What history has told us with the failure and abolution of NATO's sister organizations, CENTO and SEATO, the real cause is not having any common objectives (and having revolutions, that put you against the US).it might in fact flip the other way and be the last nail on the coffin for NATO. — Tzeentch
Putin can still win, don't forget. If he gets that landbridge to Crimea (that he already has), he can argue it was worth it. And he can always point out that he faced the West alone, economies 40 times bigger than Russia "all attacking peaceful Russia, which then Russia victoriously defended".My expectation is that NATO will see a brief surge in unity as a result of the the Ukraine war — Tzeentch
Recently the European Council on Foreign Affairs published this paper:
United West, Divided From the Rest: Global Public Opinion One Year Into Russia's War on Ukraine
The global shift towards multilaterality is well underway, and the Ukraine war really shows how estranged NATO has become from the rest of the world, with basically every major international player outside of NATO refusing to pick sides in the conflict. — Tzeentch
On the one hand, western democracies stand more firmly than ever behind the United States. ...
However, across a vast span of countries stretching from continental Eurasia to the north and west of Africa, we find the opposite – societies that have moved closer to China and Russia over the course of the last decade. As a result, China and Russia are now narrowly ahead of the United States in their popularity among developing countries
... The real terrain of Russia’s international influence lies outside of the West.
75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% in Francophone Africa, 62% in Southeast Asia continue to view the country positively in spite of the events of this year. — Foa, R.S., Mollat, M., Isha, H., Romero-Vidal, X., Evans, D., & Klassen, A.J. 2022. “A World Divided: Russia, China and the West.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy.
Yes, that is totally true. Especially when you are talking about Russia.A humiliating defeat might not be enough to get rid of Russian hegemonic ambitions once for all. — neomac
But note, this fear of the dissolution of Russian federation is actually the pillarstone for Russian imperialism. Catherine the Great said something very crucial when she said that in order to defend her country's border, she has to push them further. Russia always portrays itself to be the victim, even if it isn't always Napoleon or Hitler marching into their country. This is the way the Russians are fed the propaganda of their imperialism: the evil West is out to destroy Russia. We must fight back!!!Unless it brings to the dissolution of the Russian federation. — neomac
But those are hypotheticals, just like the lie that if Americans withdraw from Afghanistan and leave the country to the Taliban, it will become a haven for terrorists. Well, has it?But this may bring other problems to the West: the fate of the Russian federation’s nuclear stockpile, China hegemonic expansion in post-Russia federation states. — neomac
In my view in similar line with France and Germany. It took a year for Germany to accept that other countries can give their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. So talk about dragging their feet.And the American contribution in the war in Ukraine looks suspiciously too slow-paced and replete with mixed-signals. — neomac
Europe is a confederation of independent nation states and will stay that way. They basically are far happy to have the US around. Yet Trump did spook them. The idea of the US leaving was raised discussion for example in the UK. The simple thing would be: Europe would arm itself more. Even if it arming itself already with a high rate.For the Europeans the future looks pretty grim, especially if they are not pro-active and coordinated in building their own foreign politics (like a “new deal“ with Africa? and South America?), and more autonomous in shaping their military security. — neomac
(September 19th, 2022) Poland is buying almost 1,000 tanks, more than 600 pieces of artillery and dozens of fighter jets from South Korea, in part to replace equipment donated to Ukraine to help Kyiv fight the Russian invasion, the Polish Ministry of Defense told CNN on Tuesday.
The agreement, expected to be officially announced in Poland on Wednesday, will see Warsaw purchase 980 tanks based on the South Korean K2 model, 648 self-propelled K9 armored howitzers, and 48 FA-50 fighter jets, the ministry said. It would not confirm the value of the deal.
(AP, 1st Jan 2023) Officials said Poland is the first U.S. ally in Europe to be receiving Abrams tanks. Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak signed the $1.4 billion deal at a military base in Wesola, near Warsaw. The agreement foresees the delivery of 116 M1A1 Abrams tanks with related equipment and logistics starting this year. - The deal follows last year’s agreement for the acquisition of 250 upgraded M1A2 Abrams tanks that will be delivered in the 2025-2026 time frame. Poland is also awaiting delivery of American High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and has already received Patriot missile batteries.
the notion that Ukraine sans Russia will be some kind of peaceful, democratic paradise as opposed to the Orwellian nightmare of Russian puppetry is completely without merit. — Isaac
Putin is not really saying anything new, but all these old ideas are being put forward in a much more radical form. — Tatiana Stanovaya
I am grateful to the [...] journalists, primarily war correspondents, that are risking their lives to tell the truth to the world — Putin (Feb 21, 2023)
We also recall the Kiev regime’s vain attempts to obtain nuclear weapons — Putin (Feb 21, 2023)
So it is not a great moral victory in any particular situation, to think the war option is not worth the cost. Opinions can legitimately differ, and nothing more than suggestive reasons can be given either way. — unenlightened
Isaac has repeatedly argued that Ukrainians are not enough of a self-identified group to say they are making a decision to act in self-defense together toward a common enemy. So anything you might refer to as "moral" on those grounds witl have to be excluded in order to be considered. — Paine
You're presented with two theories, which you otherwise can't tell between A and B. Those advocating for A stand to gain several hundred billion dollars from the pursuit of policies according to A, those advocating B stand to gain nothing but pariah-ship and contempt for advocating it, yet do so anyway. — Isaac
A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B. — neomac
Your idea of pariahship is having people engage with you in page-long discussions? :chin:
I'm sorry the forum isn't your personal echo chamber, I guess. — Tzeentch
if people provide arguments and question each other's arguments with arguments, it should be welcomed. — neomac
A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B. But they are doing it for a good cause, the Ukrainians' well being, which they know much better than the Ukrainians themselves. And that's no virtue signaling by no means. From Russia, with love. — neomac
Where was the argument in... — Isaac
Because it sounds like a weak attempt at sarcasm, followed by a lame cliché about anyone not cheerleading the war being pro-Russia. — Isaac
As lame as your attempts at calling opposing views "cheerleading the war", "bollokcs" and "bullshit". Serving you your own "sarcastic" soup. — neomac
I'm not the one claiming this is all about rational debate like some rules-based chess game. This is politics. It's your hypocrisy I'm pointing out. — Isaac
I'm simply pointing out to you that your claim of dispassionate, rational, chess-grandmaster "weighing of the evidence" is preformatively contradicted by your use of pejorative rhetoric. — Isaac
But usually failed wars don't bolster jingoism and your willingness to use force again. Usually the result is the opposite. After the Vietnam war the US wasn't eager to fight similar wars. It needed for the Cold War to end and 9/11 attacks to happen before the US was ready to go recklessly everywhere to fight "The War on Terror". Now with Afghanistan fallen and the Taliban with their Emirate back in charge, notice the absence of anyone talking about "The War on Terror". — ssu
But note, this fear of the dissolution of Russian federation is actually the pillarstone for Russian imperialism. Catherine the Great said something very crucial when she said that in order to defend her country's border, she has to push them further. Russia always portrays itself to be the victim, even if it isn't always Napoleon or Hitler marching into their country. This is the way the Russians are fed the propaganda of their imperialism: the evil West is out to destroy Russia. We must fight back!!!
Similar reasoning is evident in Communist China too: if China would let democracy work, then "the Middle kingdom" would collapse again due to separatism. Tibet and the Muslim west would go, but perhaps also the south and the north would separate.
These fears of course forget that India, which has so many different people and ethnycities and religions, is a democracy, and isn't likely to collapse. — ssu
But those are hypotheticals, just like the lie that if Americans withdraw from Afghanistan and leave the country to the Taliban, it will become a haven for terrorists. Well, has it? — ssu
In my view in similar line with France and Germany. — ssu
I should have had you pegged for a 'fallacy-o-phile.
A couple of questions...
Do you think those with whom you're arguing would agree that their propositions succumb to these fallacies? — Isaac
If not, to what do you then appeal when arguing that they, in fact, do? More fallacies? Fallacy fallacies? And then, when we disagree about the fallacy fallacies? Fallacy fallacy fallacies, perhaps? — Isaac
Isaac has repeatedly argued that Ukrainians are not enough of a self-identified group to say they are making a decision to act in self-defense together toward a common enemy. So anything you might refer to as "moral" on those grounds witl have to be excluded in order to be considered. — Paine
Besides, Putin's Russia pushing up against Moldova looks great on a map; Transnistria is already in the process of being "converted" (vaguely similar to Donbas). — May 9, 2022
«We, Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia, can't have weapons of mass destruction pointed our way sitting on our doorstep. Should actions toward that come to pass, we'd have to take counter-measures. And in case of threats from non-democratic regimes, more decisive measures.» — Oct 13, 2022
Opinion: Moldova isn’t on the front page, but it could be in Putin’s crosshairs
— Cristian Gherasim · CNN · Feb 15, 2023 — Feb 16, 2023
If your Chez is actually attacked, and you choose to fight the attackers, that could reasonably be called self-defense. — Paine
This is the fear just what both China and Russia have about democracy in a nutshell.. So the transition to a more democratic regime might more easily support separatist movements wherever the relation between ethnic groups is diverging or has been historically tense if not dramatic. — neomac
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.