Says the man who saying that Russia isn't committing crimes against humanity, when actually taking children away is viewed as one way to preform genocide, actually. Or then you make a real difference between war crimes and "crimes against humanity".

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

That is a sure sign of a Putin-apologist right there.

I'll just note (again), that Europe isn't some monolithic entity.
The EU is part of Europe, Norway (mature democracy), Hungary (mostly democratic), ..., are parts of thereof.
Hungary argues with whoever else, Croatia and Serbia are arguing, Slovakia might argue with Germany and France, the UK now hangs out on the side, ... Then there are all kinds of bureaucracy.
Unlike the US, the EU isn't a country, Europe isn't a country, and has a tediously long history.
If one expects Europe to have centralized executive powers (like the US), then they have things to learn.
This sort of "diversity" is exploitable, which is what the Kremlin does.

A question:
Is there an underlying assumption by some, that the US has a secretive organization (or the like), that more or less determines policy, across the various administrations?
If not determines, then otherwise assert strong power to their end behind the scenes?
Say, over the last three decades? Four? More?

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

Until I hear an explanation for the Bucha massacre this sounds like Putin apologetics.

Israel has never went into Gaza or the West Bank and hog-tied hundreds of civilians before executing them.

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations. — Tzeentch

In a philosophy forum, I find more interesting to discuss explicit moral criteria, hopefully not “ad hoc”, than just provide moral opinions. And I will charitably assume that your criteria are not something like: if after 70 years there is unanimous agreement by all human rights organisation imaginable (excluding Russian human rights organisations, since apparently there aren’t much left there unlike in Israel, even under Netanyahu) on the Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, one is entitled to morally condemn Russia’s aggression of Ukraine.
Concerning criteria relying on the advise of international law and humanitarian organizations, the allegations that Russia is committing genocide and war crimes in Ukraine do not look so much less severe than the Israeli case to me, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
What actually sounds even morally worse in the Russian case than in the Israeli case (assumed the notion of “genocide” equally applies to both) is that in his article ”On the historical unity of Russian and Ukrainians“ Putin has claimed “Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people” . (https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians). So Putin’s war against Ukrainians is not only genocidal, but also fratricidal. Nothing of the sort can be said of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, also the moral outrage of the perceived "provocations" look more problematic for Russia than for Israel: indeed, what's evidently morally outrageous in the idea of having Ukraine joining NATO some day in the future compared to the massacre of Israeli civilians in Israel by Hamas?
Concerning history, the struggle of Ukrainians to gain independence from Russia is going on for centuries (the last one is just the 4th war of independence). So the claim that the Ukrainians badly want to be independent from Russia and Russians do not let them doesn’t sound so far fetched. Not to mention the case of the “Holodomor” which looks to me way more atrocious than the “Nakba”. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1944, explicitly applied the concept of ”genocide” to the Soviet oppression of Ukrainians, including the Holodomor. He considered the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as a "classic example of Soviet genocide" and "the longest and most extensive experiment in Russification”.
Concerning political principles, as I said elsewhere, Russia’s war against Ukraine looks pretty hegemonic in nature. Indeed, Russia not only has a state which Ukraine acknowledges and hasn’t invaded or attacked (at least prior to this conflict), but it has the largest state on earth, and abundant land for hosting way more ethnic Russians than currently exist compared to Israel (the population density in Israel is roughly 50 times higher than in Russia). Besides Russia has previously formally acknowledged Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the other side, Israel’s war against Hamas doesn’t look hegemonic in nature. Israel so far is just trying to establish its own nation state and keep it safe from Palestinians’ and other neighbouring middle-eastern countries’ aggressions, and it has never acknowledged the existence of Palestinian state. Besides, in accordance to the premises I made explicit in my previous comment, if one holds the right to people self-determination, it’s much more easy to condemn Russian hegemonic ambitions as violating Ukrainian people’s self-determination, than to condemn either nations between Israelis and Palestinians which are fighting for their right to self-determination over exactly the same land.
So what is it making so “much more” morally grey one case over the other to you doesn’t look evident to me at all. Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other?

Second, when geopolitical actors meddle in ways that are misleading and exploitative, I have no qualms with making moral statements about that.

Russia is clearly a wolf and widely perceived as a calculating geopolitical actor. The US on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore much more dangerous because people are ignorant to its true nature. — Tzeentch

Well, given the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I thought your moral assessment depends not only on honesty and exploitative intentions , but also genocidal intentions and war crimes.
Concerning honesty and exploitative intentions, since Russia is a “wolf”, what would you consider as misleading and exploitative by Russia in the current conflict with Ukraine? Do you have concrete examples in mind to provide? Maybe the fact that Russia acknowledged Ukrainian territorial sovereignty on many occasions (including the one Mearsheimer wrote an article about in “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”)?
Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? Indeed, since you accused others of cognitive dissonance, let me point out that I also see a risk of cognitive dissonance on your part too. Honestly I don’t remember much of your moral statements against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. And the problem is not much that you seem way more focused on the moral status of the US and its European “vassals” than on Russia because, as you claim, the US is much more dangerous than Russia. The problem is that you even look “favourable” to Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, given this comment [1]: “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/968536). Now, if this argument is not apologetics for Russia’s genocide in Ukraine (territorial annexations included), then also arguing that Israel is reacting against the Palestinian aggression (territorial annexations included) is not apologetics for Israel’s genocide in Palestine as “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. If it is apologetics in one case, than it is also in the other.
Given your views, it must be convenient for you to argue that Russia is not seriously committing a genocide in Ukraine or war crimes (because you are morally against genocide or war crimes, right?), at least until you provide more explicit and non-ad-hoc criteria. The alternative would be that committing genocide and war crimes are morally justified if “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. Which is it?

Considering the US is objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous, nation on earth, at the very least the idea of deliberate strategy should be exhausted before assuming incompetence. Currently, it remains conspicuously absent from the discussion. — Tzeentch

The principal threat is not an 'angry' US - the US is thousands of miles away across an ocean - but European 'Trans-Atlanticists' prostituting Europe to the American agenda. — Tzeentch

These two comments remind me a bit of the joke “It's Schrödinger's war machine.”
Instead of indulging into sarcastic retaliations, let me highlight the following dilemma.
Either the US is objectively the most powerful and most dangerous compared to Russia, then recalling the geographic distance shouldn’t be enough to dismiss the security threat coming from the US, nor suggest that’s batter to provoke and keep provoking/antagonising the US (so yes one must be definitely be worried about a “angry” US).
Or the US is NOT objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous compared to Russia, then recalling the geographic distance shouldn’t be enough to dismiss the security threat coming from Russia, nor suggest that’s batter to provoke and keep provoking/antagonising Russia (so yes one must be definitely be worried about a “angry” Russia).
Which is it to you?

The Ukraine war neither suggests they have the intention nor the capacity to threaten Europe. — Tzeentch

Are you saying that it’s thanks to the war between Russia and Ukraine that we know that Russia has not “the capacity to threaten Europe”? How so?
Besides, if Russia has not the capacity to threaten Europe, then the fear of an “angry” Russia seems less compelling, do you agree?
These statements in addition to the previous ones do not make it more clear how you assess the Russian threat to Europe. More on this below.

I support Ukrainian independence. What I do not support is incompetent nations like the EU, or exploitative nations like the US leading it down the prim rose path by feeding it fake promises of security. — Tzeentch

How do you know that populist movements or national leaders are less incompetent than EU leaders?
Do you mean that Russia is not an exploitative for making fake promises of security to Ukraine like the Budapest memorandum?

About European 'emancipation' I have little to say. Europe is a lost cause. It will take decades for it to undo the damage of post-Cold War soft power US colonialism. But for the US to leave is obviously a prerequisite for things to get better. — Tzeentch

The problem of the European emancipation must also go with some important acknowledgement from you:
did the US oppress Germany, France, the Ntehterlans or Spain as Russia is oppressing Ukraine?
Obviously, I can get that a nation wants to become independent from foreign interference which is perceived as oppressive. But the US hasn’t been oppressive toward EU countries as Russia is toward Ukraine, or Israel toward Palestine. Actually the EU prospered in peace for several decades. Do you agree?
Besides what do you mean by “for the US to leave”? One can say that Soviet Union has left Hungary, still Hungary has been supporting Russia over EU and the US as a European vassal may support the US. That is to say, that even assuming that the US military bases leave Europe, that doesn’t imply that the US “the most powerful and dangerous” country has not economic and military interests in Europe that will still constrain Europe margins for strategic emancipation (things may get even trickier if "Europe" refers to individual European countries instead of groups of European countries like the EU).

I don't believe in the narrative that the Russians are coming for Berlin. — Tzeentch

Europe's population is roughly four times that of Russia. It's GDP is roughly ten times that of Russia.
Even if Europe organises its defense inefficiently on a country-by-country basis there ought to be no Russian threat. — Tzeentch

First, Russia has military resources to threaten Germany and a nuclear arsenal (indeed Russia has not spared itself from making nuclear threats when its strategic interests are at stake), Germany has an insufficient military capacity wrt Russia, Russia has historically invaded Germany and taken a good piece of it, so Russia doesn’t need to come for Berlin anytime soon to be a security threat to Berlin.
Second, as I pointed out in another post: aggregating GDP (or population) of EU countries doesn't make much sense if one overlooks the deep divisions over security issues among European countries. Besides Berlin is just one European capital, there are other Eastern European capitals for which Russian conventional military aggression could be a serious problem.
Third, most importantly, Russia’s threats to Europe are not limited to conventional warfare. Hybrid warfare must the taken into account and hybrid warfare can be enough to induce concessions to Russia’s demands. So if European countries want to emancipate themselves from being vassals of foreign powers like the US, then the same must hold against Russia. Besides a source of security concerns comes also from Russian minorities populating many European countries (including Germany). They are a good resource for pretexts to rise tensions, covert operations (like sabotaging) and political trafficking.

The only reason Europe is vulnerable is because American interests have infiltrated its every institution like a Trojan horse, disallowing it from making sensible decisions. — Tzeentch

What about a “victorious” Russian interests in Europe? Did Russians infiltrate European institutions and far right populist movements like a Trojan horse? What if the US will leave and Russia wants to ensure that the US doesn’t come back again and for that it will do its best to fill the void of power left by the US? It shouldn’t sound so far-fetched that outside NATO/EU e.g. Hungary might be interested in hosting Russian military bases. Or that European countries which need Russian oil/gas/wheat could be blackmailed in various ways including buying Russian weapon systems to feed the Russian military-industrial complex and its power projection like in the middle east, Mediterranean sea, North Africa and Baltic sea (around Europe).
So while Russia is arguably far more oppressive and aggressive over nations under its sphere of influence than the US is toward European countries, it seems you worry more about a vassal status of the EU toward the US, and as if there was no risk that European countries would turn into vassals of Russia once the US has completely gone. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t even exclude a worse scenario one in which an “angry” US and a “victorious” Russia will turn European states into more submissive vassals (for the US, Italy is a good candidate, as much as Hungary is for Russia).

There are 2 issues that I brought up repeatedly in this thread and yet, to my surprise, nobody looks/looked interested in discussing them as vocally as I was: the problematic link between democracy and security, and the problematic link between morality and security.
The first one is worth digging into because it can contribute to explain the authoritarian turn of Trump's administration, his antagonism against EU and Trump’s philo-Putinism.
The second one is worth digging into because it can contribute to better assess analogies and differences between the Ukrainian-Russian conflict vs the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The strategic stakes of the war between Russia and Ukraine were mostly about a new world order in which powerful authoritarian countries can impose their rule over the others through direct negotiations between supreme leaders (independently from the qualms of international law), including Western democratic countries no matter how justified their moral outrage is.

Well, you answered it yourself. — ssu

No, I did not answer the rebuttal myself.

Well, because the Trump team is basically hostile to Ukraine and on the side of Russia. So yes, that indeed is really a change here. — ssu

The points here are twain:

First, they've been saying the exact same thing since 2022 in order to justify pouring arms into Ukraine, so for you're argument to work you must recognize that from 2022 to 2024 "saying stuff" like Putin is literally Hitler and we need to him in Ukraine and so on was pure propaganda that no leader in Europe actually believed.

I.e. that you're argument structure is that it was the boy who cried wolf for 2 years and now, NOW, there's actually a wolf, trust me bro.

That's the first point you need to contend with as the rhetoric has not changed.

Second, even 2024 and 2025 there is still zero evidence of the EU planning, preparing, much less implementing some semblance of a war time economy in order to fight the Russians, not even a little bit to just reach shell parity for Ukraine in Russia.

Is it really that hard to make enough artillery shells?

There's industrial layoffs in Europe all over the place, idle capacity ... why not get people to work making shells.

Which still wouldn't make a lick of sense to only start doing now (if any part of the rhetoric represented the slightest true belief), as even if we recognize that painting Russia as a threat to the EU was bullshit there was still the "rules based order" and democracy and borders, Borders man! (outside the Middle-East of course) that needed defended.

Furthermore, even if it's completely delusional, a large majority of Europeans simply believe the propaganda that Ukraine good, Russia bad, Putin's literally Hitler, if Ukraine falls then literally the rest of Europe will be next, and so on, even more so at the start of the war ... so not only could idle capacity be put into making shells but there would be a large group of recently laid off industrial workers essentially volunteering for the production lines, not to mention millions of just able bodied people's (and even women with zero construction or industrial experience whatsoever could rapidly skill up and not only produce simple things like shells but far more complicated things like fighter aircraft, in WWII ... but with more eduction, more automated tooling, more engineers and so on, this cannot be accomplished today?).

At some point you have to answer these sorts of questions.

And the answer is there was never any intention, whether in Europe or the United States, to have any other outcome in the war in Ukraine other than the one we are currently seeing (of the Ukrainian military lines breaking).

The reason there is no crash program to produce things as simple as artillery shells is because that would help Ukraine quite a lot, and as importantly does not generate obscene profits for military contractors.

The strategy was always to drip feed weapons to Ukraine to at least get to the next election while still being able to at least pretend things are fine.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade. — Punshhh

... Again ... why only now? (even if true, which it's not in any remotely meaningful "preparing for total war with Russia" sense)

But same question to you as with @ssu ... the rhetoric has not changed, so how are you not implicitly accepting European leaders where lying about that for years, drip feeding weapons to Ukraine to prop it up just enough to not collapse spectacularly (before the US election), and therefore the "story" being "Europe will now re-arm" is because they've been crying wolf and only see an actual wolf now because the US (specifically Trump as you've said) has exposed them to the consequences of their own actions of antagonizing a far more powerful neighbour for cynical reasons?

How can you just casually skip over the fact the EU obviously wasn't rearming in 2022 in response to literally New Hitler invading a European country and EU countries are bound to be next if New Hitler isn't stopped in Ukraine ... but obviously could have with things like the "biggest arms deal in EU history" and the like, or then even a little bit of actual war time economy measures to support Ukraine (such as essentially volunteer based factories to produce enough shells for Ukraine)?

I.e. how can you just casually skip over these obvious lies and deception by European leaders for 3 years, if not many years before, without exposing your position as just repeating whatever "pro-Ukrainians dying" propaganda you heard last.

The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics. — Punshhh

WTF are you talking about?

The fly in what ointment? The delicious ointment of provoking and then propping up a war by drip feeding in weapons for war profiteering purposes, only to suddenly realize antagonizing a far more powerful military while being nearly fully dependent on another great power an Ocean away (that has since decades being talking about it's "pivot" to an Ocean even farther away) was terrible state craft?

Now, if your question is why would European leaders go down such a self-destructive path which, at best, renders Europe a poor vassal backwaters to the United States?

Well the answer is that the European leaders that did this are essentially just organized crime kingpins and organized crime have benefited a great deal from this war.

In the meantime Russia is capable of throwing a vast amount of artillery at her opponent and is developing her drone capability quickly. A drone arms race is not good and needs to be choked off asap. — Punshhh

Ah yes, in the meantime Russia can just casually outproduce the largest economic block on the planet.

... but I thought the holy ointment was propping up total war in Ukraine while not even making token efforts to match production rates and only starting to think about that part of "being essentially at war with Russia" now that Trump wants to make peace with Russia as that's in American's interest to do, and will lower energy prices and get US access to all sorts of minerals and so on.

So considering war with Russia your "ointment" ... how exactly do you see choking off a drones arms race? Arms control is a deescalatory process of arms limitations, but the "story here" is Europe will re-arm ... so you're idea is Europe will rearm while asking Russia to kindly exnay on the onesdray, just kind of cool it a little, maybe just a forceful "knock-it-off", or a strongly worded letter will get the job done?

This situation could become very expensive as Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it. This needs to be avoided and Trump throwing a spanner in the works really doesn’t help. — Punshhh

Why would your program of choking off an arms race become expensive?

Also, it's called "oil", which is turned into an obscure economic thing called "revenue", which renders the phrase "Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it" basically nonsense. This sort of complicated businessney thing maybe over your head but I, as a long time corporate executive, could try to explain it to you.

@ssu - what's your view of this 'resource-sharing' deal between the US and Ukraine? My first response was 'horrible', because Trump is exacting tribute for what should be provided in support of democracy. But on further thought, if Ukraine signs a 'resource and reconstruction' deal with the US, then it kind of makes Ukraine and the US allies, and Trump will want to protect his stake, which may not be all bad. What's your take?

Out of courtesy I did read your entire post, but I will not be getting into a repetition of moves where we write entire essays about what has already been said.

I'll only answer those questions where I think my position may require clarification.

Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other? — neomac

In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- +/-70 years of thorough documentation
- Mountains of reports by human rights organisations, including those within Israel itself
- Mountains of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
- Near-unanimous global condemnation
- Condemnation within Israel itself
- Admissions by Israeli politicians
- Having studied the conflict in-depth as part of my academic education, and having visited the region as part of a research tour.

Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? — neomac

War crimes are an unfortunate reality of war. They happen in every war, and criminals ought to be punished.

Things take on a different guise when war crimes are carried out intentionally on a large scale, at a governmental level.

I don't believe Russia has genocidal intentions in Ukraine. Ukrainians are returning to Russian-occupied territories every day.

I think yes, prima facie it seems to be a fair analysis that it could be good for the US and Ukraine but it really depends on the deal. If it's fair and not extortionate, Ukraine will be fine with it, despite the questionable motivations underpinning it.

Where that leaves Europe is a bit of a different story though. Europe has supported Ukraine more than the US, with 132.3 billion EUR against 114.2 EUR billion by the USA (excluding UK, in which case the difference is even more significant). And where the US has only allocated another 4.84 billion EUR, Europe has already allocated 115.1 EUR billion. See Ukraine support tracker. That can change, of course, especially as you point out the USA would have a stake in Ukraine. But if European countries were cut out of the deal entirely, that will further fuel resentment towards the USA as we will have basically "funded" the deal through military support. So the knock-on effects could be quite different.

EDIT: also looking at the "deal", the last draft was the US demanding 500 billion USD in minerals, which is a multitude of the aid provided. Even with security guarantees that's a bit rich. At the same time there's the EU Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to integrate Ukrainian resource mineral extraction in EU supply chains through mutual investments. Seems a lot fairer!

↪neomac
Out of courtesy I did read your entire post, but I will not be getting into a repetition of moves where we write entire essays about what has already been said. — Tzeentch

Out of courtesy I’m thanking you for your courtesy. However, I doubt the that your problem is repeating moves, as you claim, since you keep repeating moves [1] (including the claim that you have already said this and that so no need repeating [2]). Even in this last post of yours.
You can give synthetic answers to my questions (I consider all of them equally pressing, then it’s up to you), at least we can verify where you said that already as you claim.
Besides, the fact that you keep repeating claims may also point to the fact that you think to win arguments by repeating the same response to challenges against what you keep repeating. Unfortunately, I’m sure you agree that “you don't win arguments by repetition”. Maybe try something else instead of repeating.

[1]
“That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward”.

[2]
“I’ve probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all”

I'll only answer those questions where I think my position may require clarification.


Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other? — neomac


In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- +/-70 years of thorough documentation
- Mountains of reports by human rights organisations, including those within Israel itself
- Mountains of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
- Near-unanimous global condemnation
- Condemnation within Israel itself
- Admissions by Israeli politicians
- Having studied the conflict in-depth as part of my academic education, and having visited the region as part of a research tour.

— Tzeentch

In what way this is a clarification of “It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations” when my explicit challenge to you was: “I find more interesting to discuss explicit moral criteria, hopefully not “ad hoc”, than just provide moral opinions. And I will charitably assume that your criteria are not something like: if after 70 years there is unanimous agreement by all human rights organisation imaginable (excluding Russian human rights organisations, since apparently there aren’t much left there unlike in Israel, even under Netanyahu) on the Russia’s aggression of Ukraine, one is entitled to morally condemn Russia’s aggression of Ukraine” ?
I do not question that you may be more convinced in one case than the other, but I’ll repeat that the criteria you are repeating seem rather arbitrary.
A part from the fact that if a conflict lasts 70 years of course one may have evidence and complaints spanning over 70 years to support the “genocide” accusation, while if a conflict lasts 3 years of course one may have 3 years of evidence and complaints to support the “genocide” accusation. But most importantly, really are you waiting for 70 years of evidence to make moral assessments about wars? 3 years are not enough? BTW moral rules like “do not kill”, “do not lie”, “do not steal”, “do not break promises”, sound rather intuitive, so do you seriously not have amassed enough evidence in 3 years that Russia is committing more violations of moral rules against Ukraine than the other way around in this conflict or its genesis? Or you want to say that Russia’s aggression of Ukraine was a morally “proportional” response to the Ukrainian desire to join NATO while Israel’s response against the massacre of its civilians by Hamas wasn’t? No temporal constraints are part of the legal definition of "genocide".
How fair is it to recall certain criticisms from within Israel vs lack of similar criticisms from Russia given the fact public opinion in Israel is much more free than in Russia?
Concerning your appeals to your expertise or experience (not the first time you are doing it), how is not that convenient, besides being unverifiable to us? Appeal to your authority is as good as an attack ad hominem against your interlocutors. Actually its complement.
Finally, a part from the fact that the accusation of “genocide” is legally different from the accusation of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity, you can read more about appeal to near-unanimous human rights organizations and UN Assembly condemnations against Russia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
So much so that there are ICC arrest warrants for Putin as much as for Netanyahu (and also for Hamas representatives but not against Zelensky).
Concerning the UN Security Council resolution the trick is that it requires the permission of Russia, which is the perpetrator of the alleged “genocide”. Besides the accusation of committing “genocide” against Israel by the Security Council concerns specifically the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, not the current conflict:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel#United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
And the problem is not only in the criteria which you mention, but also on criteria which you do not mention now, while being so important to you in other posts. I'm referring to your claim: “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests”. You made this claim to justify/explain (until you do clarify better how you distinguish them, I’ll put both) Russian aggression of Ukraine, but not the Israeli aggression on Hamas. Why? Is it “it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests” a moral criterium for moral condemnation/justification or not?

Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? — neomac


War crimes are an unfortunate reality of war. They happen in every war, and criminals ought to be punished.

Things take on a different guise when war crimes are carried out intentionally on a large scale, at a governmental level. — Tzeentch

That sounds to me a plausible criterium when accusing governments of committing genocides because it stems from the legal definition of “genocide” which includes the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. The problem is to understand what evidences are needed to prove such an intent in one conflict over the other. There are evidences coming from human rights organizations and UN resolutions, one can check historical patterns, one can check political decisions and declarations. I think one can find lots of compelling evidence in both cases.

I don't believe Russia has genocidal intentions in Ukraine. Ukrainians are returning to Russian-occupied territories every day. — Tzeentch

If the criterium of assessing “genocidal intentions“ is Ukrainian ability to go back to occupied territories, then the same holds for Palestinians, see here : https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/middleeast/palestinians-return-north-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html

I do not question that you may be more convinced in one case than the other, but I’ll repeat that the criteria you are repeating seem rather arbitrary. — neomac

Good.

My criteria don't seem arbitrary to me at all.

So what is it you expect from me? Convince you somehow? To try and 'win the argument'?

If you're not even willing to believe I'm being honest about my credentials, then what possible point would there be to carry on conversation?

So what is it you expect from me? Convince you somehow? To try and 'win the argument’?

If you're not even willing to believe I'm being honest about my credentials, then what possible point would there be to carry on conversation? — Tzeentch

To me the point of this conversation with you has nothing to do with believing your honesty over your credentials or whatever else, of course. As I said, I find it rather irrelevant, even if you were honest: indeed, I find irrelevant any argument from authority if that’s meant to replace arguments de re.
If I do not understand the criteria for sexing chickens, and ask you clarifications, it would be pointless to tell me: “see these two chickens? Well, the right one is male and the left one is a female and the criteria are that I’ve academic credentials on sexing chickens, I’ve sexed chickens for 30 years in tens of farms and I’m honest”. Even if you were 100% right, 100% honest, 100% convinced, 100% believed by all the people in the universe, past, present, future (ME INCLUDED!), yet you didn’t offer any criteria for me to understand how to sex chickens.
I think the purpose of a conversation in a philosophy forum is not just to exchange opinions about things one takes to be evident but also to investigate and question grounds to believe things. That’s why I’ve joined this philosophy forum and this thread. Is this why you too joined this philosophy forum and this thread? If not, for what other purpose are you here?

Ouch, did I poke a bear, or something?

Look, I’m well aware of the points you raise. But I wasn’t addressing them, I was saying what the big story is, the big headline. That the post war settlement is coming to an end and a new settlement will be reached.

The U.S. and Russia have been sparring since the end of WW2. That was part of the Cold War narrative with occasional proxy wars, crises etc. It worked for a long period maybe 70 or 80yrs. That has now come to an end and the geopolitical tectonic plates are moving.

An important thing to remember in that settlement was the caretaker role of the US in Europe. This is why European countries haven’t developed powerful armies. This is why they have become complacent , always relying on Uncle Sam to do the heavy lifting. This suited both part parties. This was not likely to change much until Trump came along and trashed NATO. This combined with Putin’s imperial ambitions have changed the landscape and a new equilibrium will have to be found.

This inevitably results in a lot of chaos and shouting.

Well, that meeting went rather badly.

How did the Ukrainian delegation, with Zelensky at the head, let this happen?

It seems very likely now that the US is going to pull out. That was probably going to happen anyways, given that the Trump administration has shown zero interest in actually negotiating meaningfully.

How did the Ukrainian delegation, with Zelensky at the head, let this happen? — Echarmion

Trump and Vance are in Putin's camp and talking heads for the Russian dictator. How else would it go? Zelensky has to be honest to his people, who are fighting this war.

I just hope that Western Europe has enough backbone and stand up against Trump and support Ukraine. I'm sure that the asshole Trump will demand Europe not to support Ukraine and go along with this pressuring of the victim. Vance going of with Kremlin talking points is despicable.

US was the leader of the free world for 80 years. Not anymore.

I am :100: behind Zelenskyy. He stood his ground while Trump and Vance tried to strong-arm him into a signing a deal that would be favourable to Putin. They really showed their true colours by berating him, they were treating him like a supplicant or school-child. Their attitude of ‘you should be grateful’ is entirely mistaken. Here’s a President who has lost more than 100,000 soldiers and civilians at the hands of a murderous dictator, and he’s not ‘grateful enough’. :rage: Zelenskyy has more actual guts than any other political leader in today’s world.

Trump and Vance are in Putin's camp and talking heads for the Russian dictator. How else would it go? Zelensky has to be honest to his people, who are fighting this war. — ssu

I am :100: behind Zelenskyy. — Wayfarer

I do agree with the sentiment, but Zelensky had a purpose for going to the White House, and he failed. Maybe there was no actual way to succeed. But this was certainly not the optimal way for that to go, even taking into account the personalities of Trump and Vance.

He was made an offer he had to refuse. It’s not failure when you stand up for principles, if accepting it means a greater loss.

I do agree with the sentiment, but Zelensky had a purpose for going to the White House, and he failed. Maybe there was no actual way to succeed. But this was certainly not the optimal way for that to go, even taking into account the personalities of Trump and Vance. — Echarmion

Do understand that the US under Trump isn't in support of Ukraine, Trump is against Ukraine. Ukraine is the problem. Ukraine won't bow down to what Russia wants, so Zelensky has to go!

You criticize and attack your enemies, you don't speak anything bad about those who you support. This cannot be more clear now. There is no other way to see it.

Hence there was no way for an actual deal to succeed, because Ukraine isn't yet in a position that it's defense would be collapsing. If there would have been a deal to be made, then there would have been an actual meeting behind closed doors, not ambush like we witnessed. Now Trump will punish Ukraine, because he is for Russia.

What Trump will push for the peace deal that Putin wants, a deal that Putin wouldn't otherwise get. People have to wake up on this. Trump won't lift a finger to anything that Putin does. That's the real problem. Europe has to arm itself, because the US is now a willing sidekick of an Putin, whose appetite will grow now very much. This won't end with Ukraine.

Trump is getting us to a situation where it isn't just about Ukraine anymore. Putin can surely taste the blood in the water now.

There never was a deal. Putin had already pulled back from negotiations once the rare earth narrative was adopted. It’s all just Trump chaos.

This inevitably results in a lot of chaos and shouting.

As I predicted.

After today's meeting, Trump's approval ratings skyrocketed...in Russia:
"As expected, the Russian government seemed thrilled over the public spat between Trump and Zelensky.

“The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office. And [Donald Trump] is right: The Kiev regime is ‘gambling with WWIII’” wrote Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia. "

-Rolling Stone

Do understand that the US under Trump isn't in support of Ukraine, Trump is against Ukraine. Ukraine is the problem. Ukraine won't bow down to what Russia wants, so Zelensky has to go! — ssu

I'm reading the situation a bit differently. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine one way or another, he just cares about his ego. He appears to genuinely believe Putin respects him as some kind of great leader, hence he's willing to take Putin's side unless it involves him looking weak.

A lot comes down to what Trump is told by the people with a plan behind the scenes. JD Vance seems to seek to push a wedge between Europe and the US in general, not sure to wear ultimate end. Musk seems more interested in dismantling government structures from the inside.

In general the feeling I get is that these people don't care about the fate of Ukraine or Europe in the near future because they're imagining that once they've remade America, the rest of the world will either follow or cease to be relevant.

There never was a deal. Putin had already pulled back from negotiations once the rare earth narrative was adopted. It’s all just Trump chaos. — Punshhh

But the Trump chaos is being steered in a more deliberate direction this time. Both internally and externally the goal seems to be to use Trump to engineer a breakdown of existing structures.

Ukraine voted for a comedian and they got a president, America voted for a president and got a comedian (a dangerous clown) — Dave Cap

He appears to genuinely believe Putin respects him as some kind of great leader, hence he's willing to take Putin's side — Echarmion

Over the years, Putin has showered Trump with complements (e.g. "an intelligent and experienced politician", "He behaved, in my opinion, in a very correct way, courageously, like a real man"), and in January said, "“I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided."

With such insight into Trump's manly brilliance, how could Trump not think highly of Putin?
;

In general the feeling I get is that these people don't care about the fate of Ukraine or Europe in the near future because they're imagining that once they've remade America, the rest of the world will either follow or cease to be relevant. — Echarmion

If they wouldn't care, why then the hostility? No, really. Vance and Trump have absolutely no intension to be on the side of Ukraine... or on Western Europe. They want to cozy up with Russia and that's why the attack and the hostility. They are pressuring Ukraine to take what Russia wants, hence they are here doing Putin's bidding.

When you throw somebody under the bus, you have to show that the person earned it, had it coming, that he's the bad guy. It has to be Ukraine's fault.

And it will be worse, because Europeans won't so clearly throw Ukraine under the bus. This will irritate Trump even more, and likely the next thing will be NATO alliance itself. As John Bolton has said, Trump has wanted to exit NATO during his previous administration. I totally believe this. It think it's going to happen, because Putin can play Trump so well.

That is the ultimate goal what Putin wants, and Trump is doing his best to do that.

“Whaddya mean, “I’m not gonna sign”?!?’

Trump won't lift a finger to anything that Putin does. — ssu

Let’s not forget that just this week, the US refused to endorse a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion.

Trump is to all intents a Kremlin asset now.

It’s good that Trump wants peace. How he’s going about it is, as usual, a disaster. But hopefully something happens.

Russia will keep the territory they annexed and there will be a guarantee of no NATO membership— either that happens or there’s no end to the war, other than a ceasefire and a long cold war. If Trump actually pushes for that, I’d be surprised.

I don’t think Ukraine could ever agree to it— but without US support they have 0 chance of taking back territory, let alone “winning” the war. They’re not going to win even with US backing. Maybe when Zelensky is out, things change. But it’s unclear to me what exactly happens here, with a mineral deal.