I wouldn't be sure about that.

Trump might not be a dependable partner, we'll see. There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic.

You might think the US is over, that's it's time is finished. But hold on, there's nobody replacing them. So the end might not be just around the corner. China and Russia are facing big problems themselves.

There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic. — ssu

I don't hate the US. There's something beautiful about its ambitions, its values, and its tendency to fall ass backwards into incredibly good luck. I've spent a lot of time immersed in history, and its had the effect of making the present moment seem fleeting. I can see how the US sizes up compared to the biggies of history. The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe.

The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. — frank

That's a really neat way to look at it. Well, global trade had been around for a long time. Some might argue that it really went off when the Ottomans basically cut the ties of Europe to the Far East and the Silk Road didn't work as earlier. Thus the Portuguese and the Spanish went looking for maritime trade roots and found them (plus another continent in addition). The last transformation happened when countries like China and India changed the economic policies from the ruinous socialism to capitalism in their own way (as still the Chinese think their system is Marxism).

I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe. — frank

The luddites broke machines in the 19th Century, so even that isn't anything new. Yet the dramatic change of people who work on the fields in the countryside and now are in cities didn't happen with huge swarms of unemployed farmers and farm workers roaming the countryside.

There has been always flames somewhere. I'm not so sure it's really the time to say "Après moi, le déluge".

Climate change

You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate?

Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth?

People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future"

You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate? — ssu

I think the species will survive, but I assume maximum CO2 emissions, so all the coal in the world being burned over the next couple of centuries. That will produce a large scale spike in temperature that will last about a few thousand years, and then the temperature will start coming back down. It's the dramatic swings that will likely take out the present global order. As it sets in, I would expect humans to start trying to preserve our knowledge base for the people of future.

Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth? — ssu

I think survival will be a challenge for the next 5-10 thousand years.

People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future" — ssu

There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true.

There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true. — frank

I'm not making any ad hominem remarks. But coming back to the topic of the thread, one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.

We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor. Whatever other faults we might have, those faults don't make supporting a country that is attacked unjustified. It's not the victims fault that the aggressor in this case disrespects the agreements it has made earlier and has imperialist motives to annex other states.

[...] yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread [...] — ssu

In fact one commentator in this thread [...] — ssu

No idea if this latest jab was aimed at me, but is this some kindergarten-level attempt at misrepresenting other people's opinions while trying to save yourself from a rebuke?

Grow up.

one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.

We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. — ssu

This entire thread can be renamed to Pro-American / Anti-American illusions.

Because the majority of sub-topics and arguments in here are generally only about that and nothing else. The biggest problem in this thread is that people project their emotional and political ideologies in the form of fallacious arguments about Ukraine, rather than out of facts or rational reasoning. So instead of being about the war, about Russian aggression and the ripple effects into world politics, for the most part it's mostly just anti-American evangelists coming into conflict with people trying to make arguments that the anti-Americans fallaciously argue is pro-American.

It's a thread riddled with reductionist, overgeneralization, genetic, and false cause fallacies.

Most of the back and forth between people in this thread has been extremely low quality and it's just running on empty these days.

In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor — ssu

At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird.

At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird. — frank

Yes, I think it was him, thanks for reminding it. Nice that others too follow what fellow members write here! And I think it was really a honest reply. People do get unhinged when the topic is the US, especially it's foreign policy. Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it.

In US foreign policy, just as with all Great Powers, you find such differences that it's hard to assume that you are talking about the same nation. Compare US foreign policy and influence on let's say the UK or Sweden, and then to Panama or Guatemala. This is evident when we think about just how NATO did enlarge itself and what soul searching mission it went to before coming back to it's roots. Here the crucial actors were the Eastern European states themselves and finally, neutral nations like Sweden and Finland and their people clearly responding to Russian actions. How unique NATO (and the EU) are can be seen when you compare it to the short history of it's fellow treaty organizations, CENTO and SEATO. The main reason why these sister organizations failed was because the member states didn't share common objectives or common threats. The threat environment of Pakistan and the Philippines is totally different, as different as the geographical location of the two states.

Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it. — ssu

Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake.

Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake. — frank

What is happening now, yes.

It's telling that when the ICJ issued the arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Gallant, the Hamas leader also issued that arrest warrant has now already been killed by Israel.

It is a story extremely successful military/terrorist operation launched by Hamas, which created a horrific event that first shocked the Israeli people and then made them cry for revenge, and of a government that was willing to milk this feeling for all it's worth as an opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem once and for all, something that never has been dared to be done earlier. The criticism of Israel has emerged from the understanding that it indeed was a Western democracy, hence not to be judged similarly as the undemocratic autocracies that surround it.

And to put these threads together: What is happening in Ukraine, in Israel and the successful march of populist authoritarianism can taken together be made into a picture of us losing the values that West did achieve in the 20th Century. A picture where liberal democracy is really under attack as it was in the 1930's. There might be too much gloom and doom in this picture, but only the future will tell us if it's correct or not.

Yet the silence in the Israel-Palestine conflict thread, Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, is to me, a bit discomforting. In the last month only me, @BitconnectCarlos and @Benkei have written to that thread. Yet a lot has happened in the Middle East.

And yes, I understand why this thread is put into the "lounge". Yes, this is a philosophy forum. Yes, @Christoffer is right about what the "Ukraine Crises" has become. But if this is a Philosophy forum and we are the people who love wisdom and have a passionate pursuit of inner understanding about the relationship between one's true self and one's world, what does it mean when we don't want to comment the obvious tragedies that are happening around us?

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you.

It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. But when it's Arabs killing Arabs there will never be any mass protests or ICC arrest warrants.

That we are tired of everything wrong going on around us. There's only so much shit we can or want to engage with. At least for me. Also, my reach on LinkedIn is much bigger, so I use that instead to talk about politics (which gets frowns from some contacts but my company wholeheartedly supports).

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. — BitconnectCarlos

All the Israeli victims deserve to be remembered and their suffering recognized.

Yes, this is a small forum.

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite a strawman argument. The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime.

It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's put things into some context, the Syrian war has gone on for some time, about half a million have been killed. But as I said, nobody has claimed that the Assad-family run state has ever been a democracy. It's been a totalitarian state at least from the 1980's. Why no ICC arrest for Assad. The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it has not been possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.

Now it indeed might happen that the Assad regime falters. Hopefully the end state isn't then a totally failed state like Somalia or Libya.

The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime. — ssu

I agree. My point is that the hostages are part of the justification of Israeli military response in Gaza making it about more than just "revenge" for 10/7. Hostage recovery is a goal. BTW the Gaza population has increased by ~2% since 10/7 last year.

The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, — ssu

Good to know. There should still be some other body that could do it.

Russia and Iran abandon Syria, low on resources, can't keep it up, due to other crap.
Ripple effects related to Ukraine and the Middle East (Israel).
Russia apparently also needs North Koreans, maybe for Kursk in particular.
Might China take advantage of a weaker Russia? (Vladivostok/海參崴 came to mind.)

> Russia and Iran abandon Syria, low on resources, can't keep it up, due to other crap.
> Ripple effects related to Ukraine and the Middle East (Israel).

Some more signs that the US and Israel are doomed, as some self-entitled nobodies claim here, or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran?

or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran? — neomac

Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS was in wanting to create an international Caliphate, then those soldiers fighting for the dictatorship of the Assad family simply laid down their arms and took off their uniforms. Because the obvious reason why Alawites and Christians etc. would support the Assad regime was for the fear what the Sunni majority, lead by violent Sunni extremists, would do to them. That was the way the Assad family ruled. If there were no Syrians willing to fight for Assad, doesn't matter how much support Russia or Iran would give to them. The will to fight was lost.

A bit different situation in Ukraine.

Assad's in Moscow. He used chemical weapons on his people, so why not hang out in Russia?

Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS — ssu

I doubt that. It's been reported that the Syrian rebels are replete of all sorts of jihadists (including ex-Isis and ex Al-Qaeda) which in principle are averse to other religious minorities, so Christians and Alawites don't look to me safer than under Assad's rule just because the rebels look now more moderate than Isis (not even sure that the Syrian army are overwhelmingly composed by Alawites whose moral might be determinant in defending Assad's regime). On the other side the contribution of the Russian aviation (mainly) and philo-Iranian militias on the ground is/was critical to Assad. This support seems to have vanished now. Turkey may have lots to gain from supporting the rebels at the expense of the
Iranian and Russian influence in that region. Lybia is another potential target to further strengthen the Turkish influence in that area at the expense of the Russians.

I doubt that. — neomac

Firstly,

1) They showed cooperation. That's a big issue.
2) At least what I've noticed, there hasn't been atrocities against minorities done in the liberated cities.
3) At least the leadership clearly is speaking the correct terms in a way that he's at least had thought what the future would be. Worth to watch, look at the surprising CNN interview of HTS leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani:



There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying...

What they say doesn't matter so much as what they do. In fact in Joe Biden's answer it's clear that the US is also waiting what will happen. Is there a hand over of power? Is there a coalition formed? Do the groups refrain from fighting each other now? Are there elections?

In fact, one of the more positive tweets from Trump on the issue:

Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid. In any event, Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!

Of course Tartus naval base (now empty) was very important for Russia, but if Trump does stay away, likely better.

Now, of course everything can go to hell in a hand basket. In the end they can go the way like Libya or Sudan, but then again, it doesn't have to be so bad. Sometimes it's good to be a bit of an optimist.

(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread)


Perfect place for Assad, there with Putin. So nice that the Russian officials accepted the ex-dictator for "humanitarian reasons". :vomit:

There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying... — ssu

Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. My impression is that the Syrian rebels' leader is trying to reassure neighbouring countries and the West about threats of instability (civil wars and its spill overs), or about the resurgence of Islamist ambitions, while advertising their anti-Iranian stance. But it's too soon to judge. The relevant point to me wrt this thread is that those signs are in a direction more averse to the Iranian and Russian hegemonic ambitions in the region.

(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread) — ssu

There are links between all these conflicts and therefore it's myopic to understand them in isolation from their wider historical circumstances.

Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. — neomac

Indeed they did. And indeed they also showed very quickly there own side. But in Afghanistan, there was just one actor that took power. Also, notice how any military opposition to the Taleban fizzled out in a few days. The sheer number of actors, of foreign forces now in the country (including IDF that just enlarged it's zone from the Golan Heights) makes this all very difficult.

At least for now, there are some promising signs, for example how HTS has dealt with religious minorities in the places they have controlled. The interview with the bishop of Aleppo is telling.



It was the Assad regime that basically had the narrative that they are protecting the minority from the Jihadists. And even if HTS will keep to it's promise of not being a monster like Al Qaeda or ISIS, it may be that women will feel the sharia law quite quickly. Even if now they seem to celebrate the passing of Assad regime. Still, let's not forget that the vast majority of all the deaths in this Civil War have been perpetrated by the Assad regime.



Best thing would be: If there's no news from Syria. That's usually a sign that things actually would be positive. Time will tell.

It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument. — Benkei

So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.

Especially during the incoming Trump era, this engagement is necessary. The debate can get even more crazy and people will usually just stay in their camps. Yet not everything is disinformation and not everybody is a troll. I remember this during the War on Terror -era. Many came to the forum to defend Bush, and they were sincere in their views. Open discussion about were there actually WMD program in Iraq was useful. I find it good that you then pointed out the errors and didn't go with the crowd. And so it will be now.

Perfect example is the "NATO made Putin to do it"-argument that is typically rationalized by John Mearsheimer's views. Our current President Alexander Stubb, far before he was asked to be a candidate for the Presidency (which he won) was working as a professor in Italy and engaged in John Mearsheimers idea in a good academic way. This is interesting as now this man is in charge of Finnish foreign policy and hence wouldn't speak so openly or discuss Mearsheimer:



This kind of response is beneficial and informational. Stubb doesn't make ad hominem attacks on Mearsheimer. Yet it's important to discuss issues like this. Just last week, A popular Youtuber Johnny Harris put out a video seeking to tell "the other side"-view of the war in Ukraine and hence reurgitating the "NATO made Putin to do it" argument with interviews of a Pro-Russian academic. The video got such a devastating response that in one day he put it down and happily acknowledged his mistakes (see here).

There is the argument that one should not engage in disinformation, that engagement only then promotes the false idea. Perhaps with nonsense like Flat-Earth argument this works, but when people on this forum really think that there's something to it, it's not just disinformation, then the engagement is worth it. Especially Israel is an issue that is close to heart to many people, just as the Palestinian question is to others.

(moved this to the Ukraine thread - seems that threads are getting a bit mixed!)

I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia, which is a view we have to contend with - either as actual arguments, motivator or even as an excuse. It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason.

Objectively, there definitely is an argument to be made from a Russian security perspective that having a large military alliance on your doorstep has clear ramifications with respect to their military capabilities vis-a-vis your own country. The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. It's not merely benign. But even granting what is defensive today, we do not know what it is tomorrow. So this worry of Russia, from a real politik perspective is entirely logical.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). And yes, that makes certain countries a lot less relevant to the point where they have little agency left. After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! That has nothing to do with ignoring agency of Eastern European countries, which is a moral cliam they should have freedom to chose, but simply that stark political realities say otherwise.

The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. There's no fundamental difference between the regional influence the US has (tried to) build through wars in various regions. The Russians simply are more ruthless. And it works - the EU is afraid to escalate - and opinions differ on how justified that fear is.

I think you pointed out we armed allies during the cold war and it never led to escalation (except for the Cuban Missile Crisis I guess?). I think that's a good point and in my view, NATO did drop the ball, could've delayed a conflict by clearly distancing itself from a Ukraine NATO-membership or more clearly committing to the defence of Ukraine to make it more costly. The wishy-washy approach was inviting Russia to invade now before security assurances for Ukraine became more solid. Boots on the ground was the moral play with respect to the Ukrainian people once they (Russia and NATO) fucked up the diplomacy.

I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia — Benkei

Well, I do.

The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. (But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO.

It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei

Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.

The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. — Benkei

Hold on,
You are missing the biggest one, Afghanistan. Article 5 was actually used in the assistance to the US after 9/11. But this is actually the new NATO as intended[/b], and these were the kinds of operations that NATO intended to do BECAUSE there was no Russian threat. The territorial defense -idea of the Cold War was something antiquated and thrown to the dustbin! Best example of this was that there were no exercises in the Baltic States when the Baltic States got into NATO, not even operational plans to defend them, as that was too aggressive for the new NATO. Because Russia wasn't a threat. Hence when Trump says that NATO is antiquated and respond to new threats, he's repeating the OLD line of post-Cold War NATO.

Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). — Benkei

Russia is an empire.

It acts like an empire and does what it does because it is one. It is inherently imperialistic, irrelevant of NATO enlargement or not. It's not a nation state. The idea of nation state is a threat to it. If part like Poland, Finland and the Baltic States flew out of it, how about the Checnya or Tatarstan? Are they Russia? What would be actual Russia? St Petersburgh and Moscow and surrounding areas? This is the fear that Putin bases his power grab on. You cannot have democracy while that could lead to parts of even the present Russia opting for secession.

Could it be democratic and not totalitarian? Austro-Hungary wasn't a totalitarian, but to be an Empire with truly a multicultural population is difficult.

After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! — Benkei

Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. - The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". — Benkei

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.

I think countries should aspire to have sound moral foreign policies. It's a fairly decent objective and in the confines of even larger countries and a possibility to reach at least with functioning democracies. Will they reach that objective? Not always, but still it's an effort that ought to be made.

And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. — Benkei

Again I have to disagree with you.

The defense that Ukrainians have put up against Russia is the most relevant issue here and the Ukrainians are more relevant here than the aid the West has given. It is very telling here that NOBODY actually believed in Ukraine...except the Ukrainians. What I read was that Ukraine could possibly make a good insurgency battle against the Russian tide, but not stop it in it's tracks in an conventional war. That the US offered Zelensky to flee from Ukraine is very telling how "the most relevant player" thought things would go. Because these European countries don't matter. We Finns know this line. Should we too have been so reasonable as the Baltic States were in 1939? Or behave like Denmark in 1940, put up a discreet but not costly defense of six hours before surrender? After all, Ukrainians could have opted for the stance that the Czechs did in 1968: go to protest against the Russian tanks in the streets of their Capital, but otherwise lay down their arms. And then we would have been like, "Oh, too bad! But what could they have done against the Russian juggernaut?".

The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. — ssu

This is not a theoretical flaw, it is a prediction of the theory that domestic politics has little effect on great power politics and there's both theoretical and empirical justification for it, for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations.

Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. — ssu

This is a wildly inaccurate statement.

Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. — ssu

It makes perfect sense if enlargement into Sweden and Finland is viewed as less dangerous than enlargement into Ukraine.

Finland joining NATO is not some sort of "gotcha" but you'd need to actually demonstrate why Finland in NATO is far more threatening to Russian interests than Ukraine in NATO.

Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. — ssu

What's this statement based on?

(But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) — ssu

This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" should be ignored in favour of what "they actually mean" if you listen to internet analysts or "what is actually possible" if you read the fine print as interpreted by internet analysts.

Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO. — ssu

NATO enlargement is I think best viewed as the "ultimate cause" of the war, a possibility so bad from Russian elite perspective that Russian elites are essentially united in their willingness to fight a way to prevent it happening, and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. But the Donbas war itself is explained as an attempt to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, so if the argument that Ukraine would never join NATO because there's already border dispute designed to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO ... then the argument is basically it was irrational for Russia to expand the war that was rational for Russia to start in the first place, which is pretty tenuous view of rationality, but to address the substance the problem with keeping a war going to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO is that it's not sustainable (just as Ukraine has encountered the attrition problems of fighting a much larger power even in the context of substantial support from outside powers, so too the Donbas militias had the exact same problem, and the solution is the same of the larger supporting power directly intervening).

Added to these two main causes, there's then a long list of other co-factors and triggers. There's for example a long list of escalations of tensions by the US generally speaking from simply more anti-Russian propaganda to withdrawing from the INF and ABM treaties, "clashing" or whatever you want to call it in Syria, and the main trigger for the war I would argue is the obstruction of licensing the Nord Stream II pipeline, which is when things came to a breaking point in terms of any further dialoguee.

Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here. — ssu

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine?

Even more problematic for a philosophy forum, in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything.

For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... for apparently zero reason if it is true they would never "actually do it" ... so you're whole argument basically boils down to "Russia is irrational for not realizing NATO is in fact the irrational party pretending to do things they will never actually do".