That's going to be true of any politics thread generally, including Climate Change or wealth distribution or Trump and Biden. I only hope some people reading this may learn a thing or two, and by that I mean even if it's one person, then it's better than nothing. But we can't know that.

It's a way to vent my frustrations at seeing how CNN, MSNBC the BBC and others cover this story.

But, point taken.

How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it. — frank

It wouldn't. Of course not.

Yet we live in the real world, in which consequences happen if a major country suffers humiliation. It does not in any way justify killing civilians, but it is to be expected regardless.

think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. — frank

The only moral aspect I can have a miniscule-sliver-of-a grain-of-sand say is in how my government reacts to this affair. I have no control over Russia. If I were Russian, then I'd be fined or jailed, but wouldn't be rooting for this war.

If I let sentiment take my judgment (not meaning this applies to you), then I will be leading Ukraine and the World, to annihilation.

And this is not the only war that's going on that is very ugly, others like Yemen or Ethiopia, for instance, are arguably worse. But few express outrage at these. Why is that? Yemen is due to Saudi Arabia, the West's partner, who sell them weapons that is leading to mass famine and widespread destruction.

I care about avoiding a nuclear war most of all, and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible (because right now is not possible), not at some nebulous date in which Ukraine wins. I don't see that happening. It could. I wouldn't gamble on it though.

and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible — Manuel

If you can't allow yourself a moral perspective, why do you care about reducing Ukrainian casualties?

I said that the only moral aspect I could have a positive contribution on is what my Governments do or do not do. Even in that aspect my impact is miniscule, it's the only one I have.

If I can convince or persuade people that what NATO is doing is increasing the deaths of Ukrainians as it is - just read today's headlines - then that's the only thing I can do morality-wise, that could have an impact.

Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on.

I think a nuclear war is the single biggest moral issue human beings face. The question is are we willing to settle going down than that path, because we don't like our enemy?

If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? That's another super disaster, worse than Ukraine, happening right now, which we could potentially do something about.

You're probably right. — frank

I'm always right. You know that!

I regret to inform that your government is not in Washington but in London. — Olivier5

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular.

Let's say the US support is more diversified, but in terms of armor, Russia's abandoned tanks and carriers did 'give' to Ukraine more than all western nations combined. — Olivier5

So you mean manipulate the data until it gives you the message you want? Got it.

I think we've discussed this before, that backing down from aggression is not the path to a stable situation. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on. — Manuel

I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless.

If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? — Manuel

I didn't say it was my main concern (and I have researched and talked about Yemen).

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll just share that our disagreement goes all the way down to issues of character.

I'm always right. You know that! — Isaac

Of course. How could I forget?

I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless. — frank

Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.

But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous.

I don't know how you extrapolate to all the rest.

We'll just have to disagree here.

If you don’t want to play this game, I don’t care. If you don’t want to play this game with me, then stop answering me. — neomac

That's not the game at all. As I said, you started this little conversation with...

But it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights. — neomac

No evidence, no 'proof'. The requests for 'proof only started when I objected to that position.

You present a position without proof, I object to it, you demand proof of my objection. That's the game we're playing. It's a game of toss and catch with the burden of proof.

Classic example...

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that “In 2 fewer die” is correct and that that’s all that counts. How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? — neomac

No, let's instead do that with the actual claim I'm arguing against. If you think 1) is the better course of action then you give your figures to support it. And if you just 'reckon' it probably is then stop being so hypocritical in expecting others who disagree with you to do so to any higher standard of proof than you yourself use.

Of course. — frank

See. I was right about that.

I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was. — Manuel

You have to say it to the exclusion of all other speech, apparently.

frank

Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.

But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous. — Manuel

You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out.

That goes against my grain and the grain of my culture. Just condemn them for bombing populated areas and leave it at that.

See. I was right about that. — Isaac

:cool:

And believe it is morally commendable.

You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out. — frank

I did? I don't remember saying that, but this thread is very long. If I did say so, then it was a stupid thing to say.

I will say it once more, I really don't know to what end but, what Russia is doing is criminal. Obviously.

I agree, we can leave it at that.

And believe it is morally commendable. — Manuel

Yes.

I know my generation are on their way out (to be replaced by those with enough emotional confidence to dye their hair blue) but us old fogeys aren't in the habit of wearing our hearts on our sleeves. In this day and age that often gets mistaken for a lack of empathy. We must, it seems, be constantly announcing to the world how we feel.

I don't know how long we have, so that my generation could also be going out with yours.

It is frustrating to have a conversation on this topic. I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict.

But I could be a moral monster, for wanting this war to end sooner rather than later. And gamble that an imaginary Putin will just tuck his tail under his legs and stay home.

By blocking negotiations. — Xtrix

You have something more specific that this? Like, verifiable? When and how did this happen? Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss.

what Russia is doing is criminal. — Manuel

:up:

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular. — Isaac

Still, it's not your government, so you have no "duty to hold Biden to account", not anymore than you have a duty to hold Putin to account.

you have no "duty to hold Biden to account", not anymore than you have a duty to hold Putin to account. — Olivier5

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular. — Isaac — Olivier5

Do you need it translated?

It's irrelevant. You are still not an American citizen.

I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict. — Manuel

Nothing posted here will ever "help resolve this conflict". This is too high an expectation to hold. What we can do here is learn new information from each other, and once in a long while, influence each other, by sharing arguments and information. To do this well, I think it's useful to know where we all stand in the big picture, and what each of us believes in, whence we speak, so that we can all interpret what posters say within the broader context of the conversation.

Correct.

Either one is in a position to directly influence the war (US, Europe, Russia) or one talks about it as a pressing issue, an issue that deserves as much attention as possible.

By doing this, one hopes that others will find what one says useful, as a way to learn more or further discuss this issue with others.

That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least.

Only reports quoting high level officials at the meetings. The evidence isn’t easily verifiable. But if you look at the historical and documentary record of US foreign affairs, what these reports say fall right in with what we’d expect.

Of course the reason given is that Putin is a war criminal— which is undeniable, but inconsistent based on past actions.

I’d ask you the same: is there verifiable evidence that the US is encouraging peace negotiations? I don’t consider that the default.

“Ukrainian news outlet suggests UK and US governments are primary obstacles to peace”
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/05/09/ukrainian-news-outlet-suggests-uk-and-us-governments-are-primary-obstacles-to-peace/

"The American administration forbids its wards in Kyiv to even think about talks with us, and evidently forces them to fight to the last Ukrainian," Zakharova told reporters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-foreign-ministry-no-contact-with-us-ukraine-peace-talks-2022-07-21/

The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

Again, I apparently start from a very different vantage point about the US. Like any empire, their actions are never disinterested. This war is a proxy war against a perceived enemy, and ally to China. It’s not simply about defending a country against evil men— there are plenty of those around which we do nothing about, and often support.

The evidence isn’t easily verifiable. — Xtrix

I thought as much. So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. I grant you that the US is not encouraging negotiations either.

Let's face it: the Ukrainians are not really interested at this point, and nor are the Russians. They might posture about peace talks, argue this or that way for propaganda reason. I.e. they might use the concept of peace talks in their fight against one another, but they are not ready to negotiate a peace. So what would happen if Biden or anyone else would try and "force" Ukraine to initiate peace negotiations? Only more posturing.

You have to say it to the exclusion of all other speech, apparently. — Isaac

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then.

I think the primary answer is that Biden just takes a harder line on Russia to begin with. But if you listened to what he said while running for president about Russia's interference in American elections, promising retaliation when he was elected, I think that explains some of his ferocity, actually threatening other nations that if they didn't sanction Russia, the US would punish them financially. That's strong stuff.

In other words, it's Biden.

That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least. — Manuel

If enough people try enough time, it will "lead to something" often enough, e.g. political education of people attending the thread. But still, TPF is not some hotbed of popular columnists, smarty-pant politicians and grey eminences, me think, so whatever it leads to will remain quite local...

So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. — Olivier5

It appears that they are, yes. I gave a sample of sources above. Is it easily “verified”? No— because the meetings occur behind closed doors and we’re left only with accounts given by officials who are present and who corroborate the charge. But I think It’d be quite clear anyway, given what’s known about the government, who owns the government, what their interests are, and the historical record.

It’s much harder to believe they aren’t blocking (or at least discouraging) negotiations.

I grant you that the US is not encouraging negotiations either. — Olivier5

So what is your stance exactly? That the US is neutral regarding negotiations?

So what would happen if Biden or anyone else would try and "force" Ukraine to initiate peace negotiations? Only more posturing. — Olivier5

I think you underestimate the power and pull of the US. While it’s a declining power, it’s still the international “godfather.” If the US were pushing negotiations, I think the conflict would end very soon. But that would have to include an agreement that Ukraine never join NATO — so it’s unlikely the US will ever encourage peace talks and if they do, highly unlikely they will support a potential agreement.

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then. — frank

There was no fight back from Ukraine. We can't sell weapons to an army that isn't fighting can we?

It appears that they are, yes. Is it easily “verified”? No— because the meetings occur behind closed doors and we’re left only with accounts given by officials who are present and who corroborate the charge — Xtrix

I'd love to have access to those accounts.

Appeals to the historical record are moot, in the circumstances. Whatever Johnson or Nixon did is itrelevant.

So what is your stance exactly? That the US is neutral regarding negotiations? — Xtrix

My hunch is that Biden ir his admin needs to focus on the end game now. Even sooner. I have in fact written about that already months ago, arguing that Biden should keep an eye on the diplomatic track, and encourage its continuation even if it doesn't work right now. Keep some channels open somewhere. Macron tried to do that, at too high a level perhaps. It was very a personal brand of diplomacy, all these phone calls with Putin. But the idea was not a bad one.

It doesn't need to be done by the US. Europe is suffering far more than the US from the consequences of the war. Draghi understood that. Other European leaders too. They could well play a card here, the good cop card. The bad cop being the US obviously...