Thank you.

People living in mature democracies are often more instrumentalist, they wouldn't cheer anyone but try and make choices, rather. — Olivier5

Of course we all do tribal politics and the whole us vs them is a simplistic and often counter-productive way to look at things. It's always us with them somehow, we share this planet.

But what I mean by making choices is simply things like voting, if we live in a democracy, or emigrating, ie voting with our feet. We have to make to choices between alternatives, between living here or there, between this party or that party to vote for.

It is never the case that we can live under no government or power system. There is always power, and it is always more or less organized, structured this or that way. So while we can chose between various forms of political organization, we cannot chose no political organization whatsoever. Unless we all go live on deserted islands.

For instance, in the case at hand, the choice for the Ukrainians is pretty clear: it's between independence as an imperfect democratic society, and subjugation in perfect Putinistan.

The choice for the Russians is also about that.

The choice for other people, such as Europeans, Americans, Aseans, Africans or Oceanians, as organized politically through states, is about which side to chose, if any. IOW should Peru or the Netherlands help Ukraine, or rather help Russia, or stay neutral? Or help both??? If they wish to help, how should they do so most effectively without compromising other interests? Etc.

The choice for a poster here is somewhat similar.

All this to say that it's not possible to have your cake and eat it too. You must make a choice, and even splendid neutrality is but one political choice amongst many, with no reason to believe it is necessarily a wise choice, whether you assess it morally or strategically.

Such neutrality only looks splendid. But it's not.

Lol.

From "why is everyone calling me a cheerleader", to "you must all be cheerleaders like me".

I support both sides. I accept the judgement that fate will give.

To be neutral is to withdraw from the world. If that state is peppered with resentment, it's Nietzsche's slave morality in a nutshell.

You can be apolitical without any resentment, though. Or you can be complex and dwell in an amoral, anthropological state some of the time, and engage the world at other times.

But engaging the world at the level of significant power is apt to put you in the "dirty hands" category.

I don't know if you have all seen the Oliver Stone documentary about President Putin. I found it very interesting and maybe useful in trying to gauge what President Putin is like. I have watched documentaries of President Reagan as well, and these world leaders fascinate me as decision making entities. In any case, we are looking at a commander in chief, like those of other powerful nations, with the legitimate power to declare war and cause death and destruction. In other words, a potential killer: they all are.

President Putin had not seen this movie before, they say, however he does look a little but uncomfortable, and remember he has a lot more intelligence (meaning information) than we do. Is the doomsday machine a reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvUP7KLI4bA

Interesting:

What few knew until recently is that in 1984, the Soviet Union actually did build a doomsday machine of sorts. They called it Perimeter. It's discussed in not one but two books released this month and in an article in the latest issue of Wired magazine.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113242681

Maybe that is why he looked a little embarrassed. "they were able to foresee some technical aspects"..
Oliver Stone must have known as well.

Taking sides:

NATO vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukranian people rather than the organization who helped get them attacked and is now standing on the sidelines trying to look like the good guys while they continue to suffer.
Putin vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the brutal dictator who's happy to kill them in any number to achieve his strategic objectives.
Zelensky vs the Ukranian people: Think I'll stick with the Ukranian people rather than the feckless clown who could have avoided this war and now spends his time running around the world's TV screens spouting empty propaganda while his people continue to die.

Taking sides isn't much in the way of analysis though, particularly seeing as, from my point of view, the moral side to take is pretty obvious. All I expect of anyone here is intelligent analysis. And that can come from any side.

Except...
Bonus side:

Propagandists and cheerleaders vs The Ukraninan people: Think I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the armchair fanboys who think helping means emptying their heads of all critical thought and pretending everything's going to be alright because the good guys always win despite a few broken bones.

It's wild that this is so hard for people.

Had to literally waste an entire page responding to baboon-grade rubbish in leiu of something so basic.

If I say to someone about to shoot a child "for God's sake don't shoot!" It's not a counter argument to ask "well what should I do instead?"

Thing about being as unfair as you can possibly be, you get stuck in your own little echo chamber

chamber

chamber

Taking sides isn't much in the way of analysis though, particularly seeing as,from my point of view, the moral side to take is pretty obvious. — Baden

Obvious or unexamined? Take for instance this not-so-obvious point of yours:

Zelensky vs the Ukranian people: Think I'll stick with the Ukranian people rather than the feckless clown who could have avoided this war and now spends his time running around the world's TV screens spouting empty propaganda while his people continue to die.

This is not a true choice. Unless you want Zelensky's job and think you can do better than him, or have an alternative Ukrainian government up your sleeve, the Ukrainian government is part of the Ukrainian people and it legally represents it. You don't get to chose who's their president, they do.

You can be apolitical without any resentment, though. Or you can be complex and dwell in an amoral, anthropological state some of the time, and engage the world at other times. — frank

Yes but even if one remains 'apolitical', one must live somewhere, and chose to stay there, under this regime, rather than emigrate over there under another. This is a choice one makes even if one is unconscious of it.

If I say to someone about to shoot a child "for God's sake don't shoot!" It's not a counter argument to ask "well what should I do instead?" — Isaac

Unclear, please rephrase.

I've asked for my account to be closed.
My 'resignation' refused for the time being.
Usually, I wouldn't make this public but I'm beyond caring.
Take care all. — Amity

Drastic measures. I sit on the edge of my chair, waiting, what could be next?

From "why is everyone calling me a cheerleader", to "you must all be cheerleaders like me". — StreetlightX

The problem is not with the "cheerleader" portrayal as such. I think the problem is with the portrayal as a cheerleading for the underdog. I don't think this is a matter of cheerleading the underdog, in fact I don't see how it could be. It's very clear that the cheerleaders apprehend the side being cheered for as "us". Now "us" is always the good guys, therefore to be cheered for, because in war if you do not agree that "us" is the good guys, you are excluded from "us".

One might cheer from a third party position, but at first take, that would appear to be utterly ridiculous because war gives nothing to cheer for, unless you're one of the parties. A classic World War really provides no third party position. But if the third party becomes an organized "us", we might have a new form of world war. The third party would be opposed to both sides engaged in battle, and would cheer only for loses, in the battleground, never for gains. That's a very ugly image. But it may be real.

The choice for other people, such as Europeans, Americans, Aseans, Africans or Oceanians, as organized politically through states, is about which side to chose, if any. IOW should Peru or the Netherlands help Ukraine, or rather help Russia, or stay neutral? Or help both??? If they wish to help, how should they do so most effectively without compromising other interests? Etc. — Olivier5

Your final sentence undermines your entire argument. People are making choices about strategy, not sides.

But five minutes of consideration would have worked that out, as if that were the objective here.

Unclear, please rephrase. — Olivier5

"Don't do X" is a perfectly sufficient political position. It doesn't required a "do Y instead". I don't need to say what America should do instead of warmongering. Just don't warmonger.

Your final sentence undermines your entire argument. People are making choices about strategy, not sides. — Isaac

More precisely, strategic choices may or may not involve chosing one side against another. But even supporting no side, or supporting both, are choices that are available.

Don't do X" is a perfectly sufficient political position. It doesn't required a "do Y instead". — Isaac

Logically, it does. It prescribes lines of action that do not involve X, as being better than lines of action that do involve X.

In other words, if Y=not X, then "Don't do X" means the same thing as "Do Y".

"If you don't choose between Himmler and Goring then you are a nihilist".

Also can we talk about how Putin and JK Rowling are allies now? More fun than the baboon.

Typical non-answer.

More precisely, strategic choices may or may not involve chosing one side against another. — Olivier5

It was perfectly precise as it was. People support strategies not sides, in contrast to you entire position here that anything short of wholehearted approval of Western strategy must therefore be 'siding with Putin'.

Logically, it does. You are prescribing lines of action that do not involve X, as being better than lines of action that do involve X. — Olivier5

Don't do X is not a line of action. It's a line of inaction. No one who isn't just trying to weasel out of being wrong would define 'not drinking my tea' as an action

Don't do X is not a line of action. — Isaac

To be fair, not supporting American imperial designs is indeed a line of action, much like not supporting Israeli businesses because Israel is committing genocide in Palestine is a line of action.

It was perfectly precise as it was. People support strategies not side, in contrast to you entire position here that anything short of wholehearted approval of Western strategy must therefore be 'siding with Putin'. — Isaac

This is not what I am saying.

I'm saying you can support whoever you want to. Or not. But don't assume that there is one good choice and only one, consisting in not chosing side. Your choice of supporting no one is in no way morally superior to another choice.

"Your choice of supporting neither Himmler nor Goring is in no way morally superior to another choice".

To be fair, not supporting American imperial designs is indeed a line of action, much like not supporting Israeli businesses because Israel is committing genocide in Palestine is a line of action. — StreetlightX

True...ish. I think that an important distinction might be drawn between simply not being involved (I'm currently not warmongering), and being opposed. The latter requires that I act, according to my capacity, to prevent it.

I'd probably prefer to reserve the 'line of action' epithet for active resistance to a policy to distinguish it from passive lack of involvement. But I take your point...

I'm saying you can support whoever you want to. — Olivier5

I didn't need your permission, but thanks.

don't assume that there is one good choice and only one — Olivier5

Is there some evidence of my having done so?

Your choice of supporting no one is in no way morally superior to another choice. — Olivier5

I'm not 'supporting no one', I'm supporting Ukrainians, and Yemenis, and Iraqis, and Russians... I'm supporting the people who I think would be harmed by the policy I'm opposing.

Who is Himmler and who is Goring in your comparison?

Western and Russian imperialism.

Wow... Now that's facile IMO.

MO — Olivier5

Doesn't count for much.

Yes but even if one remains 'apolitical', one must live somewhere, and chose to stay there, under this regime, rather than emigrate over there under another. This is a choice one makes even if one is unconscious of it. — Olivier5

Up to a point. A constructivist would say that power is made up of little interactions all over the place. American influence is Coke sales and such.

So the US is withdrawing its influence from Russia pretty vigorously right now. Ironic?