:up:

It didn't have to be like this... I haven't heard much from 'our' leaders of this wisdom. I speak, incidentally, from Wales, a vassal state of England; the self-styled "first colony" thereof. — unenlightened

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. That it's military would have had enough deterrence for the Russians. But that wasn't the case. Putin didn't give a shit about the Minsk agreements, that was clear quite soon.

Actually what we then remembered was the collapse of Afghanistan, a country that we had assisted and trained a lot more than Ukraine just having it's large army collapsing instantly and people clinging desperately to American C-17 transports. Why wouldn't Ukraine be also such an easy picking?

Why wouldn't Ukraine be also such an easy picking? — ssu

Go on then...

Tell us what's wrong with the Afghans.

While your at it, you can explain the flaws in the Chechen national character.

Then tell us what up with those Belorussians.

And the French... Why were that such a walkover?

?

You think it's racial? Or what would that wrongness be? Or you think others think so?

Of course knowing you...that's your ideas how you portray anyone disagreeing with you being a racist. Or something.

Perhaps a country that's budget is 2/3 based on international aid and only 1/3 actual domestic revenues simply creates an environment of rampant corruption. The US created the real ponzi government, basically. And when those benefactors, those who pay the majority of the governments expenses, who also have picked your president (because he's made a stellar career in the US and in international organizations) actually not only declare that they are leaving and won't be around, but also make a deal with the enemy your fighting with that for them it's totally OK to attack you, but not them, what do you think will happen?

What do you think an Afghan soldier would think about when he understands that a) everybody is just cashing in on the system, b) the US has sold them out to the Taliban and has declared it will leave and won't assist in the fight. So isn't it then reasonable to say "fuck this" and take the deal with the Taliban that they'll spare you and you can go home if you stop fighting? Knowing the Afghan way of war, this would be reasonable. What would you be giving up your life for?

The Afghans could defend themselves from invaders and with the clusterfuck of actions made by the US, it was sure that it would all collapse.

So no Isaac, there's nothing wrong with Afghans.

From their viewpoint (now onwards), Afghans have fought the British, the Russians, the Americans and kicked all of them out. What's wrong with that?

Just wondering if you and @SophistiCat et al are willing to accept the corollary of your praise for the Ukrainians, it seems not.

You see any success you ascribe to the Ukrainian's sheer pluck, you must also then accept failures to be the result of a 'lack of pluck'. To the extent that the Ukrainian's national character is the answer to their success, the lack of such character must then explain the failure of the Chechens, or the Belorussians, or the Russians themselves to resist Putin's imperialism.

I hold to the view human beings are more or less the same across the world, regardless of race or nationality. Which means when one group succeed and another fail, it must be material circumstances that are responsible for the difference. As such, when Ukraine succeed resisting the Russian invasion, I look to see what material circumstances they have in their favour that, say Chechens, lacked (or Russians themselves, for that matter). That factor is mainly the geopolitical circumstances. You, and others seem to think that analysis grossly unfair, that it's the Ukrainian national character that's mainly responsible. So the corollary is that geopolitical circumstances were not the reason the Afghans had so much trouble, not the reason Chechenya fell, not the reason Belarus is a Russian puppet state, not the reason Russians haven't themselves overthrown Putin... It must all be character flaws inherent in those nations.

Unless, of course, you want to explain why failure can always be assigned to geopolitical circumstances, but those same factors have little to no influence on successes?

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet. — Olivier5

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war.

You see any success you ascribe to the Ukrainian's sheer pluck, you must also then accept failures to be the result of a 'lack of pluck'. To the extent that the Ukrainian's national character is the answer to their success, the lack of such character must then explain the failure of the Chechens, or the Belorussians, or the Russians themselves to resist Putin's imperialism. — Isaac

That is a parody argument. Pluck, luck, and whatever the fuck can all be factors of success and failure. Morale is certainly important, and weapon supplies are also important. So are leadership, geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, culture, and bunch of other shit. And the quality of the enemy is also relevant in all these ways too.

And when the big bombs are falling, sheer pluck is totally irrelevant; everybody dies, cowards and heroes alike.

"In Europe, “the narrative is becoming: This is what you get if you deal nicely with authoritarian regimes,” said Ivana Karásková, a researcher on Chinese foreign policy at Charles University in Prague. “It’s becoming not only about Russia; it’s also about China.”". - - NYT

The old conflict between democracy and totalitarianism rises again.

Anyone who didn't think from the get-go that this was always about China in the long run has not been paying attention.

That is a parody argument. — unenlightened

A parody of what?

Pluck, luck, and whatever the fuck can all be factors of success and failure. — unenlightened

Indeed. So are we to say that some nations are 'pluckier' than others? Because if not, we can simply divide through and cancel it out as a useful metric. It's the same in all cases. When attacked, a nation will defend itself with all the gusto it can muster. So to limit our analysis to 'pluck' doesn't really tell us much, does it?

So are leadership, geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, culture, and bunch of other shit. — unenlightened

Yes, but my post was in response to @ssu talking about...

this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. — ssu

The very specific claim that Putin (and the West) were surprised by the Ukrainian defense. That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom?

...and...

A bunch of other shit - would that include, or exclude the support of the most powerful nation on earth?

So are we to say that some nations are 'pluckier' than others? — Isaac

Double down on your stupidity why not? "we" say nothing. I say that indeed nations have a morale in relation to other nations. It is not fixed, but variable. So Ukraine in relation to Russia clearly has changed in attitude in the last 8 years. They were a push-over, and they are not now. And of course Western weapons are a factor too. There's nothing like being well-armed for making one brave.

So to limit our analysis to 'pluck' doesn't really tell us much, does it? — Isaac

This is the heart of your insulting stupidity; to presume that if one discusses one thing, one is (a) discounting everything else, and (b) making what one mentions absolute and eternal. It's a completely ridiculous parody of an argument. Stop doing it.

I say that indeed nations have a morale in relation to other nations. It is not fixed, but variable. — unenlightened

So what factors are responsible for that variation?

to presume that if one discusses one thing, one is (a) discounting everything else — unenlightened

So that would be a bit like assuming that everyone talking about American, European, and NATO culpability is thereby discounting everything else? Now, where might I have come across that kind of attitude recently...?

Of course, ssu using the word "only" was a bit distracting to one's attempt at remembering that he's not "discounting everything else". Where I come from, you see, 'only' means 'discounting everything else'.

and (b) making what one mentions absolute and eternal. — unenlightened

Things which are not absolute and eternal vary according to forces which themselves are absolute and eternal (on a human scale). So if a nation's morale varies over time, there are factors which cause that variation and such relations will themselves be invariant.

We have here a choice of theories to answer the question 'Why has the Ukrainian defence been stronger than anyone anticipated?'

We could go with A (@ssu's theory) the Ukrainian's just turned out to be better than anyone expected. Since the reasons you listed for variability in defensive aplomb were all know beforehand except for pluck (or luck - but that wasn't on ssu's list), then we can only conclude that the Ukrainian's are simply pluckier than most (the 'most' on which these strategic expert's previous assessments were based).

Or we could go with the alternative B, that the hundreds of experienced and knowledgeable strategic experts were pretty much right about the Ukrainian defensive capabilities (not good), but that the most powerful nation on earth used it's enormous reserves of military, economic, political and intelligence forces to tip the balance.

Apparently it's just obvious that it's A - Ukrainians are just pluckier than all the world's military experts expected.

Apparently B (despite being exactly what's happened in every single fucking war ever) is just delusional nonsense arising from a pathological hatred of America.

Who'd have thought it...

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.
— Olivier5

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war. — Xtrix

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor?

Instead, Canada has been an ally of the US for a long time... That too must say something.

like the way that some European countries have provided revenue for Russia by buying gas and oil. The West has provided revenue for China by buying their cheap consumer goods. It’s even worse because China has been dumping cheap goods on Western countries , making it very difficult to compete from their own production. This economic warfare has had a very destabilising and weakening effect. What I describe is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour.

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour. — Punshhh

This will never happen and it is not in the interest of the West, so long as it remains capitalist, to do so. The West elected to "dump" its factories in China so it could save on labour costs and evade regulation. It will continue to elect to do so until conditions in the West begin to match that of China. Which, to be fair, is not inconceivable, considering the rapid deterioration of the condition of the working class in the West, as cheerled by its elites. Do not blame China for what Western business and political leaders rushed headlong into with glee.

The idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders, who then turn up the nationalism dial in order to deflact blame from themselves. What the West requires - along with the rest of the world - is the bloody destruction of capitalism and the advent of a new economic and social order. It could learn a thing or two from the way in which China has gagged it's billionare class.

> No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity).

No dude, that’s all on your reluctance to engage in an intellectually honest conversation whatever the limits of communicating over the internet with anonymous people are, precisely because that’s the kind of entertainment a philosophy forum could offer despite the limits of the medium. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it!

> I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

Unless you wanna go for something like “these are my arbitrary preferences”, then you must have some reasons to support your “simple moral statement”, and I’m challenging you to clarify them. Indeed you didn’t offer any criteria to establish what “de facto” circumstances would be relevant to consider in a choice like a negotiation deal other than the ones with moral implications that matter to you. But then you are asking people what their reasons are to take side wrt the negotiation deal (so again a case of moral choice), and you yourself brought into this exchange your own reasons: people dying, overwhelming amount of experts, American capitalist imperialism, Yemeni children, poor oppressed by the rich, etc. as if all this was relevant in justifying your position (so again moral implications that matter to you). In short, the “de facto” situation with moral implications that matter to you is a war provoked by the West against Russia, a clash between NATO and Russia. So if we should assess Zenesky’s moral choice based on a de facto situation that has moral implications that matter to you, I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”). You say they are different, but I’m asking to you why is that, so far you didn’t clarify this. And this rebuttal “I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.” is pointless precisely because I’m not talking about all people nor all de facto circumstances, but about you and your criteria to determine morally relevant “de facto” circumstances.

> No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

As much as your raving about multi-causal analysis you didn’t offer.

> Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else?

> So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

Read carefully: I’m not saying you are happy that Russia wins or that you wouldn’t prefer a third option where both America and Russia imperialism lose. That’s not my point. My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory.

> The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

Sure, as you wish. But symptomatic.

> I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
You brought him up.

Only to clarify my doubts about your criteria not to open another thread: there might be experts (like Luc Montagnier) that have titles and no evident conflict of interests, and yet I still may have good reasons to think that they said something unreliable about things they are supposed to know more than I do.

> So "no idea" then?

Dude, I’m here to entertain myself not you. Try harder.


> The power of a good story…

Whose truth you haven’t disproven yet.


> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself.


> One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we’d be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

So monumentally pointless. First of all, when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. Second, even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman (e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out). Third, and most importantly, inquiring somebody’s reasons to hold a certain view, especially with the philosophical breadth one should expect in a philosophy forum, doesn’t presuppose a specific approach to experts (were this the case it would even beg the question). And indeed you yourself made that point precisely to question the reasons of my approach to experts. So even if you prefer to interact with people who share your approach to experts and inquire your reasons accordingly, that does not delegitimize my questioning your approach to experts (as I did, and still could go on) nor my questioning your views based on some experts’ feedback independently from your own preferences and assumptions (even more so if I find your approach flawed). And you yourself didn’t seem to have problem with that (“you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”). Four, if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum.


> Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

What on earth did you just write?! You said “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” So you are not interested in supporting your case here, and yet you still want to unilaterally decide where the burden of proof lies (always on me of course) and on what consists in?! How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?! Are you out of your mind?!

That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom? — Isaac

Not only leadership.

I think the role of leadership may easily be overemphasized. Zelensky can rally his people and the West for the Ukrainian cause, but he doesn't sink missile cruisers or destroy columns of tanks.

The will to fight is simply essential. Shows everywhere. Also or especially in Afghanistan. In fact, there isn't a better example of the importance of will as in Afghanistan.

In 1939 the Finnish leadership had no illusions about the ability to stand against the Soviet Union alone. What surprised both the Finnish political and military leadership was not only how incompetent the Soviets were (largest reason were Stalin's purges), but how the army fought and didn't run away. The will to fight of the people actually surprised the leadership itself.

Amazing how quickly people will aver to literal metaphysical bullshit like 'the will', rather than say, the material support of the world's most brutally armed empire.

Amazing how quickly people will aver to literal metaphysical bullshit like 'the will', rather than say, the material support of the world's most brtually armed empire. — StreetlightX

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine.

And do note that the Emirate of Afghanistan won. After twenty years. So if you think the will to fight is metaphysical bullshit, you are simply wrong.

So if you don't think the will to fight is metaphysical bullshit, you are simply wrong. — ssu

Wanna read what you just typed here again?

The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. — ssu

Oh right, because the only difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine was US military aid. The only other difference must be 'the will'. Fuck me I didn't think I was speaking to people who believe in actual voodoo.

According to you, saying "not only leadership" but referring to will to fight means that "the only difference must be the "the will".

Irrelevant strawman argumentation.

That's OK, it's pretty common for people to psychologize and metaphysicalize world politics. It's the lowest hanging fruit which requires no actual material analysis of anything whatsoever. Just a bunch of just-so stories about personal qualities, as if fighting a war is a matter of shaping up a nation's CV. "Has good leadership potential. Lots of will. Very eager to defeat Russians".

it's pretty common for people to psychologize and metaphysicalize world politics. — StreetlightX

It's pretty common for military commanders to psychologise their troops both during a war and through specific training exercises. This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God.

Now I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it.

If you would be given all the best military arms there are, given to carry a Javelin and someone even would show how to use it, you think that it would matter that it's a Javelin? Hell no, a man of peace like you would not use anything for some war you don't care about. The only thing perhaps you would be thinking would be how to escape from the madmen trying to train you. And if you would have the entrepreneurial spirit, why not try to sell the high priced tube after the next corner?

Will to fight is important. It isn't the only thing of course, but it isn't some myth. You don't see columns of American Abrams tanks being captured after their crews has run away. You do see those Abrams tanks in Yemen after the Saudi crews have ran away.

That in Ukraine you did see a lot of deserted vehicles tells actually a lot. Starting from the obvious fact that the crew didn't even try to destroy them.

This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God. — unenlightened

Assuming, of course, they have weapons to fire.

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine. — ssu

Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'?

This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God. — unenlightened

That's why precision guided weapons like cruise missiles are so popular. They don't disengage from the attack if there's a lot of tracers around them. A human pilot might do that.

Will to fight is important. It isn't the only thing of course, but it isn't some myth. — ssu

Ok buddy, if it means so much to you, you can have your 'will'. Meanwhile I imagine most people who are not in kindergarden will probably lean a bit more into the material support of almost the entire Anglo-continental world as a preponderant factor of Ukranian action. But sure, you can have some 'will' as a treat.

--

Liberal brain-rot is insane. These people have been told their whole lives that they are the heroes of their own stories so they have to make metaphysical nonsense up and impute it to an entire geo-strategic war in order to shore up the liberal sense of individual agency. This is what watching too much Hollywood does to you. You start to analyze a fucking war as a matter of 'will'.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/the-battle-for-donbas-will-be-a-tough-fight-for-ukraine/

I've been lurking in this thread for a while now - and following with dismay the events in Ukraine. I may not agree with everything you have been saying, but I think I get the gist of it.

Please do not take this as a personal critique of your positions, but what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it).

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction?