See, statements of that kind suggest either (a) that you aren't following the discussion and are just trolling for the sake of it, or (b) that you're some kind of CIA-NATO bot. — Apollodorus

Oh pls, can I be a CIA-NATO bot transformer?

My position has always been that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. In fact, long before the Ukraine conflict. So, OF COURSE, I would contemplate Crimea as an independent state if that's what Crimeans want, in the same way I think countries like Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, and continents like Europe, Africa, etc., should be independent. That's why I'm against imperialism, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, or whatever. I never said Crimea must belong to Russia. It’s the NATO Nazis that are saying Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine! What I'm saying is that Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. So, no, I'm NOT denying independence to Crimea at all. — Apollodorus

But I never said you said it MUST! I just questioned your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia.
Anyway according to your recent claim, Crimea doesn’t belong to Russia either, contrary to what you were claiming previously, because Crimea belongs to Crimeans. And you revised your claim from Crimea belongs to Russia and not Ukraine, to Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. You have to clarify this point too.
Besides according to your principle of self-determination, then Ukraine is allowed to join NATO if they wish so, right?

It is YOU who is denying independence to Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc. You even got mad at the thought of it, which exposes your inconsistency and hypocrisy in addition to your inability to read and think! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Unfortunately, you are establishing inconsistency and hypocrisy wrt principles I’m not committed to and claims I never made. Such repeated blunders of yours are even embarrassing to witness and boring to emend.

Interestingly, there are three NATO activists here (including yourself) and all three got mad at the thought of China returning Tibet to the Tibetans, Turkey returning Cyprus to the Cypriots, etc. And without offering any explanation. — Apollodorus

Ah yes, where were we? Here are the maps of the ethnic groups in Russia and China:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg/1200px-Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png
So tell me what territory should be returned to whom? BTW are sovereign states free to ally for their defense with other sovereign states once you have done all your mapping?

Anyway, as I said, I don’t see what you’re contributing to this discussion because all you seem to be doing is regurgitate the NATO Troll’s anti-Russian propaganda and disinformation. — Apollodorus

What would be the propaganda and disinformation I’m regurgitating, can you quote me by any chance?

I think even the blind can see that this is a war between Russia and NATO. You’re trying to reduce it to an issue between Putin and Ukraine in order to deflect attention from the West’s involvement and criminal culpability. — Apollodorus

How on earth am I trying to do that, if the first comment to your post is an argument to support Western involvement in this war between Russia and Ukraine?! What criminal activities are you referring to?! What are your evidences of the Western involvement in such criminal activities?

According to CIA-NATO disinformation and lies, NATO after the Cold War expanded because Eastern European countries like Poland were so scared of Russia that they begged NATO to allow them to join. However, Poland may have had other reasons for joining, such as financial assistance. The real question for the purposes of this discussion is not why Poland joined but why NATO thought it was in its own interest to invite Poland to join. Not what a small country like Poland wanted, but what the already huge NATO Empire wanted. — Apollodorus

Sure it’s called “mutual interest”. And if Russia has security concerns at its borders, this is true also for other countries like Poland which as Russia has a long story of foreign invasions (including from URSS and Germany). So given the genesis of NATO, Poland seems to be the right place for the US to stay.

NATO wanted to expand eastward because Russia’s western borders had moved further east, leaving a vacuum that NATO, as an imperialist and expansionist organization, was eager to fill. Moreover, the very fact that NATO moved its defense line eastward means (1) that NATO continued to regard Russia as enemy even after Russia had ceased to be Communist, and (2) that NATO had no intention to stop expanding eastward. The fact is that contrary to CIA-NATO propaganda and lies, NATO is not some philanthropic organization whose expansion is somehow driven by the needs of countries that apply for membership. Its expansion is driven by its own agenda which is to promote the interests of its creators, America and its client-state Britain. — Apollodorus

Sorry to interrupt your daily intellectual masturbation over CIA-NATO hypocrisy (yuck!), but client states might also have their self-aware and self-serving interest in being client states of great powers.

As in the case of Poland, CIA-NATO disinformation and lies claim that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But this doesn’t mean that this is not what NATO itself wanted, nor does it exclude the possibility that Ukraine wanted to join because it was being encouraged or pushed to do so by NATO. — Apollodorus

We can’t exclude it sure. That’s why we need evidences, right? To discriminate imagined possibilities from reality.

Indeed, steps to incorporate Ukraine into the NATO Empire were already taken at the NATO summit of July 1990, held in London, when NATO leaders proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
It is important to carefully follow what happened next:
24 August 1991, Ukraine declared itself independent from the Soviet Union.
8 December 1991, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, which had been the original founding members of the Soviet Union, established the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.
20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in which Ukraine and the other CIS countries were invited to participate.
So, we can see that NATO had planned to incorporate Ukraine (1) even before Ukraine became officially independent, and (2) at a time when Ukraine had willingly joined Russia and Belarus in the Commonwealth of Independent States! — Apollodorus

Holy shit, after more than 30 years Ukraine didn’t join yet?! Me CIA-NATO bot transformer very disappointed! :(

But Crimea itself remained a major problem. The Soviet Union under Khrushchev had “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. This may have made sense for inter-Soviet administrative purposes, as Crimea was geographically closer to Kiev than to Moscow. However, in May 1992, after Ukraine’s independence, the Russian parliament declared the “gifting” of Crimea to Ukraine illegitimate. — Apollodorus

Holy shit, after 38 years Russia and not the Soviet Union realised Khrushchev was drunk that day?! How come?! That’s really a totally inconceivable not-like-usual-Russian-propaganda narrative twist, right?!

More important, and what CIA-NATO propaganda attempts to cover up, Crimea which at the time had an ethnic-Russian majority and a small Ukrainian minority, had started its own movement of independence from Ukraine. Already on July 16, 1990, Crimea had declared its state sovereignty. On January 20, 1991, i.e., prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) and even prior to Ukrainian independence, the Crimeans voted to become an autonomous republic as they had been before being “gifted” to Ukraine, and this was granted by the Soviet leadership.
Therefore, when Ukraine became independent, Crimea remained an autonomous republic within Ukraine. Moreover, it continued its efforts to become independent. — Apollodorus

Dude, no need to regurgitate history trivia you read somewhere else, just give us the link. Probably you got it from here: https://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html
Anyway here some notes you might consider:

• Jul 16, 1990 the Ukrainian SSR (NOT CRIMEA!) declares its state sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine
• Jan 20, 1991 A referendum is held in the Crimea on restoring autonomy to the region AND a sovereign Ukraine accept the results: indeed Feb 12, 1991 The Ukrainian Supreme Soviet restores the Crimea as an autonomous republic within the borders of the Ukraine.
• Dec 1, 1991 A referendum is held in the Ukraine on independence simultaneously with presidential elections. Leonid Kravchuk is elected the first president of the Ukraine, and the independence of the Ukraine is supported by the referendum. However, Crimean support for Ukrainian independence was the lowest of all of the Ukraine (only 54% in favor) with very low turnout (65%). Support not only for Russia, but for the Soviet Union, is extremely high in Crimea as much of the population is related to the Soviet military and the Black Sea Fleet.
• Jan 1992 The Russian Foreign Ministry and parliament condemn the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954. So Russians realised after Ukraine declared sovereignty and independence, and got international recognition (Russians included! https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/world/ex-communist-wins-in-ukraine-yeltsin-recognizes-independence.html), that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was worth of being condemned. So timely and yet not so timely, right?

On February 26 1992, the Crimean parliament renamed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea, and on May 5 it proclaimed self-government and enacted a separate constitution to that of Ukraine. Ukraine dismissed Crimea’s action as illegal and although the Crimean parliament created the post of President of Crimea in 1993, in 1998 Crimea was pressured by Ukraine to rename itself Autonomous Republic of Crimea. — Apollodorus

Yet oddly you didn’t say this time: “we can’t exclude the possibility that Crimean effort to become fully independent from Ukraine was being encouraged or pushed to do so by Russia”.

IMO the historical facts show (1) that Crimea had never been Ukrainian (even in demographic terms) in the first place — Apollodorus

Historical facts show that Crimea has never ever been a national sovereign state neither prior to Soviet Union, nor during the Soviet Union, nor after the Soviet Union! And that the Crimea region was since 1954 under Soviet rule transferred to the administrative control of Ukraine and part of its territory until the end of Soviet Union, then Crimea was under the control of Ukraine and part of its territory until Russian annexation. The declaration of sovereignty by Crimea authorities was illegal under the only sovereign, independent and internationally acknowledged authority that counted: Ukraine!
Moreover by signing 2 treaties with Ukraine, Russia acknowledged territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine (which by constitution establishes that Crimea is integral part of its territory)!

(2) that Crimea saw itself as a separate state from Ukraine after Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union (and even before) — Apollodorus

BTW which Crimea are you talking about? Prior to or after the Russification of Crimea by the soviets? Shouldn’t your Utopian principle mapping territories with ethnic groups, consider the reinstatement of all the non-Russian minorities that have been expelled from Crimea? And why on earth are you hiding the still ongoing oppression of non-Russian minorities in Crimea (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578003/EXPO_STU(2016)578003_EN.pdf)?! Don’t they have a right for a sovereign state within the sovereign state of Crimea within the sovereign state of Russia, after the Russian annexation?!
Since we are at it, let me also remind you that “the principle of self-determination of peoples” you so passionately defend, is a super Western international law principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination), arguably stemming from American propaganda (“The American Revolution of the 1770s has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination[/b], because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century”) if not even Atlanticist propaganda (“In 1941 Allies of World War II declared the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.”). So, to share an old philosophical piece of wisdom, gnōthi seauton b/c you might be a CIA-NATO bot that spreads CIA-NATO propaganda without being aware, and even more than I am!

(3) that the Crimea issue was not created by the current Russian state and even less by Putin who wasn’t even in power at the time. — Apollodorus

As a disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine, absolutely yes Russia created the problem starting from January 1992. I’m not denying that Russians had historical and geopolitical plausible reasons to do this and design their propaganda accordingly. But if Russia didn’t complain or push (as the rest of the chronology in that link abundantly shows), the case of Crimea could have been likely analogous to the case Catalunya (with its independent movements and the marvelous adventures of President Puigdemont).

So, basically, you haven’t got a leg to stand on … :smile: — Apollodorus

I can facepalm at your blunders also from my seat though. All you were able to prove so far is that ethno-historical considerations are relevant to understand and legitimise, and I never ever questioned it. Indeed they make us understand, at least in part, why Crimea is fiercely disputed between Russia and Ukraine and why it’s key also in the negotiation. However my point is exclusively but decisively that, contrary to your views, they are neither the only determinant factor to understand the current status of Crimea nor the only or even the primary source to assess related legitimacy claims. Indeed when it’s matter of sovereignty international relations (international order, treaties and power relations) are essentials to understand and justify historical events (also concerning the Western involvement in this war!). Or let’s say that this is, at least, part of my ideological view because saying that this is what history shows it would be an overkill, and you have already humiliated yourself enough, right?


To summarise: strawman arguments, preventive strawman arguments, surreal accusations (I doubt you even have a clue how internet bots work), question begging nonsensical challenges, misread/misunderstood/filtered historical trivia & news, and intellectual masturbation over evil NATO (yuck!). Did I miss anything else from your cringy repertoire of intellectual failures, dude?

In favor of Russia, I can only say that as long as there is no plausible prospective of re-integrating Russia in the world economy, while addressing in a less confrontational way their security concerns at the border, Russia will remain an issue, even if we could get rid of Putin. Besides the risk for a Russian revanchist comeback (maybe with the help of China or India), Europe can't fully rely on the Americans at the prospect of having Trump (or Tucker Carlson?!) as US President at the next round.

02.01.2005 Interview with Sergej Lavrov by the German business newspaper Handelsblatt:

Question: Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?

Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.

https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/handelsblatt-interview-mit-aussenminister-lawrow-russland-oeffnet-ukraine-den-weg-in-die-nato/2460820.html

Dude, as with the rest of your incoherent rant, there is no logic whatsoever to your question. Of course I don't find Zelensky credible! He's a professional actor and comedian, isn't he? If YOU find him credible, it doesn't mean that everyone else must find him credible! :grin: — Apollodorus

My incoherent rant?! If I find Zelensky credible but you don’t, and Zelensky has never claimed that “Crimea belongs to Russia”, once more, why on earth did you bring him up in support of your claim that “Crimea belongs to Russia”?! Where or earth is the logic and coherence in that?!

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman
I know you're gonna say that the Statesman is owned by Putin or the KGB, but I think you can spare yourself the trouble because no one is going to believe that, maybe not even yourself. — Apollodorus

So you make not only strawman arguments but also preventive strawman arguments, now?!
And why on earth would I even need to question your article whose subtitle is: More than 90 per cent of Ukrainians approve of their leader, compared with just 31 per cent before the Russian invasion?! How on earth is that evidence supporting your questioning Zelensky’s credibility?!

Plus, he has repeatedly made statements that turned out to be contrary to fact. You have yourself admitted that there is a propaganda and info war going on, so why should I blindly believe what Zelensky says? Moreover, even if he isn't credible, he still reportedly said he is "willing to negotiate with Russia”. Besides, my statement referred to the opinion of Western analysts who interpreted Zelensky's comments as indicating that he is prepared to negotiate on the status of Crimea, and possibly on Donbas. — Apollodorus

“Plus”, “moreover”, “besides” what?! How on earth is the willingness to negotiate with Russia on the status of Crimea by Zelensky, even if confirmed by Western analysts, and despite the fact that you don’t find Zelensky credible anyways, supposed to support your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia as you argued based on your pre-conceived historical/ideological notions?!

In any case, if even Zelensky says that a compromise is possible, this shows that he thinks Russia may have a legitimate claim, otherwise why compromise? — Apollodorus

I already answered that question: Making territorial concessions to Russia, doesn’t necessarily validate the pre-conception that those territories belong to Russia, it could just grant a legal status to an illegal status quo for the sake of ending a horrible war.
In other words, Russian demands could just be seen as a case of illegitimate political blackmailing that forces Ukrainian authorities to embrace the realpolitik of a gloomy yet necessary solution. Indeed if someone is forced to compromise on a ransom with kidnappers or cybercriminals or terrorists, does that imply that kidnappers, cybercriminals and terrorists have legitimate claims?! Hell no!

The fact is that if two countries claim that a certain territory belongs to them, they can't both be right. Russia certainly seems to have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine. — Apollodorus

It “certainly seems” to whom?! Considering that there are 2 Russian-Ukrainian treaties where Russia acknowledged Ukrainian territorial integrity (and Crimea is considered integral part of Ukraine by Ukrainian constitution), and there is a UN resolution against the Russian annexation of Crimea, it “certainly seems” to me that Russia does NOT have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine.

Unfortunately, you refuse to even contemplate Crimean independence and blindly believe your own CIA-NATO propaganda according to which Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine, Tibet MUST belong to China, Cyprus MUST belong to Turkey, etc. — Apollodorus

By “Crimean independence” do you mean as a sovereign state separated from both Ukraine and Russia? Why on earth would I refuse to contemplate this possibility?! I didn’t say anything that states or implies or suggests that. In turn, would you contemplate the possibility to make Crimea a neutral state independent from Ukraine and Russia?
Besides are the 2 treaties about the Ukrainian territorial integrity that Russia and Ukraine signed CIA-NATO propaganda?! Are you crazy?!

And, of course, if Ukraine has a right to be independent from the Soviet Union, Crimea also has a right to be independent from Ukraine. You seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten this, just as you "forgot" that Crimea was never Ukrainian! :grin: — Apollodorus

On the contrary, you seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten I explicitly questioned such claims of yours a while ago: “Unfortunately educated people can also see that “ownership”, as a juridical notion, presupposes an undisputed judicial authority ruling over those territories to assess ownership claims, while if the judicial authority ruling over those territories is disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, then… they are disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, so Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia depending on which competing party one sides with, and each competing party could accuse the other of violating the “rightful ownership” over their territory. And concerning the judicial dispute relevant in this war, take into account that there are 2 treaties between Russia and Ukraine (not “alleged” and arguably irrelevant promises made under the table) where Russia acknowledged the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine prior to the annexation of Crimea:
Belovezh Accords (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords
Budapest Memorandum (1994) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances"

How do you know America/NATO "didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine"? Where you there or something? America/NATO could perfectly well have encouraged that. It certainly encouraged NATO membership. And to become a member, a country needs to be independent. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus

I didn’t claim I know, on the contrary I asked you for your confirmation (“since America/NATO didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine and Crimea from Russia, at the end of the Soviet Union, right?”). So do you have any evidence that they had a role? Was this role relevant? If so, how come they had this role and, despite that, Russia acknowledged with 2 treaties Ukrainian (Crimean included) territorial independence from Russia? Did they have this role only Ukraine or also on all other independence referendum in ex-Soviet Union states? Do you even have evidences of such any encouragement from CIA-NATO to independence from Russia to compare with the “encouraged NATO membership” you are talking about?
In other words, until you prove me wrong about the legitimacy of Ukrainian/Crimean independence referendum results, raising self-serving vague doubts against their legitimacy despite they weren’t officially questioned by the involved parties in the first place, just because I wasn’t there or something, far from being rationally compelling, “certainly seems” a biased conspiracy speculation that I would leave to pro-Russian trolls. And you aren’t one, right?

If you can't decide which countries should belong to whom, then on what basis do you think you can decide on Crimea? — Apollodorus

On one side, I never questioned that ordinary Western citizens can decide whom they would politically side with among the relevant parties in this war. I just questioned some of your ideological criteria and certainties: “I strongly doubt that you (or anybody else for that matter) are really capable of an effective and impartial mapping of ethnic groups over territories to define sovereign states”. On the other side, my decision is based on a wider set of criteria than yours (including e.g. treaties, international and Western resolutions, defense&economic consequences, etc.), despite inherent doubts (e.g. given the dilemma between increasing the risks of a nuclear escalation and containing Russian terroristic expansionism, between supporting and questioning/counterbalancing the US hegemony in Western foreign politics ).

If, according to you, non-Western views are the views of "dominant elites that are unable of competing against Western dominant elites", then surely this shows that the dominant views are the views of elites. And this is precisely why we shouldn't stay fixated on elite narratives like those peddled by CIA-NATO trolls and bots, and consider the views of ordinary (and real) people from both sides. — Apollodorus

You are trying to infer from my claims more than what they actually support. Since there are differences in democratic “representativeness”, “cohesion”, and “influence” across Western and non-Western elites, I may exercise my skepticism about their declared views according to such differences (e.g. I can suspect a lot about American self-interest in this war as much as I can do for Putin’s ambitions to expand Russian sphere of influence behind both narratives, yet I doubt that Putin didn’t have any other alternative that were more palatable for everybody except for the US, than going to war against Ukraine, while the US&Ukraine didn't do anything to Russia comparatively as aggressive as Russia did against Ukraine).
Moreover, as I already pointed out, I’m also skeptical about the popular “populist” dichotomy (evil elites vs innocent&fooled people) and the same goes with your dichotomy between “ordinary (and real) people” narrative and “elite narrative”, also because ordinary people can believe in all kinds of deranged conspiracy theories to fight some “evil” elites while being unaware of serving other and maybe more “evil” elites.

Furthermore, considering that NATO is clearly involved in this conflict by supplying training, arms, cash, intelligence, propaganda, etc., to Ukraine while at the same time waging economic, financial, and information jihad on Russia, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss NATO, its US and UK leaders, their motives, and their aims.
You obviously think people shouldn't even mention NATO, America, England, EU, because, God forbid, it might expose the West's true imperialist agenda. And that's exactly what CIA-NATO bots are programmed to avoid at all costs. Not very successfully, though — Apollodorus

What?! I’ve been talking about the West from my first comment up until now: Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. You can continue your intellectual masturbation over the hypocrisy of the West all you want, but at this point the West should not tolerate a terrorist state that big that aggressive that close. "Very simple and easy to understand”.
Besides have I ever said anything at all about what you should or shouldn’t mention wrt the war in Ukraine?! Hell no. I just criticised your claims as much as you criticised mine and others’. In other words, questioned their rationality. And criticising is not suppressing other people’s opinions, right? So what on earth are you complaining about?!

Dude, if I’m a “deranged Putinist” to you, you are a “deranged NATO Nazi” to me. So, basically, we have nothing to say to each other. But this thread seems to be about the Ukraine business, not about you and me. — Apollodorus

Dude, if I never called you “deranged Putinist”, there are reasons: the main is that your dialectic approach is the problem, not the content. You would look deranged to me even if you were pro-NATO, or pro-America, or pro-Ukraine.

The fact is that I’ve criticized Russia extensively on other threads, including the crimes it has committed against its own people, the oligarchs, its collaboration with criminal dictatorships like Turkey, etc., etc. So, I think people who label me “pro-Russian” or “pro-Putin” are knowingly telling lies. — Apollodorus

Then that’s not my case, because I don’t know about your contributions in other threads. Besides I find it arguably irrelevant (see below).

Moreover, as I said, this thread is about the Ukraine crisis or conflict. Like all conflicts, there are two sides to it. On one side there is Russia, on the other side is America (+ UK, NATO, EU, G7, etc.). If some criticize one side, others are entitled to criticize the other. Otherwise, the discussion becomes one-sided and, ultimately, no discussion at all. — Apollodorus

Sure, and they also entitled to identify one another by which side they are criticising: pro-America or pro-Russia, given the way you framed the conflict (BTW you oddly forgot to mention Ukraine). Don’t you like it? anti-America or anti-Russia, is it better? That’s just a linguistic dispute: what is substantial is that you are not just criticising America/NATO, but providing legitimacy claims for the unilateral annexation of Crimea, independently from America/NATO. Indeed if Crimea belongs to Russia, as you claim, this has nothing to do with America/NATO, since America/NATO didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine and Crimea from Russia, at the end of the Soviet Union, right?
Certainly you could claim that you are not pro-Russian in the sense that you do not want Russia to rule over the world, you are for a multipolar world, so there should be no hegemonic superpower as the US is now. But this understanding (which I acknowledged a while ago by myself, despite your ineptitude to clarify this point) presupposes your ideological views, others could say that they are not pro-America/NATO they want just Ukraine sovereign, others could say that they are not pro-America/NATO but pro-Europe, etc. and for that reason they are more anti-Russian than anti-American/NATO. And the latter views can be combined with a multipolar or unipolar views, so your ideological position is just one among others. The point is still that if the war in Ukraine is framed as a war between America and Russia, it makes perfect sense to identify someone as pro-Russian or pro-America/NATO based on what party one sides with, and not on their ideological reasons, whatever they are, to side with one party or the other.

Maybe that’s what you’re aiming at because despite calling yourself “philosopher”, you clearly see this as a “political discussion” (your own phrase!) and you sound very much like a political activist and not so much like a philosopher. — Apollodorus

Dude, that’s a philosophy forum, so I guess it’s normal that we can discuss on political subjects with a philosophical attitude. That has nothing to do with how I call myself. And philosophers can also be political activists (see Sartre or Chomsky or Dugin or Bernard-Henri Lévy). You are desperately trying to make me look as some “unthinking” “political activist” (As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego, From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you), while serving me mainly straw man arguments or fatuous objections, looping through your propaganda speech, and raving about me wanting to suppress your criticisms (which are completely missing the target), and I am the political activist?! If you do not fully realise how projective and self-defeating this approach of yours is, then there is definitely something off with you.

I think my proposal that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners is pretty reasonable in a philosophical context. Yet you inexplicably react to it by cursing and getting mad:
no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means) — neomac — Apollodorus

I’m not questioning that you might find this principle reasonable and worth discussing in a thread about the war in Ukraine in a philosophy forum. I’m questioning its meaning (mapping territorial claims with “rightful owners” is not only difficult but highly controversial because there are conflicting ideological and normative principles at stake), its normative force (I don’t feel unconditionally committed to it) , and its application conditions (what kind of political action is this being “prepared to give Tibet back to Tibetans” supposed to correspond? What priority should it have wrt the war in Ukraine?). Add to that your polemical and deeply flawed dialectical attitude. All that explains the reaction you quoted.

There is nothing “Putinist” or “deranged” about suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. Nor is there anything unclear about the facts. — Apollodorus

Yet, unsuprisingly, I never ever claimed that it is deranged or Putinist suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. “Deranged” is arguing with me as if I made such a claim while ignoring my actual claims, and your asking me to “be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans”, where that expresses your ideological views, not mine!
Besides I strongly doubt that you (or anybody else for that matter) are really capable of an effective and impartial mapping of ethnic groups over territories to define sovereign states. But if you want to prove me wrong, then you could start with the map of the ethnic groups in Russia and China:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg/1200px-Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png
And tell me what territory should be returned to whom? BTW are sovereign states free to ally for their defense with other sovereign states once you have done all your mapping?

5. Historically, except for the very brief Khrushchev-instigated episode whose legitimacy is contested (1991-2014, i.e., 23 years to be precise), Crimea NEVER belonged to Ukraine. — Apollodorus

You are incomprehensibly ignoring the declaration of independence from Russia, and that there are 2 treaties between Ukraine and Russia where Russia recognised the Ukraine territorial sovereignty prior to the annexation of Crimea (tell me more about analogous treatises between China and Tibet). Besides if Crimea did already “belong” to Russia and not Ukraine, then Russia didn’t have to “annexe” anything.

That was the point I was making, I never said Russia should invade the Baltic or Scandinavian countries and even less England or America. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re making it up. — Apollodorus

If I really said such things you could quote me, but you can’t quote me because I didn’t make such claims. So you really are making straw man arguments, without if.

As for Zelensky, he seems to be another nutjob who's either confused or a liar. First he said everyone “should calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion”, then he said “WW3 has started” and later that “the end of the world has come”! One minute he says he “is ready to negotiate”, next minute he says he “will fight to the end”. One minute he says Ukrainian troops hiding in Mariupol “will never surrender”, next minute he says “Russia should let them go”. He accuses Germany of “financing Russia’s war” when many other countries have been and still are doing business with Russia. He accuses Russia of trying to “exterminate the Ukrainian people” when so far only a few thousand got killed out of 40 million (compare 150,000+ killed by America’s Iraq War), etc. — Apollodorus

If you don't find Zelensky credible why did you bring him up in support of your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia? Not to mention that, to your surprise I suppose, Zelensky was at least consistent in never affirming that Crimea belongs to Russia (so far).

Incidentally, the Ukraine issue here seems to be approached exclusively from a Western-NATO, i.e., minority-interest angle. This is unacceptable because the West is a minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of the world population – Russia, China, India, Africa, the Arab World, Latin America – do NOT see the conflict the same way the West does. I see no logical reason why non-Western views should be suppressed on a discussion forum! — Apollodorus

First of all, there are plenty of active contributors (including moderators) in this thread that are critical toward NATO and the US. Besides, posts expressing non-Western views can not be suppressed by ordinary users of this forum. So why on earth are you talking about suppression of non-Western views on a discussion forum?!
Second, it’s disputable that non-Western views represent the views of the overwhelming majority of the world population according to Western democratic standards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:Democracy_Index_2020.svg). So, until we settle this issue, I would find more cautious to claim that non-Western views are more likely a loose collection of non-Western dominant elites’ views, each with their interest angles, but likely still unable of competing against Western dominant elites in terms of cohesion and influence.

In sum, I really don’t know — Apollodorus

I thought so, dude.

Maybe, LOL. And who are the good ones?

Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Of course, if you say so and rofl about it, it MUST be certainly true then! :rofl:

As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego. — Apollodorus

Ditto, to a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things.

In any case, you obviously haven’t followed the discussion because your fabricated straw arguments are totally irrelevant and have not an ounce of merit to them. — Apollodorus

Which straw man arguments?!

It ought to be obvious that saying that Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine, does NOT make me pro-Russian. Territorial concessions have been suggested as a solution by Western analysts and even Zelensky has indicated that he is "willing to negotiate". So, I don't think it is that "deranged" at all. — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?!
First of all, I didn’t claim you look “deranged” in relation to your claim that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”. Your preposterous way of addressing my comments and related hysterical reactions are enough evidence for suspecting that there is something seriously off with you.
Second, if “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, how come that Russia “invaded” and “annexed” something that already belonged to them?! On the other side if “Crimea belongs to Russia” is a legitimacy claim to ideologically justify “invasion” and “annexation” then it ought to be obvious that this is a pro-Russian claim. And as long as you believe in it, then yes it obviously makes you obviously pro-Russian. Obviously.
Third, if that was an argument in support of your claim “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, then it is clearly a non sequitur. Making territorial concessions to Russia, doesn’t necessarily validate the pre-conception that those territories belong to Russia, it could just grant a legal status to an illegal status quo for the sake of ending a horrible war.
Not to mention that the reference to Zelensky "willing to negotiate” about territorial concessions in the links you reported doesn’t equate at all to acknowledging that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”:
Ukraine is ready to hold a dialogue with Russia on security guarantees, on the future of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, but is not ready to capitulate. This was stated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview for ABC News. […] As for the demands put forward by the Russian authorities, in particular regarding the recognition of the independence of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the Head of State noted that a compromise is possible on this point.
"It is important to me how people who want to be part of Ukraine will live there. I am interested in the opinion of those who see themselves as citizens of the Russian Federation. However, we must discuss this issue. As well as compromises on Crimea. We cannot recognize that Crimea is the territory of Russia. I think it will be difficult for Russia to recognize that this is the territory of Ukraine. I think we are smart enough to ensure that the decision on these two issues does not cause any revolutions within societies, so that people are satisfied with this decision: both those who live in those territories and those who live in Ukraine," said Volodymyr Zelenskyy and added that before the occupation these territories were part of Ukraine .
And not to mention that, during the referendum for independence, after the collapse of Soviet Union Crimea voted for their independence from Russia: “Much of the rest of the republic has ties going back three centuries to Russia. But even in the Crimea, where a strong sense of identity prevails among a sizable number of people of non-Ukrainian heritage, the result was 54 percent for independence”, so no matter if, according to your claim, Crimea belonged to Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/world/ex-communist-wins-in-ukraine-yeltsin-recognizes-independence.html

I think even the ignorant and the uneducated can see that I’m simply applying the general principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

Unfortunately educated people can also see that “ownership”, as a juridical notion, presupposes an undisputed judicial authority ruling over those territories to assess ownership claims, while if the judicial authority ruling over those territories is disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, then… they are disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, so Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia depending on which competing party one sides with, and each competing party could accuse the other of violating the “rightful ownership” over their territory.
And concerning the judicial dispute relevant in this war, take into account that there are 2 treaties between Russia and Ukraine (not “alleged” and arguably irrelevant promises made under the table) where Russia acknowledged the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine prior to the annexation of Crimea:
Belovezh Accords (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords
Budapest Memorandum (1994) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. — Apollodorus

Well it depends on what you mean by “imperialism”. For example, here is the definition from Wikipedia: Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent's foreign policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
This definition seems to apply to both Russia (for the Russian direct territorial acquisition of the Ukrainian Crimea and political control over Kiev’s government) and the US (for the American political control over the current Ukrainian government) wrt Ukraine. So, according to this definition and your claim, you should be equally against both (including the annexation of Crimea by Russia and any Russian puppet governments in Ukraine).

Plus, I’ve asked the NATO jihadis many times what they would do if they were in Russia’s shoes. I never got even one single answer. — Apollodorus

No wonder, that’s a tough question even for experts, I guess. But there are things that may come to mind for a starter. Considering the decline of NATO (given the role of Trump’s administration, who might run for a second mandate, and Macron’s ambition in accelerating this decline), the strong economic ties between Russia and European countries (especially Germany) and the economic leverage over Ukraine (thanks to the North Stream), Russia could have negotiated:

• postponing the entrance of Ukraine to NATO as far as possible (likely after the end of Putin’s government, say 2050), even make it conditional on the prior entrance of Ukraine to the EU
• stronger economic and diplomatic ties with European countries
• specific political agreements with NATO countries to ensure the autonomy of Crimea and the Donbas regions (on the ground of the ultra-nationalist propaganda and the US role in ousting a pro-Russian government in Ukraine), and the special status of Sevastopol in hosting the Black Sea Fleet, and made it conditional on specific military agreements with the US on their presence in Ukrainian territory and the Black Sea, while acknowledging some negotiation role to China and India as international mediators/guarantors.

This would have strengthen the international role of EU, China and India at the expense of NATO, let Russia gain time to become internationally stronger (by boosting their economy, modernising their arsenal, building their international alliance network), proved that Russia is not an aggressive foreign power as the US would have proved to be by rejecting those conditions, weakened the anti-Russian posture in the US establishment as well as NATO's raison d'etre (maybe with the help of Trump or the Republicans), and facilitated a shift of American rivalery from Russia to China.

As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” (↪neomac) after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (↪neomac). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl: — Apollodorus

You are conflating things I’ve said to address different points.
First of all, my Russian “direct existential threat to the West” claim was related to a list of conditions and not exclusively to Russian nuclear arsenal as your conveniently chopped quotation insinuates: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West”. The truth condition of “if a then z”, is not the same of “if a and b and c and d and e and f and g, then z”. That’s a simple logic test that you failed and keep on failing.
Second, concerning the nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats I never backpedaled, instead I later specified what I was referring to and why it is important: At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.
Meanwhile you arbitrarily chopped the following quotation of mine to fabricate yet another straw man argument: the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US)
In other words, at this point of the Ukrainian war, the risk of a Russian tactical nuclear strike has increased (as argued by too) and the West could be a likely target (in a mismanaged confrontation at the border with NATO countries) or in case of response from NATO countries to Russian first strike. And once the nukes have been unleashed things might spiral out of control.
Third, the reason for talking about a “direct” or “indirect” attack to the US is related to the claim that NATO is serving American self-interest (“NATO is an instrument of Atlanticism, i.e. primarily US self-interest”), so an attack to a NATO member is an attack to the American sphere of influence (indirect) not to American territory (direct).
Fourth, in the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed there is this clause among others: The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


Finally, concerning genesis and role of NATO, I won’t address the accuracy of your frantic historical reconstruction, but I find it clearly biased for 2 main reasons:
1. Even if one could argue that NATO guaranteed the subordination of European countries to American geopolitical interests, at the same time European countries (including the ones who lost during WW2) could enjoy economic prosperity, social-democratic institutions, and a long period of relative peace (BTW NATO expansion toward Ukraine might have as well served EU economic and energetic needs). And indeed for that reason NATO has become also a burden for the US (especially given the challenge to the Us supremacy coming from the emerging Chinese power).
2. Whatever the genesis of some institutions like NATO might be, that doesn’t preclude a possible unintended evolution that leads to its demise or radical revision from within. For example, even if United States of America were originally just a bunch of British colonies at some point they managed not only to become independent but also to supplant the British empire. By analogy, the European countries that could flourish under NATO umbrella for decades, may already nurture the seeds for a potential power competition between the US and Europe (an interesting reading about this is “A plan for a European Currency” (1969) by Robert A. Mundell, considered by many the father of the European Monetary Union) and the Ukrainian war might lead to some significant European defense awakening which the US doesn’t necessarily welcome as they officially claim to do (https://www.lawfareblog.com/german-conventional-deterrence-or-allied-integrated-deterrence-pick-one).

May I commend to you both the power of silence. This is too tedious to even try to understand. — unenlightened

All right, I see some good points in there, so I welcome your input. Yet I'm not here to entertain other people, besides this is a philosophical forum where certain peculiar intellectual exercises (like switching focus from ideological principles to meta-conversational principles) shouldn't appear as exotic or inappropriate as they could appear in more mainstream political debates. That's why I don't mind giving my contribution accordingly.

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible. — Apollodorus

As for (1) you didn’t show me that I misunderstood you before I showed you that you did misunderstand me, and repeatedly so. Therefore it’s you who needs to show me that you correctly understand me before complaining about my misunderstandings (and you didn’t show me any of my misunderstandings yet!). As for (2), I can’t make sure my statements are comprehensible to you if you conveniently chop them to build a straw man argument out of them.

From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you. — Apollodorus

To a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things, I guess.

The fact is that when I said "as far as I am concerned", I meant that it makes no difference to me personally, as it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. The conflict might put up my energy bills, but other than that, it makes no difference to me. Hence I have no personal interest in "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" as you falsely claimed. — Apollodorus

And where exactly did I make such a false claim?! As far as I remember, I never claimed anything that relates "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" with your “personal interest” or the impact of the war in Ukraine in your personal life. I was talking about your legitimacy claims (some of which I quoted) in favour of Russia and against NATO or for a more equitable world (which is again in line with what you attribute to non-Western powers’ views, including Russia, and against NATO aspirations to world hegemony), independently from your personal interest. These legitimacy claims are the only claims of yours I found pertinent to address so far, "as far as I am concerned”. These legitimacy claims show exactly that you are against NATO involvement in Ukraine, and can’t possibly square with this statement of yours “Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win” from a normative point of view exactly because if NATO with all its hypocrisy and predatory attitude - as you claim - were allowed to fight and win over Russia, destroy it and exploit whatever is left of Russia, then NATO would have deserved it as the best fighter, in spite of all your other legitimacy claims opposing this scenario.
While your dodging pertinent objections against your legitimacy claims by arbitrarily shifting focus from them to talking about your personal interest is a goofy or dishonest dialectical move that deserves to be either ignored or rebuked, "as far as I am concerned”.
In short, you provided yet again another straw man argument.

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. If you were prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, Kurdistan back to the Kurds, Germany back to the Germans, etc., then you might have some credibility. But as it is, you haven’t. IMO if you've got a rule or law, you must apply it consistently, not arbitrarily, otherwise it's just a joke. Unfortunately, there is no consistency whatsoever in the NATO position — Apollodorus

There are two reasons why I don’t find your “Western hypocrisy” kind of argument thrown at me (and others) as rationally compelling as you seem to believe:
1. Siding with NATO and against Russia wrt the war in Ukraine, doesn’t imply any (unconditional) ideological commitment to NATO expansionism and Western leaders/administrations’ choices, nor a dogmatic defence of Western foreign politics on both current and past affairs. As much as your siding with Russia and against NATO wrt the war in Ukraine doesn’t imply an (unconditional) ideological commitment to Russian imperialism, nor a dogmatic defence of Russian foreign politics on both current and past affairs. Yet I, you and other participants may have other ideological or pragmatic reasons to side either with NATO or Russia wrt the war in Ukraine. So if it’s possible for you to support Russia against NATO without being a pro-Russian troll, then it’s possible for me and others to support NATO against Russia without being a NATO jihadis.
2. Complaining about how fucked up the Western world and Western propaganda is an understandable and morally compelling reaction, yet turning that complaint into a reason for dismissing other political views just because they do not address or process Western injustice (even its impact at World scale, mind you!) in line with your general principles of democracy, equity and freedom is not only unjustified but dangerous.
It’s unjustified because as long as injustice is systemic, it is also the unintended outcome of cognitive asymmetries, moral hazards, bad habits and vicious loops embedded in complex societies. And for that reason systemic injustice can neither be entirely explained in terms of some popular “populist” narrative with agents moved by callous greediness for money or power on one side (the evil elite), and agents exploited and fooled by the former on the other side (the innocent mass), nor can be fixed at will, if only a large enough number of individuals could unite to oppose or revolt against the evil elites.
It’s dangerous because just preaching general principles and relying on the sheer force of a popular emotion (as the self-righteous’ indignation) in order to fix the World without having a fucking clue of what is feasible, sustainable, widely shareable and achievable in the medium-long term for individuals, decision makers and collectivities given all material, moral and cognitive constraining factors of our human condition might not only fail to fix the World, but it could arguably make it worse.

So, no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means), nor I have to rely on NATO position consistency (whatever the fuck that means), to side with NATO countries in support of Ukraine against Russia. And no, I don't take fixing the World as an unconditional moral imperative for my political choices, nor I see how we are closer to that objective by making concessions to Putin's aggressive expansionist ambitions.

Well, if a statement is "more articulated" that doesn't make it more logical, comprehensible, or true, does it? — Apollodorus

Yet it proves that yours was a straw man argument based on a misinterpreted bit of what I wrote.

You're claiming that my "propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism”. But you have completely failed to demonstrate (a) that my statements were "propaganda" and (b) that they have any impact on Russia's foreign policy. — Apollodorus

Completely failed?! How so? I usually don’t even try to “demonstrate” what I take to be evident or common knowledge.
But if that’s your challenge to me, ok let’s address it. Starting with (b), your accusation looks three times pointless to me: first of all, my claim that your propaganda is “instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism” is simply acknowledging its instrumental role in this war of propaganda, not assessing its specific impact. By analogy, saying that that knife is for cutting bread, doesn’t mean that knife is used or has ever been used to cut bread or is effective in cutting bread.
Second, I don’t even see the rational of requiring such an assessment in ordinary political debates like ours. Assessing the specific impact of your specific claims may be pertinent as a scientific task, I guess. But my claim is still rationally compelling despite the lack of such an assessment, or even due to the lack of such an assessment. Indeed propaganda is not only matter of sources and methods but also of content virality wrt a certain social environment. Considering that in Western democratic societies one can take part in free public debates and vote to have an impact on leaders’ policies also wrt the war in Ukraine (and indirectly wrt Russia's foreign policy), pro-NATO or anti-NATO propaganda narratives can compete in order to influence public opinion accordingly (letting aside all other more or less questionable ways available to militants to proselytise and fight the system from within, of course). Besides thanks to the internet and the social networks non-mainstream and anti-system propaganda have become more pervasive, impactful and easier to infiltrate by hostile powers too. All that considered, uncertainty about the risks of spreading propaganda about controversial issues plausibly increases a default aversion toward ideological opponents in those who are risk averse (by analogy we take default counter measures against covid-19 and expect the same from others, even if we don’t exactly know the medical condition and actual impact of spreading the virus in our and other cases).
And, third, you too must know all that already since you keep stressing the role of propaganda in this thread:
“Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.”
“The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda”.
“And let's face it, every major power wants more power. The only difference is the tools you employ to acquire power, financial, economic, political, military, or any combination of these, and the narrative you use for justification, "world peace", "economic progress", "democracy", "human rights", etc. ”


Concerning (a), besides the fact that you keep complaining about Western propaganda (e.g. “The problem with Americans and Westerners in general is that they tend to be either uneducated or miseducated. It’s hard to tell which is worse, but the result in either case is that Westerners can’t see through their own ignorance and propaganda.”, “The West is, literally, an island of ignorance and self-serving propaganda promoted by the US-controlled global media”), you do not seem to do it exclusively based on your selected repertoire of alleged “facts” at all but also because motivated by your own justificatory narrative which you have been very vocal about on several occasions in this thread: e.g. you wrote “a real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table. As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.
This attitude of yours is perfectly in line with non-Western powers’ narrative as you described them (“IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population”).
Add to this, your biased intellectual approach (just see how you grossly and conveniently misunderstood my claims about Russia being an existential threat to Europe and then tried to minimise Russian nuclear threats) and polemical rhetorical attitude (see the usage of loaded language e.g. NATO jihadis), and what you get is exactly your propaganda, actually one that’s very much in line with the claims of other participants in this thread.
Finally, it’s not uncommon among those who support certain controversial propaganda narratives to deny that even when it’s evident, and this is what makes them also intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, I never said I was "against Western involvement in Ukraine", so there really is no need for you to make things up. As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus

Yes, I am against NATO and against the EU because I am against imperialism. But I think discussion forums are for people to exchange views without resorting to ad hominems and insults. — Apollodorus

Well then I never said you said it either, nor I made anything up since that claim was logically implied by many other claims of yours: basically, you see the Western involvement in Ukraine (or as you called it “America’s economic and military jihad in the region”) as an expression of NATO imperialism and you are against NATO because you are against imperialism. Even more so because you see Western imperialism as illegitimate contrary to the Russian imperialism which you see as legitimate. You also claimed: “EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government”. And: “no, I'm not ‘pro-Russian’, just anti-NATO and anti-US hegemony. And definitely against world government”.
In other words, you are against illegitimate imperialism, even more so if it’s likely leading to world government, which Western involvement in Ukraine you claim is all about. Then yes you are against Western involvement in Ukraine. As for the social-darwinist flavour of this claim of yours “As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win”, it simply makes no sense wrt your own legitimacy claims in favour of Russia/non-Western powers and against US/NATO.

If I find it appropriate, I don’t mind resorting to “ad hominems and insults” as much as you don’t when making comments such as “It looks like some folks have their heads so deep in NATO propaganda”, “Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic”, especially against intellectual dishonest interlocutors like you are proving to be. Yet it's not what I'm here for, so as long there are more pertinent arguments to address, the exchange can continue.

Ukraine entering NATO may or may not be a nuclear threat to Russia. That's for Russia to decide, not for you or me. But the situation is much more complex than that. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it might try to push Russia out of Crimea. This would be unacceptable to Russia (a) because Crimea has never been Ukrainian, (b) because this would result in NATO control of the Black Sea which Russia needs for access to the Mediterranean, and (c) because Crimea has been the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet for centuries (from 1783, to be more precise): Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia
So, I think an objective analysis of the situation needs to consider the concerns of both sides, not just one. — “Apollodorus

I acknowledge the strategic importance of Crimea from a military and commercial point of view (actually I myself brought this issue up a while ago). Yet this is not how this war was explicitly justified by Russian propaganda in the first place (i.e. denazification of Ukraine, broken promises of NATO expansion), nor something the Westerns can now concede to Russia so easily given the confrontational attitude of Russia toward the West and its military presence in Middle East and Africa. And the claim that’s “up to Russia to decide” sounds preposterous because it conflates a trivial observation with a questionable understatement: ordinary citizens’ political contribution is obviously limited to ideological support (in debates and during elections) not in political decision making as political leaders so what’s the point of mentioning me and you?! At the same time the allusive normative force of your otherwise pointless claim is questionable on geopolitical and ideological grounds.

Anyway, if you think that "the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies", and is "not waiting", then there is nothing to worry about. — Apollodorus

Of course there is, because “wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc.” So consensus can be eroded as well as support for certain foreign policy measures.

So, I'm not sure who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. A country that has never done it, or one that has? — Apollodorus

Your way of assessing the likelihood of such an event is preposterous, given that the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US). Besides after the Cuban missile crisis, it became a political and military imperative for major nuclear powers to regulate the usage of their weapons within the boundaries of an officially declared, strictly codified, and implemented logic of deterrence. At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.

1. First you said that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is a threat. But all nuclear arsenals are a potential threat, including those of America, Britain, and France. — Apollodorus

I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. First of all, I didn’t focus on the nuclear threat per se. What I said was more articulated: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. ”
That is what makes Russia under Putin a direct existential threat to the West. Not a single condition but a set of conditions, including the nuclear threat. And it’s not only question of human lives and territorial integrity, but also of institutions and wellbeing.

2. Then you said that Russia is a threat and/or Putin invaded Ukraine because of my “propaganda”, which sounds pretty incomprehensible and irrational to me. — Apollodorus

No I didn’t say that either. You wrote “if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I’ve got nothing to do with it!”. I simply said you do have something to do with Russia invading Ukraine b/c Russia is not just conducting a war in Ukraine, but also a worldwide propaganda war to gain support and stir aversion toward Western involvement in Ukraine against Russian criminal expansionism. And your propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism.

3. The quotes you posted do not show that the US regards Russia as an imminent nuclear threat. Statements like “if someone does x, we’re going to do y”, do not support your claim. — Apollodorus

So what?! I never used the expression “imminent nuclear threat”. And even Ukraine entering NATO wasn’t an imminent nuclear threat to Russia, yet Putin waged war against Ukraine and started menacing the West with nuclear threats every other day. The risk of escalation (especially in the usage of tactical nukes by that Russians) as suggested by the Russian nuclear doctrine, Russian politicians’ declarations, and Russian performance on the battle field is what the West must deal with well before any imminent nuclear threat.

4. And now you’re saying that “Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this”. If that is the case, why are you waiting???!!! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Who is waiting?! The West is neither deterred by Russian nuclear escalation threats from supporting Ukraine given the growing military support to Ukraine (BTW the latest US security package for Ukraine, includes gear designed to protect Ukrainian forces from nuclear, biological and chemical exposure), regime of sanctions against Russia, and rearming programs against Russian military threats (while Finland and Sweden plan to join NATO). Nor refraining from developing and coordinating their deterrence strategies against Russian nuclear threats: the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies (not to mention that the current Russian nuclear posturing was practically foreshadowed since 2018). And things are on the move in terms of nuclear deterrence preparation inside many European countries (e.g. Poland announced its readiness to host US nukes).

Dude, whether Ukraine joining NATO is a security threat to Russia or not, is for Russia to decide, not for you or me. — Apollodorus

Dude, whether Russia is a security threat to Ukraine or not, is for Ukraine to decide.

In any case, if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I've got nothing to do with it! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Sure you do with your propaganda.

Dude, says WHO??? — Apollodorus

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin:
Russia’s most recent threats of escalating its attack on Ukraine into a nuclear conflict are “unhelpful” and “irresponsible,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Tuesday.  “You’ve heard us say a number of times that that kind of rhetoric is very dangerous and unhelpful,” Austin told reporters following a meeting with military leaders from more than 40 countries at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. 
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3463700-pentagon-chief-irresponsible-for-russia-to-talk-about-potential-nuclear-escalation/

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was just a month old, but Kendall noted the danger of escalation: “We’re dealing with a nuclear-armed state; you cannot ignore that as you make decisions about how to respond.” […] “World War II-style conflict that could involve nuclear weapons is not in anybody’s interest,” Kendall stressed in our interview last month. “That’s pretty obvious. But that doesn’t mean that somebody is not going to make a mistake in taking an aggressive action, thinking that the other side is not going to fight and then finds out that they do.” That, he said, “ends in a very difficult situation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/russia-ukraine-nuclear-pentagon-budget/


CIA Director William Burns:
"Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they've faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons," Burns said during a speech in Atlanta.
The Kremlin said it placed Russian nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the assault began February 24, but the United States has not seen "a lot of practical evidence" of actual deployments that would cause more worry, Burns added, speaking to students at Georgia Tech university.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220414-live-major-russian-warship-seriously-damaged-in-explosion-as-ukraine-claims-strike

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg:
underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Rival nuclear powers monitor one another as a matter of everyday routine. At the end of the day, you react to a threat if you identify a threat. And you can identify a threat only by monitoring your opponent. So, you monitor your opponent irrespective of their being or not an imminent threat. — Apollodorus

Sure, but the pressure depends on the perceived risks, indeed:

“In late February, when President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared that his country’s nuclear arms were entering “special combat readiness,” America’s surveillance gear went on high alert. Hundreds of imaging satellites, as well as other private and federal spacecraft, began looking for signs of heightened activity among Russia’s bombers, missiles, submarines and storage bunkers, which hold thousands of nuclear warheads.”
“Dr. Lowenthal, the former C.I.A. assistant director and now a senior lecturer at Johns Hopkins, said he found the personnel aspect of Moscow’s escalatory process the most troubling. We can develop a good baseline on what’s normal” and routine in the movement of Russian nuclear arms, he said. “It’s the internal stuff that’s always worrisome.” Imaging satellites, after all, cannot see what people are doing inside buildings and bunkers. He said the main uncertainty was “the level of automaticity” in Russia’s escalatory war alerts […] You’re never quite sure” how Russia goes about authorizing the use of nuclear arms, Dr. Lowenthal said. “That’s the kind of thing that makes you nervous.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/science/nuclear-weapon-russia-satellite-tracking.html

“The White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials to sketch out scenarios of how the United States and its allies should respond if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — frustrated by his lack of progress in Ukraine or determined to warn Western nations against intervening in the war — unleashes his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/biden-russia-nuclear-weapons.html

Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this.

Dude, Russia has had a nuclear arsenal for decades and I don't see Russia invading Paris, London, or New York! — Apollodorus

I didn't see Kiev, Paris, London or New York invading Russia either. Yet Russia was considering Ukraine joining NATO and EU as an existential threat to them to the point of wage war against Ukraine and threatening the West to escalate to a nuclear war every other day.

Plus, here's an official Pentagon statement:
We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory
U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric - Reuters
Maybe you live in some remote area where there is no news or they can't read? :grin: — Apollodorus

Dude, reading is not enough, one has to actually understand what one reads too.
So, first of all, there would be no pressure into monitoring “nuclear capabilities every day the best we can” despite the rhetoric if there was no threats in the first place (some listed in the very article you linked, here you find some more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/, here some others https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089533705/putin-publicly-put-russian-nuclear-forces-on-high-alert-what-should-we-make-of-t?t=1651589513787, here some more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-moscow-kyiv-626a8c5ec22217bacb24ece60fac4fe1, here some more from Russian propaganda and think thank pundits https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/05/03/russian-propaganda-escalates-laying-ground-for-nuclear-strike/, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/04/russia-cannot-afford-to-lose-so-we-need-a-kind-of-a-victory-sergey-karaganov-on-what-putin-wants). Iran for its alleged threats and without actual nuclear capabilities is subject to a total embargo from the West, antagonised through proxy wars and aborted attempts of regime change.
Second, I wasn’t exclusively referring to the current scenario but also to the risks of escalation as one of your zealous fellows has warned all of us about [1], which Westerners can’t take lightly, even more so Europeans since they are exposed to Russian nuclear threats far more than the US, while being heavily but not unconditionally dependent on the US intelligence and military capacity to contain this threat. Weren’t the case we would have seen a no fly zone declaration already. BTW, if the West was accused of ignoring Russian grievances against NATO expansion, now the West can’t ignore Russian nuclear threats, can they? Russians could take this underestimation as a provocation and escalate just to prove a point, right? Many Westerners couldn't believe Russia would have started this war despite American warnings and Russian fake assurances [2]. And given how shitty Russians seem to perform in this war there is a greater risk that with their obsolete military doctrine organisation technology they could cause troubles beyond their intention for themselves and for the Westerners.


[1]

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.
There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better. — boethius

[2]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468264
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-22-22/h_e6582bb2eb31e968a08bc25ea6e2bee3

That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced? — Benkei

Where have I suggested that you suggested it? You wrote: "So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with". Your evaluation was partial, so "in all fairness" I completed it: would we be more fortunate or equally fortunate to be aligned with Russia? Hell, no.

Your assumption Ukraine needed Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. — Benkei

My assumption is that “plenty of experts since the late 90s” weren't enough to convince many Eastern European countries about "principled neutrality", including Ukrainians b/c on 7 February 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted with a majority of 334 out of 385 to change the Ukrainian constitution to help Ukraine to join NATO and the European Union, despite all western reluctance to accept Ukraine b/c of Russia and the weakening of NATO. Maybe EU and Ukraine do not act like pawns, nor the US and Russia are acting like chess masters, as much as post-Cold War experts have figured out.

If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei

Who knows? All I know is that Ukrainians have been fighting for their independence and self-determination against Russian central governments for centuries. That they were victim of a genocide under Soviet ruling. That they preferred the Nazis to the Soviets. Now the EU and NATO to the Russians. And Russian imperialism pre-dates the American one and isn't aging well either given the delirious talks one can hear from certain prominent Russian putinists.
Besides, since "in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence" then you could claim at best if the US and Russia had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened.

Europe as its forward pawn — Tzeentch

That's the geopolitical game, dear Pollyanna. Any pawn must play its role as a pawn as best as possible to get a chance to become a queen.

So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe. — Benkei

Not as unfortunate as if we were aligned with Russia: we needed NATO to protect us from the Soviet Union as much as Ukraine needed NATO to protect themselves from Russia (Ukrainians preferred Nazism to Russian assimilation, go figure!). And there are self-aware European nuclear parties too (https://www.france24.com/en/20200207-macron-unveils-nuclear-doctrine-warns-eu-cannot-remain-spectators-in-arms-race).

And I don't see you guys campaigning for China to give back Tibet or for Turkey to return Cyprus and other territories stolen from the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and many other nations. — Apollodorus

Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. You can continue your intellectual masturbation over the hypocrisy of the West all you want, but at this point the West should not tolerate a terrorist state that big that aggressive that close. "Very simple and easy to understand".

Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. — Bartricks

As I said: "I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about 'reason'". So I dealt with claims and arguments of yours I found more philosophically pertinent.

Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win. — Bartricks

Sure, sport, don't believe all those who tell you otherwise. Do you wanna a lollipop?

If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculties of reason are so good they've entered the canon of great thinkers - represents events to have causes, that doesn't count for anything because the great neomac's reason makes no such representation. Ooo, mustn't contradict the great neomac's reason - his reason, uniquely among us, is our sole source of insight into reality. Get over yourself. — Bartricks

Dude, I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about "reason". Suck it up and move on.

Yeah, I'm not arguing anything, just blurting things.
What argument? What is your argument? Note, you seem to think the possibility that events may lack causes is some kind of evidence against simultaneous causation. How? How does that work, exactly? — Bartricks

You are confused. I argued that: “‘There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction.’ Even the notion of ‘event’ doesn't analytically imply ‘being caused’” to point out that self-creation understood as a form of self-causation is a metaphysical hypothesis (and parasitic to the notion of “causality”) one has to argue for. That’s all.

YOu don't seem to understand what my argument is. It is in the OP. I argued that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

And I claim that it is not true that is the “only reason” to think that self-creation is incoherent is that causes must precede their effects, because even if causes and effects are simultaneous we could still argue that the notion of self-creation is incoherent (see below).

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes?
What caused X to come into existence? X. — Bartricks

Here my counter arguments against this answer:

• Semantic artifice: “our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct ‘relata’ and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of ‘self-creation’ claims”. It’s “creation” as “bringing into existence at t2 from non-existence at t1” and not “causality” that requires the pre-existence of the creator wrt creature (e.g. the hen laying her eggs, the artist painting his portrait on the canvas, the blooming tree with its flowers).
• Fallacious explanation: “If ‘X creates Y and X = Y’ is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (‘Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then.’) fails. The explanation is only ‘apparent’ as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless)”.

It is self-evident to reason that events have causes. Evidence that it is self-evident to reason is the fact that throughout history it has been appealed to by those whose faculties of reason seem among the very best. The burden of proof, then, is squarely on you. — Bartricks

That’s at best evidence to you not to me, since that all “events have causes” is not self-evident to me for logic and semantic “reasons” as I clarified. And if whatever you call “reason” is in conflict with logic and semantics then “intellectual confusion” would be a more appropriate way to call it for sure.

So if you want, you can continue to insist - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that some events lack causes, but you'll just be off topic. — Bartricks

My argument is based on logic and semantics, and that’s all I need to argue about “consistency” as far as I’m concerned. Not to mention the fact that you yourself didn’t offer any evidence to support your claim that something can create itself out of nothing. You just offered an argument that “simultaneous causation” would solve the putative inconsistency of “self-creation” as you formulated it. The problem to me is that “simultaneous causation” is not enough, you would need additional metaphysical hypotheses (like “events have causes”) as well as some semantic artifice (e.g. our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct “relata” and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of “self-creation” claims). That’s why I don’t think I’m off topic as much as you didn’t seem to think you were off topic when you brought your disputable metaphysical hypothesis up in the first place.

It turns out, then, that you accept that simultaneous causation is coherent. Why, then, do you think self-creation is incoherent? Explain. — Bartricks

If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between a non-existent X and an existent Y then the claim would be incoherent because X would be existing and non-existing at the same time, since X = Y.
If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (“Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then.”) fails. The explanation is only “apparent” as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless).

Nuclear war is 'most probable outcome', viewers are told, 'but we will go to heaven while they simply croak'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10762143/Ukraine-war-Russian-state-TV-says-nuclear-strike-probable-losing.html

more and more like a jihad

Because events have causes. Odd that you think causes must precede their effects, but think effects don't have to have causes!
I think causes do not have to precede their effects. You think I'm wrong about that (or do you think I'm right, in which case you agree with me but don't realize it). Yet you think effects don't need to have causes! — Bartricks

Dude you are twice delusional. I never claimed that cause must precede its effect. Instead I explicitly argued for the simultaneous co-existence of cause and effect if cause is to be understood as a relation in metaphysical terms (which is something you didn't clarify yet). Indeed relations metaphysically depend on the existence of all the terms they relate. Besides if cause and effect were in strict temporal succession, then when the cause occurs, then the effect doesn't, and when the effect occurs, then the cause doesn't. So there would be no intelligible interaction between the causal factor and its effect.
Again, what is your argument to support the idea that all events have causes?! As I said "There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction." Even the notion of "event" doesn't analytically imply "being caused". Yours is just an additional metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for. So your claims are odd and unmotivated. And evidently so.

You're just begging the question. You keep banging on about identity — Bartricks

No I didn't, precisely because self-identity holds independently from self-creation and the latter is under question. On the other side, you begged the question by implicitly inserting a metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for "Because events have causes".

you are the one who thinks that if X simultaneously causes X to exist then X is preserving X not creating X — Bartricks

Stop strawmanning. I never made such a claim, nor implied, nor suggested. I was talking about existence preservation just as an alternative to self-creation.

You seem to think that if God created himself, then he wouldn't be God. I don't know why you think that. To be God a person simply needs to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Why do they need 'not' to have created themselves? Odd. — Bartricks

I didn't claim that, nor implied that, nor suggested that. I took into consideration the notion of "God" when talking about existence preservation, not self-creation. I just surmised you might go in that direction, that's all. Anyway "self-creation" is either an incoherent metaphysical notion or explanatorily empty.

Engage in the following thought experiment. Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then. It brought itself into being. That's perfectly coherent if simultaneous causation is coherent (which it is). — Bartricks

Why does "popping into existence" without cause is incoherent?! There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction.

You don't seem to understand what simultaneous causation involves. The cause exists as does the effect. You seem to be thinking that in a case of self-creation, the thing doing the creating does not yet exist. No, it exists simultaneous with its effect, it is just that in this case the effect is itself. — Bartricks

What?! If cause X and effect Y both simultaneously exist and X=Y, there is no creation of Y by X, precisely because the existence of Y is granted by the identity between X and Y so there is no need of whatever causal-thingy between them you are raving about. The notion of "cause" in your case makes literally no sense. Period. You made such a preposterous claim probably because you didn't clarify to yourself what "cause" means in metaphysical terms and, at the same time, you are misled by the putative explanatory power of the notion of "cause" based on some intellectual compulsion ("Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then", which looks very much like a circular argument meant to avoid an infinite regress, and both are fallacious).

Why are you saying that we have 'preserving into existence'? I don't even know what that means. — Bartricks

I already explained that: "at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation." Preserving existence from ceasing to exist. That's what I think it would make more sense for you to contend, but it's not self-creation.

Russian casualties in Ukraine. Mediazona investigation
https://zona.media/translate/2022/04/25/bodycount_eng

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them. — boethius

Why not? As you said, Putin has figured all out, already. He will win anyways. And his people will support any leader who proves how powerful Russia is. Besides the Ukrainians are Nazis, America bombed Japan with strategic nukes even if there was no existential threat to America, why shouldn’t Russia be able to justify an attack with tactical nukes against a Nazi government committing genocides against Russians, threatening to use chemical weapons against Russians, with the support of corrupt and blood thirsty capitalist imperialists?! Is Putin too stupid or too coward? Because either way the Westerners will profit from his stupidity and cowardice and continue the war precisely because Putin refuses to escalate.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies. — boethius

Oh I see, so you are saying that Kremlin is waiting for the green light from China and India to fire tactical nukes? Why? Why does Putin need to wait if he will win anyways and why would his allies not support him if his victory will definitely show to the world how US and NATO are powerless?

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective. — boethius

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. Actually it's weird that he didn't use them yet. Is Putin too stupid to realize it ? Putin can always blame the West and say that he was forced to do it despite the repeated warnings. Why didn't he do launch nuclear tactic weapons yet? Is Putin such a coward pussy? C'mon there is no serious risk for Russia: sanctions are ineffective, India and China are with Russia, Putin will still be in power, fucking capitalist imperialism has tired everybody already, the West has no courage to retaliate, and it bears exactly all the responsibility if everything goes to shit. What is Putin still waiting? He would be at worst "only" victorious in Ukraine, at best the savior of all human kind. We should be all in favour of nuclear escalation if that's the only way to end the war for good.

Er, no, they would be existent as cause and existent as effect. — Bartricks

If they simultaneously exist, there is no bringing into existence from non-existence (as creation is normally understood) but at best preserving into existence.

You've just made the 'the cause would need to precede the effect' objection — Bartricks

No, I'm talking about ontological dependency between properties/relations and the entities they are predicated of. If X is taller than Y, "taller than" as a relation is predicated of X and Y while X and Y are existing. It's possible that the relation holds simultaneously to the existence of both terms and the terms can not exist without being in such relation (this is the case for internal relations). The issue is that if one of the terms doesn't exist then relations/predicates can not be instantiated while if all terms exist there is no bringing into existence from non-existence as "creation" is normally understood.

As I said earlier, the claim is not that something can come out of nothing - it remains true that nothing causes nothing — Bartricks

Then it's not self-creation as normally understood ("the act or process of making something that is new, or of causing something to exist that did not exist before" source: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/creation?q=creation) but at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation.
Besides if you are talking about your god, why does your god need to preserve itself into existence? He is all mighty and perfect, so he would not suffer from any decaying process, nor need to preserve itself into existence.

The only reason to think self-creation is impossible is the idea that to create one's self one would have to exist 'prior' to one's own existence. And the only reason to think that is the idea that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

No, that's not true. If self-creation is understood as a form of simultaneous causation then the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

How can we see which way motion goes by looking at a point? — Haglund

Again, I would distinguish between what is the case (metaphysical question) and what we can "see" (epistemological question).

Anyway the notion of "point" is a useful abstraction, but what the spatial notion of "point" doesn't seem able to render is precisely the dynamic nature of events. Events are transitional states of things, properties and relations in their becoming. As such they are intrinsically dynamic and can't be understood without reference to the time. So the notion of "motion" itself is a dynamic concept not because it relates to space, but because it relates to time.

Because breaking implies motion. An event is a point. — Haglund

are you talking about Zeno's paradox? The impossibility of having motion on a single point of the time series?

A bit paradoxically... A breaking glas an event? — Haglund

A glass breaking is an instantaneous event. Why do you see it as paradoxical?

As far as I can tell from my philosophical readings, events are temporal phenomena that can be extended or instantaneous: parties, watching movies, playing chess, calculating an equation are considered examples of temporally extended events. Explosions, particle decays, date expiration, snapping fingers are considered examples of temporally instantaneous events. Not sure to understand the link you see between the notions of “event”, “causality”, and the question of the reversibility or the direction of motion (or time).

Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. — Haglund

We should distinguish epistemology from ontology. The incapacity of identifying cause and effect is not a reason to reject of the simultaneity of cause and effect. The metaphysical argument why cause and effect should be simultaneous goes roughly as follows. If causality is a relation, then it presupposes the existence of the related terms, because relations (at least external relations) are existence-entailing, one cannot have a relation without its relata: aRb cannot obtain unless both a and b exist. But if the existence of the cause precedes the existence of its effect, then when the cause exists the effect doesn’t, while when the effect exists the cause doesn’t exist anymore. So if there is no moment in which they co-exist then there can not be any relation between them, therefore not even a causal relation.
The problem of distinguishing cause and effect as events could be overcome if we consider that events can be temporally extended entities and that the causal relation between them requires the simultaneity of some moments: e.g. the rolling ball A hits the still ball B at t1 causing B to move. Then, the event of A ball’s rolling and the event of B ball’s moving are simultaneously and causally correlated at t1 (exactly when A hits and B starts moving, cause and effect).

cause and effect

Simultaneous causation is coherent. Simultaneous causation applied to self-creation no, because the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

No, but they'd be fighting for freedom from criminality, not for their country, which is merely an incidental grouping. — Isaac

Still, the people would be fighting for sovereignty or self-determination not for a country. — Isaac

You just conceded enough to grant moral plausibility to the Ukrainian patriotic resistance against Russian criminal invasion. And if that's all I can get from your preposterous claims, fine with me.

I've hopefully been clear that I've no interest in these games. If you we're interested you'd have found them by now (unless you're very young), so your comment is intended to show (somehow) that I can't find them. But I knew that before I started, and so did you. So I obviously can find them (otherwise I wouldn't have made the claim, I'm clearly not an idiot), you know that, but you also know anything I find will be sufficiently vague (not to mention directly critiqued, somewhere) for you to oppose it. But I know that too, and you know I must know it. So why, exactly, are we bothering? — Isaac

Enjoy your echo chamber then.

I can't account for your inability to make sense of fairly common positions. — Isaac

"Fairly common positions" among people who share your "stupid" views (according to your own definition), I could concede that to you. But there isn't much one can make sense of in self-defeating positions like yours anyways.

> If one is fighting against criminal aggression then one's country is immaterial. It's perfectly possible for both Ukrainians and Russians to fight against criminal aggression together.
The moral element is the criminality, not the countries. Anyone fighting the criminality is behaving morally, anyone supporting it is not. Regardless of the country they pledge allegiance to.

But that doesn’t exclude that Ukrainians could fight Russians because their aggression is criminal either. And there is nothing in the meaning of the word “criminality” that excludes that an act of aggression is criminal precisely because it violates one's country national sovereignty and self-determination.


> They're generally in journals, preprint servers, libraries, bookshops…

Can you literally quote and reference any of these studies?


> Someone proposes moral relativism and logical non-realism (two perfectly normal philosophical positions) and you terminate the discussion, lest you encounter views counter to your preferred world views.

No it’s simply that the word “preference” loses its contrastive meaning in the way you use it. Neither logic nor moral is matter of preference. You simply make no sense, dude.

> It's used to describe behaviours and attitudes such as avoiding thousands more innocent people dying.

Does the meaning of “moral” exclude fighting for one’s own country and identity against a criminal aggression from another nation as moral?

> Then you are a true exception to all of humanity that's ever been studied. Well done.

Really?! Where are these studies that show that all of humanity has world views and then looks for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support their pre-established world views?

> Both of these are impossible tasks. I cannot 'show you' how your reasoning goes wrong because whether an argument is reasonable or not is an opinion you hold about it, I can't show you it isn't any more than I can show you that my cup of tea is nice.
Even if I made an argument as simple as "Either A, or ~A", you could still dispute it by rejecting the LEM. What we're discussing is massively more complicated. The idea that either of us could present some 'logical' argument that somehow 'proves' one side or the other is laughable. You're either persuaded by my argument, rhetoric and all, or you're not. That's entirely your preference.

After moral also logic is matter of preference. I think we are done here.