Who are the best intellectual defenders of stronger intervention in Ukraine? \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

Who are the best intellectual defenders of stronger intervention in Ukraine?

1146 sats \ 39 comments \ @SimpleStacker 21h Politics_And_Law

I've watched a number of talks by John Mearsheimer and other intellectuals, all of whom think the Ukraine war could have been avoided, and that the West is largely to blame for continuing to push Russia until it was forced to respond. And they all make sense to me... making a very strong case that we never should've gotten into this in the first place, and that the best thing to do now is to make peace because Ukraine has no hope of winning.

The thing is, I recognize that this may be a product of my own algorithmic echo chamber. Yet, I don't think I've come across a single persuasive talk by someone promoting further intervention in Ukraine. Most of the pro-interventionist takes that I've heard are very emotive rather than logical. They're all along the lines of, "OH SO YOU ARE A KREMLIN STOOGE???" rather than offering any substantive argument.

So my question is, do such intellectuals exist? If so, who are they and where can I watch their stuff?

Or is there just no deeply logical / rational argument for further intervention in Ukraine, and that the interventionist position is entirely sustained by emotive rhetoric?

view all related items

701 sats \ 7 replies \ @TNStacker 18h

So you need a substantive argument to not be a Kremlin stooge? 🤣

Let's break this down to a personal level. A richer neighbor just moves in and takes over 1/5 of your property. You fight back, but the neighbor is just too rich and powerful. Friends offer moral and financial support, but it is only enough to stop a full takeover. Your richest friend decides it is too expensive to help you. Do you stop?

177 sats \ 1 reply \ @oliverweiss 9h

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 8h

We may disagree on Russia but I'm willing to zap a good cartoon when I see one :)

112 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 13h

You're making my point for me. You aren't aware of and haven't responded to any of the points raised

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @TNStacker 10h

You make your own point, sir. Answer my question and I'll consider some of yours. Use the home example and explain your perspective, please.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 10h

Sure. It's like the richer neighbor (Russia) repeatedly warned the poorer neighbor (Ukraine) and its friends (US & Europe) not to keep launching fireworks from their backyard because it makes them feel unsafe. Despite this, you and your friends just keep launching more and more fireworks. The rich neighbor, Russia, then proceeds to take over 1/5 of the poor neighbor's property (Ukraine). The poor neighbor resists, but resistance is causing property damage and more than that it's causing the loss of innocent life. Despite not having any hope of actually retaking the lost property, the poor neighbor continues to resist and ask for resources to help resisting, without any plan for actually succeeding which would just result in further stalemate and loss of life.

By the way, I'm not saying that Russia was morally justified or that its fears about Ukraine were ever justified. I'm just saying that what happened was entirely predictable and could have been avoided. Moreover, I'm saying that I see no path to a restoration of Ukraine's borders to what they were prior to the invasion.

If you think the analogies are unhelpful, you can always just watch the cases laid out by John Mearsheimer and others. Essentially, they're all saying that this was entirely predictable based on US & European actions, but that they went ahead and did it anyway.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TNStacker 7h

I'm not impressed by hindsighters saying something was predictable. Even if it agrees with my perspective.

And for me moral is moral. Take my property. Prepare for a flight. Even if it is a terroristic one.

9 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 7h

They are not hindsighters. The whole point is that people have been warning about this outcome for years. Maybe decades.

reply on another page

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @CruncherDefi 13h

How about using mathematical game theory?

War/Peace is game-theoric Prisoner Dillema. If we want to increase probability of having pareto-optimal solution (peace-peace) we want to increase penalty on 'War' action (which would include helping Ukraine).

If 'war' is profitable (which might be the case if US doesn't help Ukraine), the rational actor is incentivized to play 'war' again and again. And it just a matter of time until 'war' is played against you or your allies, so it's better to penalize the war-strategy player early (and achieve pareto-optimal solution earlier).

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 13h

Yes, that's along the lines of what I'm looking for and makes the most sense to me.

But what I never hear from this side is whether the punishment is politically feasible or realistic to carry about by US and Europe. That's what folks like John Mearsheimer argue. They don't think that any punishment severe enough to deter Russia (at this point) is politically realistic nor safe, and thus prolonging the war is just prolonging the damage being done to Ukraine and its people.

So I guess what I'm looking for is some argument for why further intervention is realistic and safe and actually can succeed in deterring further Russian aggression (or even the Chinese, as this is part of the calculus going on in the background too)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CruncherDefi 12h

They don't think that any punishment severe enough to deter Russia

Here is another interesting thing about game theory. Mathematically speaking optimal actions depend ONLY on opponent reward matrix.

So pretending to be crazy/irrational is very basic international-game-theory strategy. If you can convince others that you are crazy and your reward matrix is actually different than common-sense one (for example by saying "Spreading communism is worth all the human lives sacrificed!" or something like that) you might get away extracting more reward at the expense of others.

But I would imagine that todays politics are savvy enough to see through it.

1201 sats \ 4 replies \ @oliverweiss 20h

the West is largely to blame for continuing to push Russia until it was forced to respond. And they all make sense to me

This is a very nice example of a narrative pushed by Russians, and makes no sense at all. Nobody forced Russia to invade Ukraine. Nobody.

292 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 20h

Did you listen to any of the talks I'm referring to? It's almost like you're proving my point... the only thing anyone says in response is "RuSsiAn ProPagandA" without actually addressing any of the substantive points raised.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 18h

I watched a Soho Forum debate just a few days back. I didn't find either Eli or Scott particularly persuasive.. it's all like, "oh, this person said this, therefore we know Putin's intentions." Pretty absurd he-said-she-said sandbox.

https://reason.com/podcast/2025/02/08/did-the-u-s-provoke-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

310 sats \ 0 replies \ @oliverweiss 15h

No, I didn’t and I won’t. However, I have listened to Putin, Lavrov, Peskov and others. Best sources I can recommend also to you. (Luckily, I have an advantage to understand them in their own language, so I don’t need a third guy to explain to me how the things are)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 17h

I said money laundering earlier. The second reason is a personal vendetta

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 16h

There never was. No government is good but some are particularly criminal. Like the one responsible for Ukraine - US of fucking A

40 sats \ 3 replies \ @398ja 17h

The thing is, I recognize that this may be a product of my own algorithmic echo chamber. Yet, I don't think I've come across a single persuasive talk by someone promoting further intervention in Ukraine.

We seriously need to entertain the possibility that we may never hear any good argument because the whole narrative favouring more intervention is very likely coordinated state propaganda.

Remember five years ago, the only permissible opinion was that ONLY mRNA "vaccines" could end the pandemic, and favourable opinions on HCQ, the "horse dewormer", vitamin D, or better metabolic health was labelled as "antivaxx", fraudulently banned, or at best ignored.

I can even go back to the irak war, and recognise the same template playing out... "You're either with us or against us"

And in all the cases, we all know how that turned out...

55 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 15h

Aid to Ukraine is a vehicle for money laundering. Very few people are willing to die for Ukraine. Volunteers are welcome to fly to Ukraine. No one is stopping you. I myself have personal vendettas but Ukraine is not one of them.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 14h

Honestly, this is the only explanation that makes sense to me at the moment...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14h

Even Zelensky said he hasn’t received all the money sent to Ukraine. He can only account for half of it. Where is the other half?

Who will assist with the reconstruction of Ukraine? USAID? Clinton global initiative?

61 sats \ 6 replies \ @denlillaapan 18h

Most of the pro-interventionist takes that I've heard are very emotive rather than logical. They're all along the lines of, "OH SO YOU ARE A KREMLIN STOOGE???" rather than offering any substantive argument.

Precisely. That's pretty annoying altogether.

Most people I know have this conviction, and state propaganda is heaaaavy into it as well. I'm torn between thinking:

what do all these people know/see that I don't?
is everyone really this stupid/duped?

104 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 13h

I mean, just look at a few of the responses I've gotten on SN, #904254 and #904288. Basically calling me a Kremlin stooge, lol.

The thing is, I'm looking for good arguments from the other side. I'm looking to be convinced, but no one seems to be willing to try. I guess Kremlin stooges like me aren't worth convincing.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 10h

the "best" I'm getting is slippery slopes: if we don't stop BigBadRussia there, they won't stop until all of Europe is conquered.

I'm not persuaded by that emotive, hysterical, catastrophizing, baseless idea. But again: maybe they all see something I don't?

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 12h

I have discussed this war several times and get the same responses. It's interesting and I think it exposes people's lack of critical thinking. Not because they disagree but how they disagree. Baked into most of these positions is the idea of a good and bad guy. That's the trap. It could bad vs worse or good vs good. Honestly it's disappointing to see such weak responses.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 12h

Yep... see above!

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 11h

These types of responses remind me of when Ron Paul dared to ask the question of why did Osama Bin Laden attack the US. He never was justifying the attacks but simply trying to get people to think about US foreign policy and the consequences of the actions it controls. You can't control others. The talking heads and politicians had a field day with Paul but his boldness really stuck out to me.

The weak answers to his very fair and rational questions are one of the big reasons I left the Republican party and conservatism. He exposed their lack of curiosity and logic. The response at the time to the attacks was... "they hate our freedom". Its absurd. Now just like then there are a many many foreign policy experts that have warned of the blow back consequences of US policy.

This doesn't excuse Bin Laden or Putin of their actions. Surely people on SN can see that the US foreign policy machine has made mistakes at best. Or, at worst thrown the weight of the US war machine around threatening smaller powers. The US meddles in foreign elections, overthrows regimes, assassinates foreign leaders, and invades other countries. This really can't be disputed. It is just usually ignored.

Blind support for any state is foolish. War is evil and the US doesn't have clean hands. Nor does Putin. So... as a free thinking individual I am left wondering how many of the US leaders of the past made decisions that could have provoked this outcome?

When I read about what led up to WW2 I find that it too could have been prevented had the outcome of WW1 been handled differently. Had the victors not been so vindictive it is highly unlikely someone like Hitler could have rose to power.

After watching politicians on the local, state, and national level one thing is clear. They care about one thing. Votes. They have almost zero skin in the game long term. They often make arrogant decisions with little care for the consequences. They never pay for their mistakes. The masses are emotional and we can even see it here on SN when we discuss this current war. Politicians feed on this and use it to gain power.

Putin is using it as well. The US is demonstrating its empire powers. Even if he wanted to invaded regardless of the actions of NATO, the US has given him every excuse to use to justify his actions. That's a mistake.

I am old enough to remember the cold war and the fall of the USSR. It made an impact on me. I remember thinking how great it was that the US and Russia were talking and moving away from war in the 90s. I think so very bad people on both sides didn't want that to continue and they have actively worked to push toward conflict. The amount of money to be gained by the threat of WW3 is crazy. You are kidding yourself if you think that isn't a massive factor in this conflict.

It just so frustrating to hear weak responses to these arguments. We hear these responses because they are easy and feed on people's patriotism, nationalism, and emotionalism.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oliverweiss 12h

I guess Kremlin stooges like me aren't worth convincing.

This!

(I didn’t call you a Kremlin stooge, you did though)

66 sats \ 5 replies \ @398ja 19h

My impression is that what divides the two camps is their inability to agree on the fundamental question of the start of the conflict. Did it start in 2022 with the invasion of Ukraine, or much earlier, 2008-2014?

I feel the same as you, and will keep a look in the comments for hopefully good suggestions.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 17h

Ukraine cannot join NATO unless the goal is to grind down Russia slowly

94 sats \ 3 replies \ @398ja 17h

I heard they all agree privately that Ukraine cannot join NATO. It doesn't fulfil the criteria for membership, and even if it did, all members would have to agree, and there is zero chance for it to happen...

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 17h

This! There is an article in NATO that says that no country in conflict can join.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15h

The strategic consequences of a defensive alliance should outweigh any legal provisions

Otherwise you end up with the League of Nations

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15h

NATO membership for Ukraine is a blank check and a declaration of war against Russia

45 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 21h

Great question and it's people interested in asking questions like this that keep me active on SN. My experience is similar to yours. It reminds me of critics of bitcoin. There are few that seem to even be trying. It is just lame stuff over and over. Lame and lazy.

88 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 20h

Yep I always want to hear the best arguments from all sides.

For anti-bitcoin, probably the only substantive argument that gave me pause was the environmental impact. But in the end it's not a great argument because

A) whose to say what energy use is good or bad? anyone willing to pay the price of energy should be able to use it how they wish. And having a better money seems like a more worthy cause than other energy uses like tik tok dance videos.

B) bitcoin actually encourages the development of stranded energy resources and stabilizes energy grids by creating baseload demand

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 15h

Its not about peace. Its about who gets what. That is what thry are arguing about now. How to split up ukraine and russia. Everyone wants their pound of flesh.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15h

Ukraine will not join NATO

Russia will keep Crimea.

Donbas will be independent and neutral

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 18h

The intervention position is sustained by money laundering