just more lies about my claims, strawman arguments, reiterated conceptually confused claims, and more shitty Russian propaganda, as if you didn't humiliate yourself enough. I'll let you enjoy your intellectual misery. Yuck!

You're doing no more than expose your abject ignorance. But do carry on, by all means .... :lol:

There's a difference. — ssu

There may be a difference.

However, my point was that (a) even local combatants in those countries don't care much about civilian casualties and (b) the same applies to Western powers that instigate civil wars or uprisings for their own ends, resulting in civilian casualties.

Plus, you're making the same mistake as @Olivier. Focusing exclusively on the number of dead civilians prevents you from seeing the wider ramifications of a conflict and its causes.

As I said, it is true that Russia started the military conflict. But it is equally true that NATO could have avoided the conflict if it had taken into consideration Russia's legitimate security interests.

After all, there must be a reason why Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas region, and not Finland or America, for example.

a reason why Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas region, — Apollodorus

Ports and oil, I'd imagine, using Deep Throat's principle, 'follow the money'.

Talk of ethnicity, democracy, denazification, de-islamification, or removal of oppression, always seem to become important near oilfields.

Talk of ethnicity, democracy, denazification, de-islamification, or removal of oppression, always seem to become important near oilfields. — unenlightened

:100:

Ports and oil, I'd imagine, using Deep Throat's principle, 'follow the money'. — unenlightened

Funny how selectively applied such an aphorism is.

Really? do you have a recent war to which it doesn't apply?

Really? do you have a recent war to which it doesn't apply? — unenlightened

I meant by pundits, not perpetrators.

So you agree that it applies impartially to West and East, North and South, Capitalist and Communist, saint and sinner. :smile:

But then you want to try and make a partisan point of it. :sad:

you want to try and make a partisan point of it. :sad: — unenlightened

I'm not sure what partisan point you thought I was making, but you've misunderstood. The complaint is against idiots regurgitating media talking points and pretending they're arriving at them via some use of intellectual analysis.

Following the money is, more often than not, applied only post hoc after deciding who the target of blame should be.

Following the money is, more often than not, applied only post hoc after deciding who the target of blame should be. — Isaac

And who is the target of your blame for this reprehensible post hoc deciding?

And who is the target of your blame for this reprehensible post hoc deciding? — unenlightened

In general or specifically? The former are self-defined (those that do it), just as my target for criticism of racism are racists, no further categorisation is justified.

Specifically, we have an example right after your post, giving full approval (100%, apparently) to your assessment, yet in previous assessments dismissing the importance of the billions that arms manufacturers and financial institutions stand to gain from a prolonged war as potential causes.

The unavoidable consequence of following the money is that the putative blame lies with any and all of those who both stand to gain and have the means to bring that gain about.

Here, on this thread, we have ample evidence of people enthusiastic about following the money to Russian actors, but vehemently opposed to any suggestion that a similar process could lay an equal amount of suspicion on American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant by :

you want to try and make a partisan point of it. — unenlightened

It's really unproductive, serves to diminish the force of the argument I was making, and looks like the finger-pointing attitude it is pointing its finger at. I would like to make a discussion of war that does not mimic its topic, and this does not help me.

I would like to make a discussion of war that does not mimic its topic, and this does not help me. — unenlightened

Unfortunate then that you're on a public forum whose membership is not limited to those who already agree with you.

If you want to use figures to make the claim that Russia cares less about civilian deaths than America, then you need to compare the actual number of civilian deaths each country has knowingly caused, in total, by it's various actions. Anything less is just lying with statistics. — Isaac

So let me repeat, again:

Civilian casualties during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (9+ years): 562 000 - 2 000 000 killed

Civilian casualties during the American invasion of Afghanistan (19+ years): 176 000 - 212 000 killed

I think this is quite clear. Same country. Are you genuinely implying that you don't see any difference in the civilian death toll?

This naturally doesn't meant that the latter estimate would be low, it's very high. And we know that the war was a failure, from the start. And there's a lot to criticize the American war in Afghanistan, perhaps starting from the military intervention itself. Yet perhaps you would had to have a larger than life US President who would have had the ability to contain the whole 9/11 attack as a police operation, not make it a military operation and have the FBI seek and find the cabal of Al Qaeda members, just like the US had done with the earlier terrorists that had tried to blow up the WTC years earlier.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/three-possible-futures-for-a-frozen-conflict-in-ukraine/

Are you genuinely implying that you don't see any difference in the civilian death toll? — ssu

Difference, yes. Significance to the discussion about whether Russia uniquely doesn't care about civilian casualties, no.

What you've failed to show is any kind of general trend, nor any link between direct military casualties, specifically, and an increased disregard for civilian lives above those destroyed by any other method (such as starvation or pecuniary loan terms).

All you've shown it that in one war nearly half a century ago, a completely different regime which happened to be in the same country as the one currently under consideration, showed a monstrous disregard for civilian casualties resulting from its military territorial practices.

What you've failed to show is that such disregard continued (in scale, it clearly continued in practice), nor that it was uniquely callous compared to other methods of mass slaughter such as withholding food and medicine.

Unfortunate then that you're on a public forum whose membership is not limited to those who already agree with you. — Isaac

Not at all. We can disagree about things without casting moral aspersions at each other or exchanging insults. It is irritating that you use my comments to do that, and unnecessary and unproductive. But I will struggle on. You castigate @RogueAI for agreeing with my post, that you claim also to agree with, and have generally wasted a page of comments creating a disagreement out of nothing at all.

We can disagree about things without casting moral aspersions at each other or exchanging insults. — unenlightened

Ah, I see. Such as...

Double down on your stupidity why not? — unenlightened

your insulting stupidity — unenlightened

We can disagree about things without casting moral aspersions at each other or exchanging insults.
— unenlightened

Ah, I see. Such as...

Double down on your stupidity why not?
— unenlightened

your insulting stupidity
— unenlightened — Isaac

Yes. I am not immune from the general atmosphere, and not proud of it, and that is why I withdraw from discussion sometimes. And yet again you are making a conflict where there is no reason to. I'm going to go quiet now, because our conversation is not productive.

yet again you are making a conflict where there is no reason to. — unenlightened

You accused me of being unnecessarily insulting and unproductive. Not the other way round. In any decent company, it is such an accusation that counts as the cause of the conflict, not the attempt to respond to it. But you do you.

Ports and oil — unenlightened

The ports of Crimea were Russian from 1783 up to Ukrainian independence in 1991 after which they became "Ukrainian" but on the understanding that Russia would be allowed to use them as bases for its Black Sea Fleet.

All this changed with NATO insisting on its "right of infinite expansion" and on making Ukraine, Crimea, and most of the Black Sea "NATO (i.e., US) territory".

What you've failed to show is any kind of general trend, nor any link between direct military casualties, specifically, and an increased disregard for civilian lives above those destroyed by any other method (such as starvation or pecuniary loan terms). — Isaac

What I've said is that in the Russian (and earlier Soviet) way of warfare there is an extensive use of artillery.

Of course the most successful large Soviet military operation is actually something we don't call a war, and that is the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The overwhelming use of force and simply pushing quickly the tank columns into the streets of Prague worked: the Czech army didn't try even to defend. This method was again tried in the First Chechen war...with devastating consequences. The armoured columns driving into Grozny were destroyed as the Chechens were willing to fight.

Hence when the first rapid takeover didn't work, Russia went to slow methodical firepower fight and simply clearing the city block by block, basically going back to the warfighting tactics from Stalingrad and Berlin. And this worked. So basically it's no wonder that Russians approach cities and urban areas and just use artillery extensively.

Here, on this thread, we have ample evidence of people enthusiastic about following the money to Russian actors, but vehemently opposed to any suggestion that a similar process could lay an equal amount of suspicion on American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia. — Isaac

It would be interesting if you could tell us just who where oppose the idea that " American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia." Someone might add that it's especially Ukraine that is baring the brunt of the war as the war is fought in Ukraine, not in Russia, and naturally Western financial institutions are anticipating to gain profits from rebuilding Ukraine, not Russia. Perhaps for you this is that "vehement opposition".

And where the big bucks will be made is in the rearmament of the NATO countries, starting with Germany. The fact is that already produced weapons are given to Ukraine, and then these weapons have to be replaced in the countries that have given them. With newer weapons likely.

Someone might add that it's especially Ukraine that is baring the brunt of the war as the war is fought in Ukraine, not in Russia, and naturally Western financial institutions are anticipating to gain profits from rebuilding Ukraine, not Russia. — ssu

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to make some money.
And all at Alice's expense,
They thought it very funny.

So Alice found her dress all torn
Her body bruised and broken
While Tweedledum cried "Liberty"
From Dee, "Freedom" was spoken.

What I've said is that in the Russian (and earlier Soviet) way of warfare there is an extensive use of artillery. — ssu

Seems to be a theme of yours. The comment was...

the numbers from Afghanistan, Syria and the two Chechen wars simply show that Russia doesn't care so much about civilian casualties. — ssu

...and it was in response to a comment about America's apparent lack of concern for civilian casualties. Your inability to just say "Yes, that's about right" has again led us down a pointless trail of Wikipedia summaries unrelated to the actual issue. I've no doubt Russia does use a lot of artillery, I've neither the expertise, nor the interest to check. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion that started this whole subsection which was the point made by @Olivier5 that Russians could not believe they were doing something righteous because if they did "they wouldn't bomb civilians so much". A counter argument to @Apollodorus suggesting they could have because American's certainly did and yet caused no fewer civilian casualties.

Your technical point about Russian use of artillery seems almost entirely unrelated. I can see perhaps that their choice to use artillery shows a pretty callous disregard for civilian casualties in military offensives, but America's use of pecuniary loan terms attached to cuts in social spending shows a pretty callous disregard for civilian lives also, just via a different method.

It would be interesting if you could tell us just who where oppose the idea that " American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia." — ssu

I didn't say anyone opposed that idea. What I said was that people opposed...

any suggestion that a similar process could lay an equal amount of suspicion on American arms dealers, European financial institutions, and Western industries in general who stand to gain billions from a prolonged war which results in a ruined Russia. — Isaac

...that much is abundantly evident since not one single post in the entire 260 page thread that lays any blame on the US and Europe has been allowed to stand uncontested.

A counter argument to @Apollodorus suggesting they could have because American's certainly did and yet caused no fewer civilian casualties. — Isaac

IMHO, the whole point of philosophy is to look beyond appearances by questioning the “officially correct” narrative.

Though the Ukraine conflict is being sold by politicians and the media as a war between Russia and Ukraine, most serious analysts see it as a proxy-war between America and Russia.

Therefore, to get to the bottom of it, we need to look at both sides of the story.

As an illustration, suppose citizen X is involved in a gunfight with citizen Y. Prima facie, X appears to have fired the first shot. This may give the impression that X caused the shooting and tempt us to conclude that he is the “culprit”. But experience tells us that first impressions are not a valid criterion by which to judge a case, as they can be refuted by later evidence or arguments.

A proper judgement can only be made when all the facts of the incident have been established and duly considered.

Things that need to be looked into include:

1. What was done.
2. When it was done.
3. By whom it was done.
4. With what intention.
5. For what motive.

If possible, we also need to look at the history of each party involved.

In contrast, if we decide in advance (a) that Russia is “evil” and (b) that America is not the world’s largest economic, financial, and military empire but some philanthropic organization dishing out free cash and food to the world’s poor and selflessly protecting them from aggressors, then no proper judgement can be arrived at, and no genuine discussion can take place.

This thread could have, and I believe should have, been an interesting discussion. The OP sounds balanced enough to ensure that. Unfortunately, the thread got hijacked by people who were biased against Russia from even before the conflict. Notably among these are people like @ssu and @Christoffer who appear to be from a small country or village on Russia’s border and who may or may not have a legitimate reason to be “afraid of Russia”. What is not legitimate is to allow their fear (or phobia?) to color their analysis of the situation in Ukraine.

This leads to preposterous claims that I am “pro-Russia” or “pro-Putin” when in fact I am pro-Western, but I believe that it is in the West’s best interest for America, Europe, and Russia to be allies, not enemies. Unfortunately, this is impossible when America has made it its life mission to “keep the Germans down and Russia out”.

Also, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, there are no Russians on this thread. So, with one or two exceptions, the whole thing tends to become an echo chamber for angry Westerners to vent their frustration over Russia daring to challenge America’s New World Order.

IMO this can’t possibly make good philosophy or even good politics. It might be alright for a bit of fun or for people who’ve got nothing else to do to kill time, but it seems pretty pointless otherwise …. :smile:

Russia slashes rates in effort to cool rouble’s rapid ascent (May 26, 2022)

Doesn't seem to be a sign of a booming economy.
Demanding trade in rubles (oil, gas, whatever) might push the ruble up some?
But what can Russian companies import? (Chinese toys?)

Filtration and forced deportation: Mariupol survivors on the lasting terrors of Russia’s assault (May 26, 2022)

It's a land-grab alright, an attempted conquest, like an up-scaled "finders keepers".
The diplomats (those of them that aren't just for display) may have to wait until Putin's generals/strategists have worked out what they think is feasible; maybe after they've tried a few more things.
Ruinage, looting, killing, displacement, ...
I, for one, doubt Putin's Russia will pay up, but I'm not going to quit holding it to them either.

Personally, the general feeling of disgust I have for the Russian side has to see with war crimes being committed, not russophobia.