The Fifty Year Wound

I don't have a connection. It sounds fascinating though.

Although it would perhaps tell something of Biden's mind when it comes to dealing with crisis. Did he show his senility, or did he show hawkish judgement? Just drop the small problems. Focus on the big ones, like a chance to dissolve Russia back to its constituent particles for a second time running. — apokrisis

We can try to psychoanalyze leaders like Biden, Xi, Lula, Macron and Putin, yes they surely are different in terms of how they think and what they believe, but at the end of the day, it's what they do that matters. So if Putin really believes that Hiroshima is a good pretext for another bomb, fine, so long as he doesn't launch it.

I agree focusing on large problems should be paramount. For me, in the case of Ukraine, it's important to try and stop a nuclear disaster, which, though not certain, is within the realm of possibility. That trumps everything else. If that is safely taken out of the equation, we can focus on other stuff, still of high importance, but slightly less than annihilation of the human race.

In the case of Afghanistan, I think it would be a good idea to give them the money they are owed. Yes, very few people like the Taliban, they are barbaric beasts. But they govern the country, so we deal with them. I don't think disliking the Taliban is a good reason to allow millions of people to die of starvation. That's a big issue, with a solution.

I posted above about information autocracy. Putin exists because the propaganda system has evolved on that side of game as well. — apokrisis

Sure and it would be surprising if such regimes did not adapt with the times. The old Soviet-Style (now North Korean) system of indoctrination is very clumsy. Nonetheless, one big difference between "Western" propaganda systems and authoritarian ones, is that, for the most part, these authoritarian systems very much depend on the use of physical force.

That is, by and large, absent from Western societies. I doubt these other systems would be nearly as effective if they did not resort to force, which I believe shows a slight deficiency in that propaganda model. If you can get people to support a war without force, that's a mighty achievement given all the horrors of the 20th century.

For me, in the case of Ukraine, it's important to try and stop a nuclear disaster, which, though not certain, is within the realm of possibility. — Manuel

Yeah. I had viewed it as a low probability we would even see a tactical nuke. But that has shifted a lot in a few weeks.

The US seems to have good inside information though. They would have a sense of what to do. But maybe so many Gasprom execs have fallen out windows that the intelligence is drying up.

I don't think disliking the Taliban is a good reason to allow millions of people to die of starvation. That's a big issue, with a solution. — Manuel

I agree. But imagine how the Republicans would spin it. Another reason Biden would just want everyone to forget about it.

How does this pragmatic approach get started when one side is run by a man in a bunker calmly loading his revolver for the final scene? You make it sound like something his opponents could initiate by themselves. — Paine

Well, if Putin or his representatives aren't available for talks, then clearly no deal can be made. Do you have some reason to believe that's the case?

Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war — ssu

Could have stopped there. Any reason why you'd oppose moving to a less ferocious situation from a more ferocious one?

Let me guess, is it borders? National identity? Are we going to get the whole Rivers of Blood speech or just the highlights?

Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.

Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia.

Staking a lot of people and future on such a reason (unjustified at the moment), speaking on their behalf, is a bit bold (perhaps presumptuous, especially if it's not your children that have to live with that decision), at least it seems that way to me. — jorndoe

No one is speaking on their behalf (well the Ukrainian government are, but that's their job). We are supplying weapons, training, finances, propaganda, intelligence and moral support. Did we ought to supply those things unquestionably to whatever end Ukraine choose?

If Russia asked us for help with their objective, ought we supply similar aid to them, and when the likes of you question their goals I could say "who are you to speak on their behalf, the Russians know what's best for them and if that involves invading Ukraine, then we've no right to tell them they're wrong".

No.

If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals.

Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal.

The official story is being adjusted so the public is moved in the direction of this adjustment. — apokrisis

Maybe they are re-discovering glasnost, though.

If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals. — Isaac

We are not supporting Ukraine for humanitarian reasons, but to protect ourselves.

We are not supporting Ukraine for humanitarian reasons though, but to protect ourselves. — Olivier5

Well, if you think that then the action is even more reprehensible than my interpretation of war profiteering. Using Ukrainians as a human shield against a threat to us is positively evil.

It's called geopolitics, not boyscoutism.

It's called geopolitics, not boyscoutism. — Olivier5

What it's called is irrelevant. We're talking about the moral judgement of it.

So, to get this clear, your new claim is that there's zero moral reason for us to help Ukraine, but we ought to do so because it's the smart Machiavellian move in terms of geopolitics.

There are many excellent moral reasons to help the Ukrainians. Just like there are many excellent moral reasons to help the Uighurs. But one people gets help and the other doesn't. Why, do you think?

I don't see how that does anything but dodge the question. My question is about the "many excellent moral reasons to help the Ukrainians". You dodged that by claiming our aid was solely a Machiavellian move to use Ukrainians as a human shield. If you now want to go back on that claim, then tell me what the moral reason is to retain sovereignty for one people over one territory. As I said, sovereignty is not a humanitarian goal. It has zero moral dimension, no-one morally deserves control over some piece of land to the exclusion of others.

Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. — boethius

I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that.

It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well. — boethius

With what troops, that's the question. The newly mobilized troops can basically formed into battle capable formations likely for some spring offensive. Now the question is to avoid Russian forces to be pocketed in the Kherson region, so I guess the few troops they have should go to stop the Ukrainian advance.

Answer the question: Why do you think it is that Uighurs don't get any help from the EU or NATO?

Forget NATO. Here on TPF, who cares about the Uighurs? Nobody.

We care about Ukraine because we identify with them, because we could very well be next. This is exactly what Zelensky says, he perfectly understood that.

People who speak with contempt of Machiavelli haven't read his book. He is a more subtle thinker than cretins think, eg he says that in politics, naįve boyscouts often do more damage than shrewd calculators.

Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.

Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia. — Isaac

So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation".

No? :snicker:

Let me guess. That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). :smirk:

Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal. — Isaac

Oh now it's just humanitarian goals, and hell to Westphalian sovereignty?

So I guess you are against the UN charter then.

who cares about the Uighurs? — Olivier5

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/714502

Oh look. It's one of the people who've been critical of all the pro-western cheerleading, what a surprise.

We care about Ukraine because we identify with them, because we could very well be next. — Olivier5

Bullshit. America, France, Engalnd are unequivocally not next on Putin's hit-list. Such a notion is daft beyond measure.

he says that in politics, naįve boyscouts often do more damage than shrewd calculators. — Olivier5

Uh huh. None of which counts as evidence for which side you're on of that divide. But I do like this dramatic u-turn of yours from moralising to real politik, it makes a change at least.

So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation". — ssu

That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. The idea that full on land war is the only way to combat human rights abuses is not only stupid, but dangerously so. We do not need to go to war with every tyrant to depose them. We can use diplomatic means, sanctions, revolution... there are many tools at our disposal.

It also may not have been a solution. The circumstances may have been such that war was necessary.

It's utterly absurd to point to one set of circumstances where war was a necessary option and say "well that proves that war is always a necessary option"

Did we do wrong during the cold war? Should we have just invaded Russia instead of all the negotiations, deals, and posturing we did to avoid armageddon? No.

In some cases war is necessary, in others negotiation and concession is better.

You can't just dodge the question of which is which by pointing out that one sometimes is.

America, France, Engalnd are unequivocally not next on Putin's hit-list. — Isaac

Do you have access to his hit list? Personally I don't, and I consider that Poland, Germany and France could very well get threatened in the future if Russia wins in Ukraine.

It's one of the people who've been critical of all the pro-western cheerleading, what a surprise. — Isaac

He mentioned them like I mention them, in passim.

That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). — ssu

As I said on the other thread, if you want to embarrass yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England is about the same as the difference between modern Russia and modern Ukraine, then I'm not even going to contest it. It's such a ludicrous claim that it doesn't even deserve comment, you crack on.

I consider that Poland, Germany and France could very well get threatened in the future if Russia wins in Ukraine. — Olivier5

...

No.

I've got nothing in response to that, we'll just leave it there for posterity.

To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). — ssu

Although... You do know that minimisation of the holocaust is a crime in some countries, right? I don't know what jurisdiction TPF is in, but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland.

I've got nothing in response to that — Isaac

Of course you don't. Humanitarian concerns are not the primary reasons why the 'West' helps Ukraine. We are doing so out of perceived self interest, first and foremost, and that is perfectly natural and sane: Macron, Biden or Scholtz were not elected by Ukrainians to protect Ukrainian interests. They were elected by French, Americans and Germans to protect these nations' interests.

Nice. Bit of jingoistic nationalism. Very much in keeping with the slide into the far-right Europe has recently taken. I think we finally have a good grasp on where you're coming from.

That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. — Isaac

And how many of the British Jews that would have saved? At the start of WW2, there were about half a million jews living in the UK. Add the over 50 000 that escaped to the British Isles.

And how many you think would have been deemed as enemies of the state? In a country with strong liberal roots, guess how many Britons would have been a problem for the new regime?

You're idea that surrender may well have saved lives is simply false. The fact is that the Jewish community in the UK outnumbered the deaths that the United Kingdom actually suffered during the war tells this obvious fact. You simply are delusional if you think that Nazi machine would stopped at killing only the British jews.

but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland. — Isaac

The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens".

I'm coming from a place called "stating the glaringly obvious". You thought I was a boy scout? Now that's cute..

Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. Poland never officially surrendered, but were beaten in battle.

Did their experiences of the resulting occupation differ?

Did France's actions have any significant impact on lives lost by surrendering and continuing its resistance unofficially? At worst, no impact at all, at best they may have saved thousands by avoiding battles they couldn't win.

None of which has any bearing of course on the completely different question of occupied Donbas. Ukraine is not France. Russia is not Germany.

The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens". — ssu

Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have an actual example of an actual territory annexed from Ukraine and you're avoiding using it as an example, but instead reaching for the worst case you can find.

if you want to embarrass yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England is about the same as the difference between modern Russia and modern Ukraine, then I'm not even going to contest it. It's such a ludicrous claim that it doesn't even deserve comment, you crack on. — Isaac

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden

https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/britain-adolf-hitler-dictator-admiration-appeasement-relationship-britain-germany/

Cracking on, sir, as ordered.