I was skimming that. Maybe I skimmed too quickly but, I don't see what arguments are given.

Should be fun to see. :lol:

I will have to look him up. Thanks for the reference.

Edit: Which book or article of his did you have in mind?

@180 Proof Haven't seen you say "woo" in a while. :wink:

I guess I am the odd one out on this topic. I think we have good reasons to believe that matter thinks, so there isn't a mind-body problem. At best we have an experience-matter problem, namely how can matter think? Echoing Locke, Priestley and Russell, I say, we don't understand how, only that it does so.

This need not necessarily enter into the subjective/objective debate. Considering other things though, makes the issue more apparent. So, take mathematics, that 2+2=4 is an objective fact, it is not affected by temporal considerations, nor differences in perspective.

When entering into present moment affairs, it is more complicated. We need to take into account several factors in order to call something "objective", including personal point of view, descriptions, the passage of time and crucially, that we are human beings, not some other species who may interpret the world differently.

My sympathy with their plight has no bearing on my opinion of what course of action is most likely to get them out of it. — Isaac

This is crucial to understand and it is very easy to gloss over in favor of well-meant, but often ill-advised action.

Although it would perhaps tell something of Biden's mind when it comes to dealing with crisis. Did he show his senility, or did he show hawkish judgement? Just drop the small problems. Focus on the big ones, like a chance to dissolve Russia back to its constituent particles for a second time running. — apokrisis

We can try to psychoanalyze leaders like Biden, Xi, Lula, Macron and Putin, yes they surely are different in terms of how they think and what they believe, but at the end of the day, it's what they do that matters. So if Putin really believes that Hiroshima is a good pretext for another bomb, fine, so long as he doesn't launch it.

I agree focusing on large problems should be paramount. For me, in the case of Ukraine, it's important to try and stop a nuclear disaster, which, though not certain, is within the realm of possibility. That trumps everything else. If that is safely taken out of the equation, we can focus on other stuff, still of high importance, but slightly less than annihilation of the human race.

In the case of Afghanistan, I think it would be a good idea to give them the money they are owed. Yes, very few people like the Taliban, they are barbaric beasts. But they govern the country, so we deal with them. I don't think disliking the Taliban is a good reason to allow millions of people to die of starvation. That's a big issue, with a solution.

I posted above about information autocracy. Putin exists because the propaganda system has evolved on that side of game as well. — apokrisis

Sure and it would be surprising if such regimes did not adapt with the times. The old Soviet-Style (now North Korean) system of indoctrination is very clumsy. Nonetheless, one big difference between "Western" propaganda systems and authoritarian ones, is that, for the most part, these authoritarian systems very much depend on the use of physical force.

That is, by and large, absent from Western societies. I doubt these other systems would be nearly as effective if they did not resort to force, which I believe shows a slight deficiency in that propaganda model. If you can get people to support a war without force, that's a mighty achievement given all the horrors of the 20th century.

I think that is an exaggeration. The counterfactual is that without some international checks and balances, like the Geneva Convention, their behaviour would be much worse.

And then there is the line between pragmatic and disciplined violence versus barbaric and indisplined.

Western violence is extreme - the democratic doctrine of total war - but it is also organised to be maximally effective. Torture and revenge are seen as wasteful and corrosive of achieving war aims.

Russian violence has never been as well organised. And the ill discipline shows. — apokrisis

I think your first two sentences are true, but for different reasons, I don't think that it's necessarily the Geneva Convention that limits state behavior in war, but domestic populations, who have grown to see war as an evil. So the Vietnam War was much worse than Iraq, in terms of methods employed and war crimes, yet the Geneva Convention applied to both.

People just don't stand for these extremes as much, unless they are fed intense propaganda and even here, it's hard to justify chemical weapons. Sure, Israel and Syria use them, but it's very bad PR, not to mention criminal.

I don't know. I mean, Baghdad was shattered, Kiev is not (at least yet). What is better? Is the fact that Kiev still a running city a reason as to why the Russians are so violent? It's not so clear.

I joke. But only to show how much larger the perspective on the rights and wrongs of this particular war should be. And if folk can’t be honest about what is happening on the ground in Ukraine - all the whataboutism meant to deflect from serious analysis - then there is no hope of useful debate about the big picture geopolitics. — apokrisis

You are on to something here, to a large extent. Because even if we get out of this one "safely", we cannot keep playing the same high-risk games for ever, because a nuclear mistake will inevitably happen. And even if it doesn't, then the climate catastrophe will surely crush a good deal of the global population.

The "whataboutism" is tricky. It's quite true that it can be used as a diversion and serves to, for instance, justify crimes, such as Putin speaking of the precedent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a pretext to use a tactical bomb. Very misleading and dangerous.

But then there are cases which are illustrative. I mentioned the Afghan case, which you can look up. It illustrates to me the double standards "the West" has in its proclamations of "freedom and democracy". And since it is happening right now, it has an entry into the discussion, as does, say, Taiwan or several other conflicts which are as bad as Ukraine, some worse, like Yemen.

But I’m not defending state control of the news cycle. Believe me, I’ve spent my whole life dealing with that as a working journalist in a number of countries. — apokrisis

I had the impression you were a science guy - we talked briefly, or better stated, you gave me your views on Peirce. Very interesting job to have.

We live in a shitty copy of our dreams, no argument. And yet, as a journalist, I know there is still freedom to investigate in the Western system. It just takes a considerable effort. — apokrisis

Yes, it is surely better to be a journalist (and many other professions) in countries other than Russia or China and others now belonging to "the West". Then again, the propaganda system in our countries tend to be very sophisticated compared to authoritarian systems.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

Anything objective has to recorded or analyzed by something subjective, otherwise it remains in the dark, even if it is a "brute fact": the start of the universe, atoms, whatever. These would exist, as they have, but if we didn't know about them, we could say nothing of them, nor know anything about them.

It is a very complex issue, but it seems to me that objectivity is more problematic than subjectivity. We are constantly interpreting stuff (subjectively), but whether what we interpret really exists and so on, objectively, is rather difficult to spell out, it seems to me.

I believe we ought to be fighting for a global order that accepts some set of basic human rights and which thus provides a productive framework within which sovereign states can freely compete. — apokrisis

This makes sense, but much reform needs to be made, in particular to the United Nations, which is currently quite limited by the Security Council.

The prevailing world structure was far from wonderful, but it made things like collecting crates of gold teeth beyond the pale. It accepts war as justified, but wants some sane rules around such contests. — apokrisis

In theory. In practice it wasn't applied, or if applied, it was done so in a quite selective manner. Russia is correct in stating that France, the US, U.K and others basically use human rights as toilet papers when it comes to the wars they participate in, I don't think I need to mention them much as they are so obvious and large, Algeria and so on. Not that Russia used that phrase, but the idea is correct.

However, Russia is wrong in concluding that because these powers do as they wish, they can do so too. That does not follow. None of them should ignore human rights, yet all of them do.

At this level of political realism, Ukraine is just a massive distraction. Putin must take full blame not just for the human atrocities he is responsible for, but also the disruption to the fragile world order and its willingness to battle climate change, or at least create some kind of equality in the suffering we’ve got coming. — apokrisis

I think you are correct on the topic of climate change. This war is a massive set back for the issue of global warming, which after Nuclear War, is the most serious issue we face as a species.

And yet, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US are also at fault here, as you mention. And others too, China, India. Nobody comes clean here, though the moment of the war is tragic.

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what its people believe. And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protects the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity these past 70 years. — apokrisis

Stopping or not stopping Putin does not change the world order. Now, it is likely he will lose. What are the consequences? A far stronger NATO that Putin could have dreamed of. So in that respect too, the war was a massive mistake, not to mention a crime.

Suppose something completely unexpected happens and Russia wins. What happens to the world order? Does Russia have the capacity to challenge the US seriously both in economy and militarily? Not even close: just take a look at the amount of US military bases around the world and compare it with Russia. It's not even close.

When Russia annexed Crimea, the world order didn't freeze, it continued as is. It wasn't even an issue for the US or Europe, outside of Ukraine, of course.

The only "equalizer" here are nukes. But nobody wins that war.

From a Real Politic perspective, what does China gain by "stopping Putin"? They have the Taiwan issue to worry about, and they would like to have allies and not become isolated in that case. Regardless, they are getting cheaper oil and other products due to the sanctions. As does India.

Meanwhile stop with the bullshit about feints and Russian competence. Stop with the whataboutism when I don’t see anyone claiming the US doesn't act self interestedly. Anyone who has studied modern history knows that setting up a global free trade environment was as self serving for the US as it was altruistic. — apokrisis

This here does irritate me, the so called "whataboutism". Russia invaded Ukraine, that's a crime. NATO is helping Ukraine win the war, without the US, NATO would not exist.

AT THE SAME TIME this war is happening, Afghanistan is starving to death due to the US not releasing the money they owe to the country. This is equally a crime, happening now and nobody is mentioning it. What's the deal with condemning Russia and Putin to hell, when a situation which is arguably worse is happening due to US actions? How can the US claim moral status when it is destroying a country it was war with for 20 years?

That's simple hypocrisy.

The worry about Ukraine is because it could lead to a Nuclear Armageddon. If Russia had no nukes, this war would not have nearly as much coverage.

As long as there are massive power asymmetry, speaking about leading the free world or so on, is meaningless, unless changes are made to the UN or some other international organization.

Ahh, ok. Here we have some interesting material to talk about, very much pertinent to philosophy too. It's a solid post, some excellent points raised, others quite dubious in my eyes.

As you have taken your time to post that, I will do the same probably tomorrow. This is something worth exploring.

Though on the off side...does it really say that? From what I've been told there are so many interpretations of QM that you can pretty much just have it say whatever you want. — Darkneos

Depends who you ask, Rovelli will have a different take than Sean Carroll, who differs from X and Y and so on. But quantum physics studies the extremely small. Would we then also say that QM tells us there is no pain in my fingertips? Of course not.

We err when we take these sciences and apply them in domains way beyond the intended reach.

Sure, Lockheed and others are making a killing, they love war. It’s very rare to have a good vs evil fight, unless you see a movie or something. We can find exceptions to this, WWII and so forth. But that’s why they are exceptions. Look I think Ukraine has a right to defense, absolutely. But now they’re talking about taking back Crimea. That’s not happening. Or someone kills Putin. If this attitude continues we may see the deadliest event in human history. And yet, we see escalations.

Really? I missed that. My impression of them is that they basically exist to critique Democrats, no matter what they do. I know Rand Paul is being more serious on this issue than others, but he’s a libertarian too.

I think Republicans (with the loose cannon maybe-maybe not exception of Trump) are even more hawkish than the Democrats. I don’t think the situation would change under the conditions you mention. What would make this a non-issue if is Russia did not have nuclear weapons at all. Then the support would be much more questionable. Yes we had the war in Yugoslavia, but I doubt Ukraine would be getting so many billions.

No, no, no. Putin is an evil criminal, I’ll share with you some disturbing pictures instead of presenting an argument as to why Ukraine must not only kick Russia out but defeat them in war. And because they are evil, they will take it as the scum they are. They’re just bluffing with nukes. More casualties as a result of this? Doesn’t matter, they’re evil.

I have no doubt Russia is committing war crimes, as those pictures indicate. I mean, it is evident that it is, as is covered 24/7 in most news media. That is not new information, nor is it useful in seeking a way to STOP the conflict.

If you really believe that by posting pictures of that kind and saying "this is what surrender means" is any kind of coherent argument, then I'm afraid the useful idiot is elsewhere. Because a nuclear war will make that picture look pleasant in comparison.

Either a compromise is made, or we perish. Or you may take your gamble with an inside coup, see if that works.

Yes, Putin is a war criminal, has committed AWFUL crimes in a war - to which I add, who has not? No one here is mentioning the mass starvation in Afghanistan, we don't care about that - but if "defeating" him means throw ourselves to the flames, then I can think of no more irrational attitude imaginable.

Yes, that was a defeat for them too, but remember they were going through quite significant internal turmoil. These days, in which everything is televised, seen on the internet, Twitter and so on, it is much more humiliating. But the crucial difference here, is the extent of the people in play NATO vs. Russia, not Ukraine vs. Russia.

These are "mortal enemies" so to speak. If they can avoid humiliation on such a scale, they have the option. Losing in Afghanistan is peanuts compared to this, for historical reasons and tensions going beyond Ukraine, such as establishing Russia's place in the world. I'm sure such things are in the minds of, not only Putin, but the people around him too.

Now, if you have a situation in which the military gets tired and get rid of Putin, OK. Maybe that ends the war. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, we don't know if that would work well.

I'll grant you Afghanistan, no doubt.

Back then Russia (The USSR) was not the target of the most severe sanctions a country has seen. Maybe North Korea faces sanctions at these levels.

Russia still needs to sell a PR "win" for this to end. What, are they going to say "we lost" and go home? That would be remarkable.

This is far, far bigger than Afghanistan, as it includes NATO and the rest of the world, with the whole food production issue plus the energy crisis. In short, many more elements are in play now.

Yes. One cannot have negotiations if neither side offers an inch. This is not sustainable, particularly to Russia, I think they will get even more desperate. I don't know if there any "doves" in the Pentagon, but surely they must have at least one person thinking about de-escalation, instead of the obsessions of "defeating Russia", which sounds like suicide to me.

You're correct, it is extremely tough.



It seems obvious to you and me. But what I'm seeing from the people who disagree on the general thrust of our arguments (not every detail, as is normal) is that Putin is like Hitler or so, so evil.

This is a cartoonization of the real world. Reminds me quite a bit of the propaganda used in WWI. Very dangerous thinking, in my opinion.

I don't disagree with the analysis here. I'm throwing out some ideas of what a negotiation could look like. But something has to be exchanged, I think.



I have trouble seeing a military defeat as being an option for Russia. I really do think they'll risk a nuclear war before being defeated. I hope I am wrong, I really do.



Well - I had my streak, alas, all things come to an end, even being reasonable I guess.

But thanks for the past compliments.

Well frank, if you insist that "defeating" Russia is the only commendable and desirable outcome, then we have different notions of seriousness.

I'll let you have the last word here, if you so desire.

When there's a compromise, both parties walk away with something they wanted. What sort of compromise could there have been during this war? — frank

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine declares victory against a nuclear power, Russia declares "denazification" successful.

What's negotiated are the cities, which Russia gives back and maybe gets a token piece of territory.

Not unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis. The missiles the US removed from Turkey were technologically obsolete and due for replacement. Of course, the Soviet Union does not mention this bit of news.

Something like that I think could be doable.

You insist on using the word "surrender". If you say "compromise", then I agree with the last statement.

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. But stopping now as opposed to later, would be better for everybody.

Again- I could be wrong.

It's a matter of priority: do you think saving many, many lives is worth stopping the war, or are you confident that escalation will defeat Russia? If you think the latter is the case, then of course you wouldn't want to surrender. My intuitions don't lead to that conclusion. But in geopolitical affairs, people differ and are often wrong about what ends up happening.



They don't have many options left. They have few allies that support this war (which is a good thing) and they are a pariah. What I am relatively confident about, is that if the only way out for Russia is total humiliation, they can go crazy.

If they are not offered a way out, which can let them say "we achieved our objectives" - even if it is a total fabrication - I don't like the options remaining. It's a real worry.

Well, you can think of it in terms of "surrender". But you can also think of it as "saving lives", and potentially the planet.

Or instead of "surrender", we can call it a "stop" in violence. But sadly, this isn't the route being followed.

Now negotiations are even further away, given the decree signed by Zelensky. As things stand, this cannot end up going well.

You need to have an option for Russia to get out of this mess by saving face. If not, the worst possible outcome becomes more likely, not less.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would be much better than these mediocre leaders we have.

He is no more of a recluse than Kim in Korea, and dialogue with Kim went OK. Putin can be talked to, I'm sure of it. The aim if The Pentagon has been, not to help Ukraine, but to weaken Russia.

If people start to think Putin cannot be talked to, because he is crazy, then this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It should be noted that, after several attempts, citizen evacuations were successful in cities under siege, so positive outcomes can happen, it has been shown.

He is open to talk, as he has done with Macron, or Xi and others. But not Biden, nor many others in Europe. So, we cannot blame failure to talk here solely on Putin, I think that would be dishonest.

I mean, as I see it, it's a question of priorities. For the people involved, I think this would mean no further escalations on either side. Any military action at all must be defensive, if any. Of course, as things are right now, this would put Ukraine at a disadvantage. Further escalation puts the whole world in serious, serious trouble, way beyond Ukraine.

Listen, I think Putin is a thug and a war criminal, but then, I think this is true of most leaders of nuclear armed countries - it comes with the job. Maybe some think he is specifically worse because of his rhetoric or his ramblings. I don't think this should distract from dialogue.

Once the military situation is more-or-less stable, meaning, no more offensives, then we can proceed to list all the concerns for all involved - which covers a lot of ground.

I think if I were Ukranian, I really wouldn't care what Putin thought of my people, I just want the war to end. Let's work on that, the rest can follow.

Each day what is shown is the opposite of this- from everybody. Russia, Ukraine, NATO, etc. And if Putin, again, however much one hates him, is not offered a way to save face, then this does not paint a good picture for the world. This is pretty serious stuff here. That's just my perspective, could be wrong in several aspects.

Sure. This war has many ugly aspects, no disagreements from me here.

If you want to really get into this subject matter more intensely you will pretty much have to read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason … but that is no easy task and will take the better part of a year at least. — I like sushi

I read it this year. Took me about 4 months or so. But I had a lot of preparation. I think Lucy Allais' Manifest Reality does an excellent job presenting an up-to-date account of Kant, defending it against misinterpretations.

Still, it is very dense and obscure in many areas. Will have to read again some other time. But he was clearly anticipated, in exactly the same words in some instances and a richer set of ideas (not in theoretical construction though) by the Cambridge Platonists such as Henry More and especially Ralph Cudworth. None are easy, but extremely insightful, in my opinion.

If Kiev was a smoking heap, how is that different from the other stuff? — Paine

They called the Chechnyan "terrorists", so a large portion of Russia probably didn't care about that. Syria was a disaster from everybody, Russia included, as well as Assad. But again, I think the average Russian cares as much about Syria as does the average American or European, which is to say, sadly, not much.

They view Ukranians as belonging to the same people, same heritage, bla bla. I would suppose something similar would be the case if the US invaded Canada. It's harder to justify killing your immediate neighbors, who are similar to you, than some "foreigner" with a strange culture and a different language. All that nasty stuff comes into play in these other wars.

Like the US did in Baghdad, or NATO in Libya, bomb it to pieces. Basically, tear the country apart, as those states are today.

As for the gap between what they thought the Russians could achieve against facts on the ground, how does one separate the rhetoric justifying the operation from the level of resistance encountered? — Paine

I think this is easy. Russia presents a grossly distorted picture to the domestic population, and call the whole thing a "military operation" instead of a war. As I understand it, until very recently, most Russians did not know too well how the war was going because of the propaganda.

Outside Russia the situation is very different. As you say, they expected this to be a cake walk. They probably thought this would be a Crimea 2.0 for them, which was, all things considered, not bad for Russia.

The Russians clearly underestimated the response. That mistake is not clearly connected to an expectation of a more favorable reception. — Paine

I agree they severely underestimated the response. But if they did destroy Kiev, I assume they would have no good propaganda to justify it internally. Or maybe they suspect that if they did that, things would go even worse for them.

But the internal conditions for the Russian population and the reality on the ground can be explained.

That's changed now, ever since the so called "partial draft". Now people are waking up inside.

From the way you talk you are already aware that NATO has nothing to do with Russia's aim. If it was, and they got what they wanted by military force, it would have been a brutal show of raw strength. Only if their actual aim was Ukraine itself would their leaving be a "retreat" and a show of weakness. — hypericin

To incorporate parts of Ukraine, or even the whole of it to Russia would surely prevent Ukraine from being part of NATO, that much is a truism.

I don't understand your last sentence. If you launch a major military war, of course you are going to do propaganda, that's always been the case. If China were in same situation as Russia is, or India or
any other nuclear power, if they left almost as soon as they invaded, would be an embarrassment.

I'd be interested to see cases in which this actually happens. In must be very rare.

They miscalculated badly and thought that parts of Ukraine would want to willingly go to Russia. They never did destroy Kiev, which they could have - it would go against their propaganda.

But if you're saying NATO is not a major part of the calculation, then we really are living in different worlds. Ukraine would have been in a far, far worse state if it weren't from NATO's aid, another truism.

Nice way to cherry pick arguments.

Making NATO larger was a massive mistake, as was recognized by the last ambassador to the USSR, he predicted this would happen. Pardon for looking at the conflict from all sides, and not calling Putin the worse thing since Hitler in every post made here.

I think it's very easy and convenient to do this - after all, if the leader of your enemy is a lunatic with imperial ambitions, we need not bother with the actual history.

But I harbor no illusions of changing minds - and it's too late now to do anything about the past.

Yes. And the end of the day, these are - at bottom - the two choices available to us. The answer for any rational agent, should be obvious.

Obviously. They would have been negotiating from a position of power, and gotten what they wanted. But what they wanted is nothing less than Ukraine. — hypericin

If they retreated as soon as they invaded, that would convey weakness, not power. By now, as you said, the situation is very different.



More of a liar than Trump, Obama, Bush? I highly doubt that. Not because he's less bad, but because he doesn't have the same amount of power.

Whatever you think of Putin, it's with him you must negotiate, cause he's the one in power. That's a much lower standard than risking a nuclear Armageddon.

Ahhh. Yeah. What a nutjob, that would have been insane.

But - now we have the Taiwan issue, so, history repeating.

Fantastic.

I hope so. I mean, it looks to me as if these people watch too many action films. They've reaped plenty of profits and have set back Russia for some considerable time. What more do they want by now?

The billionaires are fine, you're correct, the rest of the country less so, and who knows what longer term impacts will happen with these sanctions.

"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief. — hypericin

You really expect that, prior to the invasion, the negotiations were rejected, and then as soon as it was launched, they would've stopped and retreated? Really? Would any other great power do that?

Now is a different story (and even months before, not a week or two after invasion), much life has been lost and is only getting more dangerous every day for everybody.

So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible? — hypericin

Oh, you prefer the virtually non-existent honest politicians? Politicians, by definition, are liars, so of course proven liars must negotiate.

America has been humiliated on the battlefield without resorting to nukes. — RogueAI

Where? Vietnam? Killing 1,000,000 civilians and destroying the ruling government is humiliation? Iraq? They got rid of Saddam.

Afghanistan, maybe. But everyone who has tried if Afghanistan has failed. But then nuking Afghanistan would not have changed much by way of war aims, I don't think.

Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.

NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders. — hypericin

Once the conflict started it was too late. Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc.

As far back as late 2021 there were gestures at NATO membership. If the Russians weren't serious about this being the main factor of the war, they wouldn't have been mentioning it for 20 years, it was a red line.

As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html

Yeah, Ukraine in NATO is a great idea for having a nuclear war any random day, if a mistake is committed by either side.

As an aside, Putin asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO back in 2000, I believe. It was considered by Clinton and rejected by his advisors. Why? That's a question worth exploring.

In any case, nothing of what I've said justifies the war, it should be clear. But the provocations did happen.

Thank you.

It's easy to blame a complex geo-political situation on "little mens insecurities". But fine, we can leave it at that, or, if you want a final response, go for it. Not point in arguing this further if we have settled opinions on the matter.