You are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off a PowerPoint presentation. — Tzeentch

It's enough to quote me, with or without PowerPoint.

I don't see need absolute certainty to be sure of something. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and the pretention that such is necessary to take a strong stance towards something, that is intellectually dishonest, especially when that standard is applied one-sidedly to the narrative you happen to disagree with. — Tzeentch

There is no intellectual dishonesty. I quoted you, and exactly your way of talking about Nord Stream 2 and not mine is expression of a strong stance to me (it doesn't matter if it is not necessary to have one). Talking about "being sure of something" (so sure that you just can go on talking about your stance in terms "hard facts", "painful reality" vs others cheerleading and American bombing Nord Stream 2) is still more than what I could be about the Nord Stream 2 case. Indeed, I never talked in these terms about Nord Stream 2 case and yet I have been accused of “unwavering faith” or “unreserved faith” (despite you claiming that "absolute certainty doesn't exist", go figure).

Moreover, outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit. That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor. — Tzeentch

Well, we are in a philosophy forum, so I'm fine with engaging in "philosophical debates" over world affairs even if they seem "weak" to you. BTW that there is some inherent weakness in such debates is one of my assumptions [1], but that's not enough to make them look boring or useless [2]
I don't use intellectual rigor to "masquerade" "crippling insecurity" (assumed "crippling insecurity" exists), but at best to cope with uncertainty over divisive facts as an alternative to Isaac's style of tribal fighting. It's also striking that on one side you are dismissing "crystalline certainty" but then you seem as dismissive of "crippling insecurity". You might think you have found the right balance between "security" and "insecurity", also thanks to your "relevant academic background to develop my own general picture..." [3] which maybe others do not have, so they might need to rely on expert source. On my side, as long as I don't know you enough, you can bullshit me as much as Biden, Putin, Scott Ritter, Hersh can do. Also about your "relevant academic background", mind you.


[1]
Concerning my “bit of self-awareness”, is the following enough?

I’m an avg dude (not en expert), we are reasoning under uncertainties of many relevant facts, and exchange in a philosophy forum from our armchair during leisure time. Didn’t we explicitly factor in all that in our claims many times already? Yet I care about the clarity/logic of my arguments and the evidences available to me to assess them (including the input from all sorts of news/stats/reports/experts of course). Since I take such arguments and evidence assessment to be affordable also by other avg dudes in a philosophy forum post format, I expect such avg dudes to reciprocate in intellectually honest and challenging ways — neomac


as an avg dude, I’m far from assuming to know better or enough how to play the game to “propose” or “recommend” anything to anybody about geopolitical issues, or to have any significant impact on this war directly or indirectly through my posts here — neomac


nobody and certainly not avg dudes like me and you can figure out a reliable plan to grant an optimal military victory — neomac


As an avg dude, I would rely more on geopolitical speculation and historical analogies for guidance. — neomac
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776424


[2]

However the fun part to me is mainly to play by argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. Besides since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum, we can more easily end up discussing our conceptual frameworks, our terminology, our beliefs’ inferential or explanatory power, etc. and this in turn can help not fix the world, but fix (clarify/reorder/clean up) one self’s ideas about the world. — neomac

[3]

I do have the relevant academic background to develop my own general picture based on rudimentary data like troop numbers, movements, etc. That's good enough for me. — Tzeentch

"

When events are moving powerfully and with speed, responses have to match both or else fail. — Isaac

That sounds enlightening to me. Yet "power" and "speed" (like in "emergency" talks about the Russian threat) are often claimed to be at the root of abusive behavior by political authorities. So I don't understand how much confidence you can put in the idea that you or a mass of individual Isaacs would be able to provide a powerful fast response (as any effective political action would require) against the abuses of the evil people that govern us (like with a revolution? a capitol hill riot? a demonstration where you remove your hijab in defiance of the morality police? a terrorist attack? or chatting over a philosophy forum is enough?), and yet without being as abusive or worse than them.

I don't understand how much confidence you can put in the idea that you ... would be able to provide a powerful fast response... against the abuses of the evil people that govern us ..., and yet without being as abusive or worse than them. — neomac

That's the point. We don't have a choice. It's either let them do what they're going to do, or respond fast and hard enough to stop it.

You can wring your hands as much as you like about the risks. I'll join you enthusiastically in the hand-wringing. But there's no option for just hand-wringing. Its either let those in power do what they want or fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it. There's no pause button, no time out, no postponement.

fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it — Isaac

And how would you "fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it" in more detail?

And how would you "fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it" in more detail? — neomac

I'm not sure that this line of inquiry is relevant to the thread, but there are a range of options depending on one's position. My job gives me an outlet with some very small degree of influence, but when speaking as a layman, which is most of the time, it's mainly about raising, or maintaining, a movement of voters opposed to the abuses of power (and yes, even just potential abuses of power) so that people in power face an increased risk from carrying out these abuses.

it's mainly about raising, or maintaining, a movement of voters opposed to the abuses of power — Isaac

Are you talking about being militant in some political movement or party that are against
one's Western country's involvement in this war? Can you list a couple of such movements/parties that you find definitely trustworthy?

Are you talking about being militant in some political movement or party that are against
one's Western country's involvement in this war? — neomac

No.

Take Seymour Hersh's article for example. It blames the US government for the pipeline sabotage. So the US government will want to suppress that story (note we haven't even got to whether it's true or not yet).

They will use their enormous power to rapidly put it down. If, therefore, you think you might not want that story put down, you have to amplify it quickly and with force. You have to resist that suppression.

"Let's wait for the evidence" is too slow and "Maybe, possibly, it's unlikely though" is too weak. So if you adopt either of those policies, the story will be suppressed. That's what a powerful agency is doing and so if it's not met with equally powerful resistance it will have its way.

Therefore, if you adopt either of those slow, weak policies, you are consenting to the suppression of the story since that's directly what your lack of resistance will result in.

If, on the other hand, you think the story dangerous and deserving of suppression, you need do absolutely nothing. Your preferences are already aligned with those of with power, so unresisted they're going to happen anyway. You could help, of course, but you almost certainly don't need to.

The less powerful cannot force the more powerful to act against their will. Its the basic definition of power - see Lukes, or Nye, or any of the others. So all you have is to cause some future hesitation, some future fear that they cannot be so brazen.

You don't know anything about diving, do you? — Tzeentch

I've tried scuba diving. Naturally not as deep.

But this is a discussion about hypotheticals, so? The original question that Benkei raised was if it's possible for a non-state entity to do the operation, meaning it's impossible to plant explosives at that depth by anybody else than nations.

The original question that Benkei raised was if it's possible for a non-state entity to do the operation, meaning it's impossible to plant explosives at that depth by anybody else than nations. — ssu

Come on! How uncharitable do you have to be to think @Benkei was seriously asking if it was actually impossible? That would be a ridiculous question and you know it. The question was obviously about the relative credibility of the hypothesis, but since answering that would cast shade on the US you have to deflect to some pedantic drivel about whether it's physically impossible for someone to place explosive on a pipe underwater if they're not a government.

Who's suggesting it's impossible? — Isaac

The question was, would you really need a state actor to do this sabotage or not. If only a state actor can do it, I guess then that means that no private entity could not do it. (Like shoot down a satellite, as I gave as an example). Diving to that depth and planting explosive is possible

What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. — Isaac

Stop right there, you are just carried away to you own condescending imaginations of other people in this forum.

If there's something to be critical about, I will be. I've said enough times that there's a lot to be critical about the West, including my own country. Just to give one example are actions taken in Afghanistan. Unfortunately with the war in Ukraine happening, this important discussion of the whole War-against-Terror hasn't been discussed and especially the US is quite mute about the disaster of Afghanistan.

It's more you that have this tribal attitude that you cannot say anything that could be remotely be positive to what you are basically critical about (NATO, US and UK, the West in general).

I don't have that limitation. I've said many times that Russia played for example extremely well it's cards in Central Asia: it simply waited for the US to botch things up. You had US bases all over Central Asia, you had US training nearly all the military of the -stans. And now, nothing. Prior to the Ukraine war, all the Central Asian states were having close relations with Russia, basically fearing what the re-emerged Afghani Emirate will do or have an effect on them.

And it's you who seem not to understand that as countries have agendas, they can easily also go with the truth when it fits their purpose. Russia Today had very good coverage of Occupy Wall Street when it happened. Good journalism helped their agenda back then. Yet the naive way to put some on a pedestal (Mearsheimer?) and totally dismiss others isn't the way to go.
.

The question was obviously about the relative credibility of the hypothesis, but since answering that would cast shade on the US you have to deflect to some pedantic drivel about whether it's physically impossible for someone to place explosive on a pipe underwater if they're not a government. — Isaac

As I've already said, even earlier than the last response to Tzeentcn, I think the probability of the attack being a private entity is unlikely.

If there's something to be critical about, I will be. I've said enough times that there's a lot to be critical about the West, including my own country. — ssu

The question wasn't about your record. It was a specific question about the corroboration of evidence. You (and the others I've mentioned), seem to weigh evidence which is provided (or confirmed) by official sources as being of a higher grade than evidence which is not. I couldn't fathom why. Official sources are directly involved in the war and have a proven track record of lying. It's not even controversial that they do.

Yet you consistently present evidence from sources like the Ukrainian intelligence, or US officials as if it had some weight to it when, if anything, a sensible analysis would have it placed lower than third party evidence in terms of reliability in this conflict.

Sy Hersh was just a good recent example. He's a journalist and took his evidence from an anonymous source. He was pretty roundly either openly ridiculed or at least treated with suspicion relative to these latest reports which come directly (again without anything more than anonymous sources) from the US government. These are not ridiculed. Nor are they treated with suspicion. In fact, quite the opposite as serious discussion takes place about the possibilities raised.

So I was asking, not about your record of anti-government criticism, but about your specific judgement about the relative reliability of the intelligence those governments have chosen to leak in this particular context. Why do you place so high a confidence in the veracity of government leaks here?

it's you who seem not to understand that as countries have agendas, they can easily also go with the truth when it fits their purpose. — ssu

... says the person who cannot get their head around the fact that some of what Putin is saying about this war might just so happen to be true.

The platitude you've just used above is performatively contradicted every time you use "that's what Putin says..." as if that was a counter argument. If anything anti-US just happens to be true, Putin's going to use it, isn't he?

You can't argue that the US might just happen to be right sometimes (despite a track record of lying) without at the same time conceding that Putin might just happen to be right despite a similar track record of lying. That being the case, you can't use "that's what Putin says..." as a counter argument.

You (and the others I've mentioned), seem to weigh evidence which is provided (or confirmed) by official sources as being of a higher grade than evidence which is not. — Isaac

Again nonsense. You have to check the sources and verification and not judge / dismiss them just by looking at what the source is. US has it's agenda, but the US and Western intelligence sources were correct about Putin attacking Ukraine. Some cherished "alternative" sources were saying that Putin wasn't going to attack.

Official sources are directly involved in the war and have a proven track record of lying. — Isaac

Hence you have to be critical about them. But that doesn't mean, like you seem to exist, that they cannot say anything true. The US lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, they exaggerated the losses that for example the Serbs suffered during the Kosovo war. Hence you have to have critical reading skills.

You can't argue that the US might just happen to be right sometimes (despite a track record of lying) without at the same time conceding that Putin might just happen to be right despite a similar track record of lying. — Isaac

Putin can and has been totally right on certain issues.

That's were gathering sources, reading and understanding history and how the states operate come handy. That's why knowing how they operate and reading history of past events is very valuable. The propaganda of countries tries to mold current events, but seldom they have incentives to mold past events, especially of past administrations of politicians that aren't anymore players. Hence

Sy Hersh was just a good recent example. — Isaac

Especially when I have not opposed his remarks of the West being responsible of the pipeline sabotage. It's a possibility. But seems that you make your mind what people think without much reading what they actually say. Hence it's really a good example here.

You have to check the sources — ssu

you have to be critical about them — ssu

understanding history and how the states operate — ssu

knowing how they operate and reading history of past events is very valuable — ssu

I've not presented a single argument here that isn't backed up by academics with relevant qualification in their fields.

So are you claiming that qualified academics lack critical skills you possess?

Are you claiming qualified academics lack knowledge you possess?

Are you claiming qualified academics lack a level of understanding you possess?

In other words, are you claiming that you surpass these experts in your critical skills, knowledge and understanding?

Glenn Grant made a thorough and good critical article about the weaknesses about the Ukrainian armed forces (see Glen Grant. 2023 – a time and chance for military change in Ukraine)

Several other military advisors and also remarks from volunteers that I've raid have similar findings. There's much variance in the abilities of the officer core. Ukraine suffers from it's Soviet past. Also what has been noted that maneuver warfare, which needs high level of cooperation and initiative, is difficult for Ukraine. If Russia has lost a lot men, so has Ukraine too. Usually Russia has learnt from it's mistakes, even if it takes a lot of time.

I've not presented a single argument here that isn't backed up by academics with relevant qualification in their fields. — Isaac

Oh that's your argument for how you judge comments: from thei relevant academic qualifications.

Well, that what I call putting people on a pedestal and then worshipping all they say.

I would look at the facts and the opinions they have from the issues themselves.

I would look at the facts and the opinions they have — ssu

Yes...and you'd judge those facts and opinions using what skill, that those sources themselves presumably lack?

Professor Joe Bloggs says X, you look at the "facts" and decide Prof Bloggs is talking nonsense. I'm asking what skill you think you possess which our Professor Bloggs lacked when he looked at "the facts" and reached a different conclusion to you.

Are you cleverer, less biased, more knowledgeable...? I'm just trying to establish what your special superpower is.

BRIC---- CHECK MATE! Google it, it's going to halt US aggression.

Link please?

Brazil Russia India China (BRIC)

I was giving this some thought. China if it wanted an indirect confrontation with the West could supply Russia with weaponry and also test them in real world scenarios as to how they’d perform. It would be interesting to see the Wests reaction to that. Sanctions for China? The immediate aftermath would be even higher inflation as lots of cheap stuff for the west is made there. It would hurt China too as a large portion of its economy is based around supplying the west with such goods.

This then leads to the question of Taiwan… pointless military posturing or a real statement of intent ? Again sanctions from the west if it goes that far, they might have won the battle but lost the war. Perhaps China would realise that the risk of taking Taiwan would outweigh the costs to their economy plus future relationships with the west. Also the disruption in the form of tech such as microchips has already made the west fund their own chip foundries in the US, Intel certainly has allocated billions supplemented by US govt as well. Intel wants to do the same in Europe but they’re bargaining Germany (EU) for more state funding to do so.

India is an odd one as their relationship with China are frosty. With Russia they certainly snap their hand off for their oil. India is in an awkward position as it wants to embrace the west and replace China for certain western tech goods production. their IT service industry already caters for a large portion of EU/US corporations

Brazil heavily infiltrated by Chinese agenda are almost certainly set to play a bigger role in chinas behalf in South America - America relations although that’s primarily from an economic pov, as the allure of cheap chinese electronics is too much of a good offer to turn down.

Trump is running as an isolationist who will end the war. He's perfectly capable of hanging Ukraine out to dry, and cutting off the supply of arms and money from the U.S. Putin now has another reason to stay in this thing until 2024, and possibly use nuke(s), if he thinks it will weaken Biden enough.

Tzeentch, you don't think U.S. Presidents affect foreign policy. What do you think would happen to America's foreign policy if Trump won? No changes at all?

There might be changes, but they wouldn't have anything to do with Trump or whatever blithering idiot they put in charge of the White House.

There might be changes, but they wouldn't have anything to do with Trump or whatever blithering idiot they put in charge of the White House. — Tzeentch

I think you're wrong there. I think Trump would push for a cease-fire and would threaten to cut off U.S. military and financial aid. And he would get his way too. I know you don't believe this, but American presidents are tremendously powerful. It's becoming a dictatorship.

Europe is witnessing its bloodiest cross-border war since 1945, but Asia risks something even worse: conflict between America and China over Taiwan. Tensions are high, as American forces pivot to a new doctrine known as “distributed lethality” designed to blunt Chinese missile attacks. Last week dozens of Chinese jets breached Taiwan’s “air defence identification zone”. This week China’s foreign minister condemned what he called America’s strategy of “all-round containment and suppression, a zero-sum game of life and death”.

As America rearms in Asia and tries to galvanise its allies, two questions loom. Is it willing to risk a direct war with another nuclear power to defend Taiwan, something it has not been prepared to do for Ukraine? And by competing with China militarily in Asia, could it provoke the very war it is trying to prevent?


The Economist - 9th March 2023

Take Seymour Hersh's article for example. It blames the US government for the pipeline sabotage. So the US government will want to suppress that story (note we haven't even got to whether it's true or not yet).

They will use their enormous power to rapidly put it down. If, therefore, you think you might not want that story put down, you have to amplify it quickly and with force. You have to resist that suppression. — Isaac

“Suppressing” is a strong word. As far as I can tell, Hersh’s article is not subject to censorship nor is Hersh prosecuted/jailed because of that.
Maybe Hersh’s article doesn’t enjoy as much visibility in the mainstream outlets as one could find desirable. Yet this is also part of Hersh’s article credibility problem.
When I, as an avg dude, read a self-published investigative journalist referring to a single anonymous source, I can not rely on the Western news platform credibility (which implies other people involved in reviewing and vetting the article’s content). On the other side, Rupert Murdoch’s channels, and pro-regime news outlets from China, Russian and India, which can give more visibility to Hersh’s article, don’t improve Hersh’ article credibility since I believe that those sources can be fake news dispenser more likely than the Western outlets for political reasons. Besides the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets, for a case that primarily concerns Germany as a victim (among the Western countries) not Yemen, Vietnam or Djibouti so if they (Germany above all) do not seem much compelled by Hersh’s report, and instead follow another line of investigation, I don’t see why I should feel more compelled to take Hersh’s article as relevant (even if there was some truth to it, mind you).

As far as I can tell, Hersh’s article is not subject to censorship nor is Hersh prosecuted/jailed because of that. — neomac

That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine". No wonder Western countries are utopias to you.

Maybe Hersh’s article doesn’t enjoy as much visibility in the mainstream outlets as one could find desirable. But this is part of Hersh’s article credibility problem. — neomac

If visibility in the mainstream dictates credibility, what happens if the mainstream become corrupt? Who points that out and to whom? Who holds mainstream media to account? Or are they Gods?

the Western news platform credibility — neomac

...oh, turns out they are gods. Well, that answers that question.

On the other side, Rupert Murdoch’s channels, and pro-regime news outlets from China, Russian and India, which can give more visibility to Hersh’s article, don’t improve Hersh’ article credibility since I believe that those sources can be fake news dispenser more likely than the Western outlets for political reasons. — neomac

Do you think the mainstream press doesn't have a politics? Over 90% of Washington Post readers are Democrats. You're suggesting that's a coincidence? They're reporting the news unbiasedly and just happen to be liked overwhelmingly by one side?

the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets — neomac

You've given a list which involves only two independant agents - governments and news agencies. You've dismissed results of half of the news agencies, and governments are not going to incriminate themselves, so you're basically saying the mainstream media are inviolable and we need never concern ourselves with the possibility that they may be biased.

If we assume that this war is not itself scripted with a motive we can't clearly grasp (which can't be dismissed, but let's set it aside for now as it's not relevant to our current discussion), then it becomes easier to understand what's happening, why it's happening, and what the potential consequences might be.

This war in the Ukraine has miraculous parallels with the Peloponnesian War or what has been called the Thucydides trap. Now this might give us good cause to be cautious but none to be ignorant. The American Empire like the Athenian Golden age of the 4th Century BC is exceptional. Where the charge of hubris could be levelled against ancient Athens it can be more justifiably be charged against our USA. The theatre of action may have expanded from a corner of the east mediterranean to the entire globe and the actors have different names but the action appears almost mystically destined to follow the same sequence.

Set in the early part of the 21st Century, this tragedy of Empire reloaded has the following cast: the US playing the role of Athens; NATO the Delos League, Russia as Sparta, China as Persia, Ukraine as Sicily. History often offers parallels but rarely do they rhyme so tightly.

Tell me more, who prevailed from your list of protagonists/antagonists ? How did it unfold ?

That is a matter of opinion. Athens lost the territorial war but then founded an empire of the mind that is arguably far more lasting and important.

Russia-Ukraine live: Russian jet downs US drone over Black Sea

US had to crash drone into Black Sea after damage: Pentagon

The US military was forced to crash its MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drone because of the damage caused when it was struck by a Russian jet, the Pentagon says.

“Because of the damage, we were in a position to have to essentially crash into the Black Sea,” Brigadier General Pat Ryder told reporters, adding that the drone was unflyable after the damage.

Ryder said Russia had not recovered the crashed drone.

More info here:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/3/14/russia-ukraine-live-news-russia-does-not-recognise-icc-kremlin