for media diversion purposes, as Russia steadily takes ground in the Donbas.

Once again, the new "shiny" weapons system "finally getting to Ukraine", the HIMARS, had little effect on the actual military situation.

As I mentioned some weeks ago, taking Kershon is essentially a litmus test for the offensive manoeuvre potential of the much hyped "million man army" in combination with the legendary HIMARS.

Without offensive manoeuvre potential, Ukraine can only steadily lose territory.

As @Olivier5 keeps reminding us, no one wants WWIII, so it seems this situation where Ukraine can only lose territory at immense loss of life and cost will continue.

My guess is the Russian plan is to take all of the Donbas, declare their current objectives "achieved", switch to a defensive posture, and then it will be extremely difficult for Western media to keep up the narrative that Russia is somehow losing / has lost.

As far as the map goes, it's extremely slow but Ukraine has not been able to actually hold any fixed lines, so in the current dynamic is only a question of time.

At that point, Europeans maybe too tired of the war and the media narrative will switch to Ukraine needing to accept defeat and compromise with Russia. Or, could just be shelling back and forth for years as a new normal.

What are you talking about? Sending NATO troops and planes and warships into this war would literally be WW3. What do you think Putin will do when NATO troops get close to Moscow? — Olivier5

It would not be "literally WWIII"; I spend some effort to explain how a "tough" standoff could result in a diplomatic solution.

Maybe actually read what I wrote.

However, let's assume this premise is true, then it follows that arming Ukraine "enough" to actually push back the Russians may likewise start WWIII anyways ... so, can't have that, just enough arms to Ukraine to cause damages to Russia but not enough that they escalate to tactical nuclear weapons.

Which is exactly what we see.

However, the truth is that the principle of "can't send NATO troops" or "can't send too many arms", to avoid WWIII, is simply used as a manipulation tool to calibrate the arms and intelligence support to maintain the war by propping up Ukraine, but not nearly enough support for Ukraine to have a chance of winning.

When you start a large conventional war and don't call it even war, you have this. Putin had the balls to put the Russian Armed Forces to make an all out attack on Ukraine, but he hadn't the balls to put the Russian society into war mode. You reap what you sow. — ssu

Obviously they would make it an "official war" if they wanted to, and they've talked about doing so.

However, paying people to fight is a lot more stable politically and they have increased revenue from fossil fuels sales, so can easily pay.

Similar news and that some Russian troops don't want to serve in Ukraine (see here) or some officers have been even officers have been prosecuted for sending conscripts to the Ukraine war (see Russia Prosecutes 12 Officers Over Conscript Deployments to Ukraine) just point to one obvious issue: low morale among the Russians fighting troops in this war. — ssu

Again, we don't really have any statistically relevant data on Russian troops morale ... and low-morale in armies is pretty common and often goes up and down, total collapse being a pretty big outlier.

Moreover, is Ukrainian morale any better?

For such observations, even if true, to be useful, we'd need to compare both sides. If Russia has lost some number of armoured vehicles, the context of Ukrainian losses are needed to make sense of such a figure.

At least, in terms of evaluating the current military situation. If morale is equally bad on both sides, though neither likely to collapse, then perhaps no difference at all really will result anyways.

If the goal is to damage the Russian military regardless of damages to Ukraine in the process, then the context of Ukrainian losses

Smart-looking but dead. Shoulda been putin.

Employ a drone attack. — Changeling

Yes, please elaborate on your military and geo-political analysis that killing Putin with a drone attack is both feasible and a good idea.

Or, go to reddit to circle jerk virtue signalling fantasies.

Speaking of FSB, here is the next installment of WoPo's investigative articles on pre-war intelligence: FSB errors played crucial role in Russia's failed war plans in Ukraine — SophistiCat

As I've repeated many times throughout this thread, we really have zero credible information on the Kremlin's or FSB internal dialogues and aims.

However, it's already been discussed here at length this idea of a Russian intelligence failure. They secure the South and clearly had a plan B to the first plan and methods of attacks (level everything with artillery), successfully prepare for and withstand sanctions, this does not really demonstrate a failed war plan.

I'd be willing to believe a quick Ukrainian capitulation was viewed as more probable (and maybe it was more probable, the current situation being realistically less likely than the counter-factual; as simply because something happens doesn't mean it was the likely outcome), but the Russian's clearly had a plan B.

There's an incredible amount of myth making on the part of Western media about Putin, or the Kremlin, or the FSB, or the Russian generals internal debates and monologues, but we really have basically zero information. We do not really know what they even really trying to achieve.

For example, part of this mythology of "miscalculation" is that Putin didn't expect the West to steal Russia's money held in Western banks. Certainly sounds had having some 350 billion dollars stolen from state assets.

However, maybe demonstrating to the developing world that their assets aren't safe in Western banks is exactly what Putin wanted, and is worth spending 350 billion dollars to undermine confidence in Western institutions.

Indeed, a critical component of resisting Western sanctions over the long haul is getting the non-Western world to implement alternative payment systems with Russia, and seeing 350 billion dollars get stolen without any due process of any kind is a big motivating factor.

What Western mainstream journalists / propagandists consistently forget in their analysis / propaganda is that the rest of the world is far closer to Putin politically than it is to the Western "ideals" (which the West hardly represents anyways). Most powerful people in nearly every country would be more concerned about their own assets and state assets being stolen by the West, for genuine philosophical "differences" or then pretextual bullshit, than they are of Ukrainian sovereignty.

There's no reason to assume blackholes are singularities to begin with.

It's a common view in physics that a theory of quantum gravity would explain how a singularity is avoided.

Singularity is a cool word mathematicians uncharacteristically coined and people like saying it.

In the case of "the singularity" of AI, the analogy doesn't even make any sense.

In terms of physics, what we can say is that if anything is actually infinite in some characteristic, we cannot measure that as no machine can count to infinity, so there would be no way to verify if a black hole has a point of infinite density even if it was there.

Electrons could have infinite density when measured at a "point" for example; indeed, it's often assumed all the mass of a particle is at a point, so it wouldn't break anything if that were actually true. Whole universe could be infinite in expanse. But no tool can measure infinity so any infinite quantity cannot be verified even if it exists.

Long story short, there are no singularities in "science", as understood as verifiable facts, but they only appear in mathematical models of some situation, generally understood as representing a problem with the theory, not a prediction.

This is not a realist option, rather it's a recipe for WW3. Yet another proof that your position has very little to do with realism. — Olivier5

It is realistic, it's exactly what the Cuban Missile crisis was, which no one really criticises US decisions about.

And, I explain that Ukraine in NATO could be compensated to Russians so they don't even consider WWIII. And, considering the high stakes, everyone would accept pretty much anything given to Russia in such a context, as obviously peace is preferable to war.

You could go in with a "statecraft" plan, even tell it to the Russians over the crisis hotline, see if they signal they agree with the steps about to be taken (or maybe reconsider if they don't).

Anyways, the only thing not realistic in the strategy to protect Ukraine by protecting Ukraine ... is US does not have the statecraft capacity for high-stakes diplomacy, as corrupt plans require the purge of all dissenting voices internally (leaving corrupt and/or morons running things), and the US does not care about Ukraine even if they did have such statecraft capacity left.

Ukraine is tit-for tat for the US disastrous invasion and retreat from Afghanistan. US mouth pieces even kept on saying that before and immediately following the war: "we can give Russia their Afghanistan! We can give Russia their Afghanistan" ... just like the USA gave the USA the USA's Afghanistan ... Russia has become somehow to blame for everything American does to itself.

Take "meddling in elections": even if 200 000 USD on facebook adds was significant somehow and, even assuming it was somehow state sanctioned trolling, why does regulation allow Facebook selling political adds to foreign entities to begin with?

Follow the money.

Your position is very remote from any realism. — Olivier5

Realism has nothing to do with:

You have argued here that rooting for and supporting the Ukrainians was more morally disgusting than bombing the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

Which I have not argued. I asked: what about the US bombing the Iraqi's (and plenty others) with exactly analogous or then very similar justifications.

However, given the Russian's perception of self-defence (at least as much as the US vis-a-vis Iraq -- and it's simply legitimate to say Russia is genuinely more at risk from Ukraine than US was at risk from Iraq), there is at least this moral component on the Russian's side.

NATO pursuing a policy that essentially maximises destruction in Ukraine, short of nuclear weapons, is not "supporting Ukraine" but rather doing everything to possible to destroy Ukraine. Which, US diplomats and military mouth pieces don't really hesitate to say that's the policy, as that's the policy which also maximises harm to the Russians.

Imagine I am your commanding officer, and I ask you to defend a position to the death. I cannot possibly say this is justified in supporting your own self-defence. Obviously, the only possible justification is fighting to the death holding one position will help the defence of others. US representatives regularly say the justification for "supporting" Ukraine is not that they'll win, or that the outcome is somehow better for Ukraine, but that it is beneficial to avoiding other parties, including themselves, from need to fight the Russians later. A highly debatable presupposition to begin with, but clearly the argument put forward.

It also shows that realism has little to do with your motivations, because a realist would never bother with such skewed moralism, aware as he would be that it won't convince anyone. — Olivier5

I just explained at length the realistic option to protect Ukraine by "supporting Ukraine" which is to form a formal military alliance inside or outside NATO and send boots on the ground to do, or be prepared to do, actual fighting to protect Ukraine.

I made clear that if there was some "Cuban missile" style standoff where some grand bargain is reached or Russia "bluffs" we're continuously told about are actually successfully called (rather than Russia doing exactly what the West claims Russia is bluffing about), hats off to high-stakes statecraft ... if it works.

It is the in between, neither strong nor conciliatory that I have issue with. "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." I remember hearing somewhere ... a long time ago.

Obviously, the best way to avoid that is to avoid war in the first place. — boethius

Once the war started, Ukraine made lot's of strategic and tactical choices to maximise suffering of it's own people, essentially holding them hostage in war zones for the purpose of garnering international public sympathy.

The worst of such offences is handing out arms to civilians, which makes them legitimate military targets.

A weapon in the hands of a civilian during a war is a false sense of security that will get them killed and hyperdrive gang violence.

The NATO policy of pouring arms into Ukraine, as I mentioned months ago, will undermine European security for decades to come. These weapons are already in Europe. The two traditional barriers to sophisticated weapons coming to Europe: they're being hard to get and so super expensive (therefore only affordable by groups Western intelligence likely knows about, and most well financed groups are mafia's of one form or another that aren't so interested in causing random mayhem) and then the actual transport to Europe giving opportunities of interception, do not exist with these weapons: they are cheap, available to all sorts of random groups that can come into existence literally today and completely dedicated to random mayhem (especially if Ukraine doesn't "win" and the West is obviously to blame for that), with the weapons already in Europe and require little smuggling expertise or expense to transport them anywhere on the continent (maybe why UK has been more enthusiastic for war).

Furthermore, lowering both the cost and the costs and risk of transport, lowers the barrier to completely "rational" organised crime. It makes no sense to spend millions in both capital outlay, transportation, and "levelized cost of crime" considering the risk of capture, on a robbery, assassination, or gang violence of which the benefits are lower.

Lower the costs and risks of acquiring and transporting the weapons and this significantly widens the scope of profitable crime.

To make matters worse, security systems and protocols of yesterday were thought out and designed for the threats of yesterday.

It is only a matter of time before a civilian aircraft is downed by a stinger missile, as well as unbelievably violent robberies take place with advanced weaponry.

There is no doubt as to the extreme lethality and effectiveness of the sophisticated weapons delivered to Ukraine. NATO flooding the black market with its most sophisticated shoulder operated weapons is complete insanity.

When you actually do military service you realise quickly that an automatic assault riffle, as destructive as it is and capable of civilian massacres that we regularly see ... is basically a prop compared to the other weapons systems involved in a modern military engagement.

Fair enough. And what has been your position then, if not support to Russia's war effort? — Olivier5

I will go back and quote myself outlining again and again my position, but for now I will just summarise it again.

My first priority is to avoid death, suffering and trauma of children.

Obviously, the best way to avoid that is to avoid war in the first place.

There seems to be a genuine incapacity to understand the realist position I and others have defended here as well as presented by John Mearsheimer.

NATO playing "tough" could have avoided the war.

Almost no one criticises the American response to the Cuban missile crisis. But only because it worked. Had it resulted in nuclear exchange (even with the exact same political decisions, just things randomly got out of hand in such a tense standoff), people might have a lot of criticism.

What Mearsheimer point out is the simple truth that US / NATO is simply not willing to actually play tough, before, during or after the war, proven by the fact that it doesn't.

US and NATO declare some sort of Ukrainian pathway to join in 2008 ... so why didn't that happen?

Had they played tough, such as letting Ukraine in after 2008 in a midnight "super diplomacy" deal, or before 2014 ... or anytime after, maybe the war would have been averted.

Had US / NATO done some "tough" move, made a standoff, some deal is reached and Russia backs down. I would be totally for it. I am not criticising Ukraine in NATO if that averted war.

And, other things could be offered the Russians: Nord Stream 2, pulling back forward operating missile bases to "protect against Iran", no Ukrainian military forces on the Russian border, lifting all sanctions, Russian language protection, UN supervised vote of status of Dombas and Crimea etc. (not a requirement 2008-2014, when guarantees for Sevastopol and Russian minority rights would likely have been enough).

Nuclear war is not a foregone conclusion for the simple fact of letting Ukraine in. It's in anyways unlikely as Russia also doesn't want full scale nuclear war, and it's always possible to imagine some compensation to Russia that would convince them to not use tactical nukes in Ukraine, daring the US to respond with strategic nuclear strikes (again, unlikely because US also doesn't want nuclear exchange).

The reason this scenario isn't talked about is just that it's so obvious that US doesn't care about Ukraine enough to put in that kind of standoff and diplomatic energy. US and other NATO countries don't give a shit about Ukraine.

Which results in the terrible policy position of supporting Ukraine just enough to maximise Ukrainian suffering. This is not a morally or politically sound position.

And US at. al. don't even really hide it, they speak plainly that the goal is to "fight Russia in Ukraine so as not to fight them here," totally absurd (as Russia is not about to invade the US if "Ukraine falls") and basically admits to Ukrainians being cannon fodder in this strategy.

The reason to focus on the policy position of my own government and political blocks is that's the policy I'm morally responsible for as a citizen.

I'd also only get into some debate of the Russian moral and political justifications, if my pro-US interlocutors demonstrate how Russia's war in Ukraine is not as justified as the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture programs, or violating sovereignty of other countries with both over and cover operations all the time without hesitation, in the name of "US interests".

And this is not whataboutism fallacy.

First, whataboutism is not a fallacy in the first place. It is a completely legitimate question to say "what about this other thing" to see how a position deals with it.

In a good faith debate a "what about this other thing" question is simply going through some other example to understand the principles of a position and how they operate, for better mutual understanding.

In a bad faith debate, "what about this other thing" is not a fallacy, just a waste of time or then deflecting from legitimate questions one has already received. For example, had I not answered your question of what my position, and simply said "what about the US!" then that would be bad faith and hypocritical, as I am demanding satisfaction of a question when I already in debt to perfectly legitimate one's myself.

In particular, whataboutism is bad faith when deflecting from internal criticism. For example, democrats defending obvious democrat corruption by saying "what about the Republicans". Republicans have nothing to do with democratic party integrity and the best way to fight Republican corruption is to provide a less corrupt example. The sub-text is alway "but we need to be corrupt to win!" ... but "win what?", well, obviously the fruits of corruption.

US proponents are in debt to the question of "what about Iraq," (as well as many other wars / covert actions) and in the US' own justifications of its action, Russia is justified by far according to those standards. Ukraine presents a far greater security threat to Russia than Iraq did the US. The whole there are bio labs that can't fall into enemy hands, seems far greater evidence of WMD's than US had concerning Iraq; if the Ukrainian biological WMD's don't exist ... well neither Iraq nuclear weapons or capacity to build them. Russian soldiers and officers have certainly done some torturing on their own initiative, but there is so far no evidence it is an institutional decision ... whereas US simply legalised torture and built large and sophisticated torture operations; I'm certainly willing to believe Russians do have institutional mandated torture programs, but that just brings them to parity.

Then there's the neo-Nazi question. Certainly not-invading Ukraine is appeasing these overtly Nazi organisations. The argument is they don't have enough influence in Ukraine to satisfy such an argument ... but what's the standard, how many Nazis is too many Nazis with too much power and influence.

Russia uses propaganda ... US uses propaganda.

That being said, if I the question was put to me after somehow responding to all these questions and demonstrating that Russia cannot easily justify its war effort according to the US' own standards set for itself, or then from simply a anti-Russian and anti-US position, certainly Russia could have done more to avoid war. There is a faction in Russia that wanted this war as much as the analogous faction in the US. These factions together pushed things towards war and not peace. They are morally culpable, but so too the less violent factions on both sides that did not oppose the process playing out in slow motion over several decades.

Why?

They were bribed not to intervene in the process in a way that might change the outcome.

So if sanctions aren't really hurting Russia but are hurting the most vulnerable in our own societies, why continue with them? — Benkei

I believe the logic is that the whole narrative of fighting a war without actually fighting it, only makes sense if there's at least the suffering part.

Look! We're suffering for the war effort! We're so committed!

Of course, the people making this policy don't suffer, and they clearly do not care about those that do. I think this is pretty obvious in the fact that whenever the subject of nuclear war comes up, White House et. al., are unhesitating in declaring we can't have that (therefore no no-fly zone, no "offensive weapons" etc.) but a total collapse of the Russian state would also be a likely nuclear war scenario: therefore, there was never any genuine belief sanctions would accomplish that.

It also seems to me improbable that there was any belief that the sanctions would "work", rather the goal is a new cold war theatre which requires a new iron curtain.

Mine is a pragmatist, real politics-based position. — Olivier5

Again, supporting NATO supporting Ukraine's war effort, is supporting Ukraine's war effort.

Support is support, regardless of the justification and regardless of whether it's indefinite support or not.

If I support a political candidate, doesn't mean I'm committed to support indefinitely nor that if I reevaluate my support somehow that retroactively removes the support I provided in the past.

Your position is obviously support to Ukraine's war effort since starting on this thread.

Yes, please, explain your reasons for it, that's the purpose of discussing, and obviously many, many people in the West support Ukraine's war effort, so it's good for the purposes of discussion that someone represents that position.

Furthermore, realist, pragmatic and strategic decisions are still for the purposes of some moral objective.

None of these are amoral things, just analytical frameworks on how best to achieve moral objectives in the real, messy world where nothing is ideal and compromise is always necessary (simply limited resources forces us to compromise on what moral objectives are practical to pursue).

Realism, pragmatism and strategy are analytical tools to try to understand what the actual consequences of different actions are likely to be. Actual likely consequences are clearly relevant to decision making.

However, real consequences in a complex world, don't somehow make the moral objectives irrelevant, just bring to the for difficult decisions.

For example, in WWII, the allies broke Enigma and so could know when ships would be attacked, when and where.

Many ships were not warned or told to change course because it would risk statistically tipping off the Nazi's that enigma had been broken and they may do a full reset of all the code books, change wheels and so on.

Obviously the goal was to save lives, but a realistic, pragmatic, and strategic analysis concluded some lives needed to be knowingly sacrificed to optimise the covert information advantage over the longest possible time frame.

Someone could have spoken up for the fact it's the Germans that are morally responsible for the attacks and the deaths, they're duty is to save lives and so they must warn everyone they can, and if the German's change their codes and then kill more people it's their moral issue and doesn't matter.

The difference between such a naive fool and the mathematicians that worked out a formula of who to save and who let die, is simply the time frame under consideration. What achieves the goal (saving lives) in the short term may be counterproductive to the same goal over the long term.

It's a case for the US and EU to support the Ukrainian war effort, for as long as the need it — Olivier5

That's clearly pro war. Why call it something different?

Supporting NATO supporting the Ukrainian war effort ... is clearly supporting the Ukrainian war effort.

I thought it was more that the Ukrainians will fight?
(not so much due to Zelenskyy, more that they're not inclined to hand the keys over to Russia)
Maybe that's just me.
I wouldn't mind them repelling the attacker-bomber, make the would-be land-grabber think twice, deter the invader. If they're going to fight? Heck yeah. — jorndoe

This seems to me clearly a pro-war position.

And, at the start of a conflict with Russia as a smaller nation, I would agree with fighting. I have trained for precisely this strategy.

The whole point of a conventional deterrent against a vastly more powerful force (and Russia's nuclear weapons makes them vastly more powerful), is to make a negotiated peace a better option for the aggressor than a costly and unpredictable fight.

Being willing to fight (even in a losing situation) is leverage in a negotiation.

However, if you demonstrate your willingness to fight ... and then don't negotiate, you not only lose your leverage the more you lose but you also motivate your opponent to demand more to compensate the costly fight.

What has happened in Ukraine is a missed opportunity for a negotiated peace early (or even before) the conflict.

This missed opportunity is I think very clearly due to a false sense of security provided by NATO (Zelensky seemed to genuinely believe he would get a NATO no-fly zone) while no NATO power did anything to explain to Zelensky the end-game if he refused to negotiate with Russia and accept some concessions (which, had it been explained that social media glory today is gone tomorrow, the weapons may not come forever and may not even be enough, the costs of trying to "win" by force may not be remotely worth it, and it's not at all clear how that's even remotely possible).

There is only one reason for that: US wanted this war to happen and to drag on as it has, and the EU leaders are basically puppets willing to harm their own people's interest, harm millions of Ukrainians, for US interests to reduce EU leverage to basically zero on the world stage, and have the EU submit as a bumbling and weak diplomatic side-kick and jester. The EU is basically the US' choir at this point.

Not really, because this comment was made in the context of a discussion with Tzeentch about NATO and the EU, to whom it pertains. — Olivier5

So NATO should support war with supplying arms ... but that's not a case for war?

Lot's of wars are considered by nearly all just wars, certainly most people here, there's no problem of principle, from the outset, arguing Ukraine's just war cause or NATO's just war cause.

The point of my comment was that you clearly genuinely believe your position, obviously our positions are very different (on at least some key points, not everything), debate and exchange of view ensues. What else would people expect from such a controversial and emotional topic as a war.

If Ukraine achieved a decisive battle field victory, or Russia did collapse and retreat begging for sanctions to be lifted, would you really be hedging your language now? Or would be be running internet victory laps.

Which, to be clear, I'm not criticising your passion for your cause. That part is noble. And, likewise, willing to submit your passion to scrutiny, which you do address and do reformulate your position (bad faith I only consider when criticism isn't even addressed), is likewise noble.

Of course, I still think you're wrong.

But, if you were right and there was some decisive Ukrainian victory or Russian regime collapse (which at the start I thought was a real possibility), for sure, in such a scenario I would be accepting my analysis was simply wrong.

However, @Isaac has made a more complete retort to the core moral issue, so I'll just repeat it again:

That some people have decided they want to fight doesn't absolve you of responsibility for defending your moral support for a course of action that entails massive harms on non-consenting, innocent bystanders... The others. The ones who didn't decide to fight. — Isaac

It doesn't. Russia's existing LNG capacity is a minor fraction of its pipeline capacity. — SophistiCat

I'm aware of this, that's why I also mentioned the non-EU pipelines (mainly China but there's also some capacity to sell south ... of course so those nations can sell to the EU).

However, the main point was that oil generates 5 times the revenue than gas.

So it's simply not a big hit to reduce gas exports, in particular, as I mentioned, if the increase in price offsets the lower volume anyways.

Russia can also store gas while it builds further export capacity (also leave it in the ground and tap it later) ... maybe where their reserves come into play to just wait to sell later; resource doesn't disappear simply because you don't sell it today.

There is not logical necessity to export at maximum capacity and no inherent consequence to lowering exports.

All this to explain why Russia's energy export revenues are up.

I do agree there is some uncertainty as to the quality of Chinese and Indian capital equipment, but as long as it does function it's not some critical failure point.

The Western advanced engineering firms do have more efficient equipment, but efficiency isn't so critical in Russia's situation of producing energy.

Rather than asking boethius to trawl through 300 pages of posts to find an exact quote to cover the very obvious support you show for continued war. — Isaac

Already done.

Fortunately, it's not so inconvenient as trawling through 300 pages.

You can click on a posters name, then click on "comments" and get their most recent comments, scroll down and you can click more and then a number will appear in the URL of what comment to start at, which you can then change to jump around.

You've clearly argued that Ukrainians should fight
— boethius

Where did I do so? — Olivier5

By an essentially random search through your comments, in literally 1 minute:

↪Tzeentch Taking care of the Russian threat for a generation is well worth the price. — Olivier5

Seems pretty strong support for the war ... and that it's well worth the price of the dead so far.

Which, maybe when you made that comment, had Ukraine used its leverage, and willing to fight is leverage, to negotiate peace terms maybe it would be worth the price, and maybe now it doesn't seem so clear.

And, to be clear, had Ukraine "fought hard" and then negotiated a peace, I wouldn't be critical of their strategy and diplomacy. It's clearly better than total capitulation from the outset.

However, total capitulation is better than an indefinite un-winnable war.

i don't think I have argued the case of war, i have just observed that the call for peace negotiations is part of the war. — Olivier5

You've clearly argued that Ukrainians should fight, which is the case for war. Without Ukrainians fighting there is no war.

Of course, you can blame the Russians for starting it, but it takes two sides to have a war.

Posters whining here that there are no peace negociations are only repeating uncritically the propaganda of the Kremlin. — Olivier5

It is not the propaganda of the Kremlin, US, NATO and EU literally came out and said they will not negotiate; negotiation must be directly with Ukraine. You can say that's how it should be, but you can't also at the same time say lack of serious negotiation throughout the war is Kremlin propaganda.

You could claim Russia would anyways break any agreement, but you can't say there was a negotiation ... even though there wasn't because it was assumed Russia wouldn't abide by any agreement so there was no attempt to negotiate.

Furthermore, even in the absence of serious negotiations of the powers involved and have the leverage (the powers with the money and the weapons and dictating Ukrainian policy), Russia nevertheless made a public offer of: independent Donbas, recognising Crimea, neutral Ukraine, and if accepted all troops would withdraw from Ukrainian territory.

The main criticism is that Ukraine did not accept this public offer, which was clearly the minimum Russia would ever offer, the only alternative to accepting the offer would be to wage a war that was clearly un-winnable, and even if Ukraine could take back the whole of just the Donbas, not to mention Crimea, it would be at the cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands dead Ukrainians (which is not a reasonable cost to "keep" two ethnically Russian regions).

Now, if Ukraine accepted the offer and then Russia reneged and continued the war anyways, that would be a different scenario. But future crime does not exist; you cannot accuse someone of not abiding by an agreement that has not been made.

And this good-faith, bad-faith game is important, as Russia needs to maintain other international relations who are open to consider Russia's point of view and decide accordingly. If Russia can point out a public offer that was clearly the minimum it could ever make, and obviously more reasonable than more war, and Ukraine refused, this is extremely weighty in diplomatic relations with non-NATO countries.

It doesn't matter to Western media, they'll just ignore it or say it was bad faith future crime or whatever, but it does matter to non-Western countries and media, many who are also authoritarian regimes of one form or another and don't have any prima facie "Russia is evil" starting point.

Without support of non-NATO countries in maintaining trade relations, Russia would very possibly collapse, so these diplomatically relevant (but irrelevant to Western media) good-faith-bad-faith arguments are also important to understand the geo-political situation.

Russia and China really are creating an alternative global economic system to challenge American Empire. Not only is "who's more reasonable" a critical point (as you can't wage war with everyone so do actually have to go and convince people to deal with you at some point) in these international relations, but it's important to keep in mind that most of these non-Wester nations are authoritarian and default to empathy with Russia and not Western "values" (and also love pointing out hypocrisy in those as much as they possibly can).

Indeed, there's even examples within NATO.

Erdogan is far closer ideologically to Putin than to any Western leader.

Russia''s motivation and justifications to deal with a pesky neighbour Ukraine by force is very close to Turkey's (aka. Türkiye's) view of Syria, Kurds, everyone.

So, a lot of the non-Western states are ideologically far closer to Russia than the West and don't need much evidence to essentially side with Russia.

Nevertheless, if Russia was clearly in the wrong (their offer was accepted, and then they continued fighting) diplomatic relations would immediately change as all these other states don't actually want the war, it affects them in energy and food costs, so if Russia was continuing it in bad faith that would be quickly intolerable to them.

Russia's narrative that they've made offers, super minimal, neutral Ukraine would have been enough (which then NATO accepts Ukraine will never join NATO ... but after the war, super good offers were made, Russia doesn't want war, but we have security interests same as you etc.) is completely essential to Russia's maintaining trading relations with the rest of the world, which is completely essential to its war effort.

All this to say that these diplomatic positions, that seem so small and irrelevant in the West's kindergarten analytical framework of erratic moral positions and expectation that some authority figure will "punish" the bad boy, seemingly small things such as publicly accepting rather than publicly rejecting a reasonable offer, has real consequences. It may feel good to declare Russia liars and you can't deal with them and they'll never abide by an agreement ... but the alternative is indefinite warfare.

Just from where the most participants are from (mainly from the Anglosphere). Which is quite natural as we use English. — ssu

Sure that's true.

Well, let's hope participating on a Philosophy forum isn't virtue signalling. — ssu

I was referring to facebook, twitter et. al.

People who virtue signal here don't seem to stick around; they go back to fishing for likes elsewhere I'm afraid.

This is a real possibility, I agree. — ssu

Yes we're in agreement there.

I'm sure we also agree that this would not be a morally acceptable outcome, same as abandoning allies in Afghanistan.

It seems that already Russia has signaled that it will take a break. And likely Ukraine doesn't have the ability to muster a large counterattack. There is the possibility that the war does what it did after 2014-2015: become a stalemate. Or at least for the time being until Russia simply can train new batches of conscripts and add up the needed materiel. — ssu

This is definitely one possibility, and definitely a Ukraine counter attack would be a big surprise to me.

However, Ukraine's ability to continue to defend is also highly uncertain. We simply don't know the relative force capabilities on each side at the moment. Damage to Russia's army only matters if there's not equal or greater damage to Ukraine's army.

Every example of damage against the Russians, or then various problems, generally is safe to assume is as bad or worse for the Ukrainians.

On the economic "sanctions"-front, I think that Russia has played it's cards very well. It simply is just such a large supplier of natural resources that the World cannot simply disregard it. The logical way for the West to counter this would be to try a push the price of oil and gas down by increasing production, but that would go against what has been set as goal to curb climate change. German energy policy of having relied to Russian energy with closing down nuclear plants and now having to open coal plants show how clueless the West actually is here.

Ukraine is still just one issue among others and Putin knows that. — ssu

I definitely agree with your assessment here, and disagree with:

If Europe goes through with its divestment from Russian energy, then Russia's game doesn't look so good in the medium term. Oil and gas are not like gold: moving them takes a lot of specialized infrastructure that simply does not exist today and won't come into existence any time soon. — SophistiCat

Although true that Oil and gas take specialized infrastructure ...

Russia spent the last decade building some 24 nuclear ice breakers, LNG compression stations, and all the piping and port facilities necessary to export oil and gas directly out of the arctic (how it has been supplying China and India with oil, although the ice breakers will only be needed in winter).

This video is literally titled "Why Russia is building an Arctic Silk Road":

And Asia's appetite for Russian energy isn't bottomless either: they'll take what they can if the discount is big enough, but they have other supplies as well. — SophistiCat

If it's cheaper, they buy basically all of it. Middle-east then shifts to supplying Europe. Once oil is at sea it is very fungible and essentially dissolves into the global oil market. Barrels may trade multiple times while still in the ground, while in storage, while at sea, and the oil that gets delivered from a supplier is not necessarily even oil from that supplier. Insofar as Russia can trade oil to the BRICS, then it's just a game of musical chairs shifting oil around.

I'm not sure if Russia has the LNG capacity to export all its gas through all its non-EU pipelines and arctic LNG plants, but there's not some logical necessity to export at maximum capacity. Indeed, not only does increase gas prices easily make-up for decreased volume, but natural gas is only a fifth the revenue of oil.

Oil is easy to export in vast quantities as long as there's port access, which Russia has secured with the nuclear ice breakers (and also only economic due to the disappearance of multi-year ice in the arctic, leaving ice easy to break through).

As for other economic sectors of the Russian economy, their biggest "other" industry is arms and they are basically the only supplier available for non-NATO aligned countries, so they have a captured market.

Computer chips are definitely an inconvenience, likely some missiles have washing machine chips in them to get around sanctions ... or then maybe that was just the best and cheapest chip for the job. I doubt they actually scavenged them from actual washing machines.

However, I don't think computing is such a big deal simply because there's so many ways around sanctions, there's so many chips in the world and they're small (it's far from being some difficult to acquire thing such as in the cold war), and Russia can produce its own chips (not cutting edge but good enough for most industrial processes and military purposes).

Precise manufacturing can be sourced from China.

Certainly results in an ersatz economy with a lot of copies of Western equipments, but as long as it all still works, doesn't seem there's any critical failure points for the Russian economy writ large.

Supplying massive quantities of what people "need": energy, food, fertiliser, minerals, arms is not a weak economic position.

Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that. — Tate

This is not some sort of safe space for your ego, where your arguments and intentions should be protected from scrutiny.

"Arguing" against your positions is not a "forum pile", it's called debate.

Real intellectual debate is a rational framework for an emotional contest.

Always has been.

This particular forum, by the grace of the mods, is for people who want to actually test their beliefs, argumentation, justifications against the most brutal scrutiny that the internet can muster.

Some of us have not only been here for years, engaging in good faith and sharpening our whits, but were also inhabitants of the previous forum (just "philosophyforum") which was far more rigorous (for various reasons) and essentially serves as this forum's Hades. A dark mysterious nether realm from which have sprung some monsters of the deep.

Why expect submitting your beliefs and argumentation skills to actual scrutiny to be a pleasant experience where the rules should be set to allow you to at least "tie"?

There is no reason, especially if the truth is of any value.

You only expect this because echo chambers built to maintain your belief system operate in this way, but here is not an echo chamber: anyone can participate defending any point of view, attacking any point of view.

Some people here have been following or even working on the climate change issue for years and decades.

You "pop in" to insult our knowledge, tell us to get up to speed.

When your knowledge is demonstrated to be delusional (by reference to actual evidence), you then feel insulted, claim I'm "quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish" ... for participating in open debate, free exchange of ideas, not coercing anyone to utter or believe anything by some government force, but simply making my case in the public forum?

If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The problem with your arguments is that it does not "widen" our understanding, but is simply wrong.

Increased CO2 emissions more than compensate orbital insolation changes on any relevant time scale. There is zero risk of an ice age happening anytime soon.

Whether you're conscious of it or not, your comments are simply a reflection of the new phase in climate denialism which is to down-play the dangers, muddy the waters, try to paint real analysis as somehow lacking using platitudes and truisms that easily confuse the gullible and (in particular) people who want to engage in magical thinking and believe the situation isn't so bad or then will right itself.

For example, in one single sentence you seem to agree we should reduce our CO2 emissions, but even there it is subtle propaganda in using the word "prudent" rather than "necessary to avoid total disaster". Prudent connotes an over abundance of caution, and is not even necessarily a virtue. A "prudent" person may also miss out on opportunities by avoiding risks.

Framing CO2 reductions as "prudent" impresses upon the mind of the conservative idiot that the outcome is not near-certain and maybe the risks discussed would not be realised in business as usual scenario.

For example, it is prudent to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but forgoing a helmet in no way guarantees a brain injury. Indeed, a brain injury is not even very probable if one is a skilled biker that is unlikely to crash.

The situation with carbon emissions is that of a heroin junky taking more and more heroin each trip. It is not merely prudent to stop taking more and more heroin, it is necessary for survival. The probability of being able to survive heroin doses far in excess of anything anyone has survived before is negligible for decision making.

It is not "prudent" to stop CO2 emissions, it is necessary for survival of most people and most species, and a moral imperative.

A recent internet commentator described this new batch of denialism flooding the brain waves as "lukewarmists", which is a good description, but it also still just plain ol' denialism, muddying the waters, and the denial is the actual state of the climate and consequences.

"I don't deny climate change, just all this other stuff so as to result in the same inaction, same as before," is not somehow wriggling out of the denialism (to then participate as some moral and intellectual equal worthy of respect), it is just updating the denialist strategy to the fact everyone can see the consequences of climate change now and it's no longer effective to straight up claim it's not happening (people can see it's happening), so the next best thing is to downplay the consequences, peddle fantasies such as the ice age cycle may "save the day!" based on a total delusional understanding of the climate, but with a few techno-babble words thrown in to impress the gullible.

All your points, their content, how they are presented, trying to undermine people who do know what they are talking about ... while also claiming to be on the same team of wanting to reduce emissions? Is all just repeating propaganda: either intentionally or then as a useful idiot to propagandists who created all these talking points.

Propaganda is not good faith intellectual debate: it deserves no respect, no invitation, no empathy, and no quarter on the fields of whit.

It is academics, politicians, activists, organisers, journalists, who were otherwise good faith, pandering to propaganda and trying to "meet them half way" so at least "something is done", is what got us to the current crisis in the first place.

For, the propagandists were also selling what environmentalists wanted to believe as well: things aren't so bad.

(my bad, thought it was clear enough, but should have been more explicit) — jorndoe

I really don't think we are.

You're saying modifying business as usual is some comparable inherent risk to modifying the earth's atmosphere, that is prima facie balanced somehow and we need equal consideration of both risks.

You simply use a euphemism of "doing nothing" to represent business as usual, in a pretty obvious attempt to trick others into your false-balance-framework or then trick even yourself.

I'm pretty sure we understand each other very well, and are using and understanding the "verbiage" as each means it to.

But this thread is now going to be 300 pages and some have this fixation that the most important issue talked about should be the US tells something. — ssu

What is the something that it tells?

Usually they are like that... as people really don't get heated up about various armed groups fighting in a civil war in a country that they have problem finding on a map. — ssu

Sure, many people don't care about any war, participated in discussing this one to jump on the social media virtue signalling band-waggon before hopping off.

I'm not sure if you're saying that discussion between the people disinterested would be higher quality? Or what?

As for the current state of the war, counter offensive against Kershon does not seem to be working.

I would guess that the second last batch of weapons was predicated on the promise of holding out in Dombas, and now the latest batch of weapons is predicated on a promise of counter offensive in Kershon.

If this counter-offensive fails, "allies" will continue to wind-down their arms shipments to Ukraine, continue to deescalate with Russia, and forget about Ukraine.

People and politicians will go back to same-old-same-old':

Usually they are like that... as people really don't get heated up about various armed groups fighting in a civil war in a country that they have problem finding on a map. — ssu

Indeed, the "usual".

doing nothing — jorndoe

Doing nothing would be not-modifying the earth's atmosphere.

Modifying the earth's atmosphere is called radical intervention in the earth-life system.

That Western economics call this radical intervention "laissez-faire" is because they are mostly propagandists due to cold war political intervention in academia (no "laissez-faire" approach to that hot button issue -- and they're damn proud of it!).

And, it's not even a laissez-faire situation even according to their own propaganda, as subsidies to the fossil industry is not laissez-faire but market intervention.

The process of dumping billions of tons of carbon and other pollutants along with more direct destruction of the ecosystems is not some baseline "no intervention" in the earth system.

It is continuous and radical intervention that is inherently high risk compared to actual ecological "laissez faire" policy which would be preserving the pre-industrial economy, or even pre-agriculture economy, or even pre-fire economy, depending on how you want to define interventions in the global earth-life system.

Arguing alone has the same consequences, the same risks, as doing nothing, and that's the way of the deniers. — jorndoe

This is called false equivalence and is just more propaganda.

Modifying the composition of the earth's atmosphere is high risk.

Not-modifying it is low risk.

To create a dilemma , one requires some problem in the current status quo of the system and so a inherent risk to inaction.

For example, there is risk to heart surgery, I think we would agree on this basic fact.

However, one cannot automatically postulate that there is equal risk to not-heart surgery.

One would need evidence of an actual heart disease of which the heart surgery might mend or mitigate, to start balancing risks (if the heart disease is mild, the surgery maybe higher risk than doing nothing).

Then there is also the costs to consider of the intervention (as resources are scarce). Doctors have a framework for evaluating risk and resource allocation to intervention called "Number Needed to Treat".

Not only is evidence of a problem required (diagnosis) but then there's a bunch of other steps to justify intervention.

At no point is a person with zero-diagnosis or symptoms or other evidence of a medical problem, somehow at sufficient risk of any given disease justifying any given medical intervention.

If there is no evidence of heart disease then performing heart surgery on the basis of simply balancing the risk of no-intervention with intervention and flipping a coin would be criminal.

In the case of the climate, there is zero evidence the climate had some problem our intervention of billions of tons of carbon a year might fix.

Modifying the system in an uncontrolled experiment on the entire earth-life system is completely insane to say that not-doing-that would be of equal risk to consider.

And yes, quite well to stay away from a dumpster fire like this thread. — ssu

Are you talking about your own comments?

I don't see why people would be surprised that the subject of an ongoing war isn't in the framework of the usual academic decorum, hedged language, and polite patting on the back for everyone participating in an obscure, unimportant, and zero-stakes intellectual masterbation session.

I think it's entirely healthy posters like @Olivier5 are passionate about their case for war, as much as other posters are passionate about their case for peace.

If you want a dumpster fire, go to some place like https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/ and you'll see people huddling and warming themselves around their modern day book burning (aka. deleting and banning any dissenting opinion whatsoever).

A space where actual opposing views can meet and discuss and disagree is not a dumpster fire. It's called "debate". If people care about the subject, it's called: "people care".

London is literally dealing with wild fires (a traditionally humid place, but of course only some traditions are cared about by traditionalists):

Crews who fought wildfires across London that destroyed more than 40 properties as heatwave temperatures soared have described the conditions as "absolute hell". — London wildfires: Crews say they experienced absolute hell

Pretty accurate description of the massive forest fires (in particular in rain forests that are evolved without fire as it's usually too wet: see key word "rain"), as well as the civil unrest that goes along with empirical verification of what "unsustainability" entails.

For those interested in actual science:

This recent article summarises the "bleak" position and reason it's important to accept:

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when humanity began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, global temperatures have risen by just over 1C. At the Cop26 climate meeting in Glasgow last year, it was agreed that every effort should be made to try to limit that rise to 1.5C, although to achieve such a goal, it was calculated that global carbon emissions will have to be reduced by 45% by 2030.

“In the real world, that is not going to happen,” says McGuire. “Instead, we are on course for close to a 14% rise in emissions by that date – which will almost certainly see us shatter the 1.5C guardrail in less than a decade.”

And we should be in no doubt about the consequences. Anything above 1.5C will see a world plagued by intense summer heat, extreme drought, devastating floods, reduced crop yields, rapidly melting ice sheets and surging sea levels. A rise of 2C and above will seriously threaten the stability of global society, McGuire argues. It should also be noted that according to the most hopeful estimates of emission cut pledges made at Cop26, the world is on course to heat up by between 2.4C and 3C.

From this perspective it is clear we can do little to avoid the coming climate breakdown. Instead we need to adapt to the hothouse world that lies ahead and to start taking action to try to stop a bleak situation deteriorating even further, McGuire says. — ‘Soon it will be unrecognisable’: total climate meltdown cannot be stopped, says expert

This is the best most recent summary of the current situation I can find:



Notice both interlocutors are actual scientists that have worked on the issue, have cohesive arguments and shit, don't just hand waive platitudes like the earth is self-balancing (without justification), or ice age will start any century now (without justification).

Notice also the focus on risks.

The most successful propaganda of the oil lobby was convincing (aka. bribing) the media and political classes into accepting the idea that predictions must be "certain" to justify action.

Yet, in their own board rooms they make decisions based on impact x probability = risk.

Indeed, their whole interest in financing climate denial is because non-corrupt politicians making rational decisions based on intolerable risk to experiment with the earth's climate, starting with simply ceasing to subsidise fossil fuels which isn't justified even within their own neo-liberal delusions sans-climate-disaster (we never hear about "the market" needing to function when it comes to these subsidies), maybe low-probability but is nevertheless extremely high impact to their bottom lines, resulting in medium financial risk levels: therefore, justifying investments in mitigatory action on a net-present-value basis for an optimum allocation of resources to protect sunk costs in technology and infrastructure to extract shale, bitumen and deep water (rather than accept fossil extraction scaling down while renewables scale up), as part of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Yet, when people who care about the earth and all who dwell upon the earth and don't even own any shares in oil companies, use the same impact x probability = risk framework to analyse the situation:

Alarmism!

So I see now everybody is wasting their time in the glaciation thread when the actual subject is the man made climate crisis we have on our hands now. All you apparently have to do to distract would-be philosophers is start a thread demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about and then they will fall over each other to set the record straight. While interesting, it is a complete waste of time. — Benkei

Although, I didn't participate in the new thread, I don't think it's fair to say those that went and demonstrated the absurdity of the ice age in a few hundred years hypothesis and the science isn't settled! So many unknowns! Are wasting their time.

I think it's important to pick apart bad faith denialist propaganda and show how it works.

In this case, the basic idea behind the propaganda is to impress on the gullible that we can continue business as usual, roll the dice and maybe get lucky with a new ice age in a few centuries (which certainly doesn't sound like a 6 degree warming, mass extinction, very possibly humans extinct, dystopian world with extreme hardships for everyone starting in our life time ... but more, hmm, maybe it gets colder again due to the glaciation pattern continuing! Use that climate data against them!).

A basic schematic of "ok, scientists may have 'a point', but they don't know everything! And the future is uncertain! Sure it would be 'prudent' to stop CO2 emissions, but it's not totally irrational to continue the 'American way of life' since maybe we'll get lucky."

Propaganda that allows the gullible to simply imagine a pleasant future, at least for rich countries, and once fixed in the mind, is a gentle constant lullaby for the soul.

Of course, I completely agree that this should not take up all our time, and I also agree that some people get too focused on criticising the enemy and lose sight completely of needing to coordinate with allies to get anything actually done.

That's really not true. I'm not continuing this discussion with you. — Tate

Most of your statements are not even purporting to be facts, and the one's that are you do not support with any evidence, and the one statement you cited an article for does not support your statement.

I don't think we should back down from stating scientific facts because someone could imply something we disagree with. — Tate

As has been explained to you in your thread complaining about the moderation, throwing out a scientific fact that has no relevance to the discussion (neither supporting nor contradicting any position in the discussion, not even your own, which seems to be we should stop all CO2 emissions immediately), is bad faith and adds nothing to the dialogue.

Almost none of your statements are scientific fact, and, this particular example of an ice age starting in a few hundred years, has zero scientific basis whatsoever and is extreme contradiction to what the entire climatology community is predicting.

So, first, in no way factual and you've provided no citations to support your mad theory that an ice age is likely, or even remotely possible, to be triggered in the next few hundred years. So, if you want to play the facts game, which I suggest you do, then the basic rule of the game is "evidence", which you provide nothing remotely supporting your claims.

You're intention is clear: try to throw out statements that make one implication, or just false statements, then ignore criticism or backtrack to your statement being totally meaningless.

For example, that models are not complete is true for all models. To be relevant to the discussion you need to point out what's missing from those models and what decisions might change in a more complete model and how that change is relevant.

However, for climate models, there are no such candidates.

Increasing CO2 beyond anything the earth has experienced in millions of years is a reckless uncontrolled experiment with intolerable risks, already intolerable proven harms to people and living systems we've caused so far, and more precise models have zero candidates of greater precision or then added complexity that would remotely possibly change such a conclusion.

Throwing shade on the models by claiming they aren't complete (as is true for all models) has no relevance to any decision making.

It's called propaganda, not good faith discussion. If you genuinely perceive yourself as not repeating propaganda, then you're a useful idiot to the propagandists that have filled your head with nonsense.