I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that. — Apollodorus

Of course not. It must be said again and again and again that NATO is evil evil evil. Of COURSE!

Irrelevant. — Xtrix

As was your whole absurd scenario... I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico. It's all some big BS you made up.

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.
— Olivier5

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war. — Xtrix

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor?

Instead, Canada has been an ally of the US for a long time... That too must say something.

:up:

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" — Xtrix

Why is it relevant? What are the implications for the way forward?

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.

On a more serious note, the morality of a military alliance such as NATO seems an interesting question, in terms of what criteria should be used. How would one recognise a 'moral alliance', or perhaps more modestly a 'legitimate defense league', and what's the difference with an 'unholy alliance' or an 'imperialist clique'?

We cannot use common human morality criteria, such as 'thou shall not kill' because evidently military folks do kill people occasionally. It's their job.

The kind of criteria to use are at governance level, the level studied by Macchiaveli, Marx and co. At this level, one may kill Peter to save Paul, so to speak. Things get complicated.

One criterion I would use is whether independent states can join the alliance and leave it on their own will, free of coercion, and based on some democratic process. Because then one can conclude that the alliance stems from the legitimate will of legitimate governments.

Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.” — Xtrix

I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil.

It was Tim Wood who showed it to me. — T Clark

Bless be he.

Russia declaring martial law — ssu

Maybe but not sure what the advantage would be. Allowing conscription?

Not that NATO is “evil,” but that agreements were made (alas, informal - not that that matters much either way) and quickly broken. Of course Russian propaganda will embellish the point for their own purposes. Doesn’t make it any less relevant. — Xtrix

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made a promise he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge.

I struggled for a long time with the idea of metaphysics. — T Clark

Weren't you the one who introduced this great book here? Including to me. Tx for it. It did help me get more relaxed about metaphysics, more understanding of its importance, and able to reason at that level with more ease.

Popper's piece on indeterminism is a book I read out of sheer need for survival, at 20. I was finding the general consensus around determinism suffocating and toxic, not to mention scientifically outdated and not practical. For me, reading Popper was like drinking from a fresh and pure spring after a long walk in the desert. But even Popper, while writing page after page of excellent and lucid metaphysics, was under the (false) impression that he was staying away from metaphysics. Such was the negative connotation of this word even in his prodigious, original mind.

On the contrary, it's the latest craze in Moscow and beyond to remind us all constantly that NATO is evil. It's far more than just a fashion: almost a mandatory opinion, hammered hour after hour, day after day, week after week.

AFP: Thousands of faithful attended the “Way of the Cross” prayer service, presided over by Pope Francis at Rome’s Colosseum on Friday, a ceremony overtaken by the war in Ukraine.

It was the first time the traditional event on Good Friday, which marks the day Jesus Christ died on the cross in the Christian calendar, was held at the Roman monument since 2019, due to the Covid pandemic.

The pope, who has repeatedly condemned the conflict in Ukraine, and has called for an Easter ceasefire, prayed that the “adversaries shake hands” and “taste mutual forgiveness”.

“Disarm the raised hand of brother against brother,” he said.

Among the families who were entrusted with carrying the crucifix at each of the 14 stations of the cross were two women, one Russian and one Ukrainian, who are life-long friends.

The women carried the cross during one portion of the Way of the Cross, the traditional procession that commemorates the 14 stations of Jesus’ suffering and death, from his condemnation to his burial.

But the Vatican’s initiative, intended as a gesture of reconciliation in the face of the war that began February 24, was not well received by Ukrainian officials.

On Tuesday, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Bishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, denounced an “inappropriate, premature and ambiguous idea, which does not take into account the context of Russia’s military aggression”.

For his part, the Ukrainian ambassador to the Holy See said he “shared the general concern”.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, the Ukrainian media boycotted the broadcast of the ceremony, while the Vatican had added commentary in Ukrainian and Russian for the broadcast.

In the crowd at the event, Anastasia Goncharova, an 18-year-old tourist from Kyiv, said “I don’t think it’s a really good idea because we are no longer brother nations. They are killing our children, they are raping our children, stealing our house. It’s disgusting." [...]

There are already reports of Russian troops digging up recently buried Ukrainians and incinerating them with mobile incinerators in Mariupol. If they take Mariupol there will be 100,000 civilians to account for. Many are likely already starving to death. — Punshhh

Don't say the word 'genocide' though, or the Jews are going to feel insulted, as per @Benkei. It's "only" a very very large mass murder.

I'll go for three well written, radical metaphysical works of the 20th century:

Popper's Argument for Inderterminism is to my knowledge the only source of a workable metaphysics for modern physics. Very few philosophers have dealt with this issue, surprisingly.

Jacob's The Possible & The Actual attempts to the same for modern biology. It is short but very rich in ideas, clear, and to me, illuminating.

I would add Collingwood's Essay on Metaphysics, for its radically simple and effective way to conceptualize metaphysics.

Maybe stop being belligerent just because I mostly disagree with you and keep thinking and reading properly. — Benkei

Ditto. Also, it's a good idea to answer questions.

I agree. Even their war disinformation efforts appear amateuristic. — Olivier5

I was just pointing out your choice of words were poor even though I quite clearly understood your meaning. — Benkei

What choice of words are you even talking about?

You guys are grasping at straws now.

I agree. I see modern materialism as little more than the fear of ideas, after a rather ideological XXth century, at least the first half of it. The fear of being wrong when one postulates that something else matters beyond physical comfort.

As stated by Noir Désir in Europe:

[We are] Materialist, so at least we're sure
Not to be mistaken, and dwell in the tangible until indigestion
In the rational, until we die of it



(full text: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/493232)

The West isn't weak. The people simply aren't asked to be brave or anything else than to pay taxes. — ssu

And to produce and consume material goods. It's now a fully materialist world, in which one measures quality of life only by the amount of stuff folks can accumulate. And from this POV, freedom and independence do not matter. Hence our contradictors here tend to measure the value of several options -- say resistance vs submission to military invasion -- only by the yardstick of physical comfort.

But I guess there's no worth to discuss it if the response is just rants and ad hominems and the only correct topic are the evils of the US. — ssu

Such self-flagellation by affluent yet guilt-ridden westerners would be entertaining and even occasionally rightful, if it wasn't also worrying in terms of collective security. As Soljenitsyne reminded us in his 78 lecture to Harvard, courage is necessary for survival.

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. [...]

Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart

When the Russian army is getting is ass kicked in Ukraine and has massed it's troops there, what better time to join NATO? — ssu

Yes, there's that too, I guess: an opportunity to seize now -- when the Russians cannot do much about it, busy as they are elsewhere, can't even argue credibly against Finland's need for protection, and when the Finnish people support it -- or perhaps never.

In other words, do you think it is possible to create necessary and/or sufficient conditions for an idea like "woman" (and if so, what would those be)? — Paulm12

It's possible of course, yet your idea of a woman may not exactly coincide with another's. So it would be hard to craft a universal definition.

Our leaders, last week, reacted with shock and emotion to the images of hundreds of civilians massacred in Boutcha and other suburbs of Kyiv. Emmanuel Macron: "The images that have reached us from Boutcha are unbearable". Olaf Scholz: "Terrible and horrible images". Antony Blinken: "A punch in the stomach". They are absolutely right. But one has the distressing impression, listening to them, that this is the first time they have seen such images: images of civilians murdered by Russian soldiers. But we have been seeing such images for twenty-two years, precisely such images. Simply, the corpses that we were looking at with a distracted eye, all these years, were Chechen, Georgian, Syrian, Central African, Libyan corpses. It was disturbing, but not enough to question our policy of rapprochement with Vladimir Putin, our policy of constant "reset" in the face of his provocations and crimes.

-- Jonathan Littell, le Figaro, 13/04/2022

We expect a little more cold rational consideration. — Isaac

What you expect is irrelevant.

What are you trying to say, exactly?

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

More scared now that thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by the Russians, yes. If you had a serial killer living next door, you would be scared too, irrespective of his current strength.

So why is it now sufficiently necessary to obtain the NATO deterrent where it wasn't before? — Isaac

As I said, @ssu would be in a better position to answer this question. I would guess they are now more scared of a possible invasion than they were before the war in Ukraine.

Yes. The world is not static, it changes all the time. Putin can learn a lesson. It's not impossible.

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

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

So why didn't they join NATO before now? — Isaac

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

You are exactly like them in a way: blinded by hatred and fear, and thus unable to think logically. Calm down already.

No bombing has happened to the Finns quite yet. Joining NATO would protect them from this eventuality by deterring aggression -- at least that's the idea.

If there are Finns and Swedes who want their people bombed by Russia just because they might have a chance to prevail in the end, they are indeed as dumb as you are, not to mention criminal. But I doubt it.

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

Are you crazy, just stupid or is it blind anger? Try and think, for a change.

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

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

That totally doesn't read like a racist trope. — Benkei

BTW, I take exception to this. I appreciate Russian culture and folks. I've read Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Andreï Makine, Nabokov... Nothing in my comment pertained to a supposed Russian race or ethnicity or even to their culture. When I speak of 'the Russians' I mean their army.

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

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

. I can't imagine their intelligence being off though, that close to Russia with that many familial connections across borders. — Benkei

And yet their intelligence was totally off. That is indeed a mystery of sorts, when you think of it. Maybe a lack of prudence and humility. As Chirac put it in 2003 (talking to UN inspector Blix if memory serves, about US / UK intel on Sadam's alleged WMD), sometimes intelligence services intoxicate themselves, they blind themselves through a combination of ideology, wishful thinking and echo chambers.

Russians are just marketing and blunt large force, but no brains. — Christoffer

I agree. Even their war disinformation efforts appear amateuristic.

The Moskva is the second major ship known to have suffered serious damage since the start of the war. — Olivier5

The Moskva has now sunk, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.