The UN is not a collective and doesn't define itself like that:

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. — boethius

The UN Charter, which starts with:


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Seems pretty collectivist to me…

The UN is not a collective and doesn't define itself like that:

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter.
— boethius

The UN Charter, which starts with: — Olivier5

Key word:

guided — the UN

Not "bound to" or "for sure going to happen".

Or, in other words:

The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules. — Captain Barbossa

It's a nice charter the UN has there, very pretty, I honestly wish I had a charter just as pretty.

But how does the UN actually work (what it actually is) in it's own words:

the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity. — UN about page

Key word is "gather", making the UN more of a "gathering" than a collective action organisation, at least how they put it.

But, for the topic at hand, the UN is the worst possible example ... for, whatever you want to call it, Russia has a Veto, so it's pretty unlikely the UN will come to Ukraine's aid of "collective security" of the UN "collective", if you insist on calling it that anyways.

And, keep in mind I am not an anti-Ukrainain advocate. I don't like Zelensky, that's for sure, but I've made my position very clear that what I have issue with is NATO supplying arms to Ukraine in a drip feed manner that results in maximum loss of life, trauma, economic destruction for Ukrainians. Now, it harms some Russian soldiers too, and this is purported as a justification for the policy, but I disagree with that justification.

I'd be a lot happier if Ukraine did actually have real allies, was actually part of this "collective security" Zelensky is talking about, that there was a giant Cuban missile crisis standoff between the US and Russia before the war and some solution worked out that avoided war, using actual NATO power as leverage.

Problem is US and company simply didn't care about Ukraine at the time, and wouldn't have A. the balls and B. the "national self interest" to carry out such a policy before the war to the benefit of Ukrainians.

It was in the "national self interest" to keep teasing Ukraine about eventual NATO membership for the West's own purposes knowing full well it would never happen and the policy was not "charity", as some may call it, to Ukraine.

Sending arms after the war starts and hiding behind the "but, but, but the nukes" as an excuse to not let our "friend" Ukraine into our little club, despite flying their flag on our lawns, avatars and prestigious buildings as if we cared, is cowardice and not "standing up to Russia". Our policy may indeed harm Russia (though this is not "guaranteed"), but whether Russia is in fact harmed or not in the long run, the costs to Ukrainians (and poor people's around the world due to the knock-on consequences) suffered for our policy is absolutely enormous.

As seen on Russian TV, posted by Julia Davis (Nov 19, 2022)

These retaliatory strikes - and they are retaliatory... It's an expression of our hatred, our holy hatred. They'll be sitting without gas, without light and without everything else. If the Kyiv regime chose the path of war criminals, they have to freeze and rot over there. Regular people have to take to the streets and put an end to Zelenskyy's Nazi regime. — Boris Chernyshov

There is no uprising, when it seems there should be. [...] Zelenskyy fits all the criteria of a terrorist. You remember him being compared to Al-Qaeda, bin Laden - his fate is the same. — Vladimir Oleynik

Where are the revolts? We don't see any revolts. [...] With respect to our strikes, our strikes should continue. [...] One way or another, this contributes to our victory. For us, victory is absolutely necessary. Any negotiations, if they suddenly start with the Ukrainian side, these negotiations won't end well for us. On the other side, there is not a single person that could be trusted by the Russian government and the Russian people. Destruction of our nation is the sole reason for their existence. They openly talk about it. We can overcome this situation only through strength. — Roman Babayan

Another posted by Julia Davis (Nov 19, 2022)

We don't need to liberate anyone over there. We need to take what's ours. — Dmitry Steshin

So, this stuff is broadcast throughout Russia. They're aware of the destruction, and call for an expansion. Government official still calling them Nazis. ... If this is what passes as The Word in Russia, then no wonder peace seems elusive. "Existential threat." Land grab. Submission.

Holy hatred? :grin:

The Nazi thing was and is a ruse.

• Fascism Comes to Ukraine -- From Russia
  ^{— Cathy Young · RealClearPolitics · May 21, 2014}
• Auschwitz museum says Russia's war in Ukraine is an 'act of barbarity that will be judged by history'
  ^{— John Haltiwanger · Business Insider · Feb 24, 2022}
• Putin wants to de-Nazify Ukraine — that’s ludicrous, say the country’s Jews
  ^{— Zoya Sheftalovich · POLITICO · Apr 25, 2022}
• Posters appear in Moscow accusing famous Swedes of backing Nazism
  ^{— Reuters · May 6, 2022
  • via Al Jazeera: Posters in Moscow accuse famous Swedes of backing Nazism
  • via US News & World Report: Posters Appear in Moscow Accusing Famous Swedes of Backing Nazism}
• Can Ukraine have a ‘Nazi problem’ with a Jewish president?
  ^{— Shaked Karabelnicoff · Unpacked · May 15, 2022}
• How the Russian Media Spread False Claims About Ukrainian Nazis — graphs attached below
  ^{— Charlie Smart · The New York Times · Jul 2, 2022
  • archived Jul 3, 2022}
• Putin’s Abuse of History: Ukrainian ‘Nazis’, ‘Genocide’, and a Fake Threat Scenario
  ^{— Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe, Bastiaan Willems · The Journal of Slavic Military Studies · Jul 6, 2022}
• Ukraine commits genocide on Russians: the term “genocide” in Russian propaganda
  ^{— Egbert Fortuin · Russian Linguistics · Sep 7, 2022}
• In the Security Council, the Russians declared that Ukraine needs "desatanization" because "hundreds of sects are active in our country." This is what the assistant secretary, Aleksei Pavlov, says. Denazification and demilitarization in the past, friends? Now desatanization! :D
  ^{— Oleksiy Goncharenko · Oct 25, 2022}
• List of neo-Nazi organizations
  ^{— Wikipedia}
• Racism by country
  ^{— Wikipedia}

Yet, officials keep repeating the Nazi thing, seemingly also oblivious to carrying some amount of hypocrisy. As mentioned before, have some parallels to the Sudetenland crisis (≈ 1938). The consequences come through as serious enough (to me).





What else might be a ruse? The (supposed) existential threat to Russia? ...?

. If we are only considering Zelensky lying to us; I think what matters is the intention. Zelensky's intention is clearly to escalate tensions between nuclear powers in a way that he certainly has in mind may go all the way to nuclear war; either as a desirable thing or then just a risk he's willing to take. — boethius

Nonsense.

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians.

It would be typical of Russian propaganda to say Zelensky has "in mind to go all the way to nuclear war". As if he was the instigator of this war.

The sophistic art of the historicist... — Isaac

The illiterate....

The Nazi thing was and is a ruse. — jorndoe

Yes it was.

But notice how eagerly it was employed even on this thread by some very active participants.

What a fascinating collection of self-immunised arguments we're getting. First we have @ssu's absurd "when my theory is disproven by the past 'times have changed', when it's supported 'twas ever thus'"

Now we have your classic example...

When did Russia news stop being a propaganda tool of the regime?

Apparently, the moment it starts saying something you think is true.

Where's your graph of how frequently Russian media talked about Russia's 'right' to Ukrainian territory?

When Russian media says stuff that doesn't support your theory - "It's all lies, Russian media is such a propaganda tool - they're not going to tell us Putin's true intentions are they?"

When Russian media says stuff that does support your theory - "See, the Russian media are saying it, so it simply must be true representation of Putin's intentions"

The Nazi thing was and is a ruse. — jorndoe

Yes it was.

But notice how eagerly it was employed even on this thread by some very active participants. — ssu

Over 8 months ago I posted several reports by Western media (made before the war) investigating the Nazi's in Ukraine.

Are these Western journalists working for Putin? Just part of the ruse you're talking about?

If it's not a ruse ... well what is the ruse?

Why didn't yourselves or anyone who thinks the Nazi's aren't a problem explain why these reports aren't alarming, 8 months ago or anytime since?

At the time, the opposing view was that yes these Nazi's were a problem, there just wasn't enough of them to justify an invasion. I asked at the time, and several times since, what "enough Nazi's" would be; as to say there's not enough Nazi's with not enough power to justify invasion, implies some theory and analysis of where the line of too-many-Nazi's is and that the facts point to Ukraine being on the not-enough side of that line.

A simple question one would presumably need to answer to support Ukraine is fighting a just war, rather than using an unjust war (started in 2014 against separatist who have a right to self determination same as Ukraine) to build a fascist regime where all their political opposition is banned.

But, maybe you just forgot to respond to my comment and these reports I posted 8 months, and just require a friendly reminder to do so now:

The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.

Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS. — boethius

And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation? — boethius

And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing: — boethius

January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.

The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".

But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.

[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]

Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — BBC

Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".

And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters: — boethius

We're Aryans, and we will rise again — totally not a neo-Nazi, according to the German government

But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side). — boethius

This one's just adorable. — boethius

Nonsense.

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians.

It would be typical of Russian propaganda to say Zelensky has "in mind to go all the way to nuclear war". As if he was the instigator of this war. — ssu

Ah, ok, making false accusations in the context of a delusional "urge" to put the world on a path to nuclear war in order to get more assistance, is just a:

gaffe — ssu

Nothing to see here. All completely:

logical — ssu

UN is the worst possible example ... for, whatever you want to call it, Russia has a Veto, so it's pretty unlikely the UN will come to Ukraine's aid of "collective security" of the UN "collective", if you insist on calling it that anyways. — boethius

Seems to me that Russia is far more isolated than Ukraine at the moment. Its one and only ally is Belarus, and it is not helping much.

And, keep in mind I am not an anti-Ukrainain advocate.

Thanks for the laugh. You’re the voice of Moscow here. Of course you are anti-Ukrainian.

Seems to me that Russia is far more isolated than Ukraine at the moment. Its one and only ally is Belarus, and it is not helping much. — Olivier5

Read first, reply second. It always works best that way round.

Russia has a Veto — boethius

A veto does not require allies.

Thanks for the laugh. You’re the voice of Moscow here. Of course you are anti-Ukrainian. — Olivier5

Essentially your position, along with the other Zelenkyites, is that support for Ukraine means support for Ukrainian propaganda, and especially whatever Zelensky says. If he contradicts himself (which he does often) then it is incumbent upon us to understand why Zelensky would want us believing something one day and the opposite the next day. If he gets caught lying (such as making accusations without justification; such as these missiles, existence of Nazi's sporting the black sun in his entourage, or the basic historical facts leading up to the war) then we must understand that of course he was motivated to lie to us! It was to his advantage for us to believe whatever he says and he's fighting a war!

However, does just parroting whatever Zelensky or Ukrainian intelligence service say, benefit Ukraine?

Let's take an example. One "pro-Russia" view I was accused of early on, was my conclusion that Javelins and other man-portable-weapons would not be enough to win any major offensive or counter-offensive, that armour is needed for this kind of warfare. At the time, NATO had a no-armour policy, and the pro-NATO and pro-Ukrainian position was that of course Javelins are enough.

Now, many moons pass and it goes without saying that Ukraine needs armour to accomplish anything on the battlefield.

Well, what did the obvious lie (NATO certainly knew as well as I you need armour for this kind of fighting on this kind of terrain) accomplish?

Thousands of Ukrainians dead that maybe would be still alive if armour was supplied sooner.

And, despite it being now completely obvious to everyone that Ukraine needs armour to compete on the battlefield, NATO still maintains the policy of no NATO produced tanks ... well, why is that? NATO just want Ukrainians to die when superior NATO tanks could save them?

The excuse is that NATO tanks are different and it would require training ... ok, well, train them then. Considering this war could go on for years, the time it would take to train Ukrainians on NATO tanks doesn't seem all that relevant. Had things got started in February, seems to me that it would be quite easy to field several companies of Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams tanks. Sure it takes time, but it doesn't take more than 8 months to to train a tank crew, especially if they already have military and tank experience.

Of course, it doesn't feel good that NATO is holding back weapons and training, getting Ukrainians killed that could have had better protection, all while claiming to be fully supporting Ukraine's fight. But that's the obvious truth.

Worse, the substitute for NATO built tanks is Soviet built tanks, which NATO has been scrounging left and right to throw into Ukraine. Some of these tanks are incredibly outdated and basically a coffin on wheels. Of course, better than nothing, but not only is it simply hypocritical for NATO to hold back the good stuff, but what happens when Ukraine just runs out of tanks entirely?

The day Ukraine simply doesn't have tanks and Ukrainian lines start to crumble because of that, wouldn't be the optimum time for NATO to sigh and finally provide the NATO built tanks and training.

Pointing the policy is not genuine on NATO's part, is not anti-Ukrainian, it's just reality.

Now, the apologetics for this reality is that NATO doesn't want to provoke Russia too much, so can't "go crazy" and just supply anything that would be useful to fight a war and accomplish the stated objectives (we're not even going to talk about F-16s ... much less F-35s) ... but why would these weapons systems be too provocative? Obviously because it might allow Ukraine to obviously win ... so, what's the policy? Clearly not let Ukraine actually win.

What's the consequence of propping up Ukraine enough to fight but not with? A very large amount of suffering in the pursuit of objectives that cannot be accomplished.

However, does just parroting whatever Zelensky or Ukrainian intelligence service say, benefit Ukraine? — boethius

This is a pretty ridiculous canard, even by your standards. Nobody here repeats Ukrainian intelligence service material or whatever Zelensky says.

And, despite it being now completely obvious to everyone that Ukraine needs armour to compete on the battlefield, NATO still maintains the policy of no NATO produced tanks ... well, why is that? NATO just want Ukrainians to die when superior NATO tanks could save them?

The excuse is that NATO tanks are different and it would require training ... — boethius

I would think that the reasons for this are that tanks cost a lost of money, are in short supply, and you don't want the enemy to get hold of them.

What's the consequence of propping up Ukraine enough to fight but not with? A very large amount of suffering in the pursuit of objectives that cannot be accomplished. — boethius

So you think NATO countries should support Ukraine with fighter jets and tanks? I mean, that's an option worth considering.

This is a pretty ridiculous canard, even by your standards. Nobody here repeats Ukrainian intelligence service material or whatever Zelensky says. — Olivier5

I have zero problem reading the entire thread and verifying your claim. Also, keep in mind that apologising for Zelensky is also apart of it ... which we just went through an example of:

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians. — ssu

If Zelensky lied or had delusional requests (like a no-fly zone) then we're asked to just understand that he's fighting a war and doing whatever, zero expectations to make sense. If he's caught in a lie ... that's just a "gaffe".

I would think that the reasons for this are that tanks cost a lost of money, are in short supply, and you don't want the enemy to get hold of them. — Olivier5

How does this make any sense whatsoever? Again, exactly the apologetics for NATO policy I just described to avoid the inconvenient truth.

First, tanks are not in short supply.

[quote="List of currently active United States military land vehicles
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles"]M1 Abrams – 5,000 active use. Approx. 3,000 stored[/quote]

And that's just the US tanks ... doesn't seem like tanks are in short supply.

Second, even if the tanks were in the short supply, one of the foundational justifications for arming Ukraine is so that Ukraine fights the Russians so we don't have to. So, if this was really the policy, you'd want to send tanks to do that fighting.

So you think NATO countries should support Ukraine with fighter jets and tanks? I mean, that's an option worth considering. — Olivier5

The question here is, if the support to Ukraine really is genuine, why hasn't that happened since day one of the war?

Western political leaders keep saying their objective is to support Ukraine with "whatever they need" to defeat the Russians.

If we both agree fighter jets and tanks would be useful in that effort, and training is only a temporary problem and totally irrelevant as the war could still be on years or decades from now, why hasn't NATO already started those programs to train, supply, workout the logistics for tanks and planes months ago?

Is my pointing this out anti-Ukrainian?

Or, it is just the reality that the West is using Ukraine for its own purposes, not Ukraine's purposes, and those purposes don't include actually defeating the Russians (otherwise their actions would be consistent with such a goal).

If that's the truth, objectives cannot be attained through military force (as NATO is holding back the support required to do that), then the alternative to indefinite war or a war that you lose, is compromise and make peace with the Russians.

What I have issue with is people who accept NATO isn't really supporting Ukraine enough to win (obviously we agree here jets and tanks are nice to have) ... but also support indefinite fighting or uncompromising diplomatic positions.

You can support an uncompromising diplomatic position, but that only makes sense (for Ukrainians) if you believe Ukraine can win, and therefore believe NATO is going to support that. But holding back weapons systems for no reason (if the goal is to actually defeat the Russians) is incompatible with the premise.

The thread is discussing Zelensky and his preconditions for dozens of pages. — boethius

First, in our exchange, you wasted all occasions to quote where Zelensky used the word "precondition" in support of your argument.
Second, what may be relevant to your argument, may be irrelevant to mine, as in this case, so your statement may contribute to explain why you misunderstood my claim, that's all.

retroactively dilute the meanings of words to most the goal posts of your claim to something so trivial and tautological it is not wrong — boethius

I'm not diluting anything, I formulated a very consequential reasoning from general principles (pragmatic rationality as applied to geopolitics) to conclusions (what was rational to expect from Zelensky and the West). Besides what you accuse me of ("tautology" which you neither defined nor quoted anything from what I said to prove it is, and can be charitably understood as "obvious truth"), can be retorted to you in the same dumb fashion. Finally, if my actual claim (not the one you attribute to me) was really obviously true to you, then either you must (rational requirement, logic conclusion [1]) converge with my conclusions, or keep as well your conclusion in contradiction with mine and end up with a logically inconsistent position.
See how catastrophic your position is, dude?

you're asking us to believe you were simply not following the discussion and just-so-happened to use the word in a different sense to make an empty point about how people generally make decisions — boethius

I'm not here to convince anybody. I had fun in clarifying my points against you. Instead of addressing them to my satisfaction, you decided to divert attention from them by blabbering about some trivial literal misunderstanding of yours which shouldn't have been a big deal for you to acknowledge and move on, given all my timely and repeated clarifications. If you now look so dumb to yourself, it's all your fault. I have no pity for you.

This is a proposal exactly in the understanding of international relations I've described: whatever the US does, now or in the future, is because it's in the US interest and no Ukraine. — boethius

Oh no no no, that's the sort of claim I made [2]. You keep claiming that this kind of proposal is "ornamental" and meaningless [3]
Besides given the historical circumstances US/NATO/West security interest and Ukrainian security interest may converge profitably for both. And this is another thing you missed from those quotations. Nowhere in those quotations there is a support for the claim that those agreements are ornamental or "zero meaningful security guarantees". Those quotations express the opposite of it, there is strong convergent interest.

There's no charity towards Ukraine now nor in the future. — boethius

WHO ON EARTH IS SAYING THAT SUCH PROPOSALS ARE OUT OF CHARITY? QUOTE HIM!
Until then, I'll consider your reiterated claims as a strawman argument based on a caricatural understanding of other people's claims (mine included).

Why would a nation that has accepted to live within its own borders attack anyone? — boethius

"Security guarantees" are meant to hedge against uncertainty, so by taking into account the pessimistic scenario for security, not the optimistic one. Isn't that obvious to you?

I'm sure you have some new boring diatribe explaining how this proposal is self contradictory — boethius

What?! You'd go so far, to claim that I would argue against the consistency of such proposals I myself quoted to successfully support my claims against yours?! Are you crazy?!

the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue. — neomac

"pre-condition for the kind of agreements" and "but Ukraine doesn’t have!" — boethius

Your argument is essentially based on an association of ideas between terms extrapolated from a sentence whose meaning you find hard to digest. I can concede that association of ideas is good enough for rhetoric not for understanding things logically which you failed to do. Taking into account logic is a precondition for the kind of discussions you can rationally engage in, dude!

having nuclear weapons was not a precondition for pursuing these kinds of agreements — boethius

"Precondition" wasn't referred to deterrence means nor nuclear weapons (this is your misunderstanding), but to considering the available deterrence means as a rational ground for pursuing any kind of security agreement by geopolitical agents. In other words, I was referring to a rational requirement. Indeed, pragmatic rationality is about effectively adapting means and goals, since the goal that geopolitical agents can often prioritize in given historical circumstances is security, then OBVIOUSLY deterrence means will be taken into account, and among deterrence means there might be nuclear weapons (like for the US and the Soviet Union) or alternatives (like in Ukraine). So countries which do not possess nuclear deterrence (like for Ukraine) will rationally look for AFFORDABLE means of deterrence alternative to nuclear weapons, like military cooperation with non-hostile and powerful countries (e.g. NATO membership, security guarantees from the West) that can stand against Russian expansionist and/or nuclear threat. To what extent is such form of military cooperation AFFORDABLE by Ukraine? To the extent the West/NATO/US has security concerns against Russia convergent with those ones of Ukraine, as it happened so far, also thanks to the boasting&aggressive defiant attitude of Russia against the West/NATO/US!
This argument is perfectly consequential and in contradiction to the claim that the military cooperation between Ukraine and the West is "zero meaningful" from a geopolitical point of view. This war is proving exactly the opposite of such spectacularly dumb claim of yours.


Finally, SINCE YOU KEEP DODGING MY QUESTIONS, HERE THEY ARE AGAIN:

• WHO ON EARTH IS TAKING SECURITY GUARANTEES IN THE CERTAINTY SENSE? CAN YOU QUOTE HIM?
• RUSSIA IS CLAIMED TO SEE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT IN HAVING UKRAINE AND GEORGIA WITHIN NATO, THIS WAS NO ACTUAL NUCLEAR THREAT (BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUCH WEAPONS, AND THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT) NOR - AS YOU COULD ARGUE - GUARANTEE IN THE SENSE OF CERTAINTY THAT RUSSIA WOULD BE NUKED AFTER UKRAINE JOINED NATO OR AFTER INVADING UKRAINE FOLLOWING THE UKRAINIAN NATO MEMBERSHIP. HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN?

UNTIL YOU ANSWER THEM APPROPRIATELY, I’LL KEEP CONSIDERING YOUR CLAIMS FOR WHAT THEY LOOK, A MONUMENTAL STRAW MAN ARGUMENT BECAUSE GROUNDED ON THE CARICATURAL ASSUMPTION THAT SECURITY GUARANTEES IS WRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAINTY INSTEAD OF BEING RIGHTLY ASSOCIATED WITH HEDGING AGAINST UNCERTAINTY.



[1]


[2]

So what? There are three reasons your question is failing to take into account:
1. We are in the middle of the war so we don’t see the end of the war nor the full consequences of such war. The Soviet–Afghan War lasted 10 years, could anyone see the end of it and the following collapse of the Soviet Union while they were in the middle of it back then? No, because they didn’t happen yet.
2. Russia was complaining about NATO enlargement since the 90s, did Russia see NATO enlargement stopping for that reason? NATO/US can be as determined as Russia to pursue their goals in Ukraine at the expense of Russia. And since Russia, especially under Putin, took a declared confrontational attitude toward the hegemonic power, Russia made sure that NATO/US will deal with Russia accordingly as long as they see fit.
3. The end game for NATO/US involvement in this war doesn’t need to be to stop Russia or overturn its regime. But to inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power (in terms of its economic system, its system of alliance, its capacity of military projection outside its borders, its its technology supply, its military and geopolitical status) to the point it is not longer perceived as a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West. — neomac

[3]

Second, Ukraine will receive zero meaningful security guarantees in any peace deal with Russia, other than the ornamental meaning of "trust us bro". — boethius

First, in our exchange, you wasted all occasions to quote where Zelensky used the word "precondition" which would be relevant to your argument. — neomac

Why would this be relevant to my argument? The word precondition was already being discussed, the point of discussion was if Zelensky's precondition to negotiate were reasonable or not.

If you want a citation of Zelensky literally using the word precondition, here you go:

"We agreed that the Ukrainian delegation would meet with the Russian delegation without preconditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River," he said in a statement. — Reuters

Zelensky demands Russian troops leave Ukraine as precondition to diplomacy — The Times of Isreal

How does citing Zelensky using the word precondition or journalist reporting on his preconditions relevant to the argument here?

What is relevant here is that the word precondition was already being discussed, that was the whole focus of my point you were clearly trying to rebut.

"Precondition" wasn't referred to deterrence means nor nuclear weapons (this is your misunderstanding), but to considering the available deterrence means as a rational ground for pursuing any kind of security agreement by geopolitical agents. In other words, I was referring to a rational requirement. — neomac

Again, look where you've moved the goal posts.

You start off with bait-and-switch the meaning of precondition, which you were obviously using for the reason that it tied into the debate that was ongoing, not some maverick "off-book" and "I don' give a shit about your dictionary and I make my own rules, here's a new meaning for this word that server no pragmatic purpose to just randomly invent now with no explanation."

Next, what do you explain here? Exactly what I describe, that in order to remove the original meaning from your statement to not admit saying something false and foolish, you are saying nothing at all. US and Soviet Union considered "available deterrence means" in making agreements ... and so did everyone else, including Ukraine, in joining various non-proliferation treaties.

All you're saying is "agents" reason about things. Obviously they do. Moreso giant institutions that run entire countries.

But that's simply obviously not the point you were making. In using the word "pre-condition" and emphasising that Ukraine is in a different nuclear status, you were clearly rebutting my position and supporting Zelensky's intransigence.

If you were just chiming into say that people reason about things, just in a pseudo-intellectual bullshit way of speaking with "geopolitical agents" and all, then you would have made that clear: you would have said "of course, having nuclear deterrence isn't a precondition for anything, and I'd never mention the idea, but Ukraine may reason themselves to a peace deal or then reason themselves to continue fighting, both conclusion could be potentially reasonable hypothetically given everything that should be considered in making these kinds of decisions." In other words, if you were stating the obvious you would have said you were stating the obvious and then maybe explain something not obvious that follows from that.

This argument is perfectly consequential and in contradiction to the claim that the military cooperation between Ukraine and the West is "zero meaningful" from a geopolitical point of view. This war is proving exactly the opposite of such spectacularly dumb claim of yours. — neomac

What the hell are you talking about?

My point is that any promise to Ukraine by the West is meaningless in itself. The promise would be fulfilled if, later, it suits these powers to fulfil the promise. If, later, it doesn't suit these powers to fulfil the promise then it won't be fulfilled. There's alignment for now (for some arms, but "tut, tut, tut get your dirty hands of the shiny shit"), I'm just pointing out that if that alignment ever went away (such as happened with the Kurds) then no piece of paper is going to matter.

An obvious reality you seem finally to agree with.

WHO ON EARTH IS TAKING SECURITY GUARANTEES IN THE CERTAINTY SENSE? CAN YOU QUOTE HIM? — neomac

“There is only one goal (from Russia): to destroy our independence. There’s no other goal in place. That’s why we need security guarantees. … And we believe we have already demonstrated our forces’ capability to the world.” — Zelensky, quoted by CNN

Now, if you're saying Zelensky knows that security guarantees are only ornamental fluff to promises that will only be kept if it suits the promising party to keep the promise (aka. a nominal but meaningless promise), then I'd be happy to hear that Zelensky isn't delusional on this point of international relations.

RUSSIA IS CLAIMED TO SEE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT IN HAVING UKRAINE AND GEORGIA WITHIN NATO, THIS WAS NO ACTUAL NUCLEAR THREAT (BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUCH WEAPONS, AND THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT) NOR - AS YOU COULD ARGUE - GUARANTEE IN THE SENSE OF CERTAINTY THAT RUSSIA WOULD BE NUKED AFTER UKRAINE JOINED NATO OR AFTER INVADING UKRAINE FOLLOWING THE UKRAINIAN NATO MEMBERSHIP. HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN? — neomac

Russia doesn't only cite nuclear weapons as a threat from NATO, but forward deployed missile bases.

Tangible weapons systems in the real world owned and operated by NATO that require NATO membership to be deployed in your country.

Now, there was a de facto understanding after the ascension of the Baltic's into NATO that certain systems wouldn't be forward deployed in order to reduce tensions and the possibility of accidents.

NATO then forward deployed exactly those missile systems saying "something, something, Iran" even though that made no sense. Whether this was breaking a promise or not, clearly NATO's policy is to forward deploy threatening weapons systems.

The deployment of actual weapons systems is what matters.

If the Baltics were nominally in NATO but hosted no NATO infrastructure, then, yes, this isn't really a threat as no NATO attacks could be launched given this lack of NATO infrastructure to do so. It's a reasonable compromise to maintain a reasonable defensive posture: we won't forward deploy to the Baltics as we have no intention to attack you, but we will come to their aid if they are attacked.

Of course, once you do forward deploy military systems you are by definition threatening the people in range of those systems and the logic of a defensive posture goes away.

The apologetics logic about this is that Russia shouldn't view these forward deployed systems as a threat, even if there's no other reason for it, because in NATO's heart of hearts they're not "out to get Russia", that's paranoid delusion talk.

But, if the first reaction of the West to this war in Ukraine is that it's an opportunity to weaken Russia, a geopolitical rival ... then obviously NATO was indeed threatening Russia all along.

Now, being threatened by real weapons systems in the real world does not then justify any action, but it does make this story of "unprovoked attack" absurd propaganda. If you threaten me and I punch you in the face, I could definitely still be in the wrong and be convicted of assault, but it wasn't unprovoked.

But to focus on the central issue we've been discussing:

HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN? — neomac

I have said adding the word "guarantee" to a promise is ornamental. The texts of international agreements still matter for what they actually do: coordinate actions of willing participants.

If there's a peace deal and Russia wants to follow it, then what the peace deal says matters a great deal as they'll need to read it to implement it, and likewise other parties will see their actions and compare it to the deal to evaluate if the Russians are indeed intending to stick to peace (rather than attack again or then just not follow some parts of the deal as they don't feel like it, perhaps motivating others to not follow their parts of the deal that they only want to follow if Russia is doing their part).

This coordination of willing participants to a deal is not ornamental.

More importantly, real weapons systems in the real world is not ornamental.

The military relevance of Ukraine joining NATO would be forward deployment of NATO weapons systems to Ukraine, which would then be there fore decades and under conditions that today we cannot predict.

An analogy is that if I point a gun at you but assure you I don't intend to fire it. Well, even if that were true, maybe the situation changes and you want to fire it later, or then someone jumps out of a giant novelty cake in surprise and it startles you into firing it.

The NATO apologetics on this issue is that NATO weapons systems aren't a threat to anyone: obviously they are.

THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT — neomac

But to focus on another error in analysis. Everyone says that the footsie between NATO and Ukraine, even if we do see NATO policy is to forward deploy under stupid pretext (like "Iran" needs to be defended from the Baltics ... no closer NATO country or US / NATO base to Iran is convenient for that purpose), didn't matter because Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO anytime soon.

How would the Russians actually know what's imminent or not?

And, take a step back and think about this form of apologetics, as it is premised on the idea that it would be justified to attack Ukraine if NATO promises to Ukrainian weren't meaningless ornaments.

However, I have not described promises in international relations as meaningless ornaments, only embellishing or trying to "lock in" the promise is, and can only be, ornamental. Promises are meaningful as people may actually intend to carry out the promise, and if that is the case then the exchange of promises coordinates further cooperative action ... just in no way guarantees things stay that way nor if one's belief in other people's declared intentions turns out to be a good idea in hindsight.

But what's asked in this apology is that we must view Russia's concerns about NATO weapons systems in Ukraine as unfounded and foolish, because we must obviously know that NATO's promises to Ukraine are meaningless.

But, if NATO, UKraine, Russia, and everyone else knows the promises from NATO to Ukraine are totally meaningless (of friendship and partnership and joining NATO presumably in a useful way before and not after being invaded and significantly harmed) ... what was the purpose of those promises in the first place other than simply to provoke Russia? Promises aren't going to happen, everyone knows that, so why make the promises?

Now, what we should demand of Russia in interpreting such information is one topic, but clearly if the only explanation available is an intent to provoke a war, we can certainly all agree that the NATO-Ukraine footsie game was of criminal intent on NATO's part: would not and could not protect Ukraine, only meant to provoke a war at the expense of Ukraine.

Zelensky probably will use everything at his disposal to secure his goals. Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. We'll all do what we have to do to survive, and for many, that extends to the political entities we're parts of.

Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. — frank

Of course it can. If I feel that you're threatening my life, I'm not thereby justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on your house. The collateral damage would be out of proportion to the harm mitigated.

It's absurd to suggest that self-defense somehow morally justifies any response no matter what.

Of course it can. If I feel that you're threatening my life, I'm not thereby justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on your house. The collateral damage would be out of proportion to the harm mitigated.

It's absurd to suggest that self-defense somehow morally justifies any response no matter what. — Isaac

Uh huh.

Uh huh. — frank

Good. Glad we got that one sorted. Perhaps put a little thought into your posts next time before reeling off meaningless knee-jerk platitudes.

frank

Good. Glad we got that one sorted. Perhaps put a little thought into your posts next time before reeling off meaningless knee-jerk platitudes. — Isaac

I think you're just procrastinating instead of studying how to trade on the currency market.

I think you're just procrastinating instead of studying how to trade on the currency market. — frank

Time for your meds, I think. Is one of the nurses nearby? Do you need us to call someone?

Zelensky probably will use everything at his disposal to secure his goals. Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. We'll all do what we have to do to survive, and for many, that extends to the political entities we're parts of. — frank

@Isaac has pointed out the basic problem with your statement.

However, I think even more revealing is the underlining self-contradiction in this sort of apologetics for Zelensky.

For, shouldn't Europeans also do what it takes to survive? Which may require throwing Ukraine under the bus in a deal for Russian gas?

Now, imagine this was the self-interested and self-preserving action, for the sake of argument, would you maintain your position that it cannot be condemned? even the most viscous stab in the back (we can even go wild and imagine Ukrainians literally falling off of our aircraft as we high-tail our embassy staff and special forces the fuck out of there). It's self preservation after all.

Yet ... how would this square with the West's own Churchillian ideals of defending freedoms and things? Just doing and saying whatever we need to manipulate the Ukrainians and secure our goals? Sending arms to fight the Russians when it advances our goals, cutting a deal and abandoning the Ukrainians when the circumstances change.

Do we accept the (good, Western) Afghanis and (good, Western) Iraqis, and Kurds ... and Georgians, are only allies of convenience as they are foreign enough (some of them brown!) whereas Ukraine, because they have hot woman to a noble Western sensibility?, gets special treatment and we'll even pursue their goals at the cost of our own?

I think you're following Isaac in doing your best not to understand that when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker.

I suppose some would chose to die instead. I don't understand it, but I acknowledge it.

I think you're following Isaac in doing your best not to understand that when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker. — frank

This is not the issue. Zelensky isn't literally on the battle field kungfooing or whatever.

Forget about Ukrainians for a moment, forget even about the collateral damage that can obviously be unjustifiable, focus for a moment on a simple question: Is it in our interest to accept Zelensky lying to us?

Even if I thought it was reasonable for Zelensky (from his point of view) to manipulate me for his own benefit ... is it in my benefit to be manipulated?

Even if I thought it was reasonable for Zelensky to manipulate me for his own benefit .. — boethius

If you had spy satellites, you probably wouldn't feel manipulated.

If you had spy satellites, you probably wouldn't feel manipulated. — frank

What?

So... you're saying Zelensky is just stupid enough to lie to people who would know he's lying? So it's not a lie?

... Also, I don't have spy satellites, many other parties that jumped in to support Zelensky assuming he had some basis for what he was saying, also didn't have spy satellites.

You're saying manipulating everyone else who doesn't have spy satellites ... we just don't care about them (like the Kurds ... and Afghanis ... and Iraqis ... and Georgians etc.)?

But, even if we ignore everyone else, what if the US administration, who saw what happened with their satellites as you say they would, and saw it was a lie, but felt too invested in Zelensky to contradict him, so go along with the story. That's not manipulation?

Even more alarming, what if the US administration, being the only other party with any information on what happened, decided it was a great lie that Zelensky is telling, suits US "goals", and they push the lie too. This wouldn't be manipulation on Zelensky's part because he has co-conspirators?

Robber: "I didn't steal anything, you caught me red handed! Jeesh!! It's not robbing if the people you're trying to rob can stop you! Everyone knows that!!!!"

If we both agree fighter jets and tanks would be useful in that effort, and training is only a temporary problem and totally irrelevant as the war could still be on years or decades from now, why hasn't NATO already started those programs to train, supply, workout the logistics for tanks and planes months ago? — boethius

Did you read my answer to that question, re. the tanks? Maybe we can stop asking queestions that have been answered already.

For the airforce support I believe an additional issue would be related to avoid escalating the war.

keep in mind that apologising for Zelensky is also apart of it ... which we just went through an example of:

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians — boethius

Just because folks have opinions and share them here, does not make those a form of "parroting" of anyone. @ssu and @SophistiCat have been critical of Zelensky after the Polish missile incident, and that is evidently at a variance with Ukrainian propaganda. You guys don't like it when we disagree with you, fair enough, but we are not parroting the enemies of the folks you are parroting.