The article itself (with which you still have yet to engage) provides plenty of context on this, e.g. re: "negotiations as 20" vs. "negotiations as 19+1." Russia even wanted to join NATO at one point, so the idea that Russian security concerns are purely a cover for stopping neighbors from joining alliances is ridiculous.
No, it is not. If not for NATO, Russia by now would have started war with the Baltic countries, probably even gained quick victory because they are smaller than Russia.
As for the fault of the west, some are saying that Hitler got to the power because of hyperinflation. Other economists are quick to argue that it was actually due to austerity policy that followed it. In any case, we can analyse what could have other countries done to prevent fascist Germany. But the arguments that we only had to convince the Jews in Germany to stop predatory banking practices and the WWII would be averted are wrong on too many levels.
The same is about Russia. What the west could have done is to support post-Soviet countries more to avoid crash of their economy. I don't know how feasible it was but at least it is open for debate.
The Baltics didn’t join NATO until 2004. Putin took over in 1999. Russia didn’t invade the Baltics in that five years where they were basically defenseless because … ???
The USSR send military force to the Baltic countries to prevent them from declaring independence. The coup against Gorbachev was attempted.
Argument that because Putin didn't do it in 1999, therefore he would never do it given the chance, is very weird. Sorry for saying that because the rules probably do not allow me to talk like that.
Russia is not the USSR and none of the hardliners who attempted the coup retained any real power in post-Soviet Russia.
Well, the fact that he didn't do it in the half-decade where he manifestly did have the chance seems like pretty good prima facie evidence that he wasn't interested. You were the one who said that but for the Baltics joining NATO, he would have invaded. So did something change the interim between the Baltics joining NATO and now to make Putin more likely to invade but for the alliance, or was he just being lazy or something before?
It’s certainly evidence that it wouldn’t happen, even if it’s not indubitable evidence. If someone doesn’t do something they have the means and opportunity to do, how could that fail to be prima facie evidence that they lack the motive to do it? Again, if Putin did have the motive back then, why didn’t he act on it, given he had the means and opportunity? If he didn’t, then what changed?
And the German invasion of Russia was incredibly surprising to other international actors precisely because Hitler had a non-aggression pact with the USSR! They genuinely didn’t expect him to invade because of his prior peacefulness towards the Russians. So that seems like a bad example for your case.
Even more weird reasoning coming. The second paragraph is a clear contradiction of the first. Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR in 1940. He had a non-aggression pact. Clearly, it must be prima facie evidence that he lacks the motive to attack the USSR. Except that he did just a few months later. What changed? Probably nothing, he was only busy with other things or waiting for more opportune moment.
Yeah, it was evidence for that, obviously. Sometimes evidence is misleading. How would you have evaluated the chances of Germany attacking the USSR instead, prior to 1941? What would you have done better? Stalin himself was so shocked at Hitler’s invasion that he could hardly function for a week! And if you think such evidence is misleading in the case of Russia, please explain why instead of just endlessly re-asserting that it is without argument. What evidence should we be using to evaluate the question instead? (Or if you don’t think it’s evidence at all, then give an argument for that. It seems blatantly obvious that it’s evidence in the Bayesian sense.)
The chances of Germany attacking the USSR prior to 1941 was very high. The evidence was that Germans thought of themselves as higher race and it was only a question of time when they would attack all other countries, including the USSR.
The strength of the evidence can vary – from very weak to very strong. I wouldn't be able to predict anything without strong evidence. You try to confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
My Bayesian sense says that you are a Russian troll.
The following evidence is present:
new account, not much engagement
you write very confusing things, do not stay on topic and then demand (yes, you demand) – “please explain this or that”.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it is not. If not for NATO, Russia by now would have started war with the Baltic countries, probably even gained quick victory because they are smaller than Russia.
As for the fault of the west, some are saying that Hitler got to the power because of hyperinflation. Other economists are quick to argue that it was actually due to austerity policy that followed it. In any case, we can analyse what could have other countries done to prevent fascist Germany. But the arguments that we only had to convince the Jews in Germany to stop predatory banking practices and the WWII would be averted are wrong on too many levels.
The same is about Russia. What the west could have done is to support post-Soviet countries more to avoid crash of their economy. I don't know how feasible it was but at least it is open for debate.
The Baltics didn’t join NATO until 2004. Putin took over in 1999. Russia didn’t invade the Baltics in that five years where they were basically defenseless because … ???
The USSR send military force to the Baltic countries to prevent them from declaring independence. The coup against Gorbachev was attempted.
Argument that because Putin didn't do it in 1999, therefore he would never do it given the chance, is very weird. Sorry for saying that because the rules probably do not allow me to talk like that.
Russia is not the USSR and none of the hardliners who attempted the coup retained any real power in post-Soviet Russia.
Well, the fact that he didn't do it in the half-decade where he manifestly did have the chance seems like pretty good prima facie evidence that he wasn't interested. You were the one who said that but for the Baltics joining NATO, he would have invaded. So did something change the interim between the Baltics joining NATO and now to make Putin more likely to invade but for the alliance, or was he just being lazy or something before?
It is a really weird logic. Russia didn't attack Ukraine until 2008. Does it mean that Russia would never attack Ukraine?
Hitler didn't attack the USSR until 1940. Does it mean Hitler would never attack the USSR?
Obviously if a thing hasn't happened in a certain year, it cannot be the evidence that it would never happen.
It’s certainly evidence that it wouldn’t happen, even if it’s not indubitable evidence. If someone doesn’t do something they have the means and opportunity to do, how could that fail to be prima facie evidence that they lack the motive to do it? Again, if Putin did have the motive back then, why didn’t he act on it, given he had the means and opportunity? If he didn’t, then what changed?
And the German invasion of Russia was incredibly surprising to other international actors precisely because Hitler had a non-aggression pact with the USSR! They genuinely didn’t expect him to invade because of his prior peacefulness towards the Russians. So that seems like a bad example for your case.
Even more weird reasoning coming. The second paragraph is a clear contradiction of the first. Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR in 1940. He had a non-aggression pact. Clearly, it must be prima facie evidence that he lacks the motive to attack the USSR. Except that he did just a few months later. What changed? Probably nothing, he was only busy with other things or waiting for more opportune moment.
Yeah, it was evidence for that, obviously. Sometimes evidence is misleading. How would you have evaluated the chances of Germany attacking the USSR instead, prior to 1941? What would you have done better? Stalin himself was so shocked at Hitler’s invasion that he could hardly function for a week! And if you think such evidence is misleading in the case of Russia, please explain why instead of just endlessly re-asserting that it is without argument. What evidence should we be using to evaluate the question instead? (Or if you don’t think it’s evidence at all, then give an argument for that. It seems blatantly obvious that it’s evidence in the Bayesian sense.)
The chances of Germany attacking the USSR prior to 1941 was very high. The evidence was that Germans thought of themselves as higher race and it was only a question of time when they would attack all other countries, including the USSR.
The strength of the evidence can vary – from very weak to very strong. I wouldn't be able to predict anything without strong evidence. You try to confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
My Bayesian sense says that you are a Russian troll.
The following evidence is present:
new account, not much engagement
you write very confusing things, do not stay on topic and then demand (yes, you demand) – “please explain this or that”.
you support extreme point of view
your answers are being regularly downvoted
Any evidence against?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link