Philosophical Vegan Forum

Red wrote:During the Russian Invasion, the US has been the main supporter of Ukraine

I think that you are massively overstating the role the USA plays in shaping the world events.
In Croatia in World War 2, the Partisans arguably won in spite of the US involvement, rather than because of it. The US was at first supporting the Chetniks, rather than the Partisans, and, at the end of the war, it supported neither. Arguably, the US involvement in Croatia in World War 2 just made World War 2 more bloody, without affecting the results of the war.
In Yugoslav Wars, well, it's complicated. Some people here in Croatia think we won the war because of the NATO bombings of Belgrade, but I think those who are better informed about the war think NATO was mostly killing the civilians, without affecting the result of the war.
It's entirely possible that Ukraine will win without the "help" from the US.
It's hard to tell. The basic principles of social sciences say, if anything, that wars are impossible, but that's clearly not the case. It's hard to derive anything about the war from the basic principles of social sciences.

Red wrote:lift the sanctions on Russia

How do you know the economic sanctions on Russia are helping Ukraine? Banning Russia from social media, if anything, makes it harder for Russians to access counter-propaganda and makes them gather around the flag.

Teo given your amazing habit of derailing threads, this will be my only response to you here.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pm I think that you are massively overstating the role the USA plays in shaping the world events.

The US is the world's most powerful and influential country, so I don't think so. Are you aware at all of any history outside of Croatia since the end of WW2?

Sorry that the US is more influential than Croatia, that isn't my fault.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pmIn Croatia in World War 2, the Partisans arguably won in spite of the US involvement, rather than because of it. The US was at first supporting the Chetniks, rather than the Partisans, and, at the end of the war, it supported neither. Arguably, the US involvement in Croatia in World War 2 just made World War 2 more bloody, without affecting the results of the war.

The thing is Croatia is a very small and irrelevant country, so it probably wasn't much of an investment anyways. And y'know, there are other countries that the US affects and has affected, maybe stop looking through shit through your own myopic lens.

The US doesn't always have things go their own way, doesn't mean their involvement was not impactful.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pmIn Yugoslav Wars, well, it's complicated. Some people here in Croatia think we won the war because of the NATO bombings of Belgrade, but I think those who are better informed about the war think NATO was mostly killing the civilians, without affecting the result of the war.

In any case killing civilians has serious consequences and implications.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pmIt's entirely possible that Ukraine will win without the "help" from the US.

They will need to rely a lot on Europe if they want that. The US alone provided 20% of support, and over 75 billion dollars in military aid.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pmIt's hard to tell. The basic principles of social sciences say, if anything, that wars are impossible, but that's clearly not the case. It's hard to derive anything about the war from the basic principles of social sciences.

And here I thought you couldn't get any dumber.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pm How do you know the economic sanctions on Russia are helping Ukraine? Banning Russia from social media, if anything, makes it harder for Russians to access counter-propaganda and makes them gather around the flag.

They weren't going to fall for counter propoganda anyway, since the propaganda in their own country is so entrenched, so that makes little difference anyway since they're gathering around the flag regardless. The economic sanctions are really felt though.

Please don't respond here. If you really want to keep discussing this, make a new thread, though I make no promises to respond since I don't like discussing anything with you.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pm It's hard to tell. The basic principles of social sciences say, if anything, that wars are impossible, but that's clearly not the case. It's hard to derive anything about the war from the basic principles of social sciences.

It should be pretty clear that it's also not the case that any such principles say war is impossible, it's older than recorded human history Teo.
There's a whole field devoted to studying war specifically.

Europe is perfectly capable of taking over from the U.S. if there's political will to do so. Their added GPDs dwarf Russia's.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 2:40 pmHow do you know the economic sanctions on Russia are helping Ukraine? Banning Russia from social media, if anything, makes it harder for Russians to access counter-propaganda and makes them gather around the flag.

They're not yet, Russia is still burning through its war chest. It has to be depleted first, and after that sanctions will slow down how fast it can produce and fund infantry and munitions IF Russia can't evade them effectively enough. Ultimately it may even result in economic depression and a coup and change of leadership (though this is something the U.S. does not want).

The main problem is that the U.S. is trying to a thread a needle, avoiding escalation or destabilization of Russia while undermining Russia's war effort, which is making the war take longer.
If the U.S. would go all in, defeating Russia in Ukraine with conventional weapons should be trivial given the relative power of the countries, particularly now that Russia is so weakened. But the current administration doesn't want Russia to lose because (in my understanding) they're worried about all of those Nukes that might find it into bad hands should the regime be destabilized.

Since you are in close proximity, you should learn more about the issue. It may be important to use that knowledge to inform life choices in the near-term.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It should be pretty clear that it's also not the case that any such principles say war is impossible, it's older than recorded human history Teo.

If I remember correctly, Karl Popper himself explicitly admitted that wars are difficult to make compatible with the Principle of Rationality.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It may be important to use that knowledge to inform life choices in the near-term.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that I should move to the US because of the remote possibility of the war in Ukranine somehow spreading to Croatia? Don't you think it is way more probable that a civil war will break out in the USA between Trump supporters and Trump opponents?

Anyway, in case you want to discuss whether a war in Croatia is more likely to occur than Trump starting a civil war in the USA, I've started a new thread about that: viewtopic.php?t=8071
Let's not derail this thread even further.