Of course the bad guys may react, as we may react to their invasion of Ukraine. Assholes are not the only ones entitled to react, if you think about it for a second. — Olivier5

Except that is not what you are advocating.

You believe NATO should get to expand and interfere all it wants because they're "the good guys", and when another nation reacts you cry foul.

Whatever your position is, it's hopelessly confused.

The Untied States is its military-industrial complex. 'It's' pockets are one and the same. And Eastern Europe just happens to be the current warzone de jour. They will pursue it anywhere, indifferently. — Streetlight

Is this the same as the "United States foreign policy establishment", also referred to as "the blob"?

What point in that this is a voluntary defense pact and the collective defense organization of Europe you do not understand? — ssu

Voluntariness is not a factor in this. This isn't about good or bad, it's about geopolitics and it's very real consequences.

Cuba also voluntarily joined a USSR-led military alliance. It made no difference to the United States. Of course not. What happened when Vietnam threatened to voluntarily become communist? What happened when Iraq voluntarily threatened US oil and the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency?

Nations do things voluntarily all the time, and it has never been a reason for great powers not to interfere.

Your asking a Finn about that?

Your asking basically a question: "What is wrong in a foreign intelligence service basically being in your government with veto-power and then being active on nearly everything and intervening in everything?" — ssu

"Finlandization is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

You seem to be using a different definition of the term than what I found.

By that definition Europe is essentially Finlandized by the United States.

So again, what's the problem?

That is how Soviet/Russia intelligence services operate. Now you can compare to your country, if it's in the West, the UK or Australia and ask how many video games has the CIA tried to censor in your country? How many times the US has threatened with retaliatory actions if your country picks the wrong candidate in the elections for prime minister or president? — ssu

The United States has dragged its vassals into numerous wars of greed, and is now in the process of dragging Europe into a serious large-scale conflict in Ukraine.

I wish its meddling would limit itself to censoring videogames.

Anyway, I'm not making the point that I prefer one over the other. That is completely besides the point, and that's the point you're continually missing.

Your views on right and wrong don't influence at all the very real consequences of provocative policy. "We are the good guys, so we get to provoke" is obviously not something other nations care for. They will react.

You can't seem to decide whether you're an idealist or a realist. I'm arguing from a realist perspective. if there was any doubt about that.

So your bottomline is that the United States military-industrial complex is pushing for conflict in Eastern Europe to fill its own pockets?

But this assumes that the Western metric of 'winning' is Ukraine keeping territory. It isn't, and never has been. The West does not give a shit about Ukraine. Nonetheless, the West is winning: — Streetlight

The United States will create a new permanent army headquarters in Poland and increase its long-term military presence across the length and breadth of Europe in response to threats from Russia, U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday. New U.S. warships will go to Spain, fighter jet squadrons to Britain, ground troops to Romania, air defense units to Germany and Italy and a wide range of assets to the Baltics, Biden announced at a NATO summit in Madrid. ... Steps by formerly neutral states Finland and Sweden to enter the alliance would make NATO stronger and all its members more secure, he said. read more.

Why would it be considered a victory to have Europeans arm themselves against a Russia that would never attack them anyway. Those troops are going to be sitting on the border doing nothing, because Russia would never invade a NATO country, and likely it wouldn't have dreamed of ever invading Sweden or Finland either.

Moreover, the Europeans are going to be mostly absent in any future conflict between the US and China - certainly European land forces have no chance of ever being deployed that far from their borders.

If the goal was to secure America's "NATO-flank" in a possible future conflict with China, then surely it would have been more secure with a neutral Ukraine and normal relations between Russia and Europe.

Now the United States is driving the Russians towards the Chinese, so Chinese gets a massively important strategic ally, while the United States gets essentially nothing.

And without NATO they would have likely attacked earlier. Some if not all Baltic states surely would either have Russian bases or have their frozen conflict and Russian "peacekeepers". — ssu

Now they have NATO bases and NATO peacekeepers. It should be pretty clear there's a political tug-of-war taking place in Eastern Europe, and the one-sided portrayal as the Russians as the baddies is just silly and unproductive unless one's goal is to steer towards large-scale conflict as fast as possible.

Also, what is wrong with "Finlandization"? Neutral buffer states have always been an ingredient, perhaps even a necessity, for peace. NATO's continued erosion of the buffer between NATO and Russia is what has produced our current predicament.

The use of the term seems to be contradictory in the parts you quoted.

It begs the question what their motive is, though.

Russia is reacting to decades of NATO expansion and over a decade of their warnings about Ukraine not being heeded. There is no question in my mind that this general is aware of this wider context.

Yet, it is willfully left out, despite the fact this would put into perspective any real risk for NATO countries being invaded by Russia: virtually zero.

So what is the purpose of war rhetoric like this? Just a "never waste a good crisis"-moment for the Ministry of Defense to get some extra budget?

Surely there is no point in increasing the budget and sending loads of forces to Eastern Europe to counter a threat that, honestly, doesn't really exist.

Or are they going to bring the fight to the Russians and provoke a possible WW3, in line with his reference?

Guess we'll get some more scholarly views in here - something that's been terribly lacking so far.



00:00 | Ukraine War – How does it end - Professor John Mearsheimer!
01:12 | Is arming the Ukrainians a good thing?
02:30 | Who is responsible for the Ukraine war?
03:20 | Why didn't Russia stop NATO expansions?
04:04 | Could Trump presidency prevented the war?
05:58 | Make Ukraine neutral and end the war?
06:43 | Should Russia return conquered Ukrainian cities?

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now.
Done, no more of the ruinage and killing, civilian and other, refugees could return home and rebuild. — jorndoe

Have you made any effort to understand the causes and the wider context of this conflict, and if so, on what basis do you dismiss all of it in favor of this one-sided narrative?

Do you have any academic sources that can back up your views?


If your goal here is not to come to some kind of deeper understanding of the conflict, then what is your purpose here? Cheerleading? Dumbing people down with oversimplified narratives so they're more eager for conflict?

Propaganda is always bad, whether it's anti-Russian or anti-NATO.

It's inflammatory, and brings large-scale conflict closer.

All here should realize that large-scale conflict in Ukraine will amount to a crisis greater than the Cuba Crisis, with an even greater risk of turning nuclear.

Not only that, but for the United States to become involved in a military conflict of that magnitude would give other flashpoints in the world a chance to present themselves while the United States is preoccupied. Think of places like the Middle-East, East Asia, India / Pakistan, etc.

If such an opportunity is taken by for example China to finally make its bid for Taiwan, the "world" has two choices:
1- Accept the end of American hegemony (with all the chaos that would bring)
2- World war

I'd urge anyone who would mindlessly parrot propaganda here - those who have chosen their "team" and will cheerlead it into its respective destructions - to carefully consider what it is exactly they're seeking and thus enabling.

... each person is developing a persona, based on the attempts to fit into the social order and understand oneself in a deeper way. — Jack Cummins

Is this true, though?

Can't one imagine individuals who become disinterested in attempting to fit in, and come to perceive the development of a persona as an unsuitable means of understanding the self?

Is a person who is in meditation developing a persona?

One may argue the identification of oneself with external concepts is a prerequisite for normal social interactions, however the development of a persona or identity implies we integrate these external concepts. Why do we do this? Is it not also an option to use these external concepts merely as tools without intergrating them?

One may use generalizations in their daily business as a tool, while at the same time understanding that generalizations should not be mistaken for truth.

Much in the same way one may use social concepts as a tool for social interaction, while at the same time understanding it does not represent the true self.

Can the self be understood merely in relation to other selves, ... — Jack Cummins

I don't see why that should be the case. Being alone doesn't prevent one from feeling and thinking.

Many would argue is that one discovers the true self precisely by being alone!

A person may think of themselves socially, in terms of meanings which are constructed intersubjectively, but this also relates to how people understand who they are, metaphysically, as beings who exist and have evolved in the context of ideas of what it means to be a human being. — Jack Cummins

The question remains whether these external ideas introduced to us through social interaction help us understand who we truly are or instead encourage us to take up a persona, in an attempt to fit in or perhaps simply out of habituation since many of these pillars of identity are introduced to us at an early age.

I would go with an entirely different approach.

To actualize the self (to become one's unique person) one must free themselves from all the psychological chains keeping one from doing so.

One of the greatest chains to break free from is notions of identity.

Identity is a means by which one defines themselves through the lenses of others. It's an external source of "self", thus not truly self. It doesn't introduce a person to their true self, but in fact veils it further in creating a persona instead.

Identity can consist of many things. Nationalities, genders, occupations, ideologies, past accomplishments or future aspirations, etcetera.

These are all arbitrary things which have little to do with the self of the person in the here and now, and thus have little to do with reality. It is no wonder then that when a person creates a persona out of these things, and thus has a large personal stake in things that have no basis in reality, it becomes troublesome sooner or later.

Try Twitter if substantiating your claims and opinions is so unappealing to you.

That's not proof.

First, you'll need to provide something other than "read the news" to support your claim that 90% of buildings have been destroyed. The pictures I've seen of Severodonetsk show that claim is almost certainly objectively false, since the majority of buildings are still standing.

Second, you may then make your case for "annihilation" being the goal, for example by showing how it is different from other similar wars that have been fought.

And likely what you'll find is that the destruction seen in Ukraine is the destruction seen anywhere where there is war, and that this claim of "annihilation" is just, as I said, inflammatory garbage.

Sounds like a bunch of inflammatory nonsense meant to vilify the political enemy.

What proof do you have that Russia is bent on "annihilation"?

This is hardly the first domino to fall in the ongoing assault against individual freedom.

Where were all the lamenters then?

Evolution is not something the individual has any influence over, nor is it something the individual will experience the fruits of in their lifetime.

Expanding one's scope to some abstract thing one holds no influence over, has little understanding of and will never get to see the results of seems like a major cop-out.

If one wants to expand their bubble beyond the self, something which I can only encourage, then I would suggest to focus on things one does have influence over, and will see the results of, not in the least part because one will get to take responsibility for their successes and failures.

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, by the way.

, I do not know what you are arguing for. — Jackson

Neither do I.

Those are your argument's logical implications.

I didn't find them very compelling either.

Apart from approximately 50% of accidental unplanned births, you should also consider the possibility that we don't have much choice in reproducing. Nature has shaped our bodies and our minds to procreate, or we wouldn't even be here talking. Even when we think we have decided to procreate, it's most probably due to natural physical and psychological drives that make it happen anyway. — punos

If one doesn't believe people have agency, then there's little point in arguing morality.

You're "free" to choose your individual path, others are willing to go through the pain of evolution, ... — punos

Individuals don't go through evolution. In fact, they don't even have a stake in it!

Doing things for the sake of evolution is absurd.

No wonder then that when people do things on the basis of absurd motivations nothing good and indeed much suffering comes of it.

I'm not advocating anything. I'm sharing thoughts and asking questions.

No one has to live. You don't like the planet, leave. Seriously. — Jackson

Is that really all you have in favor of your argument?

I wonder what would happen if we apply such a standard for morality more widely: as long as people don't violently extract themselves from a situation by suicide, whatever I did to them must be ok.

Your position is more extreme. — Jackson

What is extreme about it?

I can see you may not find it very usual, but to err on the side of caution is hardly extreme.

A newborn has no choice but to live, and an adult can only make that choice by committing suicide.

If your argument is that "if you don't like it, just commit suicide", you'll excuse me if I don't find that very compelling.

And if your position is that life isn't supposed to make you happy, then it begs the question why one feels the need to put more people into existence in the first place.

It's like trashing your car because of a flat tire. — Jackson

It's nothing like that.

Firstly, it is not your car. It's someone else's.

Secondly, "a flat tire" represents an objective problem with an easy solution, whereas the problems and suffering that people experience, indeed the worst kinds, are often neither objective nor easily solvable.

I do not believe people embrace antinatalism because of compelling argument. They embrace antinatalism because of compelling experience. — Bitter Crank

I disagree.

The anti-natalist problem is very simple: what gives one the right to decide for another that they should experience life?

Until someone can give me a satisfactory answer to that question, I have no choice but to "be an anti-natalist".

International relations are a two way street. — ssu

No they're not, not for great powers anyway. And the fact you would use the United States as an example of why they would be is ridiculous. There's not a modern country in the world whose unilateral interventionist policies have created more death and destruction than the United States'.

The famous hypothetical China-Mexico alliance. Well, ask yourself first just why would Mexico want to have Chinese to protect them? The Zimmerman telegraph didn't change their views...even if then US-Mexican relations were a bit problematic. Or their reasons for doing this don't matter here...right??? — ssu

Of course they don't. You're avoiding the question: how would the United States react?

And we all know how they would react - with hostility.

Yet US doesn't treat Mexico as Russia treats Ukraine. — ssu

If they were about to join into a hostile military alliance they certainly would.

How did the United States react to Cuba getting into bed with the USSR? By calling it an existential threat and threatening nuclear war.

That happened over half a century ago, and Cuba is still under sanctions as a result of that. Do you realise that?

With Mexico and the South American countries, the US cannot be such a bully. — ssu

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America

Hello?


But honestly, you've already made my point:

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. — ssu

Exactly that. So say of Russia's behavior what you will - it was entirely predictable that it would respond the way it did and made it clear over the course of more than a decade.

The fact that the United States and the EU continued their efforts to incorporate Ukraine despite this obvious red line being drawn is the reason why Mearsheimer comes to his conclusions.

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. — ssu

We agree on that.

And NATO attacking? — ssu

Mexico attacking doesn't seem very likely either. But how do you think the United States would react if Mexico were to enter, say, a Chinese-led military alliance?

The Monroe Doctrine tells us how they would react, and this concept has guided United States foreign policy regarding the Americas from the Cold War to the present. Remember Cuba, Venezuela (then and now!), etc.?

Well, if you think of it from the Russian view, the shortest way to strike a) St Petersburg, b) Moscow and c) Northern fleet/Kola peninsula is from here. Both Northern Norway or the Baltics don't have that strategic depth, Sweden+Finland add that depth to the North for NATO. In modern war airspace is crucial too, hence it's no wonder Soviet officials were proposing Soviet air defence installations to be positioned into Finland as late as the 1970's. — ssu

Which is why I wouldn't be so sure they're not bothered by it.

But one obvious reason why they would keep quiet is because it's rather obvious that in the case of Finland and Sweden they have no power to stop it. In Ukraine they do, or at least they think they do.

Additionally, since the end of the Cold War the northern sea ports have lost a good part of their military significance - the Black Sea ports have gained in significance, politically and militarily.

The border which increases hugely the border that Russia has against NATO (now only in the north in Norway and around the Kaliningrad oblast with Poland and Lithuania). — ssu

You are talking about the length of the border after the admission of Finland as a NATO member, then?

That's by no means obvious from what you said, so I don't know why it surprised you that I asked for clarification.


As to your point, length of the border is only one aspect that can indicate a strategic vulnerability.

The Finnish border is not of the same strategic significance as Ukrainian one.

The former consists of highly irregular terrain through which is it extremely difficult to conduct military operations. The Soviets experienced first-hand how defensible this terrain was in the Winter War of 1939.

The latter consists of open plains and is part of a region also termed the "highway to the East", used by the Germans to invade the Soviet Union in WWII at rapid speed.


But how are you so certain that the Russians aren't bothered by it? Considering their hands are tied in Ukraine they're hardly in a position to object. Have they made public statements that you're basing your ideas on?

Regime change is one thing. Annexing territories another. Last time the US fought a war of conquest was the Spanish-American war. — ssu

Annexing territory and fighting a war of conquest are not the same, however I don't see why this should surprise you so. Crimea was also (de facto) annexed in the same way, and I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone if they'll do the same with eastern Ukraine.

There's no real alternative that secures the geopolitical / strategic objectives we've discussed, besides a complete defeat of Ukraine that would allow Russia to turn Ukraine into a "neutral" satellite, which the Kremlin probably realises by now is not likely.

Putin's comment might be taken as it was portrayed – as an aside, or a little tidbit of information – if it weren't for the fact that Novorossiya has been brought up so often in recent days by pro-Russian activists, ...

Since when are pro-Russian activists the gateway into the mind of Putin or the Kremlin?

You have this, and a Russian website? I cannot access it by the way.

I really cannot consider this evidence by any scope of the imagination, especially considering the absurdity of what you're proposing:

And lets clarify what you're proposing:

Not only are you claiming that Russia is motivated by a romantic notion of "restoring the Russian empire", and that over a decade of documented policy only serves as a pretense for this megalomaniac ambition of Tsar Putin, not only that - but you're also claiming that the fulfilment of this grand ambition hinges on conquering a handful of Ukrainian territories.

It sounds completely ridiculous.

Considering the amount of damage Russia's actions have caused to itself, it's role in international politics and it's relations with the West, which could not have come as a surprise to Moscow, it's much more likely to me they're acting out of a form of desperation.

Yet our 1344 km border with Russia now posed to be a NATO border doesn't seem to be an existential threat, ... — ssu

What border is this?

The basic underlying fact is that Russia see's the collapse of it's former empire basically as a temporary setback. Putin desperately tries to regain the position that the Soviet Union or Russian Empire had. — ssu

An interesting theory, presuming the ability to look deep into the Russian psyche to uncover underlying, even conspiratorial, motives.

What proof is there that this is the cause of trouble in Ukraine, and why do you think it is a better argument than the one that argues it's clear, geopolitical motivations that are behind it - motivations which experts and the Kremlin itself have communicated frequently and consistently over the span of more than a decade.

That Russian currency is introduced to the occupied areas in Ukraine along with Russian passports and even 20 000 schoolteachers are going to re-trained (see WSJ article) all show what the true objectives are. These show clearly that Russia has far more than just keeping NATO out as it's objective. — ssu

I don't agree that's what it shows. The way to keep NATO out is to make incorporation into the Russian Federation a foregone conclusion, and I think that's what these things are aimed at.

... and all the talk of Novorossiya. — ssu

Talk by whom? The Russians? Or by anti-Russian analists?

a) Usually countries don't have nuclear weapons as their neighbors aren't a threat to them.
b) Mearsheimer argued that Russia is such a grave threat to Ukraine, that it genuinely needs a nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Yes, and how does it relate to what is happening today and what Mearsheimer is saying about it today?

He said this in 1993.

You're leaving us to guess as to what your point is, so I'll take a guess as to what it is:

Because Mearsheimer said in 1993 that Ukraine needed a nuclear deterrent, Russia is the cause of the conflict today?

I don't see how that holds much merit, but that's what you seem to be implying.


But then again, maybe Mearsheimer was right. Maybe Ukraine has been under threat from Russia, but not as a result of Russian expansionism, but as a reaction to NATO expansionism.

Mearsheimer made his statement about Ukraine's nuclear deterrent in 1993. In 1999 NATO first's major expansion took place. In 2004 the second, and minor ones following in 2009, 2017 and 2020.

In the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, the official press release stated:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.

Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Yes, so?

You're not making a point, but leaving us to guess what it is.

You believe he is wrong in what he states today?

I take it you disagree with his view on a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent?

What's your point? And how does it relate to the arguments he's making today?

NATO, more specifically the United States, is deeply committed to integrating Ukraine into its ranks - an intention they have publicly expressed as far back as the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Russia, obviously, is deeply committed to not letting this happen - something which they too have publicly expressed since that very same summit.

At this point, both sides are in too deep for peace to be a serious option and it's not a matter of incompetence, but a matter of unwillingness.

Try and follow what's actually said. — Olivier5

:rofl: You ignore the central point of Mearsheimer's message so you can avoid having to engage with the substance, because it's threatening to you.

That's the problem with you people. When you're presented with something you don't want to hear, you go into tilt and you look for an excuse to plug your ears, which is exactly what you're doing.

If you genuinely believe Mearsheimer's point was that Putin never lies and we should trust everything he says, what can I say? Intellectual pursuits are not for you.

You're obviously not interested in talking substance.

Just like you latch onto any excuse not to engage with actual substance that's presented.

The strawman you presented as though Mearsheimer argued that Putin was incapable of lying (which is obviously idiotic) is case in point.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with this nonsense. Stick to philosophy, not world politics, or better yet, stick with Twitter.

Not really. He came to power by organizing military action. Since then, it's worked well to shore up his power and control. This is the first time things have gone substantially astray for him. This is all things you could investigate for yourself. — Tate

I'm not seeing any sources.

One would almost get the impression you don't have any.

Beating around the bush again.

The "madman Putin" hypothesis.

Do you have any scholarly sources that provide a basis for such a hypothesis, like the one I provided for a more geopolitical approach in the shape of Mearsheimer's lecture?

He is what underlies the conflict. — Tate

You just stated what is happening in Ukraine is a geopolitical conflict. Now you imply that it is not geopolitical factors that caused the conflict in Ukraine, but the sole person Putin.

Which is it going to be?

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"? — Tzeentch

Definitely. — Tate

Then what impact would Putin's death have on the geopolitical factors that underlie the conflict in Ukraine?