Philosophy Now Forum

From BBC:

'A Kremlin spokesman says Putin could use nuclear weapons if Russia faced "an existential threat"'

Exactly. An existential threat. And how can that not mean different things to different people?

In other words, a threat perceived by Putin.

After all, we don't live in a world where Putin's assessment of such a threat can be passed on to philosopher-kings able to determine if in fact this threat is also essentially the case.

It always comes down to what we can rationalize as true from our own point of view.

And how scary is that in this world?

Is he mad enough to escalate the war to nuclear? He did assault Salisbury UK with a chemical weapon but he did it surreptitiously.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:18 pm Is he mad enough to escalate the war to nuclear? He did assault Salisbury UK with a chemical weapon but he did it surreptitiously.

He did not assault Salisbury. The target was very specific, and the ultimate culprits unknown.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:22 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:18 pm Is he mad enough to escalate the war to nuclear? He did assault Salisbury UK with a chemical weapon but he did it surreptitiously.

He did not assault Salisbury. The target was very specific, and the ultimate culprits unknown.

I think the trained Salisbury killers knew enough not to leave their chemicals lying around in public areas if they had not meant to do so.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:15 am From BBC:

'A Kremlin spokesman says Putin could use nuclear weapons if Russia faced "an existential threat"'

That is nothing of itself.
ALL nuclear powers have this condition whether stated or unstated. The whole point of nukes to to protect the state.
I am pretty sure Biden would say the same thing.

Exactly. An existential threat. And how can that not mean different things to different people?

In other words, a threat perceived by Putin.

After all, we don't live in a world where Putin's assessment of such a threat can be passed on to philosopher-kings able to determine if in fact this threat is also essentially the case.

It always comes down to what we can rationalize as true from our own point of view.

And how scary is that in this world?

It's been that scary since the 1950s its just that when the cold war was ended by Gorbachev, NATO should have been disbanded. But they did not get the memo and continued to threaten Russia by pushing their influence ever eastward.

And so here we are today; fake concern for a country we were never going to be able to defend.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:22 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:18 pm Is he mad enough to escalate the war to nuclear? He did assault Salisbury UK with a chemical weapon but he did it surreptitiously.

He did not assault Salisbury. The target was very specific, and the ultimate culprits unknown.

I think the trained Salisbury killers knew enough not to leave their chemicals lying around in public areas if they had not meant to do so.

They were not left "lying around".
They binned them like all responsible murderers bin their weapons.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pm
It's been that scary since the 1950s its just that when the cold war was ended by Gorbachev, NATO should have been disbanded. But they did not get the memo and continued to threaten Russia by pushing their influence ever eastward.

And so here we are today; fake concern for a country we were never going to be able to defend.

I concur, that's true because it's not like we did not see this coming down the track ...poke a bear for long enough and the inevitable will just slap you square in the face, never underestimate a cornered rat, the rat will always escape one way or another...if Putin's russia is going to go down, it's going to take the rest of the world with it, so lets hope the one world order puts this chaos to bed soon so we can all stop getting hysterical over political war games..

.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:15 am From BBC:

'A Kremlin spokesman says Putin could use nuclear weapons if Russia faced "an existential threat"'

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmThat is nothing of itself.

What it is is whatever Putin himself construes "itself" to be existentially given how he construes further the world around him. That's the "X" factor here. There's what you think is going on there, there's what all the rest of us think is going on there. But we don't have access to either Putin's own mental state or to the nuclear codes that could literally start World War III

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmALL nuclear powers have this condition whether stated or unstated. The whole point of nukes to to protect the state.
I am pretty sure Biden would say the same thing.

Yeah, that's why it's so important to fathom what is going on inside the heads of all those heads of states that have access to nuclear bombs. That's what makes it the most problematic.

Thus...

Exactly. An existential threat. And how can that not mean different things to different people?

In other words, a threat perceived by Putin.

After all, we don't live in a world where Putin's assessment of such a threat can be passed on to philosopher-kings able to determine if in fact this threat is also essentially the case.

It always comes down to what we can rationalize as true from our own point of view.

And how scary is that in this world?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmIt's been that scary since the 1950s its just that when the cold war was ended by Gorbachev, NATO should have been disbanded. But they did not get the memo and continued to threaten Russia by pushing their influence ever eastward.

And so here we are today; fake concern for a country we were never going to be able to defend.

Yeah, that's one political assessment. And I'm sure there are other conflicting ones.

And the fate of the world depends on who is closer to the actual truth. But the biggest danger always revolves around those who insist that their own version of it had better be your version of it too.

Or else.

Okay, Mr. Putin, or else what?

From NYT:

'As the war in Ukraine is poised to enter its second month, the United States and its allies are marshaling a united front against President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, pushing for tougher sanctions and moving to deploy more forces to Europe’s eastern flank, even as they seek to prevent the war from metastasizing into a wider conflict.'

Here we go: a game of "chicken" that may or may not result in a "wider conflict".

So, is Putin's dick bigger than Biden's? With men, there is always that factor.

For the rest of us, "poking the bear" may or may not result in our own demise.

One thing though [perhaps]: For the West to turn this into a morality play is in some crucial respects sheer hypocrisy. We are no less intent on sustaining the global economy on our own terms. And we are no less concerned with sustaining our own rendition of national security.

There's the way the world is encompassed "in the heads" of the idealists and there's realpolitik -- "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations".

And few are more cynical than "I" am when it comes to living in the "real world".

Yet another "opinion piece" which, on the surface, seems to revolve around figuring out the most "reasonable" approach to Putin's invasion. But, in reading between the lines, it revolves [in my view] more around someone who [whether consciously or not] is really, really starting to get concerned that those calling for "reckless escalation" will result in a nuclear war that could put his own life in jeopardy.

Comparing Bush's policy in confronting the "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq with Biden confronting Putin and Russia in Ukraine...you tell me the big difference.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/opin ... ssent.html

'Finally, dissent matters because the potential scale of a disastrous outcome in a conflict with Russia is so much greater than even the worst-case scenarios in other recent wars. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that because of the Biden administration’s caution, there’s only a 5 percent chance that our support for Ukraine leads to unexpected escalation, to the American military’s direct involvement in the war. Whereas if you looked at the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq in late 2002, you would have said that the odds of a war for regime change in that case were well over 50 percent.

'On that level, the Biden policy seems much safer for a cautious realist to support. But that hypothetical 5 percent risk carries with it some still-more-fractional risk of nuclear escalation, which is a much more existential danger than even the more disastrous scenarios for Iraq. That has to create its own distinctive set of calculations. Even if the Biden policy is the best course, you still need an unusual level of vigilance, a somewhat hyperactive caution, around the possibility of escalation. And here the anticipatory critique of elite failure that we’re getting from the populists becomes valuable: Not because it will necessarily be vindicated, but because even a small risk of elite folly is worth worrying over when nuclear weapons are potentially involved.'

"Comparing Bush's policy in confronting the "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq with Biden confronting Putin and Russia in Ukraine...you tell me the big difference."

They're each existentially rooted in their own particular dasein?

Earlier this week I read that the '15,000 Raashin soldiers dead' wasn't official yet... now, supposedly, it is. S'what I'm sayin. Urkraine has home field advantage, and Pootin's military planners and strategists left much to be desired in the way of forethought. First of all, zee Raashins should be able to know what to expect and where to expect it to happen. They know the size of the Ukraine military, where it is concentrated, how it is armed, and most likely how it will respond. They should know that major and/or largely populated cities will be defended more fiercely than others. They can look at road maps and determined routes Ukrainian military personnel would have to take to get positioned in a city and defend it. Zee Raashins should know not to send a division into a city that isn't at least twice the size of the resistance they expect will be met there. They should know all this shit, man.

It's gotta be embarrassing. For zee Raashins, I mean. You will be a country know for winning a major city because you parked a fleet of destroyers off the coast and shelled it for two weeks.

The only thing good that'll come out of this for zee Raashins is that a few soldiers got to finally dress up in camo field gear and shoot stuff. Think about it. Your a 27 year old tank gunner and have been in the army for four fuckin years. Haven't seen a bit of real action yet. You know everything there is to know about a fuckin tank, but you've never even used one. Think about how exciting this must be for those soldiers.

Even if you're not really sure you agree with pootin or know what's going on at all, these reflections will be pushed back by justifications you'll use so you can get a chance to shoot some shit from the tank you've been training in for four years.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:20 pm "Comparing Bush's policy in confronting the "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq with Biden confronting Putin and Russia in Ukraine...you tell me the big difference."

They're each existentially rooted in their own particular dasein?

Indeed, I created an entire thread at ILP in order to explore that particular obsession of mine: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=197679

But I was actually thinking more instead that unlike Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, Putin has approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads at his disposal. And while [as noted] you have a plan to survive the nuclear winter, millions and millions of others do not. Me? I just assume that when the nukes start flying, I'm as good as dead. And then there's Carleas. He lives in Washington D.C.!!

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:36 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:15 am From BBC:

'A Kremlin spokesman says Putin could use nuclear weapons if Russia faced "an existential threat"'

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmThat is nothing of itself.

What it is is whatever Putin himself construes "itself" to be existentially given how he construes further the world around him. That's the "X" factor here. There's what you think is going on there, there's what all the rest of us think is going on there. But we don't have access to either Putin's own mental state or to the nuclear codes that could literally start World War III

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmALL nuclear powers have this condition whether stated or unstated. The whole point of nukes to to protect the state.
I am pretty sure Biden would say the same thing.

Yeah, that's why it's so important to fathom what is going on inside the heads of all those heads of states that have access to nuclear bombs. That's what makes it the most problematic.

Thus...

Exactly. An existential threat. And how can that not mean different things to different people?

In other words, a threat perceived by Putin.

After all, we don't live in a world where Putin's assessment of such a threat can be passed on to philosopher-kings able to determine if in fact this threat is also essentially the case.

It always comes down to what we can rationalize as true from our own point of view.

And how scary is that in this world?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:26 pmIt's been that scary since the 1950s its just that when the cold war was ended by Gorbachev, NATO should have been disbanded. But they did not get the memo and continued to threaten Russia by pushing their influence ever eastward.

And so here we are today; fake concern for a country we were never going to be able to defend.

Yeah, that's one political assessment. And I'm sure there are other conflicting ones.

Its a fact.
It is easier to leave the Ukraine than it is to enter the UK despite the "we are all praying for you, and will do everything we can" Hot Air from the Great and the Good: ie the fat blond bastard.

And the fate of the world depends on who is closer to the actual truth. But the biggest danger always revolves around those who insist that their own version of it had better be your version of it too.

Or else.

Okay, Mr. Putin, or else what?

I doubt "the truth" will have much to do with it all in the end.

Madeleine Albright died today.

The NYT reprinted her final opinion piece for the Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/opin ... raine.html

'Sitting across a small table from him in the Kremlin, I was immediately struck by the contrast between Mr. Putin and his bombastic predecessor, Boris Yeltsin.

'Whereas Mr. Yeltsin had cajoled, blustered and flattered, Mr. Putin spoke unemotionally and without notes about his determination to resurrect Russia’s economy and quash Chechen rebels. Flying home, I recorded my impressions. “Putin is small and pale,” I wrote, “so cold as to be almost reptilian.” He claimed to understand why the Berlin Wall had to fall but had not expected the whole Soviet Union to collapse. “Putin is embarrassed by what happened to his country and determined to restore its greatness.”'

She then goes on to encompass the conflict given her own set of political prejudices.

But most importantly [to me] is how "Putin the man" might be the key to how this all plays out. It's not whatever might in fact be true here, but what he thinks is true "in his head". That's what counts. And to the extent he is himself a "fulminating fanatic objectivist", how optimistic can one be?

There is no reasoning with minds like that. Instead, the only hope is that he recognizes that a full-scale nuclear exchange levels everything...his things as well as ours.