Liars lie because they want a particular narrative to be taken as true. Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully. I mean, this is obvious stuff. — Isaac

Not in your world though, coz there is no evidence to support such a claim "Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully" in case of conflicting narratives.

If you can't understand the concept of underdetermination I can't help you. You have do meet a minimum threshold of comprehension.

I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true. — Isaac

Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing.

You saw the video Olivier posted where his own soldiers didn't know they were going into battle until they were actually on the way to Kiev. Talk about information fog.

If you can't understand the concept of underdetermination — Isaac

evidence of that?

Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing. — frank

I see how that would work, but I don't see how it relates to the argument. If there is some legitimate criticism of the US, Putin may, or may not repeat it.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point @Manuel was making.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point Manuel was making. — Isaac

That's true. It's a case of ad hominem. Ad hominem is acceptable in cases where it's wise to be skeptical of an individual's statements because that person lies unusually frequently.

You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on it likely veracity. — Isaac

And what would have bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity?

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others. — Isaac

If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2, you simply lack a lot.

But then again, according to you the UK surrendering to Nazi Germany during WW2 "might have well have saved thousands of lives on both sides". (Who cares what would have happened to the British Jewish community, which then numbered more than the total UK casualties of WW2, and to those that would have opposed the new regime.)

So now Putin is like Hitler, carrying out literal genocide and wanting to conquer, not "merely" all of Europe, but also the rest of the world?

He couldn't conquer Ukraine, and is now resorting to desperate measures. You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end?

You must know now that internally in Russia he is losing popularity quite quickly and the longer this lasts, the more his popularity will drop. Not to mention all the internal dissent and all the many fleeing the country.

The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. — Tzeentch

Catherine the Great said:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

Russia can portray itself as the victim defending itself, but in fact it is an imperialist entity which basically only during the Soviet Union had one shared common identity. Then the various people in the Empire were Soviets, not Russians. Russia has never been just Russians. It is basically a multicultural state build on a Medieval Empire which outlasted other similar Empires thanks to a revolution that created the Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been able to be as successful in it's Russification as France, Germany or even Italy has been in creating a nation state in the 19th Century (or earlier). And now with Putin, Russia is trying to claw back what it had lost. Hope it will fail and then learn that it has lost it's Empire.



And furthermore, every aggressor will portray itself at least as a defender of something. Someone truly believing the bullshit lie that NATO made Putin to attack Ukraine, that it was the only option left for Putin, likely isn't capable of understanding that he or she is believing a similar enormous lie like Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda and hence Iraq should be invaded.

After all, I remember those idiots that came even to this forum (or technically the earlier site) to defend the US attack on Iraq and later defended President Bush as "just having got bad intel". Now those believing the Russian line are quite similar to those idiots.

Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always. — ssu

Yep, what you say here makes sense.

However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card. — ssu

So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted.

Sounds like a value judgement to me, which aren't very useful when trying to understand a political situation. What does it matter what you and I want? It has no impact on what is happening and why it is happening. — Tzeentch

It's not a hermetically sealed evaluation, you'll have to keep the rest in mind alongside.

As an example, if Putin had gone towards real democracy, transparency, non-authoritarianism, free press, less use of polonium-210, whatever (quite a bit has been posted right here in the thread already), then lots of people would be looking in this direction, be more enthusiastic. The autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive kleptocratic leadership/regime is a killer.

And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. — ssu

That’s not Chomsky’s position, and it’s not my position. Nor is it anyone else’s position on this thread that I’ve seen.

The US government being the “bad guy all the time” is a strange accusation. We’re analyzing government actions — whether good or bad is a separate issue. Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way.

But I’ll give you what you want:

- It’s a positive thing that the US is helping Ukraine defend itself. (What isn’t positive is their getting in the way of peace negotiations.)
- Putin’s actions are repugnant and I condemn them.

Funny that this needs repeating, since I — and everyone else — has been saying it all along.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist.

You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end? — Manuel

You are talking to a Finn, you know that?

And I do know what Finlandization is in reality. You see, the Putin's ideologist (that was tried to be killed by Ukrainian intelligence services) said it quite clearly what Russia's intentions ought to be for FInland. To have similar relations as during the Cold War.

You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe.

So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". — schopenhauer1

Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations.

If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted. — schopenhauer1

If Russia would be a prosperous, functioning country that has lucrative markets for Ukraine's economy to export, it might be well that we would be talking about CIS as we talk about the EU. Yes, the Ukrainians had their Holodomor, but Russians also suffered during the Soviet Union, hence the attitude could something like modern Germany looks at the Third Reich today. (Not like Putin's Russia looks at Stalin today).

And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why.

I do know I am talking to a Finn, we have raised it a few times actually. That's interesting intelligence, and believable. But one thing is having such ambitions, and the other is actually doing it.

From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. The general consensus on this war by now, is that Putin thought he would be welcomed and he was gravely mistaken.

So the rest of what you mention may well be accurate, but now we know it can't apply. Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen.

We will see how this pans out. Hopefully well enough.

Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way. — Xtrix

In a way, the war in Ukraine has given the chance for the West to avoid the really important debate about the War on Terror and especially the war in Afghanistan.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist. — Xtrix

Well, let's try. You aren't a Putin supporter and I'm not an American jingoist. (Not even a Finnish jingoist, even if I think of myself as being patriotic.)

From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. — Manuel

Best military operations are those, when you accomplish your objectives without any shots fired. When it's something else than a war. Believe me, modern generals are really triumphant about these operations whereas the larger public doesn't notice them as no war occurred.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelyhood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya.

Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen. — Manuel

Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter.

For that matter, there has been past resentment/animosity between Poland and Ukraine, yet Poles have been quite helpful to Ukrainians in the present crisis. Things change. (Also, I'm sure Poles have little patience with Nazism.) What might the reasons be?

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist. — Xtrix

This is very important and it seems other people have a hard time understanding this, when it should be quite simple to get. I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelihood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya. — ssu

Yes, it was very much well on its way to that, seems to me it actually was taken as a de-facto part of Russia, but he wanted more.

Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter. — ssu

I think this applies to all great powers honestly. And to be clear, it's the leadership, the elite, the military, that choose to do these things, the populations very often don't even get a choice, or are fed propaganda.

Well, let's try. — ssu

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. I don't have a lot of political power, but of what power I do have I'd like to put to the best use. Because I live in the United States, it will be mostly confined to its government. So I ask what role the US has played in this conflict, what its plan is, and how it can best bring the conflict to an end. This is what Olivier and I had been discussing previously, which ended in agreement.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about any of this. The controversy will lie in the details -- about NATO's expansion and its role in the war, about whether or not the US has helped or hindered peace talks, about the true threat of nuclear war, etc.

I'm not in favor of capitulating to bullies. I'm not in favor of appeasement. I am in favor of diplomacy and compromise. And in listening to all parties involved -- with a skeptical ear.

That's as clear as I can be at the moment.

I'm not in favor of capitulating to bullies. I'm not in favor of appeasement. I am in favor of diplomacy and compromise. — Xtrix

Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbas/Crimea annexations by Ukraine in exchange for peace is a good compromise to you?

I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. — Manuel

Then I stand corrected. I hadn't seen this either, but then it's a very long thread and I haven't always been great keeping up with it.

Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time. — Manuel

There's a lot of emotions at play, and that will skew the perceptions -- mine included. I do indeed have a tendency to view the United States government negatively. I think I'm right to do so and can support it, but it's still true that this is my basic orientation, given what I know about the US and its history.

Others, also correctly, will be hostile towards Russia because of its war crimes and the fact they started all this by invading, which cannot be overlooked.

But much like 9/11, this hatred will also skew the ability to understand the causes of the indefensible event. Anyone who talked about the US involvement in the 9/11 attacks were immediately condemned as siding with terrorists. People weren't ready to hear any of it.

All of this is fairly typical. I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages. But otherwise it's not extraordinary.

Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbas/Crimea annexations by Ukraine in exchange for peace is a good compromise to you? — neomac

I think Ukraine neutrality is good. Recognition of Donbas, no. Recognition of Crimea -- maybe.

But it's not up to me. That's up to the people of Ukraine. No negotiation is going to be easy, and both sides will have to give something up. It cannot be that Russia simply gets everything it wants in exchange for peace, no. But then those aren't really negotiations.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelyhood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya. — ssu

One of the elements that could have made that de facto condition become normal is that back then, Putin was skillfully engaged with European powers to become integral to their economies, as depicted in your post upthread with Putin hanging out at the G8.

As Russia keeps doubling down after each lost hand, the chances of that relationship returning is shrinking exponentially, no matter the outcome of the war.

You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant. — frank

No, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. If Putin only sometimes lies then the argument is false. Anti-US sentiment may or may not be appropriate regardless of whether Putin echoes it or not.

It's nonsensical to say that we should not repeat anything Putin happens to say. Some of what he says will be true, some lies, so if something we think is true happens to also have been said by Putin that fact has no bearing on the matter.

If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2 — ssu

Exactly...

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others. — Isaac

I'm not sure what you're having trouble with here. One can over water one's houseplants. One can under water one's houseplants. — Isaac

And you position yourself as being the one deciding what level of imagination people are on in their writing and then putting yourself into the balanced rational position and everyone you don't agree with into either having too little or too much imagination, whatever fits your way of dismissing someone else's argument without engaging with them honestly.

You are correct, and one tries to be accommodating to those who are next to Russia, or close to it. Totally understandable position. We all think we are on the right track, of course, but we could be wrong in our thinking or when looking at evidence, or the weight we give to one thing over another, etc.



lol I would be crazy to read everything here, I've skipped often 10-15 pages or more. When I have participated, I know of one poster, but maybe there is another one or few. They're not common.

I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages — Xtrix

Me too.

Then again, if you look at the tradition in philosophy, you find every kind of political persuasion and personalities, so, I suppose we shouldn't be mildly surprised.

, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. — Isaac

That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously.

That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously. — frank

Right. Well that was a distracting waste of time. So you actually agree with the sentiment that we didn't ought to treat the notion that some talking point is Russian propaganda as having any bearing on whether it's true or not. It might be true and they're taking advantage of that, or it might be false and they're lying. The fact itself is not rendered untrue by it's being used by Russia to further it's campaign to discredit Western governments. Western governments do, in fact, do unjust things from time to time, and if Russia became aware of one of these unjust actions, it would proclaim it loudly. As such, someone who wishes to hold their own government to account for injustices is going to end up frequently echoing the same talking points as Russian propaganda.

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever.