(March 28, 2022 at 4:38 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(March 28, 2022 at 3:48 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Your ought is not someone else’s ought.

You do think countries should be allowed to invade other countries?

(March 28, 2022 at 3:48 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:   Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

But your "is" does, right?
The "needs" of Russia, as you stated, do, right?

Putin never had any need to do any of this. He wanted to do it. Any attempt by the Russians to pretend they were forced into this invasion is bullshit.

(March 28, 2022 at 9:09 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 28, 2022 at 3:48 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Is can at least be in principle by objective,  Ought can ever be more than subjective at best and worse then worthless when impracticable or manifestly self defeating in practice.    Your ought is not someone else’s ought.   Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

Might-makes-right isn't a good recipe for international relations.

balance of power, or might, is the only good recipe for international relations.   any excess of power corrupts absolutely as the behavior of the US with invasion of iraq and arbitrary unilateral withdrawal from essentially all treaties governing what it can do to establish nuclear hegemony since 2003 shows.   Preventing the US from being able to further nullify what is really the only check on US ability to go where it wish and does what it wishes is made all the more vital when the US has proven to have become so degenerate since the end of the cold war as to prove capable of putting a trump at the trigger of half of the world’s nuclear arsenals.   The only such check, or balancing power to american power, available in the next 5-10 years is the Russian strategic nuclear deterrence.    So a US controlled NATO must not have Ukraine,  nor must any EU that, when push comes to shove, proves too short sighted or spineless to do anything but be totally permissive of the American geostrategic agenda in Europe.

(March 28, 2022 at 9:09 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 28, 2022 at 3:48 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Is can at least be in principle by objective,  Ought can ever be more than subjective at best and worse then worthless when impracticable or manifestly self defeating in practice.    Your ought is not someone else’s ought.   Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

Might-makes-right isn't a good recipe for international relations.

Indeed his mindset is the one every blood-soaked regime of the early to mid  20th century to justify its atrocities

---

Quote:balance of power, or might, is the only good recipe for international relations.

No it is not

And this is utter bullshit. No abuses by Americans justify Russia's actions. Ukraine is an independent country that has the right to join any group it wants Russian gets no say in the matter and its aggression is unjustified and irrational. This isn't the balance you're suggesting it's simply justifying one nation's imperialism by another nation's imperialism when neither are in the right and no good will come of this.

(March 28, 2022 at 9:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(March 28, 2022 at 9:09 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Might-makes-right isn't a good recipe for international relations.

balance of power, or might, is the only good recipe for international relations.

I am beginning to think you are less evil than uninformed.
Balance of power is a political doctrine. It tells you nothing about what tools should be considered moral, immoral, "right" or "wrong", legal or illegal, in order to achieve this balance of power.
"Might makes right" is a moral thought.

(March 28, 2022 at 10:18 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(March 28, 2022 at 9:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: balance of power, or might, is the only good recipe for international relations.

I am beginning to think you are less evil than uninformed.
Balance of power is a political doctrine. It tells you nothing about what tools should be considered moral, immoral, "right" or "wrong", legal or illegal, in order to achieve this balance of power.
"Might makes right" is a moral thought.

less evil?   I am insulted!     I am plenty evil enough to see that the necessities of establishing balance of power involves stronger powers intimidating and invading weaker ones.  Prevent the attainment of absolute global power by one power that would corrupt the world absolutely, or anything close to it, is a far higher moral imperative than protecting the sanctity of countries whose short term interest it is to enhance such power on the part of another.

What you are preaching isn't a necessary evil. It's just a sad attempt to justify evil. There is no balance achieved by it only chaos and a mountain of corpses.

a evil that is necessary is a positive good.

Quote:a evil that is necessary is a positive good.

This is neither necessary nor good it's simply a vain attempt at justifying evil and no good will come of it

the good that will come of it the fact that the pile of ukrainian and russian corpses resulting from Russian effort to keep NATO out of ukraine will be a insignificant molehill next to the real mountain of corpses that will no doubt accumulate if an America, establishing a window of opportunity in which it is unconstrained by the balance of nuclear power,  take advantage of this window to attempt to aggrandize itself in Eurasia, particularly east asia and the west pacific,  and consolidate its hegemony there.   Its last attempt to do the similar in Iraq may have inflicted only a few thousand direct american dead, it’s direct and long term consequences in the iraq, syria, and afghanistan likely resulted in several million excess deaths across the region.

(March 28, 2022 at 10:54 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: the good that will come of it the fact that the pile of ukrainian and russian corpses resulting from Russian effort to keep NATO out of ukraine will be a insignificant molehill next to the real mountain of corpses that will no doubt accumulate if an America, establishing a window of opportunity in which it is unconstrained by the balance of nuclear power,  take advantage of this window to attempt to aggrandize itself in Eurasia, particularly east asia and the west pacific,  and consolidate its hegemony there.   Its last attempt to do the similar in Iraq may have inflicted only a few thousand direct american dead, it’s direct and long term consequences in the iraq, syria, and afghanistan likely resulted in several million excess deaths across the region.

Um. That's a pretty shitty analogy.