The assistance Ukraine got...which in earnest only happened only after Russia attacked Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have had for a long time have had training exercises with NATO, had the capability to operate with NATO and did participate in NATO operations ...and didn't belong to NATO and had no guarantees from NATO. And membership wasn't going to happen.What do you think such a statement really means, when the United States is already training and supplying Ukraine like its gearing up for another Vietnam? You need to get a sense of reality. — Tzeentch
I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac
That doesn't seem at all intuitive. Why would you think maintaining control over resources a moral imperative? Is it, for example, a moral imperative for me to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can? — Isaac
You champion Mearsheimer's theory of International Relations as the best explanation of the events unfolding in Ukraine. You discount previous behavior by Russia as indicative of anything happening in this conflict. — Paine
Yes. What's that got to do with the argument here? — "Isaac
The assistance Ukraine got...which in earnest only happened only after Russia attacked Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have had for a long time have had training exercises with NATO, had the capability to operate with NATO and did participate in NATO operations ...and didn't belong to NATO and had no guarantees from NATO. And membership wasn't going to happen.
And these were two EU countries, which Ukraine isn't.
The big difference is that they applied to NATO and vast majority of the alliance accepted in their own Parliaments and some NATO members have given security guarantees for both countries. Unlike Ukraine. Ukraine's NATO application simply was left aside. No NATO Parliament started to discuss it. You had only vague promises... because NATO couldn't accept that Russia have a veto-vote. — ssu
I’m talking about moral imperatives for governments, not moral imperatives for ordinary citizens. Maintaining control over resources can be a moral imperative as much as a forced collectivisation of means of productions by a communist — neomac
the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. — neomac
if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert: — neomac
Just the way as the Ukrainian defense minister admits it in the article: Ukraine is not de jure member of NATO, which means that Russia didn't attack NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine. And that is my point: it is Ukraine's war. Hence it is quite expendable. NATO Ukraine is either past lies of American Presidents or now Russian propaganda: both false and only political rhetoric without any connection to reality.Then how do you explain this: — Tzeentch
Likely for the same reason you don't answer to all the questions I make you: limited time and these threads explode.Also, why do you only respond to half my post? — Tzeentch
Why does a nation gathering more resources become moral when a person doing so would not? — Isaac
the goal is “national security” and not “to get hold of and keep as much stuff as I can”. — neomac
That's the same thing. 'Security' in this context means nothing more than 'I control it, not someone else'. The fight is over the control of the resource-crucial Donbas region. Russia wants it. The West want it. Ukraine wants it. — Isaac
if that’s your worry, you must listen to your favourite expert: — neomac
Where in any of that does it even mention morality? — Isaac
How can governments comply to their commitments?...
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power. — neomac
Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats. — neomac
You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. — neomac
Just the way as the Ukrainian defense minister admits it in the article: Ukraine is not de jure member of NATO, which means that Russia didn't attack NATO, Russia attacked Ukraine. And that is my point: it is Ukraine's war. Hence it is quite expendable. NATO Ukraine is either past lies of American Presidents or now Russian propaganda: both false and only political rhetoric without any connection to reality.
Hence Ukraine's situation is, with similar reasoning, the same as was for the former (now collapsed) Afghan Republic. With that country you could argue similarly that because Afghanistan and it's Former Afghan National Army were trained by the US and NATO, armed by the US and NATO and financed by the US and NATO countries and only having the exception to Ukraine that there were ALSO troops from the US and NATO fighting in the country, that Afghanistan was a de facto NATO country.
And oh by the way, that regime collapsed. And people just forgot about it's humiliating end. — ssu
The Germans actually only showed that this attack (February 24th 2022) wasn't at all about NATO: because German's openly before the attack declared that they wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO. But guess what: Putin attack and tried to capture Kyiv. — ssu
Although I would like to hear just why you think Ukrainian victory will need is going to involve NATO boots on the ground, as you said here ↪Tzeentch. — ssu
Because why then Russia would attack? Mere muscle flexing in one large military exercise would have done it. No need to attack Ukraine.and that it somehow proves that NATO membership for Ukraine wasn't the driver behind this conflict — Tzeentch
And what I'm arguing is that what the other NATO countries thought about NATO membership for Ukraine is completely irrelevant, — Tzeentch
This answer shows how little understanding of NATO you have.
It's a defense pact between members states which all have to accept new members. It's not just a sock-puppet of the US President as you think it is. Just look at how many times the US has gone to war without NATO and how many times US Presidents have been angry about the whole organization. And we should remember that it's sister organizations CENTO and SEATO have already sidenotes on history pages.
— Tzeentch
Now you are totally making things up: the US doesn't make NATO members. The US can give assistance, military aid, train together and have all kinds of relations with one country, but that doesn't make it a "de facto" NATO member. Israel isn't a NATO member and so wasn't Afghanistan before turning again to an emirate.because the policy that the United States pursued made Ukraine a de facto member of NATO anyway, whether the other member states liked it or not. — Tzeentch
Do not play a role?Coming back to my point, the Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict. — Tzeentch
Because why then Russia would attack? — ssu
Now you are totally making things up: the US doesn't make NATO members. — ssu
Israel isn't a NATO member — ssu
Basically the Baltic States and Poland are throwing as much as possible as they can +the kitchen sink to help Ukraine. Yes, they are small, but the European commitment comes to be huge by aggregate: when you add all of the things provided by various nations together, it becomes quite substantial. — ssu
1,200 hospital beds
18 palettes medical material, 60 surgical lights
protective clothing, surgical masks
600 safety glasses
1 field hospital (joint project with Estonia)*
field hospital (role 2)*
500 medical gauzes*
100,000 first aid kits*
67 fridges for medical material
medical material (inter alia back packs, compression bandages)
vehicle decontamination system
6 mobile decontamination vehicles HEP 70 including decontamination material — ssu
107 border protection vehicles*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
168 mobile heating systems*
20 rocket launchers 70mm on pick-up trucks with rockets*
15 armoured recovery vehicles*
13 tank transporter tractor Oshkosh M1070*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
143 Pick-ups*
216 generators
35 load-handling 8x8 wheeler trucks
26 reconnaissance drones*
36 ambulance vehicles*
36.400 wool blankets
12 heavy duty trailer trucks*
55 anti-drone sensors and jammers*
30 drone detection systems*
6 lift trucks*
Iris-T system and SLM missiles*
60,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
18,500 projectiles 155mm
18 load-handling trucks 8x8
50 MRAP vehicles DINGO
3 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER*
10 unmanned surface vessels*
14,000 sleeping bags
Mi-24 spare parts*
ammunition for multiple rocket launchers MARS II
spare parts for heavy machine gun M2
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
17 heavy and medium bridge systems*
5 multiple rocket launchers MARS II with ammunition
14 self-propelled howitzers Panzerhaubitze 2000 (joint project with the Netherlands)
200 tents
116.000 winter jackets, 80.000 winter trousers and 240.000 winter hats
405,000 pre-packaged military Meals Ready
30 self-propelled GEPARD anti-aircraft including circa 6.000 rounds of ammunition*
counter battery radar system COBRA*
4,000 rounds practice ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
54 M113 armored personnel carriers (systems of Denmark, upgrades financed by Germany)*
53,000 rounds ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
20 laser target designators*
3,000 Panzerfaust 3 with 900 firing devices
14,900 anti-tank mines
500 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STINGER
2,700 Man Portable Air Defense Systems STRELA
22 million rounds of ammunition for fire arms
50 bunker buster missiles
130 machine gun MG3 with 500 spare barrels and breechblocks
100,000 hand grenades
5,300 explosive charges
100,000 m detonating cord and 100.000 detonators
350,000 detonators
10 anti-drone guns*
100 auto-injector devices
28,000 combat helmets
15 palettes military clothing
280 vehicles (trucks, minibuses, all-terrain vehicles)
6 palettes material for explosive ordnance disposal
125 binoculars
1 radio frequency system
3,000 field telephones with 5.000 cable reels and carrying straps
353 night vision goggles*
12 electronic anti-drone devices*
165 field glasses*
38 laser range finders*
Diesel and gasoline (ongoing deliveries)*
10 tons AdBlue*
500 medical gauzes*
MiG-29 spare parts*
30 protected vehicles*
7,944 man-portable anti-tank weapons RGW 90 Matador*
10 HMMWV (8x ground radar capability, 2x jamming/anti drone capability)*
7 radio jammers*
8 mobile ground surveillance radars and thermal imaging cameras*
4 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
1 high frequency unit with equipment*
To be delivered:
2 air surveillance radars*
40 infantry fighting vehicles MARDER with ammunition (from Bundeswehr and * industry stocks)
air defence system PATRIOT with missiles
114 reconnaissance drones*
17 mobile heating systems*
26 load-handling trucks 15t
2 Pick-up
18 wheeled self-propelled howitzers RCH 155*
90 drone detection systems*
2 hangar tents*
7 load-handling trucks 8x6*
7 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft systems*
7 tracked and remote controlled infantry vehicles for support tasks*
6 mobile and protected mine clearing systems*
42 mine clearing tanks*
3 mobile, remote controlled and protected mine clearing systems*
5 mobile reconnaissance systems (on vehicles)
393 border protection vehicles*
1,020 projectiles 155mm*
156,000 rounds ammunition 40mm*
5 armoured engineer vehicles
3 heavy and medium bridge systems*
16 self-propelled howitzer Zuzana 2* (joint project with Denmark and Norway)
78 heavy duty trailer trucks*
3 air defence system IRIS-T SLM with missiles*
12 communications electronic scanner/jammer systems*
20 frequency range extensions for anti-drone devices*
14 truck tractor trains and 14 semi-trailers*
2 tractors and 4 trailers*
10 protected vehicles*
5,032 man-portable anti-tank weapons
200 trucks*
13 bridge-laying tanks BEAVER* — ssu
It cannot. If the members oppose what the US wants, then the US has to forget the organization and go to bilateral defense agreements. That happened with CENTO and SEATO, if surely the US did want the organizations to continue. You simply have false ideas about how international organizations work: their charter is important on how they operate. The US didn't decide anything in 2008. The promises of US Presidents hold until a new President changes them. And no process, like with Sweden and Finland, has even been started with Ukraine.Of course it does. That's why the US decided in 2008 that Ukraine would become part of NATO even though that was against the will of Germany at the time. — Tzeentch
No, you miss the point. If one can stop a defense pact only with the threat of war, then you only maek the threat. Period. You don't go to war. It's called logic, @Tzeentch.You're just missing the point. Clearly had Ukrainian ties with the United States threatened to become like those of Israel, we'd be in the exact same position, with Russia invading before such a defense pact could be sealed. — Tzeentch
Just how can you be so sure?- it's all fine and good, but when the end result stays the same it was all for naught. — Tzeentch
Oh, that you must in your knowledge about the future know.Nice list. And where is Ukraine now? On a course to defeat. — Tzeentch
It cannot. If the members oppose what the US wants, then the US has to forget the organization and go to bilateral defense agreements. — ssu
Ukraine manoeuvred itself into a grey area where it was both almost a NATO member and almost a US ally. In both cases, what mattered is that the United States would guarantee its independence and provide a credible deterrent against Russia. — Tzeentch
The US didn't decide anything in 2008. — ssu
You simply have false ideas about how international organizations work — ssu
No, you miss the point. If one can stop a defense pact only with the threat of war, then you only maek the threat. Period. You don't go to war. It's called logic, Tzeentch. — ssu
However if you want to reconquer a country and be again a Great Power, what better way to hide your imperial aspirations than by accusing others and try to convince others that your only acting on purely defensive reasons. — ssu
How can governments comply to their commitments?...
In other words, governments to gain moral legitimacy (whatever the ideology and regime are) are also morally compelled to pursue/secure power. — neomac
Why would governments need to use power to comply with their commitments? If government A and government B both have similar commitments it's not morally necessary for either government to have power over that territory in order to bring about it's moral objectives. Clearly either government will do the job. — Isaac
The idea that governments need to secure territory in order to carry out their moral commitments only applies if the alternative government (the one competing for the territory) doesn't share those commitments. If it does (or if it's even better), then it doesn't make any difference, the moral commitments will be met, just by a different government. — Isaac
It's as if I make a committent to care for an elderly relative and then set about murdering any rival carers on the grounds that I need to see them off so that I can keep the commitment I made. It's an absurd argument. — Isaac
Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. And the West is helping Ukraine to secure its Western countries’ sovereignty (NOT Ukrainians’ sovereignty, that’s the Ukrainian government’s task!) against Russian strategic threats. — neomac
So? What's any of that got to do with the moral case? Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty? — Isaac
You are championing a theory of international relations which is incompatible with the kind of moral imperatives you think States should comply with. — neomac
If you can't understand the difference between how things are and how things ought to be then that explains a lot about your failure to engage with any moral arguments. — Isaac
How could a government govern if it does not have the means that allow it to govern?! — neomac
Governing in compliance with some moral commitment still needs enabling means to govern. — neomac
The territory delimits the community and the resources within a government’s reach, the perimeter of its sovereignty. — neomac
even if different governments share the same commitments they would still need to secure a territory. — neomac
All Western, Ukrainian, Russian governments of all political regimes needed to secure their territory against invaders and/or separatist forces in their history. — neomac
IN ADDITION to that they may threaten their moral legitimacy. For example, Ukrainians do not want to be governed by a pro-Russian regime, nor make territorial concessions. So if the Ukrainian government doesn’t commit itself to do what the Ukrainians want nor act accordingly, the Ukrainian government will lose also moral legitimacy in addition to see its sovereignty severely shrunk. — neomac
I argued that “national security” can also be a government's moral imperative (this is true for all types of regime and ideologies). — neomac
if Western governments believe (and I would add "reasonably so") to secure their sovereignty against Russian threats by supporting Ukrainian resistance, and act accordingly, they are morally warranted. — neomac
If states can’t act or are rationally expected to not act based on moral oughts as the offensive realism theory you champion would claim — neomac
it’s precisely because, according to your own understanding of international relations, oughts can never inform political action in the international arena that your claims about what states morally ought do in the international arena are irrational. — neomac
I take national security to be the moral imperative of legitimate governments of sovereign states — neomac
Simple enough moral starting point: the invaders ought to go home (mercs included). — jorndoe
There are children, future children, millions affected outside of Ukraine... — Isaac
Why would anyone else care about Ukrainian sovereignty? — Isaac
Ain't going to keep repeating — jorndoe
Why do you think I posted the suggestion that they ought to leave anyway — jorndoe
Subsumption under Kremlin rule no good — jorndoe
do you think it wrong that "the invaders ought to go home"? — jorndoe
With millions, are you referring to Ukrainian farm production + export impact + consequences elsewhere? (As an aside, Putin's Russia apparently managed to sneak stolen farm goods off to Syria.) Are you thinking of a (nuclear) world war three? Something else? — jorndoe
Because, like Sweden Finland others, they don't want to be under Putin's thumb? — jorndoe
Any new aspects? Developments? — jorndoe
90 seconds to midnight. The closest it's ever been. Posted by people who are not idiots by the way. This cannot be forgotten, regardless of who one "supports".
It can tend to fade into the background given immediate deaths, but, it's a real problem. — Manuel
When you are saying that Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict, US can solely decide what countries join or not NATO when it's charter say something else etc. I think there's no use to engage in a discussion where you have things so wrong.You're grossly overstating the importance of countries who have no real power to speak of. — Tzeentch
No evidence...you are hilarious! Yeah, Don't mind taking into account what Putin says and the Russians have done earlier and are doing now, like annexing more parts of Ukraine to be part of Russia, just pick your quotes about NATO and insist there's nothing more to it.A nice theory, but there's no evidence to support it — Tzeentch
?- a point which Mearsheimer makes repeatedly. — Tzeentch
What we were talking about back in February was whether or not he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine, occupying it, and then integrating into a greater Russia. And I do not think he’s interested in doing that now. What he is interested in doing now that he was not interested in doing when we talked is integrating those four oblasts in the eastern part of Ukraine into Russia. I think there’s no question that his goals have escalated since the war started on February 24th, but not to the point where he’s interested in conquering all of Ukraine. But he is interested for sure in conquering a part of Ukraine and incorporating that part into Russia.
When you are saying that Europeans do not play a role of significance in this conflict, US can solely decide what countries join or not NATO when it's charter say something else etc. I think there's no use to engage in a discussion where you have things so wrong. — ssu
And btw, you fail to give any reasons why you assume that " Ukrainian victory, obviously, which is going to involve NATO boots on the ground" even if asked several times, this discussion isn't really not worth wile. — ssu
So your only "truth teller" ... — ssu
You really respond to what Mearsheimer said last November 2022 with a lecture that he has given in 2015 as a refutation? (The latter video isn't working)And as for Mearsheimer and his points regarding alledged "Russian imperialism", for which again there is no evidence whatsoever: — Tzeentch
Good that you finally acknowledge that NATO member states can stop NATO membership. (Just look at Sweden and Finland and the problems they have with Turkey and Hungary.)The United States clearly decides what happens in NATO, and even if NATO member states stop NATO membership, nothing stops and nothing did stop the United States from turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, which it did. The Europeans had no say. — Tzeentch
You have one expert, I take experts in plural and understand that they can different opinions and even if they can have good points, not all of them have to be taken as lithurgy.f you're not interested in the views of experts — Tzeentch
I wouldn't actually call it significant number. And it will take months before they are on the battlefield.With a significant number of heavy tanks from the West now heading for Ukraine, including the Leopard tanks from Germany. Things just escalated! Much bigger booms coming or Russian bust? — universeness
You really respond to what Mearsheimer said last November 2022 with a lecture that he has given in 2015 as a refutation? (The latter video isn't working) — ssu
Hence talking about "de facto NATO membership" is wrong. Far better would be to talk about Ukraine as a "US/NATO proxy"... — ssu
You have one expert, I take experts in plural ... — ssu
NATO membership, yes, because NATO membership could be and was easily thwarted like Turkey's long standing EU application.You've been claiming Ukrainian NATO membership was not the reason the Russians invaded. — Tzeentch
NATO membership, yes, because NATO membership could be and was easily thwarted like Turkey's long standing EU application. — ssu
What your error is the idea that reason for the war is singular, NATO enlargement, ... — ssu
...and that the imperial aspirations are unimportant/fake. — ssu
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.