I had in mind Russia (the Russian state) in general rather than Putin himself, who does have most of the power.

Netanyahu is a compulsive liar, Bolsonaro too, Bush junior was pretty bad and so was Blair, not to mention whoever is in charge in North Korea.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them.

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees, but agreeing with them doesn't make one a "supporter" or a "hater".

Of course, all this gets magnified significantly during wartime.

The main point here, for me, regardless of how the attacks were carried out, is that this has increased military offensive, as we are seeing daily with this missile barrage. They have a right, no doubt, to fight in every part of Ukraine. I think they have to be careful in what choices they carry out. Russia still has plenty of missiles, which can and likely will be used against Ukrainians.

I wouldn't gamble on the point of the "red line", it seems pretty serious to me and obviously to many leaders, which is why it is practically the dominant topic on international affairs. I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda".

It's not so much that the West tells Ukraine to do whatever they want, and Ukraine must do it, it's more in line with, we are giving you weapons, so you better fight the Russians to the end, don't focus on negotiations, as Johnson said, for instance. He was almost surely following the US/NATO line.

The focus should be on de-escalation, but we don't see that happening right now. You seem to be of the persuasion that Russia can be defeated completely and kicked out of Ukraine and that's it. I really doubt that's how it's going to play out. We will see who ends up being right.

I've been a bit busy today and my brain is a bit gone. Just from skimming, agree on some points, others not so much.

Thanks for the detailed response, will get back to you tomorrow.

I currently cannot access the NYT articles, which are paywalled. You are correct that there is no link given for this claim.

As for the terrorist attack, it is defined in numerous ways, Oxford for instance defines it as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Is the bridge in Crimea used for civilian purposes in addition to military ones? Yes.

Is it a legitimate target? Sure. Was it a smart action to do this? I don't think so, look at the results of such actions. This much was predictable.

Of course, there is no doubt that Russia is committing, by far, the most terrorist attacks in Ukraine, it's not even a competition.

the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (накачка украины оружием - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook — SophistiCat

You are right. On the other hand, it is de facto taken to be part of Russia. Obama applied the mildest of sanctions when the Russia annexed Crimea. It has important military value for Russia, given the naval base they have there.

I don't think this area will be given back. The newly annexed territories are a different matter, this was a desperate attempt to save face given the counterattack.

The quoted phrase may indeed be out of the Russian propaganda playbook, but it is no less true for being so. You think Ukraine would've lasted much without such help?

I happen to think that the longer this lasts, the more civilians will die, which is not good for Ukraine by the way.

Forgot who was asking, but here is the evidence of US/Ukraine bombing of bridge:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html

It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game. — jorndoe

I assume that when one says "Russia" or the "US" or "Ukraine", one is not referring to a land mass, much less to millions of people, with different opinions and perspectives.

The interest of a politician, or an oil baron, is not the same interest of that of a nurse, housekeeper, plumber or mechanic.

It almost always refers to the elites who are making the decisions, whether in military or private capacity, they are the ones who dictate policy. Granted, even in elite groups there can be dissent, but those aren't the ones making decisions.

You are right to bring it up, and although I have mentioned it a few times, not emphatically enough, it's an important topic.

As for Putin's agenda, sure. Similar to Erdogan or others who have some power. But he has nukes, which makes it very dangerous.

Here's me thinking that wanting a nuclear war should suffice on pain of stupidity...

Of course.

Then again changes take place a person at a time, at all levels of society. Even if the circle is very small, it's still a circle.

Correct.

Either one is in a position to directly influence the war (US, Europe, Russia) or one talks about it as a pressing issue, an issue that deserves as much attention as possible.

By doing this, one hopes that others will find what one says useful, as a way to learn more or further discuss this issue with others.

That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least.

I don't know how long we have, so that my generation could also be going out with yours.

It is frustrating to have a conversation on this topic. I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict.

But I could be a moral monster, for wanting this war to end sooner rather than later. And gamble that an imaginary Putin will just tuck his tail under his legs and stay home.

And believe it is morally commendable.

You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out. — frank

I did? I don't remember saying that, but this thread is very long. If I did say so, then it was a stupid thing to say.

I will say it once more, I really don't know to what end but, what Russia is doing is criminal. Obviously.

I agree, we can leave it at that.

I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless. — frank

Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.

But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous.

I don't know how you extrapolate to all the rest.

We'll just have to disagree here.

I said that the only moral aspect I could have a positive contribution on is what my Governments do or do not do. Even in that aspect my impact is miniscule, it's the only one I have.

If I can convince or persuade people that what NATO is doing is increasing the deaths of Ukrainians as it is - just read today's headlines - then that's the only thing I can do morality-wise, that could have an impact.

Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on.

I think a nuclear war is the single biggest moral issue human beings face. The question is are we willing to settle going down than that path, because we don't like our enemy?

If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? That's another super disaster, worse than Ukraine, happening right now, which we could potentially do something about.

How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it. — frank

It wouldn't. Of course not.

Yet we live in the real world, in which consequences happen if a major country suffers humiliation. It does not in any way justify killing civilians, but it is to be expected regardless.

think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. — frank

The only moral aspect I can have a miniscule-sliver-of-a grain-of-sand say is in how my government reacts to this affair. I have no control over Russia. If I were Russian, then I'd be fined or jailed, but wouldn't be rooting for this war.

If I let sentiment take my judgment (not meaning this applies to you), then I will be leading Ukraine and the World, to annihilation.

And this is not the only war that's going on that is very ugly, others like Yemen or Ethiopia, for instance, are arguably worse. But few express outrage at these. Why is that? Yemen is due to Saudi Arabia, the West's partner, who sell them weapons that is leading to mass famine and widespread destruction.

I care about avoiding a nuclear war most of all, and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible (because right now is not possible), not at some nebulous date in which Ukraine wins. I don't see that happening. It could. I wouldn't gamble on it though.

That's going to be true of any politics thread generally, including Climate Change or wealth distribution or Trump and Biden. I only hope some people reading this may learn a thing or two, and by that I mean even if it's one person, then it's better than nothing. But we can't know that.

It's a way to vent my frustrations at seeing how CNN, MSNBC the BBC and others cover this story.

But, point taken.

If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.

And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive. — frank

Not at all, you are right. This is old indeed, well documented by, say, Smedley Butler, he painted the picture very clearly in that one.

It may not be the main motive, but it is surely a large one. The longer this goes on, the more money they get and the politicians too.

Yes, there are other reasons, namely NATO expansion, which I've mentioned several times. Now, if Putin adds crazy reasons once the war is running, OK. Hard to imagine giving good reasons for war in the 21st century. It's always about "liberation" and so on, no country is going to say "we will kill and enslave civilians."

I'm also not saying that there are legitimate Russian concerns in the Donbass, but a response of this scale is madness. Yet here we are.

It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing. — frank

I agree. It was one of the most stupid decisions in history, given how its turning out.

I only add, which is no small part, that the way the West has replied has been to enflame the situation. You can see the results right now. In a rational world both sides would look for negotiations NOW, but we have escalations.

Doesn't speak to well of the species that we are at this point after so much savagery in the 20th century alone, neverminded previous history.

No, that isn't Disney. I think it's a rational move, given the dire circumstances.

I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians.

I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warnings by Russia.

I mean, if something erupted in Taiwan for instance - that being even more dangerous potentially, it shouldn't come as a total surprise, because China has been warning about this for decades. Kind of like Russia did too.

Though to be fair, I did not think Russia would invade, as you can see in my posts in the beginning of the thread, I did get that way wrong.

I hear you. Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma.

Having said that, it's extremely difficult to get our governments to act in a more cautious manner, particularly when all of them tend to twist the facts to the benefits of each respective state - which causes the population to get a Disneyfied view of the world.

Can't blame them though.

As happens in war.

Excellent post. :up:

That's kind of like saying that all these people in Moscow who are against the war and are jumping out of windows actually were depressed. Do you have proof saying otherwise?

This is the most plausible scenario we have as of this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfN56MgDprk

But, yes, it could be that Russia decided to harm itself by blowing the pipeline near Germany. It's not as if the US or Nato or Ukraine will say "I did it!".

However, if there is evidence pointing in the other direction, then I will have to retract my comments.

Not about what Blinken or Biden said, which would be silly to overlook in my opinion.

Or you can present another plausible account.

I don't see what other scenario is probable out of those I mentioned.

It's a matter of likelihood. I suspect we may soon get direct evidence of the event. It would make no sense for Germany to blow up a pipeline (which is close to them) that provides them crucial resources especially in winter.

Russia surely needs any money it can get, given the sanctions it has. So it has no incentive to blow up a pipeline that benefits them. The US does have an incentive to blow up the pipeline. Remember that Blinken said that it was a "tremendous opportunity" to take advantage of this situation and further weaken Russia. That's very convenient.

Add that to Biden's comments saying trust me we have a way of shutting it down, you can find it on YouTube.

Alternatively, it could be Ukraine that did so, to further pull Europe on its side in winter, with zero guarantees it will work out. It makes sense for them to do it to weaken Russia, in a sense, but they would not do something that big without the approval of Washington.

Finally, if Russia, for whatever reason, did not want to supply Germany, it could simply shut off the supply, no need to blow it up.

So there's no alternative I can think of, that is realistic, given what's at play.

What a fantastic pic. FFS with leaders like these, and crowds whipped into a frenzy... Won't repeat myself at the moment.

I must imagine that someone in background is thinking about some way to settle this. It is beyond comprehension that we are seeing a potentially lethal event and we're just like, not walking, but running, quite enthusiastically, off a cliff.

Words fail.

Yes, indeed, a classic.

Wasn't Einstein a patent clerk when he discovered the first steps in General Relativity, or was he already taking courses? I don't remember.

But also, people like Ramanujan, who lacked formal training in math, made important contributions, so I've heard.

These are big exceptions, of course.

In what sense has this happened? — Paine

In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline. I don't know if Germany was aware of this, but, I think that's counterproductive. Are they confident all Europeans won't mind potentially freezing to death? It's easy to speak of solidarity when one's life is not on the line.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero. — frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

This is independent of right and wrong for me, its realpolitik. If morals actually entered in wars, which rarely do, then the picture would be different. Sadly, that's not out world.

No Ukrainians were mentioned in this proposal. So the negotiations you promote means cutting off their efforts. You are in the Isaac camp who says the quicker the Ukrainians lose, the better off they will be. — Paine

Who is arming Ukraine? Do you seriously think that Ukraine would have been able to kick Russia back absent US help? They are at the mercy of NATO, which, thankfully, have provided them with the capacity for defense, which I think makes sense.

The sooner the war is over, the better they will be. Them and everybody else.

But worry not, my wishes of a quick end to this has vanished.

That would require a mutual stop of military actions on both sides, regardless of the status they have as victims and aggressors. Why? If we don't have a stop, we will have escalation, as is happening right now. Then more people die, more land could be stolen, etc. It's not good for it to continue.

But some iota of goodwill is needed too. Russia shouldn't say, bomb civilian centers in Kiev, but Ukraine shouldn't be allowing other countries to blow up the pipeline. These options are "weak" militarily, but a gesture goes a long way.

At this moment, it's very hard to see such things happening. But they should continue through back channels or something. I think only Macron, out of the Western leaders still wants to talk. Not to mention 3/4's of the German population would prefer negotiation to escalations.

Right this moment, it's very hard. But further escalation is more fuel for the fire. But, alas, it will continue until the US and Russia decide to talk, absent intervention from another third party. It's not Putin alone. Europe too, especially the leaders of the western countries should be less bellicose. Germany in general had a sane attitude till very recent.

Man, I know we all have busy days and different interests and all that, but you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and @Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. Some others too, to be fair, but am forgetting specific names.

Others raise fair points and some have legitimate concerns, but the way in which this war has turned many into a Putin is Evil and that's all that matters, is concerning.

Not least because it was not too long ago, for most of us, to remember that if you substitute "Kremlin stooge" for "Anti American" and change "Ukraine" to "Iraq", one can only be shocked at how little progress we've made in seeing through much corporate/militaristic media BS. Not that state run media is better.

Those who want the war to de-escalate are called propagandists for Russia. Unreal.

History repeating, but much worse, because of what could happen.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation.

With takes like these, who needs satire? I don't see the point in having a discussion with a person who thinks that nuclear war is fine and dandy, because Putin cannot be serious when he says he will use them.

I'm sure you'll find others here who will be happy to humor you. I won't.

:rofl:

You are a lunatic.

We return to that pesky word, "metaphysics", which is now more obscure than it was when it worked on by Aristotle, not that he used the term itself. The historical context may help explain why philosophy sometimes looks lost.

Aristotle has in mind the type of work that allows you to answer questions such as "what is a house?". It was assumed that this could be done: to pick out properties of the mind-independent world and say "that is a house".

But in the 17th century that all changed with the rise of modern science. What's a house is extremely complicated and subtle, so we dropped such high ambitions to ask questions more pertinent to the faculties we have that can actually solve some of the problems in the world, say the position of the planet or gravity.

I don't think we can go back and try to develop extremely complex mental constructions as a basis for philosophy as it often confuses the faculties of the mind with the world itself. Not trivial . This does not entail scientism at all, but it does entail trying to develop the thoughts of many of the classic figures, as they already lay the groundwork for many issues that could have a solution.

So Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others all have plenty of stuff that needs correction and amplification, in my view. To start from zero is possible, but it ignores a large part of what's important in this Western tradition, which is a continued dialogue with its figures, even if it's only one of them.

Well, what can you expect when, being the creatures that we are, we begin to scrape the very fundamental issues of the world? After all, we are dealing with extremely small portions of matter, which we are ill-suited to understand very well. There doesn't seem to be much advantage in terms of selection in having the capacity to do advanced physics.

It's been about 100 years of the quantum revolution, and the main problem, uniting it with relativity remains a hard nut to crack. If someone wants to call this "metaphysics", fine, it's not a wrong use for the word. On the other hand, one can easily imagine another intelligent creature having intuitive ease with quantum mechanics, but struggling with aspect of biology, for instance.

Some of the guesses we have, be it many worlds or loop quantum gravity may be right. Or they may all be wrong. It could be that a non-specialist somehow cracks the problem, but it makes sense to put higher credence on professionals, while always keeping in mind that they could be wrong. As could we, in whatever we choose to do and or study.

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.