You're a nazi.

I'm not sure such qualifications are warranted. He's a moron or irrational but he worked his way up to being leader of a country? I highly doubt it. We should avoid attributing irrationality to people who simply make decisions that we wouldn't dream of making our that in hindsight look stupid. It doesn't fit the rest of the context and is too convenient and in a sense a lazy excuse not to look further into the actual reasons and circumstances. Irrationality suggests there's no rhyme or reason, no way of giving meaning and understanding to a situation. Both Saddam and Putin are ambitious and cruel and miscalculated or worked from the wrong assumptions. We don't really know but irrationality is unlikely.

Can we stop accusing people we disagree with with being Nazi's or Nazi symphatisers? Thanks.

I'm just saying -

Besides it's not uncommon to have fascist/ultra-nationalists in the national armies. — neomac

As well as the absurd effort to smear the lines so that "well aren't the Russians Nazis too hmmm???". Like, yeah, the Russians are genocidal, but this doesn't give people a free pass to downplay and deflect Nazis because they want to score a point. Disagreement is one thing but this stuff above is something else.

Basically, it seems that you're trying to sell us your conjectures and speculations as "fact". — Apollodorus

Nope. What I am saying is that we cannot assume that the killings will stop or that the population will be well treated in areas under Russian control, after the signature of a putative peace treaty recognizing such control. Therefore the Ukrainian leadership ought to think twice before abandoning their claim on any territory, because that would quite possibly mean committing to hell the people living there -- in such uncertainty, can they bet on the Russians playing nice?

Can we stop accusing people we disagree with with being Nazi's or Nazi symphatisers? Thanks. — Benkei

I was joking.

There is no method that aggregates all the methods. — neomac

So you aggregate the methods how? Randomly?

Whenever peers and experts disagree with me, I should examine how rational their arguments are — neomac

Fascinating. So how do you do that?

And this trust can be again more or less rational. — neomac

How?

If there are two claims that I find both defensible after rational examination, I would find more rational to suspend my judgement. — neomac

Really? So with your opinion here you find all alternative opinions, from scores of military and foreign policy experts...all of them...indefensible and irrational. Your rational skills are so amazing that you outsmart all these experts?

either they are smarter than I am, or I’m smarter than they are, or we are equally smart but we fail to understand each other for non-pertinent reasons or we are all stupid but everyone in their own way . — neomac

Yet you've ignored the argument about underdetermination. Why is that?

Even if the Soviet Union and Russia were totally distinct and unconnected, Crimea can still be taken back from Ukraine in the same way it was given to it. — Apollodorus

Borders are NOT eternal. They change. If Russia changed the borders by “gifting” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can change them again by annexing Crimea 60 years later! :smile: — Apollodorus

You don't apparently see it yourself, Apollodorus.

But the truth is that many Russians think just like you. And you just add even smilies to it. If there's an example of modern jingoism that supports Putins actions and looks down upon other nations, it's the above kind of messaging. Annexations are Ok, at least for Russia in this case.

One should remember that not all Russians think like this. Many do oppose the war and many have left the totalitarian state, but those are few. They shouldn't be forgotten, but neither your kind. And in Russia there are many who believe that Russia has this destiny, and of course the imperialism is veiled in the defense of "Fortress Russia".

And to refer that the Turks, Chinese and many others have done similarly with the US turning a blind eye to it doesn't refute the fact at all. Russia is our neighbor, not China or Turkey.

in such uncertainty, can they bet on the Russians playing nice? — Olivier5

So you're saying the default position is to continue war unless there's proof one ought to stop.

I can't see how that makes any moral sense.

I'd say one ought to avoid war unless one is overwhelmed by evidence that it is necessary. It seems really callous to say one ought to continue (or worse, pursue) war unless one is overwhelmed by evidence that one should stop.

So you're saying the default position is to continue war unless there's proof one ought to stop. — Isaac

:up: The cessation of war is a good in itself. You don't play with lives - especially from the comfort of some cosy swivel chair - because one wants to 'play the odds'. One argues on the side of the cessation of war, absolutely. Anything else comes later.

If ceding territory ends the war (even has only a good chance of doing so) then that's a huge positive. To counter that there'd need to be a massive negative. All you've given thus far to weigh against it is the "punish Putin" argument and the "Ukraine is better than Russia" argument. — Isaac

Indeed. Put another way: if one were to really hate Ukrainians, what would be the best course of action? Do the opposite of that. I'd like to think that continual bombing and killing is worse than negotiated settlement(s).

So if you're someone who hates Ukrainians (and thus "Ukraine" in the abstract), the best route is to avoid negotiations. This will all but guarantee the conflict continues.

So it's not that those who advocate for "standing up to a bully," punishing the bad guy, protecting freedom around the world, etc. etc. (all of which are pretty easy to say when your own life isn't on the line) don't care about Ukrainians -- maybe they do. It's just interesting that the results are the same, regardless of intention: dead people, continuous warfare, escalation of nuclear fallout, etc.

A fun guessing game. Is this description from before, or after the war with Russia?:

Almost nothing will be received from the war-torn East, where basic infrastructure has been destroyed for power generation, water, hospitals and the civilian housing areas that bore the brunt of the attack. Nearly a million civilians are reported to have fled ... A quarter of Ukraine’s exports normally are from eastern provinces, and are sold mainly to Russia. But [the] bombing [of] Donbas industry and left its coal mines without electricity... It will be expensive to restore power and water facilities that have been destroyed by the forces in Donetsk, which faces a cold dark winter.

I'm not sure such qualifications are warranted. He's a moron or irrational but he worked his way up to being leader of a country? I highly doubt it. — Benkei

When you rule with fear, you don't have to know international politics or what will happen if you start a war. What you have to know is how to frighten people into submission. And as an assassin and member of many coups, Saddam was perfect in the role of violently acquiring and holding on to power. And yes, Saddam also understood the importance of social programs, that could be done with the new oil money. It's not about being a moron, it's about not understanding what kind of trouble you will get into with starting wars. Who's going to argue against you?

We should avoid attributing irrationality to people who simply make decisions that we wouldn't dream of making our that in hindsight look stupid. — Benkei

Those who start wars usually do make stupid decisions.

In 1991, twelve years before Iraq was invaded and occupied by President George W. Bush, his father, President George H. W. Bush, launched an aerial war (the Gulf War) against that same nation. At that time, Iraq’s standard of living was the highest in the Middle East. Iraqis enjoyed free medical care and free education. Literacy had reached about 80 percent. University students of both genders received scholarships to study at home and abroad. Most of the economy was state owned. Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was pressing for a larger portion of the international oil market.

In the six weeks of aerial attacks in 1991, US planes (with minor assistance from other NATO powers) destroyed more than 90 percent of Iraq’s electrical capacity, and much of its telecommunication systems including television and radio stations, along with its flood control, irrigation, sewage treatment, water purification, and hydroelectric systems. Domestic herds and poultry farms suffered heavy losses. US planes burned grain fields with incendiary bombs and hit hundreds of schools, hospitals, rail stations, bus stations, air raid shelters, mosques, and historic sites. Factories that produced textiles, cement, petrochemicals, and phosphate were hit repeatedly. So were the refineries, pipelines, and storage tanks of Iraq’s oil industry. Some 200,000 Iraqi civilians and soldiers were killed in those six weeks.

Nearly all the aerial attackers employed laser-guided depleted-uranium missiles, leaving hundreds of tons of radioactive matter spread over much of the country, leading to tens of thousands of more deaths in the following years, including many from what normally would be treatable and curable illnesses. Twelve years later, Bush Jr. invaded Iraq and wreaked further death and destruction upon that country. — Parenti, The Face of Imperialism

Saddam couldn't have murdered as many Iraqis as the Americans did if he tried - let alone plunged the entire country into a futureless black hole. But I guess they 'deserved it', because they made "stupid decisions". Saddam was a murderous, autocratic fuck. And the US outdid him, over and over and over.

A note of comparison too. It's been about 14 weeks since the war in Ukraine began, and the number of Ukrainian deaths is estimated at about 4000+ or so with another 5000+ injured. Now read again the end of the second paragraph above.

There is no more genocidal state on the planet than the USofA. Speaking of, don't anyone look up the upper-bound death rate for the 'war on terror'. 'Another holocaust' would not be a wrong description.

"Ought to", "possibly", "they can bet", "hell" ....

That's exactly what I'm saying, you're reducing the discussion to conjecture, speculation, exaggeration, and empty rhetoric.

Whether or not the Ukrainian leadership abandon their claim on any territory is, of course, a matter for the Ukrainian leadership. I have no influence on them and neither do you.

The fact still remains that were it not for NATO's insistence on a spurious "right" to infinite expansion regardless of consequences, this conflict wouldn't have happened. So, American imperialism does have its share of blame.

You don't apparently see it yourself, Apollodorus. — ssu

I "don't see" what exactly???

1. Crimea was taken from Russia and given to Ukraine in 1954.

2. Crimea was taken from Ukraine and given back to Russia in 2014.

3. It follows that the original borders were restored.

You should welcome that if, as you claim, you're for permanent borders. And for the same reason you should also insist on the borders of Tibet, Cyprus, etc. to be restored!

As for your statement that "Russia is Finland's neighbor, not China or Turkey", it only demonstrates that you don't really care about others unless it affects you personally. And yet you're pretending to have some God-given monopoly on the moral high ground here .... :grin:

Saddam couldn't have murdered as many Iraqis as the Americans did if he tried - let alone plunged the entire country into a futureless black hole. — Streetlight

I think that those that Saddam killed are quite accurately estimated and studied. Of course at first Saddam was supported by the US when he attacked Iran.

Iran, with a population of 50 million to Iraq's 17 million, mobilised to defend the revolution. By the summer of 1982 Iraq was on the defensive and remained so until the end in August 1988. The death toll, overall, was an estimated 1 million for Iran and 250,000-500,000 for Iraq.

Which just makes my point how stupid it is to start wars first against your neighbors... and then against your other neighbor that is backed by the US.

Those that died of other reason than Saddam in Iraq is the more acute question. The real question is how much did the UN sanctions kill? US Iraqi policy in the long term is one skeleton in the closet for the US.

The lesson being that the US should fuck off forever from any involvement in anything ever.

It follows that the borders were restored. You should welcome that if, as you claim, you're for permanent borders. — Apollodorus

I'm against wars, so I guess I'm for present borders to be upheld.

Restoring borders, meaning moving borders, is contrary to the idea of permanent borders.

2. Crimea was taken from Ukraine and given back to Russia in 2014. — Apollodorus

Given back? When did the Ukrainians give back Crimea?

Now I'll use your most often rofl-meme: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Given back? When did the Ukrainians give back Crimea? — ssu

I didn't say the Ukrainians gave back Crimea, I said "it was given back". So, you can laugh at yourself!

Meantime, you can learn how to read!

If you're against borders being moved, you should be against Crimea's borders being moved in 1954 in the first place.

Plus, if Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can take it back in 2014. In doing so, it merely takes back what belonged to it! :rofl:

No, no. As usual, I am just saying what I am saying. Not what you say I am saying. There's always a huge difference there.

That's exactly what I'm saying, you're reducing the discussion to conjecture, speculation, exaggeration, and empty rhetoric. — Apollodorus

What else do YOU have, when talking of future events? You got some crypto-marxist crystal ball?

The Bush neocons broke the application of international law and the usefulness of the U.N. The hubris expressed was that it was only the fist that kept the peace. But it turns out that the "pottery barn" rule of Powell is also not true. Break something enough, it stays broken, no matter who owns it. There is no refund desk. None of that blood increased the size of the 'sphere of influence.'

Now Putin is working the same logic and hopes for a better return. The ever elusive 'facts on the ground moves forward like the mechanical lure in a Greyhound race.

The fact that America and its NATO Empire are an imperialist, expansionist entity that has caused this conflict.

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.

American Imperialism - Wikipedia

NATO caca.

I've never seen censorship and repression like today. Even just the blocking of Russian voices -- it's insane. Why shouldn't we know what the Russians are saying? Why do I have to go to Al-Jazeera to find out what the Russian Prime Minister is saying? That's the kind of thing we ought to know. If they have a proposal for ending a blockade that's killing millions of people, why shouldn't I know about it?

Well, the censorship is so extreme that you can't. Almost nobody knows, unless they go to something like a marginal Libertarian website that happens to be telling the truth. It's crazy. Not only that, if you bring it up -- just talk about it -- you're immediately vilified: "Putin supporter," "commie rat," you want appeasement, you want to sell out, and so on. It's pretty astonishing.

--Chomsky

So you aggregate the methods how? Randomly? — Isaac

We do not aggregate methods with some super-method. We simply apply some epistemic procedures as a function of our epistemic needs, means and circumstances. If we do some laboratory research to publish a scientific paper, we take some measurements, apply some formula to obtain some stats or generate some plots, or program a computer to do that for us. If we are in a forum debating things we can link sources, provide arguments , offer definitions. If we play chess, we will try to figure out our next moves vs our adversary's moves and build a decision tree for our strategy, etc.

Whenever peers and experts disagree with me, I should examine how rational their arguments are — neomac
Fascinating. So how do you do that? — Isaac

I try to identify the logic structure of the argument, so e.g. in case of a deduction premise and conclusion , to check if it's logically valid. I try to identify the concepts used, to be sure I understand what is claimed and if there are informal fallacies or ambiguities that compromise the argument. Then I try to see what evidences there are to support the premises, if they are empirical claims or theoretical claims. I can consider different possible formulation of the same argument or compare this argument on a given field to other similar arguments in other different fields, to make sure there aren't hidden assumptions that I missed. And I can check how other people have scrutinized the argument, etc.

So with your opinion here you find all alternative opinions, from scores of military and foreign policy experts...all of them...indefensible and irrational. — Isaac

I don't even know what opinions you are talking about how can I possibly believe they all are indefensible and irrational?! Besides in condition of uncertainty opposing views may appear more likely rationally defensible. But again, to me, the point is not to assess people or opinions, but to assess actual arguments, so e.g. what are the actual arguments supporting the claim that Russia is not a security threat to Western countries, or undermining the claim that Russia is a security threat to Western countries? If I have to be rationally persuaded, I have to rationally examine the available arguments on their own merits. If I'm not up to this task for whatever reason then I could try other strategies.

Yet you've ignored the argument about underdetermination. Why is that? — Isaac

Because I'm not sure how you understand it or intend to apply it. In what sense do the facts that I listed underdetermine the theory (?) that Russia is a security concern for the West?

That's what I'm saying. It's NATO's caca.

If you're against borders being moved, you should be against Crimea's borders being moved in 1954 in the first place. — Apollodorus

Why on Earth? It wasn't an international border.

Once states break away and get their independence, it's different. But what would you care.

Yes. One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation.

This level of discourse is pretty crazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism#Contemporary_Russian_imperialism
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/russian-imperial-movement
https://jamestown.org/program/putins-crimea-speech-a-manifesto-of-greater-russia-irredentism/