I’m saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
Do you think the US reaction was “rational”?
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I don’t want the US to set up their nuclear weapons in Europe… I’m against that too.
NATO is not a defense treaty. It’s an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different? Do you really think this is one sided and Russia would not try to argue that they did not start any attacks even when they might have actually attacked? (even if it were to be by accident! …or because of orders to pull off not arriving in time…)
Also… you said “this is not a hypothetical debate” but at the same time you say that the level of “aggression” isn’t the same… so tell me: if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of “aggression” as NATO (whichever high you may believe that is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in reacting by automatically waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
Where was I hinting that?
Here: “it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is”
You qualify it by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there might be some “way” harm was inflicted, just not in the same “way” (or level?) as Europe.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia.
Sorry, but I’m not “the west” … Chomsky is not “the west”, you are not “the west” (or are you?)
Me, Chomsky, and any person with a set of moral standards should be allowed to judge whether they think that an action made by any third party is morally “good” or “bad”… if someone came and tried to kill someone else I would have no problem in accusing the killer of doing something wrong, regardless of whether they would listen to me or not.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm (and sure, that might imply making concessions… like agreeing for us to drop the knives, if that works at preventing them from using theirs), but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds when they actually go and kill someone.
If you truly believed that what the Russians did was not causing harm… if it truly was a just and well deserved war that is actually good and rational, then maybe Europe should not try to prevent it. But if the attack was a bad thing, morally, rationally, and in terms of causing harm, for both Ukrainians and Russians, then it’s something that should be prevented. Even if you think that one side might have been more hurt than the other, that does not make it right for the “winner”. There are no real winners here.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk.
I literally said, I think this is the third time… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
Do you understand that? Do you disagree with that? I hope not!
The one statement that you seem to disagree with is the other one, the one I made before and that Chomsky agrees with, the one concerning Russian actions in response to NATO expansion. The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA. It might be still be a threat FOR WORLD PEACE to expand NATO because of the reaction many, including those experts, were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
I do, it’s rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it’s rational for Russia to want the same.
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I would not want the US to set up nuclear weapons in Europe… I would be completely against that too.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different?
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of NATO (so the same level of “aggression” whichever you believe that level is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
You qualify he level of harm by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there’s a level of harm inflicted to Russia, just that you don’t think it’s in the same level as Europe.
No, it doesn’t imply a level of harm. I’m literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I’ve also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I’ve been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven’t provided any examples of what you mean by it. I’ve given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm, but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
But the reality is that the attack was a bad thing.
The reality is that you can’t just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
There are no real winners here.
I think the side that’s actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you’re still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I’ve explained this three times now.
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It’s absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
I literally said it 3… maybe 4 times… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA (it might be a threat to expand it BECAUSE of the “unjustified” reaction many were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
it’s rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it’s rational for Russia to want the same.
You agree with me there then.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons
And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.
Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim to enforce UN mandate. The UN has no army to enforce anything on their own.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
They shouldn’t have rejected it. No.
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm. Waging war is not benefitial. Europe being capable of winning (your scenario) would also mean that the Russia alliance would be less of a threat… so I think attacking then would just be bullying and that decision would end up coming back to bite us at some point in the future. It would motivate our neighbors to guard themselves and invest in military, and it would also cause diplomatic problems in future relationships.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
No. Why would you presume that?
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.
If you’re saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.
And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.
The point I’ve been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.
Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim they were enforcing UN mandate.
Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
That’s literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it’s entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia’s offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm.
If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.
No. Why would you presume that?
Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.
The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.
I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I’m not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.
I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.
Do you think the US reaction was “rational”?
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I don’t want the US to set up their nuclear weapons in Europe… I’m against that too.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different? Do you really think this is one sided and Russia would not try to argue that they did not start any attacks even when they might have actually attacked? (even if it were to be by accident! …or because of orders to pull off not arriving in time…)
Also… you said “this is not a hypothetical debate” but at the same time you say that the level of “aggression” isn’t the same… so tell me: if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of “aggression” as NATO (whichever high you may believe that is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in reacting by automatically waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
Here: “it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is”
You qualify it by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there might be some “way” harm was inflicted, just not in the same “way” (or level?) as Europe.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
Sorry, but I’m not “the west” … Chomsky is not “the west”, you are not “the west” (or are you?)
Me, Chomsky, and any person with a set of moral standards should be allowed to judge whether they think that an action made by any third party is morally “good” or “bad”… if someone came and tried to kill someone else I would have no problem in accusing the killer of doing something wrong, regardless of whether they would listen to me or not.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm (and sure, that might imply making concessions… like agreeing for us to drop the knives, if that works at preventing them from using theirs), but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds when they actually go and kill someone.
If you truly believed that what the Russians did was not causing harm… if it truly was a just and well deserved war that is actually good and rational, then maybe Europe should not try to prevent it. But if the attack was a bad thing, morally, rationally, and in terms of causing harm, for both Ukrainians and Russians, then it’s something that should be prevented. Even if you think that one side might have been more hurt than the other, that does not make it right for the “winner”. There are no real winners here.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
I literally said, I think this is the third time… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
Do you understand that? Do you disagree with that? I hope not!
The one statement that you seem to disagree with is the other one, the one I made before and that Chomsky agrees with, the one concerning Russian actions in response to NATO expansion. The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA. It might be still be a threat FOR WORLD PEACE to expand NATO because of the reaction many, including those experts, were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
I do, it’s rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it’s rational for Russia to want the same.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
No, it doesn’t imply a level of harm. I’m literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I’ve also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I’ve been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven’t provided any examples of what you mean by it. I’ve given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
The reality is that you can’t just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
I think the side that’s actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you’re still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I’ve explained this three times now.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It’s absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
You agree with me there then.
And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.
Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim to enforce UN mandate. The UN has no army to enforce anything on their own.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
They shouldn’t have rejected it. No.
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm. Waging war is not benefitial. Europe being capable of winning (your scenario) would also mean that the Russia alliance would be less of a threat… so I think attacking then would just be bullying and that decision would end up coming back to bite us at some point in the future. It would motivate our neighbors to guard themselves and invest in military, and it would also cause diplomatic problems in future relationships.
No. Why would you presume that?
I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.
If you’re saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.
The point I’ve been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.
Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.
That’s literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it’s entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia’s offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.
If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.
Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.
The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.
I’m not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.
I feel the same. Have a good day.