Russia invades Ukraine

[hwhatting]

Maybe you're right that the overall number of fence-sitters has increased, but what's also increased dramatically is the number of former fence-sitters who are now siding with Ukraine.

You must have misread me - I said the number of fence-sitters is diminished. So exactly what you're saying.

[hwhatting]

I'm surprised. Wasn't Ukraine more likely to join NATO than before the invasion? I thought Putin would have to turn Ukraine into a failed state to get what he wanted.

NATO made it crystal clear for years that they won't accept a country that has territorial conflicts. That's why neither Georgia nor Ukraine will be able to join as long as Russia or Russian-allied separatists hold part of the territory. In order to join NATO, Ukraine would have to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea and the independence / Russian annexation of the Donbass republics. Everybody knew that, including Putin and Zelenskyy; it was what Scholz referred to shortly before the invasion when he said that NATO membership wasn't anything realistic in the near-term. So NATO would really have to change its policy here to make Ukrainian membership possible.

Although values have some importance, I don't like the recent tendency to emphasize them at the expense of self-interest. There is no war between civilizations where people choose to be hungry and civilizations where they don't.

The second sentence doesn't make sense to me; can you explain? Which "civilisations" choose to be hungry?
As for the first, war for the purpose of grabbing land and resources stopped making economic sense since the advent of modern industrial economics and modern warfare with its enormous damage. It took the wars of the first half of the 20th century to make policy makers catch up with that reality, but it's well understood now. The only exceptions are (1) dictatorships that don't have to care whether they trash the economy and loose popular support; (2) small scale operations against far weaker enemies, which e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan were from the point of view of the USA, and (3) wars to protect the established order against systemic threats (Vietnam and arguably Afghanistan qualify). And even those were abandoned when they became too expensive.
BTW, I doubt that Iraqi oil was the real reason for the Iraq war - if that was the case, you would expect the oil fields being occupied by Amercian troops and the contracts to be in American hands right now. Saying it being about oil and jobs was an attempt to bring the cynical part of the public on board that didn't believe in the WMD and Saddam supports Al Qaeda stories. IMO, thre real reasons were so personal and flimsy that Bush and his entourage simply couldn't state them openly - annoyance with Saddam and Bush junior wanting to show his father that he could finish what his father couldn't or wouldn't, plus neocons wanting to test their theories.

The economic status quo was bad in both countries. Just having grain is not sufficient to fix Russia's economic crisis. Putin's popularity has been in free fall recently: https://www.statista.com/statistics/102 ... c-figures/

The purely economic situation wasn't bad before the war - Russia had a COVID slump like most other countries and was recovering nicely; oil prices (which are important for the Russian budget) were going up long before the war started. The reasons for Putin's falling popularity are complex - mostly growing repression and corrruption and a general sense that Russia doesn't have a perspective as a modern society. The problem isn't fear of hunger or poverty, but of a lack of perspectives for personal growth and development. It's no coincidence that the supporters of Navalny are mostly young, urban professionals - they feel most stifled by the current system. These issues won't be solved by subduing or annexing Ukraine, but Putin cannot solve them without dismantling his own system. That may have contributed to a sense of him feeling cornered.

[Moose-tache]

Travis B: I know that Ukraine was not on the verge of NATO membership in February 2022. The issue is that the Ukrainian head of government openly stated support for NATO entry, and faced no immediate backlash from his people. At that point, Putin could think it’s only a matter of time before the car reaches the end of the track. If he can’t have a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, he at least needs there to be no legitimate pro-Western leader who can govern. Zelensky saying “OK, we’ll stop begging the West to let us in” gets the job done just fine, as long as Zelensky isn’t lying. If this move is unpopular among his own people, so much the better.

Travis and hwhatting: On the topic of Ukraine not being eligible for NATO membership, the main problem is of course ongoing border disputes. But guess who's in charge of Ukraine's territorial claims? Imagine a scenario in which Ukraine says "Let us in," and NATO says "not while you're fighting Russian-backed separatists," and Ukraine responds with "OK, we relinguish our claims to Donbas. The cease-fire line is now an international border." That would be catastrophic for Putin. Not only would Ukraine have a chance of joining NATO, but Donbas would suddenly lose all of its strategic usefulness in damaging the government in Kyiv.

rotting bones: The Palestinian people are certainly not the problem. I’ve taught Palestinian children, and I can confirm that they are neither more nor less annoying than children who have their own state. The problem is, as Zompist pointed out, Palestine has a worse record of effective leadership than the Judean People’s Front. The first hurdle to Palestinian independence is having a viable unity government that is not Hamas, and even that basic accomplishment has proved elusive. An independent Palestine has to not just be peopled by non-psychopaths; that’s the easy part. It also needs to be durable enough to withstand temporary waves of reactionary movements, foreign powers who want to use them in geopolitical contests with Israel, and of course great power meddling from Russia, China, and the US. You’ll note these are all criteria on which the US has faltered at some point, and they would be infinitely worse for Palestine.

[hwhatting]

Travis and hwhatting: On the topic of Ukraine not being eligible for NATO membership, the main problem is of course ongoing border disputes. But guess who's in charge of Ukraine's territorial claims? Imagine a scenario in which Ukraine says "Let us in," and NATO says "not while you're fighting Russian-backed separatists," and Ukraine responds with "OK, we relinguish our claims to Donbas. The cease-fire line is now an international border." That would be catastrophic for Putin. Not only would Ukraine have a chance of joining NATO, but Donbas would suddenly lose all of its strategic usefulness in damaging the government in Kyiv.

Well, but Ukraine letting Donbass (and not to forget Crimea) officially go is really, really, really unlikely to happen, except if Ukraine gets clobbered to near-extinction by Russia, in which case Ukraine would become a satellite of Russia which also wouldn't apply for NATO Membership anymore. If all Putin wanted was Ukraine not getting into NATO, he could just have sat tight, keeping Crimea occupied and supporting the separatists in Donbass. So either he really believed that NATO would disregard its own principles and admit Ukraine despite the territorial disputes, or potential NATO Membership wasn't more than a pretext.

[Linguoboy]

Maybe you're right that the overall number of fence-sitters has increased, but what's also increased dramatically is the number of former fence-sitters who are now siding with Ukraine.

You must have misread me - I said the number of fence-sitters is diminished. So exactly what you're saying.

Sorry, H-W, you're right that I did somehow misread you.

[MacAnDàil]

The economic status quo was bad in both countries. Just having grain is not sufficient to fix Russia's economic crisis. Putin's popularity has been in free fall recently: https://www.statista.com/statistics/102 ... c-figures/

The purely economic situation wasn't bad before the war - Russia had a COVID slump like most other countries and was recovering nicely; oil prices (which are important for the Russian budget) were going up long before the war started. The reasons for Putin's falling popularity are complex - mostly growing repression and corrruption and a general sense that Russia doesn't have a perspective as a modern society. The problem isn't fear of hunger or poverty, but of a lack of perspectives for personal growth and development. It's no coincidence that the supporters of Navalny are mostly young, urban professionals - they feel most stifled by the current system. These issues won't be solved by subduing or annexing Ukraine, but Putin cannot solve them without dismantling his own system. That may have contributed to a sense of him feeling cornered.

That was rottingbones, not me.

[Moose-tache]

Being outside the US, I had forgotten just how much Americans experience the world through fuel prices. I saw a headline that said "Could Middle East Nations Come to the Rescue on Ukraine War?" I thought "What? Is Turkey sending troops or something?" Turns out, the article was talking about fuel prices. That was the aspect of the Ukraine war that needs rescuing, and the reader was just supposed to know that immediately.

[hwhatting]

That was rottingbones, not me.

Sorry, I got snipping the quotes wrong.

[rotting bones]

If the war is effectively over, I haven't heard anything to that effect in the past week.

NATO made it crystal clear for years that they won't accept a country that has territorial conflicts.

Are you saying Zelenskyy can't remain in power if he surrenders territorial claims no matter how bad the crisis gets?

The second sentence doesn't make sense to me; can you explain? Which "civilisations" choose to be hungry?

My point is, nowadays class struggle is commonly misinterpreted as struggles between "civilizations". The ridiculousness of that sentence was the intended sense.

Personally, I don't even believe in the existence of a single civilization. A civilized man is often a barbarian who will kill you if you call him a barbarian.

BTW, I doubt that Iraqi oil was the real reason for the Iraq war

It is well known that the US works very hard to keep oil prices low. In this case, I was arguing that the critical factor is not material resource but popularity of the figurehead in charge of the system. (Under the hood, this system looks analogous to a Roman oligarchy to me for both Russia and the US.)

The purely economic situation wasn't bad before the war - Russia had a COVID slump like most other countries and was recovering nicely;

The Russian economy was uncompetitive and overly dependent on energy revenues before the COVID crisis, the sanctions that existed prior to the recent invasion led to a considerable loss of wealth, income was relatively low, etc.

rotting bones: The Palestinian people are certainly not the problem. I’ve taught Palestinian children, and I can confirm that they are neither more nor less annoying than children who have their own state. The problem is, as Zompist pointed out, Palestine has a worse record of effective leadership than the Judean People’s Front. The first hurdle to Palestinian independence is having a viable unity government that is not Hamas, and even that basic accomplishment has proved elusive. An independent Palestine has to not just be peopled by non-psychopaths; that’s the easy part. It also needs to be durable enough to withstand temporary waves of reactionary movements, foreign powers who want to use them in geopolitical contests with Israel, and of course great power meddling from Russia, China, and the US. You’ll note these are all criteria on which the US has faltered at some point, and they would be infinitely worse for Palestine.

Hamas is currently not in power. If you don't think that will last in an independent Palestine, there was a 2014 coup in Ukraine too with considerable pro-Putin vs. Neo-Nazi involvement, remember?

[zompist]

If the war is effectively over, I haven't heard anything to that effect in the past week.

Good heavens, who said the war was over? If anything it's accelerated, as a frustrated Putin is increasing long-range bombardment.

Hamas is currently not in power.

Er, yes it is; it rules the Gaza Strip.

[rotting bones]

Good heavens, who said the war was over?

Moose-tache did:

He did it. Putin got what he wanted.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. "The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia."

War successfully completed. Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home.

Er, yes it is; it rules the Gaza Strip.

IIRC Fatah is still recognized as being in charge of the Palestinian Authority, with a breakaway Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip. Fatah was also in charge of the Unity Government, so why is it so unlikely for them to lead an independent Palestine?

Is there any particular reason that it would be easier for Hamas to establish a dictatorship in the West Bank than for Fatah or a successor party to establish a dictatorship in the Gaza Strip? Even if independent Palestine is an undemocratic state like Bangladesh where the government remains in power by oppressing the Islamists, that would still be an improvement over Israel's siege.

Or if the Gaza Strip breaks away from the Palestinian Authority for good, can an independent Gaza Strip do anything to injure Israel all by itself?

I'm not saying Hamas can't possibly be in charge of an independent Palestine. I don't understand why that outcome is judged to be so likely.

[Travis B.]

Good heavens, who said the war was over?

Moose-tache did:

He did it. Putin got what he wanted.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. "The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia."

War successfully completed. Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home.

Moose-tache wasn't saying that the war was actually over, but was expressing her opinion that Putin had already achieved his war aims, something which I disagree with because if keeping Ukraine out of NATO was his sole goal, he had already achieved that goal before he started his invasion.

[rotting bones]

Moose-tache wasn't saying that the war was actually over, but was expressing her opinion that Putin had already achieved his war aims, something which I disagree with because if keeping Ukraine out of NATO was his sole goal, he had already achieved that goal before he started his invasion.

I don't know. "Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home," sounds very literal to me.

[zompist]

Er, yes it is; it rules the Gaza Strip.

IIRC Fatah is still recognized as being in charge of the Palestinian Authority, with a breakaway Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip.

Yes, that's what "it rules the Gaza Strip" means. You said they weren't in power, and they are. The rest of your post I take as being addressed to Moose.

[Travis B.]

Er, yes it is; it rules the Gaza Strip.

IIRC Fatah is still recognized as being in charge of the Palestinian Authority, with a breakaway Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip.

Yes, that's what "it rules the Gaza Strip" means. You said they weren't in power, and they are. The rest of your post I take as being addressed to Moose.

It should be remembered that de facto rule over some territory does not require any outside recognition thereof. Hamas rules over Gaza despite not being recognized as ruling over such, just like the Republic of China rules over Taiwan despite being formally recognized as such by few nations today, much the less the smattering of "frozen conflicts" after the breakup of the Soviet Union constitute de facto rule despite their typically lacking widespread recognition.

[keenir]

Personally, I don't even believe in the existence of a single civilization. A civilized man is often a barbarian who will kill you if you call him a barbarian.

"Here I am a barbarian for no-one understands me."

Yeah, I figured either I could use the Classical Greek quote, or use the Gandhi joke about Western Civilization.

or point out that a. there is a difference between "a civilized man" and "a civilization"...and b. if you get killed for just saying "barbarian", theres a whole nother problem taking place.

Is there any particular reason that it would be easier for Hamas to establish a dictatorship in the West Bank than for Fatah or a successor party to establish a dictatorship in the Gaza Strip?

should we be worried that you think the Gaza Strip could only be ruled by a dictatorship?

as I understand it (from it being explained to me by those who knew more about the subject, people, and local politics than I did), a large % of Hamas' popularity and ability to be elected, is because Hamas provides things that are needed - schools, civic events, garbage cleanup, etc. You know, the things a government is supposed to be able to provide its citizens.

Or if the Gaza Strip breaks away from the Palestinian Authority for good, can an independent Gaza Strip do anything to injure Israel all by itself?

aside from by simply existing?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Or if the Gaza Strip breaks away from the Palestinian Authority for good, can an independent Gaza Strip do anything to injure Israel all by itself?

aside from by simply existing?

Would this be particularly injurious?

[keenir]

Or if the Gaza Strip breaks away from the Palestinian Authority for good, can an independent Gaza Strip do anything to injure Israel all by itself?

aside from by simply existing?

Would this be particularly injurious?

Only in the way its been thus far, weathering both illegal settlements and attacks on it (retaliatory and otherwise)

[Moose-tache]

I used ctrl+F, a notepad, and three colors of ink, and I am still not sure what I am believed to have said. I would say that rotting bones missed the substance of my comment because I was being slightly facetious, but then I read that he said Fatah is in charge of Gaza, so he clearly understands humor.

Although, in my defense, all wars at all stages are, theoretically, "some brief negotiations away" from peace. War is a stupid game for stupid players. I recently watched Shaun's video on the atomic bombs, and it's staggering how many morons had to tirelessly work together to prevent peace.

[rotting bones]

OK, I did my best to explain myself in as much detail as patience allowed while typing on a phone. BTW, I've said much of this already in posts I submitted a long time ago.

"Here I am a barbarian for no-one understands me."

Yeah, I figured either I could use the Classical Greek quote, or use the Gandhi joke about Western Civilization.

or point out that a. there is a difference between "a civilized man" and "a civilization"...and b. if you get killed for just saying "barbarian", theres a whole nother problem taking place.

I believe in civilization if you allow me to use paradoxical formulations like: A civilization is exactly what it's not.

The Hindutva people describe themselves as the guardians of Indian civilization. To defend the values of Indian civilization, they routinely violate the values of Indian civilization. For example, they go around forcing people to recite Rama's name and bully those who hesitate. It is not safe to criticize their leadership in areas where they are in power. They then use their power to enforce business-friendly policies that wreck the lives of the poor. What screens this abuse from view is the rhetoric of civilizational values obscuring common sense self-interest.

I see the Islamists in an analogous way. Traditionalists can get away with routine abuse because they can plausibly argue that respect for authority is a traditional value no matter what civilization they claim to be defending.

should we be worried that you think the Gaza Strip could only be ruled by a dictatorship?

I have already explained what I want in terms of governance in the Capitalism thread.

Everyone knows that democracy would be better. My point directed at skeptics is that even undemocratic independence might be an improvement at this point.

(I don't get it. I'm the one arguing for Palestinian independence here. You had weeks to engage with the argument that an independent Palestine would be an eternal threat to Israel yourself. Sometimes it feels like everyone else can say the most ridiculous things on the ZBB without losing credibility, but people find it impossible to believe me if I point out that 2+2=4.)

as I understand it (from it being explained to me by those who knew more about the subject, people, and local politics than I did), a large % of Hamas' popularity and ability to be elected, is because Hamas provides things that are needed - schools, civic events, garbage cleanup, etc. You know, the things a government is supposed to be able to provide its citizens.

Irrelevant. This conversation is about whether Israel should fear an independent Palestine. Israel doesn't care why Hamas is popular as long as Hamas remains committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Regarding your point: Obviously having good governance is better than not having it. The question is whether it's worth the violation of human rights that would come from turning Palestine into an Islamic state, which is the stated goal of Hamas. I've watched interviews with Hamas supporters saying they would support the creation of a religious police. When asked, "You mean like in Saudi Arabia?", they said, "Like their religious police, but not the way they do it." In other words, these people think the effects will be different when Palestinians do the same thing, even though there's no reason to think so.

My ideal position is that this is a false dichotomy. Obviously, the aim should be a society with good governance AND where women aren't stoned/caned/etc. for committing adultery. To be clear, Islam has many progressive values, and there are organizations like Muslims for Progressive Values that promote those. But the Islamists stand for interpreting everything literally to enable the brutal domination of women and minorities. If the Islamists are about to seize power, sometimes defeating them in open combat is the best you can do in the short term.

IIRC Eddy recently asked why an atheist should support disabled people. My answer is that I'm a democrat, and that I can't count on people to vote freely if you're denying them basic resources. Similarly, I wouldn't trust elections held by Islamists because I can't count on people to vote freely if they're being denied fundamental rights. No platform predicated on denying fundamental human rights is compatible with democratic governance.

Additionally, I don't think traditional laws found anywhere on earth do enough to care for the poor and the weak. For example, Islamic law instructs everyone to give a flat rate to charity. This is actually better than what you find in many other premodern societies. But nowadays, we understand very well that under capitalism, only progressive taxation can prevent empowering an oligarchy. Not only does the policy of progressive taxation conflict with the requirements of Islamic law, but Islam is, in my experience, commonly used to prop up extreme oligarchies.

Nor are Islamic oligarchies an isolated phenomenon. In general, what I see in the 21st century is oppressors using the rhetoric of "native civilization" to make people come to terms with their slavery. Like I said, it's okay for the Hindutva fascists to oppress the poor because they're defending Indian civilization. Similarly, the Aceh province was fighting a war of independence against Indonesia. Originally, this was mainly about historical abuses and the distribution of resources IIRC. How did Indonesia pacify them? In part, it gave them (and only them, unlike anywhere else in Indonesia) the most brutal and outdated aspects of Sharia law. (There are many other aspects to this story like the tsunami.) Who needs freedom when you can stone adulterers?

I may be poor, but I'm not stupid. Why should I drink the "native civilization" Kool-Aid when it goes against my self-interest so transparently? And once again: This doesn't mean everyone has to live a rigidly secular lifestyle in line with laicite. Reading religious texts has been a hobby of mine since I was a teenager. It just means recognizing that 2+2=4 and that authoritarianism is not in your best interests.

Even if you love Rama, surely you can see that Rama is famous for being a just king who consigned his wife to the flames to make his subjects happy, and that the BJP is perpetating injustice even as they recite Rama's name! This is the split I'm referring to every time I say that I don't like values or that I don't believe in the existence of civilization. I'm not saying I don't believe in values because I want to lie. I'm saying I don't believe in values in the sense that those who are making a big show of telling the truth are lying more often than those who are too innocent to remember that they shouldn't be lying. Think of society as a magic trick. If a magician is making a big show of showing you his empty palm, that should only make you more suspicious!

I haven't even touched the fanatical nationalism promoted by parties that are supported by Iran, but that's another way in which tradition is being used to promote authoritarianism.

aside from by simply existing?

IIRC Hamas is supported by Iran, and Iran is committed to wiping Israel (but not Jews, they insist every single time) off the face of the earth. From online conversations, it sounds to me like even some Far Leftists on the Gaza Strip are committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Not that I completely blame them. It's like the Irish who hate the English.

The question in this context is whether an independent Gaza Strip would pose a realistic threat to Israel. As you might imagine, I'm going to hazard a no. Pro-Israel people might say they will smuggle in nukes from Iran, etc, etc. But what is the motive to turn the country you're trying to win back into a nuclear wasteland once you're free from Israel?