It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread? — jorndoe

I think the discussion played out awhile ago (at least for me). There's a difference of weight given to reasons for the war. I just don't see actual proof of the imperialist ambitions and put more weight on the consistent complaint of NATO expansion as opposed to sporadic and divergent expressions of tsaristic greatness or the artificial nature of Ukraine (and some of it is quoted too readily out of context).

The reason this weighing of reasons is so contentious because it's the difference between unprovoked and provoked aggression. But since we cannot read minds I don't see a resolution to the difference of opinion.

By the way, the opinions/analyses of Mearsheimer matter as well, giving more angles; that being said, they're not the be-all-end-all of the situation.) — jorndoe

I would genuinely love to see some quality material that offers a different perspective.

What would according to you @Benkei and @Tzeentch constitute evidence of territorial ambition?

If the Russians were to advance all the way to Paris, you would still wonder if it was not provoked.

Do you believe Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine were acts of "unprovoked agression"? — Tzeentch

Oh yes, what would be the provocation that Ukraine did? Pre-emptive attack? Threatening with an attack? No?

That for an independent country to seek safety by trying to join an international defense treaty, because it (obviously for a reason) felt threatened by it's neighbor?

What a horrible provocation!!!

And since we seem to be just fixated on just ONE issue about the war and repeat it again and again... so I'll just skip to my next answer: If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass?

all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored — Tzeentch

It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread? — jorndoe

Seems not be so. :roll:

If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass? — ssu

None of that matters.

If that nothern neighbor is powerful, Mexico will have to take into account its northern neighbor's interests or face the consequences.

Your opinion of that northern neighbor does not matter.

Whether you believe the interests of that northern neighbor are legitimate does not matter.

All that matters are actions and their consequences. And every party involved was aware of the likely consequences of their actions in regards to Ukraine. Russia even explicitly stated what the consequences would be, and the fools went ahead anyway, and now Ukraine is in ruins.

The fact you're unable to see how we arrived at this disaster does not speak to your merit.

Your opinion of that northern neighbor does not matter. — Tzeentch

Neither does your opinion that Russia attacked Ukraine only because of NATO enlargement as a defensive manner. Seemingly not taking into account other issues like the fact that Russia see's Crimea and Novorossiya as part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically.

Well, My opinion about my eastern neighbor does matter. And so does the opinion majority of my people. In fact so much, that for Putin our NATO membership is now a non-issue.

Appease dictators and totalitarian regime as much you want. If might makes right, then you really have to have that deterrence. Si vis pacem, parabellum. I say.

Neither does your opinion that Russia attacked Ukraine only because of NATO enlargement as a defensive manner. — ssu

That's not an opinion I hold. But if you want to make the claim it's territorial greed there's a burden of proof on you, not me.

If Mexico and China oddly set up a defense pact, then the US couldn't do much about it. But the US would surely react if China were to set up nuclear weaponry in Mexico.

^{(went over a tedious bunch of Kremlin/Putin↗ statements/actions and some commentaries from analysts again)
Feb 20, 2014: Russia grabs Crimea
Feb 24, 2022: Russia invades Ukraine
Jul 05, 2022: blasted bombing of Ukraine ongoing}

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗?

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; some have sought a NATO shield. Say, Hungary and Ukraine haven't sought protection from each other. Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? Invading Russia isn't in NATO's charter(†), defending against Russian invasion is. Ukraine was + is like a sitting duck, and is being blasted.

^{(†) not that attacking nuke-ratting Russia seems like a good idea anyway}

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation?

Four civilian deaths in Russian territory in the hardest bombardment there since the beginning of the conflict
The city center of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border, was struck for the first time, causing the destruction of dozens of buildings and houses.

By Benoît Vitkine (Moscow correspondent, Le Monde)
Posted yesterday at 11:03 a.m.

At 3 a.m. on the night of July 2 to 3, the inhabitants of the Russian region of Belgorod saw and heard on their soil what strongly resembled the effects of a war, and not of a simple "special operation" carried out on the territory of the neighboring country. Since February 24, this region of southern Russia bordering that of Kharkiv, Ukraine, has already been the target of bombardments – military objectives, refineries and, sometimes, isolated houses hit.

Nothing comparable with this night of July 3, at the end of which the governor counted, in the heart of the city of Belgorod, eleven residential buildings and thirty-nine houses damaged. Four people were killed: a Russian citizen and three members of a Ukrainian family from Kharkiv, who had taken refuge with relatives since the start of the conflict.

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the city of 370,000 inhabitants was “knowingly” targeted by three Tochka-U type missiles carrying cluster munitions. These missiles were reportedly shot down by Russian anti-aircraft defenses. "After the destruction of the Ukrainian missiles, the remains of one of them fell on a house in the city ," said military spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

On videos published in the early morning by local media, however, one can see at least one strong explosion, the magnitude of which does not correspond to the simple fall of debris. The Russian side also claims to have shot down two Ukrainian TU-143 drones "laden with explosives" heading towards the city of Kursk, also close to the Ukrainian border.

As usual, the Ukrainian army did not comment on these accusations, but military experts in Kyiv questioned this version, citing missiles sent from Russia and shot down by Russia's own anti-aircraft defense. In support of this explanation, they report explosions heard in the Kharkiv region immediately after those of Belgorod.

Analysts from the Conflict Intelligence Team, an organization founded by independent Russian investigators, rather evoke Ukrainian strikes targeting military objectives and which Russian defense systems would have diverted from their trajectory.

In any case, the event is embarrassing and does not fit with the idea of ​​a "special military operation" which, more than four months after its launch, "is going according to plan" , as repeated Vladimir Putin last week. In Moscow, officials brandished the usual threats of reprisals or "revenge" , but without really dwelling on them. A more surprising reaction was that of the Bishop of Belgorod, who called for prayers to end “the bloodbath taking place in Ukraine”.

The media showed restraint, the RIA-Novosti agency headlining for example, several hours after the events: “A series of explosions damages 39 houses in Belgorod” . The televisions, for their part, preferred to focus on the capture of the Ukrainian city of Lysytchansk from the “neo-Nazis” , which allows Moscow to control the entire Luhansk region.

Could the Belgorod episode mark an evolution in the conduct of the Russian "special operation" in Ukraine? It is difficult to imagine an intensification of the fighting, despite the threats of officials to abandon the "restraint" supposed to have been observed so far, but it should be noted that the announcement of this bombardment coincides with the deposition in the Duma of a bill providing for "special measures" to put the economy at the service of the army. This text, which incorporates certain elements of martial law, makes it possible to order companies to work on behalf of defence.

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗? — jorndoe

The article by Rumer and Weiss was good. I especially liked the point that was made about the situation being such that neither side is likely to back down, and also that a Russian military invasion is likely to be limited in scope (something that was confirmed by the number of Russian troops deployed).

Goemans's article not so much. It is filled with references to 'the Russian Empire' and 'Tsarist Russia' - unscientific, inflammatory nonsense that reeks of bias. His prediction was also that Russia would make a bid for the entirety of Ukraine - something which, again, is unlikely given the number of troops Russia has deployed being a magnitude below what would be required to invade all of Ukraine.

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; — jorndoe

Russia is most definitely not acting "genocidally" in Ukraine.

I understand that the violence inherent to war is repulsive. It should be to everyone. But to call Russia's conduct in Ukraine 'genocidal' is tasteless and tone deaf.

Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? — jorndoe

Russia under Putin has at least until 2008 looked for closer ties with Europe. Which is no surprise. Neither Europe nor Russia has much to gain from conflict and a lot to gain from cooperation. However, Russia is a big country and a former super power, so it's not surprising it didn't accept US vassal status that NATO membership amounts to.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States.

constitute evidence of territorial ambition?

If the Russians were to advance all the way to Paris, you would still wonder if it was not provoked. — Olivier5

Nice strawman. I have in fact discussed this with ssu in this very thread.

And what is the response to the question of what sort of evidence you would accept of Russia's territorial ambitions?

If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass? — ssu

I’d say that’s likely.

But regardless of the motivation, how would the US react to China building a few missiles on the border?

To dismiss or downplay the threat of NATO to Russia is not only silly, but it ignores the evidence.

That’s not justification for what Russia has done — but it’s a legitimate concern, and one they’ve been warning about for years.

Why did [Putin] do it? There are two ways of looking at this question. One way, the fashionable way in the West, is to plumb the recesses of Putin’s twisted mind and try to determine what’s happening in his deep psyche.

The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato.

You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. What we do know is that Ukraine will be further devastated. And we may move on to terminal nuclear war if we do not pursue the opportunities that exist for a negotiated settlement.

- Chomsky

Lucid as ever at 93.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States. — Tzeentch

Maybe?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

Presumably you're not among those few?

Connect the dots, there's a sufficient reason, it's hardly new or anything, now with rattling of nukes and missiles too, ...

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize?


Ukraine/Russia: Violations of cultural rights will impede post-war healing – UN expert (OHCHR; May 25, 2022)

Macron riles Russia with documentary releasing content of Putin calls (Le Monde; Jun 30, 2022)

What happens in Paris does not always stay in Paris.

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, ... — jorndoe

That never stopped the United States from getting along with anyone.

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better?

Where do you think Putin learned all of this?

Or is it a "Do as we say, not as we do" kind of deal?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/679346

That explains why I don't consider what has been put forward as proof of greater imperialist ambitions. You can reason a contrario to get an idea what I would consider proof.

I'll take that as a "don't know / won't tell" answer. It's still an answer -- it says a lot about you.

That sounds like what Streetlight was saying, right before TPF pulled his plug... So keep insulting other posters; eventually it'll get you banned and the rest of us will be better off for it. :-)

Sure buddy. Coming from the guy who calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a liar and when he gets an answer to his question is disigenuous by pretending it's not an answer. You're incapable of approaching your interlocuters charitably as this thread is a fine example of.

I call liars people who lie frequently, not people who disagree with me. You can disagree with me, that's a-okay, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

, here it is again:

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ... — jorndoe

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ...

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better? — Tzeentch

No, you can't have missed it or you skirted past (straight to the requisite party line). Quoted above. It's now about:

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think?

Keep in mind that "two wrongs don't make a right", not going to take your bait to futilely defend the US, the thread already established that everyone's evil remember?

^{(Part of this isn't some off-the-ground abstraction but more straightforward; how about you go to Moscow and set up comprehensive criticism of Putin right there, and then go to London and do something similar with respect to the UK? What might be the difference (if you ever make it to London)?)}

It's absolutely weird how you actually believe that.

The people you've called liars in this thread, actually didn't lie. So yes, you've insulted plenty of people as a result - I even demonstrated the mechanism at one point. Except they have thicker skin and don't whine about it. I'll also remind you that I engaged you in good faith twice on this page, the first time you raise a strawman, the second time you pretend my reply is a non-answer when it clearly isn't, since ssu understood it before. You even feel the need to sneak in a suggestion about some kind of defect to my character. So, well done. Enjoy the illusion of the higher ground.

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, ... — jorndoe

... it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ... — jorndoe

By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). — jorndoe

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it's far from the only measure one could use to determine a nation's development. In fact, I would argue that the amount of death and destruction a nation exports is a far better measure, and for that the United States takes the cake, and it's not even close.

Earlier you shared an article calling Russia's actions in Ukraine 'genocidal'. How would the United States' conduct in say, Vietnam, compare? 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians and 1,100,000 North Vietnamese / Viet Cong fighters dead by official estimates.

But at least the benevolent United States allowed its citizens to openly criticize this butchery. How fortunate the Vietnamese must've felt to be murdered by such a free and open society.

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), ... — jorndoe

The Grand Chessboard: American Grand Strategy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives

I would recommend reading it fully, but read chapter 2 titled "The Eurasian Chessboard" to understand the underlying geopolitical landscape that to a large extent dictates how great powers act on the world stage, and especially the actions of the United States in relation to Europe and the Eurasian continent.

If the idea of the United States using divide & conquer sounds like a 'nefarious plot' to you, that tells me you haven't read enough on the subject.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think? — jorndoe

That's what Russia did prior to 2008, and things were looking good. As I said before, Putin has been moving towards Europe since he came to power. He was liked in the West until 2008, and even until 2014 to an extent.

Why do you think Russia and Europe built all these pipelines? Why did Merkel and Marcon for the longest time try to stop the Americans from provoking the Russians?

The question you ask has already been answered in recent history. Cooperation is possible. The actual question is: what changed for the situation to get where it is now? And in my view that has had to do primarily with the United States.

The people you've called liars in this thread, actually didn't lie. — Benkei

Oh really? You have an example?

, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else.

Just FYI, I personally witnessed the optimism, friendships, the events, openness that followed, in the 1990s. People want(ed) to become friends, to cultivate positive relationships. Heck, I think it made it into popular culture/entertainment in the US. (Though I'm sure this could be construed as propaganda by the so inclined.)

Russian election: Biggest protests since fall of USSR (Dec 10, 2011)
Worldwide Protests Against the Russian Duma Election Fraud (Dec 12, 2011)
Robert Conquest: Russia's Election Protests and the Soviet Past (updated Nov 14, 2017)
Moscow Protesters Stage Series Of One-Person Pickets In Call For Free Elections (Aug 17, 2019) "illegal mass gatherings"

(at some point I'm going to quit all this recall, might be futile here anyway)

And so, here it is again (again):

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, and how changes might foster increased optimism, trust, further and closer relations, etc, then so be it (talk about tunnel vision). I can tell you with some confidence that a few Europeans would welcome this and be happy to build on it; yep, it's happened before, until the regressive moves reached a threshold.

↪Tzeentch
, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else. — jorndoe

Party line? What kind of cheap rhetorical tricks are these? I go against your preferred narrative so I must be a Kremlin propagandist?

Up yours.

How about you come with a single coherent argument to support your position, instead of all this babble?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, ... — jorndoe

What are you expecting me to respond to that?

That I believe those things are bad and regrettable?

Every single time.

That's just not true.