I applaud the effort that went into this post.

I'm afraid we won't proceed to any kind of agreement, so continued discussion will not be profitable for either of us. We are too far apart.

That was excellent. People don't want to hear it, but she's exactly right!

Yeah, that's pretty much how it looks like to me too. And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment.

But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now.

Is this war worth thousands of lives and a European super recession and even more escalations by Russia and NATO? I don't think so. I understand the other view, but the world doesn't play out as we would like.

Yeah, I remember reading that. And it's true, though sadly, we can now see a literal fascist in Italy gaining power, so now Anti-Italian will be a thing again, perhaps.

I understand the emotion, absolutely and more so if you are close to Russia and Ukraine. If my family members were killed by Russians, I wouldn't give a crap about anything other than carpet bombing Russia.

But most of us here are not inside Ukraine, and so we have the privilege to analyze the information as carefully as possible, looking for solutions.

A portion of the audience believes that the bad guy should lose, no matter what. Well, I think this is highly irrational given the context of this war.

Also, I don't recall anyone arguing against the War in Iraq that those who did not want a war or wanted the massacres to stop being labeled Saddam sympathizers, but I'm there must have been cases.

Those are consequences of wars, they first proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk as part of Russia, then they launched an assault which they thought would be easy for them but turned into a nightmare.

He has been stating as have Russian leaders, that Ukraine is a "red line" for them for over twenty years, why is this not taken seriously?

It's not Russia alone, China has stated Taiwan is a red line for them, look at the reaction they had to Pelosi's visit, which looks to be getting worse.

Does that mean that China should invade Taiwan and get rid of the government there? Of course not. But China has been warning, it would be a mistake to ignore this, I think.

From Wikipedia:

At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference.[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[12] Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

That was in 2021. By then Russia was already preparing for the war, but waited to the last instance to launch the war, see this article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-us-nato-talks-so-far-unsuccessful-2022-01-13/

If this doesn't at least indicate that NATO was a big factor for them, because why talk at all instead of just invading?

But the question I meant to ask, wasn't about the cause of the war, it's how to go about ending it.

I'm sure he did. And it was a different Russia, no doubt.

But why expand NATO, if Russia was so different then? It was NATO's goal to be the balance against the Soviet Union, so when it fell, why keep it around? What's the threat?

But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history?

You may reply that what's happening now only proves that NATO's expansion was necessary, because of what Russia is doing to Ukraine. I'd say to you that Russia wouldn't have invaded if NATO did not expand, because there was no threat from Ukraine.

But now that's over.

What now?

He was given a gentleman agreement, which is now easy to deny.

Here is the testimony of John Matlock, the last US diplomat in the USSR:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/

If that's not a good source, I literally can't think of a better one. Cause he called this since 1991. A Republican to boot, so a real patriot, not a wimpy Democrat, though this view has now changed a bit.

Also this:

https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion

He was led to "believe" NATO would not expand an inch to the East. Why not state it outright? It would undermine the belief that Putin wants to conquer not only Ukraine, but large swaths of Europe.

That's the issue, the question now is what situation is that in which the least amount of people will be killed? Because they're already dying.

The current situation looks dire.

I think @Mikie has covered this pretty well, with the sources he's given. But this article gives an outline, for instance:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

What Russia is referring to is that the agreement given to Russia was "verbal only", so it shouldn't be taken as legally binding. The rest you can imagine how Russia would view this.

Chomsky gives a good account here too, and before people begin to call him an apologist for Russia, he also said that Russia invasion of Ukraine is on par with the US' Invasion of Iraq and Hitler's Invasion of Poland, so, I think that's pretty clear:

https://chomsky.info/20220616/

It's very hard to put an estimate on these things, it's not like physics.

Overwhelmingly I think the evidence shows that NATO encroachment was the main issue for Putin's invasion, though I do not doubt that are other, less important factors involved.

This in no case validates or gives a green light, legally or morally, for Putin to do what he did and is doing. But once we get to this level, I really believe we have to analyze things using realpoltik, not wishing that something was otherwise.

We can wish many, many things to be better or different, but this isn't how the world works. Which is sad and frustrating, no doubt, but it's what we have to deal with.

Let's set aside what caused Putin to invade, it matters less now, because the war is going on. The important question now, is what are the next steps that could be taken to end this war as quickly as possible.

We agree that the war is a crime, that civilians should not be killed, that nuclear war should be averted, that Putin is a thug, that Europe will have a very rough winter.

That's quite a lot. What we seem to disagree with is how to proceed to end this and to what extent was the West a cause of the invasion.

I think we have more in common than what we disagree, but where we disagree is admittedly very important, so it's not as if we're discussing against flat-Earthers on the other side.

Concerning your last statement, your type of arguments are hardly new either, it's not as if there are twenty different end games here. I see your point, and think you are wrong.

How do you actually talk to a criminal like Putin who over and over breaks deals, lie and does whatever he wants. There is no peace talk that works with such people so thinking the war can end by giving a criminal what he wants thinking that's the end of it is naive to the extreme.

The resistance, the sanctions and opposition towards Putin seems by all measurements to actually work, regardless of what many have said in this thread. If this leads to getting rid of Putin, then it was all worth it. — Christoffer

The same way we deal with other criminal leaders, many "our allies": Israel, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and so on down the line this illustrious list of known liars, criminals, thieves and barbarians.

You talk with them, because they are the one you are dealing with. Iraq had to talk to the US after the invasion did it not? That war was pretty ugly but nobody in the West ever said it was a bad idea for Iraq to talk with the US, as they should and did.

That's the world we live in. You don't like it, I don't like it, but we deal with what we have not what we want. That's politics.

How would you reduce the number of Ukrainians being killed when they seek to defend themselves against those killings? We should, by your argument, give Putin some land where Ukrainians grew up and lives on after they conducted genocide. And what happens when he makes a move again? Give more land? Give up the whole of Ukraine? What about the respect for the Ukrainian people and what they want? Do you think they fight in this war just for the sake of it? You think they don't know they're dying on the battlefield? — Christoffer

As I've said many times, you negotiate. What makes you think he will move again? This war was a total disaster from his perspective, NATO got larger, they've been sanctioned like no country on Earth (with the possible exception of North Korea), not to mention the many Russians who have fled the country and those who are in jail for protesting.

And will continue dying, unless this war stops short. The Ukranian people are not a monolith, nor should they be treated as such. Some want negotiations, others want to defeat Russia. Some have argued that WWIII has already started.

Not all these views are correct: WWIII has not started. If it did, there would be no Ukrainians left on Earth, not to mention the rest of the world.

I believe sensible people should understand that giving up pieces of illegally, criminally obtained land (and this is what the borders of ALL nation states are, regardless of the state) would prefer to give a bit of land, for thousands of lives.

Will this be good news for those in the annexed territories? Of course not. How can you satisfy all the people in a country that large? It's impossible. So you try to find the least worst option, and make a case for it.

The expansion of Nato has been because of nations fearing what Putin might do and seeking security in an alliance that blocks such aggressions. I know, I live in a nation who wants this security. Any notion that Nato is an existential threat to Russia is a delusional idea promoted by Russian propaganda in order to give justification for Russias actions. And at the end of the day, Putin is responsible for all of this and any delusional idea that Nato forced him to do so is just buying into his narrative. — Christoffer

You are seriously misinformed and confuse the symptom with the cause. And stop with the hypocritical holier than thou attitude.

Plenty of criminals in the US and Europe, many of them far worse than Putin (Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, etc.). But if you can't see that because of some strange notion that we are better because we have more freedoms, then yes, we do well to stop here.

Putin is a criminal, a horrible one. One from a long list of criminals from powerful states.

jk T Clark.

The idea of reality is ontology, metaphysics. As I understand it, metaphysics is not something that can be verified empirically. But that's a long song I've sung many times here on the forum. — T Clark

Wait. What is metaphysics?

But that's the thing, it's not once in a while, it must be stated in a three-post exchange. It's not that it takes skin off my nose to say it, it's that it's like saying "torture is bad". Wars are evil, people who begin wars aren't good people, 99.9% of the time.

I don't have a problem with this issue, you can merely skim my last few exchanges. Just imagine having to say, "torture is bad" and I condemn it, every three or four posts. As far as I can see, it creates a feeling of being virtuous for condemning something so obviously wrong, that it has little merit in trying to think about ways to solve the situation.

And yet I have to say it yet again, that Putin is a criminal. Again. Ok, fine.

We live in insane times if every single time I post I have to say Putin is a criminal. It's a bit like saying guns are lethal during wartime (and outside of it too). What value does saying this so much have?

I've said it easily over 10 times and very explicitly, so has @Isaac and @Mikie and others. It adds zero clarity in how to get out of this situation.

The only ones supporting Putin are those who argue in defense of Putin. The side-picking is obvious in people's rhetoric. Personally I side with the west, not because it is an innocent perfect utopia, but because it allows progress, personal freedom and security far better than any other form of government or society so far. Siding with the least worse does not mean supporting the bad sides of it, but it damn straight stands up against the tyranny of someone like Putin. — Christoffer

Arguing for a stop to the war is not the same as standing or supporting Putin - it does not follow at all, logically speaking.

I agree that the West is significantly freer than Russia, it's not even a contest. What does that have to do with anything?

They're so deeply entrenched in their dislike of western society that when a person like Putin essentially wage war against western ideals and any post-soviet nation who wants to rebuild into such ideals, they get confused into somehow defending Putin or validating his perspective just because it somewhat aligns with how they dislike western ideals. — Christoffer

Find someone here that is supporting Putin. I haven't seen one in a long time, at least 3 months, if not more. But out of everybody currently arguing, I don't see a single poster who supports Putin.

I would also like to know what is meant by "the West". Does South America count? Africa? Clearly not China because NATO members don't like it. If by the West you mean those countries here that sanction Russia, then I think it's a very nebulous notion:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/10/20/russia-ukraine-live-news-kyiv-restricts-power-use-after-attacks

it just means that we pick the side that is the least worse — Christoffer

The less bad "side" is to avoid another World War, because apparently two of them were not enough for us to get the message.

One side of empathic people who get outraged by the brutality of Putin and one side who can't align their criticism of the west with standing against Putin so they disregard any judgement of him or try to justify his reasons because of some weird emotional inability... — Christoffer

You can be outraged at the war crimes and want them to stop, while at the same time seeking to reduce the number of Ukrainians killed. Or you can create a Disney film in which the Empire is defeated.

There are many monsters which NATO is perfectly happy to ignore, like Saudi Arabia's bin Salman, Israel's Lapid, Brazil's Bolsonaro, Turkey's Erdogan and so on. Putin belonged to this happy camp until he acted on what he said was Russia red line for decades.

You may say my last sentence is a defense of Putin, when it is a description of fact, going all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR, stated clearly by people who actually know about this conflict, like the US' last ambassador to the USSR Joh Matlock and others. But if you can't make a distinction between these two, then we are stuck.

Well, people are bombarded with the "good vs. evil" picture all the time in the media and pop culture, so naturally this view transfers to the real world and thus the outcome is that some people prefer the war to go on, than trying to look for a way to negotiate to end the war.

It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other.

And always remember, always always always, to say that Putin is a criminal, which he is. Because we didn't know that.

Poof. All gone.

Next.

I’m here to serve.

But that’s full of mental phenomena, I don’t see a way around that. Take your example of an apple in front of you: you’ll say this is real. Perfect. Now I’m not in front of it, so I have to take your testimony as accurate and I have to imagine that what you mean when you say “this is an apple” will evoke in me, a similar object to what you are seeing. Likewise if I look out my window and say I see a car, a real car, not a toy car, you would have to imagine a car in your head, unless you look at a car. What’s the issue here- this looks to me like “ordinary, humdrum reality”. What’s your concern in such a situation?

It could well be that actually. They wouldn't want more people leaving Russia at the moment.

They might even be looking for Israeli settlers to join the reserve troops. It wouldn't be suprising. But there's also the Syria element you mentioned.

None of this is something that Israel would like to face or worry about. But it has to give some sort of reply to Ukraine on the weapons issue, though they have supposedly given Ukraine military intelligence regarding Russian troop location, according to Haaretz.

So, they are caught in balancing act.

I missed your reply. As I said to Mww, I think that the problem here is the issue of "purely" mental entities, that is, thinking about objects absent being in front of them.

Then there's also issues pertaining to fiction, Harry Potter and so forth, which enter the conversation. There's also the issue of memory, of not remembering if an event "really" happened the way you recall it.

The one place where the issue does not arise, or at least not nearly as frequently, is when we speak about an apple in front of us, or a tree, or a road and so on.

If we talk about something, and we understand each other (roughly), then we are speaking about that thing being talked about, even if that thing has no world-correspondence. So, we speak of fictional entities, or mythical ones, or even fake entities (fake money, fake products, etc.)

But there are "real" fake things, there really is fake currency and products that are not as comes as advertised (buying fools gold, thinking it's actual gold) . So, I fail to see the problem being much more than linguistic.

I'd guess part of the issue - aside from the situation in Syria, which Israel is currently fine with - is that, Russia may make customs to Israel very problematic, or could even prohibit it.

That means less settlers in Israel, so it's not something they would like to deal with. I'm sure there are other ties that are of importance, but I don't know the details.

I don't think the settlers in Israel would affect Russia much, but it might be an issue for Israel's internal politics. The settlers tend to be extremely right wing, and vote for the more radical parties in Israel.

But all of this is pure speculation, until we know how Israel deals with Ukraine's plea, we're totally guessing.

Which one? Putin's?

I haven't looked at any polls mentioning this.

No, I mean, Israel has its own interests that not-infrequently clash with the US' interests. Nevertheless, if they do sell weapons to Ukraine, it might get more complicated for Israel, given the amount of Russians inside Israel.

They would rather stay away from this one, but are being forced to reply.

Israel.

It sure can. Which is why they've been stalling.

Very much so. And Israel is hesitant to sell weapons to Ukraine, as they are quite happy with the current arrangement in Syria.

I suspect only the US could get Israel to sell weapons to Ukraine, but then maybe not even them, because lots of illegal Israeli settlers are Russian. So it's a hell of a problem for Israel.

Since science is epistemic, not ontic — 180 Proof

Interesting.

Sure, I would agree that physics is epistemic.

Would you say the same thing about the things studied by biologists?

I sense that, I don't know anything. A bit like a zombie, what with Halloween coming up and all.

I suspect the problem resides in our not knowing well enough how to categorize "purely" mental objects. But then, this rock I see here, is partially mental, at the very least.

And so, it is not clear...

Ukraine to Officially Submit Request for Air Defense Supplies From Israel

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-10-18/ty-article/ukraine-requests-israel-supply-immediate-air-defense-supplies/00000183-eb24-da6b-a1fb-fba5783f0000

While Israel has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and provided Kyiv with humanitarian relief, it has stopped short of also providing military support, citing concern for continued cooperation with Moscow over next-door Syria.

The discussion over air supplies comes amid internal wrangling in Israel over deepening its cooperation with Ukraine after the Russian invasion.

"Real", as is used in English is an honorific word, adding little substance to what is being discussed. If a person tells you this is the "real deal" or this is the "real truth", it would be an error to think there are two kinds of deals or truths.

It's a matter of emphasis.

Are unicorns real? Well, they're not objects in the world, but people can surely speak about them without much problem, within an appropriate context (mythology, storytelling, etc.)

I think this is an issue in which the use the word often obfuscates the phenomenon it is trying to discuss.

Sam Harris is mediocre at very, very best. At worst he's just a useful idiot, probably believes what he says about torture and AI and the woke left.

He sometimes can string together some interesting observations, maybe once every 3 hours in his podcast. Not much more.

The worst of the so called "New Atheists". Hitchens used to be fantastic but went hard right the last decade of his life.

Dawkins and Dennett are quite good in many respects.

I find all this bollocks about a 'nation's right to exist' really sickening. — Isaac

I believe it was a product of Israeli propaganda, which serves to silence critics of Israel.

The rights that should be afforded, and are granted at least in rhetoric, are peace and security. Of course, you can't have these if you don't exist, pace anti-natalists, but existence is a given for these rights to come into effect. Adding "right to exist" affords nothing to already existing rights, except for dubious rhetoric.

Mww, is Mww.

He's great! :)

I heard an interview with one such person who works as a professional animator. — Srap Tasmaner

:rofl:

That's extraordinary.



I think mathematical conceptions are different in nature than world phenomena. A perfect tree does not exist of course, but Plato had an interesting take on this.

I think it's kind of the opposite, as I see it: we see imperfect triangles all the time, which makes us think of triangles (which are perfect in our minds). You could perhaps say that imperfect triangles are a kind of derivative of mental triangles.



Absolutely nothing. T'was a hit and miss.

Yeah, but after 3000-odd years, the corpus of philosophy texts is so vast, it’s really hard to do philosophy that hasn’t already been done. — Mww

Pfffft.

May I invite you good Sir, to read Lacan and Derrida?

:joke: