what Russia is doing is criminal — Manuel
It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game. — jorndoe
I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix
The US doesn’t act benevolently at this scale. Russia and their ally, China, have been defying the international order, of which the US is in charge, and this is threatening to US hegemony. — Xtrix
None of this is evident from the narrative you provide, however accurate it may otherwise be. — Xtrix
But the US level of provocation was tiny compared to the level of Russian escalation. — apokrisis
Do you think the Obama and the Trump years somehow left Putin no choice? Or that Biden arrived and suddenly Putin saw a leader of cunning and flair? In poker terms, Putin had to go all in on whatever cards were in his hand? — apokrisis
But in this conflict, you can’t claim the US engineered events. And you can’t blame it for taking advantage if a cheap opportunity now presents itself. — apokrisis
You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment. — apokrisis
I side with analysts like Peter Zeihan who stress that the US has always tended towards isolationism because of its geography. It just needs to secure Canada and Mexico as part of its North American hegemony and life is sweet. Anything more is gravy. — apokrisis
It owns a lion’s share of the US debt, — apokrisis
So your geopolitical analysis builds in outdated neocon presumptions about the US’s self interests. — apokrisis
it is better off becoming the isolationist regime that always made the most self-interested geopolitical sense. — apokrisis
China is also about to fall off its demographic cliff. Let it try to pivot to an economics of domestic consumption as the US pulls all its manufacturing back to cheap and reliable Mexico. — apokrisis
Of course it will take another 10 years for the whole US system to itself reorientate to this new reality. — apokrisis
A neocon analysis is so 1990s - even if it is true that large chunks of US institutional thinking might be still stuck in that time warp. — apokrisis
Hope I have shown that my narrative is based on the world as it is, even if that is also a world in transition. — apokrisis
Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument? — frank
Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.
So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that. — frank
You might have objected that it's incoherent or with little explanatory power and consequently I would have asked you for proofs. — neomac
if you claim: “I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it”, then why on earth do you keep making objections? — neomac
So my political support for Ukrainian struggles is grounded more on the reasoning I exposed earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949). Reasoning and evidences grounded on historical/geopolitical assumptions that go beyond this war — neomac
- How about “my figures” to support option 1 according to my standards? Here: how likely is that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU) than by being within the sphere of influence of an anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights (see first step), if not now in the future? I say it’s more likely, based on historical evidence — neomac
the Western human rights tradition cannot be equated with the contemporary human rights regime, which differs from its pre-1945 predecessors (Moyn, 2012). It was not the gradual increase of declarations or a smooth combination of natural law and citizenship rights that led to the foundation of the international human rights regime, but rather the international reaction to the genocide and atrocities committed by National Socialist Germany
Interpreting the pre-1945 declarations in their historical contexts reveals that they were not fully embraced by Western societies at the time but were the subject of highly controversial struggles (Bielefeldt, 2007: 182f.).3 What is more, pre-1945 non-Western movements and struggles encompassed similar or even further-reaching ideas that provided a foundation for human rights.
Critical accounts identify a tendency to overemphasize human rights violations in the Global South. This tends to construct a non-Western “other” that needs to be saved by Western states (Chakrabarty, 2008; Kapur, 2006). Thereby, the human rights regime creates a dichotomy between the Western embracement and the non-Western violation of human rights (Mutua, 2008). This dichotomy neglects human rights violations in Western states and disregards the complicity of the latter with the former (Chowdhry, 2005).
Deliberations within UN human rights for a highlight fault lines characterized by regional, substantial, and strategic alliances, not simply Western versus non-Western states. Human rights activists and diplomats from the Global South use the human rights framework to strengthen their demands. In a recent example, a group of non-Western states initiated a working group dedicated to drafting a binding treaty for corporate responsibility for human rights. The group was led by Ecuador and South Africa, and supported by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru, among others, as well as by NGOs from all parts of the world. Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union, they were successful in that the UN Human Rights Council founded an intergovernmental working group (Mende, 2017) that published its Zero Draft in 2018. — Janne Mende, Department of International Relations, Institute of Political Science, Justus Liebig University
Fifty-eight countries assembled in 1948 to affirm their “faith in the dignity and worth of all persons” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein a framework for preserving that dignity and fostering respect for its worth was offered. Among these states were, African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Thirty-seven states were associated with Judeo-Christian traditions; 11 Islamic; six Marxist; and four identified as being associated with Buddhist-Confucian traditions.
...It was Egyptian delegate, Omar Lutfi, who proposed that the UDHR reference the “universality” of human rights
...social and economic rights were placed on the agenda as a result of pushes from the Arab States and the Soviet bloc, respectively.
...the Soviet bloc, which demanded more emphasis on socio‐economic rights than referenced in the document
...the UDHR was formed with major influence from non-Western states, thereby giving it legitimacy as a truly universally-applicable charter to guide humanity’s pursuit of peace and security.
...states like Chile, Jamaica, Argentina, Ghana, the Philippines and others were vanguards for the advancement of concepts such as “protecting,” in addition to “promoting” human rights.
In 1963, for example, fourteen non-Western UN member states requested that the General Assembly include a discussion on the Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam on its agenda, alleging that the Diem regime had been perpetuating violations of rights of Vietnamese Buddhists in the country
in 1967, a cross-regional group of states from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean secured the adoption of two commission resolutions, establishing the first two Special Procedure mandates: the Ad-Hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa and the Special Rapporteur on Apartheid. The special procedures mechanism was thus established. Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining. — Dr. Ahmed Shaheed - UN Special Rapporteur
- How about “my figures” to question option 2 according to my standards?
Here: “How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? The West has supported protests and political change for decades in Iran, North Korea, Russia and China with what results for their population's human rights? How about the ex-soviet union countries that had the chance to join NATO and EU? — neomac
How would you negotiate with someone who is rational and yet who has constructed his own echo chamber of disinformation as to the power he wields? What inflated set of terms would he be willing to accept? And having inflamed the whole of Ukraine as a nation, why would anyone expect them to accept a patently bad deal? — apokrisis
So while it’s easy to understand, it’s not easy to accept — at least for me. I think the US is making a terrible and potentially fatal mistake. To roll the dice like this is, again, madness. — Xtrix
Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny. — ssu
This was not the issue under contention. — boethius
Umm...just who is saying that the Russian army is competent and very effective? :roll:apokrisis's hypothesis is that no analysis and no expert is credible, other than the Russian military is incompetent.
Incompetence is a pretty high threshold and you can of course be competent and still fail, especially in a negative sum game such as war.
Even higher threshold is claiming "all credible analysis" agrees with your position. — boethius
Forgot who was asking, but here is the evidence of US/Ukraine bombing of bridge:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html — Manuel
On Friday, Ukrainian special forces organized a suicide bombing on the Kerch bridge connecting Crimea and the Russian mainland, killing three people and collapsing half of one span of the bridge. — World Socialist Web Site
The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times. — World Socialist Web Site
In an expression of the consummate cynicism that pervades all aspects of US reporting on the war in Ukraine, the media acted as though the jury was out on who carried out the attack.
News outlets said Putin “blamed” the Ukrainian military and “alleged” that the suicide bombing targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure was a “terrorist attack,” as though this was not self-evident. — World Socialist Web Site
The latest attack on Crimea comes despite Biden’s explicit public pledge that the United States would not allow its NATO proxy to attack Russian territory. “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders,” Biden wrote in May, announcing the deployment of the HIMARS system to Ukraine.
It has now emerged that this, like everything else the United States has said about limitations on its involvement in the war, was simply a lie. By pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems, backed by the full might of the NATO military-industrial complex, the US has allowed its NATO proxy to score a wave of battlefield advances that set the stage for the latest terror attack. — World Socialist Web Site
the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (накачка украины оружием - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook — SophistiCat
It's this I was talking about.. But fine, you present 'conceptual frameworks' that apparently don't need proof and then ask for it from others. An odd habit, but understood. So. I'm asking you for you proof now then. — Isaac
I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken. I'm not upholding the counter-position that A is correct and B is mistaken. — Isaac
Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons boethius has already given - You have failed to take any account of the costs. It's insane to propose a course of action based only on the potential benefits without even holding a view on whether they outweigh the potential costs. — Isaac
Why? What exactly did I say that your experts’ quotations is questioning? Quote my claims that are contradicted by Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union or “Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining”. I can’t find any.Well then you should check your historical evidence… — Isaac
It is Western propaganda of course! But it looks also a reliable one within the scope I’m considering not in whatever ways you may think about it. Unless you are claiming that within authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran according to you and your sources human rights institutions are equally or better implemented than in the West. In this case, there would be another clash of idiosyncratic assumptions which, this time, I have no interest to deal with.human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda. — Isaac
I see, here is the trend of “Human rights protection, 1946 to 2019” about EU&NATO countries (some are ex-Soviet republics and let’s not forget German reunification): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVKVague hand-waiving in the direction of possible counterweights does not constitute an argument that they do, indeed outweigh their opposing factors. — Isaac
Which in the end you cannot disprove.I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix
In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries. The Brussels Summit Declaration from January 1994 defined the goals of PfP as expanding and intensifying political and military cooperation in Europe, increasing stability, diminishing threats to peace, and building strengthened security relationships.
On 27 May 1997, NATO leaders and President Boris Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, expressing their determination to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.” The Act established the goal of cooperation in areas such as peacekeeping, arms control, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and theatre missile defence. In the Founding Act, NATO and Russia agreed to base their cooperation on the principles of human rights and civil liberties, refraining from the threat or use of force against each other or any other state.
Is that enough? — neomac
I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference. — SophistiCat
An unnamed senior Ukrainian Official corroborated this theory, telling the New York Times, Ukrainian special forces orchestrated the attack, loading a bomb onto a truck.
A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge.
Costa Rica? :chin:The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence. — Isaac
US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations (diplomatic relations since 1851). Costa Rica is quite under the influence of the West I would say.Beyond migration, U.S. assistance to Costa Rica helps counter drug trafficking and transnational crime, supports economic development, improves governance, and contributes to security in Central America.
The United States works hand-in-hand with a wide range of Costa Rican government agencies and non-governmental organizations to help secure Costa Rica’s borders, professionalize its police, strengthen its judicial sector, improve its corrections system, and empower at-risk youth and other vulnerable populations.
U.S. Embassy programs promote entrepreneurship, economic inclusion, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) works closely with Costa Rican security partners to build capacity and assist disadvantaged communities.
From the State Department's website: — ssu
US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations — ssu
Putin's regime, fueled largely by a boom in the oil industry.[9][10][11] However, lower oil prices and sanctions for Russia's annexation of Crimea led to recession and stagnation in 2015 that has persisted into the present day.
You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment.
— apokrisis
I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. — Xtrix
Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February. — Isaac
The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence.
The United States falls below Cuba.
Belarus (a Russian puppet state) has made comparable progress to others in its economic group.
Some of the worst losses are in Spain.
Ukraine have made virtually no improvements at all since he Maidan.
Iraq and Libya both 'benefited' from exactly the kind of Western military intervention you're advocating and their human rights records have worsened.
So no. Once you stop cherry-picking the data to match your theory you see exactly the pattern the experts I cited have described - a big gain post 1945 followed by a very mixed picture unrelated to 'Western' countries. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.