Your arguments from authority have a certain flaw: Sachs is a respected academic, but only a tiny minority of foreign policy experts agree with him on this issue. — Jabberwock
If the 99% of cause of the overthrow is the popular rising and 1% is US scheming, then considering the 99% is irrelevant is not just a matter of opinion. — Jabberwock
presenting a minor factor and describing it as a cause while omitting a major factor which might also be a cause is biased. — Jabberwock
you have to admit that Arestovych is much better informed in the matters than Sachs, the economist, right? — Jabberwock
providing a quote that completely changes the meaning of what he said is something different. — Jabberwock
And what else do you imagine the 'takeover' to be — Jabberwock
The fact that he provided the link does not change the fact that he selected a part of a quote so that it distorts its meaning to support his view which would not be supported by the whole quote. — Jabberwock
I try to get information from various, possibly opposing sources, which are likely to present different facts. — Jabberwock
The wisdom of the crowd is the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals rather than that of a single expert. This process, while not new to the Information Age, has been pushed into the mainstream spotlight by social information sites such as Quora, Reddit, Stack Exchange, Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and other web resources which rely on collective human knowledge.[1] An explanation for this phenomenon is that there is idiosyncratic noise associated with each individual judgment, and taking the average over a large number of responses will go some way toward canceling the effect of this noise.[2]
Excellent. We're getting into the meat of it. ↪wonderer1
I'll try not to disappoint. In what way is it a flaw? Your claim is that Sachs is biased, right? Presumably not randomly biased, but rather biased according to his cultural group ideology etc. So we've established that it is possible for academics to be biased and when they are it's likely to be ideological. So what have the three hundred academics done with their data that makes them more likely to be right, just because there are three hundred of them? Three hundred and one pairs of eyes have seen the raw data. Three hundred and one ideologically biased brains have processed it. And three hundred have come out one way, one the other. What how does their three-hundred-ness connect to the way the world really is such that they are more likely to right by virtue of being three hundred. — Isaac
Of course it is. Sachs's question isn't 'what caused the revolution in Ukraine', it's 'what caused Russia to invade Ukraine'. His answer to that is the threat of foreign interference in Ukraine, his evidence is the foreign interference in the revolution. To demonstrate that point he need only show that there was indeed foreign interference in the revolution. He does not have to show what proportion of the revolution's cause it was because his argument isn't that "Russia were provoked by over 56.98% foreign interference". It is that Russia were provoked by foreign interference. Any value above zero demonstrates that possibility. — Isaac
He's not even assessing the relative causes. He's demonstrating that foreign interference was one of them. — Isaac
Not really, no. He'll have a very specific window. But that's not the point. He's a political advisor. He's going to be very, very biased. It's literally his job. — Isaac
It doesn't change anything. Sachs provided it in support of the argument that people knew NATO involvement would lead to war, and it demonstrates that without any change in meaning. That is exactly what Arestovych meant by it. You seem to be having great trouble with the notion of providing support related the points being made in an argument. Have you ever written a thesis? — Isaac
Coups, election interference, propaganda, territorial grabs (such as Crimea), stoking insurrection. Arestovych pretty much lists them. — Isaac
That's not your claim though is it? Your claim was that he was "pretending he never said it". Providing the link in which he said it, is not pretending he never said it. — Isaac
Then why are you suggesting we dismiss Sachs? — Isaac
is there a reason to think that the 'wisdom of crowds' doesn't merit serious consideration here? — wonderer1
So we should assume that all those academics, including Sachs, are biased? OK, that is all that I have claimed. — Jabberwock
For his theory to work he would have to explain why he believes Russia would NOT intervene if it was just the unrest. But he has no such explanation — Jabberwock
All he does is he demonstrates that foreign interference might be one of them, as he has no way to conclude that Russians would not intervene without it, just as a reaction to the unrest. — Jabberwock
Omitting the other factor allows him to argue the causal link, especially before a reader who does not know any better. — Jabberwock
A political advisor and an intelligence officer who spent most of his professional life on Ukrainian issues is worse informed on the issues of Ukrainian and Russian politics than Sachs, who occasionally dabbles in it? Now you are just being absurd. — Jabberwock
Sachs' argument is that NATO non-involvement would NOT lead to war. — Jabberwock
Regarding the Ukraine War, the Biden administration has repeatedly and falsely claimed that the Ukraine War started with an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war was provoked by the U.S. in ways that leading U.S. diplomats anticipated for decades in the lead-up to the war, meaning that the war could have been avoided and should now be stopped through negotiations.
He lists them in the linked interview? At which point? And why think that Ukrainians would fall for any of that? The very point he is making is that the mistake of Crimea would not be repeated, which is exactly what happened. — Jabberwock
Ignoring it in his argumentation is 'pretending he never said it'. — Jabberwock
in 2014 Jeffrey Sachs did not even mention expansion of NATO as a cause for Russian annexation of Crimea. — Jabberwock
In the immediate lead-up to Russia’s invasion, NATO enlargement was center stage. Putin’s draft US-Russia Treaty (December 17, 2021) called for a halt to NATO enlargement. Russia’s leaders put NATO enlargement as the cause of war in Russia’s National Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022.
I clearly isn't and anyone can read the evidence to that effect. You've singled out Sachs as being biased because he doesn't support your preferred narrative and have not even mentioned the bias in any of the sources used in pro-american posts. Even at the end of this very post to which I'm responding you start some sarcastic diatribe about Sachs of which there's no equivalent for other academics. It is undeniable that you're claiming something of Sachs that you are not claiming of more pro-american academics — Isaac
Of course he does. He's talking about Russian security in international affairs. His whole argument is about how they have something to fear from NATO and the larger players. A little popular unrest in a neighbouring country is clearly not that. again, you might disagree, but there's no need to disparage him. It smacks of a lack of confidence in your own ideas that you can't just disagree, you have to impute dishonesty into anyone with a different opinion. — Isaac
What do mean "a reader who does not know any better"? A reader who doesn't know that other possible causes exist? Is Sachs's article making an appearance in the country's playgroups? Who, above the age of five, is going to be reading that article thinking that no other possible causes could even exist? — Isaac
And again, you're requiring a standard of these sources that you do not demand of the pro-american ones. You've not raised any issues throughout your involvement in this thread with any of the sources others have to to promote the American position, despite the fact that none of these sources spend any time pointing out all the potential counter-evidence to their positions either. — Isaac
Try reading what I wrote and then have another shot at responding. — Isaac
No it isn't. — Isaac
The interview asks him "So, on balance, which is better" (referring to the NATO-provoked war or Russian takeover - the "crossroads"), and he answers "of course, a big war with Russia". — Isaac
On what grounds would that answer possibly make sense if both options were "a big war with Russia"? — Isaac
Don't be daft. I don't pretend people never said all the things I don't directly quote them as saying. — Isaac
So? What kind of bizarre argument is that. If it's a reason in 2022 it has to have been one in 2014? That doesn't make any sense. Sachs explains the rising importance of NATO enlargement. — Isaac
Russia has invaded Crimea unprovoked, breaching Ukraine's sovereignty and the Budapest Memorandum (which Sachs, conveniently, of course does not mention). It had also nothing to do with NATO.
Now you're getting ridiculous. 'Unprovoked' and 'nothing to do with' are the very questions at hand. As I've mentioned before bias doesn't mean 'disagrees with me'.
The shooting war in Ukraine began with Yanukovych’s overthrow nine years ago, not in February 2022
I have singled out Sachs because he was presented as supposedly 'independent' witness of the events. — Jabberwock
his reporting was inaccurate, as Bennett did not say what he claimed he did. — Jabberwock
had he described the actual scale of the protests, his argument would be extremely weak. — Jabberwock
A reader who is not familiar with the disproportion of the causes might get the impression that the US scheming was a major factor, therefore the cause of the Russian reaction. — Jabberwock
I have already conceded that other sources might be equally biased. — Jabberwock
You answered 'No' to my question whether Arestovych is better informed on the issues than Sachs. Is there more than one way to read that? — Jabberwock
So explain how 'NATO non-involvement would NOT lead to war' is different than 'NATO enlargement is at the center of this war' AND 'the war could have been avoided'. — Jabberwock
Well, ACTUALLY he says: 'a big war with Russia and joining NATO after victory with Russia', so it makes perfect sense that the alternative he would not prefer would be a war with Russia and Russian takeover. — Jabberwock
Why not, if you are? — Jabberwock
The bottom line is that he did quote him out of context — Jabberwock
So this war, which, by Sachs' own words, continues from 2014, was not provoked by NATO expansion, because Sachs' article from 2014 about the causes of Russian invasion does not even mention it. Correct? — Jabberwock
Without diminishing the seriousness of Russia’s recent actions, we should note that they come in the context of repeated violations of international law by the US, the EU, and NATO.
...
The US and its allies have also launched a series of military interventions in recent years in contravention of the United Nations Charter and without the support of the UN Security Council. The USNled NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 lacked the sanction of international law, and occurred despite the strong objections of Russia, a Serbian ally. Kosovo’s subsequent declaration of independence from Serbia, recognized by the US and most EU members, is a precedent that Russia eagerly cites for its actions in Crimea
...
There have long been skeptics of international law – those who believe that it can never prevail over the national interests of major powers, and that maintaining a balance of power among competitors is all that really can be done to keep the peace. From this perspective, Russia’s actions in the Crimea are simply the actions of a great power asserting its prerogatives.
He is independent. He represents neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor America. 'Independent' doesn't mean 'not having an opinion one way or the other'. — Isaac
Yes he did. Tzeentch has already corrected you on that. — Isaac
His argument is that foreign agencies got involved. It would only be weakened if foreign agencies hadn't got involved. His argument is not about proportion. — Isaac
I don't think Sachs can be held accountable for the stupidity of some potential readers. The argument is not about proportion, never even mentions proportion and does not rely on it. If people are stupid enough to nonetheless think proportion has anything to do with it, I don't see why that's Sachs's problem. — Isaac
Yes. After you were pressed to. You volunteered Sachs's bias. That is you are biased in which sources you voluntarily point out the bias of. — Isaac
Yes. By continuing to read the rest of the paragraph. This from the person complaining about taking quotes out of context. Stop pretending I didn't say anything else! — Isaac
I bolded the words, I'm not sure what more I can do. If you can't understand the difference between this war and any war, I think it'll take more than a forum post to help out. — Isaac
Yeah, right. And in what way does that interpretation makes sense? What is the difference between the two scenarios in that sense? — Isaac
...in your opinion. Sach's obviously thought the context was fine. It was to support the proposition that Ukrainian leaders knew NATO membership would provoke Russia into war and the quite supports that. What else he said is irrelevant to supporting that proposition. We don't, in adding quotes, typically list all the other things people said that might be of interest. — Isaac
No. 'This war', and 'the occupation of Crimea' are two different things. At best one is a stage within the other. — Isaac
Sure, he is independent and biased. — Jabberwock
Yes he did. Tzeentch has already corrected you on that. — Isaac
Lol. No, he did not. — Jabberwock
He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said. — Jabberwock
It's exactly what he said:
Naftali Bennett: Everything I did was coordinated down to the last detail, with the US, Germany and France.
Interviewer: So they blocked it?
Naftali Bennett: Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong. — Tzeentch
Of course the foreign interference would have to be significant to name it as the cause of Russian reaction. It was not. — Jabberwock
The US involvement, while present, was negligible, so it is very unlikely to cause the Russian reaction. — Jabberwock
of course I am biased! Guilty as charged. — Jabberwock
Do we agree then that Arestovych is better informed on Ukrainian issues than Sachs? — Jabberwock
it seemingly was also not the cause of the 2014 war, because it was not mentioned by Sachs then. — Jabberwock
Jeffrey Sachs from the very beginning of the conflict blamed it on the US and claimed that the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion. — Jabberwock
it seemingly was also not the cause of the 2014 war, because it was not mentioned by Sachs then. So which war was the expansion of NATO cause of, according to Sachs? — Jabberwock
So Tzeentch was not wrong to call him 'independent' then. And your labelling him as 'biased' was not an act of dispassionate information-sharing, but one of partisan rhetoric. Rather than addressing the arguments, you just smear the source. — Isaac
I've underlined the relevant words. "They blocked it (they including the US)", "Yes" — Isaac
Now you're claiming 'significance' as fact. There is no fact of the matter as to how 'significant' the interference was. Expert opinion varies. Disagreeing with you is not bias. — Isaac
Right. so the more interesting question which we should have been discussing from the start is "why?". Given two competing narratives, why are you biased in favour of one? What is it that appeals to you about it?
And please don't start the whole charade again about it being the more accurate, or you having carried out some 4-d chess-level analysis of the data... You've read som articles and decided to trust one side. I'm genuinely interested in why. — Isaac
Yes, within that frame (not necessarily about Russia's intentions, for example, he has no more a read on Putin than Sachs does). My poitn was that whet he knows and what he says are going to be two different things because it's his job to present the facts in a way that promotes Ukraine (particularity his political movement within it). He may know a lot, but what we have is the subset of all he knows which he chooses to say. — Isaac
I've just been through that. The article wasn't about the causes at all and where he does allude to them he talks about NATO's actions in Kosovo and Lybia, how Russia cited them as reasons for it's actions in Crimea, and the talks about Russia's goal of maintaining the balance of power in the region. All of the is completely consistent with the idea the NATO expansion (increase in it's power in the region) motivated Russian actions. Sachs may have changed his mind, it's possible, but this article doesn't show it. — Isaac
I was pointing out that his reporting might be biased, and I was write. — Jabberwock
Bennett says it is what a joint decision of the Western countries and Sachs reports it as 'The US did it'. It significantly changes the meaning of what he said. — Jabberwock
there is a fact of the matter as to how significant the interference was, as anyone familiar with the events is aware of. — Jabberwock
people are biased in general and the views they hold tend to sway their perception of other information they acquire. We tend to confirm our views rather than challenge them. It takes much more arguments to change one's view than to confirm it. — Jabberwock
I do not question his partisanship. However, I would still put more weight on his expertise as opposed to Sachs. — Jabberwock
having particularly strong views on the issue might influence his account, — Jabberwock
The article lists many transgressions of the US which might have influenced Russia's decision of the invasion. It would be inexplicable to omit it, if Sachs thought then that NATO expansion was the central one of such transgressions. — Jabberwock
So this is something I don't quite understand. Has Russia always sort of been "hollowed out" as a kleptocracy? Is this the way their culture is normally? Or is this an aberration? — frank
Isn't Germany basically the leader? Excuse my ignorance. — frank
Why are they vengeful? — frank
So this is something I don't quite understand. Has Russia always sort of been "hollowed out" as a kleptocracy? Is this the way their culture is normally? Or is this an aberration? — frank
So about 500 years of social change in Europe since around 1400 or so, has been compressed in Russia into a single century. — unenlightened
if I were a Ukrainian and my father had whispered this story at all, I would not be very keen now, to negotiate away an inch of sovereignty. — unenlightened
Russians haven't genetically inherited a likelihood to commit war crimes, they're not all warped by racial tendencies toward atrocity, there's no magic line from Rostov to Kursk east of which everyone is a monster. — Isaac
Fucking xenophobic, racist claptrap like that. — Isaac
there is a social inheritance that is expressed for example in nationalism, and ethnic identification, because people have memories and some have been known to hold grudges. — unenlightened
I expressed some sympathy for, and possible explanation of, the reluctance of Ukrainians to negotiate. — unenlightened
Russians openly call for genocide and subjugation of former republics (and other countries) on their official channels not because of their genetics, but because their current authorities specifically tout ideologies quite similar to those that caused Holodomor. — Jabberwock
There’s a theoretical component and, intimately intertwined with that, a practical one. Theoretically speaking, it is an instrument of external control and expropriation of national wealth, diluting the sovereignty of the state and its decision-making. As is well-documented in literature on international financial institutions, debts are structured so that they’re not easy to repay.
it’s the latest stage and the extension of what we’ve just talked about. It involved more privatizations, a more market-based approach across all sectors, and the erosion of sovereignty of decision-making, economically but also on more ideological themes. You have quite a limited menu of what you can do as a politician in Ukraine.
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.