Now you're talking. So ideally the Russians should lay down their arms and turn Russia into a vibrant democracy.

Glad we agree with that. — Olivier5

But, so too the Americans, you agree with that?

And, maybe bother to actually read my posts, as I've mentioned this several times.

so too the Americans, you agree with that? — boethius

Especially the Americans.

And, maybe bother to actually read my posts

Maybe you bother with intellectual honesty a bit more.

What would be the point, pray tell? — Olivier5

It's your standard: pick a side, cheerlead one and condemn the other.

And not just your standard you set for yourself, but you assume others have do anyways, just not honest about it: as any criticism of one side is doing what you prescribe for yourself.

Maybe, us serial misunderstandererers could use a few other examples to see how your method works and the righteous values it's based on.

It's your standard: pick a side, cheerlead one and condemn the other. — boethius

Who said anything about any standard? YOU said that they are so many wars, so why take side. I didn't say you must take side. Don't support the Ukrainians if you find their cause so disgusting.

Especially the Americans. — Olivier5

Ok great, so what's you plan of action?

We condemn the Americans until they put down their guns?

... But if they put down their arms, how do they give arms to the Ukrainians if they've given up those old barbaric ways?

And, if Ukrainians are just and the just thing to do is to put down arms, why aren't you calling for the Ukrainians to put down their arms and do the right and ideal thing?

what's you plan of action? — boethius

First we take Moscow, then we take Berlin.

And, if Ukrainians are just and the just thing to do is to put down arms, why aren't you calling for the Ukrainians to put down their arms and do the right and ideal thing? — boethius

Because the right thing to do in front of naked aggression is rarely to lay down arms. This solves the immediate killing but only aggravates oppression and killings long term. Instead you must inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible, or the enemy will come back a year or a decade later.

Who said anything about any standard? YOU said that they are so many wars, so why take side. I didn't say you must take side. Don't support the Ukrainians if you find their cause so disgusting. — Olivier5

This is not my argument.

The argument is that if other victims of war are just as deserving as the Ukrainians, certainly you have already put the energy into seeing which are the real victims and which the real aggressors in all the other wars happening right now, and so can share your just as honest disgust on that, as you so readily share about the Russians.

No need to hold back.

Teach us who do be disgusted by.

Maybe with a few examples we could better understand your philosophy.

First we take Moscow, then we take Berlin. — Olivier5

Without any guns?

Especially the Americans.
— Olivier5

Ok great, so what's you plan of action? — boethius

You got your condemnation of America. I'll pile mine on top of that.

It doesn't satisfy, does it? Why is that?

With the guns given to the Ukrainians, of course.

I'm not cheerleading the Russians ... — boethius

:roll:

Maybe with a few examples we could better understand your philosophy. — boethius

I support in theory (though I don't fund anyone) pretty much all peaceful liberation movements, have more problem with violent ones. I support the Scottish independence movement wholeheartedly for instance, but am more ambivalent about the IRA.

I view the purpose of analysis to make decisions, not morally condemn.

What decisions matter to me in this situation that I can affect: the policies of my own country and political block.

What are those decisions:

A. Go to war on the assumption of Ukrainian just cause ... well, nearly the entire country and political block believes in Ukrainian's just cause yet we are not going to put our boots where our mouths are.

B. Send arms to Ukraine in the hopes they fight our righteous battle "for the free world" for us and win.

C. Pump arms into Ukraine, not for the purposes of option B, but to ensure an endless insurgency that bleeds the Russians at Ukraine's expense ... Wooooweee!!!!

D. Use diplomatic leverage to protect civilians as much as possible and work on a diplomatic end to the war.

[...]

So, it seems to me D is the best choice. — boethius

So options A,B,C are practically saying that the West supporting Ukrainian defence is coward, hypocrite and cynical. While you would choose D which implies refusing to support Ukrainian defence and accepting Russian demands (whatever they are) not out of cowardice, hypocrisy or cynicism of course, but because it saves Ukrainian civilians as much as possible. And this is supposed to be the best example of analysis to make decisions not to morally condemn or do virtue signaling, right?

If Russians generally support the war, which they seem to do — boethius

If they support it, why is there such a level of censorship in Russia (which is not even under martial law)?

I'm sorry if that's the case but I'm quite frankly a bit surprised that the real politik interpretation is one so difficult to accept for you. As a war/history buff that's what's it's always been, no? — Benkei

As this is a philosophy forum, it think it is worth wile to ponder about morality or justifications. I think if you would understand that if the realpolitik argument would put above anything else in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

But anyway, the only real disagreement we have that I don't think this has been a really, really bad decision from Putin. Perhaps the ease with Putin could waltz into the middle of a Ukrainian revolution and snatch Crimea with a splendid military operation confused his judgement. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the political turmoil made him perhaps to think that the US is weak.

The military aid now pouring over to Ukraine is simply huge. And if the Ukrainians continue to fight, which they will, this can be a drawn out thing. I really don't see what is the success here in this for Putin. Perhaps that because he is now truly in a large war, he can get even more authoritarian?

Teach us who do be disgusted by. — boethius

It's exactly as you said: we should be disgusted by anyone except by the actual professional killers.

Which, may explain, rather than Finland's millennial Prime Minister, who is completely clueless about geopolitics, it is Finland's older president with far longer experience dealing with the Russians and talking with Putin, all of a sudden represents Finland on the international stage (after not a single woke article being written about him and Finland's wonderful young and woman led government ... where are those young woman leaders now?) and ... is one EU leader not just fiercely condemning Putin and calling him a madman but saying things like "the situation is complex". — boethius

After Sauli I guess we'll get an older Sanna Marin as President. She's bound to be the next. If she doesn't really fuck up.

I just find it amusing that this young beautiful woman is picked and put up to be the Prime minister... and then A GLOBAL PANDEMIC breaks out. And after few years that pandemic is starting to be RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE and Finland and Sweden see their foreign and security policy collapse and start moving to NATO membership. With things going like this, I think after this there will come that Asteroid that is going to hit Earth. Then we'll listen to her, dressed in black as usual, explaining what preparations the government has made for the current crisis...



But back to issue at hand:

Biden promised an additional 800 Stinger-missiles and 2000 Javelin missiles to Ukraine. A few years ago Ukraine had 37 Javelin ATGM launchers and a bit over 200 Javelin missiles in all. It tells just how much is poured now into Ukraine. And likely they will stop declaring just what the numbers are. Of course what is needed is medium to high altitude surface-to-air missile systems and those aren't so easy to get and use as Stingers (which cannot shoot down anything flying over 4 km altitude). The talk is of Russia S-300 "Grumble" missile system which the Ukrainians know how to use to be sent there from current NATO users. The simple fact is that in order to train a new Western SAM system, those very much needed Ukrainian professional soldiers should go to the West and train for the system. And all that takes months or at least half a year. The same with combat aircraft. Now during the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US had no qualms about it: especially the Soviets sent their personnel to operate and train their allies (suprisingly always using civilian clothing). And it might be that not only in Korea (which is documented), but also in Vietnam Soviet pilots did fight with the Americans.

But now Biden has problems how to handle this issue. And hence the search for Soviet legacy-system is on in order to help Ukraine.

(After Polish MiG-29's, perhaps Bulgarian S-300's to make that no-fly zone?)

So options A,B,C are practically saying that the West supporting Ukrainian defence is coward, hypocrite and cynical. While you would choose D which implies refusing to support Ukrainian defence and accept Russian demands not out of cowardice, hypocrisy or cynicism of course, but because it saves Ukrainian civilians as much as possible. And this is supposed to be the best example of analysis to make decisions not to morally condemn or virtue signaling, right? — neomac

Not at all.

Option A is obviously not cowardly, it would be the opposite of cowardice: it would be defending Ukrainian sovereignty and "democracy" even if it meant facing tactical nuclear weapons and having only tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons on Russian soil as the only viable military response to continue courageously to fight for what's right.

Option B is only cynical if Ukrainians can't win against Russia (can't roll into Moscow the conquering heroes).

Option C is for sure cynical.

Option D does not exclude arms shipments, that I would still say Ukraine should pay for as paying for your own fights changes the calculus to pick fights in the first place.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and can take debts and pay for weapons if it wants to; wartime shouldn't stop that.

However, whether gifts or not, as I've been discussing with @ssu Ukrainians can fight to a better negotiating position. However, the cost in lives of fighting to a better negotiating position are not trivial. One should be pretty confident the additional lives and destruction and dead and traumatized children are "worth it" for the negotiating position.

If there are no further military gains to be had, no better negotiating position that can be fought to, the "thing to do" in such a situation is to declare a unilateral cease fire, not resupply (not a trick), and sue for peace. The sooner the better. For, unless there are tactical and strategic considerations, the more you fight the more concessions the other party wants to compensate the losses (and demonstrate to the home crowd the fight was worth it).

In diplomatic situations where diplomacy is concurrent to intense fighting, it is because neither side can win and the likely outcome is the borders will be wherever the battle lines happen to be when the deal is signed.

However, I was not talking about Ukraine in these choices, but my country and the EU ... we're not fighting in Ukraine, so we can either send arms or do diplomacy. Sending arms can be part of a optimal diplomatic strategy, but it would be cautious and non-escalatory (i.e. paradoxically increase the chances of peace than result in more death and destruction as we may usually expect arms to do).

For example, if the EU was bringing it's considerable leverage to the table, engaging in good faith with the Russians, and "making sense" and something the Russians can work with and Ukrainians can work with, then supplying arms to prop up the Ukrainians during that negotiation is just "normal statecraft" and not provoking Russia into a total war posture.

In the first "soft" weeks of the war, EU could have easily done this as it has a lot of things that both Ukraine and Russia want, and therefore could have easily negotiated a resolution where both parties are better off, and so entice a peace. Ukraine gets something (pathway to EU membership for example with some good faith financial and institutional support package, that just so happens to dismantle the neo-Nazi's) and Russia gets something (easing the previous sanctions, Nord Stream 2), and EU gets something the compensates these things. Of course, it's not a as simple as just sitting down and horse-trading these things, just pointing out that EU has considerable leverage on both parties that could have ended the war or prevented the war from happening.

Of course, maybe Russia refuses any reasonable deal and escalates the war anyways; there is no way to know "for sure", but the evidence that Russia is no the escalatory party is that Russia was making zero preparations for war in Georgia or Ukraine until they were surprise invited to join NATO; Russia responded immediately first with a war in Georgia that was viewed by Western analysts as completely improvised. Russia then tried negotiating some East-West middle way with Ukraine, which Ukraine, EU and Russia managed to agree on, and then the Ukrainian government fell in a violent coup; only afterwards did Russia take Crimea and then completely rebuild it's military operations and doctrines to conduct the current war and also sanction proof itself (such as make alternative to SWIFT, build home-grown industries of key components, cut deals with China on a bunch of things).

While this was going on, the US funded and trained the Ukrainian war against the Dombas, including neo-Nazi's, and also started it's "pivot" towards China. Just a normal everyday pivot of the world's super power just doing the righteous and "strategic" thing that no one should question.

... But how do you think the Chinese feel about it?

I bet they feel like there's not quite enough US troops in Europe.

If they support it, why is there such a level of censorship in Russia (which is not even under martial law)? — neomac

The West is censoring Russian media, banned outright RT on every medium, even their website on the "world wide web" ... yet the West isn't even under martial law? Why is the west so afraid of Russian state media? We let the BBC, and CBC and PBS to exist globally, why not little ol' RT? If the West supports Ukraine why the censorship of RT?

Ukraine just banned opposition parties, if Ukrainians are simply united in the war effort ... why ban political parties?

The military aid now pouring over to Ukraine is simply huge. And if the Ukrainians continue to fight, which they will, this can be a drawn out thing. I really don't see what is the success here in this for Putin. Perhaps that because he is now truly in a large war, he can get even more authoritarian? — ssu

I think this is a central question.

West assumes that hurting the oligarchs hurts Putin ... but maybe Putin wants his competitors, of which this theory presupposes have power to taken down Putin, to take a massive destruction of their wealth precisely so they aren't a threat to him. The oligarchs threat to Putin is, basically, bribing people with wealth ... outside Russia. So, maybe the West just did Putin a favour.

Likewise, escalating the war means more authoritarianism at home ... maybe that's what Putin wants.

A total war as we see now in Ukraine is a pretty big "message" to anyone else that may want to call Russia's bluff in the future.

The war is as much a demo for Russian arms as it is for NATO. People love going on about how NATO arms are better in every way ... but that doesn't help countries that are potential military targets for NATO.

... And on the subject of "NATO's arms are better" ... NATO spending significant political capital to send S-400 to Ukraine to take down Russian aircraft sounds like a pretty damn good commercial for one of Russia's big ticket arms exports.

Russia's response to NATO air superiority is lot's of cheaper missiles, and the more air defense systems it sells the more it can produce for itself also.

Escalation has meant Russia worked up to demoing hypersonic capability, a "world first" I'm sure the US is quite the jellybean over.

However, the real "show" of Russian warfare systems in Ukraine will come after the war and maybe you need a private screening.

We don't actually know what exactly the Kremlin is even trying to accomplish ... so it's difficult to conclude was a good or bad thing from their perspective.

As mentioned in my previous post, escalating the war to the point of NATO pivoting back to Europe is certainly part of the BFF plan with China.

All "Russia has made a mistake" arguments presupposes the Wests position of preeminence and position to dictate global trade relations. The war in Ukraine may, not due to the war itself but the predictable West's reactions to punish Russia, maybe have unexpected results for the West.

However, whether gifts or not, as I've been discussing with ssu Ukrainians can fight to a better negotiating position. However, the cost in lives of fighting to a better negotiating position are not trivial. One should be pretty confident the additional lives and destruction and dead and traumatized children are "worth it" for the negotiating position. — boethius

This is how the conflict can drag on for a long time... and that will put the human cost easily well beyond hundred thousand killed. Ukrainian and Russian losses combined is likely well over 10 000 in less than a month. Even if the fiercest fighting would have been seen, how ugly the figures are in a year or two is worrying as this is not insurgency, but a large scale conventional war.

Yet perhaps the "positive" side here is that both sides can retreat to the low burner, low intensity war that they had before. Yet that is difficult. What contained Ukraine from leashing an all out push into Donbas earlier was the threat of Russia launching an all-out invasion on Ukraine. Well, now we have seen that.

Ukraine just banned opposition parties, if Ukrainians are simply united in the war effort ... why ban political parties? — boethius

Not all opposition parties were banned. From the 11 parties I think For-Life was in the Rada and had 39 seats.

I need to sign off for the day, but I agree with your points. My expectation is that Russia will push to the borders of Dombas and then take a holding position, work out a deal.

Yes, by opposition I was meaning more "opposing Zelensky," and obviously censorship, but it is good to be precise in that it is not a uni-party system ... yet.

West assumes that hurting the oligarchs hurts Putin .. — boethius

Yeah, this is a very stupid idea. Russia isn't the US. Putin doesn't need any backers for elections. He needs the support of the army and the intelligence services. When the head of the SVR is so frightened of Putin that he confusis his choreographed words, then some oligarch isn't a problem. As KGB guy I don't think there will be a palace coup to oust Putin. An assassination attempt to be successful is well, likely not as probable as Putin dying due to natural health causes.

So waiting for a 70-year old man to die might take a while...

I need to sign off for the day, but I agree with your points. — boethius

Smart move to do (signing off at least), good night.

Russia isn't the US. Putin doesn't need any backers for elections. He needs the support of the army and the intelligence services. When the head of the SVR is so frightened of Putin that he confusis his choreographed words, then some oligarch isn't a problem. — ssu

As long as Putin isn't hiding his wealth inside the oligarch's accounts, which some speculate he does. And when the war chest is empty, where does he get the money to fund his war and Russia's society? People downplay the sanctions, but they're really hitting hard on the economy and it's fine for now in terms of the war chest and funding the war, but if it goes on for months, that will not be the case. He's literally burning billions on a daily basis.

The point of actually fighting, if it came to that as the situation got out of control due to reckless civilian leadership (otherwise we'd be fighting the Russians right now if they were just that bad and no way to work with them), is to reach a settlement as quickly as possible, in a good negotiating position of having a credible military plan that would require total war to defeat. — boethius

I agree with you here. Unfortunately, for reasons you outlined earlier, this is not a pure one on one conflict. This is not a private dispute. It has to bad enough that peace is the only option for both sides. Or all three. A settlement acceptable to Russia, Ukraine and NATO is something we can only dream of for now.

This is not democracy either: having other nations supply/deny armaments, meddle in elections and promise to make alliances that they never make good on has to be destabilizing at the least. Zelenskyy is under tremendous pressure within Ukraine, from certain nationalists, that is not democracy either. Might as well ban certain parties what has he got to lose. I don't see him coming out of this, but he talks like a man who has been given a personal nuclear umbrella.

Incorporating the joining of NATO within a constitution is simply unheard of, and is irresponsible. Now they have to change their constitution.

Seems unexpected to me.



Russian soldiers appear to be dying in Ukraine at a remarkably high rate
^{Casualties in the early weeks far exceed the tolls in other recent conflicts}
The Economist; Mar 17, 2022

The West is censoring Russian media, banned outright RT on every medium, even their website on the "world wide web" ... yet the West isn't even under martial law? Why is the west so afraid of Russian state media? We let the BBC, and CBC and PBS to exist globally, why not little ol' RT? If the West supports Ukraine why the censorship of RT? — boethius

Russia Today (International) - Breaking news, shows, podcasts ← This RT?

The Onion Guide To NATO

(just in case anyone didn't know)

A 96-year-old Holocaust survivor, Borys Romanchenko, was killed Friday by a Russian strike on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.

Romanchenko's death was confirmed by the Buchenwald concentration camp memorial institute in a series of tweets.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/21/europe/borys-romanchenko-death-ukraine-intl/index.html

One of thousands of innocent non-combatants killed by the Russians from the comfort of their missile control centres.

The West is censoring Russian media, banned outright RT on every medium, even their website on the "world wide web" ... yet the West isn't even under martial law? Why is the west so afraid of Russian state media? We let the BBC, and CBC and PBS to exist globally, why not little ol' RT? If the West supports Ukraine why the censorship of RT?
— boethius

Russia Today (International) - Breaking news, shows, podcasts ← This RT? — jorndoe

The banning of any news site seems to be to prevent their influencing any public opinion in those countries. Why us public opinion important? Any government could do with widespread support for its policies, it makes things much easier, for example if there are no protests. It also helps in that nations international diplomacy.

The veracity of the content is not relevant here: truth can be as damaging as lies, maybe even more. News items can be fact-checked, and bringing certain facts to the attention of the public is all that is needed.

For example, RT headlines: All lies?

Ukraine says any deal with Russia would be put to a referendum

True

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-president-says-any-compromises-with-russia-will-require-referendum-2022-03-21/

Russia scraps peace-treaty talks with Japan

True
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/21/asia/russia-halts-japan-war-peace-talks-intl-hnk/index.html


EU approves common defense plan

True

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/eu-approves-rapid-reaction-force-of-up-to-5-000-troops


US-Russia ties ‘on the brink’ – Moscow

Hope it is a lie.


US says it wants to keep diplomacy open with Russia

Russia, U.S. keep door open to Ukraine diplomacy, but big ...
Search domain msn.comhttps://www.msn.com › en-us › news › world › russia-keeps-door-open-after-u-s-rejects-key-security-demands › ar-AATchqz
Russia, U.S. keep door open to Ukraine diplomacy, but big gaps remain By Dmitry Antonov, Tom Balmforth and Simon Lewis 13 hrs ago Police in standoff with suspect after 3 Houston officers shot

Whoops!
This page is gone.

To find something you’ll like, click a category above or use the search box.


2022-03-22T05:03:19.3594169+00:00

d6833f32-2f1e-4129-a1bd-a346f816aced

That page is gone, indeed. A casualty of war perhaps?

US imposes visa restrictions against China

A 96-year-old Holocaust survivor, Borys Romanchenko, was killed Friday by a Russian strike on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. — Wayfarer

This is propaganda, you realize this, right? As long as you realize it. All loss of life is regrettable, even Russian Generals dying in the comfort of the humanitarian corridor.