Anyway, in the present case (different from the example above), millions of Ukrainians have fled, and many are fighting, apparently with notable unity/cohesion/direction. Can we easily say what the right thing to do is? — jorndoe
• saving lives (perhaps minimize suffering / maximize well-being) — jorndoe
• giving in versus standing up to attackers (perhaps courage versus cowardice) — jorndoe
• dis/allowing offenders/thugs to continue/escalate offending (compromise, future) — jorndoe
• doing the right thing — jorndoe
Hello, indeed I never heard people being forced to flee their homes just “as a result of political malpractice”: usually people are forced to flee their homes for reasons like somebody bombed my house, or the government is killing people if they don’t wear headscarf as the morality police requires, or life here is so shitty that I’m ready to cross a sea on an overcrowded and unsafe boat in the middle of the night to god knows where instead of remaining here. So… interesting, I’ll add that one too to my list.↪neomac
The fact that I have lived here all my life and people should not be forced to flee their home as a result of political malpractice? Hello? — Tzeentch
if our Western purported facts and moral opinions are absolutely "true" (this was the premise of my argument, that we Westerners have the truth) it's still important, even under these conditions of being ultimate arbiters of truth, to understand how other people elsewhere see things, even if it's not true, for the purposes of decision making. — boethius
For example, the West genuinely seemed to believe that the massive sanctions (that US policy-wonks kept calling "the nuclear option" for years) would destroy the Russian economy as the whole world would follow them. It seemed of genuine surprise to the US and European administrations that nearly the entire rest of the world noped out on those sanctions and the Russian economy was not destroyed.
Western politicians and western media then just basically ignored the issue. — boethius
Can you clarify how you're measuring "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage”? — Isaac
I'm not talking about astrology, I'm talking about experts in their field. — Isaac
I simply mean that neither position is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary and each position is supported in the field of qualified experts. Basic minimum standards. I didn't think this would be complicated. — Isaac
Well, we might still disagree on how to asses experts. And even on how one cites experts.In technical fields it ought also have support from at least some experts in that field. There's nothing controversial to argue with here. — Isaac
A fixed pool of evidence can support multiple theories since any given pool of evidence supporting a theory is not exhaustive of all the evidence there is. — Isaac
You're not discriminating between rational and irrational, for Christ's sake. You're not God. You're discriminating between reasons you prefer and reasons preferred by others. You not agreeing with a set of reasons doesn't render them "irrational", epistemic peers disagree, it's quite normal and doesn't require one party to have lost the power of rational thought. — Isaac
Or...we could read posts like grown ups and assume that not everything has to contain moral condemnation of Russia. — Isaac
Yes. There's no need to start over. 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
Surely it’s difficult to assess the overall global impact of a war that is still ongoing, with short and long terms effects, considering also that war can inflict direct damages on any material and social dimension. But also in this case the internet can help: https://news.un.org/pages/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GCRG_2nd-Brief_Jun8_2022_FINAL.pdf — neomac
it is precisely the geopolitical significance of this war to the global order that magnifies the importance of any material and human damage caused by this war, especially from the Western prospective. — neomac
I see. And who are the “experts in their field” arguing that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”?
Who are the “experts in their field” arguing that Ukraine would NOT have a better chance to grow in terms of civil rights within the western sphere of influence (e.g. by joining NATO and EU) than within the Russian sphere of influence?
And by “arguing” I mean employing actual cold-blooded “experts in their field” arguments, not expressing wishes or voicing propaganda slogans. — neomac
Well, we might still disagree on how to asses experts. And even on how one cites experts. — neomac
you didn’t offer any argument showing that the same fixed pool of evidences can support both the claim that Russia is military performing well and failing to perform well on the battlefield, or both that surrendering to Russia is better for Ukraine than to keep fighting and vice versa, or both that Ukraine wants to keep fighting and it doesn’t. — neomac
there are still rational requirements that could constrain the number of possible theories — neomac
One can still discriminate between rational and irrational — neomac
If you want to talk about war crimes for the war in Ukraine, there is an entry in wikipedia that summarises the situation better than that single Amnesty article could, that’s all. And if your objective was to provide a source without “a moral condemnation of Russia”, I’m afraid that article isn’t a big help once you read it carefully. — neomac
Much speculation; bombing proceeds. :/
I would agree the way you describe it: US supporting a regime change. Yet notice that a lot of Ukrainian administrations have gone since then as there have been elections.Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests. — Tzeentch
More like unavoidable consequence of the annexation in 2014 going so well and the territorial objectives that Russia has.From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence. — Tzeentch
NATO pushing? NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something.No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. — Mikie
Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it.No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either. — Mikie
Or several people here on this forum, who thought it all was American propaganda.Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?
The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine. — frank
No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated.
— Mikie
NATO pushing? — ssu
NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something. — ssu
Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it. — ssu
It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. — ssu
NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. — ssu
It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.
While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine.
Oh false narrative? You must be trolling.There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. — Mikie
As you know, referendums took place in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Their results have been summed up, the results are known. People made their choice, a clear choice.
And this, of course, is their right, their inalienable right, which is enshrined in the first article of the UN Charter, which directly speaks of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
Today we are signing agreements on the admission of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, the Zaporizhia Region and the Kherson Region to Russia. I am sure that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the adoption and formation in Russia of four new regions, four new subjects of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people.
I repeat: this is an inalienable right of people, it is based on historical unity, in the name of which the generations of our ancestors won, those who from the origins of Ancient Russia for centuries created and defended Russia. Here, in Novorossia, Rumyantsev, Suvorov and Ushakov fought, Catherine II and Potemkin founded new cities. Here our grandfathers and great-grandfathers stood to death during the Great Patriotic War.
On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. Putin was heard, but as I've said now many times, NATO cannot give a veto to Russia on the matters. But you don't have to go to Russia's friends like Turkey or Hungary, even Germany was saying it won't happen.Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. — Mikie
The subject is you not the refugees. "I asked you for clarifications: the idea of being "forced" suggests me the idea that you can not free yourself from something which you find undesirable. So if you live in the West and you do not like it, what is preventing you from leaving it?"↪neomac
Don't try to change the subject.
You tried to imply that being "free" to become a political refugee means one is not being forced - a truly vile statement. — Tzeentch
That above is one big imperialist speaking. — ssu
Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored.
— Mikie
On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. — ssu
even Germany was saying it won't happen. — ssu
It's a false narrative — Mikie
Peace talks could aim at a neutral Ukraine (no NATO), which would address one of Putin's arguments.
NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. — jorndoe
No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection. — jorndoe
Keep up. (It's a long thread.) — jorndoe
Whatever degree Putin was motivated to invade because of his perception of what NATO is doing does not confirm or deny other motivations. — Paine
Saying that the Ukrainians should not be supported is a Putin talking point. — Paine
Whatever game of Risk Mearsheimer is playing, it has nothing to do with the brutality being experienced by actual people. We are way past coulda, shoulda, woulda. — Paine
Even with this invasion, the facts simply don’t align with it. — Mikie
In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.
Why is he playing a game of Risk? — Mikie
In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.
To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”
To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.
In Mearsheimer's discourse, there are only two agents, the U.S. and Putin. — Paine
If you think this, then you're simply unfamiliar with Mearsheimer — Mikie
Russia's a direct and present, tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors). Including cultural: Jul 12, 2021; Mar 17, 2022; Mar 18, 2022; Mar 22, 2022; Mar 25, 2022; Apr 5, 2022; Apr 12, 2022; May 6, 2022; Sep 6, 2022; Sep 9, 2022; Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022; Oct 17, 2022.
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.