That came from a government regulated monopoly. — frank

From wiki

Linux began in 1991 as a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds: to create a new free operating system kernel.

Open source isn't in opposition to monopoly.

I think you missed my point. — frank

OK. Have another go.

To try and wrest this back to the topic... The argument was that Russia had better follow western societies (even at the risk of commercialisation) since there were no viable alternatives. I pointed out that the lack of viable alternatives was a deliberate result of the system itself and so couldn't be used as evidence (it didn't win in a fair competition). You said that ruthless competition was sometimes good, and referenced my phone. I said that my phone could be better and it's origin in ruthless competition was no argument in its favour for the same reason (suppression of alternatives).

I'm raising open source software as an example of a product which is absolutely integral to the modern world which arose, not from ruthless competition but from entirely free, voluntary collaboration with no renumeration whatsoever. I could further point to Microsoft's deliberate (and illegal) attempts to suppress that alternative.


So your point fits where?

It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins. — Christoffer

You've not answered the question of why Russia must choose from one of the already existing options. It just doesn't make sense as a premise, there's no reason they would be thus constrained.

See, if you persist in your terse, cryptic style of posting rather than making clear and expansive arguments, you'll continue to confuse me. You still haven't told me which Western values caused the Russians to go a-conquering. — jamalrob

Sorry. I'm painting while talking. :grimace:

One way to understand western European history is to say that Rome left a lasting mark. It's an image from the past that was cast into the future. So when anybody became dominant, the idea of Rome was there in the background. That's Western imperialism. It's Norman style, take no prisoners, cataclysmic conflict where no one is left in doubt who's in charge. That's the myth anyway.

Russia doesn't have the same kind of imagery in its history. It has Byzantium, but that was just a trading partner. I mean, how would you describe the prevailing Russian myth?

I have ideas about it, but what do I know?

Linux is Unix based. C language comes from Bell Labs.

To try and wrest this back to the topic... The argument was that Russia had better follow western societies (even at the risk of commercialisation) since there were no viable alternatives. I pointed out that the lack of viable alternatives was a deliberate result of the system itself and so couldn't be used as evidence (it didn't win in a fair competition). You said that ruthless competition was sometimes good, — Isaac

The USSR collapsed. That wasn't because of the West.

Byzantium and Rome are much bigger in the Russian historical consciousness than you might think. The idea that Russia, particularly Moscow, is the successor of Rome, via Byzantium, has appeared now and then in Russian culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow,_third_Rome

It was especially popular when Russia was forming an empire, I think. It's quite significant. And I wouldn't be surprised if it had some currency today, with the revival of the church, but I'm not sure.

Linux is Unix based. C language comes from Bell Labs. — frank

Again, the point is not the actual story, that's just historicism. The point is whether it could have been different. The point I'm making is that saying "that's how it was" is not support for the argument "that's how it must be". The development of Linux at least implies that it's possible to develop such systems collaboratively. Despite what just happened to have transpired, it's perfectly plausible that C could have been developed in exactly the same way.

The USSR collapsed. That wasn't because of the West. — frank

Are you suggesting all the West's efforts to destroy the USSR were irrelevant? Or are you suggesting they took a 'live and let live' attitude toward communism?

It was especially popular when Russia was forming an empire, I think. It's quite significant. And I wouldn't be surprised if it had some currency today, with the revival of the church, but I'm not sure. — jamalrob

Oh. Cool. I didn't realize that.

It's why there are eagles on the coat of arms of Russia.

As to what the prevaling myth of Russian exceptionalism is, I don't have any scholarly knowledge about it, I just sense the self-importance and absolute patriotism, which strikes a disaffected Brit as strange. I do know that the myth popularized by Dostoevsky of the special Russian soul is still popular. My mother-in-law told me I'd never really understand Chekhov because I'm not Russian. I say bollocks to that (I didn't say that at the time).

The development of Linux at least implies that it's possible to develop such systems collaboratively. — Isaac

When PCs first appeared, there were a bunch of different kinds. Each had its own microprocessor. That meant that if you developed software on an Apple, it wouldn't run on an IBM PC. If you made a game on an HP, it wouldn't run on Intel's PC, and so on.

In order to go crazy doing software, there needed to be a standard, so there would be a market to support the development. IBM ended up taking that role, mainly because they didn't patent their hardware. Nobody decided that IBM would be the standard, it just happened.

Now that all that development has taken place, other OS's can enter the scene. I use Chrome, but the software I use at work runs on Microsoft, IBM's platform.

What this tells you is that capitalism doesn't require competition. In fact, the worst episodes in the history of capitalism were when monopolies ruled overtly.

Are you suggesting all the West's efforts to destroy the USSR were irrelevant? Or are you suggesting they took a 'live and let live' attitude toward communism? — Isaac

No, I'm saying the USSR became, as Gorbachev put it, "a mountain of lies."

My mother-in-law told me I'd never really understand Chekhov because I'm not Russian. I say bollocks to that (I didn't say that at the time). — jamalrob

:grin:

I mean, of course there's a way to make a society without capitalism that still has a strong foundation in freedom, freedom of speech, and so on. — Christoffer

So this was the real question: can a modern and free society avoid the ills of capitalism? Which BTW is a question not just for Russia.

What this tells you is that capitalism doesn't require competition. In fact, the worst episodes in the history of capitalism were when monopolies ruled overtly. — frank

I see. Not sure how that relates to the argument.

I'm saying the USSR became, as Gorbachev put it, "a mountain of lies." — frank

Again, not sure how that relates to the argument. That the USSR collapsed isn't really in question. The question was the extent to which 'the west' were instrumental in making that happen. The west clearly put huge efforts into destroying them.

Russians hand control of Chornobyl nuclear plant back to Ukraine, IAEA says
THU, MAR 31 2022
Kevin Breuninger, CNBC

KEY POINTS
Russian troops that took over the Chornobyl nuclear power plant have transferred control back to Ukraine, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

The IAEA said those Russian troops moved two convoys toward Kremlin-allied Belarus, while a third convoy left the nearby city of Slavutych, also toward Belarus.

The agency added that it "has not been able to confirm reports of Russian forces receiving high doses of radiation while being in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone."

The IAEA said those Russian troops moved two convoys toward Belarus, while a third convoy left the nearby city of Slavutych, where many of the nuclear plant's staff live, also toward Belarus.

"In addition, Ukraine reported that there are still some Russian forces on the Chornobyl NPP site but presumed that those forces are preparing to leave," the IAEA statement said.

----

The irradiation story comes from the plant staff who reported that a Russian convoy left Chernobyl through the 'Red Forest', a highly radioactive zone.

The west clearly put huge efforts into destroying them. — Isaac

Destroy? Or contain?

Why are you still talking about justifications for war when I expressly said in my last post that this was not about justification for war? — Isaac

Then we simply would have to talk about the real reasons for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Those are:

a) Putin's personal views about Ukraine and the "artificiality" of Ukraine being a sovereign state and his ideas of place in history
b) the geopolitical importance for Russia in controlling Ukraine.
c) that time was running out for Putin as Ukraine was becoming more capable of defending itself (after the 2014 partial invasion).

The simple fact is that there's nothing defensive in those reasons above for Russia to start a war. Just as in the neocon realm of invading the Middle East there actually wasn't anything defensive either... just the opportunity that 9/11 gave the neocons to go on with their wars of conquest.

That the USSR collapsed isn't really in question. The question was the extent to which 'the west' were instrumental in making that happen. The west clearly put huge efforts into destroying them. — Isaac

I'd call that genuine Western hubris, if Americans or others think that the Soviet Union collapsed because of them. The Soviet Union c ollapsed on itself.

It's like the view that Nazi Germany fell only and solely because of the Western allies. The idea is simply wrong and shows total ignorance of the history of WW2.

The Soviet Union collapsed finally because it didn't have the backing of the Russian state itself, headed then by Yeltsin. Then Ukraine and Belarus weren't either supporting it. Simply nobody backed it in the end. And CIS didn't work later.

It would be like the US government out of the blue would attack California, Texas and New York and these states would have no other choice but leave the federation and perhaps form their own union. Guess what would happen to the US without the states of California, Texas and New York left and took other states with them? Controlling just Washington DC hardly matters for the Congress, actually.

Destroy? Or contain? — frank

Wow, so you really are pushing the 'live and let live' narrative. See this is why its so hard tk remain civil. What was McCarthy? A little overenthusiastic? The CIA support for regime changes in South America? Just high spirits? The west wanted to wipe Communism of the face of the earth. If you can't see that then I've run our of polite responses.

A New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this?

Then we simply would have to talk about the real reasons for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. — ssu

'Real' according to whom?

I don't agree with your assessment of those reasons. That's the matter we're discussing. Just circling back round to your starting position without any further evidence is pointless.

I'm saying that Western provocation was one of Putin's reasons for invading. You haven't provided any counterargument at all. You just said it didn't justify his invasion (I agree, nothing does), but you've offered no counter to the argument that it was a contributory cause.

If it was a contributory cause, then the US and Europe could plausibly have prevented this war by acting to diffuse the security concerns.

To be abundantly clear - the fact that security interests don't justify war has no bearing whatsoever on whether they contribute to the causes of it.

The Soviet Union c ollapsed on itself. — ssu

So by what mechanism did all their enormous efforts manage to miraculously have no effect whatsoever?

> Yes, something like. Mostly 'security concerns' in terms of international politics come down to whose flag is over the parliament (even if sometimes only figuratively).

So the Russian legitimate security concerns triggered by the West that led to this war ultimately consisted in whose flag is decorating the Ukrainian parliament building. Is this consistent with your claim that a legitimate security interest is an “interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric)”? It doesn’t seem to me so because a decorative component of a Parliament building has literally nothing to do with national security: there could be no flags on top of any Parliament buildings and yet a nation could have security concerns when oppressed by a foreign nation.


> You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral

Did I? Can you fully quote where I agreed with that?



> ...then that's not 'good faith', is it? Simply assuming your opposite number is going to lie (whilst scrubbing the blood off your own hands) and refusing negotiation on those grounds is about as good a definition of 'bad faith' in the context as it gets. All diplomats lie, it's part of the job. There's no justifiable ground for one side to pull out of negotiations on the grounds that the other side lie. It's rank hypocrisy.

I take “acting in good faith” to mean acting with “a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction”. Then I claimed and still claim that one could think to be acting in “good faith” while having reasons to doubt the other party acts out of “good faith”. In this case your moral principle ("at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties") wouldn't be satisfied. And your suggestion makes this case more likely: indeed if all diplomats lie then there might be concrete situations in which one party believes to be more trustworthy than the other during a negotiation. For example, the Ukrainians can reasonably suspect that a call for negotiation from the Russians is to allow Russians to re-supply their war machine and continue the war. And the Russians can reasonably suspect the same of the Ukrainians. And one of them may be right. So my question is, in this hypothetical situation, are there any alternative moral principles that could tell us how the hypothetical party in “good faith” should proceed, when the other doesn’t seem to be?


> Thus, you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive.

Indeed that is what I was asking. As far as I can recall, you didn’t tell me which experts you chose, even less why you found their arguments more persuasive.


> Yes, I understood that. It's erroneous in this situation because there are clearly not only two strategies. It's clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both.

No it isn’t erroneous. You may claim it doesn’t apply to your case, but you didn't formulate any alternative strategy to me to prove that it doesn't apply to you, even if I asked you explicitly.



>I didn't feel they needed explaining.

Still I’m explicitly asking you to specify these legitimate security concerns, now for the third time (I see I'm not the only one who addressed this claim of yours). What legitimate security concerns did the West trigger in Putin so that he felt cornered into waging war against Ukraine? Notice that you claimed that these concerns are “legitimate” so you must have a more accurate idea of what these concerns are, otherwise on what ground would you claim that they are legitimate? Unless you want to stick to the preposterous claim that Russia felt legitimately and intolerably threatened by the idea that Ukraine will keep a Ukrainian flag on top of the Ukrainian parliament building or so, of course.

>China has never attacked the US. It hasn't attacked anywhere at all for decades and the last war it fought in was on the same side as the US. So why has the US got security concerns? Because China could attack the US, or it's interests (in some capacity) and an increase in its ability to do so is a threat.

China has territorial claims over Taiwan. And it’s preparing to get it back forcefully if Taiwan resists. Taiwan is a partner of the US so if the US wants to protect Taiwan then the US should get prepared to counter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific and in the US precisely because China’s frustrated expansionist ambitions could lead China to retaliate against the US, with all the offensive means they are capable of (including cyberwar). These security concerns are legitimate in those who are threatened or have to suffer from expansionist aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine, and China is preparing to wage war against Taiwan if the latter wants to fight for its independence. Those two countries, Ukraine and Taiwan, are potentially or actually victims of aggression and whoever wants to support any of them to preserve their independence, should get ready for retaliation from the aggressors. Russia and China are not victims of any actual or potential aggression from Ukraine or Taiwan, and the support they receive from the West is defensive and not offensive.


> Neither of these contingencies excuse me from being part of the mob encouraging violence.

And what does this have to do with the war between Russia and Ukraine? I don’t mind if you want to talk about cricket, vases and mobs as long as you can prove it’s relevant for the discussion at hand. So for me the West is like the mob that is helping the victim (Ukraine) against the bully (Russia), it’s not the mob who is encouraging the bully (Russia) to abuse the victim. Isn’t the same for you? If not why not? What else should the West do to help Ukraine against the Russian bully.

> if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations. — neomac
I made no such claim.

Then how come that Ukraine didn’t threaten Russian national security and yet Russia is invading Ukraine? My answer is that Russia has expansionist ambitions and wants to take control over all or part of Ukraine. What’s your answer?

I was looking at just that. Here's the problem. I think most of us can attest to the extremely dubious record of US intelligence in the not too distant past, so if Putin had not launched this war, it's something I would laugh off and not even give a second thought to.

But they were right, and deserve credit here. The more extreme reports, verging on newspaper aisle tabloids, is that Putin may be in a bunker directing this war.

We have to take this information with several grains of salt. Given how the war is going, how close Ukraine is to Russia geographically and culturally and just how badly they assessed this war going, gives us sound reason to suspect that Putin is very much in his own "Trump world".

In either case, it's not good, even removing the bunker talk. If they don't finish this quickly, they will suffer enormously from sanctions, which further pushes them to the brink.

We'll see.

Very good analysis:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/a-new-phase-of-the-russo-ukrainian-war-begins/

So this was the real question: can a modern and free society avoid the ills of capitalism? Which BTW is a question not just for Russia. — Olivier5

Yes, can it be avoided? Can all the criticized traits of western society be avoided while still enabling the progressive traits most common in western society? Or is the world built upon a global system that makes it impossible to achieve those good traits without the bad?

And follow up to that question; is it better to accept the bad and be part of improving such a western standard society beyond those bad traits because the good outcome of the progressive traits is worth it?

Because as I see it, there are no real-world solutions as alternatives. You either accept the bad and get a society that is as good as it gets, based on all the indexes and research on human health and well being, with hopes of it improving beyond the bad through the freedoms it provides (western society is still more progressive and can change and adapt more easily than most other systems to this date), or you accept the conditions of the society you are in, since there's no real alternative (which my initial question was about) that gives you those good traits a western society can provide.

But all that hangs on the fact that there are no other systems that provide the same freedoms. It could be argued that people might not be well with those freedoms, but that can lead to dangerous routes to apologetic arguments for dictatorship and authoritarian systems. The only system that could function in that way would be a benevolent non-human leader that can lead forever with all people's best interests in mind. Some A.I system that we surrender to that could care for us.

We can only have so many different systems in place. Either everyone governs themselves, or everyone tries to govern the entire society, or a small group governs everyone, or people choose representatives to lead them, or someone leads everyone, or a machine or other being rules everyone. Or some combination between them. How do we give the most good for all within these systems? Breaking all of it down there are only a few options that would, over long periods of time, lead to good outcomes for everyone when applied to massive scale societies.

So by what mechanism did all their enormous efforts manage to miraculously have no effect whatsoever? — Isaac

The arms race of the Cold War is only a minor reason.

The centrally planned economy itself would be a larger reason. Or that unlike China, the Soviet Union didn't opt to try to modernize the economy with keeping political the power, but also had the policy of Glasnost, which immediately made it clear what the Union was: a remnant of an Empire with various different people.

And the real reason just why the Soviet Union collapsed so quickly in the end is really is literally there was nobody to preserve it as Russia itself was against it. Without Russia being in favour of the Soviet Union, who would be for it? Hence you got the Belovezh Accords. Learn history.

In either case, it's not good, even removing the bunker talk. If they don't finish this quickly, they will suffer enormously from sanctions, which further pushes them to the brink.

We'll see. — Manuel

Putin hasn't backed down from a war before. It might be difficult for him cut it and stop and just declare victory. I think the next timeline for Putin will be the "home for X-mas"-moment of May 9th Victory Day as important. If the army could wrap it up or at least there would be something to show then, Putin might be happy.

Conflicts tend to go on for far longer than anticipated.

This is true, almost always the case.

There is nothing but diminishing returns now. Obviously even beginning the war was pretty bad, but more than a month, is pretty intense.

Of course he cannot portray anything other than a victory of sorts. I'm curious to find out when this stops, how will the removal of sanctions proceed.

, just scanned the page you posted.

the [lower-yield] US warheads were not a direct threat to Russian security but were concerning nevertheless — Russia says alarmed by US deployment of low-yield nuclear missiles (Feb 6, 2020)

Concerning for sure, but not as concerning as Russia having amassed up close to half the world's nuclear ☢ weaponry all by themselves (and threatened to use them), making Russia the top ☢-dog in the world. Plus violating other nations' airspaces + whatever. Talk about provoking and pushing others.

Apart from China perhaps, North Korea is more or less everyone's concern.

Putin held a ceremony at the Kremlin to welcome 23 new foreign ambassadors to Moscow — Russia says alarmed by US deployment of low-yield nuclear missiles (Feb 6, 2020)

More of this, please. And quit the bombing already. Ukraine won't be joining NATO anytime soon.

Russia's security concerns have likely increased after going down the warpath ("special military operation", if you're in Russia, by mandate).

I don't personally think that strongman :strong: Putin is losing it or paranoid as such, but we'll see how far he can push, provoke, oppress, silence, strong-arm, bully, bomb, invade, posture, threat, ... :fire: I kind of expect a fair bit.

Of course he cannot portray anything other than a victory of sorts. I'm curious to find out when this stops, how will the removal of sanctions proceed. — Manuel

Putin simply doesn't care. He hasn't been interested in the economy at all. If he would be, Russia would have played a totally different game in international politics. Just like, uh, China.

The sanctions aren't so easily lifted. And even so, the more obvious issue isn't the sanctions: it's the extreme risk of trading with Russia. A country that nationalizes companies, confiscates rented aircraft and simply doesn't care at all about trade relations, or looks at the relations as a way to pressure countries, isn't going to be a country that you want to trade with. Now trade with Russia is viewed as a risk, not a prospect. Radical changes can happen only if Russia experiences radical political change. Which isn't likely.

When they interviewed the local minister who is responsible for energy security, the reported asked if Finland would go off Russian oil & gas because of the war in Ukraine, the minister didn't even get her question, but responded that Finland was going off from Russian oil & gas on basis of national security. He basically admitted that the government is already anticipating that there's not going to be any hydrocarbons coming out from Russia ...perhaps as we join NATO.

While we are discussing Ukraine, I took the time to skim through the Wikipedia and Enclyclopaedia Britannica articles on the recent history of Ukraine. I still have not got a full picture of what has gone on there, but it could be summarized as 'many many years of political and economic turmoil', unfortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Post–World_War_II

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Independent-Ukraine

There is one part of the Britannica article that says

But throughout this period, Ukrainians had not been aware of the size of the nuclear arsenal on their soil—Ukraine was effectively the third largest nuclear power in the world at the time—nor had they considered the high costs and logistical problems of nuclear divestment.

It is not clear if the capability to launch the missiles ever left Moscow which seems to be supported by the Wikipedia claim that there were concerns about operational control of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It does not seem to be correct to call Ukraine a 'nuclear power' since they did not have the ability to launch their own missiles, and did not or would not re-configure them.

The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians.[9] The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east. — Wikipedia

It also wasn’t clear if Ukraine had operational control of the weapons or whether Moscow retained the launch codes.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/in-1994-the-us-succeeded-in-convincing-ukraine-to-give-up-its-nukes-but-failed-to-secure-its-future

I think it highly improbable that Ukraine was handed over that operational control, although the decentralized arrangement does have some 'autonomy' built in, as in Doomsday Machine.