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.

Yeah, his actions were stupid beyond belief, it made everything he wanted to avoid happen: NATO got bigger, large swaths of the world sanctioned Russia, etc.

But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized.

I mean, so far the US and EU are being oh-so-confident that he won't do anything with nukes. I wonder how they can be so confident given what's happened.

I think your guess is as good as any. My intuition is that national pride trumps everything else. I'm unclear on something: You mean bad economics inside the US or in Russia?

Russia seems to be surviving somehow.

What he said to Macron was that he needed assurances that Ukraine would not be militarized. He did not get this, hence the invasion.

I do not think Europe has been wise here at all. This whole situation is because of NATO expansion - despite what some here are saying - which was promised to not be moved "an inch to the East" back in 1992.

This could have been prevented had they taken these negotiations seriously. They were not. And here we are. I see no wisdom in this. Nor is there wisdom in the invasion either.

I see ample lack of it.

Out of the European leaders, I think Macron has done the best, he did have relatively frequent meetings with Putin. But the other ones are an utter shame, and this includes the US.

This whole affair is akin to a d**k measuring contest, and to what end? I hope you are right too, there has to be at least one or two people IN NATO and the Pentagon who actually understands that more escalation can only lead to total disaster...

The problem is nuclear weapons existing at all, not a suicidal madman. North Korea has one, even crazier and he hasn't used them.

But I ask you, what country with nukes, would willingly accept humiliation in the battlefield? I think none. I pray he doesn't go for the last option, but he's not been given situations in which he could save face, which is what he needs to get out of this disaster.

I see only Hawkishness on all sides here, escalation after escalation. There needs to be dialogue. But how can dialogue be had when conditions are this dire?

It's a big problem.

No. We cannot put forth foundationalism with certainty. This leaves open a very big problem in philosophy, we have a certain mechanism or capacity to acquire knowledge, yet we do not know what these mechanisms are. Furthermore, introspection will not reveal it to us, no matter how hard we try.

So we have to begin with consciousness as that with which we have the most confidence of existing and must merely do the best we can with what we are given.

New World by Natsuo Kirino.

Also ploughing extremely slowly through Locke's Essay this time around.

It's a bit like asking why questions as to why you want to do X, Y or Z, you end up saying I want to do X because I want to be happy or content, to ask why one wants to be happy is to ask a question whose answer cannot be provided - unless you substitute happiness for another, similar word.

As for the purpose of suffering? It's like the opposite of happiness, and we likely could not appreciate feeling good, if we did not know what it was like to feel bad, which includes suffering.

Ukraine accelerates bid to join NATO after Russia’s annexation

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/30/ukraine-accelerates-bid-to-join-nato-after-russias-annexation

In how it handles trying to get the territories back. If they go full force, it would be akin to Ukraine "invading" Russia. This might allow Russia to expand its quite horrible hands and create an extremely dangerous situation. In my view, these territories should be part of the negotiations, if we ever get to that point. I think there has to be some kind of minor land swap or a token victory of sorts that allows Putin to delcare this a "victory" - (as happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis).

I don't think total humiliation will be accepted by the Russian regime, meaning, they might go crazy. One needs to give the opponent an off ramp, however distasteful it is.

I didn't say they weren't. Russia doesn't consider it though, so it will take any attacks on these territories as an attack on Russia.

Not saying Ukraine shouldn't get them back, but I'd be careful in handling the situation.

Apropos no specific comment here, but, for the purposes of the war, it does not matter than the US, Europe and even the UN, don't consider these new territories as part of Russia, what matters is that Russia does.

We should expect Ukraine to fight for these territories back, now Russia will consider it a direct attack on them. Quite a problem.

I skimmed the paper, so I may have missed important details, but, there is a factual claim here which is mistaken. "Irrealism" has been explored, in significant detail, by Nelson Goodman in his Starmaking, but it is not clear to me he would accept a "virtual world" metaphor.

It's also not clear to me what is gained by saying that the world we experience is "virtual" - what does that even mean? As I see it, a virtual world is almost a world, but not quite, several aspects are missing, think of videogames or VR headsets: that is virtual.

Such views tend to leave the interpretation open, that this virtual world is mistaken or skewed. But if we had no "virtual" world, we wouldn't have any world. In order to be able to see or experience anything, it needs come from a perceiver, unless you would bet that the objects in the world are themselves conscious and can experience each other. Something of which we have no evidence.

"Virtual" thinking is OK, I guess, as a heuristic, but not much more than that. I think the more traditional, Schopenhauerian (and Hume, Locke, Descartes, Kant, etc.) view of the world being a representation is more accurate, it's the way we react to the stimulus of the world, without claiming that it is a simulation. It's simply the way things appear to us.

We may postulate - sensibly in my opinion - something "behind" objects that anchors them, but this "behindness" is no more "real" than what we already experience, it's another aspect of the world, which helps us make sense of experience, as I see it.

I mean, that would be my guess too. Then he would hopefully, be forced into a negotiation, which has not happened yet, before considering the use of nukes. Given the inner turmoil in Russia, people fleeing and protesting and so on, the timer is on for Putin, much more than at any stage during this war.

We can hope this doesn't cause him to break and go for broke, or he could be thrown out by the military. Too many variables in the equation.

Medvedev Says US and NATO Won’t Intervene If Russia Uses Nuke in Ukraine

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/09/27/medvedev-says-us-and-nato-wont-intervene-if-russia-uses-nuke-in-ukraine/

I don't think anyone can afford to have much confidence in even further escalation. It is not wise. People always say that no-one would dare use them because of the consequences, if philosophy has any application here, its that we can't be certain of anything. This applies to international affairs doubly so.