You mean, what use could a policy maker make of this indication?

You mean, what use could a policy maker make of this indication? — Olivier5

Yes. How does it influence which strategy we might advocate?

How does it influence which strategy we might advocate? — Isaac

To all holy warriors including Putin, the advice might be something like: If you want to be able to get out of a war at some point through a peace deal, then maybe don't essentialize it as being between Good and Evil. Cause that makes it harder to sign a peace deal, eventually.

To all holy warriors including Putin, the advice might be something like: If you want to be able to get out of a war at some point through a peace deal, then maybe don't essentialize it as being between Good and Evil. Cause that makes it hard to sign a peace deal, eventually. — Olivier5

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful.

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful. — Isaac

The implication is NOT that something or another is 'unhelpful' per se. It is that essentializing a conflict as good vs evil has a cost: it makes it harder to make peace. This cost may or may not be worth paying depending on the circumstances. It was certainly a good thing to see the fight against Nazism as a fight against evil, for instance. There was no peace to be made with Hitler.

That Putin is morally responsible for this war is a fact. He started it, from a position of strength, of dominance. He bears the moral responsibility of thousands of deaths, among Russians too. This should be recalled regularly since so many seem eager to forget it and because it is important to understand the Ukrainian government position and communication: they do not say that they are on a crusade against evil. They say that they are defending their land against a ultra-brutal and totally immoral invasion.

And that is true. It is not essentializing anything, just saying the truth.

And truth does not make a peace deal more difficult to strike.

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful. — Isaac

No the problem is that Putin has framed the 'evil neo-nazi Ukrainians vs. noble holy-warrior Putin&Russians' in the first place (and persisting with that). That is unhelpful for peace making.

The implication is NOT that something or another is 'unhelpful' per se. It is that essentializing a conflict as good vs evil has a cost: it makes it harder to make peace. This cost may or may not be worth paying depending on the circumstances. It was certainly a good thing to see the fight against Nazism as a fight against evil, for instance. There was no peace to be made with Hitler. — Olivier5

Yep. Which is entirely the reason I quoted all the other parties making the same religious invocations. Here's Zelensky, by the way, lest you feel he's absolved...

With online posts in Hebrew and appeals to Jews to "cry out" in response to Russia's invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has invoked his faith to rally support for his embattled country. — https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/03/zelensky-invokes-judaism-rally-support-ukrainian-cause

So all war leaders invoke religion and whether we frame it as 'good vs evil' depends on other factors? So, I'll ask again. Why talk about Putin's religious language making it less likely he'll strike a peace deal? What was the point if religious language has no impact on strategy because everyone does it and the essentialising is done, or not done, for completely different reasons?

they do not say that they are on a crusade against evil. They say that they are defending their land against a ultra-brutal and totally immoral invasion. — Olivier5

How is that any different. "ultra-brutal and totally immoral" just sounds like a synonym for 'evil'.

the problem is that Putin has framed the 'evil neo-nazi Ukrainians vs. holy-war Putin&Russians' is in the first place and that is unhelpful for peace making. — neomac

Why is that more unhelpful for peacemaking than the opposite framing of 'totally innocent Ukrainians bravely fighting a ruthless and hell-bent tyrant, deaf to all pleas'?

Both sound equally unhelpful to peace talks, the essential component of which is some expectation of comprise.

Why is that more unhelpful for peacemaking than the opposite framing of 'totally innocent Ukrainians bravely fighting a ruthless and hell-bent tyrant, deaf to all pleas'? — Isaac

I don't expect the victims of an aggression to make peace with the aggressor, especially while the latter is rampaging with the aggression. Unless they are demotivated to fight and defend their rights for themselves, of course.

I don't expect the victims of an aggression to make peace with the aggressor, especially while the latter is rampaging with the aggression. Unless they are demotivated to fight and defend their rights for themselves, of course. — neomac

Warmongering it is then.

Me or Putin? Define "warmongering".

Me or Putin? Define "warmonger". — neomac

Both.

Wanting a war to exist where there wasn't one before and wanting a war to continue where it might otherwise end are both acts of warmongering.

wanting a war to continue — Isaac

Then by your definition I'm not warmongering. I didn't want a war between Russia and Ukraine nor I want it to be continued. I was talking about my expectations about what the Ukrainians want not about what I want. BTW were the Russians warmongering when fighting back the Nazis out of their country in WW2?

I was talking about my expectations about what the Ukrainians want not about what I want. — neomac

Right. So why did you involve my post? If you want to have a different conversion, don't do so in response to my posts, it's really confusing. I'm talking about what course of action we ought to advocate, not what course of action we expect Ukrainians to do. I don't go around having 'expectations' of entire nations.

How is that any different. "ultra-brutal and totally immoral" just sounds like a synonym for 'evil'. — Isaac

What's evil is the invasion, the bombing of civilians, etc. Again that is a fact. It IS evil to do these things. Facts don't make peace difficult.

Naked, unprovoked aggression makes peace difficult. It is detrimental to the common good, immoral, and forbidden as such by international law. It follows that the liberation of Ukraine from such aggression would contribute to the common good. But this doesn't make a liberation struggle 'essentialist' in that it's still not a crusade of cosmic proportion between the forces of good and evil. It can end as soon as the invasion ends.

So why did you involve my post? If you want to have a different conversion, don't do so in response to my posts, it's really confusing. — Isaac

You didn't specify anywhere what kind of conversation you want in your post. This is a public forum about Ukrainian crisis. You made a claim that I as others find questionable and I addressed it as such.

What's evil is the invasion, the bombing of civilians, etc. — Olivier5

Worse than this, Putin is killing people who - he claims - belong to the same nation as Russians. So he's like killing Russians!

Peace requires a deal of some sort, and a deal of some sort requires both sides to give, which means both sides accepting some wrong. It doesn't matter what scale the wrong is, a mad tyrant might decide to wipe out a population because their leader insulted his wife, the two sides could still sue for peace with "I'll stop insulting your wife if you stop the genocide".

It's like none of you even know how negotiation works. You know they exchange pizzas for hostages in hostage negotiations, right? Do you think they're somehow claiming that withholding pizzas is the moral equivalent of holding an innocent person hostage at gunpoint? No, of course not - because (thank God) professional hostage negotiators aren't playing on their My First Ethics Fisher-Price toys and instead live in the real world with helping people as a priority over moral sanctimony.

You made a claim that I as others find questionable and I addressed it as such. — neomac

What claim do you think you've addressed? Your response was "I don't expect Ukrainians to negotiate". To which 'questionable' claim of mine is that a counter?

To be clear - my claim is that framing the whole conflict as evil, genocidal Russia vs innocent Ukraine does not help achieve peace through negotiation.

What you (or I) expect Ukrainians to actually do is completely irrelevant to that claim.

Peace requires a deal of some sort, and a deal of some sort requires both sides to give, which means both sides accepting some wrong. — Isaac

That is simply not true. In such a deal the parties just have to agree on their future relationship. They don't need to agree on who was right or wrong in the past.

The point was that it becomes difficult to do so if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight here, for the Ukrainians, is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow.

Putin is killing people who - he claims - belong to the same nation as Russians. — neomac

Yes. He's bombing them to free them from fascism. It does work in a perverse way: corpses are free from a lot of the trouble living people have.

That is simply not true. In such a deal the parties just have to agree on their future relationship. They don't need to agree on who was right or wrong in the past. — Olivier5

I didn't say they needed to agree on the moral judgement, only that such cards need to be in the player's hands. Each side needs to have a 'wrong' they can offer to right, otherwise they'll be no deal.

The point was that it becomes difficult to fo if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow. — Olivier5

None of Putin's rhetoric implies he's going to wipe out the 'evil' Ukraine either. He talks a lot about how they are his Russian brothers. The 'evil' he's talking about is Neo-Nazisism, imperialism, genocide etc. All clear evils, not Evil capitalised.

None of Putin's rhetoric implies he's going to wipe out the 'evil' Ukraine either. He talks a lot about how they are his Russian brothers. The 'evil' he's talking about is Neo-Nazisism, imperialism, genocide etc. All clear evils, not Evil capitalised. — Isaac

He's certainly trying to fight all the way to Kyiv, though. Plus imperialism or nazism are universals, not specific evils.

Each side needs to have a 'wrong' they can offer to right, otherwise they'll be no deal. — Isaac

More confused BS. A negotiation is simply about finding mutually agreeable terms. A lot of push and shove happens but the Ukrainians should not, in my view, follow your advice and bomb Russian cities or fund separatist movements in Russia just in order to bring more 'wrong chips' at the bargaining table.

Yes. Nice of you to get all judgmental over that assessment. — Benkei

Let's just think how according to you, what "the only correct strategic move" has produced so far:

- The primary planned operation of a quick strike (as in 2014) failed.
- The Ukrainian government didn't fall.
- Russia has something like 65%-75% of it's operational forces already engaged in Ukraine.
- However you look at it, it is obvious that Russia has endured a lot of casualties and lost equipment.
- The attack has unified Ukraine in such a way that couldn't have been possible anyway else.
- The Ukrainians put up a far more stiff defense than even the US and NATO anticipated.
- Despite of efforts in modernization, the Russian armed forces performance in this war is closer to the wars in Chechnya and again the West overestimated the operational performance of the Russian military.
- Germany has made a historical sweeping change of it's foreign and security policy and has started to rearm. The one time 100 billion spending and raising military spending to 2% is huge.
- Germany also shut the Nordstream 2. In some time, I think they can do away with Nordstream 1.
- The EU has changed dramatically it's policies and is now arming Ukraine.
- European countries are trying to stop their energy imports from Russia, as these imports are extremely risky.
- Western companies are withdrawing in droves from Russia.
- Both Finland and Sweden are likely now to join NATO. In both countries prior to the attack those wanting to join NATO were a minority.
- Neither EU or NATO haven't been as unified before.
- All those politicians who "understood" somehow Putin in Europe, aren't there anymore for him.
- Russia is not only suffering from sanctions, but is paying a colossal price for this war every day.
- Russia is basically now the junior partner in the Russia-China relationship.

And then according to you, this was "the only correct move". Strategically. Nothing, absolutely nothing else, according to Benkei, couldn't have done. So somehow, starting a similar stupid, irresponsible war that is likely to fail as Mohammed bin Salman's ruinous intervention in the Yemeni civil war is according to you "the only correct strategic move".

That's simply an insane, delusional or very ignorant argument.

So yes, I am judgmental about those kind of stupid remarks.

Maybe a weaker man would, because its depressing being the only war criminal convicted since WW2.

Why point that out? — Isaac

Well, Isaac, because if you haven't noticed, there are on going peace talks.

How genuine Putin is at those peace talks, can be observed from what he talks to the Russian public. And when he is talking about neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists (as he mentioned) and about genocide (as he mentioned), and then referring to faith as usually politicians fighting a war can do (as you observed), it's not likely that there's going to be huge breakthroughs in the peace talks.

Perhaps the positive thing is that he left the "denazification" of Ukraine out. :roll:

If you cannot understand that, well...

Plus imperialism or nazism are universals, not specific evils. — Olivier5

Oh come on! You could say democracy and freedom from tyranny were universals. You're clutching at straws.

How genuine Putin is at those peace talks, can be observed from what he talks to the Russian public. — ssu

Yep. And how genuine Zelensky is at those peace talks, can be observed from what he says to the Ukrainian public. How genuine any mediator is at those peace talks, can be observed from how they talk to their public.

What does anyone do with that information?

You could say democracy and freedom from tyranny were universals. — Isaac

I could say that, yes. But tyranny in Russia and democracy in Ukraine are facts right now.

Let's just think how according to you, what "the only correct strategic move" has produced so far: — ssu

It is not over yet, which is too bad, but we can take stock of strategies then.

Does NATO have a strategy here or are they innocent bystanders? What is 'correct strategy' for them?

I could say that, yes. — Olivier5

So your argument fails then. You've failed to distinguish the harm (to peace talks) of Russian faith-based, fight-against-genocide, propaganda, and Ukrainian, faith-based, repel-the-evil-tyrant rhetoric.

They both invoke religion, they both essentialise, they both talk about universals (or specifics, depending how you look at it).

They both demonise the 'other', present them as deaf to negotiation, imply they'll be untrustworthy...

You've failed to show how either is functionally different in terms of their use working toward peace.

But then its quite clear you don't give a shit about peace, because this is all just an opportunity for you to get off on your moral virtue signalling from the comfort of your armchair.