The issue isn't actually one of overall military power or even Russia's or Ukraine's ability to attack/defend, it's a matter of home support and logistics:
The Ukrainian forces are far more motivated than the Russian forces, and are working with modern equipment. While you said the simple addition of modern technology won't sway the war, there is significance in the reliability and longevity of the weapons of each side, if the soviet-era weapons Russia is using fail due to poor upkeep or simple age, then the technology supplied will have, in part, swayed the war.

Furthermore, it is in the United State's interest to continue to supply Ukraine, and they can afford it, even with the growing dominance of China in an economic and geopolitical sphere; the USA spends an absurd amount on the military, and could afford to continue supplying Ukraine longer than Russia can afford to supply their war effort.

In conclusion, the supply of arms to Ukraine will easily continue, and the will of the Ukrainian armies will outlast that of the Russian armies; there is little chance that Russia will end this war gaining anything.

Okay, instead of relaying the question with an easier-to-grasp scenario I'll just ask:
Through a consequentialist lense, is it moral to make a decision without the ability to prove whether or not it had a net benefit, or should one make a decision that, while possibly having a net loss, could be proven to have had a net benefit or loss; does the result of the provably beneficial or detrimental decision change whether or not the decision was the correct one to make based on the available information in the scenario?

And does that choice remain correct if after the dictator kills more
If that choice does become immoral, does the correct choice remain leaving them be, can an immoral choice be preferable to uncertainty?

That's the problem, "if many ARE saved", if the dictator is killed, there is no way to know if more were saved

You choose to either kill 10,000 random people to prevent a possibly worse genocide or leave them safe and risk the genocide occurring, thus the dilemma. Can you sacrifice some number of people to avoid running the risk of genocide without knowing how bad the genocide would be or if the genocide would be able to happen at all?

Either kill 10,000 random people and 1 genocidal dictator or don't
(The dictator has the means and motive to commit a genocide of unknown proportion)

And you still refuse to answer

As a society, we acknowledge a difference in romantic relationships and friendships, but what is that difference? I have concluded it is entirely a socialized difference, I am looking for arguments against that conclusion.

Intimacy doesn't necessitate arousal, people will spend time with their partners without the intent of sex nor a feeling of sexual arousal. Thus, there must be something about romantic relationships that doesn't have to do with sex that is distinct from friendship.

But why is competence necessary to be a philosopher, why does one have to be competent to be a member of a field?

That's still irrelevant to my point. Why is the engagement with previous generations of thinkers necessary, and if it is necessary to be a philosopher what about those who could not engage with previous generations?

Then what of the nameless first philosopher? Whether or not Thales was the first is irrelevant to my point.

Given current knowledge, historians consider Thales the first philosopher, if that's the case he had no predecessors.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assumed you meant dedication to the discipline of a reflective/contemplative way of life as meaning philosophy. If not do elaborate.

Given that I didn't feel like posing each question, waiting for the answer, and responding after, I asked the next question under the assumption that the answer was disagreeing. Had you answered in a different way than the following questions were assuming I would've asked different questions.

And what of the founders of philosophical schools, who didn't engage with previous generations of philosophers? What of Thales, who had no predecessors to engage with? If they are philosophers, then is only dedication to the field required? Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field? If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought?

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher?

If someone does surgery they are a surgeon, surgeons aren't defined by knives, they are defined by surgery.

Our definitions differ in that you consider mine to simplistic and all-inclusive, and I consider yours arbitrary and with no objective way to determine who deserves a title. Can you provide some way to determine what makes one a philosopher more specific than "to be part of a tradition"?

While a useless definition, I define wetness as the quality of being saturated in water. This definition does define nearly everything as being slightly wet, so on the smallest possibly scale, only 2 molecules need to be touching for either to be wet.

I would say the artist example is directly related to your point, you said that if no one reads someone's writing then they are not a writer, by that same logic if no one sees someone's paintings they are not an artist. If that same person's paintings are discovered after their death, were they any less an artist before dying? Does a title only apply if what the title references is experienced by others?

If no one sees one's work is that work any less impressive or important, is an artist whose art is only discovered after their death only an artist after the discovery?

To clarify I am using platonic to mean friendly, a platonic love is a friendly love, that which one would find between friends.

By your definition, unless someone was sexually attracted to their partner they cannot have a romantic relationship, yet asexual people can and do have romantic relationships.

(2 water molecules)

Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. There needn't be any level of aptitude or knowledge, just as we call one who enjoys playing video games a gamer whether or not they are good at it. The act of enjoying and practicing philosophy makes one a philosopher.

As an example, I use myself. I have never read a full work of philosophy, by your standards, I am not a philosopher. I, however, would call myself a philosopher as I philosophize as a hobby and enjoy thinking about philosophical concepts. (And not to sound egotistical, but I would say I have a better understanding of philosophy and a better ability to analyze something philosophically than most)

Exactly the response I was fishing for.

To that I respond, asexual people still have relationships, people who can no longer engage in sex have romantic partners whether that be from injury or deterioration of bodily functions.

If the people in groups which either don't experience sexual attraction, or cannot engage in any sexual acts can be in a romantic relationship, what then is the differentiating characteristic?

I apologize, my definition was incomplete. A philosopher is anyone who contemplates the meaning of life and metaphysical questions for enjoyment. Anyone whose hobby is contemplation.

It is generally agreed that murdering someone simply because they look suspicious is a bad thing, that intending to murder someone based solely on appearance is immoral. The question I posed was that if the intention was immoral, but the outcome was good, was the action moral or immoral? Essentially, is deontology or consequentialism a better moral philosophy?

The point of the example was that the intention was horrid, but the outcome was a net good.

This isn't necessarily against android spouses, but against conscious android spouses.

If they remain emotionless, consciousless, machines, then there is no reason one shouldn't be able to "enslave" one. They would be no worse off than a toaster or computer.

If the android were to be conscious then there is an entirely different debate to be had.

The point of the art is that it has no definitive form, if the person's addition's intention was vandalism then the art piece is now a critique on how one person can ruin a community effort. If that vandalism is embraced, then the art becomes a comment on how destruction can be embraced. If the community continues to paint over the vandalism, then the art piece symbolizes moving on from setbacks.

No matter what is added to the piece, it remains an important piece of work.

Why does there need to be a minimum level of sophistication of thought?
Your cousin tony is no less a philosopher than anyone else who contemplates life.

Simply because you see no value in another's ideas, or see their ideas as completely incorrect does not make them any less deserving of some consideration. Whether the consideration is simply to disprove them or demonstrate their incompetence is irrelevant.

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics

Half my thanks for the half compliment

I half agree; The little old ladies aren't commiting hate crimes because of a book. I don't care what someone believes it's what the groups of people do with that belief

Also yes, some institutions are neccessary, but the violence they create is not

you raise a good point, but fixing that is more complicated than just getting rid of religion.

'twas a joke my friend.

I wasn't clear enough, apologies. Violence only when met with violence. If the issue with religious violence grows then the pushback will be violence

And what is my way exactly?

Only when inspired

I see your point, however if we do it slowly, and don't force people into anything it wouldn't.

if youd read the post youd not be stating this. I explained exactly that. I support having a govt.

He's a hero, I'm paying homage, not impersonating. Although the CallMe part might mislead you. I'll fix the strikethrough part real quick

The "CallMe" is just copying the youtube trope*

I stated I was only sympathetic to the abolishing of corrupt institutions. Also I didn't cross it out, though I know that's a joke.

tis the sad reality of us humans