If you go back to the initial argument, I never pretended that democracies are moral. As you pointed out yourself, morality only applies to individual human beings.

What I said, originally, is that it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. On the contrary, it is the natural, logical, and moral thing to do. If one's philosophy leads one to see no difference between an offensive militaristic dictatorship and a defending democracy, then maybe one's philosophy is fucked up.

In short, equating Putin and Zelensky is not philosophical and sophisticated at all, far from it. It is being cretinous, callous, and lazy.

escalate by stealth — Apollodorus

Nice phrase. In other words, crank up the pressure on Moscow while avoiding WW3. I still think Biden is doing fine. His military establishment is as we know ultra-awkish. He has to proceed with a degree of caution and temper their enthusiasm.

Europeans have already warned the US against getting too giddy about a never ending proxy war. There is risk here, of the US believing its own propaganda. Biden needs to keep his head cool.

That too I guess. Money talks and the Brits have always liked its voice.

Once Upon a Time in Londongrad

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/may/31/once-upon-a-time-in-londongrad-review-putin-deaths-russian

(on how Putin can kill whoever he wants to, wherever they are)

I don't know what got into him. Today he seems to agree with our president. A few days ago he would welcome the total destruction of anything French.

Maybe his favorite kangaroo ran away with a Frenchman?

FYI, I'm not a kangaroo. Don't get too excited.

I do. Sorry to disappoint once again.

Who said there was anything wrong with it?

And if so - what seems to be the issue, exactly? — Streetlight

Unclear, please rephrase.

From Switzerland, a portait of Macron as a student of Kissinger:

Source: https://www.blick.ch/fr/news/monde/commentaire-allo-kissinger-emmanuel-macron-a-lecoute-id17533457.html

Do not repeat it to the twenty-six other European Heads of State or Government who meet this Monday and Tuesday in Brussels for a new extraordinary summit devoted to Ukraine: Emmanuel Macron, 44, is walking on the footsteps of the most admired and criticized master diplomat of the last century, the American Henry Kissinger.

Aged 99, the former national security adviser to Richard Nixon has just shaken up the World Economic Forum in Davos by calling on Ukraine to “make territorial concessions” to seal a lasting peace agreement with Russia.

Scandal. Barrage on the almost centenarian who always had as a model Klemens Von Metternich the Austrian Chancellor of the Napoleonic era, negotiator of the Congress of Vienna of 1815 which gave birth to the current borders of Switzerland. Haro on the man who, in the 1970s, defended the carpet bombs dropped by American B52s over Vietnam and Cambodia. Kissinger, or cynicism incarnate whose motto, ultimately, has always been the same: approach a negotiation by proclaiming ideals, then bow to the facts when it is no longer possible to change them through diplomacy or strength.

Kissinger-Macron: the association is probably not to the taste of the French head of state, whose country assumes the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union until the end of June. Macron is a convinced European. He tirelessly pleads for European strategic autonomy, which would allow the continent to escape the American military grip. [...]

And yet: Macron has indeed been doing his Kissinger for a few days. He continues to talk on the phone with Putin. He makes sure that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, at his side on the phone, is on the same wavelength. He held firm in the face of criticism from his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. Because Macron, like Kissinger, believes the tipping point for war in Ukraine is approaching.

Did Emmanuel Macron read the works of the German academic who emigrated before the war and became Secretary of State of the United States? Likely. Everything, in any case, agrees in the approach of the two men. Macron knows that Russia, also locked in the violent dictatorial spiral of Vladimir Putin, is inescapable, just as Kissinger, in the 1970s, knew that Washington had to negotiate with the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse Tung. And Macron, like Kissinger once with Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, understood that the balance of power in favor of Moscow can be delayed, but not reversed.

In Vietnam, this awful war waged by the United States in the Far East in the name of the “domino theory” – to protect the non-Communist countries of the region – Kissinger understood when Richard Nixon came to power in 1969, that his rice paddy war would never be won. He therefore worked, without pity for the Cambodian and Vietnamese civilian populations, to prepare his country to lose it by inflicting the maximum number of losses on his enemy.

Let's transpose this scheme to Ukraine and the French logic shines through: today everything must be done to increase the human, financial and military cost of this war for Moscow. But we must also, with lucidity, lead Ukraine to consider a solution other than the continuation of an unequal fight.

Kissinger was booed in the United States. His name remains synonymous with crimes committed for the sole benefit of American power. Emmanuel Macron is, fortunately, not in this position. France's military support for Ukraine, exemplified by the delivery of several powerful Caesar cannons, is in unison with the rest of the EU member countries. But let's look at the facts: equip without sending fighters... This is exactly what Kissinger's United States did in South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973.

Henry Kissinger ended the war. He thus allowed his country not to find itself confronted simultaneously with the former USSR and China. In Davos in recent days, the very old man has only repeated his doctrine: military one-upmanship can be an effective means of better negotiating. It does not allow, when the imbalance of forces is colossal (as is the case in Ukraine, against Russia), to reverse the situation.

Emmanuel Macron has not yet been to Kyiv. It is rumored that he could go there to deliver the last speech of the French rotating presidency of the European Union, at the end of June. It would be a clever and meaningful gesture. He has to take that risk. [...]

How actually this will happen is a real question mark. And seems that many don't even think they need to explain just how this would happen. — ssu

Not saying it WILL happen. I was talking about the kind of risks that may be on our leaders' mind. An escalation COULD happen, which is probably why Biden is moving carefully. In any case, I'm ready to give him the benefit of doubt here.

And on what grounds do we persuade? — neomac

The way things work here, people do not persuade each other, ever. They don't even try much, because it takes two well disposed debaters, and that is not available.

Instead, a lot of people here try to aggravate others by way of trolling. It's an attempt to destroy or debase the debate, to muddle the water and make everybody confused.

Isaac in particular can't articulate what he wants to talk about but he is absolutely certain that others are dead wrong to talk about what he doesn't want them to talk about.

And he demonstrably lies all the time. Lyin' for Putin... Figure that.

We aren't exactly likable, are we? — Agent Smith

Nobody likes me, that's for sure.

Like the first time, he got tired of us.

Don't Look Up.

As if acknowledging the role the US has played in the escalations in Ukraine is somehow pro-Putin or Pro-Russian — creativesoul

It's not. But when one does so in each and every post of his over 200+ pages, you start to wonder what got into them.

Yes — Manuel

Okay, so I did not misrepresent your position. Thank you.

Russia started the war, but who caused the war? — Agent Smith

God. He wants a nuclear Armageddon.

That's not a scoop though: we all know you are clueless already. You wouldn't even know how assess your sources.

Fact: you have not talked at all about the effects on Ukraine.

Fact: you are a serial liar.

I said: either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside of it). In an "either / or" sentence the two things after "either" and "or" are not the same thing, but different. The phrase presents an alternative.

to tell that you don't give weapon systems that can reach Russia when the Ukrainian forces are still in many places on the border with Russia is a bit strange. — ssu

I am beyond my expertise level, but let me try an experiment here. Considering the lack of credible arguments proposed lately by our dear friends the "peace lovers", the lack of a "loyal opposition" if you wish, which results in a toxic debate with endless ad hominem, let me argue the pacifist side for a moment. I will try and put forth substantive arguments for a de-escalation. For the sake of the argument.

I might even convince myself once I get into the role. In any case, let us see if we can do a better, more productive debate, perhaps, than what we've been treated with so far.

Considering the risks involved in this situation and the 'fog of war', ie the fact that we probably can't know all the actual risks, it might be a good idea to play it a bit safe.

The risks as we can assess them include 1) escalation into a broader conflict involving, say, Belarus for a start, Finland later, maybe even NATO ultimately; 2) the risk of a future radicalisation of the Ukrainian government into some extreme nationalist regime, following the next election or the one after that; and 3) the potential capture of NATO weapons by the Russians.

Risk #1 is permanent. I wonder if in Biden's mind there is not the potential yet haunting image of a missile made in USA crashing into a Russian apartment complex. Something like that making the morning news could send us all into a spiral of death.

I trust the Ukrainians are better than that but radicalisation being a frequent effect of wars, historically, risk #2 cannot be ruled out.

Regarding risk #3, ie the potential loss of NATO weapons to the Russians, I note that the M777 given to Ukraine were sent without their computers, precisely to avoid the Russians getting acces to the code. That tells something: the trust in the strength of the Ukrainian forces is not total in the Pentagon.

Finally, any weapon system that they would decide to deliver only now will not avoid the loss of Dombas. It's too late. It will take a month before it's delivered, and two months before it becomes operational, minimum.

How did I do?

There's been much discussion here, and I've only skimmed a good portion of it, but my feeling is that Isaac is correct in the following: that we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, — Manuel

This is the passage I summarized by stating that: to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if you live in Russia) or immoral (if you live outside of Russia).

To what extent have I distorted your position? By replacing "convenient moralizing" by "immoral". Okay so allow me to rephrase:

According to you, to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside Russia).

You stated:

Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world). — Isaac

And yet, when offered by @ssu an opportunity to discuss just that, you were not interested:

What will be the effect of millions of Ukrainian children now growing up in a different country? How much will it change Eastern Europe? What are the effects for Ukraine as such a huge percentage is now refugees?
— ssu

How the hell should I know? I'm sure there are people out there with far more expertise on the progress and impacts of mass migration than any of us here have. What's the point in us just guessing? Have you come across The Internet? It's got loads of stuff on it. — Isaac

Your pants are on fire.

there is no collective responsibility, no institutional responsibility, no national responsibility, and thus no morality of nation or government other than the morality of those individuals. — unenlightened

I believe so, yes. So I agree with you: we are all responsible for what we do, including the Russians.

Even for Biden&co it's already hard to tell if they are moving just with great prudence or lack of resolve. — neomac

I think Biden is doing what he can. He needs to avoid escalation.

And if Russia will manage to get away with their territorial plunder (BTW considering the late Russian military success against the Ukrainian resistance, can we really exclude the risk of a Ukrainian resistance's collapse?), Russian may still claim a victory that could erode Western confidence or resolve.

Dombass is collapsing as we speak, and retaking it will be very difficult according to military analists. I don't think it will affect the 'west' as much as it might affect the Ukrainian forces' resolve. We shall see.

You simply distort meanings to a remarkable degree. — Manuel

Own what you say. Don't run away like this.

I don't know. Here in Italy, pro-russian feelings are stronger than elsewhere in the West -- this country has always been a reluctant atlantist, like France -- but the government is firmly pro-Ukraine. Within limits of course, ie Draghi is an economist and keeps an eye on the economy, so he keeps saying we need a way to make peace, because an economic crash is now looming. And he is right.

The western Putinistas are a small minority in most countries, tho a vocal one.

There's been frequent reports of serious hazing problems with junior enlisted — Moses

Yes, seen that. It's often an ultra violent environment, apparently. So no wonder they kill people for fun, if that how they themselves are treated by their superiors.

About the edges.



Well they're still racing out at the trestles
But that blood it never burned in her veins
Now I hear she's got a house up in Fairview
And a style she's trying to maintain
Well if she wants to see me
You can tell her that I'm easily found
Tell her there's a spot out 'neath Abraham's bridge, and tell her
There's a darkness on the edge of town
There's a darkness on the edge of town

Well everybody's got a secret, son
Something that they just can't face
Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it
They carry it with them every step that they take
'Til some day they just cut it loose
Cut it loose or let it drag 'em down
Where no one asks any questions
Or looks too long in your face
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town

You know some folks are born into a good life
And other folks get it anyway, anyhow
Well now I lost my money and I lost my wife
Them things don't seem to matter much to me now
Tonight I'll be on that hill 'cause I can't stop
I'll be on that hill with everything I got
With our lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I'll be there on time and I'll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town

sparking anti-Russian prejudice — Moses

Hatred would be a better word here. The Ukrainians and Russians used to be brothers; now they will positively hate one other for generations.

Your petty mind and your constant lies should really fuck off.

Congratulations to @Tobias for the Brel song, and for making the first philosophical comment on this thread for a long time. Also for @180 Proof for prompting it, and for the Coltrane album. I didn't know of it; loved the B track -- aptly titled "Chasing the Trane" because (I guess) Elvin Jones keeps chasing Coltrane throughout. 2 geniuses sharing their musical ideas. Gorgeous.


This one never gets old. It is here dedicated to the oh-so-perfect philosophers who perfectly concluded that all political systems are equally immoral, and that it's all just a matter of 'flag waiving'.

The reference to la lingua di Dante is much appreciated. :-) Campanile (it) = clocher (fr) = church tower (en). Campanilismo = esprit de clocher = parochialism.

I appreciate the rooted nature of all cultures but to me, the most interesting place is between cultures, and what happens there, on the margins of one's culture, in that no man land.

A lot of posters here seem deeply parochial to me; anglo-saxon to be precise; unaware that the world is a big and complicated place; and quite sneering about anything that comes from beyond the confine of their little world.

I like you tho. :love:

@Manuel's idea could be summarized as follows:

IFF you are Russian, then you would have good moral grounds to criticize the Russia government, but unfortunately you are not allowed to do so. And IFF you are not Russian, then criticizing the Russia government is morally fraudulent, although legally permissible.

So when it is moral to criticize the Russian government, it is illegal; and when it's legal, then it's immoral.

Nice catch 22, isn't it?

Thank Cthulhu you're no longer a mod. — Noble Dust

Street was a mod once?

I hear he's considered very smart around here, which says a lot about this place.

It seems to me that this is how you think of it. I mentioned human rights, which can be unpleasant to protect, so in my view pleasantness is not a criterion. The common good is more like it. One must tolerate a lot of unpleasantness to live in society, but if we spread this unpleasantness around equitably, then it becomes a fair, and hence tolerable, social contract.

What other funny funny jokes could one make about war crimes? Any proposal? It's always good to start the day with maximum cynicism.

Sooo funny.

Better than you though.

I don't do war crime apologies, sorry.