I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. — boethius

Didn't the war start because of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and if Russia had somehow prevented the coup from taking place, then it would have avoided war?

On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych and parliamentary opposition leaders signed an agreement calling for an interim government and early elections. The following day, Yanukovych fled Kyiv and later Ukraine;[89] parliament subsequently voted to remove him from office.[90][91][92] Leaders in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine declared continuing loyalty to Yanukovych,[93] leading to pro-Russian unrest.[94] — Wikipedia

I hope it is clear that what is on You Tube is what they want you to see. Banning RT and Sputnik News confirms this fact. I have searched for 'Ukraine war' on You Tube and see the results - please try it for yourself, that is one of the few things we can verify.

The critical need for humanitarian relief in Ukraine
YouTube

'You deserve the truth': Boris Johnson addresses Russians directly about Ukraine war

YouTube

it goes on...

I'm pretty they can get the Ukrainian perspective anytime of the day or night by turning on CNN. — boethius

CNN: Weapons for Ukraine
Russian soldiers discussed atrocities
Video appears to show execution of Russian prisoner by Ukrainian forces (does this help Russia?)

etc etc. CNN is doing very well for Ukraine.

The rest of the world can do nothing but cheer when their own national interests are advanced. I know I will, when it ends in two weeks.

Kremlin hopes operation in Ukraine ends ‘in coming days’
Either the Russian forces will reach their goals in Ukraine or Moscow and Kiev will reach an agreement in the near future, the Kremlin says — RT

Nice exit strategy: we will reach or goals or (failing which) there will be a.. not a defeat... there will be an 'agreement' . I see some of them have had a had taken a mass media studies course, maybe by watching CNN too much.

Where have I denounced those other reasons? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient. — Isaac

And where have I denounced or denied NATO enlargement being one reason for Putin's actions? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient.

I think it's time to move on.

Self-determination means nothing to you then? You have no criteria for it, no way to ascertain it? — Olivier5

That's the whole points, what right to I have to determine how you determine self-determination for yourself?

Didn't the war start because of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and if Russia had somehow prevented the coup from taking place, then it would have avoided war? — FreeEmotion

Exactly, you can keep making these sort of "debateoids" forever.

The legal arguments will never end because there's no judge and state to decide how it's going to be, which rights are more important, what facts are true, and who's "wrong" or then "more wrong".

Both sides will say the other "started it" and if are pro-one-side and lose that debate, you'll just switch to having started it for just cause reasons anyways, and if you lose that debate you'll then say the other side is evil anyways and the war is right to fight that evil even if it wasn't started for legally recognised just-cause reasons.

The problem with legal reasoning is that it's overdetermined. Everyone has too many rights and too many claims to all be simultaneously satisfied.

It's simply not a good framework to approach international relations.

Let's say the allies "fired the first shot" in WWII ... would that change our opinion of the Nazi's or our satisfaction of their defeat (mostly paid with Russian lives)?

There's simply far more going on in moral and political and factual understanding of the world than can be reduced into a few rights based arguments.

Obsession with rights is an obsession with privilege (only the privileged, such as board members, lawyers, professors, have any effective rights) and a denial of responsibility: "I have a right!" as opposed to "I'm trying to make a good decision, morally sound and best for society, and I'm responsible for my actions."

CNN: Weapons for Ukraine
Russian soldiers discussed atrocities
Video appears to show execution of Russian prisoner by Ukrainian forces (does this help Russia?) — FreeEmotion

It helps Russia a bit, sort of "signals" that Russia does have a perspective, and maybe some points and maybe Ukraine isn't perfect.

However, notice that we apply critical scrutiny to Russia. The video only "appears" to show something, and is not categorical proof of an atrocity such as the Bucha video (which as you pointed out, is still just a video also just appears to show something).

This sort of signal can be for 1 of 2 purposes (likely both).

First, it adds a little false-balance to protect against the claim that CNN is only doing information war for Ukraine: a la "see, we also reported a potential Ukrainian crime against a Russian." And the scale is so vastly different that it gives the impression that at most Ukrainians have done individuals murders and so zero comparison with atrocities and genocide.

Second, it prepares people for a diplomatic resolution, which CNN maybe instructed to prepare people for (a little mention from the white house or Langley to balance things a bit out a bit to help a peace deal), or then maybe is just hedging it's bets because it doesn't know if there will be peace or more war so it has two editorial directions it can go in.

There's almost always a diplomatic solution to problems, no matter how acrimonious things get.

As I mention in previous posts the West has fully bought into the narrative around Bucha, so they can't easily pull back from that; if everyone now wants a peace deal, one solution is to tell the Russians that no one's changing their rhetoric (just as Russia's not changing their rhetoric), and what's true or false doesn't really matter, but for the sake of peace what the West can do is at least balance things out a bit by bringing up a bunch of Ukrainian crimes, and then everything, overtime, can be blamed on individual soldiers and units, there will be long legal processes where everything gets super messy and drawn out and the rhetoric is gradually deescalated, and the news cycle moves on to the next "most important thing in the world to be angry about".

So, if there is no peace deal, then this single video "appearing" to show the "extrajudicial execution" of a Russian soldier (aka. murder), well it's only an appearance, only one soldier being murdered, and only one Ukrainian doing it on their own initiative anyways. So, hardly an "atrocity" or throwing any shade on Ukrainian institutions or Zelenskyy. It doesn't undermine much at all Ukrainian just cause. So if there's no peace process, focus can switch back to hating the Russians and just reporting anything Ukraine says on face value.

However, if there is a peace process, then CNN and other Western news agencies can build on this little seed of doubt and Russia legitimate grievances, and add a few more stories (there's plenty to choose from, especially the Azov guys who will literally post war crimes to Twitter) to balance things out enough for the peace deal to make sense: i.e. suddenly expose people to just how chaotic, messy and violent war is and soldiers do crazy things and crime on both sides, and facts are super difficult to know, but it's best the war stops and things will be investigated and it's time to heal and rebuild and all that.

Keep in mind that Russia does't care all that much what Western media says, it's got its own media. However, Western media will need to sell a peace deal to Western audience and therefore will need to pullback the rhetoric of Putin literally being Hitler and a single video proves a "genocide" in someway comparable to the organised extermination of 6 million jews, gypsies, mentally ill and other "untermensch".

The UK and US are heavily invested in this war and its continuance, so don't imagine their official representatives will do anything other than stoke the flames. This war crime narrative is just the latest play in that game. Ukraine is being used for the latest proxy war and people are rushing in to take the bait, and wilfully to support measures that will make their own lives more difficult. The same old broken record over and over.

You left out the consideration that a successful resolution by a people of whom 50% of their relatives are Russian might cause problems in Russia for Putin as well, which is why it was also important for him to intervene. — Benkei

Actually this is one issue worth wile to point out: the role Putin's Russia has taken to itself as the protector of ethnic Russians everywhere. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria etc. and not only Crimea and the Donbass. All these enclaves used for intervention in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

And the frozen conflict in Moldova/Transnistria is actually a good example the Russia intervening in it's near abroad isn't just about NATO enlargement.

Just like Slobodan Milosevic was the protector of all Serbs in all of the former Yugoslav Republics. Now this actually would be totally natural, likely any country would hold some importance to people of it's own ethnicity. However with Russia, this is actively done by the intelligence services and used very aggressively. In a similar fashion as Milosevic protected the Serbs.

All the demands on the table from Russia before this war started were about: NATO expansion.

This war would not have happened but for: NATO expansion.

Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best. — Benkei

How conveniently you totally forget the hostility of Putin to Ukrainian government, the whole denazification issue and the accusations of genocide. The latter, I agree, is purely rhetoric. Yet the way Russia is going after the previous government is noteworthy. Comes to my mind the US de-baathification in Iraq.

And how conveniently you totally forget, likely on purpose, that the whole 2014 crisis happened because of a trade deal between EU and Ukraine and the part that EU played in this. Even the student demonstrations were called EuroMaidan with enthusiastic waving of EU flags (which I guess I've rarely if never seen in the EU itself). Hence it wasn't just about the alignment towards NATO, it was also the alignment towards the EU.

And of course there's a long history of Russian intervention in Ukrainian politics and Putin's fear of "Color Revolutions". Which few if any have noted.

All I can say that it's at least progress with you that my arguments have gone from "That's a load of crap" to "Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best". So I guess it's worth wile to debate these issues with you.

The UK and US are heavily invested in this war and its continuance, so don't imagine their official representatives will do anything other than stoke the flames — Leto

I agree that's how things seem now.

However, policy can change abruptly.

Other EU nations may push behind the scenes for a peace deal and use their leverage. The Ukrainian commitment to the war may also change regardless of US and UK desires.

Or, if promoting the war is suddenly a political liability than an asset, then being the "peace maker" may all of a sudden be politically expedient.

There are certainly factions in the US and UK political establishment that rather peace, deescalate with Russia, reduce inflation, stop pouring money into Ukraine when there's problem at home, and so on.

It’s better than the alternative, as far as global peace and peace in Europe is concerned.
Remember the U.K. is a poodle in this, as always and with a clown in office.

And where have I denounced or denied NATO enlargement being one reason for Putin's actions? Quote me — ssu

Well there's...

NATO enlargement is simply a side issue here, one thing that Putin extensively uses as a pretext for his imperialistic ambitions. Which, of course when it comes to Russia, are "defensive".

The real issue here is that Russia with Putin at it's helm didn't understand that the Russian Empire was over. — ssu

Or there's

this just shows how illogical and wrong it is to believe the fig-leaf of NATO expansion being the reason for this invasion. — ssu

...but that's not the point. The point is, I haven't just claimed you did denounce NATO as a motive.

Whereas you said of me...

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war? — ssu

There's no 'moving on' this is what the whole discussion has been about from the start. These ridiculous attempts to shut down discussing the culpability of the US by constantly framing those that do as 'obsessed' or 'conspiracy theorist' or whatever, just for mentioning it.

I'd consider that a lack of imagination. Medieval peasants worked less than the average American and we're inexorably moving in that direction in Europe as well. By some measures feudalism would be preferable depending on what stage of capitalism you're living in.

This is a big subject.
Peasants in your part of the world may have had a nice life. They didn’t here, we lived under the brutality of our robber baron Norman overlords. We still haven’t shaken them off, they are still playing their robber Baron games.

Capitalism, or more pertinently, consumerism and technological advancement has had a calming effect on human society. It may have some unfortunate consequences, but we shouldn’t take the relative peace we have known for granted. Human history was more unstable before this development and with a larger global population could have become far more unstable.

It is quite remarkable that such a large population on the planet hasn’t descended into chaos and destruction before now.

Isn't Zelensky the reason this is still going on?

If he would have left the country, Ukraine would be part of Russia now, right? — frank

Good point. That's probably true, and would explain the relentless character assassination attempts by the representative of the Federation of Russia on TPF. They also tried to kill him for real, twice.

Peasant cottage. During fuedalism, either owned or permanently rented by the peasant...

Today...



Asking price - Half a milion.

Didn't the war start because of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and if Russia had somehow prevented the coup from taking place, then it would have avoided war?
— FreeEmotion

Exactly, you can keep making these sort of "debateoids" forever. — boethius

Apart from justifications, what I meant was that the undemocratic political processes and what amounts to Ukraine's sovereignty caused ethnic conflict and instability. Sounds rather familiar, sounds like some sort of a plan, or Chernobyl - like accident. There is no doubt those involved know what actually happened. Neither side is at fault, but a third, outside force and 'actor' to use the term somewhat in irony, seems to be to blame.

However, Western media will need to sell a peace deal to Western audience — boethius

Sounds like a dirty, disingenuous circus act-like media manipulation, not 'journalism' by any stretch of the imagination. More like a soft Mafia.

Isn't Zelensky the reason this is still going on?

If he would have left the country, Ukraine would be part of Russia now, right?
— frank

Good point. That's probably true, and would explain the relentless character assassination attempts by the representative of the Federation of Russia on TPF. They also tried to kill him for real, twice. — Olivier5

If he had left the country, maybe there would be peace, and less people would be getting killed, except Russian soldiers at the hands of rebels, which would suit everyone just fine. Anyway I do not think that it makes sense to get rid of him if he is negotiating a peace deal.

What exactly is Zelenskyy fighting for, and what does he think of his chances, is he a gambling person, after all? In wartime planners talk about missions and suicide missions, which one is this?

is he a gambling person, after all? — FreeEmotion

Is he?

So...

Russia’s currency jumped as much as 7.3% on Thursday, sealing its rebound from a collapse that followed the nation’s invasion of Ukraine and sanctions that isolated it from the global financial system. A key driver of the latest gains is the continued demand for Russia’s oil and gas in Europe and elsewhere, handing the country almost $1 billion a day in revenue. — Bloomberg

Meanwhile...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-facing-rationing-as-ukraine-war-hits-food-and-energy-supplies-hj52jrx6x

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/food-shortage-warning-as-fertiliser-rationed-7bd8jg8gz


Those sanctions really hitting home...

...sorry, who was the target again?

Some interesting Ukrainian/Russian(?) anarchist speculations on what comes after:

The worst thing Putin has done in Ukraine is to reconcile the authorities with the people. The president has turned from an object of universal criticism into the Ukrainian Charles de Gaulle. The general of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry offers to deliver himself to the Russian army in exchange for the release of civilians from the besieged city and becomes a national hero. The entire population of Ukraine, from the homeless to the oligarch, unites in a common struggle. It is the same as in the USSR in 1941, when Stalin called everyone “brothers and sisters” and people believed in his sincerity. If that war was a domestic war for the USSR, then this became a domestic war for Ukraine. Kharkov and Mariupol are perceived as Stalingrad, Leningrad or the Brest Fortress.

...Ukraine has always been good at one thing: it was always normal to depose the ruler who displeased the people. This made it different from Muscovy (ancient Russia), where the figure of the Tsar was sacred. The exceptions were the Time of Troubles, which was ended by the merchant (Minin) and the prince (Pozharsky). But in Ukraine, it has always been the rule that unpopular leaders are forced out. This Ukrainian tradition goes back at least to the Cossack times. How many Ukrainian Cossack atamans have paid with their positions, and sometimes with their lives, for “unpopular measures”! Whether this tradition will continue now is hard to say.

[In Russia,] It should be added that if in the wild 1990s, the Russian businessmen were saved from a new popular revolution by gangster strife, which killed off a significant part of the active population (and not the worst part, because in such strife, the first ones to die were the ones who retained a vestige of their humanity, whereas the worst scoundrels survived), now that part same of population will be ground up in the war (and in similar strife after it, when the soldiers who are accustomed to robbing and killing will return from the front). In short, unless some “black swan” flies to the aid of the Russian people, Russia will repeat the Yeltsin-Putin three decades, after which the country will most likely perish [sic], except for Moscow and a few other regions, where there will be established a “thriving economy” with a 12-hour workday for the common people and elite restaurants and brothels for the oligarchs.

https://crimethinc.com/2022/04/06/and-after-the-war-the-prospects-for-social-struggles-in-ukraine-belarus-and-russia

Always nice to be reminded about being infinitely critical of state power, unlike Western liberals who, having learnt the name 'Zelensky' in the last two months having never heard the name before in their lives, have turned him into a new Bono to fangirl over.

Crimea never would've become a part of Russia if the US hadn't been meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine for decades already. — Benkei

Hypotheticals are difficult as you yourself implied, but simply use your head here, Benkei. I know you have one. — ssu

I've been wondering about this phenomenon: Benkei, etc. are not even Americans, and yet they are as parochial as Americans are often said to be. Parochial about someone else's country! How pathetic is that? In their closed minds nothing exists, save for or because of the United States. Nothing else is worth talking about. Ukraine? Russia? Who the fuck cares! The US (and, of course, NATO and capitalism) is what this is all about. Or at least all that they can think about.

Then I realized what this reminded me of: antisemitism and other such obsessive bigotries and conspiracy theories. Now at least it makes some sort of psychological sense. Those Jews (Masons, gays, Americans) are the root of all evil. They openly and secretly manipulate events for the purposes of world domination or apocalyptic destruction.

"Gosh imagine people dedicating their time to speak about the most objectively destructive country and economic system on the planet that has objectively contributed to making dead Ukrainians how horrible this is just like antisemitism".

What is pathetic - completely and totally spit-worthy - is the elevation of all inconvenient critiques to the level of 'anti-semitism'. This is what happened to Corbyn's leadership, and it's unsurprising to see it rolled out here. It's using Jewish percecution like a fucking TV trope to be rolled out as one's convince. Fuck that and anyone who weaponizes antiseminism in that way. Oh and I suppose I should name names - @sophisticat.

:rofl:

"Despite the fact that the American state literally fucks with every nation on Earth thanks to its enormous and inescapable influence and coercive power, how dare these uppity non-Americans deign to have opinions on the topic. Just like antisemitism."

Imagine being so developmentally stunted that instead of thinking: hold on maybe there's a point to those who are critiquing a country that happens to be intimately involved in fighting a war on the literal other side of the Earth to them, and going - "no, it must be a conspiracy theory".

Always nice to be reminded about being infinitely critical of state power, unlike Western liberals who, having learnt the name 'Zelensky' in the last two months having never heard the name before in their lives, have turned him into a new Bono to fangirl over. — StreetlightX

Zelensky is the modern anarchist champion. Power to the people!


From wiki, emphasis mine:

Zelenskyy grew up as a native Russian speaker in Kryvyi Rih, a major city of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in central Ukraine. Prior to his acting career, he obtained a degree in law from the Kyiv National Economic University. He then pursued comedy and created the production company Kvartal 95, which produced films, cartoons, and TV shows including the TV series Servant of the People, in which Zelenskyy played the role of the Ukrainian president. The series aired from 2015 to 2019 and was immensely popular. A political party bearing the same name as the television show was created in March 2018 by employees of Kvartal 95.

Zelenskyy announced his candidacy in the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election on the evening of 31 December 2018, alongside the New Year's Eve address of then-president Petro Poroshenko on the TV channel 1+1. A political outsider, he had already become one of the frontrunners in opinion polls for the election. He won the election with 73.23 per cent of the vote in the second round, defeating Poroshenko. He has positioned himself as an anti-establishment and anti-corruption figure.

As president, Zelenskyy has been a proponent of e-government and unity between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking parts of the country's population.[6]: 11–13  His communication style heavily uses social media, particularly Instagram.[6]: 7–10  His party won a landslide victory in a snap legislative election held shortly after his inauguration as president. During his administration, Zelenskyy oversaw the lifting of legal immunity for members of the Verkhovna Rada,[7] the country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession, and some progress in tackling corruption in Ukraine.[8][9]

Zelenskyy promised to end Ukraine's protracted conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign, and has attempted to engage in dialogue with Russian president Vladimir Putin.[10] Zelenskyy's administration faced an escalation of tensions with Russia in 2021, culminating in the launch of an ongoing full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Zelenskyy's strategy during the Russian military buildup was to calm the Ukrainian populace and assure the international community that Ukraine was not seeking to retaliate.[11] He initially distanced himself from warnings of an imminent war, while also calling for security guarantees and military support from NATO to "withstand" the threat.[12] After the start of the invasion, Zelenskyy declared martial law across Ukraine and a general mobilisation of the armed forces. His leadership during the crisis has won him widespread international admiration, and he has been described as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

Apart from justifications, what I meant was that the undemocratic political processes and what amounts to Ukraine's sovereignty caused ethnic conflict and instability. Sounds rather familiar, sounds like some sort of a plan, or Chernobyl - like accident. There is no doubt those involved know what actually happened. Neither side is at fault, but a third, outside force and 'actor' to use the term somewhat in irony, seems to be to blame. — FreeEmotion

Totally agreed there's outside parties as well, making the legalistic debateoids even less conclusive.

However, I would still say faults are all around, they are easy to distribute and it's difficult to run out of that supply.

Sounds like a dirty, disingenuous circus act-like media manipulation, not 'journalism' by any stretch of the imagination. More like a soft Mafia. — FreeEmotion

Soft power, soft mafia. I can definitely get behind that presentation of things.

Although, be that as it may, some of these mafias we can influence, if not choose who the boss happens to be. Sometimes Kodos is just objectively a better choice.

Zelenskyy promised to end Ukraine's protracted conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign — Olivier5

How's that going, exactly?

and has attempted to engage in dialogue with Russian president Vladimir Putin. — Olivier5

Was this before or after he called for the no-fly zone that would inaugurate the annihilation of life on Earth?

And Wiki would no doubt forget that Zelensky's popularity was in the dumps before the war, and which has of course subsequently benefitted from the roiling mass of dead Ukrainians. But don't let anything as trivial as local Ukrainian opinion get in the way of your Western fantasies. Similarly, don't let any of this stop you from fellating the altar of state power.

The minutiae of the international PR game are pretty funny. Zelensky has been addressing various parliaments for some time now.

A couple of days ago, he addressed the Greek parliament. He made his requests, drew historical parallels between Ukraine's fight and Greece's past, as he always does in these speeches, and then he let one of his soldiers address the parliament. The soldier he chose was part of the... Azov battalion. LMAO, you really can't make up this stuff! :lol:

But then it became even funnier. The next day, he addressed the Cypriot House of Representatives. Almost 40% of Cyprus is under Turkish occupation for many decades now with obvious parallels to what is happening in Ukraine right now, but Zelensky drew no such parallels. He didn't refer to the occupation of Cyprus at all. When the President of the House of Representatives gave her own speech after Zelensky, Zelensky even went offline while she was addressing the similarities of the aggressions against their respective nations. :lol:

How's that going, exactly? — StreetlightX

It's two to tango.

Wiki would no doubt forget that Zelensky's popularity was in the dumps before the war, — StreetlightX

You have data on that?

Poll Shows Zelensky Leading 2024 U.S. Presidential Race
Andy Borowitz, March 17, 2022

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a development that could upend American politics, Volodymyr Zelensky has emerged as the front-runner in the 2024 U.S. Presidential contest.

A new poll conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute shows the Ukrainian President leading both Republicans and Democrats in the race for the White House.

According to the poll, Zelensky is the first choice of fifty-one per cent of Americans, followed by President Biden at twenty-three per cent, Donald J. Trump at seventeen per cent, and Senator Josh Hawley at half of one per cent.

Davis Logsdon, who supervised the survey, said that Zelensky’s showing in a U.S. Presidential poll was the strongest ever for a Ukrainian politician.

“The fact that Zelensky was not born in the U.S. was not seen as an obstacle to his becoming the nation’s President,” Logsdon said. “And, though he does not speak fluent English, that has not historically been an obstacle either.”

> There is an anthropological fact ... Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. — neomac
That's not an anthropological fact, it's an anthropological theory.

This is another good example of misquotation. This is what I take to be an anthropological fact: “There is an anthropological fact that grounds my moral reasoning: social identities are part of our personal identities and they are rooted in our communal life with other individuals in a given environment”. All human societies (independently from geographic and historical latitudes) have ways of identifying human groups and individuals based on group membership. This is an anthropological fact.
Some societies use “Nationality” as a way to identify social groups and individuals as members of those groups: nation states, national languages, national flags, national passports, national money, national sport teams, national customs, national cuisine are examples of ways we identify groups and individuals within groups based on nationality.
Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly, like Putin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians), Sergey Karaganov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Karaganov), the Izborsky Club (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/russ.12106), Vladimir Solovyov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_(journalist)), Dmitry Utkin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Utkin), the Night Wolves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Wolves).


> So now I'm to provide 'evidence'

When discussing topics, I don’t expect people to provide evidence in advance for everything they say, especially for what they take to be obvious or common knowledge. Yet if one needs evidence, one can ask. And I’m asking you now what evidences you have about this claim “The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another”. I’m asking this precisely because I gave you what looks to me evidence to the contrary yet you didn’t address it at all. So once again: how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people?


> What they have in common is oppression. Something I though you were all in favour of fighting against.

Indeed I addressed that too: “Keep also in mind that I didn’t question the value one can put into class struggles, nor claimed that is always immoral” . Yet I’m not sure you understood my assumptions. Oppression is one, not the only element that I would take into consideration for moral assessment. Indeed “oppression” is a word with a moral connotation but I don’t take it to be necessarily negative, so its moral implications depend on the context: e.g. oppressing the Nazis, Isis, communist terrorists, organised crime would be morally defensible.

> It is an economic fact that the working class are oppressed by the elite classes, but apparently, that oppression doesn't qualify for you support.

If the word “oppression” has a moral connotation, then “working class are oppressed by the elite classes” is not a factual claim but a moral claim. If it has no moral connotation, what do you mean by economic oppression?


> If someone orders (or even supports) continued fighting, they bear some moral responsibility for all the foreseeable consequences of that decision. One of the foreseeable consequences is that more Ukrainian children will die. I don't understand what's so hard about that.

What I find hard to understand about that is how you identify the links between facts and moral agents to assess responsibility. For example you talk about some moral responsibility. Now, since you like metrics, I’m asking you: how much responsibility bears Putin and Russian soldiers for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian children wrt Zelensky, Biden, me, what is the math you are doing based on your still clandestine multi-causal theory? That’s necessary (yet not sufficient) to estimate what the most adequate morally response is.

> Not getting a literal 'say' is not the same as not having their interests considered.

Do you mean that Russian soldiers and Putin should have considered Ukrainian children’s interest before killing & bombing them?

> Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

Here, “It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed.” and “I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.” These 2 claims strongly suggest that the issue is with Zelensky government and things would be better with Putin puppet.


> the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian... — neomac

Are you serious? Your evidence for you taking Ukrainian values into account and me not is that you've thought about what you would do if you were a Ukrainian? Do you not realise how ludicrous that sounds?

This is another good example of misquotation. My thought experiment wasn’t intended to provide evidence for what “Ukrainians value”, but to contrast my expectations against others’: for example when you claim “I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.” you seem to expect some behavior from Ukrainians, like giving up on Zelensky instead of exposing their own children to the risk represented by Russian murders. And my point was precisely that we shouldn’t rely primarily on our expectations for moral assessments about Ukrainians’ behavior, but on what they value. Indeed you didn’t even need to do any guess work, because I made this point clear immediately after the thought experiment: “The point is that my moral claims concerning this war take into account what the Ukrainians value as this war concerns them in the first place (but ultimately not only them). And since I do not have direct access to what they want collectively, then I would take Zelensky as their chosen representative in times of peace and in times of war, until I’m proven wrong. BTW Zelensky support among Ukrainians is confirmed to me by some good feedback from expat Ukrainian friends and foreign reporters on the ground”.




> So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much.
Now it’s your turn: how do you measure the degree of mistrust on this occasion to assess if it’s 'too much’ or not?

> America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

What are the reasons you have to support America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia? What do you expect them to do?


> You've not answered the question. Does supplying weapons help?

I’m not sure about the answer. I suppose they do help in the sense that Ukrainians are using these weapons to counter Russian invasion (Putin didn’t reach his declared goals within 2 days nor 2 weeks), but maybe it's not enough and that’s why Zelensky is asking for more.


> So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

When I’m talking about moral reasons to act, I’m not talking about someone’s intentions to act according to those reasons, as you did in your example. So you simply misunderstood what I was saying. Concerning intentions I already made my point so you can address it, if you wish so.


> I took that to be a claim that you value the economic dominance of the US over the territorial dominance of ISIS (a more extreme example you used in our discussion about Russian tactics).

If and when a form of dominance increases the chances of refilling my belly more than having my head decapitated, that’s something I would personally take into account, also for morally establishing what is the lesser evil in the given circumstances. But I don’t have one dimensional and decontextualized moral claim to make about great power politics. My example that you extrapolated from its context, was simply meant to address your preposterous moral claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. And you never addressed it as such. So once again, if you were to choose only about these 2 options, would you prefer to be dominated by Isis or America? And between Russia and America?


> Why? If not the death and destruction these actions cause, then what is the moral force?

Death and destruction against the Nazis or Isis was morally defensible.
Moral force should be assessed based on what people actually value. Putin and Russian soldiers are destroying Ukrainians’ life because they do not want to submit to Putin’s criminal demands disrespectful of what Ukrainians value for their own sovereign country. So if Putin and Russian soldiers kill Ukrainians are immoral, if Ukrainians kill Russian invaders and murderers are moral.


> I was referring only to these parts: — neomac
The parts that support your statement - not the parts that don't. Cherry-picking, in other words.

Well cherry picking is just fine when one really wants to eat cherries right? I don’t ignore the differences (indeed these are probably taken into account by Western administrations and the problem with homosexuality is present also in part of the Western societies), I simply claimed that relative value proximity has its relevance in moral considerations. And in the case of Ukraine there is some value proximity with the West (like their attitude toward Europe) that Russia is lacking. Yet I didn’t say that is the only thing that counts nor that is the most important thing nor I mean to idealise Ukrainians. The point is that I’m not looking for perfection, but again for lesser evil.
Not to mention the fact that you are supporting Russian murders’ demands against the Ukrainians even if you claim to value the life of the Ukrainian children that Russian murderers have killed, because accepting Russian de facto dominance is a lesser evil. So you too don’t seem to strive for perfection either right?


> I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

This is one thing they demand, not the only one though.

> Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds?

Would stopping sanctions oppose Putins’ power consolidation more than preserving them for a good while or making them even stronger? Or would Putin be more ready to significantly soften his demands before we removed those sanctions?

> You seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action.

And you seem to be just making random attacks ad personam based on a poor understanding of what your interlocutor has expressly, extensively and repeatedly said.
Since you feel in the mood for such confessions, then there is something I too find really off about your dialectical approach to our discussion: you often make claims with little pertinent context often forcing one who doesn’t share your views to guess your assumptions or your line of reasoning, while I do the opposite and yet you keep misquoting or extrapolating my claims from their context.

> There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Agreed, but that has to do with geopolitical risk assessment that all great power politics must face in similar daring circumstances. And undoubtedly Western & Ukrainian leaders are not assuming anything for granted. However the situation looks to me much worse now, since Putin and China (as Putin and Xi Jinping talked about new world order) could take any concessions as a sign of weakness.



> You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

If we are talking about Great Power politics, the only pertinent sense of opposition is how geopolitically meaningful such an opposition is. And, once again, to assess opposing strategies one should consider the views and demands of all competing powers, not the views and demands as framed by only one power, as you did.


> What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

I’m not sure. Yet after the Second World War many European countries were able to enjoy prosperity, democracy and welfare under the US dominance.
Besides Russia was happy to open its market to the West and its companies before this war, wasn’t it? How about now, with western companies gone and all the sanctions, is this war benefiting the Russian poor?
We should also clarify another issue concerning our discussion. I’m engaged in it, primarily because I have reasons to question 2 preposterous moral claims of yours: one about fighting over flags and the other is about Western responsibilities in the genesis and perpetuation of this war. One of the assumption I argued for is that we should not confuse strategic reasoning (especially if we want to talk about geopolitical power politics) with moral reasoning. Related to this, we shouldn’t ignore that the cognitive effort required in both cases is not the same: our capacity to provide a strategic analysis about Great Power politics is constrained by our non-expert understanding of a limited, second-hand and uncertain amount of available evidences. So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge. In other words, on my side there isn’t much intellectual commitment you could challenge wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help”, while on your side I don’t see much compelling strategic insights wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help” to challenge what I understood about the stakes so far. That’s why I limited myself to support some moral claims (like a “carrot&stick” containment strategy by Western leaders was morally more defensible than a “murder&destroy” strategy by Putin or the continuation of this war is morally defensible depending on what Ukrainians and Westerners value) wrt all strategic understanding I could intellectually afford.


> Why would I ignore what the terms are? I've never even mentioned "whatever it takes". The terms here just so happen to be the de facto state of affairs. fighting over them is a waste of human life. Fighting over other terms might not be as they may be more immiserating than the war.

So you are saying that Palestinians should accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? The Talibans didn’t accept any “de facto” Afghan puppet government and took back their control over Afghanistan eventually. The expression "whatever it takes” simply refers to the fact that, in geopolitical strategy, demands and options are not assessed by one party the way their competitor frame them as I said repeatedly.
BTW, and once again, wouldn’t this line of reasoning of yours simply support whatever the status quo is (ruling class oppressing working class is a de facto situation right?), since no power (especially authoritarian) can be radically challenged without risking one’s (and often beloved ones’) material wellbeing and life?


> Do we have free reign to oppose Putin's expansionism by any means possible. IF torture would stop Putin's expansionism could we torture? If not, then the moral opposition becomes irrelevant whilst we're discussing methods, because the morality of the method is primary.

Methods are important sure, but they are just one dimension of a moral evaluation to me. The one who was dismissing talking about methods was you (“How many people have the 'stick' immiserated. That's the metric we're interested in, not the method.”).
Concerning the question “if torture would stop Putin's expansionism could be morally defensible?” my answer is yes, if for example we are talking about torturing Putin.


> The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

I’m not bracketing anything out. This is a proper starting point to morally reason about this war as I already argued. And will always start from there when questioning your preposterous moral claims about this war.