No. The use of nuclear weapons is categorically disproportionate.

Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison. Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again.

It's all in what I wrote. Maybe quote the whole thing and read it again? National identity is bullshit. It's not about the people at all. Just random lines on a map. Us vs. Them. Excuses for atrocities.

It conveniently ignores ius ad bellum and goes straight to ius in bello. He's also applying a doctrine developed for states to non-state actors. And it's obviously a piece written by someone written an agenda - justifying Israeli war crimes.

It's not that the West has forgotten about collateral damage being sometimes acceptable under ius in bello but that Israeli violence is disproportionate and that the ill intent and targeting of civilians is by now well documented.

Here's an actual analysis instead of this opinion piece:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/466473

The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people. — Sir2u

Spoken like a true nationalist. Except, of course, the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity at the exclusion of other more universal principles, which principles are sacrificed on the altar of injustice.

Since when is being critical about policy choices being "anti-"? NATO has and will continue to do many things wrong as long as the West isn't committed to upholding the rule of law. And I do think Europe needs its defensive alliance but I don't believe US interests sufficiently align with European interests. So the EU should start its own military alliance separate from the US. Until it's ready NATO will have to do.

But "unfortunately" NATO has a charter and there is this article, number 10: — ssu

So no obligation to do it but let's do it any way. As far as the threat to former Eastern European states was concerned. NATO was doing fine when it was all Warsaw Pact. So there's no sensible reason to expand other than containment.

Some could uphold the figleaf of the other's sovereignty, yet blatantly intervene in all aspects of internal politics of a country. That would be the modern way of (neo)imperialism. Yet in this case when Russians talk of other countries being "artificial", that the countries should be part Russia and do annex territories and start with forced assimilation, that should tell people that this is classic imperialism. — ssu

Yes, you like to ignore twenty years of warning in favour of a single instance and then focus on one speech by Putin in which he claimed Ukraine was artificial. So one country and not countries. And my definition of imperialism doesn't relate to figleafs at all. The imperialist ambitions of Russia are limited if they existed at all since the dissolution of the USSR.

Being part of NATO isn't the same thing, however some seem to want to make it. — ssu

Of course it is. Just because you're on the right side of that alliance doesn't change this. The assumption also that NATO, or any group of countries, is (or indeed will be) a force for good forever is ridiculous. It's planning for immediate threats instead of the long run where I'd like a world without war, not one where the West can continue to cajole the rest of the world into doing its bidding and applying double standards all the time. Combined with the swift deteroriation of democratic principles in almost every Western democracy and we'll have a nice fascist alliance in a few decades. Just in time to start wars to deal with collapsing biodomes, food shortages and energy crises.

Either you lead by example and build a rule based order, or you do what has been happening in the past 3 decades and fuck up the UN.

Aren't security interests in foreign countries inherently imperialistic? — Echarmion

I don't think so. Only when those security interests are expressed through policy action that extends power over foreign countries. But just investing in defensive capabilities, for instance, would not be imperialistic.

But since NATO has no doctrine for expanding into Russia, the same can be said of Russian security interests. The idea of security interests presupposes the sides inherently have imperial objectives, or at least that such objectives are always significantly likely. — Echarmion

I think you're correct in identifying that most analyses presuppose such (potential) objectives - as I mentioned later with my gripe about typical real politik analysis. Russia has always argued that the potential capabilities of NATO lead to its security concerns. The same is NATO's reason for expansion; the potential capabilities of Russia to invade Europe. I think those capabilities and the Soviet political framework supported that assessment during the Cold War; they found the invasion plans in Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall after all. But after the disintegration of the USSR, I don't think this was realistic for a long time and there certainly was no reasonable fear to justify expansion for the existing members at the time. That was driven by a policy of containment, which in turn fed Russia's fear of NATO capabilities.

I don't see that expansion as fundamentally different from Russia placing ballistic missiles in Cuba.

This is a bit of a catch 22 in geopolitical terms though. Expanding into areas not under threat is bad because it increases tensions for no immediate gain. Expanding into areas under threat is bad because it can lead to a direct confrontation. So never expand at all? But then all security concerns are meaningless. — Echarmion

Expansion is inherently aggressive (and imperialistic) yes. So there's no catch-22 in my view. In the absence of an actual threat, expanding so-called "defensive" alliances is an aggressive geopolitical move. NATO's "expansion" into space is an aggressive move as well.

What does it mean to say that someone is "to blame" from an explicitly amoral geopolitical point of view? — Echarmion

I would think the goal of geopolitical policy is to avoid costly wars so you'd expect parties to manoeuvre away from them, instead of towards them.

Why does the mere existence of a villain remove moral agency? — Tzeentch

Well, somebody is going to have to make that choice whether it's a single person or group of people together. My point is that these theoretical examples ignore the question of agency. This is most obvious when there's a powerful antagonist introduced that tells you either shoot one kid or I murder all 20 of them, as if that still allows for a moral choice. I think there's no moral choice possible because there's only the illusion of choice - instead it has already been decided for you that you're going to have to do something horrible.

It's the same when we're going to pretend there's a false dichotomy between two equally unpalatable choices: use immoral means to win a war by killing countless innocents or to lose the war from an unjust aggressor.

Real life tends to have alternatives available.

There's no fact of the matter but I try to have a more or less consistent approach to morality which is broadly informed by virtue ethics and the idea that empathy is more or less the nucleus of moral thinking in humans. I positively hate utilitarianism.

That's what they call a false dichotomy because this rarely occurs in real life. Even rarer when there's a villain we can point to who manoeuvred us in that situation (in which case we actually no longer have moral agency because this villain controls and constrains both choices). And even if it did exist, there's always the option not to choose. It's not up to me to condemn innocent people because of the crimes of others.

I would agree "facts, motives and reasons" are not necessarily moral justifications. They could be though. I can express the belief of the existence of a certain moral fact (murder is wrong), a moral motive (I wanted to do the right thing and helped the drowning man) and reasons (I stopped the crime because it was morally wrong), although where one ends and the other begins is probably not something we can really disentangle.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. Even if on a lot of other issues most of our moral intuitions and judgments probably coincide due to a shared cultural heritage.

And people feel like these are important discussions: morality is clearly interrelational, people are looking for affirmation and confirmation and, I think even, acceptance. We want to understand and be understood on some primary issues and often quite primal feelings like disgust or, the other side of the coin, admiration and worship. Unfortunately, nowadays, you will always find this online, so very little reason for people to actually investigate their moral intuitions. All this is more important than justifying buying pasta instead of potatoes at least. So, no, it's not just words I think. There's a lot more going on.

A bit rambling but hope that touches on what you wanted to talk about.

It's not about law though.

I'm not sure I understand the question. To further explicate what I mean with the sentence I quoted: Law is not about morality. Statutes of limitation are not about fairness but economics. There are more things "not done" that are not legislated, which leads to all sorts of externalities that broader society has to (try to) fix.

I can do a lot of things within the law that I consider immoral. Like cheating on my wife. Being an absent father or even purposefully going out of my way to undermine my kids' confidence by blaming them for everything from bad weather to breaking a cup.

Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"?

So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.

Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?

Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist. — RogueAI

We already know you have the moral backbone of a jellyfish so no need to come up with increasingly unrealistic mind games to try to break someone else's.

First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well.

Countries defending against such aggression are often only too keen to turn perfectly defensive wars in punitive expeditions afterwards. A sentiment that's as understandable as it's wrong.

To me, the moral character off my adversaries is irrelevant where it concerns activities I think are inherently wrong. This is the same argument that would lead to saying people who break the law should not be afforded legal representation, because they're bad people. I can see a lot of bad outcomes if we go this way - especially since half of the time such judgments are entirely the result of group-identity (tribalism, nationalism, patriotism etc.).

The likelihood of securing victory using immoral means is also irrelevant. In that case if I enter a cage fight and bring an Uzi then I should use it because I'm guaranteed to win. This is obviously ludicrous. Also, I'm not a utilitarian so these calculations make no sense to me.

I also think the conflation of Nazis with Germans, as people are wont to do with Hamas and Palestinians, is unfair to the non-Nazi Germans and the non-Hamas Palestinians. But your decisions (and therefore the way you look at "groups") certainly impacts what happens to a lot of innocent people.

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity.

You gather wrong. It's also off topic. Unlike Israel nobody here is defending Myanmar either. That would illicit a response in whatever thread that would happen.

It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.

So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.

You're confusing law with morality.

You do love your red herrings.

The relevant part was the torture and executions but nice cherry picking I suppose.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/onslaught-violence-against-women-and-children-gaza-unacceptable-un-experts

“We are horrified at details emerging from mass graves recently unearthed in the Gaza Strip. Over 390 bodies have been discovered at Nasser and Al Shifa hospitals, including of women and children, with many reportedly showing signs of torture and summary executions, and potential instances of people buried alive,” the experts said.

But but but... Hamas!

Funny how some here say 'the end justifies the means' and then complain about Hamas in another thread.

War crimes are never justified.

1. All religious people are idiots invariably holding beliefs that are unwarranted (eg. there's no proof for the existence of god(s)) or are contradicted by fact (flat-earthers) or think their particular assumed divine dispensation to be assholes is the only right way (leading to injustice).

That happened a while ago already. There were several decisions that have resulted in me categorically refusing the application of any US state law when negotiating contracts. And I'm not the only European lawyer who has started to take that stance.

Let's not confuse two threads. The imperialist interpretation I'm referring to has been mostly forwarded by @ssu, which I'm replying to. I take it as a given others have read that interpretation, so I don't need to set it out.

And nowhere have I given justification, only explanation. I think most countries largely act immoral, driven by real politik considerations. I condemn Western's needless fanning of the flames in Ukraine, increasing their own "security concerns" as a result, raising Russia's security concerns in return. But I note that the facts I raised do not concern Western security at all. Only Ukraine could be affected by the "near abroad" doctrine and we can hardly complain about economic integration. So we can wonder in what sense Western security concerns were protected by expanding eastwards.

Those considerations can only be of a geopolitical nature and not a direct military threat for which NATO is in principle the answer. For existing NATO members there never was a reason to expand NATO after the cold war when the threat had actually largely dissipated. And yet we did it any way. Attempts at de-escalation repeatedly failed and that's not just the Russian's faults.

My main problem with "real politik" views towards geopolitics is that they a) ignore the international legal framework (but of course it will be whipped out when it supports an argument) and b) a predisposition towards conflict that must be won if it materialises, instead of fundamentally aiming at avoiding conflict. But the West (particularly US) will pursue conflict if it furthers their geopolitical agenda even if facts don't support their position (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).

If then historically we've seen the most successful roads to peace have been extensive integration and co-operation then these decisions are consequences of us-them divisions, maintaining status quos (to stay top dog, you have to kick down the competition) and projection of power. So to me, the very methodology of framing international relations in real politik terms is an important driving force towards conflict, instead of avoiding it.

And yes security concerns can justify some action. Not all and certainly not war crimes. But again, I think that mixes geopolitical theory and international law. I think I've said before in this thread:

1. from a geopolitical/international relations point of view both Russia and the West are equally to blame for the war in Ukraine
2. from an international law perspective Russia is an aggressor

But since 2 is in any case an optional argument (pace every "humanitarian" intervention ever and western-led wars) it should be ignored in favour of 1 - as much as that goes against the grain of what I studied and worked for for decades as a human rights trained lawyer. 2 is more about how the world should be and could've been if international law hadn't been applied in such a double standard way.

I think it's clear Ukraine has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West for at least two decades.

A few key events:

• NATO Enlargement (1999, 2004): Russia expressed opposition to NATO's expansion eastward, viewing it as a threat to its security. Russian officials argued that NATO enlargement undermined the balance of power in Europe and encroached on Russia's sphere of influence. However, Russia's ability to influence these decisions was limited, especially considering that the newly independent states in Eastern Europe were eager to join NATO as a means of enhancing their own security and sovereignty.
• Missile Defense Plans (2007): Russia strongly opposed the US plans to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian officials argued that these missile defense installations would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent capabilities and upset the strategic balance in Europe. In response, Russia threatened to deploy Iskander missiles to its western enclave of Kaliningrad and warned of potential military countermeasures.
• "Reset" of US-Russian Relations (2009): While the "reset" of relations between the United States and Russia initially led to a thaw in tensions, Russia remained skeptical of US intentions, particularly regarding missile defense plans. Russian leaders continued to express concerns about the potential threat posed by the missile defense system to Russia's security interests.
• New Missile Defense Plan (2010): Russia reacted cautiously to the announcement of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and the revised missile defense plans. While the EPAA was seen as a somewhat more flexible and mobile approach compared to the previous plans, Russia continued to express reservations about the deployment of missile defense systems near its borders.
• NATO-Russia Missile Defense Talks (2011): Russia engaged in discussions with NATO on missile defense cooperation but ultimately failed to reach a breakthrough. Despite some attempts at dialogue, Russia remained suspicious of NATO's intentions and continued to view the missile defense system as a potential threat.
• Deployment of Missile Defense Elements (2013): Russia criticized the deployment of missile defense elements under the EPAA, particularly the Aegis-equipped ships in the Mediterranean and radar installations in Turkey. Russian officials argued that these deployments increased the proximity of missile defense systems to Russia's borders and could potentially undermine its security.
• Ukrainian Presidential Election (2014): Russia expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian presidential election, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Moscow criticized the Ukrainian government's handling of the election and raised concerns about the treatment of Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine.
• War in Eastern Ukraine: Russia denied direct involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, despite accusations from Ukraine and Western countries that it was providing support to the separatist forces. Moscow portrayed the conflict as a civil war fueled by grievances among Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Ukraine and emphasized the need for a political solution to the crisis.
• MH17 Plane Crash: Russia initially denied any involvement in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and suggested alternative theories about the cause of the crash. Moscow criticized the investigation into the incident, alleging bias and lack of transparency. However, subsequent investigations by international authorities, including the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), implicated Russian-backed separatists and pointed to the use of a Russian-supplied missile system in the downing of the plane.
• Minsk Agreements: Russia publicly supported the Minsk Agreements as a framework for resolving the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and called for their full implementation. However, Moscow also accused Ukraine of failing to fulfill its obligations under the agreements and highlighted alleged ceasefire violations by Ukrainian forces. Russia's support for the Minsk process was seen by some as a way to shape the terms of a potential settlement while maintaining leverage over Ukraine.
• Sanctions Against Russia: Russia condemned the imposition of economic sanctions by the United States, the European Union, and other Western countries in response to its actions in Ukraine. Moscow characterized the sanctions as unjustified and illegitimate and retaliated with its own countermeasures, including restrictions on food imports from Western countries and bans on certain individuals and entities.
• Continued Tensions and Ceasefire Violations: Russia called for renewed efforts to implement the ceasefire agreements in Eastern Ukraine and emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving the conflict. However, Moscow also criticized what it perceived as provocative actions by Ukraine and its Western allies, such as military exercises and deployments near Russia's borders.

Given the above, from Russia's perspective, NATO's expansion eastward, including discussions about Ukraine's potential membership, posed a direct security threat to Russia's interests (regardless of whether we agree; that's their view as the capability's of NATO can also be used aggressively). Russia views NATO enlargement as encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence and potentially undermining its security by bringing the alliance closer to its borders. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was particularly sensitive for Russia due to Ukraine's historical, cultural, and strategic significance.

Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen in the context of its previous intervention in Georgia in 2008. Following Georgia's aspirations to join NATO and escalating tensions in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia intervened militarily, leading to a brief war with Georgia. Russia's actions in Georgia demonstrated its willingness to use military force to prevent former Soviet republics from aligning with NATO and assert its influence in the region.

The annexation of Crimea occurred against the backdrop of discussions about Ukraine's potential membership in NATO. While NATO had not made a formal commitment to Ukraine's membership, discussions and signals of support from some NATO members may have heightened Russia's concerns and contributed to its decision to annex Crimea as a preemptive measure to prevent Ukraine from moving closer to the alliance. Such support was again expressed prior to the war even via official NATO statements.

The lack of a significant reaction from Russia to Finland and Sweden joining NATO can be attributed to several factors. Finland and Sweden are not former Soviet republics, so their potential membership in NATO does not carry the same historical and geopolitical significance for Russia as Ukraine's membership. Additionally, Finland and Sweden joining is not a sudden shift in geopolitical dynamics but entrenches what we basically already knew: they are part of the Western/US-led sphere of influence.

I continue to find the storyline about "imperialist" ambitions weak and too much relying on over-interpretation of facts. The only facts supporting that interpretation are the following:

• Eurasian Economic Union (EEU): In 2015, Russia played a central role in establishing the Eurasian Economic Union, a regional economic bloc comprising former Soviet states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. The EEU would allow Russia to exert economic and political influence over its neighbors and to promote integration among post-Soviet states under Russian leadership.
• Georgia and Moldova: Prior to 2022, Russia had been involved in conflicts with Georgia and Moldova over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria, respectively. Russia's support for these separatist regions has been seen as a way to maintain influence and leverage over these countries and prevent them from aligning too closely with the West.
• Crimea and Eastern Ukraine: The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine have been widely interpreted as manifestations of Russia's efforts to assert control over parts of its former Soviet territory. Russia's actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have been viewed as attempts to prevent Ukraine from drifting closer to the West and to maintain Russian influence in the region.
• "Near Abroad" Doctrine: Russian leaders have articulated a doctrine that emphasizes Russia's special interests and responsibilities in its "near abroad," referring to the former Soviet republics. This doctrine suggests that Russia sees itself as having a legitimate role in shaping the political and security dynamics of the region.
• Military Buildup and Exercises: Russia has conducted military exercises and deployed troops near its borders with former Soviet states, signaling its readiness to defend its interests in the region. These actions have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the broader international community about Russia's intentions.

But an interpretation of these actions as "imperialist" isn't necessary where Russian security interests suffice to explain their actions.

DISCLAIMER: I had ChatGPT provide me with a list of geopolitical events relevant to Ukraine.

I was looking for threads on Glyphosate and this is the only thing. It's huge in the Netherlands and EU currently.

The answer is a resounding; "yes". Apart from our dependency on pollinated food that is being destroyed by poisons glyphosate now also turns out to be neurotoxic. and most poison (e.g. pesticides) is not tested as part of summation tests. Farmers are urged to use several different pesticides but the regulatory agencies for poisons don't test cocktails. Meanwhile, Parkinson's disease is a fucking pandemic among farmers in the Netherlands and is a recognised occupational hazard in France. Or more general: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311367/

Nevertheless, it was approved for another 10 years of use in the EU.

Some things we can pay attention to: if you buy plants and put them in your garden, you are killing the insects unless you go out of your way to buy biologically raised plants. See this excellent photography report:

https://marlonnekewillemsen.com/en/invisible-threat-2/the-effect-on-insects/

There are special seed mixtures available for native plants and flowers that go a long way towards creating an oasis for insects. See initiatives like this: https://arboretum.ucdavis.edu/seeds

If everybody reserves a few borders in their garden to grow wildflowers, most insects will be saved.

It also reduces temperatures by 25% in summer time compared to lawn-mowed grass, which simply makes everybody's life more comfortable.

Hate who exactly? All Palestinian civilians apparently.

pfff... Zionists don't take them seriously and obviously you don't either. Don't murder (Palestinian civilians). Don't steal (land). And unlimited administrative detention for Palestinians with no recourse to courts. That's 3 laws continously broken that you're perfectly fine with.

Your reply is unhinged as it doesn't relate in any way to what I said.

There's no Palestine. Dumb observation as a result.

I already dealt with this nonsense claim and not going to do it again. Nice to see you consider all Palestinians terrorists which means I have zero reason to talk to you.

The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

None of that excuses Hamas. The problem is you fail to realise an important segment of Israeli society, the segment currently in power and having been in power for decades, is the absolute dregs of humanity you lament.

Vox isn't a source. — Lionino

Q.e.d.

The rest is a red herring.

Excellent rebuttal. Oh wait, it isn't. As a European this idiotic tribalism to discount sources is really funny.

Vacuous.

Once Israel is seen as epitome of injustice and racism there's really nothing Israel can do. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course not, they can stop oppression and apartheid any day. They chose not to. And that makes Israeli leadership and those who support their morally vacuous policies immoral.

a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous.

:100:

You keep looking at this as if Israel is the victim. They're not. It's both aggressor and oppressor. A coloniser. It would sooner be the other away around, where the leg is land the Palestinians should have owned.

Nobody in this thread.

Edit: in any case, as long as Israel refuses to negotiate Hamas' goal will be the total liberation of Palestine yes. But they have already offered to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 boundaries. So really, your point isn't even accurate.